Ревизионистские концепции в армянской историографии — концепции армянской историографии, предполагающие пересмотр (ревизию) общепринятых представлений в сфере истории Армении и армянского этноса.
Ряд ревизионистских концепций истории Армении подвергается критике со стороны ряда зарубежныхIt is not surprising that essentialist interpretations of Armenian culture and history abound. A particularly infamous «scholarly» example is S.A. Sardarian’s Pervobytnoe obshchestvo v Armenii (1967), which, besides its numerous mistakes and plagiarisms, postulates a separate Armenian race that originated on the Armenian plateau; attributes the invention of metallurgy to the Armenians; and demonstrates that the widespread Kura-Araxes culture emerged initially in the Ararat valley of Armenia. The standard of scholarship is so low and the argumentation so tendentious as to raise the question as to how the book was even published (see the devastating critique by Martirosian and Munchaev 1968:262). An even more ludicrous popular example is provided by a widely distributed publication (MESHAG n.d.) from the Armenian-American diaspora on the evolution of the Armenian alphabet, tracing its development from Palaeolithic petroglyphs through the divinely inspired invention by Meshrob Mashtots of the currently used Mesrobian script in 406 AD. Fanciful internal evolutionary development here is taken to an extreme.10 и армянскихАракелян Б. Н., Джаукян Г., Саркисян Г. К. К вопросу Урарту-Армения // Историко-филологический журнал, Ереван, № 1, 1987 специалистов.
Ревизионистские трактовки истории Армении В статьях ряда авторов раскрываются ревизионистские трактовки истории Армении, выдвигаемые некоторыми представителями армянской историографииАракелян Б. Н., Джаукян Г., Саркисян Г. К. К вопросу Урарту-Армения // Историко-филологический журнал, Ереван, № 1, 1987: древние государства Малой Азии (Урарту, Хайаса и другие) объявляются «колыбелью армянского народа». Ревизионисты утверждают, что армяне были аборигенным населением региона, а Урарту и Хайаса — этнически армянскими государствами.The story of the republic of Armenia was told as a story of ethnic Armenians, with the Azerbaijanis and Kurds largely left out, just as the histories of neighboring republics were reproduced as narratives of the titular nationalities.58 Because the first «civilization» on the territory of the Soviet Union was considered to have been the Urartian, located in historic Armenia, the ancient roots of Armenian history were planted in the first millennium BC. Urartian sites and objects of material culture featured prominently in museums, and late in the Soviet period Erevantsis celebrated the 2700 anniversary of the founding of their city (originally the Urartian Erebuni or Arin Berd). Although the link between Urartu and Armenians took hold in the popular mind, most scholars believe Urartu to have been a distinct pre-Armenian culture and language and, following Herodotus, argue that the original proto-Armenians were probably a Thraco-Phryian branch of the Indo-European speaking tribes. Nevertheless, a revisionist school of historians in the 1980s proposed that rather than migrants into the region, Armenians were the aboriginal inhabitants, identified with the region Hayasa in northern Armenia. For them Armenians have lived continuously on the Armenian plateau since the fourth millennium BC, and Urartu was an Armenian state. A rather esoteric controversy over ethnogenesis soon became a weapon in the cultural wars with Azerbaijan, as Azerbaijani scholars tried to establish a pre-Turkic (earlier than the 11th century) origin for their nation. армяне объявляются исконным населением правобережья Куры (Арцах и Утик)Hewsen R.H. Ethno-history and the Armenian influence upon the Caucasian Albanians. Classical Armenian culture: Influence and creativity, Scholars press, Philadelphia, 1982From Strabo we learn that under King Artashes (188-ca. 161 B. C.), the Armenians expanded in all directions at the expense of their neighbors. Specifically we are told that at this time they acquired Caspiane and 'Phaunitis', the second of which can only be a copyist’s error for Saunitis, i. e. the principality of Siwnik '.Thus, it was only under Artashes, in the second century B. C., that the Armenians conquered Siwnik' and Caspiane and, obviously, the lands of Arc’ax and Utik', which lay between them. These lands, we are told, were taken from the Medes. Mnac’akanyan’s notion that these lands were already Armenian and were re-conquered by the Armenians at this time thus rests on no evidence at all and indeed contradicts what little we do know of Armenian expansion to the east. Since these eastern regions had formed part of the Persian province of Media before the time of Alexander, it seems likely that if they were seized by the Armenians from the Medes a century or so later, then they had probably remained a part of Media throughout that time. To attempt to demonstrate that these eastern territories were always Armenian by quoting Movses Xorenac’i, as Mnac’akanyan does, is hazardous in the extreme. Whoever the enigmatic Xorenac’i may have been, whenever he may have lived, and however valuable his compilation of antiquities may be as the received tradition of the Armenian people, it has been amply demonstrated that his historical knowledge is highly defective even for the most recent periods with which he deals, and that as a source for early Armenian history his book must be used only with the greatest care. The same is true for the other texts which Mnac’akanyan marshals to his cause; all are late and none of them can be used as sources for the extent of Armenian penetration to the east or the boundaries between Armenia and Albania prior to the time of Artashes, let alone the time of Alexander.. геолог Сурен Айвазян приписывает армянам основание городов Киева, Тбилиси и пр.ИГРАР АЛИЕВ. НАГОРНЫЙ КАРАБАХ:ИСТОРИЯ.ФАКТЫ.СОБЫТИЯБСЭСурен Айвазян «История России, Армянский след» Его антинаучные концепции отвергаются официальной армянской историографией.
