– ISSUE 1 (87), JANUARY-MARCH 2025
Author Archives: Admin
AZERBAIJAN’S EXPANSIONIST AMBITIONS TOWARDS THE ZAKATALA DISTRICT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE “GREAT AZERBAIJAN” PROGRAM (1918-1921)
Between 1918 and 1920, under the conditions of the new world order emerging after World War I, Georgians and Caucasian Tatars found themselves engaged in mutual territorial disputes. The border tensions between Georgia and the “Azerbaijan” formation that had emerged in Transcaucasia became frequent, long-lasting, and at times escalated into open military confrontations – particularly over the ownership of the Zakatala district. Taking advantage of the presence of the Ottoman Empire’s army in the region and without waiting for the final settlement of border disputes, the conspiratorial steps were taken by Musavat government to incorporate the Zakatala district into the newly formed “Azerbaijan” entity. Azerbaijan’s claims to this territory were closely tied to the broader ideological and political framework of the “Great Azerbaijan” program.
After the establishment of Soviet power in Azerbaijan on April 28, 1920, the leadership of the Azerbaijan SSR still adhered to the strategic line of expansionism of the Musavatists and continued to take systematic steps to implement the “Great Azerbaijan” program. North Caucasian Bureau of Communist Party acting on the principles of “socialist internationalism”, in the person of its chairman S. Ordzhonikidze supported this expansionist policy, and the Zakatala District was annexed to the Azerbaijan SSR. Thus, if the Young Turks and Musavatists created an artificial entity “Azerbaijan” within the framework of the concept of the general Turkic state, then the top leadership of the RSFSR, based on the idea of a world socialist revolution by strengthening the Turkic factor in the region, essentially contributed to the implementation of the common Turkic program of “Great Azerbaijan”.
THE VIOLENCE AGAINST ARMENIAN WOMEN IN THE CONTEXT OF CRIMES COMMITTED IN SOVIET AZERBAIJAN (1988-1990)
This article examines the violence committed against women during the massacres of Armenians in the cities of Sumgait, Kirovabad (Gandzak), and Baku in 1988-1990. Despite the extensive documentation of these events, the gendered aspect of this violence, particularly the targeting Armenian women, has not been sufficiently studied. This gap in research is particularly evident when it comes to classifying such crimes under international criminal law. While much attention has been given to the broader ethnic violence during these massacres, the specific suffering of women — who were subjected to extreme forms of violence — has remained largely underexplored. Thus, the aim of this article is to present a deeper analysis of the violence perpetrated against Armenian women, drawing from survivor testimonies, legal documents, and human rights reports. Research indicates that nearly half of the Armenian victims during these massacres were women, with their ages ranging from teenage girls to elderly women in their 80s and 90s. Armenian women were not only killed or injured, but many were also subjected to horrific forms of violence, including torture, rape, public humiliation, and other acts intended to degrade their dignity and destroy their identity. By analyzing these crimes through the lens of gender violence, this article seeks to classify the violence against Armenian women as a specific form of atrocity within the broader context of ethnic conflict.
THE RELEVANCE OF THE HISTORY OF THE PAULICIAN AND TONDRAKIAN MOVEMENTSA Critical Perspective on 18th–20th Century Armenian Historiography
The article examines the historiographical representation of the Paulicians and Tondrakians in 18th to 20th-century Armenian scholarship. This period marked the inception of studies on the subject and solidified key narratives that remain debated today. By examining key works from this period, the research uncovers how historiographical perceptions of the Paulicians and Tondrakians swung between viewing them as dangerous heretics or sectarians and as pioneers of reformist ideas.
Studies from this period approached the issue primarily from a religious and theological perspective, thus commonly employing the terms “sectarian” and “sect.” Armenian Evangelical historians, however, adopted the term “movement” to frame the Paulicians and Tondrakians as reformers, thereby highlighting the roots of evangelicalism in Armenia.
The article argues that the debates surrounding the Paulicians and Tondrakians are deeply intertwined with questions of national and religious identity. Consequently, the contrasting perspectives reflect efforts to understand and reevaluate the place of Armenians in the world.
FRAMING DEVICE AS A MEANS OF A COLLECTIVE IDENTITY QUESTIn the novel “The book of Mher’s door” by Levon Khechoyan
The article provides a comprehensive analysis of Levon Khechoyan’s novel “The Book of Mher’s Door”, focusing on the use of framing devices to explore the continuity of Armenian identity. The structural analysis reveals that the novel unfolds through two horizontally arranged narrative frames: a gradual, chain-like construction of lectures and diary notes. Each of these primary frames (diegeses), in turn, contains additional vertically arranged narrative frames.
