Category Archives: DEBATES

THE ARMENIAN CAPITAL IN TIFLIS – 2019-1

The dynamics of Growth Rates of Armenian Banks and Other Commercial and Financial Institutions at the end of 19th and early 20th century

Summary

Vardan B. Yesayan

Key words  – Commercial Bank of Tiflis, Mutual Credit Organization, banking capital, Armenian bank, working capital, shortterm and long-term credit organizations.

Armenian banking institutions were established in the state of Tiflis during the 70s of 19th century, being the first of their kind in the Caucasus region. Some of the larger banks established with Armenian capital were Commercial Bank of Tiflis, Mutual Credit Organization and Tiflis City Credit Organization, which played a key role in the financial-economic life of state of Tiflis and Transcaucasia region, as well as stood out with the activity of their charitable organizations. Banking institutions with Armenian capital have been established not only in Tiflis, but also in other settlements of the state.

With the establishment and development of banking institutions, their ties with the industrial sector grew stronger, which eventually led to the merger of the two and the establishment of financial capital.

The larger representatives of Armenian financial-banking capital made an attempt to establish a unified Armenian bank, which could compete with large Russian banks. However, Bolshevik revolution and the fair of Russian Empire made the realization of this project impossible.

THE HISTORICAL-LEGAL ESTIMATION OF THE MASSACRES OF THE ARMENIANS OF BAKU IN 1918 – 2018-3

Summary

Armen Ts. Marukyan

Key words – Massacres of the Armenians of Baku, Genocide of Armenians, Pan – Turkism, “special intention”, Ottoman Empire, Young Turks, musavatist, Ottoman army, “The special organization”, “Committee of executioners”.

Massacres of the Armenians of Baku of 1918 was not a separate crime against one part of Armenian people butwasone of stages of the Ottoman Empire’s consistent policy of full destruction of all Armenian people planned and carried out by the government of Young Turks which was laterjoined by the musavatists, too. Certain documents and facts confirm the existence of “the special intention” of the commanders of Ottoman army and military formations of musavatists in the extermination of the Armenian population which is a characteristic element of genocide. On the basis of historical facts and the international norms of rights it is possible to claim that massacres of the Armenians of Baku of 1918 can fully be qualified as genocide.

IMPROVEMENT OF TRAINING OF MAJOR COURSE PROBLEMS THROUGH VISUALIZATION Through PowerPoint

Summary

Smbat Kh. Hovhannisyan

Key words – basic questions ; effective learning; modality of learning (visual, auditory, kinesthetic) ; studying styles; problematic situations; long-terme memory; short-terme memory; “pyramid of learning”.

The purpose of this study is to identify opportunities for creating favorable conditions for interactive communication and learning in an environment where students are actively involved in educational processes. The presentation of the lesson via PowerPoint is carried out in multi-line format. Unlike traditional linear presentation formats, this presentation format allows students to view events, epochs, etc. from numerous points of view.

Furthermore, when using a multiline format, one can group information into blocks, which further facilitates understanding of individual topics and establishing links between them. Visualization with PowerPoint allows both the teacher and the student to freely choose information. Thus, it is extremely important to keep a balance between the three key learning objectives (persuasion, information and motivation).

PRINCELY DYNASTY OF VACHUTYAN – 2018-1

Summary

Tigran M. Petrosyants

Key words – Zakare B.; Zakaryan; Ayrarat province; viceroyalty; Vache A; capital Amberd; amira; commander-executor; hedjub; servicemen; vicegerent;adviser; village chief(s) ; tax collector; messenger.

