Author Archives: Admin

THE DREAMS OF THE HEROES OF RAFFI’S “THE CRAZY” AND AV. ISAHAKYAN’S “USTA KARO” NOVELS: PARALLELS – 2024-1

Summary

Ani V. Ghazaryan
Candidate of Sciences in Philology

The phenomena and events in a dream present themselves to the writer with unexpected solutions, and since the reality of impressions is a kind of merging point, they are subjected to the requirement of artistic abstraction. That is when the striving to achieve the perfect takes place; the unstoppable and unexpected flight of imagination, and the aesthetic ideal-image of the writer is formed, which is beyond the reality.

From this point of view, the goals of Raffi and Isahakyan completely coincide: through dreams they reveal the inner life, feelings, emotions and sensations, secret desires, fears and anxieties of the characters they create. Clearly realizing that a dream is also an expression of a person’s subconscious desires and fears, they, along with representing real life, try to predict the future events and happenings through the characters’ dreams.

Structurally, Vardan’s and Karo’s dreams are made up of a premise, because the conditions and maturing processes that contribute to the appearance of the vision, the dream itself and its description are described in advance. The dreams of the protagonists have a local significance, because they are aimed at the interpretation of the future of the country, which fully contributes to the disclosure of their mental world. They were witnesses of the life-changing periods for Armenia, and Raffi and Isahakyan consciously made them their ideological heroes.

REFERENCES

20. Avetis’yan Z., E. dari hay patmagrutyan tipabanutyuně, Yer., 2013. (in Armenian)
21. Bazmavep, 1848, tiv 6. (in Armenian)
22. Devrik’yan V., Hayots’ mijnadari azatagrakan legendě (mas yerkrord, azatagrakan legend tesilnere), Vem, 2011-1. (in Armenian)
23. Tamamyan N., Tesilě vorpes grakan-gegharvestakan mtatsoghutyan drsevorum, Echmiatcin, 2005, ZH.-ZHA.
24. Ter-Davtyan Q., XI-XV dareri hay varqagrutyune, Yer., 1980. (in Armenian)
25. Isahakyan A., Barev varpet, Yer., 2008. (in Armenian)
26. Isahakyan A., Avetik’ Isahakyani gitakan kensagrutyuně, hat. 1, Yer., 2000(in Armenian).
27. Isahakyan Av., Yerkeri liakatar zhoghovatcu, hat. 7, Yer., 2016. (in Armenian)
28. Isahakyan Av., Yerkeri liakatar zhoghovatcu, hat. 12, Yer., 2021. (in Armenian)
29. Hayots’ grakanutyan patmutyun, hat. 3, Yer., 2015. (in Armenian)
30. Movses Khorenatsi’, Hayots’ patmut’yun, Ashkharhabare, targmanutyune, neratsut’yune yev tsanotagrut’yunnere akademikos St. Malkhasyantci, Yer., 1968. (in Armenian)
31. Hovhannisyan A., Drvagner hay azatagrakan mtqi patmutian, Girk’ a’ragin, Yer., 1957. (in Armenian)
32. Madoyan A., Nerses Metci tesile mijnadaryan hay poeziayum, Patmabanasirakan handese, 1969, N 4. (in Armenian)
33. Raffi, Yerkeri zhoxovatsu, hat. 9, Yer., 1962.(in Armenian)
34. Sarinyan S., Raffi. Gaghaparneri yev kerparneri hamakarge, Yer., 2010.(in Armenian)
35. Sarinyan S., Hay vepi patmutyun, Yer., 2005. (in Armenian)
36. Syurmelyan L.-Z., Ardzaki tekhnika. Chap yev khentutyun, Yer., 2008.(in Armenian)
37. Qristonya Hayastan hanragitaran, Yer, 2002. (in Armenian)
38. Freid Z., Tolkovanie snovideniee, M., 2011.(in Russian)

PRINTID COLOPHONS AND COLOPHON-TYPE UNITS In the Armenian early printed books – 2024-1

