Author Archives: Admin

ECONOMIC PROBLEMS IN RAFFI’S IDEOLOGICAL CONCEPTUALIZATION – 2022-1

Ashot N. Hayruni
In the second half of the 19th century during the process of the search for a national salvation, Raffi also had to take into consideration and reflect upon economic problems, which, under foreign tyranny, in the face of increasing pressure on the Armenian people, had not only economic, but also political significance. Hence, it was not by chance, that these economic problems occupied a key place in Raffi’s works.

This article sheds light on the economic hardships faced by the Armenian people during this time and Raffi’s ideological views on how to solve these problems.

Raffi reflected upon the Armenian merchant and usurer class and gave a factual outline of key aspects that were common to the above noted class. He pointed out that this class was unable to evolve and establish the new economic conditions that were needed. As such, he proposed the creation of a new “scientific trade”, which would be based upon a harmonious blend of professional education and national-moral values, which according to Raffi was necessary to overcome the growing economic problems of this period.

The writer also placed a great deal of importance on the idea of giving “free land” to the toilers, which according to him, had to be realized by the Armenian Church and political institutions and thus could prevent the growing emigration of Armenian peasantry from its native land.

Raffi presented these and many other similar ideas on solving the Armenian economic vows, in not only his public articles, but as well as his literally works, in which he made many of the leading characters his mouthpieces for examining these issues.

Raffi juxtaposes Petros Masisyan (“Golden Rooster”), Chanchur Ivanich (“Zahrumar”), Agha Paronov (“One like this, the other like that”), and his other literary characters representing this class, with other characters, who he tasks with not only presenting solutions to the economic problems, but also developing new economic relations within the Armenian reality. These characters, including Mikayel (“Golden Rooster”) and Ruben Arusyan (“One like this, the other like that”), are imbued with a sense of morality and after acquiring highly professional training, through their actions show the way for the establishment of what Raffi calls “scientific trade”. These characters are also endowed with a moral compass of wanting to serve the national interests of the Armenian society at large. They believe that wealth, first and foremost, is for the common good and by conducting fair trade and business, they also advance Armenian cultural life by doing charity work for countless Armenian social projects and helping members of the intelligentsia. Through their actions, they affirm the important bond that unites “scientific trade” with the highest interests of the people and the homeland, with the latter being given primacy and preference by the author. Thus, Raffi considers an important prerequisite for the establishment of new economic reality the harmonious merger of professional training with a sense of personal morality.

The establishment of “scientific trade” along with the development of new economic methods are closely intertwined with Raffi’s views on school reform and in this regard, these two aspects complete each other. The author’s advanced knowledge of different professional trades is astonishing. When the situation presents itself, Raffi shows himself to be an agriculturalist, an economist and if required, also a theoretician and researcher who examines the problems associated within the given profession.

POST-WAR EXPERIENCE OF ANNALES SCHOOL (1945-1975) – 2022-1

Smbat Kh. Hovhannisyan
The paper discusses the post-war experience of the metamorphosis of the “Annales” school, when a long period of evolution and renovation began (1945- 1975), which later took its place in history under the name of “Glorious Thirty period”.

The author’s preliminary hypothesis is that as a result of the increased impact of social sciences on history, the “Annales” school not only revised its intellectual direction, but also systematized its achievements.

Following this research hypothesis, the paper examines both the transformations of the journal of Annales school (renaming of journal, introduction of the journal emblem, reorganization of the editorial board) and the fundamental grounds for the development of the Annales historiography (from “the VI section of the Practical School of Advanced Studies” to “The House of Human Sciences”) in the context of social and humanitarian disciplines.

Thus, the content of the post-war journal changed significantly: the numerous problems that have been only outlined so far are now being thoroughly analyzed. Moreover, despite the fact that pre-war ideas and concepts continued to be discussed, nevertheless, in parallel with them, the magazine already examined ideas that were not considered in pre-war historiography.

In a short period of time, the bundle of problems found in the magazine has already expanded to such an extent that it is difficult to give a detailed description of them.

As a result of the study, it is stated that as a consequence of reconstruction of the theoretical and human capital, the “Annales” school gradually has turned from a peripheral into an authoritative French and world historiographical school.

