Category Archives: HISTORY



Sargis G. Petrosyan
According to Strabo, companions of the legendary ancestor and the eponym of the Armenians, i.e.Armenos, once settled downpartlyin Sispiritis, partly in Qalakhene and others-outside of the Armenian highland-in Adiabene (in the
North-East of Mesopotamia). Until now there has been no genuine comparativehistorical approach in assessing the information about Thessaly Argonaut Armenos. The theme of Armenos, in our opinion, is inseparably linked with the Armenian ancient stories about Aramanyak, which is connected both with the origin of husbandry and the ancient Armenian ethnos. The fact is that the IndoEuropean husbandry tribes played a dominant role in the formation of the ancient Armenian ethnic community. Ancient Armenian stories mention that Hayk, ethnarch of the Armenians, after the birth of his elder son Aramanyak, goes to the land of Ararad.

At the end of the VIII Millennium BC in the basin of the Western Tigr is the culture of the first settled down farmers and cattle breeders was formed. Within this region, at the foothills of the Armenian Tavros in the future Armenian district Angeltun the early agricultural settlement of Chayonyou is situated. The excavations of Chayonyou revealed poly residues of cultivated plants– wheat, peas, lentils and vetch.


And the Armenian celestial symbols


Sargis G. Petrosyan-Doctor of Historical Sciences
The winged Sun – the symbol of the Hittite Sun god, was present on the stamps of several Hittite kings. The prototype of this symbol is found on the rockcarvings in Armenia, and in Urartu this symbol was used both as that of the Sun god and sometimes as the symbol of Haldi. One of the gods of the Hittite pantheon was called “rising from the sea”, “Sun god of Water” and was described “with fish on his head”. The city of Tushpa (Van), on the eastern shore of Lake Van, was a well-known centre of the Sun worship. The River Berkri, which is rich in fish, flows into Lake Van in its north-east. Here were the fishery trades of the ancient Armenian kings. It is in this region where the Urartian king Menua erected a stele which according to its script, was dedicated to the Sun god.

The stamp of Suppiluliuma I differs from those of other Hittite kings with the contour image of the constellation of Orion printed on it. It is also found in the Armenian cave drawings, on the ceramic products of the Bronze Age, in the Urartian hieroglyphic scripts, even in the Medieval Armenian manuscripts (in the list of “The Letters of the Sages”). As a written sign, in ancient times it was considered the symbolic sign of Hayk, the main god of the ancestors of Armenians. It is known that ancient Armenians called the constellation of Orion-Hayk(-n).

On the stamp of Suppiluliuma I there was also a written sign which in the Hittite hieroglyphic writing meant “deity”. In Armenia, the same signs are found on one Bronze Age ceramic vessel (18th-16th cc. B.C.) and on one bronze jug (8th6th cc. B.C.) from Lake Sevan basin. In the Armenian Highland this sign was attributed to the Sky god (most probably to the same Hayk). It was a picture of an ellipsoidal eye, i.e. the same image which was attributed to the sky by our ancestors. In the mythological images of the Indo-Europeans/Indo-European peoples, the concepts “eye” and “sky” are comparable in the same way as the conceptions “eye’s light” and “light” or “tear” and “rain”.

The appearance of symbols like the winged disk of Sun, the constellation Orion and the Sky in the form of eyes on the stamp of Suppiluliuma I and on materials related to the cult of Hayk – the mythical progenitor of Armenians, is not the result of an accidental coincidence. Most likely, we are dealing with the IndoEuropean heritage.

In case of Armenian material, one must keep in mind that the archetypes of these symbols are already present in the oldest rock paintings of the Armenian mountains. In case of the stamp of Suppiluliuma I, it should be borne in mind, that the symbol of the constellation Orion has been added to the symbols of the wingy solar disk and the celestial eye known to the Hittites long ago.

The need for a parallel research of these symbols in the paper is dictated by the logic of the hole Hittite and Armenian adduced and discussed material.


