Esteemed visitors,

Today we welcome a brand new swift of fresh air into Nostrum Tempus. Following the two interviews prior to the current one, we now have the privilege of introducing the first English-written article. Not only that, we assume the commitment to henceforth give more attention to a whole new dimension that has been somehow omitted until now- to explore more of the Ancient World, going centuries back until the dawn of the first great empires so we can better understand what has changed and, more importantly, what remains immutable.

After struggling the first months of 2008 to get a sufficient number of interviews to guarantee a continuous publication for a three-month period, I thought it best to contact and invite well-known scholars from top universities linked to the study of International Relations, be it in the form of Ancient History, Contemporary History, Philosophy, Political Science, etc., and answer a number of questions that I thought lacked my knowledge in certain topics. Attached to those invitations was also a request to publish the answers in an interview format to post at Nostrum Tempus. Starting by researching some of the finest scholars Harvard has in its distinguished staff, it is my honour to now present Professor PhD. James R. Russell.

In a fashion seemingly unheard of in the Portuguese academic environment, Professor Russell promptly conceded in spending a bit of his time to answer the questions I’m publishing underneath, about one of his fields of expertise- the Armenian civilization and pre-Islamic Iranian society. Answering literally over night, thus contributing in an exquisite manner to the advancement of the study of the Ancient World, here regarded as that before the European Middle Ages and Portuguese Age of Discoveries, Professor Russell’s interview shall be a valuable stepping-stone for further research. Although I admittedly had a considerable lack of understanding of the Middle Eastern region before the Arab invasions, it was with great pleasure that I prepared the interview, trying to highlight some of the issues that I found more useful for the context of this blog Nostrum Tempus.

So awaiting the words of those who know best, I will excuse myself of further welcoming notes and give the floor for Professor Russell’s interview:


Name: James Robert Russell
Nationality: United States of America
Education: PhD. at the University of London
Institution: Harvard University
Department: Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations


(photo taken from: Harvard website)


More at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_R._Russell
James R. Russell @ Harvard



Bibliography:
Seminars taught:
"Greece and the East"
"Linguistics and Racism,"
House Seminar ("Four Alienated Visionary Writers of Cambridge: T.S. Eliot, Delmore Schwartz, Vladimir Nabokov, and William S. Burroughs")
Introduction to the Zoroastrian Religion

Latest books:
Zoroastrianism in Armenia
Yovhannes T'lkuranc'i
The Mediaeval Armenian Lyric Tradition .

A few recent articles:
"Problematic Snake Children of Armenia"
"On Mysticism and Esotericism amongst the Zoroastrians"
"The Mother of All Heresies: A Late Mediaeval Armenian Text on the Yushkaparik"
"The Armenian Shrines of the Black Youth"
"Polyphemos Armenios"
"An Epic for the Borderlands... the Mythologem of Alcestis in Armenia"
"Ezekiel and Iran
"Scythians and Avesta in an Armenian Vernacular Paternoster."


1. In the Near and Middle East regions, we see the birth of those ancient empires that, later on, founded or determined the formation of civilization nitches which constitute the basis of modern times cultural blocs as the Iranians, Egyptians, Turks, Armenians, etc. In that sense, it seems that the Armenians have endured the passing of time despite its rivals further South. In a shortly manner, can you describe what reasons have made the Armenians different?

The Armenians after their conversion to Christianity created their own script and within a century had assembled a body of literature, both original and in translation, that effected a cultural re-orientation towards the Mediterranean from Iran and established a powerful and positive identity, rendering them impermeable to destructive external influences.

2. Still, the inherent characteristics of those ancient peoples are sometimes of very difficult interpretation. Not only have they been consecutively conquerors and conquered, as they seem the product of many and intertwined tribes. How can we explain the relative stability of the Armenian civilization until the Roman Empire?

Armenian society was conservative, decentralized, clan-based; so not susceptible to the kind of destruction that overtakes urban centers.

3. Despite very distinctive traits, it has evolved through different internal and external factors. One of the most important ones seems to have been the Roman Empire. Before Rome, the great empires that ruled the Near and Middle East, due exceptions to Alexander perhaps, all of them already had some territory or cultural influence from its regional tribes. Yet, the Armenians managed to escape roman annexation and expanded their dominion to the North, almost encircling the Black and Caspian seas. What influence did the Roman Empire have in Scythia, the Armenians’ empire in the II and I century BC?