The administrative government reform was carried out and viceroyalties were formed in Zakaryan Armenia in the early 13th century. The creation of a new government structure presumed the application of new approaches. Courts were also established in viceroyalties: they were formed on the principle of the Zakaryan house. The courts of viceroyalties were the copy of Zakare B’s court. One of the newly created viceroyalties was formed on the territory of the liberated Ayrarat province and handed over to military commander Vache A Vachutyan. The viceroyal had the high title of Prince of Princes headed the hierarchy of the government of the Ayrarat viceroyalty. The viceroyal called himself the Grand Prince, the prince of princes, the paron, the lord, while he called his possessions “princedom” and “viceroyalty”. Other levels of the hierarchy were occupied by the local princes. The Amira, the commander-executor, the Hedjub, the servicemen, the adviser, the village chief(s), the tax collector and the messenger were considered as the highest-ranking officials at the viceroyal’s court. On the basis of the preserved materials the palace hierarchy of the Ayrarat viceroyalty is presented in the article.

THE BABYLONIAN SATRAPY IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM OF ACHAEMENID PERSIA – 2017-4

Summary

Hovhannes G. Khorikyan

Key words – Herodotus, Xenophon, the city of Babylon, Babylonia, Darius I, Satrapy, politics, Assyria,data, Mesopotamia, «the rest of Assyria»,the BehistunInscription.

Ancient greek author Herodotus writes about the IX Satrapy that Babylon and the rest of Assyria rendered to Darius a thousand talents of silver and five hundred boys to be eunuchs.

The Babylonian or IX satrapy was the richest province and the economic center of Achaemenid Empire. The IX satrapy consisted of two subdistricts: the city of Babylon with its suburbs and «the rest of Assyria» toward the north. In other words, this province of Achaemenid Persia included the Lower Mesopotamia: the province of Babylon and the territory of ancient Assur. Moreover, the northwestern vast part of Assyria was within Armenian satrapy. The article concludes that IX satrapy was not a stable administrative unit and its borders were subject to change.

Many important and wrinkled issues on the administrative policy and historical geography of IX Satrapy were examined in the article, the elucidation of which is of great importance for the study of the history of Achaemenid Persia.

THE VERSIONS OF KHORENATSI AND SEBEOS ON THE FALL OF ASSYRIA – 2017-4

Summary

Ruslan A. Tsakanyan

Key words – Assyria, Babylon, Urartu, Armenian Highland, Movses Khorenatsi, Sebeos, Sophena, Ałdznik, Nebuchadnezzar II

n this article an attempt is made (on the basis of the “Babylonian Chronicles” and Armenian medieval historians Movses Khorenatsi and Sebeos) to restore political situation in the Armenian Highland at the end of VII century B.C. In his monumental work M. Khorenatsi mainly preferred Greek sources. Hence originates the “Median” version of the fall of the Assyrian state. But M. Khorenatsi obviously possesses with other sources also, according to which the fall of Assyria was considered from the point of view of Babylon. Moreover, M. Khorenatsi himself does not deny the existence of this fact – “For the deeds of the father Nabuchadnezzar were written down by the supervisors of their annals …”. Here the conclusions are more than clear: under the hand of M. Khorenatsi there were two versions according to which the first Armenian king was crowned not by Nabopalassar or Nebuchadnezzar, but by the Midian king “Varbakes”-Cyaxares. And in the study of Sebeos we meet only the “Babylonian” version, where the above mentioned events are bound to Babylonia. The records of Sebeos are similar to the “Babylonian Chronicles”. Of the latter, we know that during the Assyrian-Babylonian conflict (626-605 B.C.), the Babylonian army, led by King Nabopalassar and Nebuchadnezzar, the heir to the throne, appeared at least three times on the borders of the Armenian Highland. Perhaps they moved further into the highlands – in 609 B.C. in the Izalla area, in 608 B.C. in Bet-Hanuniya and in 607 B.C. “to the district of Uraš/rtu” or “to the district of Sea (in the basin of Lake Van or Lake Hazar (?))”.

THE COUNCIL OF ALEXANDRIA IN 633 – 2017-3

Summary

Sargis R. Melkonyan, Samvel S. Mkrtchyan

Key words – the Council of Alexandria, Ezdras I, Emperor Heraclius I, Sergios I of Constantinople, Cyros of Phasis, Theodoros of Pharan, monotheletism, «mia energeia», «mia thelema», chalcedonism, antichalcedonism.