Part II: Struggle for preserving of the unity of Armenian kingdom


Arman S. Yeghiazaryan-Doctor of Sciences in History
The late 960s and the first half of the 970s became the most difficult and decisive stage of the reign of Ashot III the Merciful. The Armenian kingdom at the peak of its power was in great danger, since the Byzantine Empire at this stage showed ambitious plans for conquest in the East. The main goal of Byzantium was to conquer countries and territories, stretching from Cilicia to Palestine, and in its activities, on the one hand, it enjoyed the support of the armed forces of Bagratid Armenia, and on the other hand tried to conquer more new territories of Armenia and contribute to a split within the country.

Byzantine politics aimed at the conquest of Taron-Turuberan in the west of Great Armenia, the western areas of the Ayrarat province, and in the future, the Vaspurakan kingdom. Pursuing its policy of expansionism, Byzantium sought to maximize the problems between the Armenian local feudal lords and the central authority of the Bagratids, as well as the ambitions of some Armenian nobles. Unfortunately, the emperors were able to achieve their goals, which, on the one hand, reduced the territory of the kingdom of Armenian Bagratids, and on the other hand, the fragmentation of the united kingdom weakened its ability to resist, making it more vulnerable to neighbors.

The loss of Taron was the result of Byzantine pressure on the rulers of this region and occurred in the context of the aggravated Arab-Byzantine conflict. Under such conditions, the rulers of Taron were forced to cede their domains to Byzantium, in exchange receiving new possessions and honorary titles from the empire.

Through the efforts of the Byzantine court, the king of Vaspurakan also decided to confront Ashot III in church and confessional matters and sought to the dominate position in Armenia. But after the annexation of Taron, he abandoned his claims.

Ashot III did not conform with the current situation, as a result of which relations between the Armenian kingdom and Byzantium became tense. In the age of John Tzimiskes reign Armenian-Byzantine relations were settled, moreover, as a result of considerable military assistance from the Armenian king to the emperor of Byzantium, they even trmporarily acquired features of a military alliance.

Despite Byzantium succeeded in annexing Taron, but Ashot III managed to prevent its further advancement. But the empire was waiting for a convenient opportunity to achieve its goals.

As a result of Byzantine intervention in the affairs of the Armenian kingdom in 875, Mushegh, the ruler of the Kars fortress and the Vanand region, proclaimed himself king. Ashot III was forced to acknowledge the fact, recognizing the reign of his brother Mushegh in exchange for his submission to the Ani throne.

The spiritual life of the kingdom in the studied period was not calm either: the kingdom again faced the danger of the spread of Chalcedonism, but this challenge was neutralized.


Albert A. Stepanyan
Antique and Early Medieval (Christian) social theory is considered to be based on the concept of the isomorphism of the two principal components of social life – individual and social bodies. This approach reached back to the Sophists, Socrates, and Plato. In his treatise, Politics, Aristotle brought the concept of focusing attention on the household/family (oivjkoς) to fruition and finding in it the first (and the basic) form of social partnership (koinoniva) [Aristot., Polit., II, 1259a, 3 – 7]. He believed that the socialization of two opposite individuals – men and women – was only effectively formed within a family.


Part I. Strengthening of the Armenian kingdom (953-966)


Arman S. Yeghiazaryan
The reign of Ashot III the Merciful (953-978) is one of the most discussed one in the history of Armenia. This is due to the fact that during this period Ani became the capital of Armenia and gradually became the focus of the civilizational accomplishments of the Armenian people, and it was then that the collapse of the kingdom of Armenian Bagratids began.

Despite these important circumstances, the history of the reign of Ashot III the Merciful is still not fully researched. There are many questions for which the historian must find answers.

Ashot III the Merciful ascended to the throne in 953 and immediately set about choosing a new capital. The facts show that the attempt to liberate the ancient capital of Armenia, Dvin, immediately after the accession in 953, served to resolve this issue. The attempt was unsuccessful after which Kars remained the capital of Armenia for 8 years.

It should be noted that the liberation of Dvin was part of Ashot III the Merciful’s big plan to subjugate the Muslim emirates of the Arax river valley. And if the attempt to liberate Dvin failed, the rest of the plan was implemented with great success. The emirates of the Arax river valley from Dvin to Nakhijevan were subordinated to the king of Armenia, who appointed his governors there.

