Author Archives: Admin

THE KONDAK OF 1475 OF ST. KARAPET MONASTERY OF KEGHI – 2021-3

As a primary source of historical geography of Armenia

Summary

Gegham M. Badalyan
The kondaks of the monastic dioceses are remarkable sources of the historical geography and demography of Armenia. Despite the fact that we have received similar documents with sporadic examples, even in that case they contain such rare and important information that is missing in the works of Armenian chroniclers. Such a primary source is the 1475 kondak of famous Khlbash St. Karapet Monastery of Keghi (Khordzyan), which is housed in the Middle East Fund of the Campus Research Library of the USA University of California, along with thousands of printed books, manuscripts and archival documents in various languages donated by Dr. Karo Owen Minasyan, a well-known Isfahan philanthropist.

The monastery was located about 5 km north of Keghi or Kghi (historical Koghoberd) borough – the center of Khordzyan, on the left bank of the Gaylget tributary of Aratsani, near the former fortress town of Apar (Arapar) by whose name it was called Getahayatz St. Nshan or Hangstuni St. Karapet). As early as the Late Middle Ages, the province was divided into about two dozen cantons or village groups. At that, in the middle of the 15th century, as indirectly suggested by the facts recorded in the kondak, the territory under the jurisdiction of the Diocese of St. Karapet Monastery of Khlbash (Apar or Arapar) was limited from the northern Okhu (Hokhu) canton of Balahovit province of Tsopk to the Aryutsnakhaz mountain range including the main central and western regions (Kotchak with Hartiv-Hertev, Keghi and Khaser (including Tarman region) cantons).

Later, when the northwestern Handerdz canton (“the land of Handerdz”) of Khordzyan also passed to St. Karapet, through which the diocesan borders reached from the Aryutsnakhaz to the Gaylakhazut or Pakhr mountains, it became necessary to introduce new changes from a “legal” point of view which was recorded in the 1475 kondak. The latter also contains information about the boundaries of the diocesan territory of St. Karapet Monastery, which, however, are recorded in a “hidden” form. This explains some of the confusion in the document, including the outdated signature of Catholicos of All Armenians Aristakes II (1465-1469). The document mentions Keghi and Apar – the main centers of Khordzyan, as well as 40 villages, only 2 of which were located in the neighboring Paghnatun canton.

By the way, the document also contains the consequences of the tragic events of 1453, which were related with the destructive invasion of Sultan Jahan Shah of the Kara-Koyunlus, when the historical territory of Khordzyan was looted and deserted. That was the reason that the number of settlements mentioned in the document is three times less than the number of main villages and non-permanent agricultural settlements (“mezre” or “gom” (barn)) found in the same area at the beginning of the 20th century.

The kondak of St. Karapet of Khlbash is important for specialists in the historical geography and demographics of Armenia, as it provides some information about the settlement of the Armenian population in the historical Khordzyan area (which in the 15th century was divided between Keghi and Kotchak cantons). Attached are two appendices that give some idea of the ethnic image of historical Khordzyan up to 1915.

TRADITIONS AND MASTER – 2021-3

Modern culture of the khachkars of Artsakh based on the works of sculptor Robert Askaryan

Summary

Anush Safaryan
Khachkar is one of the unique symbols of Armenian identity. Khachkars were erected throughout the territory of historical Armenia, including Artsakh and Utik, as well as in Armenian colonies around the world. The figurative relief of the khachkars of Artsakh, which is represented by a combination of plant-geometric composition and human scenes and images, is one of the unique manifestations of the khachkar culture in general. The article is devoted to the modern culture of the khachkars of Artsakh on the example of the works of the artist and sculptor R. Askaryan, in whose works traditional images are clearly presented, but in a peculiar manner and interpretation. This primarily concerns the iconography of angels, which is devoted a separate paragraph in the article.

Based on a thorough analysis, we can conclude that the master in his works widely used the themes and images of classical khachkars, tombstones and carpets of Artsakh. However, if the structure of the composition of classical khachkars, tombstones and carpets is more complete and suggests that organizing the composition: the central image, the scene, “Ornament” or tree – have clear canons for the placement of constituent elements (for example, land animals should be located at the bottom, and birds and stars at the top), then the characters of the master’s works, individual motifs are freely placed throughout the structure of the composition. The master, according to certain logic, fills the space free of intertwined patterns. It is not always possible to find a mutual connection between these characters, which makes Askaryan’s works especially dramatic.

