Historiography

[Yahoo7]

Historiography

The writing of history, especially the writing of history based on the critical examination of sources, the selection of particulars from the authentic materials in those sources, and the synthesis of those particulars into a narrative that will stand the test of critical methods. The term historiography also refers to the theory and history of historical writing.
Modern historians aim to reconstruct a record of human activities and to achieve a more profound understanding of them. This conception of their task is quite recent, dating from the development in the late 18th and early 19th centuries of scientific history, cultivated largely by professional historians. It springs from an outlook that is very new in human experience: the assumption that the study of history is a natural, inevitable human activity. Before the late 18th century, historiography did not stand at the centre of any civilization. History was almost never an important part of regular education, and it never claimed to provide an interpretation of human life as a whole. This was more appropriately the function of religion, of philosophy, even perhaps of poetry and other imaginative literature.


Copyright © 1994-2001 Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.

[Yahoo7]

Methodology of historiography

The methodology of history does not differ in broadest outline from that of other disciplines in its regard for existing knowledge, its search for new and relevant data, and its creation of hypotheses. It is the same for all historical writing, success depending on skill and experience; and division of the past on temporal or topical lines merely reflects the human limitations of historians. Although historical methodology has four facets, the more skilled the historian the less he gives them conscious consideration; and any historian is likely to be concerned with two or more concurrently. The four facets are heuristic, knowledge of current interpretation, research, and writing.
The first two may be briefly considered. Heuristic has been adopted as a convenient term for the technique of investigation that can be acquired solely by practice and experience. In the case of the historian it embraces such things as knowledge of manuscript collections, methods of card indexing and classifying material, and knowledge of bibliography. It underlies other aspects of methodology as in knowledge of the capabilities of historians working in the same and similar fields or in the power of dealing expeditiously with documentary material. The necessity for knowledge of current interpretation is based on the working principle that inquiry proceeds from the known to the unknown; and the historian has to be well acquainted with existing work in his own field, in contiguous historical fields and in allied disciplines. The work in each case consists of both "fact" and interpretation, and the amount the historian accepts will vary. In his own field he will normally not accept facts, and certainly not current interpretation, on trust; in contiguous historical fields he will accept facts and current interpretation by experts in those fields, but qualified by heuristic and his general historical knowledge; in allied disciplines, such as anthropology, economics, geography, natural science, philology, psychology, sociology, he must unless there is strong evidence to the contrary presume the technical skill and intellectual honesty of scholars in those fields. There is, of course, no reason why a historian cannot be reasonably versed in one or more of these and other disciplines, and should the nature of his enquiry demand it he must be.
Historical research is the term applied to the work necessary for the establishing of occurrences, happenings, or events in the field with which the historian is concerned. Knowledge of these is entirely dependent on the transmission of information from those living at the time, and this information forms what is known as the source material for the particular period or topic. The occurrences themselves can never be experienced by the historian, and what he has at his disposal are either accounts of occurrences as seen by contemporaries or something, be it verbal, written, or material, that is the end product of an occurrence. These accounts or end products have been variously termed relics, tracks, or traces of the occurrences that gave rise to them; and from them the historian can, with varying degrees of certainty, deduce the occurrences. The traces are thus the "facts" of history, the actual occurrences deductions from the facts; and historical research is concerned with the discovery of relevant traces and with deduction from those traces insofar as this will aid the search for further relevant traces.


Copyright © 1994-2001 Encyclopеdia Britannica, Inc.

[Yahoo7]

Source material

Source material falls into three groups which can be differentiated as written, material, and traditional. Written source material has two subdivisions, literary, sometimes called subjective, and official. The first consists of events as seen through the eyes of an individual and therefore as interpreted by him, normally entailing selection of occurrences or attribution of motive. The second subdivision, the official, consists of records produced in transacting business at any level from individual to international. The information given is basically in statement form, impersonal, and containing only the most superficial suggestions of causation and motivation. In practice the boundary between literary and official sources is blurred and a document may contain elements of both. The second main division, material source material, consists of objects that have resulted from activities of human beings in the past. The third group, traditional source material, covers what is handed on verbally or as practices, although later generations may commit such things to writing. Obvious examples are archaic forms, traditional practices, nursery rhymes, folklore, and place names. Comparison with parallel source material and knowledge of current interpretation will normally show the historian whether his particular source can be presumed true, partially true, or faked. If true or partially true allowance has to be made for the subjective element in literary and some traditional sources and for the difficulty of reconstructing the events themselves from the traces surviving in official, material, or other traditional sources.
The classification of source material is essentially pragmatic, based on the differing techniques required in handling sources of the different groups: an inscribed tombstone, for example, can be either a written or a material source depending on whether the historian's concern is with the content of the inscription or with the stone. Specialized training in what are sometimes known as ancillary disciplines may, depending on the nature of his investigation, be necessary for the historian. The most important of these are archaeology, bibliography, chronology, diplomatics, epigraphy, genealogy, paleography, sigillography, and textual criticism. It need hardly be said that the historian must have competence in the languages used in his source material. Many historians give part of their time to the editing of source material. This is not historical writing but is of use to other historians in the same field. The collection of facts as an end in itself is, however, antiquarianism not history, and the essential end product of historical investigation is the historian's own writing.


