Հայաբանութիւն - Armenology

[Armenian]

Re: Հայաբանութիւն - Armenology

ՀՍԿԱՆԵՐԸ ՄԱՍ_1_ԻՆ HSKANERE PART_1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LJJ9G4gGXQ

ՀՍԿԱՆԵՐԸ ՄԱՍ_2_ՐԴ HSKANERE PART_2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6lGfQZWKUY

[Armenian]

Re: Հայաբանութիւն - Armenology

ՀԵՐՈՍԸ ՄԱՍ_1_ԻՆ HEROSE PART_1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBn-EKdUGUo

ՀԵՐՈՍԸ ՄԱՍ_2_ՐԴ HEROSE PART_2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kr93FkXH8vM

[Armenian]

Re: Հայաբանութիւն - Armenology

ԿԵՆԱՑ ԾԱՌ ՄԱՍ_1_ԻՆ KENATS TSAR PART_1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83Cx-QOcsy8

ԿԵՆԱՑ ԾԱՌ ՄԱՍ_2_ ՐԴ KENATS TSAR PART_2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HscgvjC_lKk

[Armenian]

Re: Հայաբանութիւն - Armenology

ՏԻԵԶԵՐԱԿԱՆ ՏԱՌԵՐ ՄԱՍ_1_ԻՆ TIEZERAKAN TARER PART_1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGwHu9tI2xA

ՏԻԵԶԵՐԱԿԱՆ ՏԱՌԵՐ ՄԱՍ_2_ՐԴ TIEZERAKAN TARER PART_2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtXuBXiM6Do

[Armenian]

Re: Հայաբանութիւն - Armenology

ՀԱՅԵՐ ՀԱՄԱՅՆ ԱՇԽԱՐՀԻ ՄԻԱՑԵՔ 2008 HAYER HAMAYN ASHXARHI MIATSEK 2008: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haMh5GVPZiY

[Armenian]

Re: Հայաբանութիւն - Armenology

Beware of western academia regarding Armenian studies, including western historians of Armenian ancestry. Whether it's being done by design or ignorance, as in the case of the non-Armenians, or as a result of self-hate or ignorance, as in the case of the Armenian historians, the end result of their product is the same - the belittling and undermining of Armenia's cultural heritage.

Falsifiers of Armenian History Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6VrO2WBx4A

Falsifiers of Armenian History Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmuEY0xa-xQ

Falsifiers of Armenian History Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faicWRgxwaA

And here is a very interesting exchange between the Zionist director of Armenian studies at Harvard and a lone Armenian warrior with a camera. Just think, how could American-Armenians allow such filth become 'director' of Armenian studies at Harvard... I rather have no department of Armenian studies if this is our only choice. And it's a shame that this anti-Armenian Zionist speaks better Armenian than most of you "proud nationalists" here...

VARDANANK J Russell PART 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wn6jseb5jHM

VARDANANK J Russell PART 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixGmJCTOF0Q

VARDANANK J Russell PART 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b81X7vP7tw

"I have to tell you a few things. First of all I'm Jewish. Secondly, I'm Safardic. Safardic. My mother's native language was Spanish. She's from Salonika. Եէնի Թուրք չէ. ոչ, Եէնի Թուրք չեմ... որպեսզի սխալ չմբրնես, you know, not all Safardic Jews are Young Turks. OK?"

James Russel (part 5 @ 4:25)

[Armenian]

Re: Հայաբանութիւն - Armenology

Mother Tongue and the Origins of Nationalism - A Comparative Analysis of the Armenian and European Primary Sources

By Armen Aivazian

In its systematic analysis and conceptualization of the multifaceted phenomenon of nationalism, Western social science has made many insightful, theoretical generalizations. However, this analysis, particularly of the origins of nationalism, has been based almost entirely on the European social-historical experience from the 16th to the 20th centuries. This focus has somewhat skewed the results and led to insufficiently inclusive conclusions. The majority of Western scholars of nationalism are of the opinion, for example, that the first nations appeared in Europe during the 16-19th centuries.1 In this regard, Walker Connor, a “leading student of the origins and dynamics of ethnonationalism,” drawing upon the scholarship of Sir Ernest Barker, another well-known figure in the field, makes the sweeping claim that “the self-consciousness of nations is a product of the nineteenth century,”2 which may be true of Europe, but not sufficiently inclusive of the experiences of non-European peoples with longer histories of national self-consciousness. Another expression of this school of thought is Liah Greenfeld’s insightful study (Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity. Harvard University Press, 1992), which also over-extrapolates the European experience, stating: The original modern idea of the nation emerged in sixteenth century England, which was the first nation in the world...

