Category Archives: HISTORY

Summary

Arman S. Yeghiazaryan

Key words – Abas Bagratuni, reign, “Shahnshah/king of kings of Armenia and Kartli”, Gagik Artsruni, Anania Mokatsi, Kapan, Khachen princedom, Marzuban ibn Muhammad, Kars, Argina.

In the second period (943-953) of reign of Armenian king Abas, Bagratunies’ dominance in Armenia and neighboring countries was restored. At first, after the death of Gagik Artsruni – the second king of Armenia, Abas became the supreme ruler in Armenia. Initially he reunited the south areas of Ayrarat region which have been occupied by Gagik Artsruni to Bagratids’ main possessions. Then Grigor Derenik – successor of Gagik Artsruni recognized his supremacy.

In 943 Abkhazian forces attacked Armenian kingdom. In the battle near Kur River Armenian army defeated the Abkhazians. By that time the Abkhazian kingdom was the main actor in chalcedonian regions of Transcaucasia. The victory against the Abkhazian kingdom expanded the influence of Abas in these regions.

In the second half of 940s Abas and Catholicos of Armenians Anania Mokatsi could resolve the confessional problems in the Armenian Eastern provinces.

The facts show that Abas also got the title of “Shahnshah/king of kings of Armenia and Kartli” at last. Thus the Power of Bagratunies in Armenia and Christian Transcaucasia was restored. As a result of such successes in Armenian sources Abas is known as a victorious king.

Summary

Avag A. Harutyunyan

Keywords – the Armenian Genocide, Sherif Pasha, the Ottoman Empire, the Kurdish organizations, the United Kingdom, the Armenian issue, the First Republic of Armenia, Paris Conference, K. Sasuni, Armenian-Kurdish agreement of 1919, Poghos Nubar, Hamo Ohandzhanyan, Avetis Aharonyan, the Treaty of Sevres.

After World War I, being deprived of statehood, the Kurds presented their requirements at the Paris peace conference, acting under the dictation of the Turkish authorities of Sherif Pasha. Nobody officially recognized Sherif as the representative of Kurdistan and his memorandum was simply rejected. Thus, it is because of Sherif that the Armenian-Kurdish agreement signed in November 1919 did not led to the actual results.

Armenian and Kurdish problems should be regarded in unity. Both are interrelated and require some balanced solution. The Armenian-Kurdish nowadays distrust is due to unreasonable territorial claims of Kurds.

The Kurds understand that in the absence of the existence of their own state, the existence of the Republic of Armenia is an important geopolitical factor. From the perspective of a full implementation of their maximalist objectives, the strengthening of the Armenian factor is not favorable to the Kurds in Turkey.

Taking into account the historical lessons of the past, it should be stated that the Kurds are untrustworthy neighbors for the Republic of Armenia. Moreover, the possibility of participation of the Kurds on the Turkish side during a military conflict between Armenia and Turkey should never be excluded.

Summary

Sargis G. Petrosyan

Keywords – the Armenian Highland, Sophene, Mesopotamia, Sumer, Armenian-Indo-European roots, Akkadian, Hittite inscriptions, legend, popular belief, the road along the Euphrates, mythological, theonym, heliolater, with eagle’s wings, with a lion’s head, Peacock, The Firebird.

In the Sophenic folk novel “Mokos” it is told how the 12 sons of the Mesopotamian King Bagh (Bal) came to Armenia and became independent kings in Sophene and adjoining territories. From this point of view it is noteworthy that in the present-day region of Keban there used to exist a settlement of migrants of the Sumeric Uruk IV civilization (3500-3100 BC). According to the “Mokos” some of thoe twelve “sons” were Armenians, and one of them, Sinam, was the founder of the city of Sinamut, later – Kharberd. The name Sinam is also found in the Shenaminda (<*Sinam-inda) and Sinamuna (<*Sinam-una) cuneiform toponyms which are all of Indoeuropean-Armenian origin.

In the epical image called Sinam the historical and mythological features of his prototypes are merged. His historical prototype (or prototypes) was a king (or kings) who reigned in ancient Sophene and whose kingdom included both the present-day Keban with its adjacent area and Kharberd with its surroundings. The imagination of the border-lines of Sinam’s kingdom is mentioned in the following record made by the king of Akkad. Akkadian king Naram-Sin (2236-2200 BC) “(that) year when Naram-Sin reached the springheads of the Euphrates and the Tigris he defeated the country of Shenaminda”. Here the Euphrates is the Western Euphrates, the Tigris is the Western Tigris and the area between their springheads is Sophene.

