Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Ревизионистские концепции в армянской историографии" in Russian language version.
It is not surprising that essentialist interpretations of Armenian culture and history abound. A particularly infamous «scholarly» example is S.A. Sardarian’s Pervobytnoe obshchestvo v Armenii (1967), which, besides its numerous mistakes and plagiarisms, postulates a separate Armenian race that originated on the Armenian plateau; attributes the invention of metallurgy to the Armenians; and demonstrates that the widespread Kura-Araxes culture emerged initially in the Ararat valley of Armenia. The standard of scholarship is so low and the argumentation so tendentious as to raise the question as to how the book was even published (see the devastating critique by Martirosian and Munchaev 1968:262). An even more ludicrous popular example is provided by a widely distributed publication (MESHAG n.d.) from the Armenian-American diaspora on the evolution of the Armenian alphabet, tracing its development from Palaeolithic petroglyphs through the divinely inspired invention by Meshrob Mashtots of the currently used Mesrobian script in 406 AD. Fanciful internal evolutionary development here is taken to an extreme.10
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.
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
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
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.
It is not surprising that essentialist interpretations of Armenian culture and history abound. A particularly infamous «scholarly» example is S.A. Sardarian’s Pervobytnoe obshchestvo v Armenii (1967), which, besides its numerous mistakes and plagiarisms, postulates a separate Armenian race that originated on the Armenian plateau; attributes the invention of metallurgy to the Armenians; and demonstrates that the widespread Kura-Araxes culture emerged initially in the Ararat valley of Armenia. The standard of scholarship is so low and the argumentation so tendentious as to raise the question as to how the book was even published (see the devastating critique by Martirosian and Munchaev 1968:262). An even more ludicrous popular example is provided by a widely distributed publication (MESHAG n.d.) from the Armenian-American diaspora on the evolution of the Armenian alphabet, tracing its development from Palaeolithic petroglyphs through the divinely inspired invention by Meshrob Mashtots of the currently used Mesrobian script in 406 AD. Fanciful internal evolutionary development here is taken to an extreme.10
