Talk:Sisak (eponym)

rewrite

I have rewritten the article and added the sources for the most important details of Sisak's life. I have also removed two sources which comment on the historical figure of Sisak. I removed the article written by Kramers because it far too outdated a source (1936), considering that much research has been conducted ever since that have vindicated many elements of Movses Khorenatsi's story. For example, a century ago everyone believed that Movses' story about Artashes I installing border markers was nonsense but as the water in Lake Sevan drained, we all know that that is not true. I'm quite sure that Armenians simply didn't "imagine" these people in the same sense that no one thinks the Romans imagined Romulus and Remus.

Similarly, Robert Hewsen's article, which for some reason still refers to Movses as not the original author of the History of Armenia (which has been rejected by most scholars today), is outdated (1975). I'll want to keep his opinion out from that article unless we're unable to get an updated opinion, such as from his Armenia: A Historical Atlas. I'm in no mood for wars. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 00:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the rewrite and the new sources. If you could add a more recent opinion, that would be lovely. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

1975 is not outdated. This person is a leading expert on the subject, therefore his opinion matters. The quote should remain in the article, until a more recent quote is found. I'm also in no mood for edit wars, so get the recent opinion, and update the article. But until then, Hewsen's quote must remain. Also note that in his 1982 work he also says that Sisak was a legend. Grandmaster (talk) 09:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I never said it didn't matter.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I checked Hewsen's most recent recent work, and this is all he says in his Historical Atlas:

The Princes Siwni, a house perhaps of Scythian origin, were the immemorial dynasts of the land of Siwnik, the largest principality in ancient Armenia.

It is quite in line with what he saying before, i.e. that this house was not of Armenian origin. Nothing about Sisak, just that the name Sisakan was more recent. Grandmaster (talk) 09:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion in reading Hewsen's quote is a non-sequiter. This unconvincing school of thought advanced by Hewsen and his mentor, Cyril Toumanoff, does not mean we jump to the conclusion that the House of Syunik was therefore not Armenian: logically speaking, even if you were saying your house was of immemorial origin, you certainly would have to belong to some group of people, i.e., the Armenians. In either case, I would prefer that we use Armenia: Historical Atlas instead. Historians always revise their opinions and the most updated opinion by Hewsen should be given due preference. Otherwise, simply writing "According to X", without any context, and introducing a quotation, becomes wholly unhelpful to the reader.-Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Whether Hewsen's and Toumanoff's opinion is convincing or not is your personal opinion. They are both reliable and authoritative experts. We have no evidence to conclude that Hewsen's opinion changed since 1975. Historical Atlas says nothing of Sisak. Therefore the quote must remain in the article with proper attribution. It is quite in line with the rules. I left out Kramers though. Grandmaster (talk) 06:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, I never said that their opinions should be discounted and thus left out. I merely am wondering if Hewsen's opinion has changed over the past 30 years. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought that "unconvincing school of thought" somehow implied that. Sorry if this is a misunderstanding. I believe that until we have a more recent opinion of Hewsen about Sisak, the quote of 1975 should remain. It is very unlikely that his opinion changed though. --Grandmaster (talk) 08:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of my opinion on Hewsen's theory, we should, nevertheless, not suppress it. I'm only suggesting that some sort of context should be introduced and that we should not haphazardly "drop" a quotation on the reader. I'll add some additional details about Sisak later on.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

As this is a topic which is dear to Armenians, I think that an Armenian view of this figure should be placed before the Hewsen quote. We should present the reader with a "nice myth" first (I dont mean to say that the Armenian view is all myth... but it will be embellish with myth and culture), and then give scholarly views after. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 18:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Your reason is not satisfactory. We do not include entries on science by saying this was "unconvincing" when there are new developments in medicine, chemistry and biology. We simply do not include them. If you can come up with alternate reason or source, please let us know so we could evaluate it.128.122.253.196 (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hetoum, stop edit warring and use your regular account. Remember, that you are on parole. And Marshal, what does the opinion of Hewsen about the time when Movses wrote his history have to do with this article? Please explain. Grandmaster (talk) 06:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn’t it obvious? Hewsen argues in the article that Armenian historians first mention Sisakan in the seventh century because he believes that Movses (who mentions Sisak and Sisakan in Book I) was an individual from the 8th or 9th centuries. But because the consensus is that Movses was indeed a figure from the 5th century and the author of History of Armenia, it is important that we note this unique position Hewsen holds, so that readers don’t confuse the two conflicting views. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

But how do you know that there's consensus to consider Movses to be the 5th century historian? Hewsen refers to discussion in the scholarly community, and does not present this claim as his personal position, he refers to other authors:

