Why Did Not Armen Ayvazyan Get Phd?

[MSHAK]

In December of 2003, historian Armen Ayvazyan (Ayvazian, Aivazian, Aivassian) was not awarded by PhD degree that is - he did not get the title of a Doctor.

A lot of articles are written on this subject. It is apparent that Armen Ayvazyan was not given a PhD because of his research <> published in 1998 in Yerevan.

In that research, Ayvazyan shows the false facts of the Armenian History presented in the American Historiography.

The work of Ayvazyan pissed off a lot of people in the world, that's why some Armenian "scholars" did not give him the title of Doctor. One of those was Babken Harutyunyan - a lier on the Armenian History himself, who avoids using the toponym "Western Armenia" and uses "Terretories populated by Armenians before the Genocide" instead of it.

 

Here is the cover of Ayvazyan's book that can be read in Armenian at

http://artsakhworld.com/Armen_Aivazian/US_.../Index_Arm.html

Edited August 17, 2004 by MSHAK

[bellthecat]

In December of 2003, historian Armen Ayvazyan (Ayvazian, Aivazian, Aivassian) was not awarded by PhD degree that is - he did not get the title of a Doctor.

A lot of articles are written on this subject. It is apparent that Armen Ayvazyan was not given a PhD because of his research <> published in 1998 in Yerevan.

In that research, Ayvazyan shows the false facts of the Armenian History presented in the American Historiography.

The work of Ayvazyan pissed off a lot of people in the world, that's why some Armenian "scholars" did not give him the title of Doctor.

Or maybe it was because he, and his work, get exactly the "respect" they deserve?

 

Perhaps he should try studying in Turkey. There, their "professor-doctors" all look favourably on careers dedicated to churning out history as propaganda.

[Vigil]

Or maybe it was because he, and his work, get exactly the "respect" they deserve?

 

Perhaps he should try studying in Turkey. There, their "professor-doctors" all look favorably on careers dedicated to churning out history as propaganda.

Bellthecat, why is your kind so "westernized"? Just because this person did not get the approval of "westernized" Armenian historians does not mean his work is "bad". There is A LOT of evidence that suggests Armenians were natives of the Armenian Highlands. In fact much of the reason why they "down play" our history is preciously because it can change the entire dynamics of ancient history.

 

I still am not convinced that Greeks and Armenians, who "pre-date" the Romans, were one of the later Indo-European settlers. Most of the "European" historians always emphasize the point that Armenians migrated from the "west at around 600 BC", but yet always imply that we are "primitive" in some way. They want us to believe that the Germanic tribes, who were considered barbarians by the Romans, are more "sophisticated" then the Armenians that "pre-date" the Romans. We all know this is hogwash, but because it comes from the mouth of a English speaking person it is deemed "credible". If indeed you need the approval of Jew infested ivy Universities to record history then Armenian history will always be ignored.

 

Bellthecat, I would suggest you really think about how much history would change if indeed Armenians were the sole survivors and original Indo-European tribe. If the Indo-European tribes originated in the Armenian Highlands then we would be the "missing link" of the initial tribes, but because the rest of the "western" world wants to project them selves in the past we get shafted.

Edited August 18, 2004 by Vigil

[Teutonic Knight]

Vigil, even ethnocentrism needs some factual backup and sound reasoning.

 

The IE homeland was either North of the Black Sea or South of the Black Sea. Most modern scholars based on the latest research agree that it was North. The steppes of Souther Ukraine/Russia. The rest say it was South.

 

Although I see no problem calling the ancestors of Armenians in the Armenian Highlands who were NOT Indo-European such as the Hurro-Urartians as Armenains because Italians do it with Etruscans, Greeks with early Myceneans (who had non-IE names) etc.

 

Pre-history:

90,000 BC to Paleolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic periods.

Metsamor/Shengavit civilization.

http://www.tacentral.com/history.asp

 

Period 1: Late Bronze Age

(a) Hayassa-Azzi (with the addition of Hittites)

( Rise of Hurro-Urartians

© Arrival of Thraco-Phrygian Armen tribes from Thrace

 

Period 2: Separation of Proto-Armenian language from Proto-Greek and the appearance of Proto-Armenian in the northern areas of Anatolia, associated with Luwians and Hittites, in the period from 2200-1900 BCE.