Summary

Marine P. Sargsyan

The early printed books were created in the imitation of manuscripts. So, they also have colophons, which are considered their birth certificates. While in the manuscripts it is easy to differentiate the colophons, in early printed books the picture is different. The early printed books, in addition to the printed colophons, also have a number of passages entitled “Preface”, “To the Reader”, “Notice…”, “Word to the Reader”, “The Reason and the Prelude of My Book”, “Epilogue…”, etc. Some of them contain data typical of colophons, such as the date of printing, the name of the publisher, sometimes the name of the customer or the patron. They may contain information on the complex proofreading process and other data related to the publication. They gain even more importance, when an early printed book lacks a colophon. However, not all units having such a title can be considered colophon-type. Sometimes these passages are not written by the publisher or a person connected with printing, but by the author or the translator (who do not have anything to do with printing), where we get information on why the book was written, what its content is or how and why it was translated, etc. We overlooked such colophons and chose only those that contain information about the printing of the book.

In this article, we tried to show the connection between the colophons and the colophon-type units, as well as the right to consider them as colophons.

REFERANCES

1. Ayvazean A., Nakhijevan, Patkerazard bnashkharhik hanragitak, Yer., Yushardzan, Gitut’yun, 1995, ēj 250, (HH Karavarut’yann arĕnt’er hushardzanneri pahpanut’yan varch’ut’yun). (in Armenian).
2. Bakhchinyan H. G., Haykakan dzeragreri yishatakarannerĕ, Yer., 1980. (in Armenian). 3․H. S. Chemchemyan, Mkhit’ar abbahor hratarakch’akan arak’elut’yunĕ, Venetik, S. Ghazar,
1980. (in Armenian).
4․ Galēmk’earean h. Grigoris v., Kensagrut’yun Sargis ark’ep.i Sarafean yev zhamanakin hay kat’oghikeank’, Vienna, Mkhit’arean tparan, 1908 (Azgayin matenadaran TSE.). (in Armenian).
5․ Hay girk’ĕ 1512-1800 t’vakannerin, hay hnatip grk’i matenagitut’yun, [kazmetsin] Oskanyan N. A., Korkotyan K’., A., Savalyan A., M., Yer., 1988. (in Armenian).
6․ Hayerēn dzeragreri yishatakarannerĕ. YE-ZHB. dd., ashkh. Mat’evosyan A. A., Yer., 1988. (in Armenian).
7․ Harut’yunyan Kh. A., Hayerēn dzeragreri yishatakarannerĕ, Yer., 2019. (in Armenian) 8․ Khach’ikyan L. S., “ZHĒ. dari hayerēn dzeragreri yishatakaranneri arajin hatorĕ”,
Ashkhatut’yunner, h. A., Yer., 1995, (in Armenian).
9․ Mat’ewosyan A. A., Hayerēn dzeragreri yishatakarannerĕ hay mshakuyt’i usumnasirut’yan skzbnaghbyurner, Yer., 1998. (in Armenian).
10․ Sargsyan M. P., Hayeren hnatip grk’eri hishatakaranneri bnagreri mshakman harts’er, “Ējmiatsin”, 2017, ZHA, (in Armenian).

QUESTIONS OF MORPHOLOGY (zero as a numeral, the words “մերոնք” and “ձերոնք” as pronouns) – 2024-1

Summary

Yuri S. Avetisyan
Doctor of Sciences in Philology

The theory of the Armenian language has provided answers to many controversial questions of modern Armenian grammar. Of course, there are still disagreements on many issues, which will eventually be discussed, answers will be given, new disagreements will arise, and so on. This is a normal development of a language theory. And at all levels of the language, there are issues that have not received much attention or have not been discussed enough. This may also be because they had no systemic significance or there was simply no reason to make them the subject of special discussion. At the morphological level, we have identified two of them: firstly, zero as a number, and secondly, the verbal-partial affiliation of the words “մերոնք” and “ձերոնք”. 1. Zero is an integer and a digit in mathematics, as well as 1, 10, 12, 100. Taken separately, it does not express any quantities (Latin: nullus “nothing”). Increases or decreases a given number by placing it to the right or left of any digit. This is probably why the zero alone, as a rule, was not considered a number in grammar. Another reason is probably that it was applied in mathematics relatively recently, thanks to the efforts of Leonard Euler, a German mathematician of the 18 century. Zero names the number of
th
the object (its absence) just like five, twenty, one hundred. Not naming or showing the number also means a certain quantitative characteristic of the subject, for example, “He scored zero votes in the election.”, “It’s zero degrees outside.” One of the semantic features of the numerical part of speech is also that the words considered numerals are mostly unambiguous in their lexical meaning. Ambiguity and metaphorical use are not inherent in numerals. Few numerals are endowed with such characteristics. Zero is one of the multi–valued numbers, and also has a figurative meaning: one of the four meanings of this word is figurative, it means nothing, triviality, insignificance, as, for example, in this sentence: “All this did not matter at all for the good of the country.” 2. The words “մերոնք” and “ձերոնք” (as well as իմոնք, քոնոնք, նրանցոնք) how pronouns with the corresponding semantic and grammatical characteristics (act as a substitute for a name in speech, have a common, undifferentiated meaning, indicate an object in a temporal-spatial-facial relation, etc.) relate to a noun and can indeed be considered as pronouns of a noun with a collective meaning.