This Primary History has come to us in two redactions, a long and a short.² The shorter version is attributed to the earliest known Armenian historian, Agathangelos (fourth century A.D.?) and is presented in the opening section of a seventh-century work ascribed – probably wrongly – to a certain bishop named Sebeos.³ The longer version, much expanded and edited, is contained in Book One of the compilation of Armenian antiquities known as the History of Armenia by Pseudo-Moses of Khoren. While the date of this work has been much disputed, it appears now to be a product of the late eighth or early ninth century.⁴

2. For the short redaction, translated into French under the title "Le Pseudo-Agathange: histoire ancienne de l'Arm&nie," see V. Langlois, Collection des historiens anciens et modemes de lilrmtnie (2 vols.: 1869-80), 1: 195-200; for the long version, published under the title "Mar Apas Catina: histoire ancienne de lYArm8nie," see ibid., pp. 18-53, and also the first book of "Moise de Chorkne," ibid., 2:53-78.
3. G. Abgarian, "Remarques sur l'histoire de Sebeos," Revue des etudes armeniennes, 1 (1964), pp. 203-15, where it is demonstrated that the real author of this work was probably the monk Khosrovik.

4. C. Toumanoff, "On the Date of Pseudo-Moses of Chorene," Handes Amsorya (Dec. 1961), pp. 468-76.

Grandmaster (talk) 07:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's a consensus to call Movses 5th century historian. Here's another quote:

The History of Armenia by Movses Khorenatsi (Moses of Khoren) is the most comprehensive work in early Armenian historiography, but also the most controversial. Movses claims to have been a pupil of Mashtots's, and he ends his work with a long lament on the evil days that befell Armenia following the deaths of Mashtots and of the patriarch Sahak and the abolition of the Arsacid monarchy (which had occurred earlier, in 428). On the other hand, there are indications in the book itself that it was written after the fifth century. Not only does Movses use sources not available in Armenian at that time, he refers to persons and places attested only in the sixth or seventh centuries. Furthermore, he alters many of his Armenian sources in a tendentious manner in order to extol his patrons, the Bagratuni family, who gained preeminence in the eighth century. But despite the fact that Movses Khorenatsi is not known or quoted by sources before the tenth century, he became revered in tradition as the "father of history, patmahayr," and elaborate legends about his life, his other writings, and his association with Mashtots's other pupils gained credence after the year 1000.

Richard G. Hovannisian. The Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times: The Dynastic Periods: From Antiquity to the Fourteenth Century. St. Martin's Press, 1997

ISBN 0312101686, 9780312101688. Chapter 9. Robert Thomson. Armenian Literary Culture through the 11th Century.

So it is not like what Hewsen says is something unprecedented in the Armenian studies. Grandmaster (talk) 08:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

True, but Thomson's arguments are essentially a rehash of European scholars from the 19th century. His commentary on Movses has been criticized by linguists and historians ever since the book went into publication in 1978 for the exact same reasons. Linguists and historians as early as Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare and Stepan Malkhasyants dispelled those theories decades ago and this was followed up by the most prominent experts of Movses (known as Movses Khorenalogists) including Armen Ayvazyan, Gagik Kh. Sarkisyan and Suren Yeremyan (even Levon Ter-Petrosyan in a 1980 review of the book!). The anthology written by Hachikyan et al. and cited on the Movses page presents a concise summary of these views. While on the surface the arguments presented by Toumanoff, Adontz, Manandyan, etc. appear to be convincing, deeper evaluation and analysis has, to paraphrase Hachikyan et al., disproved most, if not all, of these arguments.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thompson published his article in the book, edited by Richard G. Hovannisian, in 1997. That's quite recent publication, and the book is considered one of the best sources on Armenian history. Of course, there are might be different views on when Movses lived, but saying that there's a consensus to consider Movses to be a 5th century figure is not accurate. In any case, that is absolutely irrelevant to Sisak, so I think if we expand the discussion on Movses, it will not help to improve this article. So I suggest we delete any mention of Hewsen's opinion on Movses, that's not relevant to this article, and rather belongs to the article about Moses of Khoren. Grandmaster (talk) 06:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The book may be so, but Thomson is simply rehashing the outdated views of 19th century scholars whose arguments were debunked decades ago, which is why one reason why his 1978 publication was panned throughout book reviews. Hewsen, Toumanoff, and Thomson aside (perhaps N. Garsoian), you'd be hard pressed to find any scholar who specializes in ancient Armenian language and history, who thinks Movses was not from the 5th century. His most authoritative biographer, Gagik Sarkisyan, certainly does not think it so. Hewsen's claim in this article is very controversial because he thinks Sisak (and Sisakan) was only recorded by early Armenian historians much later than Movses' History. I think that's more than relevant.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

You just named 4 prominent international scholars, supporting the same position, which means that the view is not debunked. So I think this article should not deviate from its topic and discuss Moses of Khoren, who has no direct relevance to this article. Historians may have different views on Moses, but it has nothing to do with Sisak. Such views should be discussed in the article about Moses of Khoren. Grandmaster (talk) 07:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

What can I say, they're products of their time and are simply wrong here. Nicholas Adontz, perhaps one of most outstanding modern historians of Armenian history, said a lot of silly things but that doesn't make him any less prominent, nor does it make these four individuals any less respected. Historians aren't perfect.