Copyright © 1994-2001 Encyclopеdia Britannica, Inc.

[Yahoo7]

Using source material

The question of what history is belongs to the philosophy rather than the methodology of history. The word history itself is used ambiguously to describe both the past and what is written about the past; but it is this second meaning that is relevant to the working definition that history is the past experience of society. For what reasons society may wish to utilize its past experience is not the concern of the historian, whose task is to make available to society that past experience and to record it for future reference. An individual utilizing his own past experience has to recall the significant elements of that experience with accuracy and establish their causal and chronological relationships. The historian behaves similarly concerning the past experiences of society; but the reconstruction of events from traces, the selection of those relevant to his task, and the establishing of relationships allow a varying freedom of choice by the historian, which thus introduces the subjective element of the historian's personality. This cannot be eliminated from historical writing, and the historian's aim is to make the margin of intellectual error as small as possible. The handling of source material demands only care and technical competence, and it is mainly in the construction of hypotheses and in the establishing of relationships that this intellectual error can enter. A check is provided by the opinions of other historians working in the same field. His work will, if accepted, become part of current interpretation, sometimes described as accepted history but, as with all current interpretation, subject to revision by himself or others.
Historical methodology became more clearly formulated during the 19th and 20th centuries, but there have been historians at times long past whose work can be judged by present-day standards. There are, however, certain important differences between present methodology and the general run of past methodology. Much medieval writing, for example, bows to precedent in literary sources and in current interpretation, and uncritical acceptance of an earlier writer's work can occur century after century. The comparative neglect of official sources by the majority of European historians before the 19th century gave no corrective to literary sources. The greatest impediment to the development of modern methodology lay, however, in the varying concepts of history, some of which survive today. The concept of history as a form of literature made it a type of imaginative art on which judgment was passed on grounds of elegance rather than accuracy. Closely allied with this is the "ethical" concept of history whereby historical writing became a series of value judgments on individuals and actions. The converse of this was the impossible "objective" or "scientific" history of the later 19th century, though it did popularize the concept of research and developed the ancillary disciplines. The use of history for propaganda purposes is in its crudest form virtually a branch of fiction and thus independent of research; in its more subtle forms it can encourage accuracy in research, but it will encourage also the suppression of inconvenient traces and intellectual dishonesty in the elucidation of relationships. In this it indicates one of the main impediments to methodological and historical development: the holding by the historian of a priori theories or laws to which all events and relationships must conform, whether it be the theory of divine intervention in human affairs favoured in medieval times or the Marxist theory current over much of the modern world.

Copyright © 1994-2001 Encyclopеdia Britannica, Inc.

[Yahoo7]