 

Period 3:

The Urartu State

Thenative Hurrian speaking people take the role of Western Peasants to the Hurro-Urartian Upper Class while Armen peoples seem to be associated with the Nairi.

 

Period 4: The Scytho-Median overlordship

The destruction of Urartu gives the Armen tribes the chance to expand and assume the mantle in the power vacuum of the Urartian state. This is the period in which Hayk becomes acknowledged as the "ancestor" of Hayassa.

 

Period 5: Persian & later Hellenistic Period when the name Armeniya becomes acknowledged. This sees the emergence of Armenian as a literate language with an adapted and modified Aramaean/Greek script, for the first time.

[skhara]

I'm not sure if it is more appropriate to post in this thread or open a new thread. I would like to get some input concerning the Indo-European homeland. I have heard different theories and I think any theories that say the original Indo-European homeland is in Europe or Southern Russia can dissmissed in light of the more recent archaeological finds.

 

I have been doing some googling, and found this interesting website:

 

http://www.armenianhighland.com/homeland/chronicle120.html

 

Here it says the Armenian plateu ,around the Van-Sevan-Urmia regions, is the Indo-European homeland. And here is the map of Aryan migration shown on the website:

 

http://www.armenianhighland.com/images/illustration125.jpg

 

Another theory I have heard is that Indo-European/Indo-Iranian speaking peoples came from the area of Modern day Iran and moved westward and eastward into Armenia, Greece, India, Afganistan and Central Asia.

 

Here is something I found that challenges Armenia as the Indo-European homeland:

 

 

 

The place-names and river-names in Europe, to this day, represent pre-Indo-European languages spoken in Europe before 2500 BC.  The same is the case with Armenia: “among the numerous personal and place-names handed down to us from Armenia up to the end of the Assyrian age, there is absolutely nothing Indo-European.”42 And with Greece and Anatolia: “numerous place-names… show that Indo-Europeans did not originate in Greece. The same can be said for Italy and Anatolia.”43

 

On the other hand, northern India is the only place where place-names and river-names are Indo-European right from the period of the Rigveda (a text which Max Müller refers to as “the first word spoken by the Aryan man”) with no traces of any alleged earlier non-Indo-European names. 

 

What do you guys think? Do you have any additional interesting sources to read up on?

 

I think that Gamkrelidze and Ivanov are pretty convincing considering this family tree of Indo-European languages:

 

http://www.armenianhighland.com/images/illustration122.jpg

 

One can see the the Aryano-Greco-Armenic as one of the first languages that stemmed from the proto indo-european. The languages spoken in india came later.

Edited August 19, 2004 by skhara

[gamavor]

Asia Minor and surrounding areas were the birthplace of the European Civilization.

[Teutonic Knight]

That theory is 20 years old!!!

The Kurgan theory is brand new and is the one that is supported by the majority of scholars.

The Greco-Armenian language split is correct though.

More tomorrow...

[Twilight Bark]

That theory is 20 years old!!!

The Kurgan theory is brand new and is the one that is supported by the majority of scholars.

The Greco-Armenian language split is correct though.

More tomorrow...

Kurgan theory is brand new??!

Surely you jest. Brand new?

It's been the "orthodoxy" until recently. And the only reason it had been so popular was basically wishful thinking and an unwillingness of the Westerners to concede that even their language came from the vicinity of Asia Minor. "The majority of scholars" are often wrong; after all that's how a field progresses. The recent Gray & Atkinson paper is the most sensible and objective way to approach the problem, and points to Anatolia as the birthplace of IE. And although they group Armenian and Greek together, it is done with a lot lower confidence level than most other groupings. And assuming that they did form a single group at some point, the time of their divergence from each other is put at ~7000 year ago (5000BC). While the total lack of evidence for "Phrygian immigrant" hypothesis could be bullied away by the academic mafia, the results of Gray and Atkinson cannot. And the faint genetic signal that has recently been found that diffuses from Anatolia westward, traced to around the same time as Gray & Atkinson's IE expansion is further proof. The Kurgan people may indeed have carried IE languages to new lands. But all indications are that they first learned it from the Anatolian farmers.

