The legend connecting the biblical figure Noah to the city of Nakhchivan in the South Caucasus undoubtedly arose alongside the entire complex of beliefs surrounding Mount Ararat, the mountain where Noah’s Ark is said to have come to rest. It is well-known that prior to the 12th century, no one in Armenia associated Ararat (Masis, in Armenian) with the biblical narrative. Instead, the traditional view, dating back to antiquity, held that the Ark had come to rest in the Cardu Mountains, particularly on the famous Mount Judi, located in Kurdistan, at the border of present-day Turkey and Syria.
However, during the Middle Ages, a new idea emerged among educated theologians in Europe: that the mountain of Noah could be the highest peak of the Armenian Highlands, which then came to be known by the biblical name Ararat. Although the Bible refers to Ararat in a broader sense, encompassing the entire highland region, European geographers, upon discovering the existence of this towering mountain in Armenia, deemed it fitting to attribute to it the entire complex of biblical traditions associated with Noah’s Ark. This novel perspective was introduced to Armenia by European travelers, Catholic missionaries, and participants in the Crusades during the 11th to 13th centuries.
It was only from the 11th and 12th centuries AD that the modern Mount Ararat began to be identified with the location where Noah’s Ark came to rest, according to Armenian and other traditions. The article “Ararat” by L.A. Belyaev in the Orthodox Encyclopedia.
The earliest evidence linking Nakhchivan to Noah’s Ark can be found in the writings of the French King’s ambassador, Guillaume (William) de Rubruck, from the 13th century. At the time of Rubruck, Nakhchivan was the only significant city near Mount Masis (Ararat), as Yerevan had not yet been founded. Thus, Rubruck geographically associated Mount Ararat with Nakhchivan.
Rubruck wrote, “Near the aforementioned city (Nakhchivan) are the mountains where, they say, Noah’s Ark came to rest; there are two mountains, one larger than the other; at their base flows the Araks River. There is a city named Tzemanum, which means ‘eight’; it is said to be named after the eight people who came out of the Ark and built a city on the larger of the two mountains. Many have attempted to climb the mountain and have been unable. The name of the mountain, Massis, is feminine in their language. ‘On Massis,’ he said, ‘no one should ascend, for it is the mother of the world.'”
From Rubruck’s text, it is evident that he conflates information about the Cardu Mountains (the ancient resting place of Noah’s Ark) in Kurdistan with what he heard about Massis. For instance, he mentions the city of Tzemanum nearby, which was first referenced in the 4th-century Syrian text “The Cave of Treasures,” attributed to St. Ephrem the Syrian, in connection with the Cardu Mountains. Interestingly, Rubruck did not refer to Massis as Ararat; for him, Ararat denoted the plain surrounding the mountain. This suggests that we are witnessing the emergence of a new, yet-to-be-established tradition in Rubruck’s text. Indeed, it was these medieval European travelers, often unfamiliar with local geography, who contributed to the conception of Ararat as Noah’s mountain.
Rubruck spent an entire week in Nakhchivan, meeting with local bishops and monks. Yet, he wrote nothing about Noah’s tomb in the city. For him, the connection between Ararat (Massis) and Nakhchivan was purely geographical, indicating that the cult surrounding Noah’s tomb had not yet developed by the 13th century.
It is worth noting that no European traveler mentioned Noah’s tomb in Nakhchivan until the 19th century. Although by the 17th and 18th centuries, folk etymologies had emerged, suggesting that the name Nakhchivan meant “place of the first stop” or “city of Noah,” there was no information regarding the patriarch’s grave. Consequently, it is reasonable to question the mention of Noah’s tomb and that of his wife in the Armenian geographical treatise supposedly from the 13th century, “Ashkharatsuyts” (Geography), attributed to Vardan Areveltsi (the Great).
In “Ashkharatsuyts,” Vardan Areveltsi claims, “The tomb of the great ancestor Noah is in Nakhchivan, and the grave of Noemzar is in Marand.”
In the brief lines of “Ashkharatsuyts,” the tradition of Noah’s tomb and that of his wife is presented in a fully developed form. Such a representation aligns more closely with the 19th century. Notably, academician N. Marr posited that the “Geography” attributed to Vardan the Great could only have been composed after the 14th century. This work is replete with various later insertions; for instance, it also mentions the city of Yerevan, which only became well-known after the 16th century. Therefore, it must be acknowledged that the references to the tombs of Noah and his wife in the text attributed to Vardan the Great were likely inserted only after the 18th century.