REFERENCES

1. Abrahamyan S., Paṛnasyan N., Ōhanyan H., Zhamanakakitsʻ hayotsʻ lezu, hat. 2, Yer., 1974 (In Armenian).
2. Achaṛyan H., Liakatar kʻerakanutʻyun, hat. 1, Yer., 1952 (In Armenian).
3. Aghayan Ē., Ardi hayereni batsʻatrakan baṛaran, Yer., 1976 (In Armenian)
4. Aghayan Ē., Zhamanakakitsʻ hayereni holovumě yev khonarhumě, Yer., 1967 (In Armenian).
5. Asatryan M., Zhamanakakitsʻ hayotsʻ lezu. dzevabanutʻyun, Yer., 2004 (In Armenian).
6. Harutʻyunyan H., Atsakan anun, deranun, Yer., 1976 (In Armenian).
7. Khlghatʻyan F., Meronkʻ yev dzeronkʻ baṛeri masin, “Hayotsʻ lezun yev grakanutʻyuně dprotsʻum”, Yer., 1968, N 1-2 (In Armenian).
8. Khlghatʻyan F., Zhamanakakitsʻ hayotsʻ lezu, hat. G, Yer., 2007 (In Armenian).
9. Margaryan A., Hayotsʻ lezvi kʻerakanutʻyun. dzevabanutʻyun, Yer., 2004 (In Armenian).
10. Nersisyan V., Grakan arevelahayereni meronkʻ // dzeronkʻ baṛeri khoskʻimasayin arzhekʻi hartsʻě, “Lezu yev lezvabanutʻyun”, Yer., 2018, N 1 (18) (In Armenian).
11. Sevak G., Zhamanakakitsʻ hayotsʻ lezvi dasěntʻatsʻ, Yer., 2009 (In Armenian).

DIPTHONGOIDS WITH NON-DIPHTHONGAL ORIGIN IN OLD ARMENIAN (Diachronic and achronic aspects) – 2024-1

Only one of the dipthongoinds that has undergone y diachronic and achronic examination in the current article – ւո (ṷo), has so far been distinguished in Armenian Studies as a diphthong (a diachronic aspect). The others – ւա (ṷa), ւե (ṷe), ւէ (ṷē), ւի (ṷi), յա (i̭ a), յե (i̭ e), յի (i̭ i), յո (i̭ o), have been identified and investigated as diphthongs for the first time.

Considering the linguistic ambiance where each diphthong expresses itself, i.e. the word or the morpheme within which the given diphthong functions, as well as the native or borrowed nature of the given unit and its simple or compound structure, an attempt has been made to reveal the prototype of the given diphthong and the approximate time of its formation.

Further examination reveals that seven of the diphthongs ւա (ṷa), ւե (ṷe), ւո (ṷo), յա (i̭ a), յե (i̭ e), յի (i̭ i), յո (i̭ o) have their IE prototypes, i.e. derive from the IE base-language, hence, are native Armenian structures.

However, their prototypes are not diphthongs as expected. Rather, they are combinations of vowels, sonorants and consonants whose regular phonetic changes have resulted in the formation of diphthongs in Armenian.