 

Near East and Europe form one cultural unit, the former giving the latter its basic civilization. Separating the two is both artificial and conceptually un-economical.

 

And yes, to the best of our current knowledge Armenians were basically indigenous to Asia Minor. Assimilating the occasional newcomers notwithstanding, they didn't immigrate from outside, except for the "Out-of-Africa" immigration shared by the rest of non-African humanity.

[nairi]

I've only got this to say: this field of finding roots and families (which may not even be existant!!) is brand new. Much will change over the coming years, decades, centuries. Let's not to get too stuck on one theory or another. Who knows what the hell Indo-European is in the first place... Edited August 19, 2004 by nairi

[Vigil]

I've only got this to say: this field of finding roots and families (which may not even be existant!!) is brand new. Much will change over the coming years, decades, centuries. Let's not to get too stuck on one theory or another. Who knows what the hell Indo-European is in the first place...

Why would you say that?

 

No, Nairi, I want Armenians to claim what is rightfully theirs. Our history should be written in all the history books. Tragically, most Armenians think like you in that they feel everything that is Armenian is a "insignificant". '

 

If indeed Armenians are the original Indo-European tribes I want everyone else to know and admit to it. IT is high time we stoped ignoring our history.

[MSHAK]

Or maybe it was because he, and his work, get exactly the "respect" they deserve?

 

Perhaps he should try studying in Turkey. There, their "professor-doctors" all look favourably on careers dedicated to churning out history as propaganda.

Do you mind if I ask you a question?

 

Have you ever read something written by Armen Ayvazyan?

 

If yes, are you Armenian or??????

[bellthecat]

About Armen Aivazian:

 

Historians Clash on Scholars' Role

 

Essay in Armenian Forum Reviews the Debate

 

www.gomidas.org/forum/af8clash.htm

 

Princeton, NJ (28 February 2003)—The Armenian history department of Yerevan State University shocked public opinion in the Armenian diaspora with a proclamation issued in December 2001. It claimed that Armenian-American historians “openly distorted and falsified many important issues” in Armenian history, and that many of them were in the service of Turkish-Azerbaijani revisionism. The proclamation endorsed a 1998 book in which the Yerevan-based scholar Armen Ayvazian charges his Armenian-American colleagues with treason.

 

In an important new essay, Sebouh Aslanian of Columbia University engages in a careful and detailed critique of Ayvazian’s book. Aslanian’s 38-page essay, “‘The Treason of the Intellectuals’: Reflections on the Uses of Revisionism and Nationalism in Armenian Historiography,” appears in the current issue of Armenian Forum: A Journal of Contemporary Affairs.

 

Aslanian reports that Ayvazian’s book consists of two sections. The first assails Ronald Suny’s Looking toward Ararat: Armenia in Modern History, which is “one of the most widely read works on Armenian history published in the West.”

 

The second section explores Western scholarship on the origins of the Armenian people and the status of classical Armenian texts. The targets of this section include Robert Thomson, Nina Garsoïan, James Russell, Levon Avdoyan, George Bournoutian, Robert Hewsen, Peter Cowe, and John Greppin.

 

Aslanian considers Ayvazian’s book “a symptomatic text of a new ethos surrounding nationalist history in Armenia.” The role of historians in this ethos is “to generate and maintain national identity” and “to defend the security interests of the state.”

 

Ethnogenesis

 

In this ethos, historians are expected to give only politically acceptable answers to scholarly questions. One’s view on the origins of the Armenian people, for example, is “the ultimate litmus test of loyalties. Scholarly considerations (such as truth) are blithely shunted aside,” Aslanian writes.

 

According to Aslanian, most historians who deal with this question in the West agree that the origins of Armenians are “clouded in obscurity.” They say the best evidence, however, indicates that Armenians probably emerged from the convergence of native and immigrant populations in the Armenian Plateau between the twelfth and sixth centuries B.C.

