Category Archives: DEBATES

Summary

Hripsime A. Zakaryan
Candidate of Sciences in Philology

Intertextuality, which implies a text within a text, a means of expressing the author’s individual style, is also perceived as a form of author-reader communication, divided into authorial intertextuality and readerly intertextuality, of which the reading medium implies in its own textual space, openly or in an encrypted way, inspirations of other author’s texts, its separate sections, ideas with a conscious or unconscious impulse. The level of textual communication is considered as an “internal dialogue” between the author and the reader within the scope of the work. When addressing the issue of intertextuality, it is also necessary to emphasize the factor of the reader, which plays a key role in the process of highlighting the author’s individual style. The work of fiction, being a reflection of the cognitive and emotional world of the author, is appropriated in the consciousness of the reader by certain means: linguistic, extra- linguistic, cultural, etc. In the creative process, the writer in one way or another takes into account the peculiarities of the specific era, tries to look at the phenomena from the point of view of the typical generalizations of the time. The artistic text is a system woven with meaningful codes that materialize the author’s ideological and aesthetic, worldview foundations, which actively influence the formation of the ideological and aesthetic co-structure of the artistic text, becoming orienting ways of realizing the literary problem. In the process of perceiving a literary text, the reader’s perceptions, approaches and psychology are affected by many factors: historical, political, psychological, etc., which create different, often conflicting and contradictory points of view among different readers. A fictional text, having its own inner objective life, is nevertheless subject to the reader’s rational or irrational discretion. The effective reading of the text depends on the combination of the reader’s knowledge and the author’s intentions, the realities proposed by him.

In the context of the theory of intertextuality, R. The ideological uniqueness of Barthes’ concept of “death of the author”, the features of formation and manifestation, the problem of the relationship between the theory of “intertextuality” and the theory of “death of the author”. Various literary approaches to the phenomenon of authorial and reading intertextuality are considered. Various examples of intertextual connections, existing views on the mechanisms of text interaction are given.

In the article, an attempt was also made to analyze the modern artistic experience with the logic of the aesthetic transitions brought by postmodernism in artistic thinking.

The article aims to consider intertextuality as a means of forming the author- work-reader connection.

The methodological basis of this article is M. Bakhtini, Yu. Kristeva, U. Eko, I. V. Arnoldi, M. The studies dedicated to the problem of the intertextuality theory, the author-reader relationship by Riffater and others. In the article, the methods of classification and coordination, observation were used.