Almost all medieval Armenian sources report about the Council in Theodosiopolis/Karin in the first half of the 7th century with the participation of the Catholicos of the Armenian church Ezdras I and Heraclius, the emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire, where an unia was adopted between two sides. The same sources say that the Catholicos Ezdras was deceived by the Greeks in this Council and took chalcedonism. But a careful analysis of Armenian and Greek sources shows that the religious politics of the empire concerning the anti-chalcedonian churches of the Egyptians, Assyrians and Armenians were not completely chalcedonian. Unfortunately none of Armenian sources saved that document which served as a basis for the adoption of the union. But it was preserved the unional document with the Egyptian ant-chalcedonites, which was adopted in the local Council of Alexandria in 633.

In this article this union between Egyptian monophysites and chalcedonians is investigated in the context of the new unional politics of Eastern Roman Empire from the beginning of the VII century to 633. Its basis was the doctrine «mia energeia» (mia enjervgeia) of Christ. In this article has first been realized the Armenian translation of the unional text of the Council of Alexandria, which consists of nine chapters. It was also carried out a separate analysis of this document. As a result of it, mutuallyacceptable versions of several Christological controversial formulas between monophysites following Cyrill-Alexandrian traditions and chalcedonians were found.. In addition, it becomes clear that this unional document is not based on chalcedonism, because the basic Christological formulas were interpreted in the cyrilian sense and the formula «mia energeia» try to explain with the expression of St. Dionysius the Areopagite «theandrike energeia». There is no mention of the Council of Chalcedon in 451. These facts prove that doctrine laid at the basis of the unional politics of Emperor Heraclius and Patriarch Sergius in the first half of the 7th century was not exactly chalcedonism.

THE GREAT TRAGEDY OF HOVHANNES KAJAZNUNI – 2016-4

Part one. From smenovekhov distortions to Stalin’s persecution

Summary

Ararat M. Hakobyan

Keywords – smenovekhovstvo, N. Ustrialov, NEP, H. Kajaznuni, Armenian Question, reconstruction, national inclination, ARF Dashnaktsutyun, Kh. Mughdusi, A. Ghazaryan, pro-Soviet position, backstroke.

Hovhannes Kajaznuni’s name in Armenian political history is sometimes identified not with his position of the first Prime Minister of the First Republic of Armenia, but with the brochure “ARF has nothing to do”, published in Bucharest in 1923, which, together with the added word “else” of the Bolshevik propaganda machine has been used as a kind of anti-Dashnak “manifesto” for 70 years.

At critical moments of history, even the most confident politicians may be in despair, it’s quite common in world history and in the history of Armenia as well. This is evidenced by the desire of reconciliation and acceptance of the Soviet regime in the 1920s. Hovhannes Kajaznuni and some other figures fell in this trap, expressing desire to get away from the ARF Dashnaktsutyun, to return home and take an active part in its reconstruction. It was an expression of the ideology of reconciliation with Bolshevism typical for Smenovekhovtsy – Russian émigré circles in the Armenian reality.

Hovh. Kajaznuni thought that in the new conditions the ARF Dashnaktsutyun should leave the political arena and the main role should be given to the Armenian Communist Party, so that the country was restored with the help of the Soviet state and the Armenian issue was resolved. But A. Ghazaryan, who saw the salvation of the Armenian people only by Russia, supports the view that ARF Dashnaktsutyun has much to do to rebuild the country, solving the issue of refugees and other issues. The book by Kajaznuni was an attempt to review the vibrant and fruitful activity of ARF Dashnaktsutyun in 1914-1923, followed by his controversial assessments and conclusions. Most of Kajaznuni’s judgments about historical events were based on assumptions. In fact, to return home and rejoin his family he needed a “political pass”, and the Bolsheviks that were preparing the “self-destruction” of ARF Dashnaktsutyun, needed this book entitled “ARF Dashnaktsutyun has nothing to do”.

k entitled “ARF Dashnaktsutyun has nothing to do”. However, since his arrival in Armenia the public security organs closely followed Kajaznuni, even his daily personal life. Dark clouds gradually deepened overhead Kajaznuni, especially in the 1930s.