The article closely examines all narrative levels, emphasizing their relationships and functions. It argues that, in exploring artistic approaches to national essence and the reconstruction, modernization, and continuity of identity, Khechoyan uses the framing device to deconstruct the overarching narrative of Armenianness. Specifically, he disentangles the myth of Little Mher from the grand narratives that shape it, aiming to deconstruct and revise the discourses of national ideology.
Based on the information obtained through the analysis, it is shown that, as a result of the correlation between the two diegeses and the many narrative levels in this novel, Khechoyan’s path is characterized by several stages: highlighting and interpreting the traditional form of collective identity; combining pre-Christian and Christian paradigms for the development of a new paradigm of national identity and “reconciliation”; and various discussions and reinterpretations of revived symbols and narratives.
In this way, and through epic — particularly the figure of Little Mher — Khechoyan overcomes fears of losing national identity by developing a new, overarching paradigm. In this paradigm, the value system, as a synthesis of both pre-Christian and Christian values, Agravakar as the institution safeguarding this new value system, and Little Mher as the embodiment of public functions and the defender of these new values all play important roles. Moreover, it is precisely through the weakening of the textual domains and metalepsis that one can ultimately perceive Khechoyan’s interpretation of Little Mher. Mher is neither a hero “disappointed with the world” nor simply a bearer of an exclusively savior function — he is the guarantor of the preservation of Armenian identity.
EVALUATIONITY IN CONTEMPORARY MASS COMMUNICATION CHANNELS
The article explores evaluativity within the domain of media language. At its core, evaluativity is an attitudinal-conceptual category that, in media texts, becomes a tool for expressing public opinion. It reflects the communicator’s subjective stance toward an event or individual and transforms into an ideological and persuasive impulse within the media. Especially in the digital environment — where content dissemination often relies on expressed attitudes — evaluativity becomes a key component of media language.
In linguistic studies, it is viewed as a system that includes the parameters of attitude, engagement, and graduation. In the Armenian academic field, the topic remains underexplored, although there are isolated studies related to the language of the press, public speech, and advertising. The article aims to provide a comprehensive account of the role of evaluativity in contemporary mass media, examining it on both linguistic levels (word, sentence) and in discourse and macro-contextual dimensions — such as author, audience, genre, media platform, and the
broader cultural-political context.
REFLECTIONS ON KARO HOVHANNISYAN’S WORK “THE SUPREME LEADER: SARKIS ZEITLIAN”
Beirut’s national publishing house “Vage Setyan” has published a monographic work by historian Garo Hovhannisyan, dedicated to one of the major figures of the ARF in the second half of the 20th century, a member of the ARF Bureau, a national public and political figure of the diaspora, editor-in-chief of the periodicals “Yusaber”, “Azdak”, “Azdak Shabatoryak-Droshak”, to the ideologist and publicist of the ARF, a critical history of the life and fruitful work of Sargis Zeitlian (1930-1985), the son and descendant of a brave Musaler resistance fighter. This is Volume A of the author’s planned work, covering the period of his life and work up to 1966. As a continuation of this: the author has conceived of preparing Volume B of this work, dedicated to the life and work of S. Zeitlian, which will present a comprehensive panorama his political, journalistic, party-organizational activities from 1966 until his death (1985) (Oganesyan, 2025, 11).
In this review, we have presented not only the approaches, analyses and assessments of K. Oganesyan regarding the life and multifaceted activities of S.Zeitlyan, but also, as necessary, have tried to give our own observations and explanations on many issues raised in the editorial and journalistic materials of the ideologist and activist of the ARF. S. Zeitlian expanded the framework of the Armenian Question (Hay Dat) at the programmatic level, including by implementing the idea of restoring the free, independent statehood of the Armenian people. At one time, he can be considered one of the founders of the Armenian national ideology in the diaspora under the new conditions.
The monograph presented to the readers is the first of its kind dedicated to the life and work of the great patriot and ideologist S. Zeitlyan. Unfortunately, he lived a relatively short life – only 55 years. The thread of his life was broken at the very height of his intellectual productivity and public engagement, by malicious kidnapping and vile murder, which has not yet been clearly and thoroughly solved. It can be assumed that this work is specially dedicated to the 40th anniversary of the martyr of the great intellectual and Diaspora figure, as a sign of his bright and immortal memory. We also believe that this volume is called upon to strengthen the intellectual, socio-political and spiritual ties between the Diaspora and
Armenia.