THE KING AND GOD – 2022-1

The ideological foundations of royal sovereignty in the Bagratid Armenia

Ruben L. Manasserian
The coronation rite of the Bagratids went through a series of stages that marked the evolution of ideas about royal power as divine institution. Ashot I Bagratid was proclaimed king at a meeting of the highest nobility, i.e., in the adoption of the royal title, the priority was the collective will – a secular act, as an expression of divine will. In the year of 885 Ashot I Bagratid was crowned with the participation of the catholicos, who personally placed the crown on him and gave his blessing. The participation of the highest church hierarchy in the act of coronation conveyed a character of a supreme divine sanction to the investiture. In the year 961 Ashot III the Merciful introduced the rite of anointing in the coronation which meant the consecration of the power and personality of the king, endowing him with God-sent grace (Holy Spirit).

According to church ideas, the king – the anointed of God, was elevated to the rank of a sacred mediator between God and the people. The introduction of the rite of anointing in the coronation by the Bagratids also had external political goals – it was directed against the great-power encroachments of the Byzantine emperors, who monopolized the right to bear the title of Basileus. Byzantium recognized only the title of archon (prince) for the Armenian monarch. Based on this fact, a view was expressed in science by K. N. Yuzbashyan, that the Bagratids, in accordance with the great-power position of Byzantium, equated their title of king with the title of archon, in other words, calling themselves kings, they meant themselves princes. This view does not find confirmation in the rite of anointing of the monarch. Borrowing it from the Bible, Ashot III the Merciful asserted his title of king as identical to that of King David. In the justification of the right of the Bagratids to the rite of anointing, as early as the beginning of the 10th century a legend was put forward about their origin from the family of the biblical David. The origins of this legend are rooted in the history of Moses of Khoren on the conversion of prince Bagarat – the ancestor of the Bagratids into Judaism in the II c. AD.

EPIC HAYK, HISTORICAL HAYK AND HIS HERITAGE – 2022-1

Sargis G. Petrosyan
The epithets of the Armenian ethnarch Hayk Abetatsin “born in the flame” and Abetayn “fiery”, in fact, was his mythological prototype of the homonymous god. This is explained by the fact that the historical prototype of the epic Hayk bore not only the name, but also the epithets of the god Hayk, his divine patron. It is also noteworthy that in this way the opponent of the historical Hayk – Bel also bore the name of his divine patron, the main god of the Akkadian pantheon – Bel (in Semitic “Bel” – lord, – the original epithet of the supreme god of the Sumerian- Akkadian pantheon Enlil).

The historical Hayk was the head of one of the southern Armenian tribes and the king of the dual country Armi-Armana, and the historical Bel is the famous king of Akkad and at the same time the despot of all Mesopotamia Sargon. They lived around the middle of the III millennium BC. Haik’s ancestral domain was located in the north of the Western Tigris River basin, and the patrimony of his relative Kadmos Arman (Armanum) was south of the river. Kadmos was not really a grandson, but the nephew (his sister’s son) of Hayk. Therefore, his ancestral possession of Arman was also referred to as the “house of Kadmos” (Armenian “tun Kadmeai”, cuneiform “Kadmukhi”). Before confronting the Akkadian despot, Hayk and his family moved to Hark, to the north of Lake Van. Having settled there, he turned Hark into the center of the “Haykazants tribal union”. Toponym Hark does not mean “fathers”, but it means “opposing”, “overcoming”, “casting out”.

According to ancient legends, Hayk killed Bel in battle, but this is folklore. However, no doubt, quite a few enemy soldiers fell from the well-aimed arrows of Hayk and his archers, since the place of their burial-ground was called Gerezmank, that is, “Graves” (later Gerezmanakk). After the victory over Bel, in order to strengthen the state system and his own monarchical power, Hayk began to carry out various reforms. The head of the social estate of farmers (and producers in general) became the eldest son of Hayk Aramanyak, the head of the military estate became his second son Khor, and the head of the priestly estate became the third son Manawaz. Hayk also changed the custom of succession to the throne. The former was through the female line, which he replaced with inheritance through the male line. Hayk proclaimed his eldest son Aramanyak his heir. The institution of two army commanders, due to the dual system of the structure of the ancient tribes, was abolished, and instead of Aramanyak and Kadmos, he entrusted the leadership of the army to his second son Khor. He declared his patron god Hayk the Supreme God, into whose cult the cults of the main deities of other tribes of the union joined. Thanks to this, after the death of Hayk, the cult of him, as a deified ancestor, also became the part of this soldered, renewed cult.

