Albert Stepanyan
Doctor of Historical Sciences,
Professor in Ancient History and Philology.
President of the ARMENIAN ASSOCIATION OF WORLD HISTORY
http://worldhistory.am/
Education
1965 - 1970: Armenian State Teachers' Training Institute named after Khachatur Abovian, Bachelor’s Degree.
Academic Degree
Doctor of Historical Sciences,
Research tpic: “Armenia and Parthia Against Rome and Threaty of Randea”, 1975, AS of Arm. SSR
Ph.D Degree (candidate)
Research topic: ”Development of historical thought in Ancient Armenia, myth, rationalism”, Historiography, 1991, AS of Arm. SSR
Work Experience
2010: Paris, France (conference)
2009: Ann Harbor (Michigan), USA (conference)
2005: Warsaw, Poland (conference)
2004: Geneva, Switzerland (conference)
2002: Boston, USA (lectures at Harvard University)
1998: Rome, Italy (conference)
1995: Greece: Athens, Thessaloniki (conference)
1995: Montpellier, France (training, lectures)
1993: Austria: Vienna, Gaflents (lectures)
Academic Courses
Ancient Greek and Roman History,
Ancient City-State and Its Problems
Theory and History of Civilizations,
Ancient Literary Genres and Social Consciousness.
Scale of Professional Interests
Ancient history, Philosophy, History and Theory of Civilization, Armenia in the Age of Hellenism, Development of the Historical Thought in Armenia.
Languages
Russian, English, French, German,
Ancient languages: Greek, Latin, Grabar, Akkadian.
Professional Membership
Member of the Scientific Council of the Faculty of History, YSU
Editor of the Journal “History and Education”
Editor of the Annual “Problems of Identity”
Editor of the Annual “The Problems of History”
Member of the Editorial Board of the Journal “VEM”
Member of Council of the Journal “Museology”
Vice President of the Proffesional Board of World History
Professor in Ancient History and Philology.
President of the ARMENIAN ASSOCIATION OF WORLD HISTORY
http://worldhistory.am/
Education
1965 - 1970: Armenian State Teachers' Training Institute named after Khachatur Abovian, Bachelor’s Degree.
Academic Degree
Doctor of Historical Sciences,
Research tpic: “Armenia and Parthia Against Rome and Threaty of Randea”, 1975, AS of Arm. SSR
Ph.D Degree (candidate)
Research topic: ”Development of historical thought in Ancient Armenia, myth, rationalism”, Historiography, 1991, AS of Arm. SSR
Work Experience
2010: Paris, France (conference)
2009: Ann Harbor (Michigan), USA (conference)
2005: Warsaw, Poland (conference)
2004: Geneva, Switzerland (conference)
2002: Boston, USA (lectures at Harvard University)
1998: Rome, Italy (conference)
1995: Greece: Athens, Thessaloniki (conference)
1995: Montpellier, France (training, lectures)
1993: Austria: Vienna, Gaflents (lectures)
Academic Courses
Ancient Greek and Roman History,
Ancient City-State and Its Problems
Theory and History of Civilizations,
Ancient Literary Genres and Social Consciousness.
Scale of Professional Interests
Ancient history, Philosophy, History and Theory of Civilization, Armenia in the Age of Hellenism, Development of the Historical Thought in Armenia.
Languages
Russian, English, French, German,
Ancient languages: Greek, Latin, Grabar, Akkadian.
Professional Membership
Member of the Scientific Council of the Faculty of History, YSU
Editor of the Journal “History and Education”
Editor of the Annual “Problems of Identity”
Editor of the Annual “The Problems of History”
Member of the Editorial Board of the Journal “VEM”
Member of Council of the Journal “Museology”
Vice President of the Proffesional Board of World History
less
Related Authors
InterestsView All (7)
Uploads
Papers by Albert Stepanyan
The concept was introduced in Armenia either directly or via Hellenistic authors (initially through Philo of Alexandria), and played an important role in the interpretation and understanding of the historical past and present. This was the case for the texts of Agathangelos, Faustos Buzand, Eghishē, Ghazar Parpetsi. Particularly, it was an important topic for Moses Khorenatsi in his History of the Armenians, which is the main concern of the present investigation.