EQUIVALENCE IN LITERARY TRANSLATION
The article is dedicated to the examination of the issues related to the equivalence of the Armenian and English translations of Paruyr Sevak’s literary compositions translated by Dora Sakayan whose multi-layered and comprehensive approach, deep understanding of the context and the skillful analysis make her translation remarkable.
For a translator, literary translation is a challenging path that requires studying the author’s entire creative path, deeply understand, perceive the very spirit of the original text and only then reproduce its most accurate expression of it based on her own thoughts, feelings, emotional-expressive inner world and experience in accordance with the language and style of the original.
Literary translation cannot set clear principles of comparison. The translator should make the right choices, thus remaining faithful to the original and reaching out to the target language reader.
Considering that translational problems in fiction are diverse and multifaceted, it is extremely important to adopt a correct and clear strategy for providing solutions.
The issue should be viewed from an epistemological perspective as different cultures and languages make sense of and share the same epistemological foundation, building their systems from the standpoint of the general cognition of the given society.
Thus, the problem of equivalence and its study have been and remain the key issues in translation studies to which various linguists have addressed and continue to explore. And despite the work already done and the achievements made, it remains a relevant object of study.
THE FORMATION OF THE ANTI-ARMENIAN CONCEPT OF “WESTERN AZERBAIJAN” IN POST-SOVIET AZERBAIJAN
After the 44-day Artsakh war in 2020, Azerbaijan uses the process of normalization of Armenian-Azerbaijani relations not to achieve long-term peace, but to impose its vision of the future of the region on Armenia, simultaneously applying the entire set of tools of both military and diplomatic pressure.
Under these conditions, the anti-Armenian concept of “Western Azerbaijan”, which had been constructed by the state since the 1990s but had limited significance and application before the 44-day war, was brought out of its marginal status and endowed with new strategic importance and uses. The visit of Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev to the building of the so-called “Western Azerbaijan Community” organization on December 24, 2022 and his extensive programme speech marked the new role of the “Western Azerbaijan” concept in Azerbaijan’s strategy towards Armenia. Since 2022, this concept has begun to be actively exploited by the state in the process of solving both external and internal problems facing Azerbaijan after the war, becoming the cornerstone of a new large-scale anti-Armenian campaign.
The article examines the historical roots of the territorial notions and ambitions underlying the anti-Armenian concept of “Western Azerbaijan”, examines the prerequisites for the formation of the anti-Armenian concept of “Western Azerbaijan” in post-Soviet Azerbaijan and the main stages of its development, and reveals the main goals, spheres, and tools of the state’s application of the concept after the 44-day Artsakh war.
A MAJOR ACHIEVEMENT OF EUROPEAN ARMENOLOGY
Contemporary Armenian studies were enriched in 2024 by a valuable new German-language publication, co-authored by distinguished Armenologists, German Professor Tessa Hofmann and Norwegian Dr. Winfried K. Dallmann. The substantial volume, titled “Das geopolitische Schicksal Armeniens. Vergangenheit und Gegenwart” (“The Geopolitical Fate of Armenia: Past and Present”), is original and highly significant from multiple perspectives. First and foremost, the book presents a comprehensive history of the Armenian people from the earliest times to the present day. Importantly, it provides scholarly and compelling interpretations of issues related to different historical periods, issues on which the perspectives of foreign researchers at times lacked objectivity. Secondly, the work is structured two parts and comprises eighteen chapters. The first part presents the millennia-long history of the Armenian people up to the declaration of independence of the Third Republic of Armenia, while the second part, consisting of eight chapters, covers the events of the following thirty-five years. This testifies to the authors’ recognition of the importance of the modern period, marked by both triumph and tragedy, challenges, victories and defeats, as well as a host of unresolved issues. Central of this era lies the Artsakh conflict and the developments directly related to and surrounding it.
Another important merit of the book is the fact that the narrative is thoroughly mapped out. In other words, when presenting Armenia across different historical periods, the authors include corresponding maps, which make the material more concrete and render the authors’ conclusions and generalizations more compelling and irrefutable.
The work, which offers a comprehensive account not only of Armenia and the Artsakh conflict but also of the history of the Armenian diaspora, serves as a unique encyclopedia or textbook for anyone seeking deep and thorough knowledge of these subjects, as well as of the regional and international developments that have unfolded in these contexts.