THE SUNSET OF RUSSIAN CIVILIZATION – 2022-1

Gevorg S. Khoudinyan
The current deadly battle between Russia and Ukraine – the sons of Ruthenia founded by chieftain Rurik of the Scandinavian Rus (Ros) tribe in 862, is a clash of centuries-old archetypes that will pave the way for the clarification of the eastern borders of Western civilization.

Though Francis Fukuyama, recently inspired by the events in Ukraine, tried to find a modern value system in the causes of this bloodshed and described what was happening as a qualitatively new milestone in the triumph of the idea of freedom, we stick to the viewpoint expressed by “Vem” still at the beginning of 2014 – in the days of the Russian-Ukrainian first war, that the well-known London plan was launched to bring the “birth of the Cossack tribe” free Russians – Ukrainians, against Russia so as to put the latter, considered to be invincible, in a hopeless situation thanks to the persistent efforts of the Jewish-Turkish lobby deeply rooted within Russia.

The article presents the main stages of the implementation of that program and the levers and mechanisms of its key players to influence the Russian political leadership.

According to the author, since the 18th century, the Russian Empire had become stronger and had entered the arena of European and world politics through successive cycles of its rationalization, that is, Russia has developed and flourished as a European power. That is why the doctrine of Eurasianism, re-nominated in the 1990s by London’s prompt in the age of technological society and information, is in fact a vulgar Asianism that undermines the civilizational foundations of its own state.

Therefore, the prospect of the USSR restoration based on such a concept could not have stalled, even after the first “successful joint operation” in 2020 – after the 44-day war in Karabakh, since subsequent events showed that Russia sacrificed its ally for it not only economically, but is not militarily ready for further development of events.

The author considers that in such conditions the Ukrainian political nation is currently trying to become the Europe-directed face of the Russian double-headed eagle, whose Slavonic-Varyag nucleus persistently strives for Europe. Therefore, Ukraine, as a country of free Russians, is waging a life-and-death struggle against Tatar-Slavic Moscow, formed on the basis of the Finno-Ugric substratum.

Whereas, for Russia, to conquer Ukraine means to win itself politically and culturally, that is, in terms of civilization. Therefore, such persistence manifested in the arena of “defeating itself” opens the way of Russia’s suicide.

THE EVALUATION OF THE KARS TREATY OCTOBER 13, 1921 – 2021-4

According to modern historical science of the Republic of Armenia (1991-2021)

Summary

Lilit Hr. Hovhannisyan
The history of the treaties of Alexandropol on December 2, 1920, Moscow on March 16,
and Kars on October 13, 1921, logically related to each other, is the most disputable and the
most difficult in terms of evaluation in the series of the international diplomatic documents on
the Armenian question.

Nevertheless, the most discussed of the above three treaties in Armenian
historiography is the Treaty of Moscow, and the most underestimated – the Treaty of Kars,
although the Armenian-Turkish relations have been regulated by this treaty since October
13, 1921. The military-political conditions and goals of signing the Kars Treaty are
examined in scientific works of G. Galoyan, H. Avetisyan, A. Melkonyan, A. Hakobyan, H.
Hakobyan and in joint study of K. Khachatryan, H. Sukiasyan and G. Badalyan. They
emphasize that the Kars Treaty is not an independent document not only in its essence and
content, but also from the point of view of political and international legal norms because
of repetition and fixation of Moscow Treaty in it. Therefore, since the latter in its turn was
signed in violation [the signatories of the treaty without any authority had interfered in the
territorial integrity of the non-signatory sovereign state (states)] of the basic principles of
international law, so the Kars Treaty does not create any legal obligation for Armenia in the
issue of territorial demarcation.

