2024-08-06 19:17:24
YSU Armenian History Chair’s position regarding the legislative initiative of the Ministry of Education and Culture of the Republic of Armenia to rename the subject “History of Armenians” to “History of Armenia”
The decision was unanimously adopted by the Armenian History Chair in 2024. At the meeting held on January 24, which was attended by 14 of the 18 members of the chair and the dean of the Faculty of History, Mr. c. Associate Professor M. R. Gabrielyan.
1. The Chair expresses its bewilderment and deep concern that the Ministry of Education and Culture and its subordinate structures, without serious discussions among the scientific and educational community, after the new educational standards and the publication of the controversial 7th grade textbook “Armenian History”, another thoughtless and completely unprepared are taking the step by putting into circulation a project that not only does not derive from national-educational and national-state interests, but also has an obvious political context, is outdated, and the consequences of which will be harmful and dangerous not only for the educational system, but also for Armenia in general. and for all Armenians.
2. KGMS has adopted a practice that leaves a negative impression from the organizational point of view. Based on the application of some anonymous historians (there is no evidence that these historians actually exist), a draft of changes immediately appears and is put up for discussion. Simple logic suggests that the proposal should have been followed by the publication of the justifications for their proposal by its authors. This should be followed by the verification of the opinions of the relevant professional structures, and in the case of positive opinions, only a properly substantiated document could be drawn up, which could be presented for public discussion. In other words, a state-institutional approach to the issue should have been shown, which was not done. It speaks of undisguised mistrust of scientific and educational institutions and leaves the impression of conspiratorial actions, which does not at all derive from the interests of the Republic of Armenia and, in general, Armenians.
3. The question of Armenian history or Armenian history and opposing the second to the first is artificial in the chair’s opinion and is explained by the project initiators’ ignorance of certain realities or purely political considerations. In connection with that, a few clarifications.
a) The currently used name of the general education subject “Armenian History” is the Gharbarian version of the Grabarian “History of Armenians”. 1990s At the beginning, the historians of newly independent Armenia (academicians Lendrush Khurshudyan, Hrachik Simonyan, Vladimir Barkhudaryan and others) after long discussions decided to abandon the name “History of the Armenian People” used during the Soviet years and return to the historiographical tradition used from the Golden Age to the late Middle Ages and the new (early modern) period.
b) In the name of the subject “Armenian History”, the word “Armenians” is the genitive stem of the word “Hayk”. The word “Hayk” in Greek means both “Armenia” and “Armenians” at the same time, which was also transferred to the worldly usage (see Avetikian G., Surmelian Kh., Augerian M., New Dictionary of the Haykazian Language, Volume Two, 2nd ed., Yerevan, YSU ed., 1981, p. 29; Malkhaseants St., Armenian explanatory dictionary, volume three, 2nd ed., YSU, 2010, p. 36). Therefore, “Armenian history” is a more capacious term in terms of content, at the same time it means both the history of Armenia as a state and the history of Armenians. “History of Armenians” by Kertolag Father Movses Khorenatsi is the history of Armenian statehood. Since the 5th century, this name has been traditionally used in Grabar, Middle Armenian, Western Armenian, and Eastern Armenian. In the educational process and in science, the use of this term solves two questions at the same time. firstly, one term characterizes Armenian history as a whole, including both the history of statehood in the territory of Armenia itself, as well as the events and processes related to the Armenian people outside of Armenia, secondly, the hereditary connection between modern and previous centuries’ Armenian historiography is emphasized.
c) In foreign languages, it is not possible to express the above two meanings of the term “Armenian history” in one word. Therefore, when translating it into other languages, the equivalent form “History of Armenia” was used (History of Armenia, История Армение, Histoire d’Arménie, etc.). Mikael Chamchyan at the end of the 18th century and all Armenologists of the 19th and 20th centuries (both Armenian and foreign) were guided by this logic, who preserved the tradition of historiography by applying the capacious formulation “History of Armenians” in Armenian and with appropriate linguistic thinking in both Versions of “History of Armenia” (Latin (1736), Russian (1809, 1858, 1990), French (1841, 1869), etc.) and “History of Armenians” (English, 1978) in other languages.
d) The rationale for the proposed change based on the example of the countries listed in the document published by the CGMS is not convincing. In foreign languages, the history of the given country is not distinguished from the history of the people, either due to actual coincidence or for some political reasons. In France, a citizen of the French Republic is officially considered French, therefore, there is no need to differentiate. Saudi Arabia is a young state created only in the 20th century, which has no traditions of statehood. In addition, it is only one of 22 Arab states. Therefore, his history cannot be called the history of the Arabs. India, Georgia and Kazakhstan are multinational countries, where the nation-states under the name “History of the Earth” also appropriate the history of other peoples living in those territories. In addition, both Georgians and Kazakhs are divided into sub-ethnic communities (Georgians into Mengrels and Svans, Kazakhs into senior, middle and junior Juz (tribes)). Therefore, in the above-mentioned cases, such political problems are solved that have nothing in common with Armenia and the Armenian people.
By the way, the examples given in the justification presented by the Ministry do not refer to the subjects taught in the schools of the mentioned countries, but are only names of individual books. It was necessary to study the subject names of the history of the country taught in the schools of those countries.
e) Unlike the examples given above, in the context of teaching history, Armenia and the Armenian people have something in common, for example, the Greeks. In the schools of the Hellenic Republic, there is no separate subject called “History of Greece”, the whole history is taught within one subject, where most of the material is directly about Greece and the Greeks (the following links are recommended for a clear understanding)
At the same time, in Greek literature and science, both the terms Ιστορίατου Ελληνικό Έθνους (History of the Greek people) and Ιστορία της Ελλάδας (History of Greece) are used, but the term “Ελληνική история” is more common, which is equivalent in terms of content to the phrase “History of Armenians”. , because the Greek word can be translated both “Greek” and “Greece” at the same time.
4. The proposed change is also unacceptable for the following reasons:
a) First of all, it is not clear what the proposed term Armenia will represent from a territorial point of view: historical Hayk with its large-scale territory, officially the current Republic of Armenia with an area of 29,800 square kilometers, or something else? In the extremely unfavorable conditions currently created for our country, when its borders are threatened and the enemy’s undisguised territorial ambitions exist, such a question is not merely rhetorical and requires certainty.
b) Replacing the term “History of Armenians” with “History of Armenia” will significantly limit the scope of the taught subject. If Armenia is considered even within the borders of the historical Armenians, such key topics of Armenian history as Armenian genealogy, the Armenian state of Cilicia, Armenian settlements and the Diaspora, the second half of the 18th century, the second half of the 19th century and Issues of the Armenian liberation struggle of the beginning of the 20th century, issues of the Armenian culture of the late Middle Ages and the new period, etc. In particular, non-secondary issues regarding Armenian printing, outstanding cultural figures born and worked outside of Armenia, Armenian Khojaya, banking and industrial capital in the new period, and various charitable organizations, which are serious business cards for our state and people, will be left out of the scope of the subject. to present to the world. Claims made by some officials that the above issues will be included in the programs of the newly named subject are not convincing and are not covered by any guarantee.
Summarizing the above, the chair notes that the proposed amendment is not justified, is outdated and does not solve the problem that is announced. Instead, its adoption will significantly harm both the teaching of the subject at school and in all levels of the educational system, as well as the public’s perception of national history in general.
Head of YSU Armenian History Chair, Ph.D., Prof. E. G. Minasyan