On July 28, 1937 People’s Commissar of Internal Affairs Kh. Mughdusi signed a warrant for the search of Kajaznuni apartment and his arrest. On December 5, 1937 the NKVD troika ASSR signed the death sentence against Kajaznuni, the former prime minister and an active member of the ARF Dashnaktsutyun, with the confiscation of personal property. But on the advice of the prison doctor, who diagnosed tuberculosis, the execution of the sentence was postponed. A short time later, on January 15, 1938 Hovh. Kajaznuni, the first Prime Minister of the First Republic of Armenia died in the prison hospital at the age of 70 years.

As a result of the application of well-known methods of Soviet intelligence, many political opponents were affected by smenovekhovstvo’s ideology and gave speeches and wrote books in favor of reconciliation with the Bolsheviks, among them Snar Snaryan (Narinyan), Sahak Chitchyan, Arshak Ghazaryan, Gerasim Atajanian Harutyun Budaghyan, Sahak Torosian and others, most of which subsequently suffered the tragic fate of Hovh. Kajaznuni.

“HUKKANA’S TREATY” AS THE DIPLOMATIC DOCUMENT OF THE HISTORY OF ARMENIA – 2015-4

Summary

Robert P. Ghazaryan

Key words – Hukkana, Suppiluliuma, Hayasa, Hatti, agreement, Mary, Tudhaliya, Mitanni, Hatti King, diplomacy, border security, an ally, Hattusa.

During the reign of the king of Hatti Suppiluliuma I, Hatti signed a number of interstate treaties with the rulers of the neighboring and subject countries. Those treaties mainly aimed at ensuring Hatti’s dominant position in the region. Chronologically the treaty Hatti signed with Hukkana is probably the second treaty with Hayasa (Azzi). According to the treaty Hukkana was not to recognize the legitimacy of anyone else’s rule in Hatti except that of Suppiluliuma I, his heir son or other sons and brothers. In return, Suppiluliuma promised to treat Hukkana and his heir the same way. Their sons were to have the same mutual obligation to each other. Both parties undertook to show military support to each other against enemies. They also had to warn about any conspiracy against each other. It can be assumed from the treaty that Suppiluliuma had invited Hukkana to the Hittite count, had his sister married to him, signed a treaty with him after which he sent Hukkana to Hayasa, probably with Hittite troops. This can mean that Hukkana had established himself or was going to establish himself in Hayasa with the Hittite support. Thus, Hukkana had to ensure the safety of the northeastern borders of Hatti for Suppiluliuma to be able to move his army to the south – against Mitanni. Thus, Suppiluliuma I wanted to diplomatically disconnect the countries of the Armenian Highland from Mitanni, the main antagonist of Hatti, and to receive military support from those countries. It can be mentioned that Hukkana’s treaty, being one of the most important treaties of the Ancient Orient, is at the same time the first comparably completely preserved treaty, the oldest diplomatic document of the Armenian history.

LYCIA IN THE SYSTEM OF ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION OF ACHAEMENID PERSIA – 2015-1

Summary

Hovhannes G. Khorikyan

Key words – Herodotus, Lycia, Lycians, Xanthos, Satrapy, Politics, Data, Achaemenid Empire, Administrative and Political Changes, Administrative State, «Dynastyc Principate»

Administrative governance of Lycia, part of the First satrapy of the Achaemenid Persia, carried out on a different principle, which differed significantly from the policy that was carried out for other satrapies. In the study of primary sources, it becomes clear that in Lycia there was not any satrapy government. Persian court was establishing military or diplomatic relations with the Lycian cities, of which the most famous was Xanthos – administrativeterritorial center of Lycian dynastic system.