by Vahan Setyan, PhD
In this argument, the term – Archaic Armenians – indicates people of Armenian descent whose home homeland is in the Armenian Plateau and were a contemporary ethno-linguistic group to Sumerians and Egyptians venturing beyond 7000 BC [ an overwhelming agreement within various scientific disciplines]. Conversely, the term – non-Archaic Armenians – indicates people of Armenian descent whose homeland is not in the Armenian Plateau and are the supposed descendants of Urartians, as declared by only few historians.
Statistically speaking, the likelihood of the ‘non-Archaic Armenian’ hypothesis to be true is so infinitesimally small a chance as to be in all practical purposes a zero chance. So the effect of this argument is that in statistical terms there is not even a reasonable chance worth considering that ‘non-Archaic Armenian’ hypothesis is true. Therefore, statistically, indeed logically speaking, such a hypothesis does not conform to the scientific reality.
Summary of the Argument
1. If ‘non-Archaic Armenian’ hypothesis is true, then it is necessarily absent of overwhelming scientific and independently acquired evidences that support ‘Archaic Armenian’ hypothesis.
2. Not one, but overwhelming scientific evidences are supportive of Archaic Armenian hypothesis including genetics, archaeo-genetics, anthropology, and comparative linguistics.
3. In statistical analysis a merely hypothetical infinitesimal chance can in effect be treated as no chance to which it approximates.
4. Therefore it is highly unlikely that Archaic Armenian hypothesis is not supported by any of the scientific evidences.
Now that ‘non-Archaic Armenians’ argument has been shown to be a logically impossible concept and exceedingly incapable of being true due to the irreconcilability between Archaic and non-Archaic Armenian hypotheses, the belief in the ‘non-Archaic Armenian’ hypothesis is revealed to be wrong. It is feasible to have a belief in what is still a possibility (e.g., unreliable genetics research, documented incompetence within comparative linguistics, written material amongst various civilizations in reference to Armenians being a coincidence in name and geographical area), but once a notion has been proved beyond reasonable and conceivable doubt, it is no longer a matter of belief but a matter of being right or wrong. On this (right) basis there is no longer any room for belief in the ‘non-Archaic Armenians’ hypothesis. It has been proved to be wrong in believing that the Armenian people did not exist before 6000 BCE or were invaders to their current lands and right to be convinced of their historicity beyond 6000 BCE and their lands being their ancestral territories.
This proof is more than theoretical. It is knowledge-based. Considering that people are more susceptible of being irrational rather than logical, certain topics need a baby-step approach for the reader or an inquirer to internalize presented material. Nevertheless, it is foreseen that similar to the substantial decrease of the number of people believing the world is 6000 years or younger, the holders of the ‘non-archaic Armenians’ hypothesis will decrease in number as long as historians and laypeople base their perspective of this topic on scientific evidences and logic and shun intellectual dishonesty and misinformation. It is conceivable that there will remain people who continue to search for contrary evidence, similar to theologians’ quest to find some evidence, any evidence, to overcome the sheer refutation of the God of monotheism, but the fact of the matter is, there comes a point where facts speak for themselves and it is the human idiocy, ignorance, and I would argue, inferiority complex, that continues to promote intellectual dishonesty and disinformation despite the evidences on the contrary.
What is beyond doubt is that I just provided proof of the existence of ancient Armenians which no objection can overcome. Therefore, like it or not, believe it or not, and whether it is palatable or not, historicity of the Armenian people is based on scientific evidence, which is further contributive to the logical argument I just made for the case for ‘Archaic Armenian’ hypothesis.