One of the episodes of Behistun inscription was constantly issued by Armenians as proof that as if they existed as an established ethnic group since 6 century BC. A long time ago, the world academic history had researched this priceless historical monument in detail and gave their explanations for each word.
Behistun inscription was written in three languages. And it narrates about victories of Daria 1 after his ascension to the Iranian throne and pacifications of rebellious regions of the empire.
It dates back to 521–520 century BC. When the entire country almost rebelled, Daria did all his best to pacify the rebel and applicants to govern in the regions.
Among the troubled areas mentioned in the Behistun inscription was the regional government — Urartu. In the Behistun inscription, it was called Armina ( in Persian ), Harminua ( in Elamite), or Urartu (in Acadian ). Let me remind you that the reign of the last king of Urartu dates back to 595–585 BC. That is 60–65 years before the creation of the Behistun inscription, there was a state called Urartu on the territories of the future Armina-Harmina-Urartu.
One of two servants, “Armenian” Dadarshish was sent to Urartu and another one, “Bactrian” Dadarshish to Margiana (part of Bactria) for suppression of rebels. In addition to that, we know the typical, ancient Iranian names such as Darayavahush (Darius), Kurush (Kir), Fravartish (Of Front), Cipcic, Chichiri, Ardemans. These names also occur in other ancient Persian and antique texts.
In Behistun inscription, there are another “Armenian” whose name was Araha ( Haldids son ). He revolted in Babylon, by declaring himself as a king Nebuchadnezzar. In Persian and Elamite texts of Behistun inscription he was called “Armenian”, but in Akkadian as “Urartian”. Araha was Urartian by nationality, but he was listed as “Armenian” because the name of the place where he lived was called Armina. This view was echoed by Iranica: “so he was called an Armenian probably according to his provenance”.
According to the same principle, one of the Dadarshish, who had a common ancient Iranian name, was also recorded as “Armenian”. According to Iranica, neither “Armenian” ethnonym itself, nor other names which were listed in Behistun inscription in connection with chaos against Darius in Armina (personal names: Arakha, Dadarshish, toponyms: Tigra, Zuzakhia, Uyama, and the name of the locality: Autiara in Armina), didn’t have any linguistic roots in Armenian and onomastic data from the very later Armenian sources.
It means that there is no real evidence of the presence of Armenians as an ethnos. In other words, the Behistun inscription informs about the inhabitants, people from a geographical area of Urartu, not about ethnic Armenians as representatives of a new ethnic group. Iranica told it to us directly: “About the Armenians’ nationality in Achaemenid times we can say almost nothing”.
Ok, we have a geographical area, under the reign of the Persian king, ( “Armina — Harminua — Urartu” ) on territories of which a few decades ago was located Urartu which was inhabited by the Caucasian-speaking people, which also included representatives of numerous other peoples and tribes of the region — Medes, Chaldaeans, Aramaeans, Khai, nomads-Saks, Scythians, Sarmatians, Cimmerians, etc.
So, those personal names and toponyms of the region didn’t have any relations, linguistically with Armenian. All of them were considered as “Armenians’ or “Arminians”( that’s what Herodotus calls them) for neighbors who were inhabitants of the region. Like the Yakuts, Chukchis, Evenks, Russians, and other inhabitants of Siberia are called and consider themselves Siberians.
In this very poorly highlighted period of history with the historical evidence, a favorable opportunity is created for a national-politically motivated researcher, to alter the geographical notion of “Armenian” to ethnic “Armenian”. That happened. And now, by utilizing the common uncertainty in detail, “the notion of “Armenian”, which is in turn, is the location of the origin as declared in Behistun inscription, not an ethnicity, was automatically considered as an ethnicity, and the whole history of the antique and ethnically diverse region was added to the national history of modern Armenia and presented as the “historical Armenia” since the time of Darius 1.