Until 961, when Ani was declared the capital of the kingdom of the Bagratids, Ashot III the Merciful was busy strengthening and improving the state. It should be noted that he inherited a united, powerful and developed kingdom from his father, the king of Armenia Abas (929-953) and managed to continue its further strengthening and development.

At the beginning of Ashot III the Merciful’s reign, the Hamdanids state, whose troops were defeated by the Armenian army in 959 in the southwestern border of the Armenian kingdom threatened the Armenian kingdom. For the second time the enemy was defeated in Taron canton.

Although the name “The Merciful” is attributed to him because of the beautification of the church and help to the poor and sick, it should be noted that he was also a gifted person and king.


To the 100 anniversary of its adoption


Ararat M. Hakobyan

Key words – Mets Hayk, statehood, act, independence, “28th of May”, “United Armenia”, delegation, memorandum, congress, Pogos Nubar, V. Tekeyan, A. Aharonyan, Paris assembly, Versailles, “10th of August”, treaty of Sevres, W. Wilson, Nations League, Senate, arbitral award.

On May 28 1919 – a year after the declaration of Armenia’s independence, a historical opportunity for the idea of uniting the Homeland and nation for creating United and Independent Armenia had emerged.

Till then, May heroic battles had given us the opportunity to solve two problems: a) to save the Eastern Armenians and Western Armenian refugees who had found shelter in Eastern Armenia and b) to make the Turks recognize Armenia’s independence on a small native land.

Therefore the declaration of Armenia’s independence had to become the basis for initiating the steps for fulfilling the main aim of creating United Armenia. The very existence of the Republic under the land name of “Armenia” in itself supposed that despite the extreme narrowness of its territory in case of favorable political conditions it would claim to land acquisition and completion.

After the end of the First World War the main issue of the foreign policy of RA was the comprehensive solution of the Armenian Question through the unification of the two main parts of Armenia.

During the session on December 5, 1918 the Armenian government decided to send a delegation to Europe for presenting the Armenian demands. After sending the delegation to Europe the next step of the Republic of Armenia was the official announcement concerning the United Armenia.

Until then for the purpose of accomplishing the political aspirations and programs of the Armenian nation and giving it an official outlook on February 6-13, 1919 the 2nd (B) congress of the Western Armenians was held in Yerevan with the participation of 55 delegates chosen from 223.630 Western Armenian refugees living in RA, as well as, other charity organizations. Here the idea of creating one united state through unification of the Eastern and Western Armenian parts was developed. Then, since February 24 up to April 22 The First (A) Armenian (Western Armenian) Congress was held. 

On April 27, 1919 the Armenian council adopted a law about ceasing its works for a month and transmiting the rights of the parliament to the government. And on the last days of monthly terms of legislative authority given to the government of Armenia by the parliament two important laws were adopted: one of them was adopted on May 26 “About the United and Independent Armenia” while on the next day – on May 27 another one deriving from the former , i.e. ”On Replenishment of the Council of Armenia” was adopted. On May 28, 1919 – on the anniversary of the declaration of the independence of Armenia by relying on the 3rd provision of the law adopted on May 27 a solemn session of parliament and government was conveyed in the hall of the council of Armenia in which the acting president of the government Al. Khatisyan read the official declaration about the unification of Armenia. It was published under the title of “The Act of Declaration of the Independence of the United Armenia”.


At the last period of its conflict with Byzantium (late 6th – early 7th century)


Arsen K. Shahinyan

Key words – Iranian marzpanate of Iberia (Varǰan-Wiručān), Iranian marzpanate of Albania (Ārān), Byzantine-Iranian wars, Principality of Iberia (K‘art‘li), Principality of Albania (Ałuank‘), Ērismt‘avaris of K‘art‘li, išxans of Ałuank‘.

During the Byzantine-Iranian last two wars in history, via of 572–591 and 603–628, there have been fundamental changes in a political system of the Christian marzpanates, which had being existed since the partition of Anterior Asia between the Roman Empire and Sasanian Iran in 387. The marzpanates of Iberia (Varǰan-Wiručān) and Albania (Ārān) belonging to Iran had gained a political independence under the presiding and hereditary princes and this fact was recognized by official Constantinople.

