revived remains so what toptchyan wrote is that after malkhasyants and sarkissian's article is from march so just before it and untill toumanoff thus second half of the th century there has been no serious scholarship opposing the th c dating you grandmaster mentioned earlier joseph p smith but i his book has an extremely thin link with the debate on the dating ii he's not specialised in this area and most of all iii he didn't take side in his very few lines on moses topchyan not being contradicted on this it is clear that there's a break of years between malkhasyants' book and the next serious scholar contesting the th c dating according to topchyan la publication de son livre r gla la question pour environ deux d cennies or in english the publishing of his book settled the issue for approximately two decades therefore during these two decades the issue didn't remain disputed i e no serious scholarship published and toumanoff' s publishing revived the critical points in where you perhaps have a point with remains is that toumanoff's main point the bagratids argument had already been raised before by adontz and manandian it had been addressed by malkhasyants though i e moses wrote that bagratids were tagadir ev aspet two titles from the arsacid period which were forgotten in latter centuries i think the article should represent both the historiographical break and the historiographical link and i think the current sentence do so revived continue to maintain i tried to reword it but in fact the more i think about the issue and the more i read the sentence the less i see the problem with it oh btw no need to attack toptchyan mah for instance gives absolutely no reference between and did you actually read sarkissian's article he quotes authors from s and s and says such was and to a large extent still is the traditional view about the life and the work of moses of khoren which was accepted by the armenians it is this traditional and unquestioned view that has been subjected to much severe criticism during the course of the past hundred years the object of this paper is to summarize and evaluate such criticism so according to sarkissian during the years before the th century dating was constantly in dispute thus topchyan contradicts other sources criticism was not revived it always existed if you insist on revived claim it must be presented only as topchyan's personal opinion and not as a fact because it is not true master