There is already one reliable source (on the MK page) that says that there is a consensus that most of the criticism of Movses has been rejected (including the date of his writing). I really don't see any further room for debate. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The debate is not about whether Hewsen is right or wrong, it is about the relevance of this Moses issue to this article. I still see no relevance of that debate to this article. Grandmaster (talk) 07:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, I don't see anyone outside of Armenia to disagree with the opinion of Western scholars, such as Thompson or Toumanoff. And scholars from Armenia have well known conflicts with their western colleagues. [1] Grandmaster (talk) 07:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Marshal, if you believe that this opinion is held by a minority of scholars, can you please show me a reliable western source that says so? Until that I will have to roll back your claim, as it is the opinion of at least 3 authoritative Western scholars. See also Britannica:

Moses of Khoren – author known as the father of Armenian literature. Traditionally believed to have lived in the 5th century, Moses has also been dated as late as the 9th century. Nothing is known of his life apart from alleged autobiographical details contained in the History of Armenia, which bears his name as author. His claims to have been the disciple of Isaac the Great (Sahak) and Mesrop Mashtots, to have studied in Edessa and Alexandria after the Council of Edessa (431), and to have been commissioned to write his History by the governor Sahak Bagratuni, have been rejected by most serious scholars, in large part because of anachronisms in his text. His work, however, is a valuable record of earlier religious tradition in pre-Christian Armenia. [2]

As you can see, while the tradition dates him back to the 5th century, other opinions about the time when he lived also exist and are considered viable. There's no consensus among the scholars as to when he lived, and the difference of opinions is reflected in other cyclopedias too. Btw, the article on Movses needs serious corrections, it presents the claims that Movses was the disciple of Mesrop as true. Grandmaster (talk) 06:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The above quoted text is reason why the haphazard works of many western scholars should be approached with caution. It's not surprising that Britannica would entrust an author to write such blatantly false material (on par with their other articles about Armenia), without any qualification, and even moreso without even mentioning who the so-called expert is. The author's abysmally mistaken notion that "His claims to have been the disciple...have been rejected" is not even worthy of comment. The Movses Khorenatsi article currently presents the current view held by the Movses Khorenatsiologists who have studied the language and history of Movses and are not slavishly regurgitating the tripe echoed by European scholars that surfaced during the 19th century.

It's obvious you're not going to let go of the argument without another edit war so I'm gonna stop here. The sources have been laid at your feet and you still cling to "yeah well, I still don't see the word 'consensus'." Do away as you please.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 06:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Marshall, who is Hachikyan? Is he considered a more authoritative expert than Hewsen, Toumanoff and Thompson, who are all well known western authors with numerous publications in peer-reviewed sources? How come that the authors in Armenia, who are criticized for their nationalistic interpretations of history, are better sources, than Britannica, which is quite a neutral source? Grandmaster (talk) 07:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any of the nonsense of "nationalism." It was in fact Conybeare, an Englishman, who spurred other scholars to reevaluate Movses' work at the turn of the century. The reason that Armenian scholars, such as M. Abeghyan, S. Malkhasyants, S. Yeremyan, and Gagik Sarkisyan, etc., are more authoritative is because they concentrated their entire studies on classical Armenian literature and the life of Movses Khorenatsi, studying the grammar and prose of History of Armenia in excruciating detail (hence earning the title of "Movses Khorenatsiologists"), whereas some of the scholars we cited above are unable to even compose a page in modern Armenian without disgracing a schoolchild (Thomson's edition is strewn with multiple egregious translation errors). The Britannica cites no sources, lists no author, and even has the story of the studies of History of Armenia backwards, neutrality be damned.

I hope you know when I write "Hacikyan et al.", I am presenting a source, published by Wayne State University Press, with five authors who are quite capable in their fields and are simply presenting the facts like they are: the major criticisms leveled against Movses, most notably the dating, have been outright rejected. It's as simple as that.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to The Heritage of Armenian Literature: From the Oral Tradition to the Golden Age, Vol. I.; Could you please give us a quote from it, with page numbers?

Anyway, this debate is not worth having here. Take it to the talk pages of the appropriate page. Please can we expand this article in other ways. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Armenian art that mentions Sisak

Are there any Armenian songs or poems that mention Sisak? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 18:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)