In this article for the first time in scientific literature, the author considers the genesis of the national institutes of the “presiding princes” in Iberia (K‘art‘li) and Albania (Ałuank‘) as a creation, on the political map of the Southern Caucasus (Transcaucasus) of the states, namely hereditary principalities, under the auspices of Constantinople. He also specifies the time of their genesis de facto and de jure, the borders of distribution of the sovereign power by those “presiding princes” and their residences under the conditions of the constant changing of the geopolitical situation in Anterior Asia.

The author shows that these national institutes of the “presiding and hereditary princes” – of Khosrovids (Chosroids) in Iberia, and Mihranids – in Albania, were legally issued by the Byzantine authorities in 589 and 629 respectively, considered as a peculiar structure in the general system of administrative management of the vast empire. All those high titles in the Byzantine hierarchy, which were awarded to the early representatives of these national institutes by emperors, and the magnificent insignias of the power sent them, are visually testify to it. Therefore, the “presiding princes” of Iberia and Albania were considered in Constantinople as the Byzantine administrators in the countries of the Christian Caucasus. At the same time, this fact did not prevent them to conduct quite independent and balanced foreign policy in any way.

Emperor of Maurice (582–602) recognized the first autonomous principality of K‘art‘li created directly at the borders of Byzantium at the beginning of the 570th, and appropriated the title of “curopalates” to its presiding prince (ērismt‘avari) of Guaram (Gurgen) I only in 589 – after having received an official application from Tbilisi.

The next ērismt‘avari, Step‘anos I the Great, who had been approved in 591 as the governor of the Byzantine Iberia by emperor of Maurice, during the so-called “Twenty-five years’ war” of 603–628, when Khosrow II the Parviz won victories over the Greeks, occupied Jerusalem in 614, right then replaced his Byzantine suzerain of Heraclius I 610–641) with this Iranian. So Step‘anos reunited the Byzantine part of Iberia with Mtskheta (Mc‘xet‘a) as its center and Iranian part of Iberia with Tbilisi (T‘bilisi) as its center within the one principality.

The Byzantine sovereignty in K‘art‘li at the last time was approved only under
Guaram II, after 659, when Muslims had finally erased Sasanian Iran from the political map of the Anterior Asia. This Iberian ērismt‘avari also received the Byzantine imperial court title of “curopalates”.

Varaz-Grigor was confirmed in 629 to the position of the presiding prince (išxan) of neighboring Ałuank‘ by Heraclius I, who had come to him to his residence in Gardman. This išxan also received, most likely, a high Byzantine court title. Nevertheless, in 632/3 Varaz-Grigor recognized the suzerainty of the last Persian king of kings of Yazdegerd III (632/3–651). As a result he achieved also an appointment of his son of J̌uanšēr by the šahanšah as a sparapet, i.e. supreme commander of the armed forces of Ałuank‘.

Only after falling of Sasanian Iran, the išxan and sparapet of Ałuank‘ J̌uanšēr (636/7– 681) became about 659 a citizen of the new emperor of Constant II (641–668), having received other high Byzantine imperial court title of so-called “proton patricius” and magnificent insignias of the power.

As one more major manifestation of the sovereignty in Iberia it is possible to consider stamping for the first time in the Georgian history of national coins by ērismt‘avaris, and in Ałuank‘ – establishment of the independent institute of the military administration, via sparapet.


To the 100th Anniversary of the 9th General Assembly Resolution of ARF Dashnaktsutyun on the Special Project


Gohar V. Khanumyan
In the given article the renewed vision of the history of the Special Project – “Hatuk Gordz” (known as “Nemesis”) operation is presented as an implementation of the verdicts by the Turkish military tribunal towards the leaders of the Young Turks who had organized the Armenian Genocide. The basis for this approach serves the recently discovered and published archive of the newly revealed member of the Special Project – Aaron Sachaklian, as well as other historical fatcs. For the examination of the Special Project, the list of the criminals drafted by the 9th General Assembly Resolution of ARF Dashnaktsutyun during September 28 – November 2, 1919, as well as other lists of the Young Turk leaders are considered.