Bibliography

C.V. Langlois and C. Seignobos, Introduction aux études historiques (1898; Eng. trans., Introduction to the Study of History, 1898); Harold Temperley (ed.), Selected Essays of J.B. Bury (1930, reprinted 1964); James T. Shotwell, The History of History (1939); James W. Thompson and Bernard J. Holm, A History of Historical Writing, 2 vol. (1942); Robin G. Collingwood, The Idea of History (1946); Herbert Butterfield, Man on His Past (1955); John W. Miller, The Philosophy of History with Reflections and Aphorisms (1981); Agnes Heller, A Theory of History (1982).
J.B. Bury, The Ancient Greek Historians (1909, reprinted 1958); M.L.W. Laistner, The Greater Roman Historians (1947, reprinted 1963); Moses I. Finley (ed.), The Greek Historians (1959), selected passages in translation with a valuable introduction; Maurice Platnauer (ed.), Fifty Years of Classical Scholarship (1954; rev. ed. with appendixes, Fifty Years (and Twelve) of Classical Scholarship, 1968), especially chapters 6 by G.T. Griffith and 13 by A.H. MacDonald; Arnaldo Momigliano, Studies in Historiography (1966), a selection from his vast collection of valuable articles in Contributo alla storia degli studi classici e del mondo antico, 5 vol. (1959-69); T.A. Dorey (ed.), Latin Historians (1966) and Latin Biography (1967); John Barker, The Superhistorians: Makers of Our Past (1982).
Gyula Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica, 2nd ed., vol. 1 (1958), not always reliable in its judgments. There is no satisfactory study in English. There is much useful information in the appendixes to J.B. Bury's edition of The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, 7 vol. (1896-1900, reprinted 1909-14).
Thomas F. Tout, "The Study of Mediaeval Chronicles," Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, 6:414-438 (1921), reprinted in The Collected Papers of Thomas Frederick Tout, 3 vol. (1932-34); Reginald L. Poole, Chronicles and Annals (1926); M.L.W. Laistner, Thought and Letters in Western Europe, A.D. 500 to 900, new ed. (1957); Charles H. Haskins, The Renaissance of the Twelfth Century (1927); Ralph H.C. Davis and John M. Wallace-Hadrill (eds.), The Writing of History in the Middle Ages (1981).
Wallace K. Ferguson, The Renaissance in Historical Thought (1948); Denys Hay, "Flavio Biondo and the Middle Ages," Proceedings of the British Academy, 45:97-128 (1960); Myron Gilmore, Humanists and Jurists (1963); Paul O. Kristeller, Eight Philosophers of the Italian Renaissance, ch. 2 (1964), on Valla; Felix Gilbert, Machiavelli and Guicciardini: Politics and History in Sixteenth-Century Florence (1965); Ida Maier, Ange Politien (1966); L.D. Reynolds and N.G. Wilson, Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature (1968); Roberto Weiss, The Renaissance Discovery of Classical Antiquity (1969); E.J. Kenney, "The Character of Humanist Philology," in R.R. Bolgar (ed.), Classical Influences on European Culture, A.D. 500-1500 (1971).
J.G.A. Pocock, The Ancient Constitution and the Feudal Law: A Study of English Historical Thought in the Seventeenth Century (1957), also valuable for France; Herbert Butterfield, "The History of Historiography and the History of Science," Mélanges Alexandre Koyré, vol. 2 (1964); and "Delays and Paradoxes in the Development of Historiography," in Kenneth Bourne and D.C. Watt (ed.), Studies in International History: Essays Presented to W. Norton Medlicott (1967); Glanmor Williams, Reformation Views of Church History (1970); Donald R. Kelley, Foundations of Modern Historical Scholarship: Language, Law, and History in the French Renaissance (1970); May McKisack, Medieval History in the Tudor Age (1971); G. Strauss, "The Course of German History: The Lutheran Interpretation," in Anthony Molho and John A. Tedeschi (eds.), Renaissance: Studies in Honor of Hans Baron (1971).
David C. Douglas, English Scholars, 1660-1730, 2nd rev. ed. (1951); Martin L. Clarke, Greek Studies in England, 1700-1830 (1945); David Knowles, "Jean Mabillon," Journal of Ecclesiastical History, vol. 10, no. 2 (1959), and Great Historical Enterprises (1962); Christopher Dawson, "Edward Gibbon," Proceedings of the British Academy, 20:159-180 (1934); and Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, 6 vol. (1776-86, best modern edition by J.B. Bury, op. cit.); Hugh Trevor-Roper, "The Historical Philosophy of the Enlightenment," in Studies on Voltaire and the Eighteenth Century, 27:1667-87 (1963), and "The Idea of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," in The Age of the Enlightenment (1967).
