Criticism and bibliography. Reviews Moscow: Izdanie Tsentra kurdskikh issledovaniy, 1999. 525 p., ill. Any scientific work begins with the definition of the object of research, that is, what is to be investigated, covered. The success of any work that claims to be scientific depends on this seemingly simple premise. If the object of research is defined incorrectly, i.e. the question statement is incorrect, then we should not expect positive results. Conversely, the accuracy of the question itself determines half the success. A peer-reviewed paper is a vivid example of the lack of a clear understanding of the subject of research. The title of this work contains contradictio in adjecto, because the name "Kurdistan", which originated in the mature Middle Ages, never had an ethnic or political attribution, it was always a purely geographical designation without specific coordinates, which, by the way, the authors themselves say (p.35). In addition, this name at different times referred to different territories with very vague contours, on which there was never a single "Kurdish state". Thus, picking up a work called "History of Kurdistan", the reader expects to see in it a description of the landscape, geographical and geological features of the Iranian province of Kurdistan with a preface to the history of the evolution of this term since its appearance in historical sources. In fact, the work is conceived as a history of the Kurds, i.e., in fact, the subject of the study is the Kurds. Unfortunately, the authors of the book under review (certainly those who own the first and partially second chapters) also have a very vague idea of this subject. For them, any mention of the word Kurd in the annals of history implies the obligatory presence of a Kurdish-in the modern sense of the word ethnic-element. As I. M. Dyakonov noted at the time, there is nothing more naive than the opinion, which is very widespread not only among amateurs, that "the mention in historical source ... Читать далее