Author Archives: SimonVratsian



Karen P. Hayrapetyan
From the first days of their formation, the authorities of the Republic of Armenia (1918-1920) faced the problem of Western Armenian refugees. In the matter of its resolution, both the purely socio-economic aspects of the problem and its political, fragmentary features should be taken into account. With the goal of overcoming fragmentation with its negative manifestations, the republican authorities, together with the solution of directly refugee issues, needed to take appropriate steps to overcome in the minds of Western Armenian refugees the distrust and alienation that existed in their attitude towards the authorities and the population of the newly formed Republic of Armenia. For this purpose, it was necessary to take certain steps to integrate the Western Armenian refugees into the socio-economic and socio-political life of the Republic of Armenia, to create conditions for involving Western Armenians in the creation of the independent Armenian state. Ultimately, republican authorities intended to overcome the negative manifestations of fragmentarity.

The authorities of the first Republic of Armenia considered fragmentarity an obstacle to the creation of a state. The overcoming of fragmentarity as the main goal of the republic’s authorities was first voiced from the rostrum of the Second Congress of Western Armenians.

The policy of the republic’s authorities to overcome the fragmentarity was carried out before the Second Congress of Western Armenians. The policy of accommodating Western Armenian refugees, the liquidation of medical and educational institutions created for them, also had the goal of overcoming fragmentarity. In itself, the Second Congress of Western Armenians for the authorities of the republic was the implementation of the policy of overcoming fragmentarity. At the congress, the political goals and ideals of the Western Armenian refugees who found refuge in the Republic of Armenia were formulated. The congress was a milestone in a positive change in the negative attitude of the Western Armenian refugees towards the Republic of Armenia. The Second Congress created political grounds for starting cooperation with the authorities of the republic. For this reason, the Second Congress of Western Armenians actually had a breakthrough value in overcoming fragmentarity.


Military operations on the Caucasus Front from July 1914 to April 26, 1916 Copy-book 4: from July 10, 1915 to August 14, 1915


Ruben O. Sahakyan
In his 4th notebook of memoirs, General T. Nazarbekyan describes his military operations that took place from July 10 to August 14, 1915. The commander continues to describe the July retreat of 1915 from Kopa in the west and Van in the south. In his opinion, during the advancement of units of the 4th Army Corps the rear service could not ensure uninterrupted supply of the advancing units. In addition, there was no stable communication between the advancing units and therefore commanders of the unit were unable to coordinate their actions. At the same time mutually exclusive orders were given by the corps commander, General P. Oganovsky due to which operations to seize the cities of Mush and Bitlis (Bagesh) were failed.

In his memoirs T. Nazarbekyan calls the treacherous July departure from the city of Van of the Transbaikal (Trans-Baikal) Cossack Division under the command of General A. Nikolaev. According to T. Nazarbekyan, nothing threatened the city of Van. He also refutes the widespread belief that 11 unfriendly divisions attacked the part of the 4th Caucasian Army Corps. According to the general, about 4 Turkish divisions advanced in the direction of Manazkert. Due to a thoughtless and justified retreat, more than 10 thousand Armenian refugees – children, women and the elderly died. Victims could be more if they were not protected by the Armenian volunteers and Russian military personnel.

Ruben Safrastyan, Mustafa Kemal; The Fight Against the Republic of Armenia in 1919-1921 – 2019-4


Gevorg S. Khoudinyan
Although, over the past 100 years, the Soviet, post-Soviet, and Diaspora Armenian historiography has repeatedly touched upon separate episodes of the life and activities of Mustafa Kemal – the founder of the republican Turkey, including the history of the irreconcilable struggle against Armenia in 1919-1921, for a number of objective and subjective reasons no scientific view on that prominent political and military figure has been formed within us. The reason is that in the Soviet era we faced political barriers fed by the traditions of the Lenin-Ataturk friendship, and in the post-Soviet years the reality of insufficient study of sources and the lack of a certain concept of perception of historical-political processes in us. Almost the same superficiality and one-sidedness has been observed among Diaspora Armenian scholars, who have relied mainly on limited information about Mustafa Kemal in western sources.

Since the restoration of independence of Armenia, our historiography in assessing the life and activities of Mustafa Kemal should not continue to be guided by reconciliatory characterizations of the Soviet era, or merely a damnatory’s propagandistic mental pattern based on moral principles. In the process of building our own independent statehood, the scientific study of Turkey’s rich state-political traditions becomes paramount, leaving aside the starting points of worldviews on reconciliation and moral condemnation stemming from their concealed belief of the impossibility of achieving and surpassing them. Today we need to know, recognize, and understand the great and small secrets of our adversary’s successes over the last two centuries, so that tomorrow we can find the tools to counter them. On the basement of all this first of all lies the scientific task of comprehensive study of the life and activities of politician and statesman Kemal Ataturk.

