Բոբոխյան Ա., Կոմիտասի ստեղծագործության ենթաշերտային խորհրդաբանությունը, հատոր Ե, Եր., 2020

1: ­. . . VIII .II– , ( ­ , ) ­« », 2:

, ­­:

­, ­, ,: , ­ ­ ­ ,­ ­,: ­, ­, , , , , ­:

1  А. Цицикян, Музыкальные инструменты в памятниках культуры Армении,

Четвертый международный симпозиум по армянскому искусству, тезисы докладов, ред. Р. Зарян, Ереван, изд. АН АрмССР, 1985, с. 296: А. Демирханян, Б. Фролов,Ритм и символ в первобытном искусстве, Историко–филологический журнал, 1986, N 3, с. 157: . , , . I, , « », 2006, 113, 180: L. Simonyan, On the Interrelation between Musical Archaeology and Ethnomusicology, B. Piotrovsky and Archaeology, ed. A. Piliposyan, Yerevan, “Danielyan Print”, 2014, p. 216:

2  Н. Тагмизян, ук. соч., 1977, с. 21.

1, ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­­­( ,« » 2) , , ( , ­)3:

« » (. , ­, , « ­ ­ »­ ., 1969, 18):« » ( . . – ­ , . ., 202), ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ,: ­,: « » . . , . ., 1960–2006, . VI, 9:

1  . , ­« – ». , ­« » (. , ­, , ., 1959, 142–143):

2  1920– ­ . ­ ­ ­ « » ­­ , ­­ , , ­(А. Гуревич,

Исторический синтез и Школа «Анналов», Москва, «Индрик», 1993: ­. J. Bintliff (ed.), The Annales School and Аrchaeo­ logy, Leicester, Leicester University Press, 1991):

3  « – ­» (М. Сарьян, Из моей жизни, Москва, «Изобрази­ тельное искусство», 1985, с. 97): ,, ­: , ( ­), , , ­

­, ­ ­ ­ ­ : ­ ­ ­ ­ , ­­, ­:­

, , ­­ ­ ­ ,­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­:, ­( , , ) :

, ( , ):

:­ ­ ­ ­ ­. ­ ­ ­ , ­­, :

, : ­« » ­( . , ,, 2016, N 3, 242–262): , ­ ,­ ­ ­ ­ ­, « ­ »– ( R. Trombley,

Impressionism in Music, Encyclopedia of Music in the 20th Century, ed. by L. Henderson, L. Stacey, London–Chicago, “Fitzroy Dearborn”, 1999): ­, XX . ­ , – : , ­,, , , :,XX . « ­ » :( . . , . ., 292), ­ , ­ ­: , ­ ­ ­ ­ « ,­ , ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­»

(А. Гончаров, Предисловие, в кн.: М. С. Сарьян, ук. соч., с. 11):

: , , ­, , ­( . ): ­ ­ , ­ ­ ­ ­ ­­ ­ ­ – ­ ( .  ­ ­ ­ ):­

­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ( , ­ ­ ),terminus ante post quem – , ­:

, , , , ­ , , :

Arsen Bobokhyan, PhD in History (Armenia)

Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, NAS RA

SUBSTRATE SYMBOLISM OF KOMITAS’S WORKS

AND THE PROBLEM OF THEIR DATING

Abstract

Folk songs recorded and researched by Komitas reproduce a system of symbols that is essentially archaic. In this sense, it is not accidental that a number of specialists characterize Komitas’s works as monuments of ancient monodic musical art, the roots of which go back to the pre–Christian era.

Bull, plow, crane, and other similar symbols express a kind of historical environment, origins of which are visible in early agricultural societies. Symbolism is expressed in the notions of the Armenian historical landscape, its key points (for example, Ararat, Aragats, Araxes).

It is noteworthy that the Armenian symbols restored by Komitas (such as the crane, the lampade of Aragats, etc.) later became a symbol for Komitas himself.

Can these songs be dated? Some experts point out, for example, that agricultural songs such as horovels originated “in the oldest period of history, together with agricultural work”, in which the remains of the ancient cult of animals were preserved (A. Shahverdian). Others find that these songs cannot be specifically dated: they are unlikely to be composed only at certain times or at some point (Y. Asaturian).

This article seeks to discuss in common traits the Komitas system of archaic symbols and place its beginning in a certain historical period, however not trying to concretely date them (which is actually impossible) but to demonstrate the termini ante and post quem of the appearance of corresponding song texts, as well as consider the problem of their possible transformation during the time, by using essentially historical and archaeological tools.

Keywords: Komitas, text, symbol, substrate, landscape, dating, historical approach.