Abstract
This chapter attempts to delineate the challenges and pitfalls in writing the history of the Third Armenian Republic, declared in 1991. Independence was achieved under extremely difficult circumstances. The pressures and international, regional, and Armenian domestic and diasporan strategic and ideological fault lines tend to lead scholars to adopt assumptions and display biases which are already evident in the manner the republic is treated even in scholarly literature. The purpose of the chapter is to make scholars aware of such pitfalls and biases when writing in the future the history of the Third Republic.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Historic Armenia corresponds roughly to most of the eastern half of Anatolia, in addition to the present Republic of Armenia, the Karabakh region, Javakheti, and Nakhichevan.
- 2.
Ashot Sargsyan is a historian and senior researcher at the Matenadaran in Yerevan. His Movsēs Khorenats‘i (Yerevan: Haykakan KhSH GA Hratarakch‘ut‘yun, 1991) is regarded by many as the definitive critical edition of that most significant early chronicler, considered the father of Armenian history.
- 3.
Either term can be used as the opposite of “state.” The Armenian term for people is “zhoghovurd;” the one for nation is “azg.” The latter term was part of the terminology of Armenian chroniclers as early as in the fifth century. At the time the term referred to a clan, a large family, especially one that had landholdings and was part of the nobility. Increasingly the term was applied to Armenians as a collective.
- 4.
One should not be surprised, maybe, that no scholar—of Armenian or any other origin—studying the rise and impact of Armenian nationalism has ever referred to significant works by a number of leading intellectuals of the early twentieth century who defined Armenian nationalism or were often actors in its development. For example, one could mention three leading intellectuals of the Dashnakts‘ut‘iwn party that had a dominant role in the development and consummation of the idea of nation: Karekin Khazhak, Inch‘ ē azgut‘yunĕ [What is nationhood], originally published in Istanbul in 1912 and reproduced in Beirut in 1974; Lewon Shant‘, Azgut‘iwnĕ himk‘ martgayin ĕngerut‘ean [Nationhood as the foundation of human society], originally published in Hairenik Monthly, 1922; H. K‘ajaznuni, Azg ew Hayrenik‘ [Nation and Fatherland], published serially beginning in 1923 in Hairenik Monthly, Boston, published as a book in Beirut, 1974. Whether one agrees with the concepts and opinions expressed in these and other such works or not, ignoring or being ignorant of the conceptualization of the nation in works published just before and after the genocide, otherwise available for the serious-minded scholar, constitutes so to speak a mortal sin in academic, if not intellectual, terms.
- 5.
Here I make a distinction between diasporan Armenians and Armenians who feel at best as part of an ethnic community in a country other than Armenia. The first assumes a definite sense of identity with an “Armenian homeland;” the second refers to those who may have a sense of ethnic identity but no mental, political, or other commitment to an Armenia, real or imagined. Other varieties exist, but this is not the place to expound on them.
- 6.
The term is “azgapahpanum,” literally “the preservation of the nation,” indicating the desire to maintain a culturally distinct identity.
- 7.
Interestingly enough, many historians are more than ready to take liberties when describing or analyzing institutions of the Armenian state.
- 8.
The use of the term intellectual in the Armenian context varies somewhat from the more general use in Western literature. In the Armenian context, specifically since the nineteenth century, the term “intellectual” refers to anyone involved in public discourse. Writers and poets, principals and teachers of community schools, editors and journalists of community papers, party leaders and orators, medical doctors and lawyers promoting a cause or affiliated with one were more often than not considered intellectual, regardless of the level of discourse or of the education or experience of the individual.
- 9.
This party has been the best organized and dominant one in the Diaspora since its expulsion from Armenia in 1920–1921.
- 10.
The exception in Diasporan historiography may be sociologist Sarkis Atamian’s The Armenian Community (New York: Philosophical Library, 1955). Although written in support of the Dashnakts‘ut‘iwn position at the height of the Cold War, the study is a serious attempt at analyzing the differences, from a sociological point of view, between the Dashnakts‘ut‘iwn and its main Diasporan adversary, the Ṛamkavars.
- 11.
While we in the West will be more familiar with what is written by non-Armenian western scholars, the bulk of history will be written in Armenian, in Armenia. This is not a comment on the quality of the works produced there, some of which is still quite admirable. Additionally, it is what is produced in Armenia and in Armenian that will determine the impact of history writing on the general population in Armenia.
- 12.
Maghak‘ia Ōrmanean’s Azgapatum (Story of the nation) may be as close as we can come to an exception.
- 13.
Michael M. Gunther, Gwynne Dyer, Kaumuran Gurun, Justin McCarthy, and others.
- 14.
Stephan Astourian, “From Ter-Petrossian to Kocharian. Leadership Change in Armenia,” Berkeley Program in Soviet and Post-Soviet Studies, Working Paper Series, 2000. This is an often quoted paper which, in my view, does not support its assertions about the first administration with sufficient evidence. Also see Simon Payaslian’s The Political Economy of Human Rights in Armenia, a monograph over 400 pages (London: I. B. Taurus, 2011), which argues that the Levon Ter-Petrosyan administration was no different than the administration during Soviet Armenia.