Two other diphthongs – ւէ (ṷē)-ն and ւի (ṷi) have developed under the strong influence of Iranian borrowings since they are encountered only among Iranian borrowings and are the result of phonetic changes typical of shifts from Iranian languages into Armenian. The diphthongs deriving from the IE base-language, most probably, were developed in the stage of Proto Armenian, when Armenian started to develop as a separate and independent language following the break-away from the IE language. The diphthongs encountered among Iranian borrowings could develop not earlier than in the middle of the first millennium BC, since, according to historical records, mass and direct interaction of the Armenian ethnic people with the ancient Iranian peoples started at that time.

REFERENCES

1. Abrahamyan A., Grabari dzeṙ’nark, Yer.,1976 (In Armenian).
2. Ačaṙ’yan H., Hayeren armatakan baṙaran, Yer., hat. I-IV, 1971-1979 (In Armenian).
3. Aṙ’akʻelyan V., Grabari kʻerakanutʻyun, Yer., 2010 (In Armenian).
4. Gamkrelidze T., Ivanov Vyach., Indoevropeyskiy yazyk i indoevropeytsy, Tbilisi, t. II, 1984 (In Russian).
5. Dzhahukyan G., Hayeren stugabanakan baṙaran, Yer., 2010 (In Armenian).
6. Dzhahukyan G., Hayocʻ lezvi patmutʻyun: nakhagrayin zhamanakashrdzhan, Yer., 1987 (In Armenian).
7. Krasukhin K., Vvedenie v indoevropeyskoe yazěkoznanie, М., 2004 (In Russian).
8. Hyubshman H., Hayereni kʻerakanutʻyun, Yer., 2003 (In Armenian).
9. Meillet A., Esquisse d’un grammaire comparée de l’arménien classique, Vienne, 1936 (In French).
10. Meye A., Vvedenie v sṙavnitel’noe izuchenie v indoevropeyskikh yazěkov, M.-L., 1938 (In Russian).
11. Pedersen H., Hayerēn yev dracʻi lezunerě, Vienna, 1907 (In Armenian).
12. Petrosyan V., Hin hayereni ւ (ṷ) dzaynordi hamazhamanakya yev tarazhamanakya bnutʻagrery // BEH. Banasirutʻyun, 2017, N 3, ēdzh 11-22 (In Armenian).
13. Petrosyan V., Proiskhozhdenie v drevnearmyanskom yazyke sonornogo zvuka յ(y) i yego phonematicheskaya znachimost’ (istoricheskiy aspekt) // European journal of Humanities and Sosial Scienes, 2017, N 5, с. 24-29 (In Russian).
14. Petrosyan V., H.-e. kokordayinneri tesutʻyuně yev hin hayereni khul shp’akan Հ (H)-ի hnchabanakan bnut’agrerě (apazhamanakya yev tarazhamanakya hayecʻaketer), Hayagitutyan harcer, 2022, 1, ēdzh 189-208 (In Armenian).
15. Petrosyan V., Hin hayereni erkbarbaṙayin yev eṙabarbaṙayin kazmutʻyunneri harcʻi shurdzh (hamazhamanakya hayecʻakerp) // BEH. Banasirutʻyun, 2023, N 1, ēdzh 57-67 (In Armenian).
16. Savchenko A., Sravnitelnaya grammatika indoevropeyskih yzěkov, М., 1974 (In Russian).
17. Selischev A., Staroslavyanskiy yazěk, ch. I, M., 1951 (In Russian).
18. Semeren’i O., Vvedenie v sravnitel’noe yazěkoznanie, М., 1980 (In Russian).
19. Tumanyan Ē., Drevnearmyanskiy yazěk, М., 1971 (In Russian).

THE CHARACTER OF CHARLOTTE SCHULZ IN THE KH. ABOVYAN’S “DORPATIAN DIARIES” And in the Ye. Charents’ poem “Towards Mount Masis” – 2024-1

Summary

Seyran Z. Grigoryan
PhD in Philological Sciences

The article examines the character of Charlotte Schulz in the “Dorpatian Diaries” by Khachatur Abovyan and in the poem “Towards Mount Masis” by Yeghishe Charents. Yeghishe Charents is the founder of the modern Armenian literature, and in his works, the literary heritage of Khachatur Abovyan, the founder of new Armenian literature, has played a special role.
On February 20, 1933, Yeghishe Charents wrote the poem “ Towards Mount Masis ”, which soon found a place in the “At the Crossroads of History” section of the “Book of the Way” collection. The poem is dedicated to the life and work of Khachatur Abovyan. The main focus is on the problem of Abovyan’s disappearance, but through the depiction of the last sleepless night and the dramatic thoughts of the hero, some important questions are raised. They include psychological issues in addition to political and intellectual ones. In the poem, Charents creates vivid images of Dorpat University professor Friedrich Parrott and the beloved girl of young student Khachatur Abovyan – Charlotte Schulz.

