2. Haciendas locales
2.2. Participación en los tributos del Estado
Broader in scope and interdisciplinary in approach, this is not a book of history in the traditional sense; rather, it strongly suggests a diff erent historical reading and thinking exercise. In form and content, this study in three volumes is written as an argument for, and a prolegomenon to, writing Armenian history in the Near Eastern context.
My main argument is: If, since the seventh-century, historic Arme- nia, from Asia Minor to the South Caucasus, including the modern Armenian Republic, have been part of the Islamic world, and if, until a few decades ago, the entire region, from the Black and Caspian seas to the Mediterranean, including Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and Egypt, was the habitat of most of the Armenians, their history too was naturally a part of these locations and peoples. Armenians lived there as integral elements and their world was governed by more or less the same laws that governed the region. In elementary Newtonian terms, the law that makes the apple fall is the same that keeps the moon in orbit. In other words, since history has no secret pockets and private laws, things Armenian are also things Near Eastern, and must be studied as such. Th is has not been the case and this is where this study takes its urgency and legitimacy.
In line with the initial argument, the re-conceptualization of the me- dieval Armenian experience within the context of cultural and political Islam is an immediate task. Th e ultimate aim is to draw the outlines of a new philosophy of Armenian history based on hitherto undetected or obscured patterns of interaction. Keeping the general chronology of events from the fourth to the end of the fourteenth century as the back- ground, the various themes in the three volumes are paradigm cases of interaction on political, cultural, religious, philosophical, literary, and even artistic levels. Surely, this is not a Socratic quest for the truth, but the exercise will at least clear sedimentations in historical writing.
Th e Armenians in the Medieval Islamic World
2
Th e focus on the ongoing Armenian experience as part of the Near Eastern world will overcome an inherent Armenocentrism, which has inevitably created a dualism in Armenian historical writing. Th is is looking at all things Armenian as central and everything else peripheral. Th ere is need for a Copernican step, which will shift this center from the Armenian into the Near Eastern universe and initiate a comprehensive project of re-evaluating the narratives. As various camps in Armenian studies discern and occasionally debate diff erences in perspective, inter- est, methodology, and objectives, Armenian historians are gradually becoming more self-conscious and less Armenocentric. But there are still accumulated narratives and accounts that will have to be reviewed. Th e task demands a fusion of the disciplines of historiography, philoso- phy, sociology, anthropology, critical theories, psychology, linguistics, literature, arts, and many more. Surely, how various Armenologists think depends on their backgrounds and roles; but despite the recent proliferation of Armenian studies centers, institutional bias and politi- cization still seriously threaten to derail a process of critical refl ection. Th e critical and interdisciplinary approach adopted in this book looks at the Armenological market place, so to speak, from a phenomeno- logical distance. Th e so-called objectivity claimed by some historians is problematic. Absolute objectivity in history is a myth. Th ere is al- ways a transcendental and a priori grid of historical thinking, which precedes all types of writing. Th is grid may be an ideology, an agenda, or some other consideration. As is the case now, Armenian studies are and have always been embedded in cultural–political traditions. During the recent decades, several academics deliberately borrowed the beliefs and agendas of dominant institutions and political parties. Many drifted along believing that they were doing what they were ex- pected to do as “authentic” Armenologists, such as concentrating on the later modern period and the Genocide. Heideggerian authenticity does not very much apply here. However, beyond these practices, to be an authentic scholar probably means to face up to one’s responsibility for what one’s career in Armenian studies adds up to.
Today, in the aftermath of the postmodern critique of historical writing, we can see that strictly conservative approaches seriously disrupted the discipline of Armenian history. Th e scholarship and the discipline of Armenian studies in general face serious problems, such as cultural traffi c lights and institutional validations. Furthermore, in my opinion, among Armenians there has always been a deeply rooted and strong culture of authority. Th is is a tendency to fi x authority in all
General Introduction
matters, even those of opinion. Once a subject or a fi gure and episode from any fi eld manage, or are chosen, to gain the status of authority, they become references and the general public turns into an impen- etrable wall around them. Th e victims of this tradition have always been the intellectual culture and the public itself. For many Armenians, the seeming security provided by authority has had priority, and it has become almost impossible to break through and open all things Arme- nian to all other things. Furthermore, the institutional infrastructure of the Armenian environment still does not allow the development of a culture of experimentation and critical thinking.