REFERENCES

1. Assmann A. Cultural Memory Studies. An International and Interdisciplinary Handbook (ed. by A. Erll, A. Nünning), Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2008.
2. Avetisyan Z., Grakan steghtsagortsut‘yan hogebanut‘yun, Yer., YePH hrat., 2011 (In Armenian).
3. Arnol‘d I., Semantika. Stilistika. Intertekstual‘nost‘, (nauch. red. P.Ye. Bukharkin), M., izd. “FLINTA”, 2019, (In Russian).
4. Bart R., Izbranniye raboty: Semiotika. Poetika. M., izd. “Progress”, 1989 (In Russian).
5. Bakhtin M. M., Estetika slovesnogo tvorchestva. M., izd. “Iskusstvo”, 1979 (In Russian).
6. Ēdoyan H., Sharzhum depi havasarakshṛut‘yun, Yer., “S. Khach‘ents‘, P‘rint‘info”, 2009 (In Armenian).
7. Eko U., Rolʻ chitatelya. Issledovaniya po semiotike teksta [per. s angl. i ital.: S. Serebr’yanogo]. SPb., Simpozium, 2007 (In Russian).
8. Eco U. Interpretation and history, Interpretation and overinter-pretation; ed. S. Collini, Cambridge University Press, 1992b.
9. Eliot T. S. The Sacred Wood: Essays on Poetry and Criticism. London: Methuen & CO. LTD., 1934.
10. Eliot T. S. Selected prose of T. S. Eliot. A Harvest book. New York; London, 1975.
11. Emmot C. Narrative Comprehension: A Discourse Perspective. Oxford, “Clarendon Press”, 1997.
12. Fateyeva N. A.,Intertekstual’nost’ i yeyo funktsii v khudozhestvennom diskurse. Izv. RAN. Ser.lit. i yaz., M., 1997, t. 56. № 5 (In Russian).
13. Fedorov A. A., Kontseptsiya literaturnogo tvorchestva Umberto Eko i voploshcheniye modeli pisatelya “Umberto Eko – M-avtor”, “Rossiyskiy gumanitarnyy zhurnal”, 2016, t. 5. №6 (In Russian).
14. Genette G., Palimpsestes, La Littérature au second degré, Paris, Seuil, 1982, 467 p. (In French)
15. Jauß H.-R. “Literaturgeschichte als Provokation”, Suhrkamp Verlag: Frankfurt am Main, 1970 (In German).
16. Khalizev V. Ye., Teoriya literatury, M., Izd. “Vyssh. shkola”, 2000 (In Russian).
17. Khal’bvaks M., Kollektivnaya i istoricheskaya pamyatʻ. Neprikosnovennyy zapas, 200, № 2–3 (In Russian).
18. Khalʻbvaks M., Sotsial’nyye ramki pamyati, M., izd. “Novoye izdatelʻstvo”, 2007 (In Russian).
19. Kristeva Ju., Izbrannyye trudy: razrusheniye poetiki (per. s frants.), M., izd. “Rossiyskaya politicheskaya entsiklopediya” (ROSSPEN), 2004 (In Russian).
20. Kukharenko V. A., Interpretatsiya teksta. (uchebnoye posobiye.-2-ye izd., pererab.), M., Prosveshcheniye,1988 (In Russian).
21. Kolesnikov S. A., Vzglyani na dom svoy, avtor!., Chelovek, 2017. № 4 (In Russian).
22. Lachmann R., Pamyatʻ i literatura. Intertekstualʻnostʻ v russkoy literature XIX-XX vekov/ Per. s nem. A.I. Zherebin. – SPb: ID “Petropolis”, 2011 (In Russian).
23. Lurija A. R., Osnovnyye problemy neyrolingvistiki. M.: Izd-vo Mosk. un-ta, 1975 (In Russian).
24. Lukin V. A., Roli avtora i “effekt obraza avtora” na fone tipologii tekstov, Voprosy psikholingvistiki”, 2015, 3 (25) (In Russian).
25. Lotman YU. M., Izbrannyye statʻi, Tallinn, 1992, t.1. (In Russian).
26. Lotman YU. M., Uspenskiy B.A. O semioticheskom mekhanizme kul’tury. Trudy poznakovym sistemam. Tartu, 1971. Vyp. 5 (In Russian).
27. Madoyan G. G., Heghinaki mtadrutʻyuně vorpes tekʻstabanakan kʻnnutʻyan arrarka, b. g. tʻ. gitakan astichani hayts‘man atenakhosut’yan seghmagir, Yer., 2015 (In Armenian).
28. Piégay-Gros N. Introduction à l’intertextualité. Paris: Nathan, 2002 (In French).
29. Riffater M. La trace de l’intertexte, “La Pensee”, 1980. № 215, october (In French).
30. Simyan T., Gegharvestakan tek‘sti ěntʻerts‘umě yev nra dzhvarut‘yuně (hogebanakan tesankyun), Grakanagitakan handes, 2007 A-B (In Armenian).
31. Smirnov I. P., Porozhdeniye Interteksta. Elementy intertekstualʻnogo analiza s primerami iz tvorchestva B. L. Pasternaka. SPb. Izd. SPbGU, 1995 (In Russian).
32. Suprun A. Ye., Tekstovyye reministsentsii kak yazykovoye yavleniye, Voprosy yazykoznaniya. M., 1995, №6 (In Russian).
33. Speshilova Ye. I. Bessmertiye avtora, Chelovek.RU № 11, 2016 (In Russian).
34. Sopina A. L., Kognitivnyye osnovaniya intertekstualʻnosti. Vestnik NGU. Seriya: Lingvistika i mezhkulʻturnaya kommunikatsiya. 2018, 16 (2) (In Russian).
35. Tomashevskiy B., Teoriya literatury. Poetika. 5-ye izd, M.-L.: GIZ, 1930 (In Russian).
36. Turisheva O. N., Artasahmanyan grakanagitut‘yan tesut‘yuně yev met‘odabanut‘yuně. Usumnakan dzerrnark/ Rrus. t‘argm. A. Jrbashyani, Yer., YePH hrat., 2017 (In Armenian).
37. Vinogradov V. V., O teorii khudozhestvennoy rechi: Ucheb. posobiye dlya filol. spets. un- tov i ped. in-tov, M., “Vysshaya shkola”, 1971 (In Russian).
38. Vulf V. Obyknovennyy chitatelʻ. V. Vulf, N. I. Reyngol’d, A. N. Gorbunov. M., “Nauka”, 2012, 720 s. (In Russian).
39. Jakobson R. O Strukturalizm “za” i “protiv”, M., “Progress”, 1975 (In Russian).