These views can be interpreted to be a reflection of the fact that the populations of European countries did indeed undergo a transformation of national consciousness in the 16-19th centuries. Thus, according to Western studies, “the vast majority of people living within France were not conscious of being French until long after the French Revolution [of 1789].”4 Likewise, “in mid-nineteenth century Italy... only 3% of Italians could speak the common language; most spoke highly distinct regional dialects, and most identified themselves as Sicilians, Romans, and the like. By the end of World War I, however, most Italian immigrants to North America identified themselves as Italians. The Italian nation had grown or developed within less than seventy-five years.”5 Against this background, the Armenian experience is striking. Ancient, medieval, and early modern primary sources evidence a strong Armenian identity and nationalism well before the earliest manifestations of European nationalism cited by these scholars of European history. Even taking into account the acknowledged unique features of Armenian national identity, Armenian national consciousness exhibits many of the key characteristics of early modern and modern European nationalisms. The intimate relationship between language and national consciousness has been established by various schools of historians, ethnologists, sociologists and social psychologists. In particular, it has been noted that a nation’s explicit pride in its national language coincides with the origin of nationhood itself. Mother tongues became the object of national pride for European nationalists only in the 16-19th centuries. This national pride was expressed in each case in like manner: the nation judged its language as far superior to all other languages. Armenian attitudes toward the Armenian language have not been thoroughly researched as a separate topic of history. Nevertheless, by all accounts, the Armenian language was perhaps chronologically the earliest and most crucial determinant in the formation of Armenian identity and ethnic consciousness. A distinct and coherent language community was a necessary prerequisite for the early branching of Armenian from the other Indo-European speakers. The use of Armenian as mother tongue determined who is Armenian. This study sets forth comparative historical evidence about the time and circumstances when a national language becomes an object of national affection and pride. It analyzes the Armenian sources of the 5-18th centuries and compares them with the English, French and Russian sources of the 15-18th centuries.

The Armenian Case

The Golden Age of Armenian Culture (5th century AD) Movses Khorenatzi, the Father of Armenian history who lived in the 5th century AD, was among the first to equate the territory of Armenia with the Armenian-speaking territory: “And on the eastern side [of Armenia], along the perimeter of Armenian language...”6 According to Khorenatzi, King Aram (who personifies either King Arame of 9th century BC or Aramani-Erimena of the 7th century BC) ordered the population of the newly incorporated westernmost region (later to be known as First Armenia) “to study the Armenian vocabulary and tongue.”7 This can be taken as evidence that early on the Armenian state realized the strategic importance of “linguistic policies” and their implementation. The 5th century Armenian author, Pavstos Buzand, defines Armenia as “the entire world of the Armenian language” and “the Torgomian country-world of the Armenian language”8 (Torgom is the legendary ancestor of the Armenians). However, an adequate understanding of these definitions demands a more precise explication of the content of these terms:

“The entire ‘world’ where the Armenian language was predominant” and “the Torgomian country-world where the Armenian language was predominant.”

The correctness of such a reading is supported by yet another passage from the History of Armenia by Pavstos Buzand, relating the national mourning which struck Armenia after the death of the revered 4th century Armenian Catholicos Nerses the Great:

"Within the confines of Armenian country, from one end to the other, all nobles and common people, without exception, all nobles and common people of Torgomian country, and the Armenian language at large, were lamenting him."