Historians St. and K. Poghosyans, A. Melkonyan, A. Marukyan and A. Papyan
analysed the Kars Treaty from the historical-legal point of view. According to them, the
Armenian part of the Soviet-Turkish border passing through the Akhuryan and Araks rivers
is just a dividing line. It does not have the status of an Armenian-Turkish state border, as
there is no any international treaty on it having legal force. The historians emphasize that
the only de jure border between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey is the
Wilsonian border, and the illegal treaties of Alexandropol, Moscow and Kars cannot be the
basis of a legal border. They also note that in case of a new Russian-Turkish
rapprochement, the «confirmation» of the former USSR border’s Armenian part as an
Armenian-Turkish border will mean from a legal point of view a change of the border
because the de jure border between Armenia and Turkey drawn by W. Wilson still in 1920
differs significantly from the Soviet-Turkish border.

The above-mentioned issues have not only scientific but also political significance, as
at present Russian-Turkish relations continue in the Kemal-Bolshevik spirit, keeping
Armenia in the shackles of Alexandropol, Moscow and Kars treaties.

After the joint aggression of Turkish-Azerbaijani armies and international terrorist
groups against the Artsakh Republic in 2020, the Armenian side, appeared in the Turkish-
Azerbaijani-Georgian-Russian «tongs», is facing the imperative of adopting a new
negotiation strategy with the mentioned states having as a primary task the avoidance of
repetition of the Kars Treaty. The Armenian diplomacy must be able to refrain from
excessive haste, to act from the position of the Armenian claims under international law,
also defend the Armenian state interests in direct and mediated discussions in the legal field
on issues related to the borders, territorial integrity and status of the Republic of Armenia
and Republic of Artsakh. And this is possible only in the case of restoration of the
international personality and economic-military potential of the Republic of Armenia got
loose by the Artsakh 44-days war, also the unity and comprehensive cooperation between
the Republic of Armenia, Republic of Artsakh and Armenian Diaspora Javakhk.

IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS OF THE KARS AGREEMENT ON OCTOBER 13, 1921 – 2021-4

Summary

Armen Ts. Marukyan
The Kars “Treaty” of 1921 was signed with a gross violation of the norms and
principles of international law. The document signed in Kars made an attempt to “legalize”
the previous Bolshevik-Kemalist deal in Moscow, which gives reason to consider the
document signed in Kars as an annex to the illegal Moscow Treaty.

The issue of the final recognition of the document signed in Kars by Armenia still
remains topical for Turkey. It is no coincidence that this issue in a veiled form was reflected
in the Armenian-Turkish protocols signed on October 10, 2009 in Zurich, which were later
rejected by Armenia. The protocol “On the establishment of diplomatic relations between
the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey” states that “the signatories reaffirm
the mutual recognition of the border existing between the two countries, established by the
relevant treaties on the basis of international law”.

The signing of the Kars document led to significant losses of the Armenian
territories, caused serious security problems, demographic problems and psychological|
complexes, the consequences of which Armenia and the Armenian people continue to feel
to this day. Before taking any steps to neutralize the grave consequences of the Kars
document, Armenia should carry out consistent political and diplomatic work, taking into
account geopolitical and regional processes.

It is no secret that influential powers use the norms and principles of international
law in their interests and goals, sometimes violating or interpreting them in their favor.
Even if influential actors of international relations try to justify their actions by the norms
and principles of international law, the Republic of Armenia, as a subject of this law, is
simply obliged to take advantage of the possibilities of international law, defending not
only its own interests, but also the legal rights of the entire Armenian people.