J.G.D. Clark, Prehistoric Europe: The Economic Basis, rev. ed. (1962); O.G.S. Crawford, Archaeology in the Field (1953); J.G.D. Clark, World Prehistory (1960); Charles Samaran (ed.), L'Histoire et ses méthodes, vol. 11 of the Encyclopédie de la Pléiade (1961); Vivian H. Galbraith, An Introduction to the Study of History (1964).
Arthur M. Schlesinger (ed.), Historical Scholarship in America (1932); William T. Hutchinson (ed.), The Marcus W. Jernegan Essays in American Historiography (1937); Hugh H. Bellot, American History and American Historians (1952); Donald Sheehan and Harold C. Syrett (eds.), Essays in American Historiography: Papers Presented in Honor of Allan Nevins (1960); John Higham (ed.), The Reconstruction of American History (1962); Thomas J. Pressly, Americans Interpret Their Civil War, 2nd ed. (1962); Richard Hofstadter, The Progressive Historians, Turner, Beard, Parrington (1968); Marcus Cunliffe and Robin W. Winks (eds.), Pastmasters: Some Essays on American Historians (1969); C.L. Sonnigsen, The Ambidextrous Historian: Historical Writers and Writing in the American West (1983).
Lord Acton, Historical Essays and Studies (1907), see especially "German Schools of History"; J.B. Bury, The Idea of Progress: An Inquiry into Its Origin and Growth (1920, reprinted 1960); Edmund Wilson, To the Finland Station (1940), especially for French historiography; Pieter Geyl, Napoleon, voor en tegen in de Franse geschiedschrijving (1946; Eng. trans., Napoleon, For and Against, 1949); Some Modern Historians of Britain: Essays in Honour of R.L. Schuyler (1951); G.P. Gooch, History and Historians in the Nineteenth Century, 2nd rev. ed. (1952); Ferdinand Schevill, Six Historians (1956), particularly interesting on Ranke; Georg G. Iggers, "The Image of Ranke in American and German Historical Thought," in History and Theory, 2: 17-123 (1962); and The German Conception of History (1968); Henry E. Bell, Maitland: A Critical Examination and Assessment (1965); Frederick M. Barnard, Herder's Social and Political Thought: From Enlightenment to Nationalism (1965); John Cannon (ed.), The Historian at Work (1980); J.W. Burrow, A Liberal Descent: Victorian Historians and the English Past (1981).
Eugene N. Anderson, "Meinecke's Ideengeschichte and the Crisis in Historical Thinking," in Medieval and Historiographical Essays in Honor of James Westfall Thompson (1938); Marc Bloch, Apologie pour l'histoire; ou, Métier d'historien (1949; Eng. trans., The Historian's Craft, 1953); Architects and Craftsmen in History: Festschrift für Abbott Payson Usher (1956), biographies of leading historians; Jack H. Hexter, Reappraisals in History (1961); Richard Pares, The Historian's Business, and Other Essays (1961), particularly valuable for the works of Arnold Toynbee; Friedrich Meinecke, Die Idee der Staatsräson in der neueren Geschichte (1957; Eng. trans., Machiavellism: The Doctrine of Raison d'État and Its Place in Modern History, 1957); Donald C. Watt (ed.), Contemporary History in Europe (1968); Lawrence Stone, The Past and the Present (1981).
On Russian historiography there is no satisfactory general survey in English. The following can be useful for particular periods or historians: Anatole G. Mazour, Modern Russian Historiography, 2nd ed. (1958); Alexander S. Vucinich, Science in Russian Culture: A History to 1860 (1963); and Richard Pipes (trans.), Karamzin's Memoir on Ancient and Modern Russia (1966); John S. Curtiss (ed.), Essays in Russian and Soviet History, in Honor of Gerold Tanquary Robinson (1962), especially on Semevsky; Alan D. Ferguson and Alfred Levin (eds.), Essays in Russian History: A Collection Dedicated to George Vernadsky (1964); John Keep and Liliana Brisby (eds.), Contemporary History in the Soviet Mirror (1964). Franz Rosenthal, A History of Muslim Historiography, 2nd rev. ed. (1968). William G. Beasley and E.G. Pulleyblank, Historians of China and Japan (1961); Charles S. Gardner, Chinese Traditional Historiography (1938, reprinted 1961).