 

Ayvazian’s book, on the other hand, insists that Armenians are racially pure descendants of natives of Armenia. He goes so far as to cite craniological evidence in support of his position. Ayvazian is not content, however, to treat this matter as a question of evidence and scholarship. For him, the so-called immigrationist position weakens Armenian claims to Armenia. Armenian historians who take the position must be doing the bidding of “Turkey’s NATO ally, the United States,” or else they are dupes.

 

Aslanian, in his review, characterizes this approach as the “blackmail of revisionism”—an attempt to intimidate historians with whose findings one disagrees. Nonetheless, Aslanian carefully considers the evidence offered in Ayvazian’s book.

 

Overall, Aslanian agrees with Ayvazian that the work product of the Armenian-studies establishment in the United States requires a thorough scholarly critique. He is thus disappointed that Ayvazian’s book “consistently misrepresents the views of the author’s adversaries, often by deliberately distorting passages out of their context. Its inflammatory rhetoric and sweeping denunciation, based not so much on scholarly criteria as on political ones, actually prevents the author from critically engaging with some of the real academic shortcomings of Armenian studies in the West.”

 

The Faculty Weighs In

 

Ayvazian’s book would be readily dismissed as a crude polemic, were it not for the reception it has received in Armenia. Even the venerable journal of the Academy of Sciences, Patma-Banasirakan Handes, has given the book a glowing review. The proclamation of the Armenian history faculty at Yerevan State University, mentioned above, takes the matter a step further. It attacks scholars who do not speak out in favor of Ayvazian’s views for their “neutral stance.”

 

Referring to the Yerevan State University proclamation, an editors’ introduction in Armenian Forum observes:

 

“The resolution stands as an unequivocal announcement that the work of scholars from Yerevan State cannot be credible, for they would suppress any evidence that did not lead to certain preordained conclusions.

 

“At a meeting with Armenian Forum editor Vincent Lima in February 2002, the dean of the Faculty of History, Babken Harutiunian, disavowed the resolution, adding that it was adopted without his knowledge while he was abroad. It seems especially important to recognize that the people who pushed the resolution through do not speak for all their colleagues, and to continue to seek out and engage serious scholars trained and based in Yerevan—of which there are many. Indeed, we are pleased to include in this issue the work of two such scholars.”

[bellthecat]

The above is a review of an article in Armenian Forum, Volume 2 Number 4. Does anyone here has a copy of that issue?

 

Also on their website:

 

From the Editors (Volume 2, Number 4)

 

A group of academics and polemicists in Yerevan are trying to enforce orthodoxy in Armenian history writing by branding as traitors and foreign agents historians with whose published findings they disagree. They advocate the proposition that scholars of Armenian descent have an obligation to reach conclusions that would make Armenians proud.

 

In December 2001 the Armenian history department at the Yerevan State University Faculty of History adopted this group’s position by voting in favor of a Soviet-style resolution that goes so far as to name names (see pp. 36–37 n. 97 of this issue for excerpts). The resolution stands as an unequivocal announcement that the work of scholars from Yerevan State cannot be credible, for they would suppress any evidence that did not lead to certain preordained conclusions.

 

At a meeting with Armenian Forum editor Vincent Lima in February 2002, the dean of the Faculty of History, Babken Harutiunian, disavowed the resolution, adding that it was adopted without his knowledge while he was abroad. It seems especially important to recognize that the people who pushed the resolution through do not speak for all their colleagues, and to continue to seek out and engage serious scholars trained and based in Yerevan—of which there are many. Indeed, we are pleased to include in this issue the work of two such scholars.

 

At the center of this movement to enforce orthodoxy is a 1998 book by Armen Ayvazian, billed as a scholarly critique of the United States "school" of Armenian studies. Sebouh Aslanian, an advanced graduate student at Columbia University, examines the book in great detail. Aslanian agrees with Ayvazian that the work product of the Armenian-studies establishment in the United States requires a thorough scholarly critique. He finds, however, that Ayvazian has failed to produce anything more than a crude polemic.