- 15.
Lendrush Khurshudyan, Spuṛk‘ahay kusakts‘utʿyunnerĕ zhamanakakits‘ ētapum [Diasporan Armenian parties in contemporary times] (Yerevan: The Institute of History of the Armenian SSR Academy of Sciences, 1964).
- 16.
Karlen Dallak‘yan, Ṛamkavar azatakan kusakts‘ut‘yan patmut‘yun [History of the Ṛamkavar Liberal party] (Yerevan: The Institute of History of the Armenian SSR Academy of Sciences, 1999).
- 17.
Ashot Hovhannisyan, Drvagner hay azatagrakan mtk‘i patmut‘yan [Episodes from the history of Armenian liberation thought], 2 vols. (Yerevan: The Institute of History of the Armenian SSR Academy of Sciences, 1957, 1959).
- 18.
Rarely do non-Armenian scholars read and understand Armenian at a level of proficiency necessary for any serious claim to use documents in Armenian—speeches, press conferences, etc. Such scholars must rely on diasporan representations of such primary and essential sources often selected on the basis of partisan and political-ideological preferences. There is no organization or institution that has taken on the task of translating all that is relevant.
- 19.
Thomas de Waal’s Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan Through Peace and War, Revised edition (New York: New York University Press, 2013) may be an exception to this general comment although it contains many factual errors. Philip Remler’s “Chained to the Caucasus: Peacemaking in Karabakh, 1987–2012,” more limited in scope, presents a factually more solid work (International Peace Institute, 2016).
- 20.
In 2006 while at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, I invited the fourth—the first three had not lasted long—Prime Minister of independent Armenia, Hrant Bagratyan, to visit our campus and deliver a public lecture. Bagratyan was Prime Minister for three years; he was 33 when he assumed that position, and undertook the fundamental transformation of Armenia’s economy from the centrally planned Soviet style economy to the free market model. In addition, I invited him to attend one of my lectures in a course I was teaching for the first time, “The Third Republic of Armenia Through Primary Sources.” The lecture and discussion that day were, by coincidence, on the economic changes. At the end of the lecture and class discussion I introduced the guest who had been sitting with the students who did not know his identity and invited them to pose questions to the former Prime Minister. Bagratyan was totally honest and provided full answers. The last question a student asked was, “What was the most difficult legislative initiative to pass through the parliament?” Bagratyan did not hesitate. “We had some but not much difficulty in getting laws passed,” he said. “The most difficulty we had was with people who were supposed to implement the new laws.”
- 21.
Simon Vrats‘ean, Hayastani Hanrapetut‘iwn [Republic of Armenia] (Paris: The ARF Central Committee of America, 1928).
- 22.
Alek‘sandr Khatisean, Hayastani hanrapetut‘ean dzagumn u zargats‘umĕ [The rise and development of the Republic of Armenia], 2nd edition (Beirut, 1968).
- 23.
Hovhannes K‘ajaznuni, Dashnakts‘ut‘yunĕ anelik‘ ch‘uni aylews [The Dashnakts‘ut‘iwn Has Nothing to Do Any More] (Vienna: Mkhit‘arean Tparan, 1923); a thoughtful and rare critique on ARF policies and events of the party he belonged to. This critique elicited responses from pre-eminent leaders of the party such as Simon Vrats‘ean, Ruben Darbinean, and others.
- 24.
Initially the files of the delegation of the Republic of Armenia to the Paris Peace conference, these archives were enriched with a massive effort by the ARF to collect all possible material on the revolutionary movement and the First Republic. With the advance of German armies into France during World War II, these archives were moved to Boston. They are currently housed in the Hairenik building of the ARF in Watertown, Mass.
- 25.
Richard G. Hovannisian, The Republic of Armenia, 4 vols (Berkeley: The University of California Press, 1971–1996).
- 26.
Mary Kilbourne Matossian, The Impact of Soviet Policies on Armenia (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1962).
- 27.
Ronald G. Suny, Looking toward Ararat: Armenia in Modern History (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993).
- 28.
Claire Mouradian, De Staline à Gorbatchev: Histoire d’une republique sovietique, l’Arménie (Paris: Ramsay, 1990).
- 29.
See survey volumes by Richard G. Hovannisian, George Bournoutian, and Simon Payaslian, among others.
- 30.
The state has produced official textbooks for school and university classrooms. But it is not possible to consider these as part of the writing of history. These are best regarded as political statements from the government in power.
- 31.
Unlike Georgia and Azerbaijan, Armenia did not get to independence through anti-Russian rhetoric.
- 32.
