Tracing family roots: First Armenian Genealogy conference planned for

[Yervant1]

Tracing family roots: First Armenian Genealogy conference planned for April

13:39, 20 Feb 2016
Siranush Ghazanchyan

An Armenian Genealogy Conference will take place April 9-10 in
Watertown. The conference, which grew out of the Armenian Genealogy
group on Facebook, will feature several speakers on various topics
regarding Armenian genealogy, history, geography, and presentations on
different organizations and initiatives, the Armenian Weekly reports.

George Aghjayan, a retired actuary and one of the conference
organizers, noted that the study of Armenian genealogy has grown
substantially over the last decade, and that organizing a conference
was a necessary step. `Advances in technology have allowed access to
information previously thought unattainable,' said Aghjayan, who hopes
the conference will become an annual event.

Aghjayan has been working with Tracy Rivest Keeney and Mark Arslan to
organize the conference, which is co-sponsored by the National
Association for Armenian Studies and Research (NAASR), Project Save
Armenian Photograph Archives, Inc., Houshamadyan, the Armenian Museum
of America (AMA), and Hamazkayin Boston. During the weekend,
participants'both beginner and advanced'will learn how to carry out
genealogical research specific to Armenians and will take part in
workshops, during which experienced volunteers will help answer
questions, teach how to get started, and how to go beyond existing
research.

`The recent proliferation and acceptance of social media has allowed a
level of collaboration on genealogical and historical research never
before possible,' Arslan told the Weekly. He noted that the Armenian
Genealogy Facebook group has brought together people from the Armenian
Diaspora worldwide, as well as the Republic of Armenia'individuals who
share a passionate interest in learning more about their Armenian
families and heritage. `The collective knowledge of our online
community is amazing, everyone brings their own special talents to
uncover genealogical treasures from the primary records online and in
archives, as well as shares their own family anecdotes, memories, and
experiences,' he said.

The conference will take place at the Armenian Museum of America

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.armradio.am_en_2016_02_20_tracing-2Dfamily-2Droots-2Dfirst-2Darmenian-2Dgenealogy-2Dconference-2Dplanned-2Dfor-2Dapril_&d=CwIFaQ&c=clK7kQUTWtAVEOVIgvi0NU5BOUHhpN0H8p7CSfnc_gI&r=LVw5zH6C4LHpVQcGEdVcrQ&m=aC3UhNLHxJ2wgpIZC5gdlAY8RhPe_c1trJmBxZeXwRs&s=7eEZR99hCrtWB77k6hYfokb7JRP63yvDh2gQkYqGkyk&e=

[Yervant1]

Aris Ghazinyan: According to famous anthropologists, Armenians are
descendants of ancient indigenous race, which preserved its type from
any influence

Politics 15:56 20/02/2016 Region


The cultural adaptation of the territory of modern Yerevan began tens
of thousands of years ago. Determined by radiocarbon dating, the
absolute age for the upper and the lower borders of only one layer ?-4
of Palaeolithic cave station `Yerevan I' was 49,000 and 47,800 years
respectively. Armenian journalist and researcher Aris Ghazinyan writes
about it in the preface of his book `Yerevan: with a cross or on the
cross,' which is an attempt of setting and considering an extremely
diverse range of processes directly or indirectly forming the
character of the development of the territory in question and
predetermining the inevitability of turning Yerevan into the main
centre of the Eastern Armenia, and later on into the capital of the
recovered Armenian state.
According to the author, by that time, the Mousterian archaeological
culture was already formed in a quite extensive territory. `During the
Mousterian period, people started to render habitable rocky niches
located near stable streams. One of these caves, today known to
archaeological communities by the scientific name `Yerevan I,' was
chosen by paleoanthropologists on the right bank of Hrazdan river,'
Ghazinyan writes.
The most famous agricultural-cattle breeding settlement within the
boundaries of modern Yerevan is an ancient settlement located on the
bank of Hrazdan river, known by the name `Shengavit.' `The earlier
layers of the monument belong to the Neolithic Era, dated in the
territory of the Ararat Plain in 6th-5th millennia BC,' the author
writes. The high level of development of cattle breeding is indicated
by the fact that animals were directly tamed in the place, and were
not driven from other areas. The osteological material pointing out to
the fact that Yerevan is one of the independent centres of primary
domestication also proves that.
Brachycranial skulls typical to representatives of the so-called
`Armenoid race' also occupy a prominent place among archaeological
materials of Shengavit. Representatives of different ethno-cultural
belonging ` Armenians, separate groups of Arabian population,
Iranians, Assyrians, Jews ` are all bearers of this anthropological
type.

