From Strabo we learn that under King Artashes (188-ca. 161 B. C.), the Armenians expanded in all directions at the expense of their neighbors. Specifically we are told that at this time they acquired Caspiane and 'Phaunitis', the second of which can only be a copyist’s error for Saunitis, i. e. the principality of Siwnik '.Thus, it was only under Artashes, in the second century B. C., that the Armenians conquered Siwnik' and Caspiane and, obviously, the lands of Arc’ax and Utik', which lay between them. These lands, we are told, were taken from the Medes. Mnac’akanyan’s notion that these lands were already Armenian and were re-conquered by the Armenians at this time thus rests on no evidence at all and indeed contradicts what little we do know of Armenian expansion to the east. Since these eastern regions had formed part of the Persian province of Media before the time of Alexander, it seems likely that if they were seized by the Armenians from the Medes a century or so later, then they had probably remained a part of Media throughout that time. To attempt to demonstrate that these eastern territories were always Armenian by quoting Movses Xorenac’i, as Mnac’akanyan does, is hazardous in the extreme. Whoever the enigmatic Xorenac’i may have been, whenever he may have lived, and however valuable his compilation of antiquities may be as the received tradition of the Armenian people, it has been amply demonstrated that his historical knowledge is highly defective even for the most recent periods with which he deals, and that as a source for early Armenian history his book must be used only with the greatest care. The same is true for the other texts which Mnac’akanyan marshals to his cause; all are late and none of them can be used as sources for the extent of Armenian penetration to the east or the boundaries between Armenia and Albania prior to the time of Artashes, let alone the time of Alexander.

The story of the republic of Armenia was told as a story of ethnic Armenians, with the Azerbaijanis and Kurds largely left out, just as the histories of neighboring republics were reproduced as narratives of the titular nationalities.58 Because the first «civilization» on the territory of the Soviet Union was considered to have been the Urartian, located in historic Armenia, the ancient roots of Armenian history were planted in the first millennium BC. Urartian sites and objects of material culture featured prominently in museums, and late in the Soviet period Erevantsis celebrated the 2700 anniversary of the founding of their city (originally the Urartian Erebuni or Arin Berd). Although the link between Urartu and Armenians took hold in the popular mind, most scholars believe Urartu to have been a distinct pre-Armenian culture and language and, following Herodotus, argue that the original proto-Armenians were probably a Thraco-Phryian branch of the Indo-European speaking tribes. Nevertheless, a revisionist school of historians in the 1980s proposed that rather than migrants into the region, Armenians were the aboriginal inhabitants, identified with the region Hayasa in northern Armenia. For them Armenians have lived continuously on the Armenian plateau since the fourth millennium BC, and Urartu was an Armenian state. A rather esoteric controversy over ethnogenesis soon became a weapon in the cultural wars with Azerbaijan, as Azerbaijani scholars tried to establish a pre-Turkic (earlier than the 11th century) origin for their nation.

While from one angle historical writing in Soviet Armenia can be seen as part of a general marxisant narrative of progress upward from class and imperial oppression to socialist liberation, in the post-Stalin years scholars promoted an insistently national thematic.
Occasionally the regime would discipline the bolder voices, but Soviet Armenian historians waged an effective guerrilla war against denationalization of their history. The story of the republic of Armenia was told as a story of ethnic Armenians, with the Azerbaijanis and Kurds largely left out, just as the histories of neighboring republics were reproduced as narratives of the titular nationalities.58 Because the first «civilization» on the territory of the Soviet Union was considered to have been the Urartian, located in historic Armenia, the ancient roots of Armenian history were planted in the first millennium BC. Urartian sites and objects of material culture featured prominently in museums, and late in the Soviet period Erevantsis celebrated the 2700 anniversary of the founding of their city (originally the Urartian Erebuni or Arin Berd). Although the link between Urartu and Armenians took hold in the popular mind, most scholars believe Urartu to have been a distinct pre-Armenian culture and language and, following Herodotus, argue that the original proto-Armenians were probably a Thraco-Phryian branch of the Indo-European speaking tribes. Nevertheless, a revisionist school of historians in the 1980s proposed that rather than migrants into the region, Armenians were the aboriginal inhabitants, identified with the region Hayasa in northern Armenia. For them Armenians have lived continuously on the Armenian plateau since the fourth millennium BC, and Urartu was an Armenian state. A rather esoteric controversy over ethnogenesis soon became a weapon in the cultural wars with Azerbaijan, as Azerbaijani scholars tried to establish a pre-Turkic (earlier than the 11th century) origin for their nation.59

Упор на древнюю историю сохраняется и поныне. Например, историками интенсивно разрабатываются темы древней истории с известными и довольно типическими для транзитных эпох перехлестами. Вместо прежней «советизации» исторических фактов теперь появилась тенденция к «удревлению» и расширению географического охвата исторического прошлого армянского народа. Так, например, в 1990-х гг. среди большинства армянских историков утвердилась концепция, что Урарту, или Ванское царство, являлось государством с армянским этнолингвистическим преобладанием. Постепенно вместо «Урарту» вводился в оборот термин «Араратское царство»8.

Ещё один феномен этого процесса заключался в том, что работы по карабахской тематике были слабее одновременно выходивших работ на другие темы (например, на тему геноцида или армяно-турецких взаимоотношений начала века, не говоря уже о традиционных для армянской историографии сюжетах, как история древней и средневековой Армении, проблемы этногенеза армян, взаимосвязи Урарту — Армения и др.), но количество работ по «некарабахской» тематике даже уменьшилось. Исключением, возможно, являлась проблематика по «армянскому вопросу». Видимо, этот феномен можно объяснить не только большей идеологической востребованностью «карабахского вопроса» с приходом в публицистику непрофессионалов, но и просто большей разработанностью традиционных тем, особенно тех, исследования которых в советское время разрешались.
Тема этногенеза армян также стала предметом довольно острых дискуссий в научном сообществе. Как и в других странах бывшего СССР, дискуссия эта велась вокруг проблемы автохтонности армян. Споры в столкновениях сторонников балканской теории происхождения армян со сторонниками теории автохтонности иногда приобретали политическую окраску, однако за пределы учёных дискуссий не выходили. Возможно, тому виной достаточно большая «разработанность» темы идентичности Урарту — Армения, возможно, большая «востребованность» массовым сознанием карабахской тематики.

Армянские ученые были в ярости. Армянский историк А. С. Мнацаканян, чтобы развенчать историческую географию Буниятова, переселил кавказских албанцев далеко на северо-восток, к Каспийскому морю. По уверениям Мнацаканяна, они полностью исчезли к X веку. Что же до средневековой «Албании», существовавшей в западной части региона, вокруг и на территории Карабаха, то её он назвал «Новой Албанией» — областью, управляемой Персией, где от прежней Албании осталось разве что историческое наименование, и которая была полностью заселена этническими армянами.