An intriguing case of textual mystification arose in the 17th and 18th centuries concerning the writings of Flavius Josephus from the 1st century. It was claimed that the city of Nakhchivan was mentioned by this early author in relation to Noah’s Ark. Allegedly, the name Nakhchivan translates from the Greek word “apobaterion” (Αποβατηριον – “place of landing”). Naturally, Josephus wrote nothing about Nakhchivan; he referred to the Cardu Mountains (the ancient resting place of Noah’s Ark) in Kurdistan as the “landing place.” This forgery was criticized by German philologist Heinrich Hübschmann and the eminent Armenian linguist S.S. Malhasyants. However, in present-day Armenia and Azerbaijan, it has been regarded as a historical fact.
The name Nakhchivan is composed of the term Nakhch’a (or Nahucha, Nakhicha), similar to Yervandavan, Vagarshavan, and others. However, in the 18th century, Armenian scholars interpreted it differently: “nakhichavan” (first stop), in connection with the legend that Noah’s Ark came to rest on Mount Ararat, and that Noah, upon descending from the mountain, established his first camp at the site of this city. Based on this naive etymologization, the name of the city began to be written as Nakhchivan. As noted in the History of Bishop Sebeos by St. Malhasyants, Yerevan, 1939, footnote 90, p. 157.
It appears that one of the first to describe Noah’s tomb in Nakhchivan was the French traveler Frédéric Dubois de Montpéreux in the 1830s. He described it as an octagonal domed structure.
Frédéric Dubois de Montpéreux wrote: “You will see a small, partially ruined structure with a dome on the edge of the hill; inside, it has the shape of an octagon, 10-12 feet in diameter.”
Interestingly, around the same time, Noah’s tomb was described quite differently in “Review of Russian Possessions in the Caucasus” from 1836, which claimed it was merely a corner of a brick wall.
In “Review of Russian Possessions in the Caucasus,” it stated: “The Armenians point to the southern side of the city as Noah’s tomb, which appears to be nothing more than a corner of a brick wall from a not-so-ancient structure. They say that there was a tall church above Noah’s tomb with two floors, of which the upper floor has collapsed, and the lower has sunk and been buried during the construction of the fortress wall.”
The most detailed description of Noah’s tomb came from N. Ter-Avetisyan in 1889.
N. Ter-Avetisyan, “Travel Notes of a Pilgrim” (Tiflis, 1889): “This low, octagonal structure made of brick has a flat roof, resembling the patched remnants of a large tower with two entrances on opposite sides. Inside, the structure is arched and rests on a thin column in the center. People pray at this column, light candles, and burn incense; this place is popularly referred to as the ‘Ark of Noah.’ Superstitious Armenians would flock to Noah’s tomb during Holy Week, bringing offerings and paying homage to Noah’s remains, often sticking small stones to the cave’s clay ceiling, believing that if the stones adhered, their wishes and requests would be granted.”
As noted by one of the early researchers of Nakhchivan, the Orientalist V.M. Sysoev, it is clear that the “tomb of Noah” was the ruins of a pir, a medieval Islamic mausoleum. Such Turkic tower mausoleums are well-known in the city, including the tomb of Momine Khatun and Atababa, both from the 12th century. It seems likely that we are referring to the first floor of such a mausoleum. This structure was either destroyed or left unfinished, resulting in only the base remaining. Over time, the ruins of the tomb became heavily covered with earth, as evidenced by numerous photographs of the “tomb of Noah” from the late 19th century.
Naturally, the tomb of Noah was never a church or part of one. Octagonal churches with such low ceilings and small internal volumes are unknown in architectural science. Undoubtedly, this structure is a crypt, common in Islamic architecture. The mausoleum cannot be older than the period of the Ildegizids, that is, the 12th century. All the oldest mausoleums of the Turkic aristocracy in the region date back to the time when Nakhchivan became one of the capitals of the Atabek state of Azerbaijan. It is likely that the structure is even more recent.
The mausoleum was presumably accidentally uncovered sometime in the early 19th century, and upon recalling the legends of Noah, it was decided to present it as the tomb of the patriarch of humanity. It is highly probable that the “tomb of Noah” came into existence precisely in the 19th century, as in 1827, Nakhchivan was conquered by the Russian army. Consequently, the Armenian population in the region began to increase, as the legend of Noah in Nakhchivan was primarily cultivated within the Armenian community. During this period, travelers from Russia and Europe began to visit the region en masse, creating a demand for a tangible representation of the legends.
The “tomb of Noah” disappeared as mysteriously as it had appeared. V.M. Sysoev noted that by his time (1927), the mausoleum had completely vanished, and he was only shown the place where it once stood. The tomb was likely destroyed (most probably intentionally) after 1920, as its last image—a sketch by Azerbaijani artist Behruz Kengerli—dates back to 1920. It is most likely that the tomb was demolished in the wave of anti-religious sentiment that swept through the early Soviet Union. Today, a modern monument resembling the tower-like mausoleums of the Seljuks has been erected in its place.