As clearly seen in this passage, Pavstos equated Armenians with those who spoke the Armenian language (it is noteworthy that there is no distinction on the basis of social classes). Further, he defined Armenia as an Armenian-speaking country, and again, like Movses Khorenatzi, determined the boundaries of Armenia by the territory dominated by the Armenian language. Pavstos Buzand deliberately used the Armenian language to connote an animate object, thus creating a semantical equation among the notions of country, people and language:

Armenia=the Armenians=the Armenian language. In fact, in this context Pavstos used “the Armenian language” as a synonim for “the Armenian nation”10. Centuries later the same equation can be found in a European analogue. At the beginning of the 19th century the German author Ernest Moritz Arndt gave a strikingly similar definition to Germany - Das ist des Deutschen Vaterland, literally - “this is the country [under the domination] of German language.”11 Among these fifth-century attempts to fix the place of the Armenian language in the sociopolitical development of Armenian society, perhaps the most articulate was that of Yeghishe, the author of the History of Vardan and the Armenian War. In his theological work, entitled “An Interpretation of the Book of Genesis,” Yeghishe describes the linguistic dispersion after the destruction of the Tower of Babel in which he includes the following comparison of the Armenian language to nine other languages:

"Hence, a gracefulness came forth from the split of one large language: The Greek is soft, the Latin is vigorous, the Hunnish is threatening, the Assyrian is sychophantic, the Persian is eloquent, the Alani (i. e., the old Ossetic) is ornate, the Gothic is mocking, the Egyptian sounds as if spoken from the dark and hidden place, the Hindu is chirping, [and] the Armenian is sweet and capable of embracing all these languages in itself. And as one color is brightened by another, one face by another, one age by another and one art by another, in the same way one language is made more beautiful by another."12

This passage shows, on the one hand, Yeghishe’s undisguised pride for his mother tongue, which he considers to be the best, and, on the other hand, a healthy respect for other languages or “linguistic cultures,” though Yeghishe’s almost bantering characterization of them serves further to emphasize his sense of the supremacy of the Armenian language. This calm and friendly posture toward alien cultures illustrates the confidence of 5th-century Armenians that their civilization and culture were sufficiently powerful to withstand the alien influences or absorb their useful elements. Such an outward-looking nationalism could be perhaps termed as an “internationalist” nationalism.

[...]

The English Case

According to recent research, the English began to express their affection and pride in their language in the 16th century. The majority of English intellectuals regarded English to be the finest language in the world. The best illustration is provided by Richard Carew, who in 1595-1596 wrote the Epistle on the Excellency of the English Tongue. Here is one excerpt from it: The Italyan is pleasante but without synewes, as to stillye fleeting water; the French delicate but ouer nice, as a woman scarce daring to open her lipps for feare of marring her countenaunce; the Spanish maiesticall, but fulesome, running too much on the O, and terrible like the deuill in a playe; the Dutch manlike, but withall very hoarse, as one ready at every worde to picke a quarell. Now wee in borrowing from them geue the strength of Consonantes to the Italyan, the full sounde of wordes to the French, the varietye of terminacions to the Spanish, and the mollifieinge of more vowells to the Dutch; and soe (like bees) gather the honey of their good properties and leave the dreggs to themselves. ...howe canne the languadge which consisteth of all these sounde other then most full of sweetnes?17

The French Case

Scholarship has also found a similar attitude toward the French language during 13-14th centuries; however, in this case, the pride was not for the language of all France, but for the language of Paris alone. In the 11th century France, the vernacular literature was written in Anglo-Norman, while in the 13th and 14th centuries, depending from which region was the author - Picardese, Champagnese, Burgundese. Each of these languages had its own dialects. Nevertheless, starting from the 12th century, French became the language of European elites and according to one source dating to 1148, anyone who did not know French was considered a barbarian18. The French of Paris was referred to in 13th century as “the most beautiful language in the world” (la plus delitable a ouir et a entendre). Here is one example: The sweet French tongue is the most beautiful, gracious and noble language in the world, the best accepted and loved. For God made it so sweet and lovable for his glory and praise, that it can be compared to the language spoken by the angels in heaven.19

