Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
21 of 21 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
An excellent overview of an extremely complex, dense history, June 11, 1999
This is about as good as it gets in terms of an overview of Armenian history. Armenia is an incredibly fascinating study in the context of the Middle East, and the world's history at large. Containing a series of contributions on various topics by leading scholars in the field and edited by one of the foremost scholars, Hovannisian, this is an outstanding read and should be on any Armenian or history scholar's shelf.
|
|
|
1 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
A sub-standard survey on early Armenian history, May 17, 2009
This is perhaps the most comprehensive survey of early Armenian history in the English language, and perhaps the only one at that. The book is composed of twelve chapters written by several historians and philologists who specialize in the field of Armenian studies under the general editorship of the marvelous Armenian historian Richard Hovannisian.
The first two chapters written by Robert Hewsen and James Russell are sufficiently informative. Hewsen gives an excellent description of the Armenian highlands and their historical prominence in Armenian history. Geography is discussed in detail and we get a feel of why the Armenian plateau was both a curse and a blessing for much of the history of the Armenians. Russell's chapter is where the book starts going downhill. He makes some glaring mistakes (historical and linguistic) on the history of Armenia prior to the fall of the kingdom of Urartu (circa 6th century B.C.) and should be approached with caution and with the full support of alternative secondary literature.
The next six chapters are written by Byzantine historian Nina G. Garsoian, who gives the history of the truly first four Armenian kingdoms, the Yervanduni, the Artashesyan, the Arshakuni, and the Bagratuni (from about the 5th century B.C. to 1045 A.D.) Garsoian's survey is adequate but she writes most of the chapters as if the reader already has expansive knowledge on medieval Armenian history. The transliteration system she employs in transliterating Armenian names is enough to cause the beginning reader terrible headaches. It's unfortunate that Garsoian decided to use this system because it is geared towards specialists, not towards beginners, for whom this book is aimed at; the layman is not going to recognize the diacritical remarks and will have some difficulty reading it because it rendered the information into this terribly choppy and bland text.
The next chapter is on medieval Armenian literature by Robert W. Thomson. For anyone who is familiar with the criticism that Thomson has been accruing in the past 30 years, this chapter will not come to a surprise for many. Thomson has an irritating and bizarre habit of unabashedly deconstructing the most cherished and beloved texts written by classical Armenian historians such as Movses Khorenatsi and Yeghishe. He will unscrupulously and tendentiously move the dating of one author and then challenge the account of another in a nauseating manner and mislead readers on many points. Why Hovannisian chose as controversial an author as Thomson to write this chapter baffles me but I advise people reading this to seek other sources before consulting Thomson, who often takes up the most extreme positions on scholarly debates.
The next few chapters are well-written, including the affairs of Armenia after 1045 and the celebrated kingdom of Cilicia. Overall, the book is a fine text for the specialist or the student choosing to enter Armenian studies but should nevertheless be viewed with caution. If you're a beginner and you want to know more about Armenia, there are far more better surveys on Armenian history which do not reveal such blatant biases as in this one and do a finer job in giving details (such as George Bournoutian's "History of the Armenian People" and Simon Payaslian's "History of Armenia") about the politics, culture, and social characteristics of Armenia.
|
|
|
3 of 19 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
ABOUT GEOGRAPHY OF THE AREA, September 20, 2005
The author of the chapter 1- Robert H.Heusen is sincere at p.2 saying that other local ethnicities were indigeneous to the area where Armenia was established much later-e.g.the Khaldeans,the Urartians etc.;that ancient authors wrote about it clearly.I would add that Strabo in the Ic.wrote in his Geography of the World that the Armenian political unit was created by a certain general of the army of another country on the land snatched from the Iberians/Moskhians; this is in vol 5 of Strabo,the Loeb Classical Library edition in 1936;this is the area where the Republic of Armenia was created in 1918.I recently learned that its name was planned to be 'Republic of Erevan'(not Armenia) and the League of the Nations promised to the government of Kartu i.e. Georgia that the creation of Armenia in Caucasia was a temporary measure-F.Nansen from that League of the Nations desired to create some footing somewhere in the world for refugees driven out from the Balkans and that soon the League of the Nations would move the Republic of Armenia and her Armenian and other refugees-unwanted citizens of Turkey-to the Mediterranean.These facts are known from materials published by F. Nansen available in English and some translated into Russian now on the web.The creation of that republic and that of Azerbaijan in 1918 in the area was the gross violation of the human rights of the indigeneous nation called by several names:the Iberians,the Moskhians,the Kardi etc. R.Heusen is absolutely right in telling readers that even before World War I,the Armenians were a minority in what became the Republic of Armenia in 1918.After reading those truthful remarks it was a sad surprise to me to see on the next page "a map of the historical Armenia" encompassing greater territory than the Great Britain.R.Heusen wrote the former was 238,000 square miles against 228,000 square miles of the latter.The term Armenian Plateau is frequently used by the author.It is unwelcome as other names were usually used for that plateau.Moses Khorenatsi is discussed at several pages.It is over two centuries that he is widely denounced for being a fictitious author and therefore called Pseudo-Moses Khorenatsi.I have thoroughly researched materials on that author in publications,in unpublished archives of Prof.Mikheil Tamarashvili known as Michele Tamarati in Rome and Paris.Many authors in XIX century revealed the absurdity of the writings attributed to him:among them Mr.Lenormann,Ilia Chavchavadze criticised that pseudo author and his promoters from the Mkhitarist congregation in Venice- Western Europe for spreading false information.'Gate of Alans' (p.152)usually has a better term in historical sources:the Gate of Aragvi.Metsamor mentioned at p.49 is the distorted term from Kartu term 'Metsamuli' meaning 'Cherry colour'-as nearby clyffs are reddish with minerals.This Kartu/Kartuli designation was given to those clyffs,the nearby village and the river by ethnic Kartu population millenia ago before aliens-Armenians among them-immigrated to that area-some as refugees,others as invaders accompanying alien armies.Authors of this book mention a huge number of writings of persons- including the ancient Persians,Greeks,Romans,Kartu(Shota Rustaveli,History of Kartly,Dionysius the Areopagite,Georgian Chronicle(p.242);myriad of modern authors and those of XIX-XX cc.The book is clearly addressed to modern young ethnic Armenians and teach them that they are entitled not only to what was made the Republic of Armenia in 1918(itself an abuse of the human rights of another-indigeneous nation that has created a kingdom including the territory of that area in much early days),but to the region'greater than the Great Britain'.Still I give to the authors of this book 'excellent', i.e. 5 stars- for excellent misinformation.
|
|
|
|