The Romans conquered some of the Sarmatians and integrated them into the legions. But for the most part the Scythians were too far for contact— hence the relative ignorance of Classical sources regarding the Slavic languages, for instance, and the absence of Scytho-Greco-Roman cultural interchange north of the Black Sea littoral.

4. In the same time span, although with various transformations, the Persians evolved from the Elam Empire in the XIV century BC to the Achemenida Empire in the VI and V centuries BC. As your bibliography indicates, the links established between the Armenians and Persians are vital to understand those periods of time, namely that of Zoroastrianism. In Portuguese literature however, such matters are very rarely, if absently researched. Often referred as the mother of all three great monotheist religions, Zoroastrianism has definitely characterized almost all civilizations of the region. Following your investigations, what conclusions can we draw from that trilateral relation between Zoroastrianism, the Armenians and Persians?

Armenians constitute the one Christian community whose substratum is Zoroastrian, and this makes them inherently interesting. One wonders what Iran might have looked like in some counterfactual future had it opted for Christianity instead of Islam. The world would have been radically different. Well, the Armenians are an example of what such an Iranian Christendom might have been.

5. Despite its short longevity as an empire of Achemenida, the Persians kept their distinctiveness throughout its foreign occupation under Alexander, the Great, and it soon emerged to become even more powerful under the reign of the Sassanians. Is this evidence of some cultural superiority of the Persians as compared to its neighbouring tribes and peoples, one they claim until this day?

Persian culture values the arts and pleasures of life, and the profundities of literature. Assimilation into Persian culture rarely vexes anyone; the various nationalities of Iran tend rather to feel enriched.

6. In a similar fashion as that of the Europeans, external cultures have also penetrated deep into the Middle Eastern tribes and gradually established new forms of coexistence, social life, habits, and political organizations. While studying the Persians, how did the coming of tribes from Azerbeijan and the Arians from Europe shaped its underlying civilization features?

The Turks came from Central Asia; the word Iran means “Aryan” in the first place. So your question is a bit confused.

7. As a specialist in Armenian and Persian studies, namely that of pre-Islam, the Arab conquests under the name of Allah undoubtedly constitute sort of a milestone in Middle Eastern history and politics. Yet, I have come across some references that argue that the Islamization of the regional tribes, including the Persians, developed over a long period of time and came from the governing elites downward. What kind of sociological and cultural revolution did Islam bring to Armenians and Persians, considering their uniqueness and difficult assimilation for alien empires?

Islam brought nothing to Armenia, and its people suffered genocide at the hands of the Muslim Ottoman Turks and Kurds. Iran adopted Islam very gradually, over some three centuries, reshaping its culture. But there is still some tension between native and Arab cultural concepts.

8. Part of that uniqueness comes from the mix between Zoroastrianism, Islam and a Persian culture with its origin in as late as the XV century BC. Drawing some assertions of the Islamic Persia, and the importance that the concept of Um’ma (Islamic community) had within the Mohammedans, how can we interpret Persia’s long standing dominant position throughout the VII century until the ascension of the Turk-Ottoman empire and coming of the Europeans to the Indian Ocean?


9. In modern day politics, Armenia is sometimes misinterpreted as a culture with a more complex system of habits, history and “community interaction” that one would think of a people formerly under Soviet rule. In that regard, what future to the Armenians, after surviving the Hittites, Arabs, Slavs, Soviets and so many other alien influences?

Right now Armenia, like some other post-Soviet states, has experienced economic disaster, then an unsustainable bubble of growth, and in the meantime the breakdown of nascent democratic institutions and the establishment of a gangsterish kleptocracy. The immediate future looks fairly bad.

10. As a student of international relations, the evaluation of a country’s present and past comes with the utmost pressing relevance. Thus, debating Iranian politics has this extra particularity of being a millennial civilization. To conclude, can we argue that Iran’s defiant position towards external powers, and dominance regarding the region are somehow cultural traits that defined them in the past, or is it merely a result of certain and more recent circumstances?

I think you’re right. Iran sees itself as one of a few major regional powers, surrounded by states that it views legitimately as dangerous to its own stability. Unfortunately the present regime is itself a fanatical, destabilizing force, unrepresentative, I think, of the basically moderate and very civilized opinions of most Iranians.