Copyright © 1994-2001 Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.

[Mono]

Before the late 18th century, historiography did not stand at the centre of any civilization.

это шутка ?

[Yahoo7]

Что знает Историография как наука об Армянах как о народе.
Из реферируемой научной прессы.

History

In ancient times Armenia was once powerful enough to challenge the Roman Empire, but its subsequent history was marked by many struggles for independence and by the domination of many foreign powers.
The foundations of Armenian civilization were laid in the 6th century BC on the ruins of Urartu, an ancient kingdom that had been overrun by Scythians and Cimmerians in the wake of the conquest of Urartu's powerful ally, Assyria, by Babylonia and Media. Traces of Urartian civilization, particularly agricultural innovations, were probably extant when the Armenians--who called themselves the Hayq--moved into the area. The new occupants were quickly drawn into the Median empire, which about 550 BC became a province of Persia's Achaemenian Empire. Local government was administered by village officials who paid tribute to the Persian king. In 331 BC Armenia was overrun by Alexander the Great, and in 301 it became part of the Seleucid empire.
With Rome's conquest of the Seleucids in 190-189, Armenia was divided into two provinces, Greater Armenia and Sophene, and reunification of these did not take place until the reign of the Armenian king Tigranes II the Great (95-55 BC). Under his rule Armenia reached the height of its power. It brought under its dominion the neighbouring regions of Albania and Atropatene (both now in Azerbaijan), Syria, and part of Parthia. Armenia was briefly the strongest state in the Roman East. In 66 BC, however, Tigranes was forced to cede territory and form an alliance with Rome, and Armenia subsequently became the focus of Roman and Parthian-Persian rivalry that lasted until the 3rd century AD.
By converting the Arsacid king Tiridates III to Christianity, St. Gregory the Illuminator brought about Armenia's permanent break from Persia and the East; Christianity was made the official religion of the Armenian state in AD 300. About 390 the country was divided into Byzantine Armenia, which soon became part of the Byzantine Empire, and Persian Armenia, which remained under Persian suzerainty. As Persian power declined, Armenia was drawn into the Byzantine orbit. In 653 it came under Arab rule but was able to retain virtual autonomy.
The annexation of Armenia by the briefly revived Byzantine Empire in the 11th century was followed by the invasions of the Seljuq Turks, and the last quarter of the 11th century found the greater part of the country under Turkish domination. In the 13th century Armenia, much of which was at that time part of Georgia, was overrun by the Mongols. An Armenian migration into Cilicia following the Seljuq conquest had created the state of Little Armenia, which in the period of the Crusades became firmly allied to the West and absorbed much Frankish culture. During the 13th century Little Armenian rulers employed Mongol forces to assist them in warding off invasions from Syria by the Egyptian Mamluks, but the fall of the Little Armenian capital in 1375 brought the independence of the Armenian state to a close.
From the beginning of the 16th century, Armenia was once more the object of contention between two hostile nations, this time the Ottoman Empire and Iran, a situation that continued--with a brief interlude of Armenian independence (1722-30)--through the 18th century. During this time the country became a trade link between the East and Europe.
The advance of Russia into the Caucasus early in the 19th century inspired a renewal of Armenian culture and initiated foreign concern over the situation of Armenians under Ottoman Turkish rule. Following the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78 and the Treaty of San Stefano, the issue grew into the "Armenian question." But attempts to effect reforms resulted only in a series of Turkish and Russian massacres of the Armenian populace. In 1915, during World War I, the Ottoman government ordered about 1,750,000 Armenians deported to Syria and Mesopotamia. Some 600,000 died (see Researchers Note below) in the desert en route. (See Armenian massacres.)
Following a Russian conquest in 1916, Armenia, with Georgia and Azerbaijan, formed a Transcaucasian alliance; within a few months the alliance was dissolved. A series of political upheavals, including the brief appearance of an independent Armenian republic in 1920, eventually led to the reunion of the three states as the Transcaucasian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic, which was incorporated into the Soviet Union in 1922. In 1936 the new Soviet constitution gave Armenia the status of a republic of the U.S.S.R. In the late 1980s and early '90s Soviet Armenia experienced ethnic unrest over the disputed political status of Nagorno-Karabakh, a mountainous region that was governed by the neighbouring Azerbaijan S.S.R. even though the majority of its population was Armenian. Northwestern Armenia was devastated on Dec. 7, 1988, by a massive earthquake that leveled the cities of Leninakan (now Gyumri) and Spitak and killed about 25,000 people. Armenia declared its sovereignty on Aug. 23, 1990, and declared its independence from the collapsing Soviet Union on Sept. 23, 1991. In the years that followed, Armenia successfully fought Azerbaijan for control of the enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh until a cease-fire agreement was reached between the two countries in 1994.


Copyright © 1994-2001 Encyclopеdia Britannica, Inc.

