Category Archives: DEBATES



Seda A. Parsamyan
The term “cultural genocide” was coined by Rafael Lemkin simultaneously with the word “genocide”, and was a constituent part of the original definition of genocide, which is “systematic and deliberate extermination of the group”. However, for many years, genocide scholars have modified the term, departing from its original definition. Some theorists are of the opinion that the difficulty in defining cultural genocide stems from its main constituent part – culture, which is permanently changing and developing. However, that same culture is being developed and changed within the group itself. Consequently, if there is no group its culture can not change and develop by itself separately. The individual approaches and disagreements of the genocide scholars about the “cultural genocide” are largely due to the lack of clarity of the term in international law. Despite the urgency of the matter, to date there is no international legal instrument or document criminalizing “cultural genocide”. Not finding its clear definition in international law, cultural genocide is being used as a policy propaganda tool to gain the attention and response of international community against the violations of cultural rights. We have raised the issue of destruction of culture being carried out nowadays and accompanied by genocides stressing that the absence of legal regulation implies the necessity of new international convention criminalizing the destruction of culture of protected groups.

This article presents the origin and definition of the term “cultural genocide”, through emphasizing the link between physical and cultural extermination as two sides of the same crime, and discussing the approaches of genocide scholars to the term “cultural genocide”, particularly the attempts to change it also through renaming.



Artak S. Sargsyan

Key words – Countries of Nairi, country of Kuti, country of Šubari, battle of Nihriya, Katmuhi (Kadmian Tsavdek), Alzi-Agdznik, Teburzi-Dersim, Hayasa-Azzi, mountains of Muzur, basin of the Euphrates, Makan (Magnana, Machkan), Upper Sea, MusruArinni (Miյas, Arin).

The article explored the route of the campaign of Aššur king Tukulti-Ninurta I, in the first year of his rule, on Kuti, Šubari and Nairi. As a result, it was found that the Assyrian army reached Korduk, through the basin of the Great Zab or the Tigris, and captured the Kutians countries Ukumani (surroundings of Komana and Gefshe), Mehri (Mehri Nar), Šarnida (Shirnak or Shahidinan), Elհunia (Eruh) and Babհi (area of Tigers merger). Then the army of Aššur passed the Šubarians countries Katmuhi (Kadmian Tsavdek), Kašiiari mountainous region (Tour-Abdin), Mummi (Maymunik), Bušše (Bsherik), Alzi (Agdznik), Madani (Maden), Surra (Siri, between Maden and Balu ), Nihani (Nexri, north-east of Balu), Alaia (Alevor, north-east of Hozat), Teburzi (Dersim), Purulumzi (in the basins of the Pahin and Mzur rivers)) and captured the great sanctuary Purulumzi (possibly Kamah). Then the Assyrians reached the Upper Euphrates, between Kamah and Erznka, and entered into Nairi. There they faced 40 (43) kings of Nairi, reached the southern border of the country Makan (comparable to ant. Magnana, mod. Machkan), located on the shores of the Upper Sea (Black Sea) – between Trabzon and Gyumushkhane. In the country of Nairi, the Assyrians also occupied the Azalzi (probably Ariza-Eriza-Erznka) and Šepardi countries. On the way back, they probably crossed the Euphrates near Tommisa, entered Kommagene, captured about thirty thousand Hittite soldiers and returned to Assyria. It is obvious that the Assyrians, in this early period, under the “countries of Nairi” meant the territory of Hayasa-Azzi, known from Hittite sources, located in the south of the East-Pontian mountains, towards Mzura, Pahin, Palu and Agdznik. King Aššur on the path of the parokha gave at least five major battles-the first, in the mountains of Iauri (on the southern slopes of Korduk), against the allied forces of the kutians, the second against Alzi, and the allied forces of the Šubarian kings (somewhere in Agdznik, north-west or west of Bsherik, between him and Maden). The third major battle took place near Nihriya, probably on Nfrkert or on the right bank of the Aratsani, north-east of Balu (near Nexri): The fourth battle took place against the allied forces of Nairi, in the Upper Euphrates basin, probably after overcoming the mountains of Mndzur, possibly, near Erznka. The fifth collision occurred again with the Hittites, on the right bank of the Euphrates, probably in the Kommagene area.