Ghazinyan cites the anthropologist Felix von Luschan, according to
whom, the Armenians are the descendants of an ancient indigenous race,
which kept its type away from any influence. It was Luschan who named
armenoid the ancient skulls found in the Armenian highlands. For his
part, the founder of the Soviet anthropological school Viktor Bunak
emphasised that the Semitic type was present only for a limited period
of time, later the Armenoid type began to dominate. It is impossible
to state any other race elements in the ancient population of the
Western Asia.
`At the boundary of 5th-4th millennia, people inhabiting the area
began to constantly use copper, which gave an unprecedented impulse to
the development of their civilization. Ceramic forms and bakes for
metal moulding, as well as a great number of metal instruments of
labour were found in the territory of Yerevan,' Ghazinyan continues.
Regarding the cultural adaptation of the territory of modern Yerevan,
Ghazinyan notes that it was intensified during the subsequent periods.
In 3rd-2nd millennia BC, agricultural and cattle breeding settlements
with a high level of organization existed here, for example,
pre-Urartian Karmir Blur, Mukhannat-tapa, Norabats, Tsitsernakaberd,
and others.
Revolutionary changes took place in the area in the beginning of I
millennium BC, when it became a part of `the young and ambitious
monarchy' of the Urartu kingdom, the core of formation of which was
situated in the western part of Armenia, in the region of the
mountainous lake Van. `The zenith of the power of the Urartu Kingdom
came in the period of almost thirty-year (from 787 to 750 BC) reign of
Argishti I. This invincible monarch of the ancient east, before whom
even Assyria confessed its powerlessness, became the founder of
Yerevan. In the fifth year of his reign, he started laying an
important military centre, about which he left a cuneiform
inscription: `By the greatness of the God Khaldi, Argishti, son of
Menua, built this mighty stronghold and proclaimed it Erebuni for the
glory of Biainili and to instill fear among the king's enemies.','
Ghazinyan writes, noting that the etymological roots of the name of
the modern Armenian capital derive from the name of Erebuni Fortress.
And just after the founding of the fortress, for a certain period of
time, the centre of the political life of the Ararat plain moved to
Erebuni hills, among which is Arinberd, marked out in the foreground.
`The first documented message about a certain demographic policy
carried out within Yerevan's boundaries by a certain king also dates
back to the early 8th century BC. Argishti I's extant message informs
about resettlement of over six thousand souls from the western
provinces of Hatti (the territory, which had by that time emerged from
the historical arena of the Hittite State on the right bank of the
river Euphrates) and Tsupani (the area of confluence of the river
Aratsani in Euphrates proper) into Erebuni,' Ghazinyan writes.

He cites Igor Diakonoff who maintains that the practice of resettling
ethnic masses, including resettlements to quite far distances, applied
in Urartu must have played a certain role in spreading the Armenian
language as a language of mutual understanding, and later as the only
language across the entire highland. `However, for the Armenian
language (rather than any other) to be able to play the role of a
language of mutual understanding, it was necessary to have already
been used as such earlier, at the junction of different ethnic
groups,' Diakonoff writes as cited by Ghazinyan.

Archaeological findings evidence that the city was an active
participant of international trade in that period. `Commercial deals
constituted barters then. Rusa II, the founder of the city
Teishebaini, took the throne exactly at the time when the first
embossed coin appeared in Lydia. That is why the commodity-money
relations were not in practice yet,' he writes.
The period between the 6th and 5th centuries BC is the era of a
parallel use of the two identical concepts `Urartu' and `Armenia.' The
appeals found in Gadd's Chronicles (Babylonian chronicle) and in the
speeches of Judaic prophets, dating back to the late 7th and early 6th
centuries BC, can be considered the first examples of such overlaps.
Later, the identification of the two concepts became even more
univocal. Moreover, this was projected onto both the name of the
country and its population (for some period, the term `urart' remained
popular in the Semite world ` Babylonian and other ` but with the
meaning `Armenian' rather than `a national of Urartu'). According to
Muhammad Dandamayev and Vladimir Lukonin, `the name of `urarty' is an
anachronism and denotes the Armenians in that period,' Ghazninyan
writes.

As the Achaemenid Empire was established, Erebuni ` which was already
called Yerevan at that time ` became one of the most important cities
in the 18th satrapy or even its centre. Ghazinyan writes that the
united satrapy `Armenia' was divided into two regions during Xerxes'
reign. `The period of the formation of satrapies and of the
establishment of a news system of governing coincided with the time of
final adopting Zoroastrianism as the official religion of the
Achaemenid Empire. In accordance with the ideological demands of the
time, ancient cult structures were subjected to fundamental changes,'
he writes and notes that the reconstruction was affected by the
principles of the development of the Zoroastrian architecture.