The Russian Case

The teachers of the Russian language, especially in the former Soviet Union, have frequently cited as a didactic material the statement of Mikhail Lomonosov (1711-1765), Russian writer, scientist and innovator, often called the founder of Russian science, who wrote:...the Russian language is the greatest among all languages in Europe, not only because of the wideness of territory under its domination, but also because of its own abundance and sufficiency... Charles V, the Roman Emperor, was wont to say that one, ought to speak Spanish to one’s God, French to one’s friends, German to one’s enemies, Italian to the feminine sex. But, had he been well-versed in the Russian tongue, he would certainly have added that it is appropriate for converse with all of these. For he would have found in it the magnificence of Spanish, the vivacity of French, the firmness of German, the delicacy of Italian, and, moreover, the richness and powerful concise imagery of the Greek and Latin.20 This passage was written by Lomonosov in 1755. Paradoxically, the Russian language was only standardized phonetically, grammatically and stylistically in the first decades of the 19th century, thanks, in particular, to the writings by Alexander Pushkin. This coalescence of a standardized language was made possible by the efforts of the nationalistic intellectuals like Lomonosov as well as Russian state itself during the preceding century. It is interesting to note that Hans Rogger and Liah Greenfeld, two British authors familiar with both Lomonosov’s and Richard Carew’s observations about Russian and English languages remarked upon their similarity, stating that Lomonosov was unaware of Carew’s observations on the English language, written two centuries earlier. In a similar vein, it is fair to conclude that neither Carew, nor Lomonosov could have been familiar with similar thoughts expressed by the Armenian authors in the 5th, 13th, 14th and 18th centuries. Furthermore, the saying by Charles V was quoted in a popular Armenian manual published as early as 1699: Carlo Quinto, who ruled as Emperor since 1519, used to say to his vassals: “I would have wished that a knowledgeable person speaks French to his friends, German to his horse, Italyan to his wife, Spanish to the God, English to the birds.21

Conclusions

Why and how did it happen that Yeghishe, Carew and Lomonosov independently created resembling maxims about their mother tongues, notwithstanding the great differences in time, space, and perhaps more importantly, their respective political-cultural environments? One explanation is that these three authors were influenced by the similar historical-social circumstances and expressed this influence in strikingly similar terms and logic. Yeghishe, Carew and Lomonosov were prompted to speak on the excellence of their own languages, first and foremost, as part of the transformation of their national consciousness and the historical imperatives of their times, rather than by the inherent linguistic merits of mother tongues. In the Armenian case, Yeghishe was prompted to write by re-assertion of Armenian national consciousness, after the adoption of Christianity, creation of the national alphabet and the patriotic war against Persia of 450-451. In each case the same formula of comparison with other similar objects, that is, other languages, is the means to expression this national pride. This is precisely what was done by Yeghishe in 450-460s, Vardan Areveltzi, Mkhitar Ayrivanetzi, Hovhannes Yerznkatzi in the 13th century and Grigor Tatevatzi in 1397 in Armenia, by Richard Carew in 1595-1596 in England, and by Mikhail Lomonosov in 1755 in Russia.

[...]

Source: http://www.ararat-center.org/index.php?p=10&l=eng

[Armenian]

Re: Հայաբանութիւն - Armenology

THE CODE OF HONOR OF THE ARMENIAN MILITARY (4-5th CENTURIES)

By Armen Aivazian

Summary

Armenian historiography contains a considerable amount of information about ancient and medieval Armenian military ideology. In the works of the 5th century historians Pavstos Buzand and Movses Khorenatzi, the commands and legacy of the Armenian sparapets (commanders-inchief) to their successors lay out in detail the obligations and responsibilities of Armenian warriors. This code of honor, in hierarchical order, requires selfless loyalty to:

1) Their fatherland, the Armenian "world," country and independent kingdom

2) Chivalric honor

3) The king as the most important state institution of Armenia; (4) the people of Armenia, all of its inhabitants, irrespective of their social status

5) The Christian faith, church and clergymen

6) Family

7) Their kinsmen

8) Their comrades-in-arms

These norms of conduct share similarities with later medieval West European chivalry of the 8th-14th centuries, as well as the system of values of the Japanese samurais codified during the 16-18th centuries. However, as this study shows, there are significant differences in the priority of obligations of the Armenian honor code, on the one hand, and the West European and Japanese codes on the other. The concept of fatherland developed in the Armenian people long before the adoption of Christianity in the 4th century and was expressed by various terms, such as "Hayotz ashkharh, Yerkir, Tagavorutiun" (the Armenian "world," country, kingdom). In addition to these terms, Movses Khorenatzi directly uses the terms "hayrenik" (fatherland) and "hayrenaser" (patriot); whereas, for example, a similar concept of fatherland as well as the term "fatherland" itself did not emerge in neighboring Byzantium until the 10th century.