This unprecedented Assyrian invasion had great military-political and economic significance. Tukulti-Ninurta I temporarily controlled the districts of Korduk, Moks (Musru-Arinni), Arghana-Maden, Dersim and, possibly, Gumushkaneterritory with rich construction materials and metal mines.


The dynamics of Growth Rates of Armenian Banks and Other Commercial and Financial Institutions at the end of 19th and early 20th century


Vardan B. Yesayan

Key words  – Commercial Bank of Tiflis, Mutual Credit Organization, banking capital, Armenian bank, working capital, shortterm and long-term credit organizations.

Armenian banking institutions were established in the state of Tiflis during the 70s of 19th century, being the first of their kind in the Caucasus region. Some of the larger banks established with Armenian capital were Commercial Bank of Tiflis, Mutual Credit Organization and Tiflis City Credit Organization, which played a key role in the financial-economic life of state of Tiflis and Transcaucasia region, as well as stood out with the activity of their charitable organizations. Banking institutions with Armenian capital have been established not only in Tiflis, but also in other settlements of the state.

With the establishment and development of banking institutions, their ties with the industrial sector grew stronger, which eventually led to the merger of the two and the establishment of financial capital.

The larger representatives of Armenian financial-banking capital made an attempt to establish a unified Armenian bank, which could compete with large Russian banks. However, Bolshevik revolution and the fair of Russian Empire made the realization of this project impossible.



Armen Ts. Marukyan

Key words – Massacres of the Armenians of Baku, Genocide of Armenians, Pan – Turkism, “special intention”, Ottoman Empire, Young Turks, musavatist, Ottoman army, “The special organization”, “Committee of executioners”.

Massacres of the Armenians of Baku of 1918 was not a separate crime against one part of Armenian people butwasone of stages of the Ottoman Empire’s consistent policy of full destruction of all Armenian people planned and carried out by the government of Young Turks which was laterjoined by the musavatists, too. Certain documents and facts confirm the existence of “the special intention” of the commanders of Ottoman army and military formations of musavatists in the extermination of the Armenian population which is a characteristic element of genocide. On the basis of historical facts and the international norms of rights it is possible to claim that massacres of the Armenians of Baku of 1918 can fully be qualified as genocide.



Smbat Kh. Hovhannisyan

Key words – basic questions ; effective learning; modality of learning (visual, auditory, kinesthetic) ; studying styles; problematic situations; long-terme memory; short-terme memory; “pyramid of learning”.

The purpose of this study is to identify opportunities for creating favorable conditions for interactive communication and learning in an environment where students are actively involved in educational processes. The presentation of the lesson via PowerPoint is carried out in multi-line format. Unlike traditional linear presentation formats, this presentation format allows students to view events, epochs, etc. from numerous points of view.

Furthermore, when using a multiline format, one can group information into blocks, which further facilitates understanding of individual topics and establishing links between them. Visualization with PowerPoint allows both the teacher and the student to freely choose information. Thus, it is extremely important to keep a balance between the three key learning objectives (persuasion, information and motivation).



Tigran M. Petrosyants

Key words – Zakare B.; Zakaryan; Ayrarat province; viceroyalty; Vache A; capital Amberd; amira; commander-executor; hedjub; servicemen; vicegerent;adviser; village chief(s) ; tax collector; messenger.

The administrative government reform was carried out and viceroyalties were formed in Zakaryan Armenia in the early 13th century. The creation of a new government structure presumed the application of new approaches. Courts were also established in viceroyalties: they were formed on the principle of the Zakaryan house. The courts of viceroyalties were the copy of Zakare B’s court. One of the newly created viceroyalties was formed on the territory of the liberated Ayrarat province and handed over to military commander Vache A Vachutyan. The viceroyal had the high title of Prince of Princes headed the hierarchy of the government of the Ayrarat viceroyalty. The viceroyal called himself the Grand Prince, the prince of princes, the paron, the lord, while he called his possessions “princedom” and “viceroyalty”. Other levels of the hierarchy were occupied by the local princes. The Amira, the commander-executor, the Hedjub, the servicemen, the adviser, the village chief(s), the tax collector and the messenger were considered as the highest-ranking officials at the viceroyal’s court. On the basis of the preserved materials the palace hierarchy of the Ayrarat viceroyalty is presented in the article.