Sargis G. Petrosyan (Gyumri)

In the third quarter of the III millennium BC. in northern Syria, the flourishing and developed city of Ebla was the capital of the eponymous kingdom. Ebla, as well as the neighboring tribal union of Armi, had to resist attacks from the king of Akkad, the despot of all Mesopotamia, Sargon of Akkad. For the same reason, they intended to conclude an anti-Akkadian alliance. The negotiations in Ebla were conducted by the authorized intermediary of Hayk (ebl. Haia//arm. Hayk) – the king of the union of Armi. To conclude the agreement Hayk sent his deputies, the ancestors of his tribe Malum and Muri, to Ebla.

According to fairy tale “Anahit” by Gh. Aghayan

Sergey A. Aghajanyan

Making the content of Gh. Aghayan’s work “Anahit” material for the cultural study I am not at all inclined to deny the presence of life truths in folklore in the worldview of the people. It is also an undeniable treasure of national and traditional realities of cultural and creative activity, long-established values, etc. The beginning of Armenian fairy tales “It happens, it does not happen” in its variations can be separate volume of study.

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.

New solutions for the centennial debate

Artak S. Sargsyan

The article discusses the itinerary taken by the Assyrian army of Sargon II, king of Assyria (721-705 BC), during his campaign towards Mannea and Urartu in 714 BC. The study is based on a comparative analysis of cuneiform sources, as well as a comparison of cuneiform toponyms with modern and historical names of various regions and settlements. As the study of those sources show, the Assyrian army crossed the Great Zab river about 70 km north-east of Kalhu (Nimrud), and after 3 days overcoming about 120 km along the river Rovanduz, passes Kullar (Kaolan-Bin I Sar (Bunais)) and Govra Shinki, also crossed the river Little Zab. Having reached Gerdeh Sur and Sufian (Sumbi/Sunbi), to the borders of Manna and Urartu, the army moved eastward, crossed the mountains Nikippa (Bahram Boga) and Upa (Bai Dag), the Buia river flowing from Bai Dag, and reached Simirria (Chemelyan), entering Urartu. In the south of Lake Urmia, the army crossed the path of Biruatti (Pirtandur)-Sinabir (Shirineva)-Aḫshuru (Shahurkand)- Rappu (Tatao river) and Arattu (Jagatu river, Vararatn)-Suia (Shoria) and entered the Mannean region of Surikash, located south-east of Miandoab. From the fortress of Siniḫini (Shinabad), Sargon’s army passed through the country of Allabria (in the basin of the Tatao river), to the east of which was the country of Karallu (Kuliar). From the Latashe fortress (Darveshan?), in Allabria country, the army of Sargon II reached Parsuash (Parsha), then moved north to the Sirdakka-Zirdiakku fortress (Sardako), in the Missi (Musi) region, and marched, passing about 160-170 km between Bukan and Sakkiz, then along the Jaghatu river basin, reached the Panzish fortress (Parshikand), located 30 km north-east of Miandoab. Capturing Parda (Arpad), the capital of Zikirtu, Sargon reached the basin of the river Shor, tributary of the river Karangu, turned to the west and moved to Aukane (Argun), raiding the settlements of Ishtaippu (Ishlakand), Saktatush (Chaktir), Nenzu (Nazar Karez?), Gurrusupu (Dorsu?), Kabani (Chebani), Barunakku (Ablakh?), Ubabaru (Baba Kur Kur), Siteru (Zulgadar?), Tashtami (Tastabar), Tesammiu (Suma).