The source of the image of Charlotte Schulz was a memoir called “Dorpatian Diaries”, written by Khachatur Abovyan in simple grabar from 1830 to 1835. As a work of memoir literature, the diary depicts the acquaintance and love of the characters in the Baltic village of Ponimon (Panemune), the meetings, relationships, and feelings of an Armenian student and a young beautiful German woman. Charlotte Schulz is the adoptive sister of Khachatur Abovyan’s closest friend, Theodor Grass. Khachatur Abovyan writes the name of the heroine in the forms Lotte or young lady Schulz. Real facts and images of documentary prose in the poem “Towards Mount Masis” are used by the principle of poetic generalizations. Charents does not recreate the details of a love story, not details and circumstances, but the essence of the characters and their feelings.

At the time of writing the poem, Khachatur Abovyan’s “Dorpatian Diaries” was not published yet. It was first published in 1955 as a separate book and in the 6th volume of the complete works of Khachatur Abovyan. In this article we assume that as a source for creating the character of Charlotte Schulz, Yeghishe Charents could have used Nerses Ter-Karapetyan’s study “Khachatur Abovyan”, where there are many quotes and retellings of diaries based on the manuscript of this work. Another version is that Yeghishe Charents, like Nerses Ter-Karapetyan, was familiar with the manuscripts, which were then still kept by the writer’s descendants.

An important role in the poem is played by one reliable artifact preserved in the archive of Khachatur Abovyan. That is Charlotte Schulz’s souvenir. Its source is also the writer’s diaries, but in the poem, it has a special artistic meaning. Through it, the main poetic principle of the poem operates – the synthesis of the real and the artistic. The poem focuses on the dramatic separation of lovers. The article makes an attempt to clarify this ending with the help of real biographical facts of Khachatur Abovyan and Charlotte Schulz.

REFERENCES
1. Abeghyan A. , Abovyani sirayin aprumnerĕ Dorpatum (Mi ĕj mer “Abovyan yev Dorpat” ashkhatut’yunits’), “Hayrenik’” orat’ert’, Boston, 1975, t’iv 18940,marti 16 (In
Armenian).
2. Abovyan Kh. A. , Yerkeri liakatar zhoghovatsu ut’ hatorov, hat․ 1, Yer.,
Haykakan SSR GA hrat., 1948 (In Armenian).
3. Abovyan Kh. A., Yerkeri liakatar zhoghovatsu ut’ hatorov, hat․ 6, Yer.,
Haykakan SSR GA hrat., 1955 (In Armenian).
4. Ch’arents’ Ye., Girk’ chanaparhi, Yer., Petakan hrat., 1933 (In Armenian).
5. .Ch’arents’ Ye., Yerkeri zhoghovatsu vets’ hatorov, hat. 4, Yer., Haykakan SSR GA hrat., (In Armenian).
6. Ch’arents’ Ye., Yerkir Nairi, Yer., Petakan hrat., 1926 (In Armenian).
7. Hakobyan P., Abovyanĕ yev Bakunts’ĕ, “Banber Yerevani hamalsarani”, 1980, t’iv 2 (In Armenian).
8. Hakobyan P. H., Khachatur Abovyan., Kyank’ĕ, gorts’ě, zhamanakĕ (1809-1836), Yer., HKhH GA hrat., 1967 (In Armenian).
9. Ter-Karapetyan N., Khachatur Abovyan, Tp’khis, Tparan M. Sharadze yev ĕnk. Nik: 21, 1897 (In Armenian).

THE CHURCH OF THE HOLY ALL-SAVIOR GHAZANCHETSOTS AS THE CATHEDRAL RESIDENCE OF THE ARTSAKH DIOCESE – 2024-1

Summary

Vahram R. Balayan
Doctor of Sciences in History

Melanya G. Balayan
Candidate of Sciences in History

In the second half of the XVIII century, with the aim to meet the spiritual needs of the population of the Armenian quarter of Ghazanchetsots in Shushi, a wooden and then stone church was built on a stony bottom. From 1868 to 1888, the new majestic Holy Savior Ghazanchetsots Cathedral was built on the site of a dilapidated church at the expense of the Armenian population of Shushi and local benefactors.