Hovhannes G. Khorikyan

Key words – Herodotus, Xenophon, the city of Babylon, Babylonia, Darius I, Satrapy, politics, Assyria,data, Mesopotamia, «the rest of Assyria»,the BehistunInscription.

Ancient greek author Herodotus writes about the IX Satrapy that Babylon and the rest of Assyria rendered to Darius a thousand talents of silver and five hundred boys to be eunuchs.

The Babylonian or IX satrapy was the richest province and the economic center of Achaemenid Empire. The IX satrapy consisted of two subdistricts: the city of Babylon with its suburbs and «the rest of Assyria» toward the north. In other words, this province of Achaemenid Persia included the Lower Mesopotamia: the province of Babylon and the territory of ancient Assur. Moreover, the northwestern vast part of Assyria was within Armenian satrapy. The article concludes that IX satrapy was not a stable administrative unit and its borders were subject to change.

Many important and wrinkled issues on the administrative policy and historical geography of IX Satrapy were examined in the article, the elucidation of which is of great importance for the study of the history of Achaemenid Persia.



Ruslan A. Tsakanyan

Key words – Assyria, Babylon, Urartu, Armenian Highland, Movses Khorenatsi, Sebeos, Sophena, Ałdznik, Nebuchadnezzar II

n this article an attempt is made (on the basis of the “Babylonian Chronicles” and Armenian medieval historians Movses Khorenatsi and Sebeos) to restore political situation in the Armenian Highland at the end of VII century B.C. In his monumental work M. Khorenatsi mainly preferred Greek sources. Hence originates the “Median” version of the fall of the Assyrian state. But M. Khorenatsi obviously possesses with other sources also, according to which the fall of Assyria was considered from the point of view of Babylon. Moreover, M. Khorenatsi himself does not deny the existence of this fact – “For the deeds of the father Nabuchadnezzar were written down by the supervisors of their annals …”. Here the conclusions are more than clear: under the hand of M. Khorenatsi there were two versions according to which the first Armenian king was crowned not by Nabopalassar or Nebuchadnezzar, but by the Midian king “Varbakes”-Cyaxares. And in the study of Sebeos we meet only the “Babylonian” version, where the above mentioned events are bound to Babylonia. The records of Sebeos are similar to the “Babylonian Chronicles”. Of the latter, we know that during the Assyrian-Babylonian conflict (626-605 B.C.), the Babylonian army, led by King Nabopalassar and Nebuchadnezzar, the heir to the throne, appeared at least three times on the borders of the Armenian Highland. Perhaps they moved further into the highlands – in 609 B.C. in the Izalla area, in 608 B.C. in Bet-Hanuniya and in 607 B.C. “to the district of Uraš/rtu” or “to the district of Sea (in the basin of Lake Van or Lake Hazar (?))”.



Sargis R. Melkonyan, Samvel S. Mkrtchyan

Key words – the Council of Alexandria, Ezdras I, Emperor Heraclius I, Sergios I of Constantinople, Cyros of Phasis, Theodoros of Pharan, monotheletism, «mia energeia», «mia thelema», chalcedonism, antichalcedonism.

Almost all medieval Armenian sources report about the Council in Theodosiopolis/Karin in the first half of the 7th century with the participation of the Catholicos of the Armenian church Ezdras I and Heraclius, the emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire, where an unia was adopted between two sides. The same sources say that the Catholicos Ezdras was deceived by the Greeks in this Council and took chalcedonism. But a careful analysis of Armenian and Greek sources shows that the religious politics of the empire concerning the anti-chalcedonian churches of the Egyptians, Assyrians and Armenians were not completely chalcedonian. Unfortunately none of Armenian sources saved that document which served as a basis for the adoption of the union. But it was preserved the unional document with the Egyptian ant-chalcedonites, which was adopted in the local Council of Alexandria in 633.