Researcher's Note

Statistics are disputed regarding the Armenian population in Ottoman Anatolia at the outbreak of World War I and the number of Armenians killed during deportation. The most disparate numbers have been promulgated by Turkish and Armenian sources; scholars agree that propaganda from both sides has greatly confounded the issue.
No systematic census was taken in Turkey before 1927, although conflicting population statistics were variously reported by the Ottoman government, religious institutions such as the Armenian Patriarchate, and assorted European observers. In 1896 the Ottoman government recorded 1,144,000 Armenians out of a total Anatolian population of 13,241,000. In an examination of government statistics collected shortly before World War I, Justin McCarthy estimates that some 1,500,000 Armenians lived in Ottoman Anatolia in 1912 out of approximately 17,500,000 inhabitants. Various scholars cite the Armenian Patriarchate, which recorded from 1,845,000 to 2,100,000 Armenians in Anatolia prior to 1915. Other estimates range from as low as 1,000,000 to more than 3,500,000. Questions have been raised about the reliability of some local data; therefore, some preference has been given to data collected by European observers. One of the more renowned compilers of Western research, reports, and available data was Arnold J. Toynbee, who served during the war as an intelligence officer for the British Foreign Office. Toynbee calculated that some 1,800,000 Armenians had lived in Anatolia prior to the war. Taking into account the reports of Toynbee and other aforementioned sources, Britannica has taken the figure of 1,750,000 as a reasonable representation of the Armenian population in Anatolia prior to 1915.
Also problematic are reports regarding the number of Armenians who died during deportation (1915-16). Estimates range widely--from 200,000 claimed by some Turkish sources to 2,000,000 claimed by some Armenians--although most scholars agree that the lack of death records makes a final determination impossible. The Turkish government repeats Talat Pasa's original claim that some 300,000 Armenians had died in deportation. As with the problem of the aforementioned population statistics, the subjectivity of some sources has caused greater value to be placed on the reports of European observers. Toynbee judges that some 600,000 Armenians died or were massacred during deportation, possibly 600,000 more survived in exile, and another 600,000 either escaped or went into hiding. By independent calculation, McCarthy has arrived at the same number of deaths, and many historians either cite Toynbee directly or provide similar estimates.
Most histories of Armenia or Turkey make note of the Armenian massacres that occurred during World War I. Detailed treatments are given in the following works:

• GERARD CHALIAND and YVES TERNON, The Armenians: From Genocide to Resistance (1983; originally published in French, 1980).
• KAMURAN GÜRÜN, The Armenian File: The Myth of Innocence Exposed (1985).
• JUSTIN McCARTHY, Muslims and Minorities: The Population of Ottoman Anatolia and the End of the Empire (1983).
• THE PERMANENT PEOPLE'S TRIBUNAL, A Crime of Silence, ed. by GERARD LIBARIDIAN, trans. from French (1985); includes "British Sources on the Armenian Massacres, 1915-1916" by Christopher J. Walker, "German Eyewitness Reports of the Genocide of the Armenians, 1915-1916" by T. Hofmann, "Report on the Genocide of the Armenians of the Ottoman Empire, 1915-1916" by Yves Ternon, and "The Turkish Argument: The Armenian Issue in Nine Questions and Answers" by the Foreign Policy Institute, Ankara.
• ARNOLD J. TOYNBEE (ed.), The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, 1915-16 (1916).
• YVES TERNON, The Armenians: History of a Genocide, 2nd ed. (1990; originally published in French, 1977).
• CHRISTOPHER J. WALKER, Armenia: The Survival of a Nation (1980).

Brief discussions or related data are given in numerous sources, such as those listed below:

• VINCENT HENRY PENALVER CAILLARD, "Turkey," The Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th ed., vol. 27 (1911), p. 426.
• GLENN E. CURTIS (ed.), Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Country Studies (1995), pp. 14-15, 35.
• CAGLAR KEYDER, "The Political Economy of Turkish Democracy," in PIRVIN C. SCHICK and ERTUGRUL AHMET TONAK (eds.), Turkey in Transition (1987), p. 31.
• LORD KINROSS (PATRICK BALFOUR, BARON KINROSS), The Ottoman Centuries (1977), pp. 554, 606.
• ANAT KURZ and ARIEL MERARI, ASALA--Irrational Terror or Political Tool (1985), pp. 11, 113.
• DAVID MARSHALL LANG, Armenia: Cradle of Civilization, 2nd ed., corrected (1978), p. 289.
• HARRIS M. LENTZ, III, Assassinations and Executions (1988), p. 45.
• BERNARD LEWIS, The Emergence of Modern Turkey, 2nd ed. (1968), p. 356.
• PAUL M. PITMAN, III (ed.), Turkey: A Country Study, 4th ed. (1988), pp. 37, 41.
• MINORITY RIGHTS GROUP (ed.), World Directory of Minorities (1990), p. 179.
• M. PHILIPS PRICE, A History of Turkey (1956), pp. 90-91.
• STANFORD SHAW and EZEL KURAL SHAW, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, vol. 2 (1977), p. 316.
• PETER YOUNG (ed.), The Marshall Cavendish Illustrated Encyclopedia of World War I, vol. 5 (1984), pp. 1322-23.
• ERIK J. ZÜRCHER, Turkey: A Modern History (1993), pp. 86-89, 119-121.

Copyright © 1994-2001 Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.

