Tuesday, February 9, 2010

A historian associated with the Academy of Sciences history institute told about his research in ancient Armenian history:

“Right now, I’m arranging to have a book written by an Austrian historian translated into Armenian and Russian. The Soviets didn’t allow its translation, as the author proved that European church architecture had its foundation in Armenian church architecture. The Soviets didn’t want to give the Armenians that much credit.

“Did you know that British encyclopedias, up until recent years, stated that England was first inhabited by people from the Armenian Highlands? Slowly, this reference was removed. Politics, no doubt...

“Some say that Karabagh Armenians are nothing more than Caucasian Albanians. Not true. The territory of Karabagh was always included in early Armenian kingdoms. Sometimes Albania was included, sometimes not. Perhaps some Albanians Armenianized, true, but Karabaghtsis are Armenian, proved by all the purely Armenian monuments, dating back to the fifth century and earlier. To say that today’s Azeris have Albanian roots is ridiculous, though, as Tatars and the like, before they were called Azeris, appeared in the area after traveling from their home in Central Asia, centuries after Caucasian Albania had vanished from the scene.

“And the old theory that the Soviets went by, and some other historians, Armenians included, that Armenians aren’t native to the Armenian Highlands, is a thing of the past. Foreign historians believe that today’s Armenians are native to the area, and didn’t migrate from the West, appearing only after the fall of Urartu. Urartu was Armenian, and its inhabitants...Armenians.

“The Armenians of the past spread culture...architecture, sculpture, music...around the world.”

Then, the historian’s mood changed, due to a (typical) low grade serial appearing on Public Television’s first channel.

“I never wonder about the roots of the Armenians of the past, even the ancient past. I only wonder if today’s Armenians have any tie, culturally, to their ancestors. Look at what they’re doing here. I don’t know where they find such low class actors...as if they’re actors. I supppose they exist, because here they are. And yesterday the president’s commission members started discussing Armenian-produced serials, saying how wonderful it is that we can watch serials in Armenian, and how the serials are high class productions. If Public Television and ‘Armenia’ television continue their anti-Armenian programming, they could slowly ruin not only our culture, but our people. Nowhere in the world are the people of a nation subjected to such trash on a full-time basis...”

4 comments:

Ara Stepan Melkonian said...

In my opinion, the 'Armenian' authorities in Yerevan that are in charge of 'culture' - if they are really in charge and not in the pockets of the rich so-called Armenians sponsoring the 'popular culture' appearing on television - have no education and wouldn't recognise true Armenian culture if it hit them... Even the Turks do better with their television shows!

Andranik Michaelian said...

The same Armenians who are in charge of culture are in charge of everything here. Some say there are outside forces working to destroy our culture, thus our future as a nation, while some say our leaders actually have such low tastes that the culture being spread and propagandized is strictly a result of this. Either way, there's a problem. The Turks, unfortunately, do a much better job with their television shows. They understand more than Armenians the worth of culture, especially folk culture.

artashes98 said...

Your historian friend doesn't sound convincing. I did my own small research on the Armenian origins, and even I can say something quite surely: there is NO consensus among the serious scientists on how and when the Armenians originated. Put simply, the evidence is still lacking, unfortunately.

http://artashes98.livejournal.com/99126.html

Andranik Michaelian said...

The interesting thing is that my historian friend intentionally doesn't use Armenian historians, but foreign historians, to base his opinions on, so people can't say he's biased in any way. One Armenian historian he thinks a lot of, however, is Artak Movsisyan, whose book I'm reading now. When I finish, I'll report here on my findings. Also, I'll ask my historian friend the names of the foreign historians he's basing many of his opinions on, and report that here also.