It is important to note that for the investigation of the Special Project the author of the given article uses for the first time in the Armenian historiography the works of the contemporary researchers French journalist Jacques Derogy and professor Marian Mesrobian MacCurdy. The article presents unknown episodes of Tehlirian’s biography, who was the most famous figure in the “Nemesis” operation. Although Tehlirian is widely known, his biography is insufficiently presented in the scientific literature. Particularly, Tehlirian’s efforts towards seeking the Armenian orphans during 1916-1917 in his native city of Yerznka (Erzinjan), his involvement in the Special Project in 1920-1921, and uncovering the Turkish crypto criminals in Berlin are presented in the article. along with his companions are presented in this article.

The preparatory work of the judicial procedure of Soghomon Tehlirian is also presented in the article, particularly the activities of the Special Fund (“Hatuk gumar”) created by ARF Dashnaktsutsyun for the moneyed assistance to the Special Project. A comparative analysis of the procedures of Soghomon Tehlirian and Misak Torlakyan has been carried out which reveals many similarities within the organization of the protection in the court.



Ruslan A. Tsakanyan

Key words – Assyria, Tiglath-Pileser III, mass deportation, settlement, internal policy, Mesopotamia, Babylon, Urartu.

In this paper we discuss the application of the policy of deportations and resettlements in Assyria. This application of this policy begins in Assyria as a result of the military and political reforms of Tiglath-Pileser III (745-727B.C.). An opinion is expressed in the article that that policy was borrowed from Urartu. What concerns the application of the policy ofnasāḫu, the author tries to bring it into line with a corresponding policy (agency) of a later period. He comes to the conclusion, that the whole responcibility for that policy was concentrated in the hands of the “rab ummâni” agency and was carried out through “lúmušarkisu”. In all probability the functions of “rab ummâni” were similar to those of “hazarapati” in Iran of Achaemenid and Armenia of Arsacid dynasty and to those of “χιλίαρχος” mentioned in the Greek sources. The application of the policy of nasāḫuin Assyria had serious political and economic motivations (one paid especially a serious attention to installing of a control on the Assyrian part on the trade roads). One paid also serious attention to the question of resettlement of the deported population: In the deported population the experienced warriors were divided from the rest, who were given to the king and complemented the lines of the royal guard. One divided from the rest of the deported population a group of experienced (professional) people (in the manuscripts we have very heterogeneous information about these people among who we find high-ranking officials up to shepherds and gardeners), who were given to the stratum of pagan priests, especially they were given to the temple of God Aššur. One part of the deported people was given to the royal court who the royal officials divided between themselves. His share in the deported population had also the environment of the royal palace which had a firm place in the land and was a kind of a balance to the Assyrian military upper class. The last part of the deported population was given to the bigger cities (Aššur, Calah, Nineveh, Arbail). In the course of the massive resettlements the ethnic picture of each concrete region was changed, of course, and the possibility of an uprising on the part of those resettled became less probable, this happened, of course, in case of the presence of strong military forces. But the decay of the same military forces was, of course, to lead a catastrophic situation, the decline of Assyria.



Yervand H. Grekyan

Key words – cuneiform, palaeography, Urartian monumental script, Urartian cursive, scribal school, Assyro-Mitannian, Middle Assyrian, Neo-Assyrian, periphery.

The discovery of the first known Urartian school text in Ayanc‘ (Ayanis), near Van city stimulates to discuss again not only the hypothesis of the existence of schools in Urartu, but also the problem of the origins of Urartian scribal and literary culture in general. The results of the present study allow to find out formulae, which are typical for the Middle Assyrian annalistic texts of the 2nd half of the II millennium BC, as well as a number of cuneiform sign forms, which, in contrary to the contemporary Neo-Assyrian texts, occur only in the Urartian cuneiform inscriptions of the IX-VII centuries BC. These facts allow to develop again the theory, according to which Urartian scribal school had roots in the cuneiform culture of the 2nd millennium BC, perhaps, through the intermediary of a ‘peripheral center’ in the southern parts of the Armenian Highland, which continued to keep the traditions of the Middle Assyrian scribal school, at least, at the beginning of the I millennium BC.