The mythological prototype of the epic King Sinam is, to our mind, the God of the Sun, called Sinam because of his bird symbol-eagle. The words of the same root with Sinam are the Armenian tsin “black kite”, Greek ỉκτĩνος, Old Indian (Sanscrit) śyēná “eagle, falcon”, Avestian saēna “a big bird of prey”. The two companions of the Sun, the two manifestations of Venus sometimes at dawn and sometimes at sanset, also had their bird symbols. In the Armenian mythology they were considered the birds of king Sinam and were called Sinamahavk (Sinam’s bird) or for short Sinam-havk.

Summary

Ararat M. Hakobyan

Key words – Constitution, Parliament, Sh. Shahamiryan, government, party, opposition, Democratic Republic, H. Kajaznuni, A. Sahakyan, agenda, Armenian assembly, proportional voting system, legislative and executive authorities, Bureau of the Board.

The idea of parliamentarianism has deep roots in Armenia, since the 18th century, when on the initiative of Sh. Shahamiryan and his party in Madras the work “Trap of ambition” was made up that is estimated as constitution. However, the parliamentary system of government was first implemented during the First Republic of Armenia.

RA parliamentary history can be divided into three stages. The first stage covers the period of the first convocation of the Board of Armenia from August 1, 1918 until the end of April in 1919, when the Parliament was the supreme organ of state power and its jurisdiction included not only legislative, but also part of the executive, administrative and even judicial functions. In the absence of the constitution and the presidency, the prime minister was considered to be the first official figure who, together with his cabinet, was elected by parliament and thus was accountable to the parliament and the latter could express trust or distrust with respect to the Prime Minister.

Armenian assembly was made of four political parties and none of them, including the ARF Dashkaktsutyun, formed a stable majority. This period can be regarded as democratic due to the formation of a coalition in the government (ARF and ADP), which ensured a stable majority for the smooth management of the country.

The 2nd stage of the parliamentary government of Armenia covers the second half of 1919 (from August 1) to May 5, 1920. At this stage, parliament and government were balancing each other. The overwhelming majority of the seats in the newly elected parliament belonged to the ARF Dashnaktsutyun (72 seats out of 80), and in these circumstances, the government again was elected by Parliament and was accountable to it. The ruling party ARF was a link between the government and the ARF Bureau.

The situation changed dramatically during the third stage (May-November 1920). After external and internal threats hovered over the republic (the May speech of Bolsheviks in 1920, the escalation of Turkish-Tatar disorders, the ultimatum of the Revolutionary Committee of Azerbaijan to Armenia, etc.), ARF Bureau had to take control of the country with all the staff (7 members and 3 candidates for membership of the party), while the Parliament was sent on forced leave for several months. It is quite difficult to speak of a parliamentary system of government at this stage.

Nevertheless, though during its short political life the First Republic (2.5 years) bore unusually difficult conditions, both external and internal threats, the lack of a constitution, as well as the lack of management experience and weak opposition and could not properly introduce the idea of parliamentarianism, one can be sure that during the Third Republic these ideas are going to be finally materialized and implemented.

Summary

Ararat M. Hakobyan

Key words – category, electorate, Central Committee, Party apparatus, J. Stalin, Ashot Hovhannisyan, revolutionary committee, Council of People’s Commissars, commissariat, heating part, responsible worker, drawing up a list of posts, branch structure, personal data, one-party system.

In the mid-1920s, on the example of the Soviet Union’s system of one-party Bolshevik nomenclature, the same emerged also in Soviet Armenia. It is known that in Soviet literature, one were not usually speaking about usually political nomenclature for political reasons, it was also prohibited to engage in such matters. The emergence of the bureaucratic nomenclature system is due to historical and political past of the Russia and monopoly political and economic regime established by the Bolsheviks. A unified procedure for registration of party workers and their appointment was developed. Special rations and privileges were established for responsible workers. By the degree of control all the posts were divided into three classes. Throughout the country there were at least four levels of nomenclatures, each consisting of three classes: 1st, 2nd and 3rd nomenclature i. e. there were 12 classes all in all. At the same time the nomenclatures had branch structures, the number of which has reached a dozen in Armenia. For persons included in nomenclatures, some personal cards were drawn up. County, and from 1930 regional nomenclatures became lower-level nomenclatures. According to archival materials it can be concluded that in that period the total number of employees who hold positions in nomenclatures of the Armenian SSR, was about 4,200 people. This system expanded and improved in future. She remained until the collapse of the Soviet Union and communist totalitarianism

