Armenian Geography

[gamavor]

Oups, I was late and missed the previous topic.

 

Speaking of Armenia as Geography, let me remind the honorable panelists that Armenia is one of the few spots on this Planet that retained her name for more than 20 centuries.

 

Persian Satraps were Satraps of Armenia, Bizantium Governors were Governors of Armenia, Armenian Cavalry within the Greek Army was called Armenian Cavalry, etc. etc...

 

Khorenatzi is probably not the best source for Armenian History, but many (non-Armenian historians) make references to him, since he(we) witnessed the existence of the others.

[MJ]

Indeed.

 

I don’t have the library, anymore, that I have once had. This is the only material I could fiund. Anyone who has access to appropriate libraries is advised to search for Academician Hagop Manandian’s works on the subject.

 

………………………………………………………………………

4. The Vanishing controversy

 

Contemporary commentators speak highly both of author and of book.

 

Typical is Hrant K. Armen, a quality Diaspora historian who expresses a common view when remarking that 'we are Armenian only by virtue of Moses Khorenatzi'. Put differently, homeland based commentator A. K. Abrahamian writes that 'the father of Armenian history has played an enormous role in cultivating and reinforcing the Armenian people's sense of identity and national consciousness.'

 

However 'The History of the Armenians' has not escaped controversy and criticism. During the late 19th and early 20th centuries many a commentator questioned its 5th century origin some casting it to the 9th. Others charged its author with wanton and dishonest fabrication, accusing him of a total disregard for historical veracity. Moses of Khoren was found guilty of 'senility', 'fabrication', 'ignorance', plagiarism', 'cheating', 'thoughtlessness' and a host of other sins.

 

It is true that the work is in many aspects uneven. Taking into account the vast scope of 'History', the paucity of sources available to Khorenatzi and the intellectual isolation in which he had to compose his work, it is hardly surprising that the book contains much that is questionable. A great deal of his chronology and a good portion of his evidence has rightly been challenged and set aside. It is also true that the Second and Third Books do not read with the same adventure and excitement as the first. However, bearing in mind the circumstances of its production, the most amazing, - almost miraculous, - aspect of the work is how much of it stands up to the sharpest scrutiny of the most modern and most critical investigation.

 

None of its defects detract from what is in fact an extraordinary accomplishment. Disputes about dating and evidence pale into insignificance when we consider the role this book has performed. In salvaging from eternal darkness vast periods of Armenian history, culture and civilisation it stands forth as a proud and reasoned

proclamation of the civilisation and culture of people from small nations. Who will dare contest the value of such a proclamation in the contemporary world order?

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Eddie Arnavoudian holds degrees in history and politics from Manchester, England, and is Groong's commentator-in-residence on Armenian literature. His works on literary and political issues have also appeared in Harach in Paris, Nairi in Beirut and Open Letter in Los Angeles.

 

http://groong.usc.edu/tcc/tcc-20010312.html