It should be noted that before the construction of the mentioned new church, since the end of the 18 century, the Ghazanchetsots Church in Shushi had already played an important role in organizing the spiritual, cultural, and social life of the Armenians of Artsakh. In 1813, after Artsakh came under the rule of the Russian Empire under the famous Gulistan Treaty, radical changes took place in all spheres of public life. The Armenian Catholicos see of Aghvank did not stay away from this either. With the intervention of the Russian court, a special circular was issued by Catholicos of All Armenians Yeprem I Dzorageghtsi in 1815, whereby the Catholicosate in Aghvank was abolished, and the dioceses that had previously been part of the Catholicosate in Aghvank were united into a metropolis subordinate to the Catholicosate of All Armenians. Having awarded the title of metropolitan to Sarkis Hasan–Jalalyants, Yeprem Dzorageghtsi appointed him the primate of the diocese, followed by Baghdasar Hasan Jalalyants on November 13, 1830. Artsakh witnesses an unprecedented rise in spiritual and cultural life.

In accordance with the charter approved by the Russian Empire on March 11, 1836, known as “Polozhenie”, the Armenian Church under the rule of the Empire was divided into 6 dioceses: Novo-Nakhichevan, Astrakhan, Georgian, Shirvan, Yerevan and Karabakh. Thus, according to the mentioned charter, Shushi was recognized as the diocesan center of Karabakh, and the residence of the diocesan leader was Holy All Savior Ghazanchetsots Church.

Holy All Savior Ghazanchetsots Cathedral has played an important role in the social life of Armenians not only in Shushi but also in the Eastern provinces of Armenia, particularly, in the organization of cultural, educational, and enlightening development, in the activities of providing care to orphans, the poor, as well as in the popularization of national ideas and other similar works. To give a new impetus to all this, with the mediation and sponsorship of the diocesan leaders, Armenian benefactors from Shushi made a great contribution to the development of the above-mentioned areas. With the aim to value the role of such public figures, and even more so national ones, a kind of pantheon was founded in the courtyard of the Ghazanchetsots Church. Before the beginning of the liberation struggle in Artsakh, these tombstones were monuments of respect and incense for Armenians. From 1988 to 1991, the Azerbaijanis destroyed these monuments.

Due to its widespread patriotic activities, Holy All Savior Ghazanchetsots Church has always been the target of anti-Armenian forces. From 1905 to 1906, in 1920, the Turks tried to destroy the church. During the years of the Soviet Union, the church was turned into a warehouse and then into a barn. The dome of the church was ruined, the hewn stones were destroyed and the ornaments were scraped.

In 1992, after the liberation of Shushi, the church was renovated, once again becoming an important center for organizing the spiritual life of the Armenians of Artsakh.

In 2020, during the 44-day war, the church was bombed twice by the Turkish-Azerbaijani invaders in order to destroy the Armenian Christian Cathedral; afterward, under the pretext of renovations, the Armenian spiritual and cultural monument was deformed. Currently, Azerbaijanis, entangled in their own falsifications, present the Armenian cathedral one day as Russian, another day as Albanian.