However, the intellectual situation in Early Medieval Armenia was more complicated. Besides Antique influence, traditional Armenian, Zoroastrian and Biblical intellectual paradigms were also important. To restore the adequate situation, it is necessary to consider this data as well. We will begin the discussion with the problem of the human being as a social animal․
and gained its obvious results from the reforms of Artashēs I (189 – 160 B.C.), the founder of Artaxiad dynasty. It reached its heights in the 1st century, under Tigran II and his son Artavazd II. As to the second wave, it gained efficiency starting from the 4th century A.D. and was aimed to combine axiological systems of Hellenism and Christianity. Hellenistic
Christianity made the core of the new paradigm of Armenian culture, which came to maturity in the Golden Age (5th – 7th cc.). From different points of view, scholars have interpreted the problems of Hellenism in
Armenia and their results are rather impressive. We see our task in the systematization of these results with an aim of illuminating the problems of the western historical canon in the experience of the Armenian intellectuals. We proceed from the idea that, besides cognitive
function, history followed practical goals. Principal historical ideas and concepts influenced various areas of social commonalities. This approach was a locus communis in works of many ancient historians.
The present investigation looks for the correlation of historical thinking and social innovation projects implemented in Armenia across centuries. At the same time, it has fragmentary character and structure and does not pretend to outline a smooth and continuous course of history. Fragments are compiled around the eminent actors of Armenian history by causative, typological and sympathetic modes of articulation – Atrashēs I and Artavazd II, Trdat the Great and Arshak II, Mashtots and Vramshapuh. They personified different aspects of social and ethnic, cultural and religious innovative projects of the society. The schematization and comparison of them promise to open new research perspectives. Perspectives, about not only what happened but also about what gave rise to the reflection of crucial happenings of the past and present. In other words, we are interested in the deductive aspect of consideration based on the importance of social ideas, perceptions and projects in the course of history.
The concept was introduced in Armenia either directly or via Hellenistic authors (initially through Philo of Alexandria), and played an important role in the interpretation and understanding of the historical past and present. This was the case for the texts of Agathangelos, Faustos Buzand, Eghishē, Ghazar Parpetsi. Particularly, it was an important topic for Moses Khorenatsi in his History of the Armenians, which is the main concern of the present investigation.
However, the intellectual situation in Early Medieval Armenia was more complicated. Besides Antique influence, traditional Armenian, Zoroastrian and Biblical intellectual paradigms were also important. To restore the adequate situation, it is necessary to consider this data as well. We will begin the discussion with the problem of the human being as a social animal․
and gained its obvious results from the reforms of Artashēs I (189 – 160 B.C.), the founder of Artaxiad dynasty. It reached its heights in the 1st century, under Tigran II and his son Artavazd II. As to the second wave, it gained efficiency starting from the 4th century A.D. and was aimed to combine axiological systems of Hellenism and Christianity. Hellenistic
Christianity made the core of the new paradigm of Armenian culture, which came to maturity in the Golden Age (5th – 7th cc.). From different points of view, scholars have interpreted the problems of Hellenism in
Armenia and their results are rather impressive. We see our task in the systematization of these results with an aim of illuminating the problems of the western historical canon in the experience of the Armenian intellectuals. We proceed from the idea that, besides cognitive
function, history followed practical goals. Principal historical ideas and concepts influenced various areas of social commonalities. This approach was a locus communis in works of many ancient historians.
The present investigation looks for the correlation of historical thinking and social innovation projects implemented in Armenia across centuries. At the same time, it has fragmentary character and structure and does not pretend to outline a smooth and continuous course of history. Fragments are compiled around the eminent actors of Armenian history by causative, typological and sympathetic modes of articulation – Atrashēs I and Artavazd II, Trdat the Great and Arshak II, Mashtots and Vramshapuh. They personified different aspects of social and ethnic, cultural and religious innovative projects of the society. The schematization and comparison of them promise to open new research perspectives. Perspectives, about not only what happened but also about what gave rise to the reflection of crucial happenings of the past and present. In other words, we are interested in the deductive aspect of consideration based on the importance of social ideas, perceptions and projects in the course of history.