The large number of Armenian troops (90-120 thousand men from at least the 4th c. BC to the 11th c. AD) and the dominant role of warriors in Armenian society of that period was conditioned by the pressing need for defense of the country from continual foreign invasions. The study demonstrates that in this historical context the Armenian military's honor code had a solid and lasting impact upon the national character and the worldview of the Armenian people.

Source: http://www.ararat-center.org/index.php?p=30&l=eng

[Azad]

Re: Հայաբանութիւն - Armenology

how could American-Armenians allow such filth become 'director' of Armenian studies at Harvard...

Agree that is a sad equation. Coincidentally from all the nations and people it has to be a joo .... what a coincidence, again.

[Armenian]

Re: Հայաբանութիւն - Armenology

Armenian Influences upon Crusader Castles in the Holy Land 1097–1192

Osprey Publishing

An extract from ‘Design and Development’

In the 19th and early-20th centuries, historians of the Crusades believed that Crusader military architecture was most strongly influenced by that of the Byzantine Empire. Shortly before World War I, a student from Oxford University conducted field research in the Asiatic provinces of the Ottoman Empire: he then returned to write a thesis in which he argued that the designers of Crusader castles largely based their ideas upon what was currently being built in Western Europe. This student’s name was T.E. Lawrence, soon to be better known as Lawrence of Arabia. His thesis eventually influenced the next generation of historians of Crusader architecture, but neither they nor Lawrence seriously considered the influence of Islamic traditions of fortification. This idea developed more recently and today it is widely accepted that the military architecture of the Crusader States reflected a broad array of influences, in addition to the inventiveness of those who actually designed it.

The late Nikita Elisséeff, who worked for much of his life in Damascus, maintained that Byzantine forms of military architecture in northern Syria were soon added to the Western European design concepts of the early Crusaders. Within a few decades these newcomers were also learning from their Muslim neighbours, especially in making greater use of topographical features to strengthen a fortified site. More recently the Israeli scholar Ronnie Ellenblum highlighted the fact that Crusader castles were built to deal with specific military situations or threats, and that their designers drew upon what seemed most suitable in the circumstances.

In the early-12th century, each of the newly established Crusader states found itself in a different situation. The Principality of Antioch, for example, was adjacent to the Armenian states of Cilicia, which evolved into the Kingdom of Cilician or Lesser Armenia. Here fortifications ranged from tiny hilltop outposts to major garrison fortresses, while Armenian architects favoured half-round towers that protruded from a curtain-wall far enough to permit archers to enfilade the enemy. Such design ideas influenced castle building in the Principality of Antioch. Furthermore Antioch attracted few Western European settlers and hence relied to a greater extent on military elites of Armenian, Greek and Syrian origin who may also have influenced the design of local fortifications. The mountainous character of the Principality of Antioch and the County of Tripoli clearly encouraged experimental and daring design ideas, though the castles themselves ranged from very simple, almost rustic structures to huge hilltop fortresses. Meanwhile building techniques ranged from a typically Byzantine use of small masonry an bricks within one structure, to mixtures of Byzantine, Armenian, Western European and soon also Syrian-Islamic methods of both cutting and shaping stones – each of which had their own distinctive. Sometimes variations in ways of mixing cement and mortar also reflected different cultural influences.

Crusader castle building quickly grew more sophisticated. For example the building of concentric castles first took place in the late-1160s, and although the idea had been around for some time, concentric castles certainly appeared in the Crusader States before they did in Western Europe. On the other hand, most early structures remained relatively small while the vast sums of money and effort expended on larger and more elaborate fortifications were characteristic of the 13th rather than the 12th century.

One ‘supposed’ characteristic of Crusader castles was a lack of timber in their construction, with this being attributed to a lack of suitable timber in the areas where they were built. However, abundant excellent timber was available in neighbouring Cilician Armenia. Although the deforestation of the Kingdom of Jerusalem may have been well advanced by the time of the Crusades, suitable large baulks of timber were available in the mountains of Lebanon and on Mount Carmel. The situation was better in the County of Tripoli, the Principality of Antioch and the northern regions of the County of Edessa. Furthermore Western Europeans probably enjoyed a technological advantage over their Middle Eastern foes, not only in their tradition of timber architecture but in their logistical ability to transport large timbers over long distances...

Source: http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...d&view=extract