[Ludwig9]

Why I don't think Armen A. was awarded the Ph D, is because he is not in line with the idealogies of the western scholars. I have read some the works of J. Russel, N. Garosian, R. Thomson and in my opinion they couldn't be more off regarding their theories, and the orgins of the Armenians. I am happy that Armen pointed out what these western scholars are arbitrary. I spoke to a friend of mine regarding the origins of the Armenians and he states that what the western scholars are teaching is exactly the opposite of what is being taught in Armenia. In my opinion the western scholars are turkafying ( is that a real word ?) the origins of the Armenians and they are comprimising our ancient heritage for the sake of celebrety.

 

There is a book I have read;

 

Armenia, Subartu, and Sumer: The Indo-European homeland and ancient Mesopotamia

by Martiros Kavoukjian

 

Which is an excellent book regarding the origins of the Armenians. And alot more detailed then the writing of the western scholars. The book is quite a heavy read. But, if you like Armenian history I recommend getting this book.

[Arpa]

Dear Ludwig, first off welcome!

As to Kavukjian, it seems like he also has been remanded to the trash can of historians just like Armen A.

 

I wish someone could post the entire book of Martiros.

You may find many references to him on this forum. Search using either his name or "subartu".

Here is one thread, many pages. See if you can add.

http://hyeforum.com/index.php?showtopic=70...=80entry78127

[Teutonic Knight]

Hahaha. Martiros Kavoukjian belongs in a nuthouse.

I have never read such ethnocentric insane garbage.

He stopped short of claiming that his ancestors built the pyramids.

[bellthecat]

I spoke to a friend of mine regarding the origins of the Armenians and he states that what the western scholars are teaching is exactly the opposite of what is being taught in Armenia. In my opinion the western scholars are turkafying ( is that a real word ?) the origins of the Armenians and they are comprimising our ancient heritage for the sake of celebrety.

The article in Armenian Forum would suggest that the opposite is true, that in reality what some (many?, the majority of?) scholars in Armenia are doing is "Turkifying" Armenian academia in the sense that they are following the a-la-turka style when writing about history.

[gamavor]

I don't understand really what is the big fuss about Armenian origins. There are many more worthwhile topics to be discussed.

 

http://www.un.int/armenia/arm/en_history.html

Edited August 26, 2004 by gamavor

[Ludwig9]

Dear Ludwig, first off welcome!

As to Kavukjian, it seems like he also has been remanded to the trash can of historians just like Armen A.

 

Arpa thanks for the welcome. What do you think of the other western scholars?

 

The article in Armenian Forum would suggest that the opposite is true, that in reality what some (many?, the majority of?) scholars in Armenia are doing is "Turkifying" Armenian academia in the sense that they are following the a-la-turka style when writing about history.

 

What article ? Do you know how they are turkifying the academia?

 

Hahaha. Martiros Kavoukjian belongs in a nuthouse.

I have never read such ethnocentric insane garbage.

He stopped short of claiming that his ancestors built the pyramids.

 

 

An Armenian writing about the history of the Armenians and he is considered ethnocentric insane garbage. However, when non-Armenians write about Armenian history then its considered sacred and holy. Armenians should stop using non-Armenian, historians, writers, politicians and so forth just to validate their own existence. Do the Chinese think they need the English to write about them to validate them being a country, or having a language, or history ?

 

If you believe is a nutcase how so? Now, I may not agree with what he wrote in its entirity, but I do believe he has made some strong and valid points.

[bellthecat]

What article ? Do you know how they are turkifying the academia?

Sorry, I was being too obscure for my own good. "A-la-Turka" (or Alaturka) means "behaving in the manner of the Turks". Kavukjian and Ayvazyan seem to be behaving in an a-la-Turka fashion.

 

When writing about history, Turkish society advocates the proposition that scholars of Turkish descent have an obligation to reach conclusions that would make Turks proud.

Edited August 26, 2004 by bellthecat

[hytga]

Period 4: The Scytho-Median overlordship

The destruction of Urartu gives the Armen tribes the chance to expand and assume the mantle in the power vacuum of the Urartian state. This is the period in which Hayk becomes acknowledged as the "ancestor" of Hayassa.

that's not true. if i'm not mistaken the Haik & bel battle is believed to have been taken place in 2492 bc. urartu was "destructed" about 1500 years later

[Ludwig9]

Sorry, I was being too obscure for my own good. "A-la-Turka" (or Alaturka) means "behaving in the manner of the Turks". Kavukjian and Ayvazyan seem to be behaving in an a-la-Turka fashion.