Remarkably, Yerevan is the only region in the territory of the
Republic of Armenia, where a whole palace building, Erebuni Apadana,
is preserved, apart from fragments of structures of the Achaemenid
period.

Excavations also revealed ties with the Greek-Ionian and Western Asian
worlds. In addition, silver coins of Milesian milting of 5th century
BC were found near the temple Susi to confirm not only the period
(time) of the reconstruction of the temple area, but also to reinforce
the fact of the existence of monetary circulation within the
boundaries of Yerevan.

`Therefore, all the claims that the cultural adaptation of the area of
Yerevan began only in the 16th century thanks to the Turkic magnates'
efforts, are an object of pan-Turkic ideological speculations and a
fruit of fantasies about a shadow history. Politically motivated, they
are of pseudohistorical nature,' Ghazinyan concludes. He also adds
that the life in the territory of the city has never died away, but
developed in all the historical periods.

It is something else that between the 5th century BC and 7th century
AD, the area lost the significance it used to enjoy in the first half
of the 1st millennium BC. Various archaeological monuments of
Hellenistic and Early Medieval periods remaining intact in the
territory of Yerevan also prove that the place went on developing even
in the shadow of other Armenian cities, he writes.

To be continued.

Aris Ghazinyan's `Yerevan: with a cross or on the cross' is a book
about the social and political history of Yerevan and Yerevan district
(as a habitat) since the declaration of Christianity to the beginning
of XIX century. In addition to demonstrating historical facts based on
archive documents and sources, the book also considers the fundamental
theses of the Azerbaijani historiography and Pan-Turkic ideology aimed
at appropriating the historical, cultural, and spiritual heritage of
the Armenians and other nations of the region by falsifying their
history.

Related news

Aris Ghazinyan: According to orientalist Diakonoff's memories, most of
Azerbaijani historians had `quite indirect relation' to science
Aris Ghazinyan: Politicians and scientists in Turkey and Azerbaijan
completely ignore primary sources on Yerevan history
Aris Ghazinyan: Past and future in Azerbaijan are modeled upon decrees
and program speeches of president
`Polygon Azerbaijan': Azerbaijan's true history `in context of global
political processes'

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.panorama.am_en_news_2016_02_20_Aris-2DGhazinyan_1531473&d=CwIFaQ&c=clK7kQUTWtAVEOVIgvi0NU5BOUHhpN0H8p7CSfnc_gI&r=LVw5zH6C4LHpVQcGEdVcrQ&m=VLV6rq89A2LJ3moG-QhJYEfA3kpPFbwze2PRODhQI_M&s=_oY7ATwzPy8EByh0fXbfqY1CN-eOgUBwqlZ3rnZz8B8&e=

[Yervant1]

Aris Ghazinyan: According to orientalist Diakonoff's memories, most of
Azerbaijani historians had `quite indirect relation' to science

POLITICS 16:35 19/02/2016


Azerbaijani historiography is just one of the components of Pan-Turkic
and Pan-Azerbaijani ideology, and it is necessary to research the
history and philosophy of Pan-Turkic claims for a complex perception
of the whole spectrum of encroachments on Armenian lands (and not
only). Armenian journalist and researcher Aris Ghazinyan writes about
it in the preface of his book `Yerevan: with a cross or on the cross,'
which is an attempt of setting and considering an extremely diverse
range of processes directly or indirectly forming the character of the
development of the territory in question and predetermining the
inevitability of turning Yerevan into the main center of the Eastern
Armenia, and later on into the capital of the recovered Armenian
state.

In his book, Ghazinyan covers the topic of the influence of the soviet
school of historiography on the Azerbaijani one. `In order to
understand the issue, it is necessary to initially be guided by the
fact that the Bolsheviks were the founders of the Azerbaijan socialist
nation. If the Pan-Turkic circles of the Young Turks established the
Azerbaijan Democratic Republic at the end of the World War I, then the
Bolsheviks modeled a nation of the same name in the second half of
1930s,' he writes, noting that it is especially important to consider
that the priorities of foreign policy were not the last factors
dictating this `quite painful' process of formation. Among such
priorities, Ghazinyan mentions the phenomenon of contrasting
Azerbaijanism to Pan-Turkism and of igniting the flame of the
proletarian revolution further to the south, as a result of which the
Turkic speaking Shia population of northern Iranian provinces was also
adopted under a common socialistic ethnonym (`Azerbaijani').

