Category Archives: HISTORY

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.

Summary

Arman S. Yeghiazaryan

“Ashkharhatsouys” the monument of the Middle Ages Armenian historical geography preserves a detailed describtion of the north-western region Taik’ of the Greater Armenia. Taik’ included eight gavars or districts, which locations could be defined by the informations of “Ashkharhatsouyts”.

In “Ashkharhatsouyts” the gavars of Taik’ are described by two groups. The frist, which is mentioned from East to West and South, includes gavars Kogh, Berdats por and Partizats por. The second group is described beginning from the eastern part of Taik up to the western gavar Arseats por. It included gavars Djakatk, Boghkha, Vokaghe and Azordats por. The eight gavar or Taik’ Arseats por is presented by its geographical location to above mentioned gavars.

Up to the V century Taik’ included only the seven gavars of “Ashkharhatsouyts”s Taik besides Arseats por. As for Arseats por, up to 387 it was the part of the strategy (prefecture) Arsik’ or Arsesa of the Greater Armenia. In 387, when the Armenian Kingdom was devided, the south-western part of Arsesa – the gavar Sper was included to the Western Armenian Kiingdom, while Arseats por was included to the Eastern Armenian Kingdom. In the V century Arseats por was united to Taik’ and was owned by the Mamikonyans. Thus was formed the Taik’ region describing by “Ashkharhatsouyts”.

Summary 

Arman S. Yeghiazaryan

After prince of princes of Armenia Ashot Bagratuni was proclaimed king of Armenians and Georgians (887-891), the position of the prince of princes was preserved, but its functions were restricted. For more than 50 years only the members of the royal family with the right to inherit the throne were appointed to the position.
In the reign of the Armenian king Ashot I his son Smbat was appointed to the position of the prince of princes, in the reign of Smbat I – his brothers Shapuh and David and his son Ashot II the Iron (Yerkat), then in the reign of Ashot II his brother Abas and in the reign of Abas – his son Ashot. Afterwards Smbat, Ashot the Iron, Abas and Ashot, son of Abas inherited the Armenian throne. As for Smbat’s brothers, they were appointed as prince of princes because in 897-901 Ashot the Iron, the son and the successor of Smbat I was being held hostage.

Part I. Тhе rout of king Sargon II՚s campaign to Urartu in 714 B. C.

Summary

Aleksan H. Hakobyan

The detailed analysis of the texts of king Sargon II about his campaign east and north in 714 B. C. allows us to correct or clarify the route of the Assyrian troops in several cases. In particular, the small kingdoms Andia and Zikirtu mentioned between the countries Manna and Urartu are actually localized not to the east of Lake Urmia, but to the south and south-west of it; Zikirtu corresponds to medieval province Mahkertu (bordering Greater Armenia) in the river basin Barazgir, and Andia corresponds to “country Parsua” of early Urartian texts (on the southhern shore of Lake Urmia – “Great Sea of the East”), with the city Meišta / Misi.

Part III: Consolidation of Chalcedonian provinces and formation of the Transcaucasia united kingdom of chalcedonians

Summary

Arman S. Yeghiazaryan
In the second half of the X century the Armenian kingdom of Bagratunis gradually separated to some lesser kingdoms and lost the control over Transcaucasian countries. That was a great opportunity for the Abkhazian kingdom, which tried to unit all chalcedonian provinces in Transcaucasia. Abkhazian king Georgi (929-957) could conquer Georgia, and although his army was defeated by Armenians near the Kur River, the Armenian king Abas (929-953) did not develop the success. After Georgi’s death Abkhazian kings lost their chance to keep Georgia under their control.

In the second half of the X century in Transcaucasia was acting powerful David the Curopalate of Taik. He called for help Smbat II the king of Armenia (977-989) and they jointly could overthrow Theodos – the Abkhazian king (975978) and put on the Abkhazian throne Bagrat III Bagratuni (978-1014) son of daughter of Georgi the Abkhazian king and Gurgen Bagratuni from Kgharjk.

During two decades Bagrat liquidated all Kgharjian Bagratunis and David the Curopalate of Taik. The main goal of this policy was to overcome the feudal separatism and form a united kingdom of chalcedonians.

When Gagik I the Armenian king (989-1020) could strengthen the Armenian kingdom again, Bagrat III used its authority and power in confrontation with the Gandzak emirate.

On the first decade of XI century Bagrat III could consolidate Transcaucasian chalcedonian provinces and found the united kingdom of chalcedonians.