In this regard prof. Ruben Safrastyan’s brochure entitled “Mustafa Kemal. The Fight Against the Republic of Armenia in 1919-1921” though not of a large volume, however is quite full of extensive questions and statements of issues and is in fact the first bold attempt. The author has succeeded in finding a clear inheritance link between the Young Turks responsible for the Armenian Genocide and the new Turkish leader who appeared in the political stage concealing their crime after the Armistice of Mudros. This has revealed one of the most essential principles of Turkey’s state policy to distinguish itself from the crimes committed by previous administrations and those already uncovered, but at the same time continuing to act with new methods under new conditions.

Therefore we think that in just a few months Mustafa Kemal’s conversion from the word “fazahat” condemning the Armenian Genocide to the genocidal vocabulary of the Young Turks on the eve of the 1920 autumn attack on the Republic of Armenia was not an expression of ordinary hypocrisy, as the author claims, but a shift in the toolkit of permanent expansionism characteristic of Turkish state policy. In the political statements of the past and present state officials of Turkey it is pointless to seek political principles with their western understanding; the latter have served and serve as instruments appropriate to this particular milestone of expansionism. In this context, criticism does not stand up to the assessment of the Turkish National Covenant carried out by Soviet scholars at the time as an attempt to cross the broad borders of the Ottoman Empire to the narrow boundaries of national statehood. The nation-state model adopted by Mustafa Kemal was, in fact, an attempt to modernize traditional forms and methods of Turkish expansionism, at the first destination of which its kernel was formed, with the unification of Anatolia and Western Armenia, but at the same time they mined the next zones of expansion outlined around it towards Syria, Cyprus, Thrace, Iranian Atrpatakan (Iranian Azerbaijan), Eastern Armenia and Western and Southern Georgia.

In this context, the author was able to reveal the secret instruction of Foreign Minister Mukhtar Bey on November 8, 1920 to the Commander of the Turkish Army Kâzım Karabekir on the “elimination” of the Republic of Armenia, which was one of the tangible manifestations of this process. The gradual demolition of Armenia inwardly and putting into game the existing Turkic ethnic enclaves for the purpose of its occupation had already been successfully completed in Kars and Nakhijevan, but had failed in Zangibassar and Vedi. In the Soviet period too, Turkey adopted a similar policy towards Armenia, which continued until the Karabakh movement. It is no coincidence, therefore, that they were not as angry in Baku about the departure of Azerbaijanis from Armenia as they were in Ankara. This policy continues today, with Turkey’s prompting to Azerbaijan concerning the latter’s manifested pretensions towards Zangezur, “Gökçe” and even “Irevan”.



Gevorg M. Ghukasyan
The article presents the foundations, origins and development of “soft power” theory, as well as the interests served by that theory. The post-war perception of traditional power and the need for a “soft power” theory are also discussed.

There are many parallels between the “soft power” theory and the lobbying institute, functional similarities and correlations in the framework of Political Science. The article tries to present that correlations, which can have a significant impact on the effectiveness of individual or complex applications of these tools and on better understanding of phenomena within political science.

The thing is that both the lobbying toolbar and “soft power” technology actually work on public opinion to have influence. The only difference is that normally the “soft power” technology dictated by the dominant actor, but in the case of lobbying, the decoration of public opinion is implemented in public scope, however, the ultimate target is not the society but the decision makers through that society. So the ultimate target of both are the elites anyway.

In “soft power” technology, one of the targets is the formation of decision-making frameworks with a specific outlook, and in the case of lobbying, as a rule, the decisionmakers are again the target. The toolkits for reaching the target may be different.

In other words, “soft power” policy usually seeks to form an elite, and lobbying attempts to turn the already formed elite into a target of political pressure, often using technological tools of “soft power” policy.

Therefore, it is important to understand the theoretical and practical aspects of the above correlation and many other parallels, as well as to find out what layers of parallel development apply to functional co-operation and theoretical combination.

Thus, both in the use of “soft power” and in lobbying, an attempt is made:
– some modification or targeted guidance of public opinion in ways that exclude traditional use of force,
– to achieve the desired decisions by methods that exclude the traditional use of force,
– to achieve the expected result through persuasion and attraction, as well as by sharing the same civilizational perceptions and values,
– to create a circle of friends and relatives to solve any issue,
– to take advantage of the wide range of tools and opportunities provided by public diplomacy, etc.