 

When writing about history, Turkish society advocates the proposition that scholars of Turkish descent have an obligation to reach conclusions that would make Turks proud.

 

Thanks for the explanation.

 

I don't think there is a nation out in the world that would want to make any conclusions which would want to compromise its own identity. So, it would be understandable that Kavukjian is writing in a pro-Armenian mindset. The question would be, is he really stating facts and presenting history as a historian. I believe he is correct in some area's of his book. If you would like we can go in details over email.

 

Thanks

[Teutonic Knight]

I don't understand really what is the big fuss about Armenian origins. There are many more worthwhile topics to be discussed.

 

http://www.un.int/armenia/arm/en_history.html

I support that. That's extremely reasonable.

Check this out Gamavor:

 

Pre-history:

90,000 BC to Paleolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic periods.

Metsamor civilization.

http://www.tacentral.com/history.asp

 

Period 1: Late Bronze Age

a. Hayassa-Azzi (with the addition of Hittites, Luwians and other IE Anatolians)

b. Rise of Hurro-Urartians

c. Arrival of Thraco-Phrygian Armen tribes from Thrace

 

Period 2: Separation of Proto-Armenian language from Proto-Greek and the appearance of Proto-Armenian in the northern areas of Anatolia, associated with Luwians and Hittites, in the period from 2200-1900 BCE.

 

Period 3:

The Urartu State

Thenative Hurrian speaking people take the role of Western Peasants to the Hurro-Urartian Upper Class while Armen peoples seem to be associated with the Nairi.

 

Period 4: The Scytho-Median overlordship

The destruction of Urartu gives the Armen tribes the chance to expand and assume the mantle in the power vacuum of the Urartian state. This is the period in which Hayk becomes acknowledged as the "ancestor" of Hayassa.

 

Period 5: Persian & later Hellenistic Period when the name Armeniya becomes acknowledged. This sees the emergence of Armenian as a literate language with an adapted and modified Aramaean/Greek script, for the first time.

 

 

<Sarcasm>

But no Hurrians and Urartians spoke an IE language, Hayk invented the wheel and horse riding and Sumerians were Armenians, did I mention Asrhakunis and Ervandunis were not from Persia? </sarcasm>

Edited August 26, 2004 by Teutonic Knight

[Teutonic Knight]

that's not true. if i'm not mistaken the Haik & bel battle is believed to have been taken place in 2492 bc. urartu was "destructed" about 1500 years later

Yes but he was not considered the ancestor of the UNIFIED Armenian NATION because there was no unified Armenian nation until this period.

[Twilight Bark]

that's not true. if i'm not mistaken the Haik & bel battle is believed to have been taken place in 2492 bc. urartu was "destructed" about 1500 years later 

Yes but he was not considered the ancestor of the UNIFIED Armenian NATION because there was no unified Armenian nation until this period.

I don't know about 2492 BC, but there is no indication that "Hayk" waited until Urartu's destruction to become the "ancestor". First, let's drop the pretense that Hayk was a real person. Probably almost all those mythical "person" names refer to the names of individual peoples (i.e. tribes), and the names of Haykazian "kings" symbolize the assimilation of those tribes into Hayk. The Hayk (people) were around before anyone had heard of Urartu, but part of their kin could have fallen under the rule of the Urartuan dynasty later. In any event, there is nothing of record that justifies the assignment of the fall of Urartu as the "proper" beginning of a "unified" Hay people. And if we need to associate "Bel" with a local tribe, how about the Palaic people? It is quite reasonable to think that the Hayk had to wage some sort of a struggle against the Palaic tribes (cousins and contemporaries of Hittites) in order to gain a coherent identity. No proof for any of this one way or the other, but the evidence fits the emergence of a coherent Hay identity long before the formation of the Urartu Kingdom, probably somewhere between 2000BC and 1400BC. And we didn't even touch the linguistic analysis of Gray & Atkinson yet, which would suggest a much earlier date for the isolation of a distinct group of proto-Hay speakers, if not a self-aware tribe.

Edited August 27, 2004 by Twilight Bark