Author Archives: Admin

The outstanding figure of the Armenian liberation movement and struggle of the late 17th and early 18th centuries – Israel Ori, with his selfless, but contradictory, sometimes adventurous life and activities, is considered the firstborn (herald) and initiator of the Russian political orientation of the Armenian people. On his way from the West to Russia, he sometimes resorted to falsification of documents in order to arouse the interest of Russian political leaders and encourage them towards the issue of the liberation of Armenia. Documentary records of his Western Russian political, negotiating, diplomatic activities, two “Palatinate” and “Moscow” plans for the liberation of Armenia, although unrealistic for the time, are considered an innovation in the history of the Armenian political thought. He was the first figure who brought the Armenian liberation movement and diplomatic negotiations out of the religious-confessional level (diaper) of the clergy and put them on the military[1]political foundations of a practical, secular content.

The ultimate goal of the liberating ideas of I. Ori was the complete liberation of Armenia from the Persian-Turkish tyranny and the creation of an autonomous Armenian statehood (kingdom) initially under the auspices of the Western European powers, and then of Russia, as evidenced by the two programs he drew up, as well as the map of Great Armenia presented to Tsar Peter.

A valuable documentary collection compiled by philologist, historian K. Yezyan, and other supporting materials enable us to conclude that the beginning of the Russian orientation of the Armenians is considered not the second half of the 17th century and not even the turn of the 18th century, but the 1720s, i. e.: the time when in anticipation of the so-called Caspian campaign of Peter the Great, the liberation struggle of Artsakh and Syunik flared up.

All this means that the Russian political orientation of the Armenian people has a history of three centuries. But this does not mean that the Armenians unanimously stood on the positions of this orientation. Historiographical objectivity requires noting that due to the dictates of the times and circumstances, especially at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, in particular, during the discussion of the Armenian issue, the Armenian socio-political circles mainly and involuntarily represented other – Western orientations, but in both cases did not achieve significant positive results.

At the same time, it should be noted that there is no need to put a big barrier in the issue of the Western European and consequently Russian political orientation of the Armenian people, since already Russia of Peter the Great with its system of political, state-legal and cultural values aspired to become a European country. And as for the liberation of Armenia, in practical terms it was closer to Armenia, and the latter’s liberation by Russia was more realistic. In other words, if we compare and evaluate the missions of the two political directions of Israel Ori, then from the viewpoint of civilizational orientation, in a broad sense it can be considered European-Russia.

A comparative analysis of documentary materials and historical-political events of the region indicates that during the era of Israel Ori, Armenia still had no real prospect of practical liberation with the support of foreign forces, neither by Russia nor, even more so, by Western countries. In the era of Israel Ori, the Armenian people had not yet developed an indestructible political concept that in order to have a free, independent national state and protect it, one should first of all rely on the collective consciousness of the nation, on its own strengths and capabilities. And from the perspective of learning advisable historical lessons, even now, during the Third Republic, in the conditions of modern serious challenges, it is difficult to say how irreversible the political mentality and the way of actions of the Armenian public and the state power have become among us regarding the independent statehood and defense of the Motherland

THE GERMAN ARMENOLOGIST’S MONUMENTAL WORK – 2022-3

Summary

Jürgen Gispert, Armenien gestern und heute – „Die Aschen der Opfer schlagen in unseren Herzen“. Zu einer Theorie der armenischen Memorialkultur, Leipzig, Eudora-Verlag, 2022, 492 S

Ashot N. Hayruni

A new extensive and valuable monograph (492 pp.) published in Leipzig titled “Armenia yesterday and today – ‘The Remains of the Victims Beat in Our Hearts’. On a theory of the Armenian Memory Culture” by the German ethnographer and Armenologist Dr. Jürgen Gispert provides the German-speaking reader with comprehensive information about the spiritual and cultural values of the Armenian people, their past and the present, including the contemporary challenges they are facing with, the overcoming of which is paramount for the preservation of the Armenian state and national identity.

The book begins with the coverage of the events that took place in the recent years, particularly after the “Velvet Revolution” and the previous realities, which, by continuously deepening the gap between the people and the authorities, ultimately culminated in the change of power. In particular, the author focuses on the irregularities, vote rigging and fraud that took place during the election process during the history of the Third Republic, the difficult social situation of the republic’s population and the lack of trust in the public sphere towards the socio-economic policy of the authorities, as well as the various realities that undermined the former intra-societal unity, including the influx of individual sects from the West after the collapse of the USSR and their divisive activities.

Afterwards, the author reflects upon the Armenian History, by outlining essential events from pre-historic, ancient, medieval, modern and contemporary Armenian history, especially focusing on those important events that shaped the course of history. The reader is thoroughly familiarized with the Armenian Genocide and its consequences. Detailed information is given about Armenian khachkars and Armenian culture in general. The systematic destruction of Jugha khachkars by the Azerbaijani authorities around 20 years ago is also outlined. Such criminal systematic destruction, as Gispert points out, had not even taken place during the invasions of Shah Abbas and Tamerlane. Further expanding on this subject, the author presents many facts about the course of events and consequences of Azerbaijan’s current anti-Armenian policy. The massacres of Sumagait and Baku, the destruction and usurpation of Armenian culture in the occupied regions of Artsakh are covered thoroughly and are presented in a new light, as a consistent continuation of the Turkish-Azerbaijani genocidal policy.