At present, everyone admits that primarily Armenian sources and interpretations may not and did not provide thorough accounts. Similar to Syriac and Byzantine sources, Arab sources are absolutely essential. Language cannot be the reason for shortcomings as well as success in using these sources. Th e causes are in the politics of Armenian intel- lectual culture to safeguard the classical framework and some founda- tional concepts. Surely there are several exceptions, as the reader will fi nd throughout this work. Th e point is that the Armenian experience in the medieval Near East is too diverse and complicated to respond to simplistic and quasi-epic constructs. Indeed, it is very diffi cult to trace a constant line of Armenian policy, ideology, or strategy, except mobility and fl exibility in the diff erent communities and places that sustained the continuity of the whole for centuries. Consequently, Armenian histories should refl ect this condition and avoid essentialism. One of the oldest surviving pre-modern nations of their region, Armenians lived on its entire surface and beyond, closely interacting with peoples and their cultures. More importantly, the Armenian habitat extended from the historic land into the whole region and beyond, into Europe and recently the Americas. Th e patterns of cultural–political experi- ences were highly interactive, decentralized, and multidimensional. Th e communities everywhere evolved by the requirements of their habitats. Many episodes in medieval and modern Armenian history—mostly unstudied or thrown into oblivion—indicate to unexpected manners of interaction with, and at times manipulation of, the environment by Armenian individuals and factions. In fact, there exists a vast area of Armenian–Islamic realpolitik with Arabs, Turks, Persians, Kurds, as well as heterodox Islam (such as Ismā‘īlism).
During the Soviet era the institutes and/or departments of oriental studies ( arewelagit‘iwn ) in the Republic lumped together some mod- ern Middle Eastern research under the headings of the “brotherly
Th e Armenians in the Medieval Islamic World
4
relations between the peoples of the region” or “liberation struggles of the peasant and proletarian classes” in Arab countries. A more banal and folkloric category is “the contribution of Armenians to the social-cultural development” of a given country/period. Otherwise Armenian–Islamic interactions of fourteen centuries, the subject of this book, remain untouched. In scale and breadth, and perhaps for the fi rst time, this study initiates Islamic–Armenian studies as a new area in Near Eastern studies. Every phase of Armenian political and cultural development therefore can only be understood in context and by contemporary tools. In turn, medieval Armenian history after the mid-seventh century can only be understood in the context of the Islamic world. Th is has not been the case. Any change in this situation will require a radical transformation in the way intellectuals think of themselves and their subject matter. Scholars in social sciences and humanities will have to develop a practice of thinking the unthinkable, of looking beyond the deep-seated presuppositions of what convention- ally and almost naturally “passed for the truth,” as Nietzsche would put it. Traditional dichotomies between disciplines are now abandoned by many in favor of the “deployment of a battery of techniques and insights from linguistics, literature, psychoanalysis, philosophy, his- tory, and art criticism.” 1
I strongly believe that the historian is primarily an interpreter and that history is not an exclusive discipline, as traditional historians still hold. It is through a process of conceptualization that all sorts of elements are transformed into so-called historical texts. Th is is a very intriguing and dangerous process. Historical narratives may create seemingly detailed accounts 2 that can be marketed as “facts,” and diff erent narratives by diff erent writers may give contradictory images as “facts.” In Armenian medieval histories, for example, it is very common to fi nd elaborate yet contradictory reconstructions of the same episode. Th is is the nature of historical writing, it has always suff ered from epistemological fl aws and the historian must be aware of his/her predicament. In another respect, the inspirational value of history can/should never be underestimated. It has priority for many. We also know that “inspirational” histories are also designed to achieve certain political objectives. As Lyotard says, narrative is “a kind of self- legitimization whereby constructing it according to a certain set of socially accepted rules and practices establishes the speaker’s or writer’s authority within their society and acts as a mutual reinforcement of that society’s self-identity.” 3
General Introduction
Conceptualizing is the core of writing history and the self-refl exive historian knows that it is possible to off er an interpretation which, although not claiming to be a “true” narrative, may nevertheless be a more plausible account than the existing ones. 4 Th e opening up of historical analysis to rhetorical interrogation is at the heart of con- temporary thinking, which recognizes no distinction between history proper and the philosophy of history. 5 Armenian studies scholars are probably aware of this fact. At present, who or what is an Armenologist as an intellectual—a legacy of the Enlightenment—may mean being part of the traditional Armenian politics of truth or a critic of it, being part of the culture industry or its adversary and reformer. Many of the cases discussed in this study are counter-cases and will inevitably cause uncertainties, even hostility. Th ere should be no problem, because “uncertainty in history is a form of protection” against dogmatism, at least. 6 A radical review of Armenian history in its Near Eastern context is a project for generations of academics. Th is study is only a fi rst at- tempt to open and survey a mostly unstudied fi eld with novel methods and identify the problematic aspects and develop the arguments. At the end of each volume, there is an epilogue where the arguments are summarized.
Notes
1. Gordon Graham, Th e Shape of the Past- A Philosophical Approach to History,
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 124.
2. Alun Munslow, Deconstructing History (London: Routledge, 1997), 60.
3. Jean François Lyotard, Th e Postmodern Condition (Manchester: Manchester
University Press, 1984), 21.
4. Munslow, Deconstructing History, 11.
5. Ibid., 31. 6. Ibid., 171.