Vartan Matiossian
On its fortieth anniversary, the Society for Armenian Studies (SAS)
organized an unprecedented workshop from October 3-5, at the
presidential hall of sessions of the National Academy of Sciences of
Armenia, with forty-two scholars from Armenia and abroad who delivered
papers in English or in Armenian. “Many of the presentations and
discussions were indeed fascinating and thought-provoking,” noted Nareg
Seferian, while Jennifer Manoukian remarked: “The most positive aspect
of the conference was without a doubt getting the chance to mingle with
scholars working on similar topics. Hearing about projects in the works
and sharing resources to facilitate these projects would have been
difficult to do without the face-to-face interaction that the conference
provided.” Many participants expressed the hope that this workshop will
become a regular feature.
One of its purposes was to promote the participation of fresh names
in the field; most presenters belonged to the young and middle
generation, a feature that was very much appreciated: “The conference
was a success no matter how you look at it because of the very high
quality of the papers including or especially those given by young
scholars from Armenia. The symbiotic relationship that in some cases
developed over the three days between scholars from the Diaspora and
those living in Armenia was pleasant to watch,” observed Dickran
Kouymjian, one of the founding members of the SAS.
Travel and lodging expenses for the participants hailing from the
United States, France, Italy, Germany, Turkey, the Netherlands, and the
United Kingdom, were covered through the sponsorship of the Armenian
Communities Department of the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, as well as
the support of the Ajemian Foundation and the George Ignatius
Foundation.
The workshop opened on October 3 in the morning with the presence of
several official guests. After introductory words by SAS President
Kevork Bardakjian (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor), congratulatory
speeches were delivered by Academician Radik Martirosyan, President of
the National Academy of Sciences; Dr. Hranush Hakobyan, Diaspora
Minister; Professor Aram Simonyan, Rector of Yerevan State University;
and Academician Yuri Suvaryan, head of the Department of Armenology and
Social Studies of the Academy of Sciences.
The first panel, about medieval times, was chaired by Kevork
Bardakjian. Andrea Scala (University of Milan) focused on the often
neglected role of the Syriac sources in the Armenian Bible, with an
analysis of linguistic and philological evidence offering useful clues
for a better understanding of textual layers. Khachik Harutyunyan
(Matenadaran) spoke on the role of phonetic change in the formation of
personal names found in the colophons of Armenian manuscripts dating
from 5th-15th centuries. Tamar Boyadjian (Michigan State University)
discussed the little consideration given to Armenian sources in the
study of the Crusades, due to the “European” perspective of many
authors. Arshak Balayan (Yerevan State University) discussed Grigor
Tatevatsi’s polemics with Islam and his list of 16 errors, noting his
Bible-based view of the issue, without any reference to an Islamic
theologian or the Koran. Hrach Martirosyan (Leiden University) presented
a philological study of some enigmatic words and passages found in a
poem by the seventeenth-century author Khachgruz.
The first afternoon panel on the Early Modern period was chaired by
Ara Sanjian (University of Michigan, Dearborn). Peter Cowe (University
of California, Los Angeles), reviewed four approaches of the Armenian
nationalist project during the period (aristocratic initiative, Simeon
Erevantsi’s theocracy, Mekhitarist linguistic and cultural project, and
the Madras group) and assessed their viability and effectiveness. Gayane
Ayvazyan (Matenadaran) presented an overview of the works of Eremia
Keomurjian, a prolific author of the seventeenth century, who also wrote
in Turkish to reach Turkish-speaking Armenians. Susanna Khachatryan
(Yerevan State University) discussed the formative period of the “amira”
class in Constantinople. In the second session, chaired by Kevork
Bardakjian, Alyson Wharton (Artuklu University of Mardin, Turkey),
presented a reconstruction of Armenian presence in Mardin, hitherto
scarcely recognized in Turkish narratives of the city, with a special
emphasis on the work of chief architect Serkis Elyas Lole. Beatrice
Tolidjian (Washington D.C.) followed with an exploration of several
Armenian churches and monuments from Bulgaria in the seventeenth
century, and their relation to earlier architectonical works in Armenia
proper. David Leupold (Humboldt University, Berlin) discussed the case
of Armeno-Turkish as part of language plurality, particularly in Cilicia
and Aleppo, which opened a channel to the West for 19th century Ottoman
elites in Constantinople, Armenian and non-Armenian. Dickran Kouymjian
(California State University, Fresno, Emeritus, residing in Paris) spoke
about the innovative role of Grigor Marzvanetsi, an Armenian printer of
the early eighteenth century, whose book-illustrations were taken from
Armenian iconography rather than Dutch or Flemish models. Nareg Seferian
(American University of Armenia) made a comparative study of the
American Constitution and the texts produced by the Madras group, as the
first modern examples in Armenian reality.