The author covers in detail the history of the emergence of the Artsakh question, thoroughly refuting the false theses as presented by the Azeri government that Artsakh supposedly belongs to Azerbaijan. At the same time, the author presents a detailed study of the history of Azerbaijan and the emergence of the Azerbaijanis as an ethnic group, which takes place only after 1918. The author juxtaposes the above fact of the newly emerged Azeri state and ethnicity with the reality of a thousand-year history of Armenian Artsakh, pointing out that Azerbaijan from the viewpoint of historic rights, as well as from the standpoint of modern international law has no legitimate right to claim Artsakh as its own.

The above noted monumental study by Gispert has not only academic, but also political value taking into consideration the fact of how much efforts and material resources are spent by Azerbaijan and Turkey to create a distorted public opinion in the West about Armenian heritage, culture and identity. The work contains, apart from the text itself, many valuable maps and photographs. We really hope that patrons would be found who would sponsor the translation and publication of this valuable work in Armenian, English and other languages.

THE SECOND ARTSAKH WAR AND ITS CONSWEQUENCES – 2022-3

Summary

A Comparative Analysis of the Positions of the Global and Regional Actors towards the Second Artsakh War

Lilit V. Dallakyan

The article attempts to identify the causes of the Second Artsakh war, the framework of the potential winners, as well as the obvious losers. Attention is particularly paid to the consequences of the war, the new challenges Armenia is facing, as well as the potential opportunities that have opened up for Armenia. New strategic directions of development are presented; the urgent questions requiring making decisions in external and integral policy, goals and direction of possible diversification in foreign policy are being discussed.

In the new geopolitical situation Armenia is facing new challenges and at the same time is getting new opportunities. If after the Second Artsakh war Armenia found itself squeezed between Russian-Turkish power and decisions were imposed on Yerevan, including over the Zangezur corridor, then with the change of the president in the United States and the escalation of the Russian-American conflict in Ukraine, Armenia had a chance to maneuver. It is already clear that the Ukrainian crisis is part of a large game that began with Putin’s famous Munich speech and the goal of which was to change the centers of power in the geopolitical scene. At the same time, it is obvious that the US has begun to show interest in traditionally Russian spheres of influence. Today, the West, in particular the United States and France, are active not only in Armenian-Azerbaijani, but also in Armenian-Turkish relations, and activated their efforts within the framework of the Minsk Group.

The second Artsakh war showed that for 30 years Armenia did not succeed in either domestic or foreign policy, has no allies in the international arena, did not use the potential of the army without transforming and modernizing it. It is vital for the RA to modernize the army, create a competitive economy, deepen relations with the Diaspora and use its financial, intellectual and lobbying potential, including concerning Armenian question and legitimize the demands of Armenia.

Today, more than ever, the time has come for making important decisions for the country and for changes in strategic thinking, and delay in making these decisions can lead to irreversible consequences and be destructive for the Armenian statehood.

THE LINGUIST AND THE PHILOSOPHER OF LANGUAGE – 2022-3

Summary

To the 150th anniversary of the birth of Nikol Aghbalyan

Lusine A. Avetisyan

The philological and linguistic heritage of the literary critic, teacher, public figure, ideologist Nikol Aghbalyan has almost gone unnoticed by researchers. However, the serious observations and the fundamental results achieved through the peculiar research methodology conducted by this great Armenologist are of utmost importance not only to linguistics and Armenology but can be very useful for new discoveries in the fields of philosophy of language, philosophy and psychology of the nation, for cultural studies and many other scientific branches.

This introductory article presents Nikol Aghbalyan in several essays: as a linguist, as one of the pioneers of comparative linguistics and a dissenting and zealous Armenologist.

The article reflects upon at the prehistory of Aghbalyan’s linguistic studies, shows his attitude to Indo-European studies, and the completely new theory proposed by him, in his own assessment – some of his conclusions, one of which is that the Armenians did not become Armenians as a result of assimilation, but the Armenian language is the same Urartian, only heavily modified. And the Urartian is also an Indo-European language (emphasis by L. A.).

In his articles, he thoroughly studied the phonetics of the Armenian language, dialect stress and due to that the historical phonetic changes, that resulted in the dialect variants with which the language was supplemented during the formation of the nation from different Armenian tribes acquiring words with different meaning, but of the same origin, such as the words “grain” and “bread”.

Particular attention was paid to simple and compound sounds, the examples entirely showed that there are old and relatively new sounds in the language, and that the latter appeared as a result of the synthesis of two simple sounds, which, due to the reduction of a vowel between them, turned out to be next to each other.

A large and important part of Agbalyan’s scientific works are his etymological articles, which not only supplement the research and hypotheses of other linguists, but also often object to them and substantiate their own remarks with new conclusions.