Entering the Uishdish, near the south-western slope of the mount of Sohend (Uaush) the army of Sargon II defeated the allied army of Rusa I, and then moved north, entered the Urartian regions of Subi, Zaranda (Sahand) and Bari (region of the Sangibutu (hist. Gabityan) in the basin of the Barush river), passing the route Ushkaia (Osku), near mount Millau (Milan)-Zaranda (Sahand)-Aniashtania (Anаrjan or Asinjan)-Bari (Bare)-Tarui (Toykaun)-Tarmakisu (Tabriz): the last two fortresses were in the Dalaia region-in the Talheh Rud basin. In Sangibutu, the route continued through the settlements of Sardurihurda (Sardarud)-Ulhu (Akhulu)- Shashzissa (Siz)-Hundurna (Kundur)-Vadnaunza (Vanza)-Arazu (Ersi)- Shadishṣinia (Zanjhira)-Eliadinia (Valdian)-Kinishtania (Keniani) lying at the eastern and northern foothills of Meshou Dag (Arṣabia), and reached the mount Irtia (hist. Tagryan). Further, in the Armariali region (hist․Great Agհbak and Arna), the invasion took place along the route Bubuzi (Bobarzan)-Ḫundur (Hodar)- Riar (Ravian)-Aiale (Aleri)- Ṣinishpala (Kani Spi)-Sharni (Soradir)-Arna (հist. Arna)-the temple of the God Ḫaldi (on the site of the monastery St. Barthelemy)- Arbu (hist. Arebanos). Then the army moved through the territory of Aiadu (Aiduni, Hayots Dzor), along the route Anzalia (Arindi?)-Uizuku (Bashad Dag)- Kuaiain (Kanguar)-Kallania (Koran/Gyorandasht), entered Gevash (hist. Rshtunik), captured the coastal the settlements of Aiadu from Arṣidu (mount Artos) to
Maḫunnia (Mokhraberd), including the fortresses of Kallania (Gyorandasht) and Argishtiuna (Mokhraberd), the settlements of Bitaia (Batkants), Aluarza (Akhavants), Kiuna (Kavash), Alli (Ili), Arzugu (Angalur?), Shikkanu (Ishkert), Daiazuna (Dakhamants), Baniu (Bogonis?), Birḫiluza (Virkunis), Dezizu (Degdzis, Teztis), Abaindi (Arberd), Ḫasrana (Snar), Parra (Poghants or Paghghat), Aniastania (Herishat), Balduarza (Bakhavants), Saruardi (Saren), Shummatar (Matmants or Shmshema), Ṣiqarra (Tsrtakar), Old Uaiais (Uishini, hist․Vostan). Sargon’s army returned from Mokhraberd and crossed the rivers Alluria, Kallania (Gyorandasht), Innaya and penetrated into the Uaiais region, moved along the route Barzuriani (Bazirawan Dag)-Ualtukuya (Warkuni Dag)-Kutta (Khuta)-Kippa (Kup Dag)-Asapa (Espin), came up the fortress of Uaiais (Waisik), located about 26 km north-east of Julamerk (Hakkari). From here, Sargon moved to Ḫubuškia (Julamerk), sent most of the army to Assyria, and the army consisting of 1,000 soldiers at the estuary of Dezi Derre crossed Great Zab, moved along the route Sheiak (Shakitan)-Ardikshi (Orisha)-Ulaiau (Aleyan)-Alluria (Haruna), and through Shemdinli entered Zerzan (Za(r)zaru), seizing the city of Muṣaṣir (Masiro, Masira). The army returned to Assyria through a gorge that stretched along the line of Chia Dari-Balutia (Andarutta), reached Berokh and Hupa (Hipparna) and descended to Kalhu. In total, the army of Sargon II passed a distance of around 1600 km in 3,5 months. As a result of this campaign the land of Muṣaṣir was captured and attached to Assyria. Another region, the land of Uishdish, was passed to the hands of the Manneans, allies of Assyria. With the restoration of the itinerary of this campaign it becomes possible to draw the limits of the Mannea kingdom and its surrounding lands, including Muṣaṣir and Ḫubuškia, as well as almost the entire southern borders of Urartu.