In both cases, we are dealing with unique and well-established institutions of the political process that are political forces and factors that exclude the use of traditional perceptions of force – military, financial transactions, and coercion, with the exception of corrupt manifestations of lobbying, but of an elementary nature. they don’t.

It should be noted that the theory of “soft power”, formed in the political school of a state seeking global influence, and, in effect, being a tool of state policy, was adopted and adapted by non-state organizations, especially lobbying organizations. So it is no coincidence that “soft power” tools began to be used, in fact, long before their introduction, which coincided with the unprecedented rise of the lobbying institute. Therefore, it can also be concluded that the advance and present rise of the “soft power” policy and lobbying institute have been largely dependent on one another.



Seda A. Parsamyan
The term “cultural genocide” was coined by Rafael Lemkin simultaneously with the word “genocide”, and was a constituent part of the original definition of genocide, which is “systematic and deliberate extermination of the group”. However, for many years, genocide scholars have modified the term, departing from its original definition. Some theorists are of the opinion that the difficulty in defining cultural genocide stems from its main constituent part – culture, which is permanently changing and developing. However, that same culture is being developed and changed within the group itself. Consequently, if there is no group its culture can not change and develop by itself separately. The individual approaches and disagreements of the genocide scholars about the “cultural genocide” are largely due to the lack of clarity of the term in international law. Despite the urgency of the matter, to date there is no international legal instrument or document criminalizing “cultural genocide”. Not finding its clear definition in international law, cultural genocide is being used as a policy propaganda tool to gain the attention and response of international community against the violations of cultural rights. We have raised the issue of destruction of culture being carried out nowadays and accompanied by genocides stressing that the absence of legal regulation implies the necessity of new international convention criminalizing the destruction of culture of protected groups.

This article presents the origin and definition of the term “cultural genocide”, through emphasizing the link between physical and cultural extermination as two sides of the same crime, and discussing the approaches of genocide scholars to the term “cultural genocide”, particularly the attempts to change it also through renaming.


A Comparative Examination of the Activities of Armenian and Persian Pioneers in Ethnography and Philology


Anahit I. Yahyamasihi
Ethnography and folkloristics as science formed in Armenia in the early 19th century and relatively late in the early 20th century in Iran and found their place in the cultural and art system. Garegin Srvandztiants and Sadegh Hedayat have their permanent place in Armenian and Persian literature.

Along with folklore studies, they traveled and focused on their native land, people’s lifestyle, beliefs, customs and traditions, spoken language, behavior and habits.

The Srvandztiants-Hedayat parallels show that literary critics of two different nations and faiths shared the same ideas, style, thinking, and taste in the field of collection of folklore.

Their literary talents had been revealed since their years of adolescence as they struggled vigorously against their own and foreign oppressors.

Srvandztiants’ and Hedayat’s greatest service was the organization of the collection of folklore – the popular word, and the effort to put it on a scientific basis. They were so profound in folklore and ethnography that they introduced them to the field of their artistic compositions. Their prose was just overflowed with people’s folklore.

G. Srvandztiants, with his collections “Written and Oral Compositions” (“GrotsBrots”), “The Door of David of Sasoon and Mher”, “About the Old and New” (“Hnots and Norots”), “Manana”, “With Taste and Smell” (“Hamov-Hotov”), presented himself as a profound researcher thus establishing the Armenian ethnographicscholarly teaching. And after the publication of Hedayat’s works of “Osane” (“Fairy Tale”) and “Neyrangestan” (“The Land of Wonders”), studies of ethnography and folklore gained new momentum in Iran.

Not only were the folklorists diligently involved in the study of folklore, they also encourag ed their close ones to be supportive and to cooperate. By their exhortation, many materials were saved from loss, and many researchers began to engage in folkloristic work. It should be emphasized that with their services, G. Srvandztiants and S. Hedayat, became the teachers of many in the field of respectively the Armenian and Iranian ethnography and folkloristics.


Emma L. Chookaszian
After his victory against the Ottoman Empire in 1604, Shah Abbas forced the Armenians of the region to migrate to his new capital, Isfahan. The Armenians prospered here quickly, establishing churches, schools, and monasteries. Traders, carpenters, metal craftsmen, and miniaturists played a very important role among the immigrants. As a result, Isfahan became a refuge for miniaturists from different provinces of historic Armenia, each bringing with them the stylistically recognizable traditions of their local school that were going to be further developed and refined on the new land.