The first panel of October 4, chaired by Barlow Der Mugrdechian
(California State University, Fresno), centered on the Armenian
genocide. Rouben Adalian (Armenian National Institute, Washington D.C.)
discussed ways to amplify the use of photographs to document the
genocide. Hazel Antaramian-Hofman (Fresno City College) made a visual
analysis of the Near East Relief posters for its fundraising efforts,
which included the first American illustrations of Armenian survivors.
Jennifer Manoukian (Columbia University) discussed the educational
dimension of the efforts towards social and cultural revival by Ottoman
Armenians during 1918-1922. Ari Shekerian (Bogazici University,
Istanbul) focused on the reports in the daily Jamanak of Constantinople
from 1918-1919, depicting the mood of orphans and survivors.
In the second panel (Dickran Kouymjian, chair), Hayk Hambardzumyan
(Yerevan State University) outlined an overview of the latest studies of
the Armenian epic David of Sassoun, with reference to the use of
comparative mythology, structuralism, and semiotics. Simon Payaslian
(Boston University) discussed three models of intellectuals (heroic,
elitist, and civil enabler) and their manifestations in the Diaspora,
from cultural preservation to cultural congruence, as exemplified in the
Armenian American community. Sona Mnatsakanyan (State Engineering
University of Armenia) analyzed the recent polemics in Istanbul as to
whether the local Armenian community formed part of the Diaspora, in the
light of three factors: dispersion, ethno-cultural continuity, and
relation with the homeland. Mehmet Uslu (Istanbul Sehir University)
presented an overview of the recent trend of rediscovery of Armenian
literature in Turkey through translations into Turkish of various
masterpieces and scholarly works in Armenian.
Vartan Matiossian (Armenian National Education Committee, New York)
chaired the first afternoon panel, devoted to Diasporan literature.
Talar Chahinian (California State University, Long Beach) spoke on the
impact of the emergent nation-state on the Western Armenian imaginary,
with the second congress of Soviet Armenian writers (1946) as an example
of cultural essentialism hindering the development of a Diaspora based
on diversity. Hagop Gulludjian (University of California, Los Angeles)
analyzed the poetry of Nigoghos Sarafian as the writer who deconstructed
the past and opened a new beginning towards a liminal position that
characterizes Diasporan identity. Krikor Moskofian (London) focused on
the utilitarian approach in Western Armenian literature and its
manifestations during the first quarter of the twentieth century. Lilit
Keshishyan (University of California, Los Angeles) studied the
representations of Armenia in works by four Diasporan authors: Hakob
Karapents, Vahe Oshagan, Vahe Berberian, and Khoren Aramuni.
Myrna Douzjian (Temple University) chaired the second panel about
literature of Armenia. Alvard Semirjian-Bekmezyan (Yerevan State
University) spoke on the generic features of contemporary fairy tales
and noted their disintegration in contemporary works of the genre.
Vahram Danielyan (Yerevan State University) offered a new reading of
Khachatur Abovian’s Wounds of Armenia and distinguished various
features, such as the language turnaround from the canonical (Classical
Armenian) to the non-canonical (dialectal language) and the debate on
typology of the novel. Mery Khachatryan (National Agrarian University of
Armenia) reviewed the theme of genocide in Soviet autobiographical
novels of the 1920s-1950s in the works of Gurgen Mahari and Vahan
Totoventz and in minor works by several writers in post-WWII period.