Урарту как этнически армянское государство Историческая наука разделяет Урарту и Армению, полагая, что армяне произошли от смешения протоармянских, хурритских, урартских и лувийских племён, населявших некоторые западные области Урарту, включая Мелид (будущую Мелитену), Цуппани (будущую Софену) и Хате. Хотя связь между Урарту и армянами утвердилась в массовом сознании армян, Урарту и урартский язык считаются большинством учёных особой доармянской культурой.
Тем не менее авторы ряда работ пытаются доказать, что Урарту являлось древним армянским государством, полностью или в основном населённым этническими армянами, которые говорили на армянском языке. Подобные концепции публикуются в основном в пределах Республики Армения. Ряд исследователей, изучавших развитие армянской историографии, полагают, что появление таких концепций было обусловлено политическими, а не научными соображениямиFor instance, a comparison of the Armenian and Russian paths to national-identity formation generate the distinction between the historical and selective models. When we turn our attention to the Armenian case, we immediately note the centrality of the representation of the deep past, the mythic time of communal origin, in the discourse of Armenian nationalism. A discursive preoccupation with the roots of the national genealogical tree, then, leads the analyst to generate what I call the historical model of nationalidentity formation. This path to national identity transforms traces of distinctions between aliens and the imagined ethnic community in the deep past into a story of how such aliens actually formed a root of the primary reference-community. Thus, aliens present at the ethnic origin time are symbolically transformed into ancestors. The aliens in the case of the Armenians are the Urartians, a Hurrian-speaking people who formed the state Urartu on the historical and present-day territory of Armenia in the period running roughly from 900 to 600 BC. Thus, one can say that the Armenian model of national-identity fights for the Armenian identity of the Urartians in order to stake a claim for the essential Armenianness of regions once dominated by the Urartians.The symbolic construction of ancient Urartians as Armenians in contemporary Armenian national discourse can itself be explained in relation to gaps in the linguistic theories and empirical evidence used by the linguists and historians who, as I argued above, have played such a prominent role in formulating this discourse in the last decade. Though the already mentioned hypothesis of the Near Eastern motherland of the Indo-Europeans confirmed the ancient roots of the Armenians in their territory, the Hurrian speaking Urartians and their high culture formed a gap in the continuity of Armenian deep history. Thus, by identifying Urartu with Armenia, Armenian nationalists could trace the Armenian genealogical tree back to the most ancient times without any breaks in continuity. Little wonder, then, that Souren Aivazian, a champion of the idea of the Urartians Armenian origin, reads Urartian cuneiforms as written in proto-Armenian (Aivazian 1986: 30-31).While from one angle historical writing in Soviet Armenia can be seen as part of a general marxisant narrative of progress upward from class and imperial oppression to socialist liberation, in the post-Stalin years scholars promoted an insistently national thematic.Occasionally the regime would discipline the bolder voices, but Soviet Armenian historians waged an effective guerrilla war against denationalization of their history. The story of the republic of Armenia was told as a story of ethnic Armenians, with the Azerbaijanis and Kurds largely left out, just as the histories of neighboring republics were reproduced as narratives of the titular nationalities.58 Because the first «civilization» on the territory of the Soviet Union was considered to have been the Urartian, located in historic Armenia, the ancient roots of Armenian history were planted in the first millennium BC. Urartian sites and objects of material culture featured prominently in museums, and late in the Soviet period Erevantsis celebrated the 2700 anniversary of the founding of their city (originally the Urartian Erebuni or Arin Berd). Although the link between Urartu and Armenians took hold in the popular mind, most scholars believe Urartu to have been a distinct pre-Armenian culture and language and, following Herodotus, argue that the original proto-Armenians were probably a Thraco-Phryian branch of the Indo-European speaking tribes. Nevertheless, a revisionist school of historians in the 1980s proposed that rather than migrants into the region, Armenians were the aboriginal inhabitants, identified with the region Hayasa in northern Armenia. For them Armenians have lived continuously on the Armenian plateau since the fourth millennium BC, and Urartu was an Armenian state. A rather esoteric controversy over ethnogenesis soon became a weapon in the cultural wars with Azerbaijan, as Azerbaijani scholars tried to establish a pre-Turkic (earlier than the 11th century) origin for their nation.59.
Предположения о том, что Урарту являлось «протоармянским» государством, появились в XIX веке, после того как европейские специалисты впервые обнаружили на территории Армянского нагорья археологические памятники, оставшиеся от этого государства«Русский Архив», № 7, 1895, стр. 396—398. Таким предположениям также способствовало то обстоятельство, что некоторые античные, а следом за ними и средневековые историки объединяли урартскую царскую династию с армянскойАбаза В. А. Исторія Арменіи, С.-Петербургъ, 1888. Дальнейшие научные исследования Урарту, разработка его хронологии, изучение урартского языка заставили учёных отбросить такие предположения.