In this article this union between Egyptian monophysites and chalcedonians is investigated in the context of the new unional politics of Eastern Roman Empire from the beginning of the VII century to 633. Its basis was the doctrine «mia energeia» (mia enjervgeia) of Christ. In this article has first been realized the Armenian translation of the unional text of the Council of Alexandria, which consists of nine chapters. It was also carried out a separate analysis of this document. As a result of it, mutuallyacceptable versions of several Christological controversial formulas between monophysites following Cyrill-Alexandrian traditions and chalcedonians were found.. In addition, it becomes clear that this unional document is not based on chalcedonism, because the basic Christological formulas were interpreted in the cyrilian sense and the formula «mia energeia» try to explain with the expression of St. Dionysius the Areopagite «theandrike energeia». There is no mention of the Council of Chalcedon in 451. These facts prove that doctrine laid at the basis of the unional politics of Emperor Heraclius and Patriarch Sergius in the first half of the 7th century was not exactly chalcedonism.


Part one. From smenovekhov distortions to Stalin’s persecution


Ararat M. Hakobyan

Keywords – smenovekhovstvo, N. Ustrialov, NEP, H. Kajaznuni, Armenian Question, reconstruction, national inclination, ARF Dashnaktsutyun, Kh. Mughdusi, A. Ghazaryan, pro-Soviet position, backstroke.

Hovhannes Kajaznuni’s name in Armenian political history is sometimes identified not with his position of the first Prime Minister of the First Republic of Armenia, but with the brochure “ARF has nothing to do”, published in Bucharest in 1923, which, together with the added word “else” of the Bolshevik propaganda machine has been used as a kind of anti-Dashnak “manifesto” for 70 years.

At critical moments of history, even the most confident politicians may be in despair, it’s quite common in world history and in the history of Armenia as well. This is evidenced by the desire of reconciliation and acceptance of the Soviet regime in the 1920s. Hovhannes Kajaznuni and some other figures fell in this trap, expressing desire to get away from the ARF Dashnaktsutyun, to return home and take an active part in its reconstruction. It was an expression of the ideology of reconciliation with Bolshevism typical for Smenovekhovtsy – Russian émigré circles in the Armenian reality.

Hovh. Kajaznuni thought that in the new conditions the ARF Dashnaktsutyun should leave the political arena and the main role should be given to the Armenian Communist Party, so that the country was restored with the help of the Soviet state and the Armenian issue was resolved. But A. Ghazaryan, who saw the salvation of the Armenian people only by Russia, supports the view that ARF Dashnaktsutyun has much to do to rebuild the country, solving the issue of refugees and other issues. The book by Kajaznuni was an attempt to review the vibrant and fruitful activity of ARF Dashnaktsutyun in 1914-1923, followed by his controversial assessments and conclusions. Most of Kajaznuni’s judgments about historical events were based on assumptions. In fact, to return home and rejoin his family he needed a “political pass”, and the Bolsheviks that were preparing the “self-destruction” of ARF Dashnaktsutyun, needed this book entitled “ARF Dashnaktsutyun has nothing to do”.

k entitled “ARF Dashnaktsutyun has nothing to do”. However, since his arrival in Armenia the public security organs closely followed Kajaznuni, even his daily personal life. Dark clouds gradually deepened overhead Kajaznuni, especially in the 1930s.

On July 28, 1937 People’s Commissar of Internal Affairs Kh. Mughdusi signed a warrant for the search of Kajaznuni apartment and his arrest. On December 5, 1937 the NKVD troika ASSR signed the death sentence against Kajaznuni, the former prime minister and an active member of the ARF Dashnaktsutyun, with the confiscation of personal property. But on the advice of the prison doctor, who diagnosed tuberculosis, the execution of the sentence was postponed. A short time later, on January 15, 1938 Hovh. Kajaznuni, the first Prime Minister of the First Republic of Armenia died in the prison hospital at the age of 70 years.

As a result of the application of well-known methods of Soviet intelligence, many political opponents were affected by smenovekhovstvo’s ideology and gave speeches and wrote books in favor of reconciliation with the Bolsheviks, among them Snar Snaryan (Narinyan), Sahak Chitchyan, Arshak Ghazaryan, Gerasim Atajanian Harutyun Budaghyan, Sahak Torosian and others, most of which subsequently suffered the tragic fate of Hovh. Kajaznuni.