Armenian side

Summary

Hamlet K. Davtyan
The article is devoted to the Christianity of Virk. In spite of the undeniable proofs that this significant event had happened parallel to the Christianity of Mets Hayk and by the efforts of Grigor Partev’s delegates, planned studies are printed in the recent decades through which an attempt is made to review and comment on historical facts by modern events. Of course this is not the way by which it is necessary to go. The fact of the contribution of one nation’s representatives to the national and cultural life of another nation deserves only deep respect.

Part one. The raising of political purpose about fragmentation’s overcoming and first steps of its implementation

Summary

Karen P. Hayrapetyan
Since the first days of formation of the Republic of Armenia, the authorities faced a number of problems arising from the fragmentation of the Armenian people that had to be solved. The task to solve the problem of fragmentation was first brought up for discussion by the authorities of the Republic of Armenia at the Second Congress of Western Armenians in February 1919. The main political tool for solving the national question was the strengthening of the Republic of Armenia. the rest of the Armenian territories must have been united around the Republic of Armenia. A number of important historical decisions have been taken by the authorities of the Republic of Armenia in order to solve the problem of fragmentation. The most important of these decisions was the declaration of United Armenia

Part II: The shape of independent historical perspective of the all-Georgian Kingdom.

Summary

Arman S. Yeghiazaryan
In the 9th century the tendency of the spread of superiority of the Curopalacity of Kgharjk over Georgia was emphasized.

The main goal of curopalate of Kgharjk Atrnerseh Bagratuni was to achieve the dominant position among the South Caucasus Chalcedonians with the perspective to include them in a joint kingdom led by Kgharjian Bagratunis. At the same time Atrnerseh tried to seize the throne of Armenian King Smbat I, but failed

In the last years of Smbat I, the weakening of the Armenian kingdom led to broad perspectives for the Kingdom of Abkhazia and the Curopalacity of Kgharjk. The Abkhazats kingdom, which was far from the dynamic events of those times, became gradually stronger and took over Georgia after a couple of years.

During the reign of Atrnerseh in the Curopalacity of Kgharjk, there was one more reputable prince named Gurgen Bagratuni, who successfully withstood the Abkhazian king, conquered the lands neighboring his principality also spread the Chalcedonian faith in the Albanian kingdom.

Aleksan H. Hakobyan
The migration paths of Hayk’s descendants on Armenian Upland as described by Movses Khorenatsi vividly remind the routes of the first Biaynian kings who conquered the territory of the future Biaynili (Urartu) kingdom in a few decades. This is a new argument to support the hypothesis of H. Karagyozyan and M. Katvalyan, according to whom the formation of the Armenian ethnos has happened bt ethnoconsolidation-ethnomixation of all the various Indo-European and non-Indo-European tribes that inhabited the kingdom of Urartu-Biaynili (=Armenian Upland), and not by ethnoseperation (immediate separation of Armenian language carriers from the Indo-European language community) or by ethno evolution (which means gradual absorption of other inhabitants of the Urartu kingdom by the small Armenian-speaking tribe). The process of ethno consolidation of Armenian people was a result of ethno integration of multi-tribal Urartu kingdom and was completed in mid-7^th century B.C. The later formed Armenian legend about the descendants of Gayk shows that a leading role in this process was played by Biaynians themselves, although the language of the newly formed ethnos (with the self-designation – endonym of Hay- Hayo- Armenians) was an Indo-European one namely, the Armenian language spoken by the relative majority of the population of the multi-tribal Biaynian kingdom. Combined with other evidences in historical sources, this legend also shows that the kingdom of Urartu was not “destroyed” by anyone; rather it continued to exist as ‘Eruandean Armenian Kingdom”, which was conquered only by Achaemenid Iran.

Summary

Ararat M. Hakobyan
There are different, sometimes even mutually exclusive opinions concerning the question of the international-juridical situation of Armenian Soviet Socialistic Republic (ASSR) in 1920-1922. A large group of scientists finds that before the formation of Trans-Caucasian Federation and SSSR, ASSR was nevertheless an independent state due to a number of standards. And finally, there are some authors with soviet nostalgia, who think that Armenia achieved its “real” independence only in November, 1920 with the sovietization of Armenia.

The author brings numerous facts, and examining these three approaches by the modern standards of historiography substantiates and defends the thesis that the Soviet Armenia wasn’t in fact independent initially, but kept its statehood. At the same time, drawing parallels between the three Armenian states of the XX century, the author shows the fact of their succession.