REFERENCES

1. «Ardzagank’», N 16, T’iflis, 1883. (In Armenian).
2. «Ardzagank’», N 23, T’iflis, 1887. (In Armenian).
3. «Arshaluys», N 69, T’iflis, 1906. (In Armenian).
4. « N 119, 24 ogostosi, Bak’u, 1913. (In Armenian).
5. «Banber Hayastani arkhivneri», hm. 1 (99), Yer., 2001. (In Armenian).
6. «Gorts», hm. 1, Tiflis, 1882 (In Armenian).
7. «Gharabagh», N 8, Shushi, 1911 (In Armenian).
8. «Masis», N 3868, Kostandnupolis, 1887. (In Armenian).
9. «Meghu Hayastani», N 67, 3 septemberi, T’iflis, 1880. (In Armenian).
10. «Meghu Hayastani», hm. 53, 3 yulisi, T’iflis, 1885. (In Armenian).
11. «Mshak», N 33, T’iflis, 1887. (In Armenian).
12. «Nor Dar», N 170, T’iflis, 1889. (In Armenian).
13. «P’aylak», N 39 , 23 hulisi, Shushi, 1915. (In Armenian).
14. «P’aylak», N 64, 21 ogostosi, Shushi, 1916. (In Armenian).
15. ANA, Khachik Dadyani f. 319, c. 1, b. 415, p. 35, 36, 36a, 37, 37a. (In Armenian).
16. ANA, Khachik Dadyani f. 319, c. 1, b. 415, p. 41. (In Armenian).
17. ANA, Sb. Ējmiatcni Hayots’ lusavorchakan sinodi f. 56, c, 12, b. 538, c. 18, b. 542, 746, p. 259–260, f. 57, c. 3, b. 44, p. 7–14. (In Armenian).
18. ANA, Sb. Ējmiatcni Hayots’ lusavorchakan sinodi f. 56, c. 12, b. 511, p. 5. (In Armenian).
19. ANA, Sb. Ējmiatcni Hayots’ lusavorchakan sinodi f. 56, c. 3, p. 293. (In Armenian).
20. Artsakhi petakan patmaerkragitakan tangaran, f.2, g.5, t. 107. (In Armenian).
21. Babakhanyan Ar., Mi qani hnutyu’nner, «Ardzagank», N 9, 1 septemberi, Tiflis, 1885. (In Armenian).
22. Barkhudaryants’ M., Artsakh, Aghvanits’ yerkir yev drak’siq, Yerevan, «Gandzasar» hrat., 1999. (In Armenian).
23. Chamcheants M., Hayots’ patmut’yun, h. G, Yer., Yer. petakan hamalsarani hrat., 1984. (In Armenian).
24. Hakobyan H., Artsakh–Utiqi manrankarchutyunē 13–14–rd darerum, Yerevan, «Sovetakan grogh» hrat., 1989. (In Armenian).
25. Hakobyan H., Shushii matenakan zharangutyuny, Shushin Hajoc qaghaqakrtutyan orran, gitazhoghovi nyut’er, Yer., «Gitutyun» hrat., 2007. (In Armenian).
26. Harutyunyan H., Shushi. Qarashen ankhos vkaner, Stepanakert, «Sona» hrat., 2013. (In Armenian).
27. https://www.aravot.am/2021/09/27/1218518/ (In Armenian).
28. Kisibekyan A., Husher, h. 1, Yer., «Araspel indeks» hrat., 2011 (In Armenian)..
29. Leo, Patmut’yun Gharabaghi Hayots temakan hogevor dprots’i (1838-1913), T’iflis, Hratarakut’yun nuyn dprotsi hogabardzutyan, 1914. (In Armenian).
30. Maghalean A., Yakob Zaqareani «Patmutyun gavarin Artsakhu» ashkhatut’yunē, «Handes amsoreay», 2006, N 1–12. (In Armenian).
31. Matenadaran, dzer. hm. 3869, 2622. (In Armenian).
32. Mayr ts’uts’ak hayeren dze’ragrats Mashtotsi anvan Matenadarani, hat. A., Yer., HSSH GA hrat., 1984. (In Armenian).
33. Minasyan T., Artsakhi grchutyan kentronnerě, Yer., «Nairi» hrat., 2015. (In Armenian).
34. Mkrtchyan Sh., Artsakhian grarumner, Yer., «Noyan tapan» hrat., 2001. (In Armenian).
35. Kocharyan A., Shushii Hayots temakan hogevor dprotsi himnadrman 75–amyaki tonakatarut’yunnern
est arkhivayin vaveragreri, «Kachar», N 6, 2012, Shushi, 2014. (In Armenian).
36. Taghieadyants M., Chanaparhordutyun i Hays, Kalkata, 1847. (In Armenian).
37. Ter–Sarkisyants A., Armyane Nagornogo Karabakha, istoria, kultura, tradicii, M., NP IZD. «Russkaya panorama», 2015. (In Russian).
38. Vaveragrer Hay ekeghets’u patmut’ean, girq T, Hay araqelakan yekeghecu Artaskhi temy (1813-1933), pastatghteri yev nyuteri zhoghovats’u, Yer., Hayastani Hanrapetut’yan karavarut’yann ar’nter arkhivayn gorts’i varchut’yun, 2001. (In Armenian).
39. Vaveragrer Hay yekeghecu patmut’ean, girq ZHT, Hay araq’elakan yekeghecu Artsakhi’ temě (1649-1917), p’astatgh’teri yev nyut’eri zhoghovats’u, Yer., HH Azgayin arkhivi hrat., 2014. (In Armenian).