As an artist, R. Askaryan undoubtedly left his mark on the modern art of the khachkars of Artsakh, his “handwriting” is recognizable in all his works, at the same time being a distinctive stamp among other traditional and modern khachkars.

THE MECHANISMS FOR PROTECTION OF TANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE OF THE ARMENIANS OF ARTSAKH – 2021-3

In the modern international legal system

Summary

Armine H. Tigranyan

In the course of its false quest to build a national identity and prove its territorial affiliation, Azerbaijan /since its inception/ has pursued a sharply anti-Armenian state policy based on the continuous destruction of Armenian identity and rich cultural heritage during both – the pseudo “peace” and the war. During all the wars in Artsakh, Azerbaijan continuously damages and destroys Armenian cultural values, thus violating a number of international provisions. The recent war has confirmed that Azerbaijan’s “territorial aspirations” are not an end in itself; they are based on the alienation and destruction of Armenian identity and heritage.

This article presents the international legal principles for the protection of the cultural heritage (hereinafter referred to as CH) in the occupied territories from the point of view of cases of destruction, appropriation, desecration, and vandalism of Armenian cultural property in the territories occupied by Azerbaijan after the Second Artsakh War (November 9, 2020).

The article begins with a historical overview, presents the gradual formation and development of the international legal field for the protection of CH in the occupied territories after the war, as well as a number of conventional provisions from the Hague Convention, Geneva Convention, UNESCO, the Council of Europe from the point of view of international human rights documents, norms of international humanitarian law and the laws that are customary for protection of cultural values in the occupied territories. This expertise also refers to the analysis of a clear program of the state policy of Azerbaijan on deliberate destruction of the Armenian identity and cultural heritage and summarizes the investigation of specific cases of destruction of Armenian cultural values, appropriations of heritage, and desecrations by Azerbaijan after the war.

Սince the protection of cultural values in the occupied territories is an internationally recognized norm, which is mandatory for all states, however, Azerbaijan continues to violate and damage Armenian cultural values. Azerbaijan continues to perceive the heritage from its own socio-cultural point of view and what is outside of their “value system” is considered as a subject for destruction. Along with values of great historical significance, the values created not long ago are also being destroyed in the territories of Artsakh occupied by Azerbaijan, the loss of which is equal to the destruction of historical ones.

The cultural heritage of the Armenians of Artsakh, as the materialized (and nonmaterialized) expression of exclusive creative thoughts of a given community, as well as a collective manifestation of the identity, has the full right to be preserved and passed on to future generations. This right is enshrined by UNESCO, UN, and international humanitarian law and is considered a fundamental right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, however, along with all this, it continues to be destroyed, both physically and by the loss or alienation of the bearing communities.

The study of this article shows that the most important factor in protecting the cultural heritage of Artsakh /along with numerous conventions on the protection of cultural values in occupied territories/, is the right to protect the cultural heritage of Artsakh as such, being a fundamental human right enshrined in a number of international treaties, especially in international humanitarian law. And within this context, even if Azerbaijan cannot find any values in order not to destroy the heritage outside of its value system, the latter is obliged to do so, because that heritage is a part of the world’s cultural diversity and is the fundamental right of the culture (personal/community) of the Armenians of Artsakh.

A NEWFOUND CRYPTOGRAPHY OF TATEV MONASTERY – 2021-3

And other similar epigraphs

Summary

Arsen E. Harutyunyan
Tatev monastery is one of the famous historical, religious-cultural centers of medieval Armenia, whose epigraphic inscriptions have a great importance for the study of the history of Armenia. Numerous epigraphs are preserved on the walls of churches and memorial monuments of the monastery and many of them remain unpublished till today. A mirror-writing cryptography dated to 1537 is preserved on the southern wall of St. Paul-Peter Cathedral of the monastery, whose decipherment has been the main occasion of this publication. The study revealed the names of bishops Ter Anton, Ter Stepanos and Father Kirakos – most likely visitor-donators who visited Tatev monastery as a pilgrim and gave some donation, for which their names were allowed to be mentioned on the walls of the church as the “Book of Life”. In the result of this discovery, the number of Armenian mirror-writing cryptographs was added by one more (as they are known from Kurtan, Tanahat monastery, Litchk, Sevanavank, Haghpatavank etc.).

The study confirms that the desire to codify belonged to the bishops, who more likely came to Tatev monastery from the diocese of Gegharkunik. The paleographic features and uneven lines of the inscription have numerous similarities to the donative inscription of St. Gregory the Illuminator Church dated to 1532, on the basis of which it can be assumed, that the author and scribe of the newfound cryptography is the same monk Nerses, who is evidenced at the end of the epigraph of the abovementioned church.

THE ORIGIN OF THE ARMENIAN WORD “AGHJIK” – 2021-3

Summary

Lusine Avetisyan
Practically, the etymology of the Armenian word “Աղջիկ” (“Aghjik” girl) is absent, all attempts to explain its origin are unconvincing.

A new etymology is presented in this article, which at the same time is based on linguistic data and on ancient ideas about phenomena, on the cosmogonic myth as well as on the ancient Armenian calendar. The subject of the article is the roots of “Աղջ” (“aghj” dark) and “Աղիջ” (“aghij” girl). It is likely that the primary variant of the second root is also “Աղջ”.

According to my hypothesis, for both concepts there is a single common root “Աղջ”, and this is substantiated by the myth about Hayk, and also by the word “Աղջամուղջ” (“aghjamughj” darkness, night), which is, in fact, the ancient Armenian name of one of the night hours.

The original Armenian chronology originates from the moment when Hayk, according to legend, with a three-winged arrow tore Bel’s chest – the incarnation of darkness. Later, the Armenian months were named after his children. Tradition provides indirect information that units of time got male or female characteristics, since the months were named after the descendants of Hayk, both male and female.

The names of the months also give information about other realities that have been forgotten in the mist of millennia. They suggest that Armenians called their children by the names of the descendants of Hayk, or attributed the names of their children to the sons and daughters of Hayk, and we see through the millennia an incomplete list of Armenian names, probably headed by the name Hayk.

Progenitor Hayk, whom Anania Shirakatsi considers the founder of the Armenian calendar, is in fact the Armenian god of time. And the god of time is the father of all units of time, and above all, of the dualistic day. “Աւր” (“or” day) and “Աղջ” (“aghj” night) were the first children of different sexes of the god of time. Their twelve-hour divisions were defined later. “Աղջամուղջ” (aghjamughj) is also the child of the god of time and, obviously, a definite fraction of “Աղջ” (night), and reminds that she is also a child of the night.

At first, human called things and phenomena of the surrounding world, only then, in their image and likeness, he called his children. And the first thing to which the human mind has reached in the flow of endless time, undoubtedly has been a day with its harmonious existence, in which features and characteristics of its male and female children – day and night are combined.

After the initial determination of time, the wide-open eye of human consciousness in its own form of existence will find a demonstration of the equilibrium of the universe and a reflection of the daily born celestial twin. And it is natural that he distinguished his children of different sexes with the same names by which he defined two halves of day, calling his son “Աւր” (day)> “Այր” (man, husband), and daughter – “Աղջ” (night)> “Աղջ” (girl), “Աղջիկ” (little girl).

THE SATIRE AND THE TRAGEDY IN THE NOVEL “PHONY GENIUSES” BY ZABEL YESAYAN – 2021-1

Summary

Hayk A. Hovhannisyan
The article is about the satirical novel “Phony Geniuses” which was written by Zabel Yesayan. In it, the author depicts the life of the young Armenian intelligentsia, who were living in Paris at that time. Yesayan clearly shows how the wrong assessment of the society turns a talented man into lazy, haughty and selfassured person.

In this work we have tried to refer to the prototype of the novel. We tried to show the obvious similarity of Intra – one of the modern writers to the main character of the novel. Most likely, Zabel Yesayan did not like the selfcontainedness of Intra’s literature, the sheer size of his self-image. That is why she criticizes the literature of her main character in the novel.

In the article we referred to the peculiarities of Zabel Yesayan’s satire showing the unity of satire and tragedy. Even the most satirical images of Yesayan have a tragic sublayer and the author’s pain is clearly seen in the composition.

Zabel Yesayan’s novel “Phony Geniuses” is a realistic work, it stands out with its high art and with a unique way of depicting reality.

RAFFI’S VIEWS ON ENLIGHTENMENT AND PEDAGOCY – 2021-2

Summary

Ashot N. Hayruni
The family and school occupied an important place in Raffi’s ideological worldview in reaching societal enlightenment and national unity. According to him, these two important social structures were important vehicles for transforming any given individual, which through enlightenment would lead to the desired success. According to Raffi, both of these institutions were not prepared and unable to serve the nation’s progress and enlightenment, since fundamentally their practices had remained in the past with inhumane beatings, punishments, with highly illiterate teachers who showed despotic behavior and lack of pedagogical skills.

While analyzing the many flaws in the upbringing and education of Armenian children within the family and schools, Raffi pointed out that these in turn greatly stifled the individual from fully understanding his or her national identity, thus effectively also hindering a proper development of the Armenian society at large. According to Raffi, the main culprit for this was the Church, which yielded greatest influence upon the society and was the main unifying factor of its members, thus, the latter could become the torchbearer for enlightenment and progress, if only it would be able to fulfill this role. After conducting a comprehensive study of the historic path of the Armenian Church, Raffi concluded that the Church had lost its moral compass and had strayed from the path of leadership. Raffi pointed out that Armenian priesthood had to undergo a reform, only after which, it could once again take up the mantle of educating and enlightening the Armenian society at large.

The writer, thus, emphasized the importance of reforming family and school education, which in turn, would transform the society by instilling within the individual ideals of enlightenment. For this task Raffi especially emphasized the important role of the Church.

According to Raffi, the school had to have a stable school curricula and methodological guidebooks, its teachers should have received specialized training, national values should have been underlined and highly emphasized in subjects like Armenian History. Raffi also placed importance in teaching Theology, in particular, teaching the children those parts of the Bible, which developed a sense of morality. Raffi also criticized the view that the religious denomination and national origin were one and the same. He pointed out that national origin and religious affiliation could not be equated, since the two had different historic origins. He pointed out that a religion of a given people would throughout history often change, thus no matter what an important role the given religion had played for a people, it could not fully constitute the totality of their national identity and existence. The core, which according to Raffi could unify all of the members of an enlightened nation and society, was national self-consciousness, which could be gained after proper understanding and self-realization of national identity, which according to him was first and foremost based upon the use of a common language.

THE ARMENIAN NAMES OF NEIGHBOURING COUNTRIES – 2021-3

In the light of the “North-South” antiunitary concepts

Summary

Sargis G. Petrosyan
The Indo-European tribes oriented themselves by facing the east, since for people who worshipped the sun, the East – the place of sunrise, was the sacred side of the world. Then, according to the system of binary mythological oppositions, the north – the dark side of the world, became the “left” side, and the south – the light side of the world, the “right” side.

Assyrian cuneiform sources from 722 BC mention the country of Gamirra and the people of Gamirra, Gamirrai, Gimirri, i.e. the Cimmerians. This country is located to the north of the Armenian Highlands, on the territory of present-day Georgia. In the ethnotoponym Gamirra <*gam-er, in our opinion, gam meant the North Star. In Armenian, “գամ” means “nail” and “բեւեռ” means “nail, pole”. It is known that in the mythological representations of different peoples, the Polar Star is a nail around which the firmament rotates. If this is the case, then gam-er should mean “northerner”. The ancient Armenians also called their northern neighbors “վիր-ք” – “Iberians”, and their northern country “Վիրք” – “Iberia”. This ethnotoponym is based on the Indo-European *seu-er <* seu – “left”, “north”, and -er suffix (compare gam-er). It is known that the kingdom of darkness was originally represented in the north. In ancient Armenian legends, it is said that Gushar Haykid inherited Mtin Mountain in northern Armenia. The oronym “Մթին” means “dark, gloomy” in Armenian.

As in the mythological ideas of the ancient Armenians, the mountains of the north, the left side of the world, were compared with the dark mountains of the kingdom of darkness, so the mountains of the south, the right side of the world, were compared with the clear, light mountains of the kingdom of the blessed.

Mount Savalan, located south of the ancient Armenian region of Parspatunik, is located in the north of ancient Atropatena (Iranian Azerbaijan). The oronym Saualan (<*Saual-an) is of Indo-European origin. In Indo-European *sauel “light > sun”. To the north of this mountain is the Salavat mountain pass. In Greek – pelasgus Σαλαβη “passage”. In Urartian inscriptions, the country of Puluadi is also mentioned here. The first component of this name is related both to the Armenian “փող” – “narrow passage, corridor”, etc., and to the Greek πύλη “gate” and the Greek pelasgus φύλαξ “guard, sentry, gatekeeper”. The second component of the name comes from the Indo-European *sadh – “right” > “south” (>Arm. աջ). The name of Puluadi country entirely means “Southern Passage”.

In the south of historical Armenia are the Sasun mountains, where the country of Šubria of Assyrian sources was located. This name is based on the satem reflex of the Indo-European *k՛ubh-ro. In Armenian “սուրբ” – “sacred, holy” (<*սուբր). From the same Indo-European word *k՛ubh- originates the Sumerian (borrowed) name of Northern Mesopotamia ŠUBUR (>Akkad. SUBIR, Šubari, Šubartu. etc.). Šubartu is later attested as a synonym of the name Aŝŝur//Assyria. In the north of Mesopotamia, south of Armenia, was ancient Adiabene (Greek: ’Aδιαβήνη). The name of this country consists of the components *Adi-au- (-ena/-ene toponymic suffix of the Greek language), where *adi- means “southern” (compare Pulu-adi), and *au- < in Indo-European *ai- “to spend the night, overnight”. In Armenian աւ-թ> օթ> օթեւան “lodging, dwelling, room, abode”.

THE 1921 KARS TREATY IN THE FATE OF ARMENIAN PEOPLE – 2021-3

A critical view from a centennial distance

Summary

Ararat M. Hakobyan
The period of 1920-1921 appeared to be fateful for Armenia and the Armenians. During these two years, the Republic of Armenia suffered a defeat from Kemalist Turkey and lost its independence. One part of the republic was occupied by Turkey and the Soviet power was established in another part. It was in this period that the Armenian-Turkish border-territorial issues appeared under consideration and were later stipulated in the Treaty of Alexandropol on December 3, 1920, in the Treaty of Moscow on March 16 (18), 1921, and in the Treaty of Kars on October 13 of the same year. Though the mentioned treaties are viewed as a whole, as far as their legal succession and contents are concerned, the Treaties of Moscow and Kars are quite similar.

The Treaty of Alexandropol appeared to be the outcome of Armenia’s severe defeat and the aggression carried out by Kemalist Turks. The Treaty of Moscow was the result of the Soviet-Turkish rapprochement and the Treaty of Kars actually was the repetition of the Treaty of Moscow, signed by the delegations of three Transcaucasian Republics on the directive issued by the Central Bolshevist authorities.

Since the Armenian-Turkish Treaty of Alexandropol was not legally valid from the stand-point of the international law, it could not impose any legal obligations on the government of Soviet Armenia (Armenian Revolutionary Committee) and was not implemented for the following reasons: 1. At the moment when the treaty was signed, a change of power had taken place in Armenia. 2. The treaty was ratified neither by Armenia, nor by Turkey.

On March 16, 1921, without Armenia’s knowledge and involvement, Soviet Russia and Turkey signed a treaty in Moscow which in its territorial-border terms actually repeated the Treaty of Alexandropol. On October 13 of the same year, the Soviet Armenian delegation was compelled to sign a treaty in Kars, which ratified and legalized the terms of the Treaty of Moscow. Thus, the Treaties of Moscow and Kars secured the Turkish claims regarding their intrusion into Armenian territory, as it was claimed by their “National Oath” in January 1920. Furthermore, Russia ceded Surmalu District to Turkey, which had never been under the Ottoman Empire before and had not been claimed by the “National Oath”.

The Treaties of Moscow and Kars led Armenia to lose more than a half of its genuine eastern Armenian territories. In consequence of the mentioned treaties, Turkey incorporated Kars Province with its 17,250 square kilometers, and Surmalu District covering 3,450 sq. km, making 20,700 sq. km of the Eastern Armenian lands, in total. Besides, Turkey demanded that the region of Nakhichevan covering 5,500 sq. km should be placed under the protection of its kin Azerbaijan. If we consider, that Mountainous Karabakh, which covers 4,160 sq. km also had to be annexed to
Azerbaijan on the resolution by the Caucasian Bureau of the Central Committee of Russian Communist (Bolshevik) Party made on July 5, 1921, then almost 10,000 sq. km of Armenian territories had been granted to Azerbaijan. To sum up, one can conclude that in 1920-1921, Armenia was deprived of more than the half of its actual territory (20,700+9,660=30,360 sq. km). As we can see, this area is even larger than that of Soviet Armenia and its legal successor Republic of Armenia.

The main clue to the Soviet Russian Government making such allowances for Turkey should not be sought in the susceptibility of the Soviet state of those times, but in the essence of its Eastern policy. As far as the Bolshevik Government considered Turkey to be the centre of world revolution in the East, and tried to implement this futile plan, it urged and encouraged the Kemalists by all possible means, including gold allotments, arms and ammunitions supply, as well as meeting their territorial claims. Unfortunately, the territories had been ceded to Turkey mostly to the detriment of Armenia and vital interests of the Armenian people. At the same time, Soviet Russia made advances to Turkey for it not to join the Entente. However, we are of opinion, that Soviet Russia had not nurtured any deliberate anti-Armenian policy. Armenia just appeared to be at the crossroads of big political game and trying to preserve independence in the environment, where there was no room for independence, it had to suffer huge losses.

On the other hand, the Treaty of Moscow reasonably marked a deal. From the stand-point of the international law, the Treaty of Moscow in its part that concerns Armenia, abuses the law, as Moscow had met the territorial claims of the Kemalists at the expense of the Armenian territories in order to prevent them from joining the Entente. Besides, both parties had resolved the issues of the Armenian borders without the knowledge and participation of the Armenian representatives.

Thus, Turkey that had lost World War I and had committed one of the most severe crimes against humanity – the Armenian Genocide, by taking advantage of the discrepancies among the powerful states and pretending to be both revolutionary and comrade of the Bolshevist Russia, instead of being liable before the International Court, got away with the crime it had committed. Not only did it not return Armenia the Western Armenian provinces stipulated by the Treaty of Sèvres but, thanks to the Treaty of Moscow, Turkey also received a significant part of Eastern Armenian territories as a reward.

The policy of false amiability with Russia, conducted by Kemalists, led the Western states consider that they should recognize “New Turkey” and settle their relations with it. That is what actually took place at the Lausanne Conference in 1922-1923.

And as far as the principles and norms of international law are concerned, the Treaty of Moscow and its successor Treaty of Kars, in their parts that concern Armenia are predatory, illegal and not compulsory, and thus they can be regarded as invalid. The boundary delimitations, specified in the mentioned treaties and their appendices are disputable and unacceptable.

The treaties are not eternal. They exist as long as the conditions that bore them do.

At present, the Republic of Armenia and the whole Armenian nation possess sufficient historical, political and legal proofs and arguments to discuss the issue at the state offices, and to take the matter of the legitimacy of the Treaty of Moscow and its successor Treaty of Kars, as far as Armenia is concerned, to the international courts in order to undermine their legitimacy and to denounce them, as well as to restore violated rights and annexed territories.

GAREGIN NZHDEH AND THE HEROIC BATTLE OF MOUNTAINOUS ARMENIA – 2021-2

A retrospective view from a distance of 100 years

Avag A. Harutyunyan

A century after the heroic battle of Mountainous Armenia, in the conditions of the current dangerous military-political developments around Syunik, the revelation of its heroic history and the assessment of Garegin Nzhdeh’s role in that context are of great actual importance.

In Syunik-Artsakh, Great Britain especially stood out with its anti-Armenian policy. The vision of British policy was first and foremost to implement farreaching anti-Russian programs. In order to solve this priority problem, it was in their interests to expand the territory of the Republic of Armenia including the Kars province, and with the donation of Syunik-Artsakh, to more strengthen Azerbaijan against Soviet Russia.

Syunik, led by Nzhdeh, struggled without even breathing։ in the conditions of the military-political blockade, many enemies came and went, the events had changeable ups and downs and with some refluxes, Mountainous Armenia withstood. Nzhdeh acted not only as a military commander in Syunik, but also as an ideological leader and organizer.

Fighting in and for Syunik, from strategic perspective Nzhdeh had always kept in his field of vision the collective interests of the statehood of entire Armenia and the Armenians . If the Armenians of Syunik had not fought heroically under Nzhdeh, the safe existence of the Republic of Armenia in the Azeri-Bolshevik hostile tongs would have been greatly questioned, and later Soviet Russia would have ceded Syunik to Baku. After that, the circumstance of Soviet Armenia to be a separate union republic would be endangered. At best, it would simply be included as an autonomous entity within the borders of the Soviet republics of Georgia and Azerbaijan, which would divide the Cis-Caucasus into two parts. Thus, the heroic Syunik ensured the possibility of preserving the Armenian state entity for both the Soviet and the present and future times.

Given the current resonance of the history of the heroic battle of Mountainous Armenia, today we must learn the relevant lessons and draw necessary conclusions.