Author Archives: Admin

LEOPARD AS THE SYMBOL OF THE KING – 2017-2

Summary

Sargis G. Petrosyan

Key words – Armenian highland, king, epic hero, leopard, leopard skin, etymology, taboo, anagram, man, morning, the vernal equinox, New Year, offering, arrow, noose, chamois, pictography

The leopard’s mythological image is the famous zoomorphic symbol of the ancient Mideast legendary king which was associated with the leopard and was drawn primarily on the leopard, afterwards in the leopard’s skin. As informed by Movses Khorenatsi, the Midian king Azhdahak, the rival of the Armenian King TigranYervandian (VI c. B.C.), told that he had the following evil dream: in the country of Haykids (i.e. Armenia), on the top of a high mountain (mount Masis – Big Ararat is meant) a beautiful woman (Mother Goddess is meant) gave birth to three godlike heroes, the first of which headed towards the West, riding a lion, the second, on a leopard, headed for the North, and the third attacked Midia, bridling a dragon.

In the Indo-European poetic texts of mythological nature the ancient poets chose the words so as to reproduce the sounds of the heroes’ names or the epithets of the characters the poem (hymn) was dedicated to. In the ancient Armenian poem about the New-year death desire of the Armenian King ArtashesPartev (told by GrigorMagistros) the person of the hero-king as a male-leopard was coded via the anagram. On one of the rock drawings on mount Ukhtasar in Syunik (pic. 3) the hunter is standing on a leopard. He is armed with a bow, arrows and a lasso, that is to say as a neolithic foot hunter – the prototype of the hero-king. His figure/ body is drawn on the central part of the stone and is surrounded by wild she-goats (on the left stone) and he-goats (on the right stone). The drawing represents the motives of the ancient Armenian myth about the ritual new-year hunting of the King-Leopard.

THE IDEA OF HISTORICAL (IN)JUSTICE AND THE APOCALYPTIC TRADITION – 2017-2

Summary

Naira Zh. Mkrtchyan

Key words– historical (in)justice, discourse, apocalyptic eschatology, time, event, truth, delusion, the nodal point

There are close interconnections between the Jewish-Christian understanding of history, apocalyptic tradition based on the procedures of distinctions between truth/delusion, good/evil, friend/enemy, justice/injustice and the idea of historical (in)justice. The concept of ‘justice means to give each his due’ is at the foundations of the idea of historical (in)justice. It is enormously important with regard to the present predominant public discourse in Armenia and its practical implications as the idea of historical (in)justice plays the role of a nodal point in that discourse. As a nodal point it partially and temporarily fixes the meanings of all so-called floating signifiers-security, democracy, social justice et c. Depending on that fixations and actual meanings social reality is not only represented in a certain way but also provides an amplitude of social opportunities and restrictions.

THE WORD IN CHARENTS’ “I LOVE MY DEAR ARMENIA…” POEM – 2017-2

Summary 

Tadevos V. Tonoyan

Key words – words, context, textual logic, contextual logic, abstract, tangible symbols.

Charents’s attitude toward word (language) is one of the main realities in Armenian lingual-thinking and value system. Due to intertextual logic, it was considered for a while that in the text of Charents there was the word “harvest” instead of the word “word”. It is understandable that the “harvest” is a more tangible symbol than the “word”. However, in the context of the Armenian language, the word “word” seems more logical.

HAKOB PARONYAN AND ARISTOTLE – 2017-2

Sammary

Arsen M. Gljyan

Key words – Paronyan, Aristotle, philosopher, culture, Aristophanes, tragedy, comedy, mimesis, catharsis, Goldoni, Boileau, Moliere, Shakespeare.

Paronyan, like Goethe, understood that it is necessary to learn from Shakespeare, Moliere, Boileau, but above all among the ancient Greeks, since their knowledge and experience are an important criterion for humanity. He learned a lot, studying ancient Greek mythology, legends and myths, as well as the heritage of artists and theorists of art. Among the theorists of Greek art, Paronian’s special attention was attracted especally to Aristotle. Artists of the Ancient World – Homer, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides and others, reviving the appropriate artistic forms, made the theory of classical folklore of a more serious nature, and Aristotle summed up the experience and ideas of all of them.

Paronyan learned a lot from Aristotle, but never imitated him. The younger generations are generally involved in literary culture, appropriating the experience and knowledge of various cultures, but they compose on the basis of a clear understanding of folklore, which is the result of a person’s psychologic development. Paronyan, having passed through the Aristotelian readings, using his knowledge as a methodological index, built his own individuality and created his immortal works on his own heights of the folklore genre.