By the example of A. de Saint-Exupéry’s “Night Flight” novel

Summary

Davit V. Petrosyan-Doctor of Philological Sciences
The article discusses several peculiarities of the author’s inner time within the artistic narrative.

According to the theorists, the time living within a person reflects the path of his soul, emphasizes the necessity for the existence of an individual in earthly life.

The inner time gets specific shapes in the artistic composition. In general, between the concepts of “the author’s inner time” and “artistic time” there are some nuance differences. It concerns especially the time borders of the author and the composition’s heroes, the ways of their manifestation, the process of the activities development within the narrative, etc.

A. de Saint-Exupéry’s “Night Flight” novel is one of the characteristic expressions of what is said above, where the writer successfully combined the characteristic features of the author’s inner and artistic times of the narrative. To this end, in addition to the heroes, two deep images of nature – heaven and night were masterfully created in the novel.

As space, the heaven enlivens when it fills with time. Accordingly, each hero is shaped by his own spatial-time measurements. Typologically, the heroes are engaged in two groups:
a) heroes who look at the heaven from the earth;
b) heroes (pilot, radioman) who watch the earth from the heaven.

Accordingly, in line with the spiritual state of the characters, first of all the importance of a permanent present, and in fateful moments – the heavenly time leading to eternity is given importance to. In the most dramatic part of the narrative, the earth and the body of the hero remain in the present, and the soul moves on to the “doors of paradise”– to the eternity.

The night also plays a key role in the novel. With the personification of the latter, new layers are opened in the interrelations of the heaven, earth and heroes. The night obtains particular importance with its mysterious and unpredictable qualities, which enable the author to reunite characters in the context of the inner time at the end of the narrative and to create a collective biography absorbed in artistic time. These, after all, reflect the continuity of human existence living in earthly and heavenly times.

On the occasion of the 100th anniversary of massacres in Shushi

Summary

Armen Ts. Marukyan-Doctor of Sciences in History
After the perpetration of the massacres of the Armenians of Baku in September 1918, with the assistance of the Turkish army, the authorities of the artificially created state of Azerbaijan tried to extend this criminal policy to the Armenian population of Karabakh. The newly emerged military-political situation in Transcaucasia at the end of World War I gave rise to the hope of the authorities of Azerbaijan that with the active support of the Turks and the tacit consent of the command of the British forces it would be possible to subjugate the Armenian population of Karabakh. Karabakh was strategically important both for the Caucasian Tatars and for the Turks, since in the event of the occupation of the region, as well as of Zangezur and Nakhijevan, firstly, a land connection between Azerbaijan and Turkey would be established, and secondly, the foundations of the so-called Great Azerbaijan would be laid, which was considered one of the important stages in the creation of the imaginary pan-Turkic state of Great Turan.

On the basis of a comparative analysis of the forms and methods of planning and organizing mass killings, as well as the disorganization of the possible opposition of the groups that were the victims of these crimes, this publication thoroughly explores the Turkish trace in the genocidal actions carried out by the Azerbaijani authorities against the Armenian population of Karabakh in 19191920. In this sense, it is very important to disclose the direct participation of Turkish military figures who instructed the Caucasian Tatars and Kurds in the perpetration of massacres of the Armenian population of Karabakh in 1919-1920.

Summarizing, it can be stated that the repeated pogroms of the Armenians of Shushi in June 1919 and March 1920 were not separate crimes against the Armenian population of Karabakh, but together with the mass atrocities of the Armenians of Baku in 1918 were one of the stages of the criminal policy of the Armenian Genocide, which was planned and carried out sequentially by the Young Turks. The pogroms of Armenians of Shushi were carried out by units of the Azerbaijani army and Kurdish gangs under the leadership of high-ranking officers of the Turkish army and the Azerbaijani Governor-General Kh. Sultanov collaborating with them.

Summary

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.

Summary 

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

Summary

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.