Hasmik Khechikyan (“Cultural Society” NGO) analyzed the narrative of the
independence period and noted that the modernism of the 1980s was
followed by the post-modernism of the 1990s, which rejected all values,
echoing the social shock that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Arqmenik Nikoghosian (Institute of Literature, National Academy of
Sciences) spoke about the development of the historical novel in the
post-Soviet period and particularly in the mid-nineties, when several
historical novels appeared as a reflection of the restoration of
independent statehood.
Three panels were featured on Sunday. The first morning panel (chair,
Kevork Bardakjian) was devoted to the genocide and cultural
manifestations. Myrna Douzjian spoke on its representation in film, with
particular reference to Serge Avedikian’s “Barking Island” (2010) and
its allegorical and metaphorical depiction of the Genocide. Barlow Der
Mugrdechian followed with the reflection of the genocide in Armenian
American literature,in works by Leon Srabian Herald, Emmanuel Varandyan,
William Saroyan, Leon Surmelian, David Kherdian, Peter Najarian, and
others. Marine Hovakimyan (Yerevan State University) discussed
expressionism in genocide-related works of four Diasporan artists:
Gerardo Orakian, Khoren Der Harootian, Arshile Gorky, and Siroon
Yeretzian. Davit Kertmenjian (Institute of Art, National Academy of
Sciences) spoke on the main features of genocide memorials in
contemporary architecture, both in Armenia and the Diaspora. In the
second panel, chaired by Dickran Kouymjian, Sona Haroutyunyan
(University of Venice, Italy) charted the process of development in
genocide awareness and focused on Antonia Arslan’s novel Skylark Farm
and its cinematographic version. Alina Pogosyan (Institute of
Archaeology and Ethnography, National Academy of Sciences) discussed the
phenomenon of transculturality with regard to Armenian migrants and the
divergence between official discourse and reality.
The afternoon panel, chaired by Harutyun Marutyan (Institute of
Archaeology and Ethnography, National Academy of Sciences), included
papers about current issues. Garik Mkrtchyan (Institute of Linguistics,
National Academy of Sciences) discussed the impact of the Genocide as
cause for disappearance of the territorial foundations of Armenian
dialects and the extinction of most Western Armenian dialects. Suren
Zolyan (Institute of Philosophy and Law, National Academy of Sciences)
presented a study of discursive strategies in genocide recognition with a
deconstruction and analysis of President Barack Obama’s statements.
Matthew Ghazarian (Columbia University) spoke about the need to
contextualize the catastrophe of 1915 in terms of comparing the
extermination of Armenians and their purported “rebellion” with the
cases of other Ottoman peoples. Ara Sanjian analyzed the changing
patterns of electoral alliances of Armenian parties in Lebanese politics
and their current position in the political scene of the country.
Hratch Tchilingirian (Oxford University) focused on the process of
secularization in the Armenian Church, distinguishing three levels in
the past 150 years: state-imposed secularization and laicization;
societal secularization; and self-secularization. Hamazasp Danielyan
(Yerevan State University) outlined Armenia-Diaspora relations after the
second independence, and characterized their present state as one of
weakness, motivated by disillusion in the Diaspora, whose current agenda
is focused on its own problems.
Professor Bardakjian closed the workshop and announced that the
papers will be published in the near future. In the evening, a closing
banquet was held for all presenters and invited guests, which became
another opportunity to deepen links and networking, something which is
always a need in the burgeoning world of Armenian Studies.
The Society of Armenian Studies is composed of scholars and students
(and some non-scholarly patrons) of Armenian Studies). Its membership is
international, although the majority of members are based in the United
States and Canada.
The aims of the Society for Armenian Studies are to promote the study
of Armenian culture and society, including history, language,
literature, and social, political, and economic questions; to facilitate
the exchange of scholarly information pertaining to Armenian studies
around the world; and to sponsor panels and conferences on Armenian
studies.
The Secretariat of the Society is located at the Armenian Studies
Program, 5245 N. Backer Ave. PB4, Fresno, CA 93740-8001. Email:
barlowd@csufresno.edu. The website of the SAS is at societyforarmenianstudies.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment