Author Archives: Admin

THE TIME OF WRITING OF YEGHISHE’S HISTORY

In Armenian philology, different opinions have appeared regarding the time of writing of Yeghishe’s work “History of Vardan and the Armenian War”. According to the facts reflected in it, it is accepted that Yeghishe’s History was written around 462-465. The centuries-old Armenian national literary tradition recognizes the testimony of Yeghishe as absolutely reliable regarding author’s witnessing the events. However, for more than a century, the debate among philologists and historians over the primacy of Yeghishe’s “History of Vardan and the Armenian War” and Ghazar Parpetsi’s “History of Armenia” has been going on. Yeghishe as the Avarayr’s battle historian, really appears as an impartial author, documenting genuine and reliable facts. Meanwhile, Parpetsi evaluates things from a distance in time, with a certain coloring. Thus, retelling the main episodes of Yeghishe’s Vardanants History, Parpetsi tries to replace the words used by his predecessor with synonymous expressions or change them according to the information he has. He even replaces geographical place names with parallel names as much as possible.

The information reported by Yeghishe regarding the exact dates of the Vardanants war, the troops and victims, and many other details, his awareness of the near and far events that took place, truly make the history an authentic work created by an informed figure and eyewitness author, and his powerful, eloquent poetic speech and vivid imagination elevate the historically authentic work to the level of a national epic.

Our impartial, meticulous study reveals Yeghishe’s primacy over Parpetsi not only chronologically, but also in the very significant differences in the content of their works, which prove the dependence of Parpetsi’s History on Yeghishe’s original.

THE BIOPOLITICAL PARADOXES OF POSTMODERN

This article building on Michel Foucault’s concept of “the governance of life” and Hannah Arendt’s thesis of “the right to have rights,” the article demonstrates that the security imperative, intended to protect life, often turns into a mechanism of rightlessness and exclusion. Giorgio Agamben’s analysis of the normalization of the state of exception, Roberto Esposito’s idea of “immunity,” and Byung-Chul Han’s thesis of the “society of transparency” reveal that modern power operates not only through coercion, but also through fear and voluntary self-surveillance. Special attention is given to digital biopolitics, in which data becomes the primary criterion of political inclusion and exclusion.

The Armenian experience (COVID-19 state of emergency, martial law, uncertainties in migration policy, inequality in healthcare) shows that even in small states, security can rapidly transform a tool for restricting freedoms. The article concludes that overcoming the biopolitical paradox requires a new model of security, grounded in mutual recognition, comprehensive participation, and digital ethics.

WHY IS ARARAT BEING TARGETED?

The article shows that the current fact of Mount Ararat being located within the territory of Turkey, and the fact of “touching/violating” the concept of “Ararat”, which symbolizes national memory and the Christian value system, is an attempt to transfer the ongoing cultural genocide against the Armenian people inside the borders of the Republic of Armenia.

Since through this the Turkish-Azerbaijani tandem is automatically involved in Armenia’s internal political discourse, the examination of such a challenge is possible only on two planes: synchronic and diachronic. The first requires carrying out a scientific analysis of Turkish-Azerbaijani perceptions regarding place names of the Armenian Highland and, through comparative examination, revealing the fundamental differences between the linguistic thinking of nomads and indigenous peoples. The second requires illuminating Armenia’s pivotal role in combining, reinterpreting, and transmitting the mythological ideas of the Ancient Near East concerning Mount Ararat and the Land of Ararat to the entire Christian civilization.

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)

The protection of women’s rights remains one of the most pressing challenges in human history, especially within societies that consider themselves progressive. Women, as some of the most vulnerable members of society, are disproportionately targeted in conflicts and crimes against humanity. In recent decades, we have witnessed alarming instances where women were specifically victimized during periods of mass violence, often in ways that are gender-based and dehumanizing ways.

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 MOVEMENTS
A 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 QUEST
In 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.