Armenian Studies
Last time i pointed my ignorance about AIEA and its last mid-september’s 11th conference in Paris. Usual coincidence of the Armenian-little-world oblige, few days later I was asked an article about this event, important, but so unknown of the public. Job done, particularly with an interview of Anaïd Donabédian, responsible for this colloque, so i would die less idiot :o)
Uremn the International Association of Armenian Studies (Association Internationale des Etudes Arméniennes) was created while specialists of Armenian studies felt the need to share their research’s results in every kind of studies that involve the Armenian Fact in a wide sense. Since it’s not a strategic field of research, Armenian chairs in Universities or such places are often only one : the person who hold it is alone in the place, and therefore more isolated from other searchers.
AIEA doesn’t come from Armenians at all. Pr Joseph Weitenberg (Dutch linguist), together with Pr Michael Stone (linguist from Jerusalem) are the founders of this association which statutes are registrated in Holland, today presided over by the Swiss Professor Valentina Calzolari (from Genève University), and reuniting more than 200 members around the world.
The goal is to promote Armenian studies in all the countries which are not covered by the Society For Armenian Studies (mostly north America), so it’s mainly around Europe, Middle-East and Asia. It’s an erudite’s society, like it can exist in many other domains.
It publishes, works for common projects (present example : create an Armenian Master diploma valid in all Europe), and organises once every 3 years, a colloque/symposium for reuniting all its members. It’s the occasion for reporting about Armenian researches in all fields possible and pointing the lacking aspects that would need more researches.
The field of studies covered is huge since it’s about all human sciences where the Armenians have their place in. Traditionally the main fields involved are philology, theology (very much represented), as well as history (all periods), linguistic, and art history, but it can also be about anything else.
This year’s conference was taking place in Paris for the 1st time (it had already been to London, Pays Basque) and its 1st special feature was the big number of speakers (more than 100), and of assisting persons, it had never been so important before, probably Paris’ effect. ;op
This year the digitalisation of the sources in every field has been emphasized; it appeared necessary after the question of Matenadaran’s manuscript’s digitalisation. Specialists in really precise subjects showed how they proceed; although it would never replace referring to the manuscripts, it can help more efficient research by fastening the access to sources.
Another thing has been pointed out while speaking about this event is the absolute necessity of specialists independence. This point of view is not always shared amongst Armenians. Example with the discovery of a medieval church in Tikranakert (east of Karabakh) by Hamlet Petrosyan who presented his work last september. Although his work can suffer difficulties because of politic considerations, the conference welcame it with much interest, simply cause it’s adding new knowings.
For Anaïd Donabédian, as well as the French Society of Armenian Studies, the independence of searchers is an obviousness… or at least should be, cause scientific strictness and intellectual honesty are the most important. According to her, specialists are not there to come to a decision, they study, analyse, explain, but not decide, it’s not the same work. So of course when a “black-list” circulated few years ago in Armenia for refusing votch hayanbasd (not in favour of Armenian) scientifics, it was quickly and strongly condemned.
This argument isn’t easily subscribed by us Armenians. There can be a strong appeal to adopt the same facts-contortionning politic that Turkey and Azerbaijan apply in accordance with their international and political assertions. But, as Anaïd Donabédian points it : “Armenians don’t need this, they have clean hands”. That is to say, all is sure, most properly documented and prooved.
Although I understand very well this need theoretically, and in a somehow idealistic vision, it also sounds like putting blinkers and declining any responsibility. Of course perfect objectivity must guide all research, but in Armenian’s questions stormy debates, the border has already been overstepped by scientifics, and not only Turkish or Azerbaijan ones. Then how any search could just act as if it knows nothing about what may be done upon its works ? It’s not normal, yes, but just evacuate the fact doesn’t seem enough to me.
Ecco for AIEA, 'letting you meditate on all this.
Until then, I really should write something here about INALCO (where Anaïd Donabédian is responsible of the Armenian studies), another franco-frenchy aspect of Armenian life, but it’s another subject.
Ciao !
Uremn the International Association of Armenian Studies (Association Internationale des Etudes Arméniennes) was created while specialists of Armenian studies felt the need to share their research’s results in every kind of studies that involve the Armenian Fact in a wide sense. Since it’s not a strategic field of research, Armenian chairs in Universities or such places are often only one : the person who hold it is alone in the place, and therefore more isolated from other searchers.
AIEA doesn’t come from Armenians at all. Pr Joseph Weitenberg (Dutch linguist), together with Pr Michael Stone (linguist from Jerusalem) are the founders of this association which statutes are registrated in Holland, today presided over by the Swiss Professor Valentina Calzolari (from Genève University), and reuniting more than 200 members around the world.
The goal is to promote Armenian studies in all the countries which are not covered by the Society For Armenian Studies (mostly north America), so it’s mainly around Europe, Middle-East and Asia. It’s an erudite’s society, like it can exist in many other domains.
It publishes, works for common projects (present example : create an Armenian Master diploma valid in all Europe), and organises once every 3 years, a colloque/symposium for reuniting all its members. It’s the occasion for reporting about Armenian researches in all fields possible and pointing the lacking aspects that would need more researches.
The field of studies covered is huge since it’s about all human sciences where the Armenians have their place in. Traditionally the main fields involved are philology, theology (very much represented), as well as history (all periods), linguistic, and art history, but it can also be about anything else.
This year’s conference was taking place in Paris for the 1st time (it had already been to London, Pays Basque) and its 1st special feature was the big number of speakers (more than 100), and of assisting persons, it had never been so important before, probably Paris’ effect. ;op
This year the digitalisation of the sources in every field has been emphasized; it appeared necessary after the question of Matenadaran’s manuscript’s digitalisation. Specialists in really precise subjects showed how they proceed; although it would never replace referring to the manuscripts, it can help more efficient research by fastening the access to sources.
Another thing has been pointed out while speaking about this event is the absolute necessity of specialists independence. This point of view is not always shared amongst Armenians. Example with the discovery of a medieval church in Tikranakert (east of Karabakh) by Hamlet Petrosyan who presented his work last september. Although his work can suffer difficulties because of politic considerations, the conference welcame it with much interest, simply cause it’s adding new knowings.
For Anaïd Donabédian, as well as the French Society of Armenian Studies, the independence of searchers is an obviousness… or at least should be, cause scientific strictness and intellectual honesty are the most important. According to her, specialists are not there to come to a decision, they study, analyse, explain, but not decide, it’s not the same work. So of course when a “black-list” circulated few years ago in Armenia for refusing votch hayanbasd (not in favour of Armenian) scientifics, it was quickly and strongly condemned.
This argument isn’t easily subscribed by us Armenians. There can be a strong appeal to adopt the same facts-contortionning politic that Turkey and Azerbaijan apply in accordance with their international and political assertions. But, as Anaïd Donabédian points it : “Armenians don’t need this, they have clean hands”. That is to say, all is sure, most properly documented and prooved.
Although I understand very well this need theoretically, and in a somehow idealistic vision, it also sounds like putting blinkers and declining any responsibility. Of course perfect objectivity must guide all research, but in Armenian’s questions stormy debates, the border has already been overstepped by scientifics, and not only Turkish or Azerbaijan ones. Then how any search could just act as if it knows nothing about what may be done upon its works ? It’s not normal, yes, but just evacuate the fact doesn’t seem enough to me.
Ecco for AIEA, 'letting you meditate on all this.
Until then, I really should write something here about INALCO (where Anaïd Donabédian is responsible of the Armenian studies), another franco-frenchy aspect of Armenian life, but it’s another subject.
Ciao !
posted by Jilda at 4:29 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home