`With the emergence of a quite new nation on the Soviet map, the old
aspiration of Bolsheviks to blow the flame of the proletarian
revolution further to the south and to join the southern Persian
provinces to the USSR fitted very comfortably in the context of `the
necessity of a reunion of the split Azerbaijani nation in one
republic.' Such an argumentation was then presented as an important
mechanism of resolving territorial issues,' the author writes.

Ghazinyan informs that the `transformation' into Azerbaijanis took
place according to the following scheme: in the atmosphere of
expectations for the near invasion of the Red Army in the southern
Iranian provinces, the original directive anti-Turkic Azerbaijanism
acquired new qualities and was condemned to transformation into
anti-Iranian Pan-Azerbaijanism, which gradually departed from
Pan-Sovietism in its progressive movement and entered into the orbit
of Pan-Turkism (there were no essential differences in the
understanding of their historical mission in the approaches of
Pan-Turkists and Pan-Azerbaijanists: the formers proclaimed all the
Turks their brothers, and the latter considered Shia Turks as such,
calling them `Azerbaijanis').

The speech of the head of the Azerbaijan SSR, Mir Jafar Baghirov,
before sending soviet (Azerbaijani) agents to the southern Iranian
provinces is quite significant: `The northern part of Iran is the
Southern Azerbaijan. The biggest cities of Iran `Qazvin, Urmia,
Mianeh, Maraga, Tabriz, Ardabil, Salmas, Khoy, Anzali, and others `
are the motherland of our ancestors. And if you want to know the
truth, Tehran is also an old Azerbaijani city.'

`Let us compare one Azerbaijani leader's (Mir Jafar Baghirov)
statement with that of another one (Heydar Aliyev). `The territory now
called Armenia is the Western Azerbaijan. Irevan, Goycha, Zangibasar,
Zangezur mahals were all places of inhabitance of Azerbaijanis. I
believe in it, I believe that the owners of this land, the Muslims,
the Azerbaijanis, will go back there',' Ghazinyan writes callingthis
the `true essence of Pan-Azerbaijanism.'

The formation of Soviet Azerbaijani school of historiography,
especially its most radical direction, the Pan-Azerbaijanism, occurred
at the boundary of 1930-1940s and was supported at the soviet level.
In 1940s,it was necessary to simply rewrite scientific monographs, and
new dissertations were not accepted at all, if they did not hide the
most important ` `the unity of the Azerbaijani nation', `the
aspiration to unite its separated parts,' Ghazinyan mentions.

`Joseph Stalin intended to stop the wave of Pan-Turkic moods
increasing in the territory of the Azerbaijan SSR with the help of
contrasting Azerbaijanism to Kemal Turkism, and at the same time to
create `a moral justification' for joining of the southern Iranian
provinces,' he writes.

Ghazinyan also cites a senior researcher of the Institute of Ethnology
and Anthropology at the Russian Academy of Sciences, Victor
Schnirelmann, according to whom Azerbaijan `urgently needed its own
history.' Since 1940-1941,a chair of Azerbaijani history worked at the
Department of History of the ASU, and a course on Azerbaijani history
was introduced, in which `Iranian and Armenian factors promoted the
fast azerbaijanization of historical heroes and historical political
institutions in the territory of Azerbaijan.'

The Stalin model of Pan-Azerbaijanism, originally a component of
Pan-Sovietism, asserted its right to existafter the death of the
`Father of Nations,' but already as a part of Pan-Turkism, year by
year entering more persistently into the ideological frames designated
by the founders of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, i. e., the
Young Turks and Musavat followers.

`This was when the process of deposing Armenian personnel from state
institutions kicked off. Simultaneously, a collection of 'perspective
historians' was carried out, who were called to process, describe, and
input 'a past of the nation' in the collective consciousness. In 1954,
Ziya Bunyadov, a future falsifier of regional history and loud-hailer
of armenophobia, began working as a senior researcher in the Institute
of History of ANAS of Azerbaijan SSR (before that, he had
beenspecialized in other theme, `Italian Imperialism in Africa'),'
Ghazinyan writes.

Memories of the famous orientalist Igor Diakonoff are also introduced
in the book. Diakonoff shares his impressions of communication with
Azerbaijani historians, most of them having`quite indirect relation'
tothe science; they were `party members thrown at the science' and
were engaged in`eating each other.'As for Bunyadov, Diakonoff writes:
`There was a Hero of the Soviet Union, an arabist later famous for the
scientific publication of a medieval historical Arabian or Iranian
source, from which, however, all the references about the Armenians
were thoroughly removed.'

`This very contingent was called to 'scientifically prove' the Turkic
autochthony in the region and seek out 'proofs' of their decisive
contribution to the process of formation of ancient states. At the
same time, the ineffectiveness and vulnerability of these people's
professionalism and competence were clearly realized, that is why
'specialists from the center' were invited to work. Diakonoff
remembers how he was called to `prove that the ancient Iranian kingdom
of Media belonged to Azerbaijan',' Ghazinyan informs.

Ghazinyan also cites the comment of the dean of the Department of
Oriental Studies of Saint Petersburg University, a fellow of RAS
(Russian Academy of Sciences) Ivan Steblin-Kamensky, who confesses
that they prepared specialists in `newly formed states.' However,
`they are abundant withnationalistic tendencies and scientific
falsifications.'`There is no objective approach to the history and the
course of historical development in their works.Sometimes there is an
open falsification. For example, Nizami, a monument to whom is raised
in Kamennoostrovsky Prospekt, is declared a great Azerbaijani poet
<¦>and it is proved by the fact that he lived in the territory of
modern Azerbaijan,' Ghazinyan cites the scientist.

Regarding the given problems, comments of Victor Schnirelmann found a
place in Ghazinyan's book. `Another means of eliminating the Armenian
presence in the ancient and medieval Transcaucasia and of belittling
their role is the republishing of antique and medieval sources with
notes, with the replacement of the term 'Armenian State' by 'Albanian
State' or with other distortions of the original texts. From 1960s to
1990s, numerous republished sources of the kind appeared in Baku, and
academician Bunyadov was actively involved in the process<¦> Renaming
medieval Armenian politicians, historians, and writers, who had lived
and worked in Karabakh, into Albaniansbecame the favorite occupation
of the Azerbaijani authors. <¦>Bunyadov'swriting, where all this
became a basic position, was the most influential book in Azerbaijan
<¦> and it was dedicated to events of Arabian times in the Caucasian
Albania, which he directly named Azerbaijan. He already writes about
'Armenian speaking authors' in this book, implying early medieval
Albanian figures, who wrote in Armenian <¦> Bunyadov writes about a
rich Albanian literature, which did not reach to us, being allegedly
destroyed by the efforts of the Arabs and Armenians. At the same time,
the Armenians allegedly translated Albanian manuscripts into grabar,
consciously distorting the original Albanian texts,' the author cites
Victor Schnirelmann as writing.

Heyar Aliyev'smourning speech on the second day after Bunyadov's death
is significant in this context; he said: `He was one of the most
outstanding scientists, one of the most outstanding historians and one
of the most outstanding representatives of our nation in XX century. I
think he will be spoken about more after this, books and memoirs will
be written about him <¦> I repeat that this is the person our nation
gave to the world as a gift in XX century <¦> He relied on original
sources, referred to them and used them in science and in his
searches.'

Actually, Bunyadov wrote about Yerevan in his malicious appeal to the
Armenians: `You invented the 2750th anniversary of Yerevan, though
even pupils know that as a settlement,Yerevan (the future capital of
Azerbaijani khanate)appeared in XVI century.' Therefore, this
`Pan-Turkic colossus of scientific source studies' processed in the
Soviet period denies even the idea of medieval Yerevan's existence,
ignoring the original sources, Ghazinyan writes.He notes that such a
policy towards Yerevan (and towards the Armenian state as a whole) is
also backed by biased people outside the Azerbaijan Republic. In
particular, representatives of several countries are involved in the
process and support Pan-Turkic or Pan-Islamic point of view.

To be contined.

Aris Ghazinyan's `Yerevan: with a cross or on the cross' is a book
about the social and political history of Yerevan and Yerevan district
(as a habitat) since the declaration of Christianity to the beginning
of XIX century. In addition to demonstrating historical facts based on
archive documents and sources, the book also considers the fundamental
theses of the Azerbaijani historiography and Pan-Turkic ideology aimed
at appropriating the historical, cultural, and spiritual heritage of
the Armenians and other nations of the region by falsifying their
history.


Related news

Aris Ghazinyan: Past and future in Azerbaijan are modeled upon decrees
and program speeches of president
`Polygon Azerbaijan': Azerbaijan's true history `in context of global
political processes'

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.panorama.am_en_news_2016_02_19_Aris-2DGhazinyan_1530644&d=CwIFaQ&c=clK7kQUTWtAVEOVIgvi0NU5BOUHhpN0H8p7CSfnc_gI&r=LVw5zH6C4LHpVQcGEdVcrQ&m=Ds4PBdTGCgUOBIzJuS7Ej4cNan5XL3tQP9AdgPYzz3g&s=fm6UrvaYnWmESzkDhv1BbzYBNCXCLQtmRJB136eOGk8&e=