The Forgotten “Great Prince” of 11th Century

Summary           

Karen A. Matevossian

Key words – Gregory VI Apirat, Grigor Magistros Pahlavuni, Hovhannes-Smbat, Kecharis, a double name, Grand Duke, protocol, emperor, Catholicos, son, daughter.

During the Bagratuni period the history of many of the princely houses in Armenia has not been studied in detail and are therefore artificially identified with better known Pahlavunis. Historians treated other noble houses of the 11th century Hasanyan the same way, identifying them with the Pahlavunis. The most well known representative of this family is mentioned in some sources as Gregory Magistros, in others, as Apirat.Comparative evidence shows that originally he was called by the dual name of Gregory Apirat. And the researchers often confused him with Gregory Magistros Pahlavuni.

Hassan’s son Gregory from the Bagratuni family was an eminent prince and was called by historians the “Great Prince”. The first time he is referred to as Magistros is in 1001 in Arzakan records. In 1003 he built St. Gregory Church of the Kecharis Monastery and also set up a canal in Yerevan. The prince’s brother, George who was the owner of the Keghi castle, built the church for the Havuts Tar Monastery in 1002. At a time Gregory Apirat saved the life of HovhannesSmbat, King of Ani, and afterwards was killed in Dvin in 1021. Despite the availability of this data, Gregory Apirat Magistros’s name is not mentioned in Armenian Academy’s 1976 and 2014 editions of history volumes, nor is it mentioned in the encyclopedias.

After his death, the prince’s children have gone under the care of the King Hovhannes-Smbat, who later married Gregory Apirat’s daughter to a famous prince named Vest Sargis. His sons, Apljahap and Vassak married the daughters of Gregory Magistros Pahlavuni. These families gave birth to prominent clans, such as Hasanyan-Pahlavuni, whose descendants have long used the name Gregory and Apirat separately and as a dual name, Gregory Apirat

Part II: Reestablishment of the Armenian Kingdom

Summary

Arman S. Yeghiazaryan

Key words – Ashot the Iron; Armenian kingdom; catholicos; historical period; coronation; Ashot, son of Shapuh; shahnshah; Sbuk; Gagik Artsruni; Abas.

Ashot the Iron returned from Constantinople in 919 and immediately restarted the liberation war against the troops of Yusuf, emir of Atrpatakan, who have already crowned Ashot-the brother’s son of king of Armenia Smbat I.

There were 3 kings of Armenia at that time: Ashot the Iron, Gagik Artsruni from Vaspurakan and Ashot, son of Shapuh, crowned by Yusuf.

Successes of Ashot the Iron forced the emir of Atrpatakan to recognize him as a king of Armenia.

After Yusuf was captured in 919, Subuk, new emir of Atrpatakan proclaimed Ashot the Iron as a king of kings.

After Yusuf released and returned he attacked Vaspurakan, then left for Atrpatakan. He sent to Armenia Nasr al-Subuki as a governor. The army of Nasr was defeated by the troops of Ashot the Iron.

In 924 the battle of Sevan Lake took place. The Arabian army headed by Bashаr was defeated.

After Yusuf has died in 927, Ashot the Iron could liberate Armenia from the troops of Atrpatakan, restored the state system of the kingdom and beginning from the last yeаrs of his reign for a century Armenia enjoyed peace and was developing.

Ashot the Iron played key role in the history of the Bagratids kingdom. The figures such Ashot the Iron in the world history are called heroes of the epoch or historical persons.

Part I: The Issue of Preservation of the Armenian Kingdom

Summary

Arman S. Yeghiazaryan

Ashot the Iron is one of the greatest figures in the history of Armenia. The period of his reign (914-929) has an epochal importance for the history of Armenia, because he managed to both save the Armenian kingdom from collapse, and restore the state system, which was destroyed during the prolonged invasion of the Atropatene ruler troops.