It was in 1992, I believe, that the “intelligentsya” of Yerevan organized a roundtable discussion at the National Academy of Sciences to present their issues. President Ter-Petrosyan was invited to participate. Ter-Petrosyan was unable to accept the invitation and asked me to attend in his place, however. The mostly privileged intelligentsia, led by the poetess Silva Kaputikyan presented its core case for almost two hours. Their problem was simple: Why wasn’t the government continuing to subsidize them as the Soviet government did? They had done very well under the Soviet regime and now they had fallen in hard times. Although most of the population was in the same situation, most likely worse, the elite felt entitled to favors. It was clear that they were trying to bargain. Unless the government restored their privileges and subsidies, they would become a new opposition to the Ter-Petrosyan government. When it came my turn to speak, I asked two questions: (1) What is the role of the intellectual in society, if not to ask fundamental questions that could explain the past and the present, and the impact of those on the issues that society faces? (2) Would it not be part of such a critical analysis to assess the impact of Sovietism on Armenia and on Armenian society independent of any government subsidies? For the most part the members of the audience accepted my comments as if I was trying to sell cows in the Opera house.
- 33.
For example, see works by Oleg Kalugin, former head of the First Directorate of the Soviet KGB. These memoirs are significant and they explain, with circumstantial evidence in support, the shift in the ARF’s policy with regard to the USSR and Soviet Armenia. All relevant to the history of the Third Republic, especially in its relations with the Diaspora, the position taken by the Dashnakts‘ut‘iwn, mostly dictated by its leader Hrair Marukhian, with regard to the Karabakh committee and independence.
- 34.
The tapes of these interviews, more fruitful as far as the transitional and post-independence are concerned, are preserved in the offices of the Armenian Studies Program at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Copies are deposited at the Levon Ter-Petrosyan archives in Yerevan, Armenia.
- 35.
Incidentally, it is necessary to write that the same can be said of the Third Republic, after 25 years of its founding.
- 36.
Hopefully these materials will manage to find their way elsewhere.
- 37.
The “Russian orientation” narrative was developed by Soviet Armenian historians, although it had its roots in earlier writings. The narrative indicated that Armenian liberation activists may have tried to get European/Western assistance to create a new Armenian state on Armenian soil, but that they all ended up realizing that Russia is their only hope. That approach was legitimized as a result of the genocide in Western Armenia. That formula has returned to the political agenda of Armenia in the past few years.
- 38.
The aforementioned historian Ashot Sargsyan who best defined the Khorenats‘i vs. Eghishē conception of the Armenian nation and Armenian history has recently authored a booklet that presents the framework for and the actual distortions of the history of the republic in texts approved by the Ministry of Education of Armenia for different levels of teaching of Armenian history to the next generation of citizens in the republic. Ashot Sargsyan’s work, although brief and with lapses of its own, is a devastating indictment of the work of historians in Armenia who had anything to do with that history.
- 39.
Just to cite two significant examples, from two different arenas. A leading member of the Karabakh Committee, Vazgen Manukyan formed his own party, the National Democratic Party, and became the candidate of the combined opposition against Ter-Petrosyan’s bid for a second term as president. He continued in opposition, lost some of his close allies within his party, and eventually joined the staff of the third President, Serzh Sargsyan, an ally of the second president Ṛobert K‘och‘aryan who forced Ter-Petrosyan to resign in 1998; he is still serving as Chairman of the Citizen’s Advisory Council, appointed by the president. Rubik Hakobyan was, first a member of the Armenian National Movement, the continuation of the Karabakh Committee, then a member of the ARF, then a member of Raffi Hovhannisian’s Heritage Party, and more recently alienated from that as well.
- 40.
This argument can be construed as an amendment to the geopolitical interpretation of Armenian history. The latter argues that there has been an Armenian state when the two neighboring superpower states have both weakened. Such a formula presumes that an “Armenian” factor, or agency, is relevant only at times pre-determined by others, and only temporarily. In this case, Armenian history should be seen as a footnote to the histories of empires and not as history of a people, unless that history is seen as one of victimization. The rise of the Third Republic, while Turkey to its west was and is a powerful state, is one example where such generalizations do not explain the rise and fall of Armenian statehood. This comment does not apply to the first millennium of Armenian history, during which time, with or without a king, a statehood survived and acted under the regime of powerful landowning families, the nobility or the Nakharars.
- 41.
Maghak‘ia Ōrmanean, Azgapatum.
- 42.
Mik‘ayēl Varandean, H. H. Dashnakts‘ut‘ean patmut‘iwn [History of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation], 2 vols. (Paris and Cairo: Tparan “Husaber,” 1932, 1950); Arsēn Kitur, Patmut‘iwn S. D. Hnch‘akean kusakts‘ut‘ean [History of the S(ocial) D(emocratic) Hnch‘akean Party], 2 vols. (Beirut: Hratarakutʻiwn S.D.Hnchʻakean Kus., 1962–1963).
- 43.
See the large body of works produced by Vahakn Dadrian, Taner Akçam, Raymond Kevorkian, Richard Hovhannisian and Raymond Kevorkian, and interpretive works by Irving Horowitz, Helen Fein, Robert Melson, and others.
- 44.
Sporadic massacres and migrations, forced or economically compelling, are better-known processes of diminution of numbers of Armenians in their own homeland.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Libaridian, G.J. (2018). How to Write the History of the Third Republic or How Not to Write It. In: Babayan, K., Pifer, M. (eds) An Armenian Mediterranean. Mediterranean Perspectives. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72865-0_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72865-0_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-72864-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-72865-0
eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)