CURRENT TRENDS IN GENOCIDE RESEARCH – 2024-1

Summary

Suren A. Manukyan
Ph.D. in History

In its fifth decade of development, the field of Genocide studies continue the exploration of many fundamental topics that have been central since its foundation. The phenomenon of genocide, encompassing its underlying causes, the actors involved, the methods of execution, and the enduring consequences, remains a focal point of attention for specialists from a range of disciplines, including history, political science, law, sociology, psychology, and more.

Several core themes have endured throughout this field’s evolution, such as the definition of the term “genocide,” the categorization of mass murders, intergroup conflicts, the construction of overarching narratives for individual genocides, the strategies and technologies employed in mass killings, the behaviors of both perpetrators and victims, third-party complicity and indifference, the influence of international relations and geopolitics, as well as the role of war and ideologies in the initiation and progression of genocides. Moreover, the portrayal of these crimes and tragedies in art remains a significant aspect of study.

Nevertheless, new trends have emerged, significantly reshaping the field and, in some cases, bringing about revolutionary change. Notably, the scope of examined cases has expanded beyond recognized genocides to include lesser- known incidents, forgotten genocides, mass atrocities, and war crimes. Much like in other social science disciplines, individual case studies and micro-narratives have gained prominence, effectively complementing larger narratives and, at times, challenging established paradigms. The role of colonial and imperial policies has come to the forefront in explaining these crimes, altering the traditional scientific basis. Memories and testimonies of survivors have been freed from their prejudicial labels and now hold an equal place in scholarly investigations.

Comparative genocide studies also remain a promising research method, despite recognition of certain inherent challenges.
Finally, there is an ongoing effort within the field of genocide studies to transition from a purely theoretical, descriptive, and analytical discipline into a practical and applied branch of science. While the prevention of genocides has not been successful, researchers persist in their endeavors, developing various models and delving deeper into the essence of the genocide phenomenon, contributing to the broader effort to combat these heinous acts.

REFERENCES

1.Bartʻikyan M., Arnashaghakh Izmirĕ, Ohanēs (Onnik) Ghazerean, Kensagrakan notʻer (ed. Tʻehmine Martoyan), Yer., Hayotsʻ tsʻeghaspanutʻyan tʻangaran-institut himnadram, 2022(in Armenian).
2.Manukyan S., Tsʻeghaspanagitutʻjan hantsʻagortsutʻyunĕ kankhargelelu yev patzhelu masin konventsʻiayi kirarman hnaravorutʻyunnern u dzhvarutʻyunnerĕ, Haykakan kʻaghakʻagitakan handes, N 1(15), 2021 (in Armenian).
3.Manukyan S., Tsʻeghaspanagitutʻyunĕ vorpes gitachugh. Dzevavorman yev zargatsʻman patmutʻyunĕ, “Vēm”, N 3 (67), 2019 (in Armenian).
4.Manukyan S., Tsʻeghaspanagitutʻyunneri gitakan dasakargumneri hartsʻi shurj,
Tsʻeghaspanagitutʻyan handes, 2, 2021(in Armenian).
5.Matʻosyan T., Hayotsʻ tsʻeghaspanutʻyan yev hreakan Holokʻost. Hamematman pʻordz, Yer., 2005 (in Armenian).
6.Poghosyan N., Hayotsʻ tsʻeghaspanutʻyan khndirĕ Rafayel Lemkini usumnasirutʻyunnerum, Yer., Hayotsʻ tsʻeghaspanutʻyan tʻangaran-institut himnadram, 2020(in Armenian).
7.Poturean G., Taragir husher 1915-1917 (ed.Mihran A. Minasean), Yer., Hayotsʻ tsʻeghaspanutʻyan tʻangaran-institut himnadram, 2022 (in Armenian).