Ashot the Iron was declared as the heir to the throne in 903. In 910 he headed the Armenian army against the troops of Atropatene in Dzknavadjar battle, where his army was defeated.

After Smbat I the Armenian king (891-914) was captured, in 913 Ashot the Iron led the war against Atropatene and managed to liberate the central and north-eastern parts of the Armenian kingdom.

In 914 he was crowned and declared as the king of Armenia.

Soon he faced a number of serious difficulties, which forced him to appeal to the Byzantine emperor for help. In 915 he left for Constantinople, where he was received with honors. There he got the information about the new attacks of the ruler of Atropatene and hurriedly returned to Armenia. The Byzantine emperor sent troops to assist him against the enemy.

Summary

Sargis G. Petrosyan

Ancient vehicles of the Armenian Highland were massive four-wheel, with wheels without spokes. Hittite vehicles tiiarit =*diiaret were also of such kind. This word has probably not “Hurrian” but Indo-European-Armenian origin. The first component of the word corresponds to an arm. ti “big” (<I.-E. *dei- “shine”), and the second component – from ancient Arm. *aret (*a-ret<I.-E. *ret(h) “slide, spins, rotate”: cmp. ancient Hindu rոtha “vehicle, chariot”, Latin rota “wheel, circle” and so on. Chariots are known from the III millennium BC. by Sumerian images, but the center of the creation of wheeled vehicles were northern mountainous regions, with strong wood forests, where existed also metallurgy of bronze. These were the regions of the Armenian (Eastern) Taurus.

In the Hittite code of the laws of XIV century B.C. the tribes Manda and Sala were mentioned as the Hittite citizens, earlier exempt from duties. The representatives of these tribes are presented as fighters. The descendants of these tribes are the representatives of ancient Armenian naharar dynasty Mandakuni and Salkuni. Together they are also mentioned in the “History of Armenia” by Khorenatsi (II, 8), in ancient Armenian “Gahnamak” (47th and 48th) and “Zoranamak” (14 th and 15 th). So their possessions were in the neighborhood: nakharars (overlords) Mandakuni were the owners of gavar (province) Arshamunik, and Salkuni once lived in the south Arshamunik, in gavar (province) Taron. Hence, the ancestors of these nakharars (overlords) lived in the neighborhood in this area (in the north-west of Lake Van). Ethnonyms of the tribes manda and sala are of particular interest, because they etymologized from Indo-European-Armenian base. According to Khorenatsi, during the Trojan War Armenian commander Zarmayr together with the Ethiopian army went to the aid of the Trojans of Priam, though he was serving to the Assyrian king Tevtamos (I, 20; I, 32). In Greek sources of Khorenatsi originally it was not about the country of Assyria, but about the country Assuwa in the northwest of Asia Minor, as the name of Tevtamos is of Indo-European (Asia Minor, the Balkans) origin.

As for the “Ethiopian army” of Zarmayr, it is likely that there here too were originally mentioned the soldiers of Armenian origin. In our opinion, there was initially no ethnonym Ethiop, but the little-known archaic Armenian word * eti-iop “horse-drawn carriage”> “chariot”.

In the context of the cooperation of AR Federation and Khoyboun and regional developments

Summary

Aram S. Sayiyan

So far unknown pages of the cooperation among AR Federation and Khoyboun in the period of Ararat rebellion in 1926-1930, which was Kurdish people’s national liberation struggle, are discussed in this article based on newly discovered archival records and the handling of the materials. We have shown AR Federation’s comprehensive political, organizational and ideological support to the Kurdish movement, which secured its spread and success from 1927 to mid-summer 1930. The article unlocks the secret agreements among Ar Federation’s eminent figure Ruben (M. Ter-Minasyan) who has arrived to Teheran in 1929 and Iran’s court minister Temurtash, strengthening Armenian-Kurdish military cooperation and securing the Iranian authorities’ support.

Denying unfounded hypotheses spread by the Soviet historiography, the author of the article proves that it was not the Turkish army’s role that was decisive in the defeat of Ararat rebellion, but the Soviet Union’s support to Kemalist Turkey. Soviet Union’s overt political blackmail against Iran in August 1930 broke Reza Shah’s insistence and led to the termination of assistance to the rebels by small Ararat’s pathways.