Arsen E. Harutyunyan, Sergiu V. Matveev (Qishnev)
The Armenian community of Moldova was formed at least in the 10-11th centuries and developed in the 14-15th centuries after the establishment of Moldovian power in 1359. The town of Izmail previously located in the province of Bessarabia and at present within the region of Odessa of Ukraine, before its fortress having been taken by generalissimo A. Suvorov in 1790 it used to be one of the famous Armenian centers of Moldova where Armenians had several churches, were engaged in handicraft (especially in tailoring) and trade. About a dozen of epigraphs located in the Armenian cemetery adjacent to St. Astvatsatsin Church were still published by Christopher Kuchuk-Hovhannisyan at the beginning of the last century which evidence about once the dense Armenian community. One of the epigraphs is about the church rennovation activities which were accomplished in 1763, during the reign of Catholicos of All Armenians Hakob Shamakhetsi and by donations of local spiritual and secular representatives. The other epigraphs are epitaphs dated 1556-1749.

Unfortunately, those epigraphs have not been preserved but two epitaphs have recently been discovered in Izmail. One of them is situated in the yard of Maria Ivanovna’s house (Fuchik str. 184). It is dated 1725 and bears the names of deceased Friar Pilpos and probably his wife Khanghaz. The other tombstone is exhibited in the yard of Historical Museum of Izmail after O. Suvorov. It is dated 1758 and also bears the names of two deceased – Arzukhan from Bist Village (in Nakhijevan) and probably her husband Hovsep, son of Tsatur. The discovery of new tombstones again reaffirmed the active life of Armenian community in Izmail especially in the 18th century as well as served as an occasion to refer to the history of this Armenian colony and non-preserved epigraphic inscriptions in a new way.



Davit S. Gyurjinyan
In the old Armenian language, only three verbs were formed, meaning the transformation of ethnic identity: հրեանալ, պարթևանալ, պարսկանալ (“become a Jew, become a Parthian, become a Persian, accept their customs, language and faith”). In subsequent periods of the development of the Armenian language (and today too) 30 verbs were formed, uniting in the lexical-semantic subgroup of the verbs of transformation.

The semantic component of transformation refers to: a) national identity, b) religious identity, c) language, d) customs:

The word-formation basis of the verbs became: a) the names of representatives of neighboring countries or countries attached to Armenia (ռուսանալ, վրացանալ), b) the names of those nations and countries in which there were or are Armenian communities (լեհանալ, ռումինանալ), c) self-naming of Armenians – հայ (հայանալ), d) the names of religions, faiths and their followers (քրիստոնեանալ, իսլամանալ, կաթոլիկանալ).

The studied verbs mostly have one meaning, but there are also some that have multiple meanings: (թուրքանալ “1. become a Turk, 2. get furious”, etc.).

Most of the dictionaries have the verb հայանալ recorded “1. become an Armenian, 2. (rel.) adopt the Armenian-Gregorian faith”, however, many lexical units of this lexico-semantic group are not yet registered in the dictionaries. Verbs of ethnic transformation are of limited use, some are very rare, even in a single participial form.


(Levels of vowels, sonorants and “diphthongs”)


Vazgen. G. Hambardzumyan
The Armenian and the Celtic languages present not only generalizations of phonetic (vowel, sonorant, and “diphthong”) isoglosses but also differences that so far have not been the subject of a separate study; our work is such an experience. These isoglosses are systemic and subsystemic in nature.

In this article, we bring together the Armenian-Celtic phonetic parallels, mostly based on the material so far accumulated, but also make partial adjustments and additions.

In traditional comparisons, their obvious patterns have been the focus of much attention. Our study reveals that there are a significant number of common rules (parallels) besides the traditionally cited, with exceptions and deviations from these rules that are, in their turn, definable, simply illustrative and justified by the full characterization of the phenomenon. This article has given some attention to this aspect of the problem.

The facts show that the subsystem of simple (“short”) vowels is not only broader in the given vowel but also substantially more substantive than the subsystem of compound (“long”) vowels, and it is well known that is justified in communication.

The subsystem of sonorants is characterized not only by the quantitative (“formal”) but also by the functional variety, which is generally a feature of the major part of Indo-European languages (three-way sonorant usage). In the Armenian-Celtic phonetic relation, the subsystem of diphthongs has little quantitative and functional expression.

The article is notable for its detailed analysis of the facts.

A detailed examination of the historical (and not just the phonetic) overlap between the Armenian and other Indo-European languages seems to us to be quite appropriate in terms of the totality of linguistic and social perceptions of individual societies.