WESTERN CANON OF HISTORIOGRAPHY IN HELLENISTIC ARMENIA – 2017-2

Albert A. Stepanian
The western canon implied rational perception of history with a purpose formulated still by Herodotus as follows – to find out how, when and why (pw~§, potev, dia; tiv) happened important events of history [Herod., I, 1, 1].1 Efforts of Herodotus and his close contemporaries reformed the logographic genre of storytelling in an area of rationalistic study and explanation of the past. In accordance with this approach, the term iJstoriva was coined for denoting investigation in its proper sense.2 From this time, the image of historians gained a particular social significance since the investigation of the past (despite pure curiosity) pursued practical interests.

CARL FRIEDRICH LEHMANN-HAUPT AND THE URARTIAN KING LIST – 2017-2

Summary

Yervand H. Grekyan

Key words – C.F. Lehmann-Haupt, Biainili-Urartu, chronology, king list, Rusa Sarduriḫi, Rusa Erimenaḫi, Rusa Argištiḫi, Toprakkale, Keşiş-Göl, Gövelek (Ermanc‘).

Among the pioneers of Urartian studies C.F. Lehmann-Haupt was the first scholar who compiled and presented the chronology of the Urartian kings on a scientific basis. In his study published in 1894 he considered Rusa, the son of Erimena as the first king who bore that name.

Like C.F. Lehmann-Haupt, another prominent Assyriologist of that period – François Thureau-Dangin, presumed that Ursa of Urartu, the adversary of Sargon II of Assyria in 714 B.C., was Rusa, the son of Ermiena, whom he considered to be the founder of a new dynasty.

Later on, C.F. Lehmann-Haupt, whom already became known the existence of another king named Rusa, the son of Sarduri, considered him to be the king of Urartu during the Sargon II’s campaign to Urartu in 714 B.C. In contrast to his previous opinion, he positioned Rusa, the son of Erimena at the end of the Urartian king list, after Rusa, the son of Sarduri, and Rusa, the son of Argišti, naming him “Rusa III”.

Apart from the succession of the Urartian kings, many other ideas of Lehmann-Haupt were refused by almost all following researchers. On the other hand, the Keşiş-Göl inscription ascribed by Lehmann-Haupt to Rusa, the son of Sarduri, was connected with the foundation of the new city Rusaḫinili named after the Urartian king. It was considered as a new political center of the Urartian kingdom after the devastation of the old capital city Ṭušpa by Tiglath-Pileser III of Assyria during his campaign to Urartu in 735 B.C. Thus, Rusa, the son of Sarduri became Rusa I, the son of Sarduri II.

Publication of the inscription on a preserved upper part of a stele discovered not far from the modern city Van in 2002, near the ancient Armenian village Ermanc‘ (Ermanis, nowadays, Gövelek), opened a new page in these discussions, as soon as it became clear that it was the missing upper part of the well-known Keşiş-Göl inscription. In 2006 another inscribed stele, the duplicate of that inscription was also discovered at Hefšesorik (nowadays, Savacık). Thus, there was no doubt that both stelae were left by Rusa, the son of Erimena. This discovery made to review the chronology of the Urartian kings in the 8th7th centuries B.C.

The article discuss the arguments, which allow to consider Rusa, the son of Erimena as “Rusa I” (variant A), “Rusa II” (variant B) and “Rusa III” (variant C) and offers succession of the Urartian kings of the 8th-7th centuries B.C. with different variations. The “variant B” seems more convincing. Moreover, it seems possible to date the period of his reign between 713- 708 B.C. The possible short-term reign of Rusa, the son of Erimena, could explain the small number of monumental stone inscriptions left by him, informing us only about the king’s building activity, and the fact, that one of these inscriptions remained unfinished.

HISTORY, LANGUAGE, EXPERIENCE – 2017-2

Summary

Davit R. Mosinyan

Key words – history, past, presence, memory, narrative, experience, language, text, historical knowledge, philosophy of history, phenomenology

What makes it possible to talk about history and understanding relating to the history of consciousness? The fact is that history is not a simple given, that is, it seems that it makes no sense or it is impossible to fix the history here and now, due to which it is difficult to separate history from non-history. If we approach the problem from a different point of view, it becomes clear that we are not talking about what is history in itself, or as a form of historical knowledge about historical reality, but rather about how the history is presented for consciousness, i.e. whether there is an experience of history or history is represented exclusively through linguistic texts. Therefore, the question is not ontological or epistemological, but rather phenomenologic.

