A short statement made in a video circulated by an Azerbaijani scholar carries serious implications: “Hamsı türk simvollarıdır” — “They are all Turkic symbols.”
The speaker is Ilhami Jafarsoy, Doctor of Philological Sciences and Associate Professor, affiliated with the Nasimi Institute of Linguistics of the Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences. In the video, he presents carvings on stones, the image of a horse, ornamental motifs and other elements as unquestionable evidence of Turkic culture. At the same time, he complains that Azerbaijani historians have not studied this material sufficiently.
Yet the most important part of the video is not what he says, but what the camera simultaneously shows: clearly visible Armenian inscriptions on the stones.
Letters of the Armenian alphabet can be seen directly on the surfaces of the monuments. They cannot simply be ignored by a historian, a linguist or the public.
The issue here is not merely a difference of historical interpretation. The issue is that a visible written source is bypassed while the same monument is presented as belonging to another culture.
A horse, an ornament or any other individual motif cannot, by itself, determine the national or cultural identity of a monument. Similar motifs occur in the cultures of different peoples and may have different meanings.
An inscription, however, is a source of a fundamentally different kind. It contains language, writing, names, words, and sometimes dates and specific historical information.
Therefore, the first question in a scholarly investigation should not be “Is this symbol Turkic?” but rather: “What is written on this stone?”
In this case, the answer is visible to the viewer: the stones bear Armenian writing.
Where the distortion of fact begins
This is where the issue of false testimony arises.
False testimony generally means the deliberate presentation of information that does not correspond to reality. We cannot know Jafarsoy's internal intention, and therefore we cannot pass a definitive judgment on his motives.
But when a monument bearing a visible Armenian inscription is presented as carrying “Turkic symbols” without reading, analysing or refuting that inscription, the information presented to the audience at the very least contradicts the primary source visible in the video itself.
This is more than a simple difference of interpretation. It is a distortion of fact.
And if such a fact is knowingly presented in the opposite way, it can also be described as false testimony.
An academic title does not exempt a researcher from responsibility toward the primary source.
Who is Ilhami Jafarsoy?
According to official Azerbaijani scientific sources, Ilhami Jafarsoy is a Doctor of Philological Sciences and Associate Professor affiliated with the Nasimi Institute of Linguistics of the Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences. He is also listed in the Academy's personnel database as head of the Department of Ancient Languages and Cultures.
This is therefore not a statement made by a random commentator unfamiliar with the history of writing. His professional field is directly connected with ancient languages, writing systems and cultures.
That makes the question even more serious:
If a specialist in ancient languages sees an Armenian inscription, why does he present the monument as carrying “Turkic symbols”?
The video provides no answer.
The broader context
Jafarsoy's statement cannot be viewed entirely in isolation from his broader historical and linguistic views.
His published works contain extensive historical-linguistic hypotheses in which Turkic connections are attributed to various ancient languages and cultures of the Near East.
For example, the official presentation of his 2014 monograph contains the claim that Turkic ethnic groups were hidden under the names “Armenians” and “Armens,” while the ancient “Hay” language is not regarded as the language of modern Armenians.
A work published in 2023 under his authorship and approved by the Academic Council of the Nasimi Institute of Linguistics of the Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences also connects Shusha with Sumer, Elam, Troy and other ancient centres, advancing broad historical-linguistic hypotheses.
Against this background, the new video does not appear to be merely an isolated remark. It reflects a broader methodological approach: interpreting ancient cultural material within a predetermined framework of Turkic ownership.
The scientific answer is actually very simple
If Jafarsoy is convinced that the stones shown in the video are Turkic, the scholarly response can be presented in a very concrete form:
read the inscriptions, show the letters, provide a transcription and translation, conduct a linguistic analysis, establish the dating, and explain why monuments bearing Armenian writing should be regarded as Turkic.
Without such evidence, the statement “They are all Turkic symbols” is not scientific proof.
It is a claim.
And a claim about the identity of a historical monument is not, by itself, a scientific fact.
In this story, the most important witness is neither Jafarsoy nor his academic title.
The witness is the stone itself.
If an Armenian inscription is visible on the stone, the first responsibility of a researcher is to read it.
That inscription cannot be replaced by an image of a horse, an ornament or a politically desirable interpretation.
One of the easiest ways to appropriate historical heritage is to rename it. But attempting to alter the meaning of an inscription on a stone is already an attempt to alter history itself.
And the question here is not only what the Azerbaijani scholar says.
The question is:
Why does he say it when the camera simultaneously shows the very stone on which Armenian writing can be seen?
It is increasingly evident that presenting the Armenian heritage of Artsakh as “Albanian” (Caucasian Albanian) is not simply an isolated interpretive error. It forms part of a broader practice of suppressing Armenian inscriptions, renaming monuments and attributing them to another culture in an attempt to reshape historical memory.
Hay Azian
No comments:
Post a Comment