[Yahoo7]

Urartu

Ancient country of southwest Asia centred in the mountainous region southeast of the Black Sea and southwest of the Caspian Sea. Today the region is divided among Armenia, eastern Turkey, and northwestern Iran. Mentioned in Assyrian sources from the early 13th century BC, Urartu enjoyed considerable political power in the Middle East in the 9th and 8th centuries BC. The Urartians were succeeded in the area in the 6th century BC by the Armenians.
"Urartu" is an Assyrian name. The Urartians themselves called their country Biainili and their capital, located at modern Van, Tushpa (Turushpa). Most remains of Urartian settlements are found between the four lakes Çildir and Van in Turkey, Urmia in Iran, and Sevan in Armenia, with a sparser extension westward to the Euphrates River.
The Urartians had a number of traits in common with the Hurrians, an earlier Middle Eastern people. Both nations spoke closely related languages and must have sprung from a common ancestor nation (perhaps 3000 BC or earlier). Although the Urartians owed much of their cultural heritage to the Hurrians, they were to a much greater degree indebted to the Assyrians, from whom they borrowed script and literary forms, military and diplomatic practices, and artistic motifs and styles.
The Assyrian influence was manifested in two phases: first, from about 1275 BC to 840, when the Assyrians campaigned in Urartian territory and met only scattered resistance; and second, from 840 to 612, during the heyday of the Urartian kingdom. In the first phase Assyrian influence was felt directly, and the local inhabitants were helplessly exposed to ruthless depredation at the hands of the Assyrians. During this time, the Urartians seem to have eagerly absorbed or imitated the amenities of Assyria's higher civilization. In the second phase, Urartu produced its own distinctive counterparts to all Assyrian achievements.
The first century of the new kingdom seems to have emphasized military operations in imitation of Assyria, and Urartu waged relentless warfare on its neighbours to the east, west, and north.
For the reign of Sarduri I (c. 840-830 BC) there remain only the inscriptions at Van. But for the reigns of his son Ishpuini (c. 830-810) and especially of Ishpuini's son Meinua (c. 810-781), Urartian conquests can be measured indirectly from widespread inscriptions ranging from the lower Murat River basin (around Elâzig) in the west, to the Aras (Araks, Araxes) River (i.e., from Erzurum to Mount Ararat) in the north, and to the south shore of Lake Urmia in the southeast. Ardini, or Musasir, once conquered by Tiglath-pileser I of Assyria about 1100, now became part of the Urartian sphere of influence. The temple of Haldi at Ardini was richly endowed by the Urartian kings but was open to Assyrian worshipers.
A number of Urartian inscriptions dealing with religious subjects date to the end of Ishpuini's reign. It seems that the state religion received its established form at this time, and the hierarchy of the many gods in the Urartian pantheon is expressed by a list of sacrifices due them.
The first evidence of engineering projects, designed to increase the productivity of the home country by irrigation, dates to the reign of Meinua. This is the "Canal of Meinua," which led and still leads fresh water over a distance of about 46 miles (28 km) from an abundant spring to the southern edge of Van.
From the reigns of Meinua's son Argishti I (c. 780-756) and grandson Sarduri II (c. 755-735) there is, in addition to inscriptions, a direct historical source in the form of annals carved into the rock of Van and into stelae that were displaced in later times to other locations in the vicinity. Under these kings Urartu thrust out westward to the great bend of the Euphrates River and intermittently beyond, toward Melitene (modern Malatya) and the ancient Syrian district of Commagene, thus cutting off one of the main supply roads by which Assyria obtained essential iron from the western Taurus Mountains. Argishti I subdued the Melitene Hilaruada (c. 777), as did Sarduri II in the 750s. King Kushtashpi of Commagene was subjugated by Sarduri II about 745. Part of the domain of King Tuate of Tabal in the Taurus Mountains had also fallen to Argishti I about 777. For a short time Urartu thus had a bridgehead west of the Euphrates from Malatya to Halfeti (ancient Halpa) in Commagene, and its empire reached to within 20 miles (32 km) of Aleppo in northern Syria.
Argishti and Sarduri also embarked on what was in the end to prove the most fruitful of all Urartian ventures: the conquest and subsequent agricultural exploitation of the regions across the Aras River. Under Argishti I, Diauehi ("the Land of the Sons of Diau"; Assyrian: Daiaeni) was finally defeated, and the upper and middle Aras River valley became a major centre of building, irrigation, and agricultural activity. Sarduri added Lakes Çildir and Sevan. Further advance to the northwest was checked by a new adversary, the kingdom of Qulha (Greek: Colchis). The tens of thousands of prisoners taken on the yearly military campaigns (in one year as many as 39,000) provided the manpower for intensive cultivation of the royal estates and processing of their crops.
Several times the Urartian kings of this period claimed, probably with justification, to have defeated Assyrian armies: Argishti reported victories over the Assyrians in his sixth and seventh regnal years, when he operated in the Zab and Lake Urmia areas; and Sarduri II defeated the Assyrian king Ashur-nirari V in the upper basin of the Tigris River about 753.
The period 744-715 saw the renewal of Assyrian expansion. In spite of the support of a number of south Anatolian and north Syrian vassals, Sarduri II lost ground steadily, and in 743 Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria (744-727) defeated him and his allies in Commagene near Halfeti. When Tiglath-pileser in 735 advanced all the way to the gates of Tushpa, a palace revolt may have placed Sarduri's son Rusas I (c. 735-713) at the head of the state.
Tiglath-pileser's son, King Sargon II of Assyria (721-705), completed the elimination of Urartu as a rival for hegemony in the Middle East. Urartu's hopes of help from the northern Syrian principalities were dashed by their swift subjection, ending with the incorporation of Carchemish into the Assyrian empire in 717. In the metal-rich Taurus Mountains, the kingdom of Tabal remained a potential ally of Rusas I, as well as of the Phrygian king Midas of the legendary golden touch. After the latter's defeat, Tabal was annihilated and annexed to Assyria.
In the same year, Sargon began to close in on Urartu from the east. For two years operations were mostly limited to western Iran. There Assyria championed the interests of the kingdom of Manna, while Urartu aided and abetted Iranian tribes encroaching upon Manna from the east and north. But behind the Urartian lines Assyrian intelligence officers were collecting information with a view to a much more ambitious military undertaking against Urartu.
What finally tipped the scales in favour of Assyria was the opening up of a second front: the Cimmerians, a nomadic people from the Caucasus, invaded Urartu shortly before 714. Perhaps Rusas I (c. 735-713) himself provoked the onslaught by unwisely destroying several buffer states to the north. In any case, Rusas soon found the Cimmerians at his borders. Undaunted, he proceeded to the attack but suffered a major disaster: the Assyrian crown prince Sennacherib, sent north by King Sargon II (721-705) to gather intelligence about Urartian affairs, reported to his father that Rusas' whole army had been defeated in Cimmerian territory and that Rusas himself had fled back to Urartu, having lost contact with his commanders. This encouraged Sargon to undertake the ambitious campaign of 714 that put an end to the aspirations of the Urartian kings outside of their mountain homeland. After unsuccessfully heading a coalition of his allies against Assyria, Rusas hastened back to Tuspha, which Sargon wisely did not try to besiege. Sargon avoided a clash with the Cimmerians and instead plundered the main sanctuary of the Urartians at Ardini and carried off the statue of Haldi. Hearing of this third calamity, Rusas committed suicide.
The military setbacks of Rusas I ended Urartu's political power. But his son Argishti II (c. 712-685) and successors continued the royal tradition of developing the country's natural resources, and Urartian culture not only survived but continued to flourish for a while, despite its political impotence. The Urartians were finally overcome by invading Armenians toward the end of the 7th century BC.