THE METAMORPHOSIS OF THE ANNALES SCHOOL: THE NEW HISTORY – 2016-2

Part II. The History of Mentalities: the three paradigms “Structural”, “Quantitative” or “Serial” and “Integration”

Summary

Smbat Kh. Hovhannisyan

Key words – History of Mentalities, “History Without People”, Human-Centered History, “Structural”, “Serial” or “Quantitative” and “Integrative” History of Mentalities.

The article discusses history of mentalities – the new paradigm worked out by the third generation of Annales School. Already in 1960s, a research project was developed in history focused on sociology and ethnology, semiotics and linguistics. It was aimed at overcoming the opposition of the two approaches in history – “history without people” and “anthropocentric history” – present already in the days of F. Braudel. The desire to respond to the like challenges led to the reconsideration of the problems of determinism in Braudel’s historical conception. Scholars traced a serious danger that the “mental framework could form a jail for the long time dimension of history.”

This was assessed as a failure of Braudel’s theory and marked a very considerable intellectual shift: if the representatives of the third generation of Annales initially followed the concept History without people”, now they intended to restore the former Anthropocentric approach to history. Consequently, the third generation again activated the concept of history of mentalities.

In general, differences in understanding of mentality are classified in the article as follows: a. structural, b. serial or quantitative, d. integrative.

ARTISTIC METHOD OF SIRARPIЕ DER-NERSESYAN – 2017-1

Summary

Siranush A. Beglaryan

Key words – Sirarpie Der-Nersesyan, Erwin Panofsky, Myrtilla Avery, André Grabar, Wellesley College, method, connoisseur, approach, medievalist, art historian.

This article is the addendum to our translation of the curriculum named “The Direct Approach in The Study of Art History”, which Sirarpie Der-Nersesyan proposed in the US. By referring to the author’s text, we attached great importance not that much to the curriculum but to the issues of art history and art study raised by the scientist who proposed a method.

In the beginning, we gave a brief summary of the method content, then sum it up by introducing the origin of the method.

We touched upon the issue of interpretation in the method and within this issue we represented the connection between the method she proposed and her studies by using one of her monographs.

We dwelt on the practice of description in the study of art by stressing its significance and the exact purpose factor both in the method of studying art proposed by Sirarpie Der-Nersesyan and directly in her studies.

The translated material is unique in its nature. Left out of the biography texts, it was overlooked, whereas the existence of the text reveals both Sirarpie Der-Nersesyan’s activities in the US as a scientist and art historian and in some way her contribution in strengthening a newly formed discipline. In this article, we tried to show Sirarpie Der-Nersesyan’s views on art study and on the issues of representing it, and also indicate the relation of Armenian medieval art historians to this method of study, which has become common to them.

THE GREAT TRAGEDY OF HOVHANNES KAJAZNUNI – 2017-1

Part two. From Stalin’s repressions until exculpation (documents)

Summary   

Ararat M. Hakobyan

Key words – H. Kajaznuni, Kh. Mughdusi, criminal case, arrest, execution, Troika, prison, NKVD, KGB, investigation, indictment, verdict, certificate, prosecutor, officer of the criminal investigation department, 1937, decision, exculpation.

As a continuation of the article devoted to O. Kajaznuni’s life and work in the 1920s, we present to the attention of the reader some archival documents relating to the last years of his life – arrest, heavy emotional distress, initiation of a criminal case, decision to execute and after his tragic death, the review of his case and exculpation.

In November, 1937 (the date is not visible) the criminal case of O. Kajaznuni with the indictment and with the approval of Kondakov was sent to the review of the Troika of the NKVD of the USSR. On December 5, 1937, the Troika pronounced a verdict on the execution of the defendant with the confiscation of personal property. However, due to health problems, Kajaznuni was in the prison hospital in Yerevan. According to the order, the death penalty could be carried out only upon the permission of the prison (judicial) doctor. However, O. Kajaznuni’s physical health was in such a critical condition that the prison doctor did not give permission for execution, or at least postponed the implementation of this act until the prisoner could stand up on his own. But due to further deterioration of health (senile weakness, tuberculosis and influenza), the former prime minister died in the prison hospital a few days later, on January 15, 1938, at the age of 70.

The publication of the documents regarding the unjustified and false criminal case of O. Kajaznuni is symbolic in that this year marks the 80th anniversary of the Stalinist repressions of «1937».