THE SYMBOL OF ARMENIAN-KURDISH ALLIANCE – 2021-4

Newfound documents about the life and activity of Artashes Muradyan

Aram S. Sayiyan
In 1926-1930 in Kemalist Turkey, another Kurdish uprising broke out on Mount
Ararat. One of the key leaders of this uprising was Zilan Bey – in fact, a member of the
Armenian Revolutionary Party Dashnaktsutyun Artashes Muradyan, who, on the
instructions of the party, in the fall of 1927 became the representative of the Armenian
side in Ararat under the pseudonym Zilan Bey. In a very short period of time, he
managed to resolve all controversial issues between the Kurdish tribes and rally them
around the proclaimed Ararat Republic. Thanks to this, the Kemalist authorities did not
manage to bring feuds into the ranks of the Kurdish rebellious tribes before his arrest in
the summer of 1929 and win over at least one tribe to their side. Kurdish units inflicted
heavy defeats on the Turkish army for three years, and in the summer of 1929 they
managed to capture the city of Igdir and reach the Soviet-Turkish border. This very
seriously alarmed the Soviet military-political leadership, which saw this as a real
threat to their power in the South Caucasus. It was decided in Moscow that the Ararat
uprising was planned by the British with the aim of taking over the Baku oil. The use
of the Kurdish question against the British interested the Soviet military-political
leadership for both defensive and offensive purposes. In the expected war with Great
Britain, Iranian and Iraqi Kurdish tribes were supposed to attack British military
airfields in Iraq and destroy distant bombers, preventing them from bombing Baku. As
for the offensive goal, it was planned to send armed detachments of Kurdish tribes of
southeastern Iran to India during the war with Britain, and to send the Kurds of
northwestern Iran to Iraq by tying the hands of the British and preparing a springboard
for the offensive of Soviet troops in these areas.

Moscow believed that ARF Dashnaktsutyun was the organizer of this plan, and
the Kurds were a striking force. To destroy these plans, the OGPU decides to eliminate
Zilan Bey. They manage to lure Artashes Muradyan to the Soviet-Turkish border and
arrest him. But different versions of Muradyan’s arrest suggest that Artashes Muradyan
was recruited by the OGPU even before the uprising in Ararat, and now, when the
victories of the Kurdish detachments and the proclamation of the Ararat Republic
contradicted the interests of Moscow, he was recalled under the guise of arrest and the
uprising was left decapitated. Ruben indirectly confirms this theory, who in his letter to
the Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Envoy of the USSR in Egypt N. V. Novikov
wrote that Artashes Muradyan went down to the border river in order to receive
military weapons from the Soviet. His immediate supervisor, Yeghishe Ishkhanyan,
also suspected him of treason, but the investigation into this case found A. Muradyan
absolutely innocent. Most likely, the Bolsheviks managed to lure him into a trap using
his family ties. It is likely that the OGPU threatened with reprisals against the
Muradyan family and he was forced to surrender to the Soviet punitive organs.

In Soviet times, his fate was unknown and only after the collapse of the USSR, it
became known from declassified documents that he was shot in one of the gulag camps
in the Arkhangelsk region in 1938. The place of his burial is still unknown. Together
with him, members of his family and close relatives were also repressed, most of
whom also died in places of detention. The Bolshevik punitive organs did not spare his
young children by arresting Muradyan’s wife, Margarita, or his elderly brother Levon
and father-in-law Grigor, whose graves are also unknown. Artashes Muradyan to this
day is one of the honored national heroes for most of the Kurds and an unjustly
invaluable figure for the Armenian nation.

A VALUABLE MONOGRAPH – 2021-4

Seyran Grigoryan, Vahagn Davtyan’s Poems, Yerevan, Armav Publishing House, 2021, 458 pages

Summary

Zhenya A. Kalantaryan
The review analyzes and evaluates the peculiarities, principles and criteria of
the method used by S. Grigoryan–the author of the mentioned book. It is observed
that Grigoryan necessarily takes into account both the time of writing the poem and
the time the poem covers, trying to uncover the linkаgе between the past and the
present. One of the important merits of the monograph is the search for the bases of
the structural and lexical layers of the poems in historical and folklore sources.
According to the literary critic, Davtyan builds his poems mostly on a folklore
basis, as a result of which poems reflect the folk worldview.

The article comments on the comparisons made by the author of the book with
the historical and folklore sources of the poems, as well as similar works by
previous poets. It is noticed that some cases of stylization, imitation, repetition
revealed by the literary critic, according to his own observation, Davtyan used for
his own interpretation of the material, thus bringing his personality onto the
material.

The critique assesses S. Grigoryan’s comprehensive approach in revealing
both inter- and intra-genre features of the poems. The author of the monograph
examines the poems and comes to convincing conclusion comprehensively
drawing from all the branches of philology, including the history of literary history,
literary theory, literary criticism, textualism, etc. The monograph is deemed to be a
noticeable contribution to modern Armenian literature.