Copyright © 1994-2001 Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.

[Mono]

KAMURAN GÜRÜN, The Armenian File: The Myth of Innocence Exposed (1985).
JUSTIN McCARTHY, Muslims and Minorities: The Population of Ottoman Anatolia and the End of the Empire (1983).

CAGLAR KEYDER, "The Political Economy of Turkish Democracy," in PIRVIN C. SCHICK and ERTUGRUL AHMET TONAK (eds.), Turkey in Transition (1987), p. 31.

BERNARD LEWIS, The Emergence of Modern Turkey, 2nd ed. (1968), p. 356.

И эти люди являются реферируемыми источниками ?
Многие из этих людей яростные армянофобы, к тому же никчемные ученные. Их истинное лицо раскрыл Армен Айвазян в своей известной книге

[Mono]

Недопустимо любить свой народ при этом издеваясь над истиной пренебрегая научными методами ее познания.

Пренебрежение истиной совмещенное с гипертрофированной любовью к своему народу ведет к фашизму и другим умственным расстройствам.

Есть грани пересечение которых просто недопустимо.

Стандартные фразы...
Армен Айвазян написал свою книгу и никто не смог вразумительно его опровергнуть. Если какой нибудь Рассел считает ниже своего достоинства вступать в полемику с ним то тогда мы не имеем дело с наукой, мы имеем дело с культом, где вышестоящие инстанции решают что правда а что нет, а доводы более "низких" могут игнорироватся.