Category Archives: HISTORY

On Martin Tamkey’s Dissertation: “Armin T. Wegner and the Armenians: one Witness’s Claim and the Reality”

Summary

Albert V. Musheghyan
In 1980-90s the evangelic theologian Martin Tamkey came up with a number of articles, a PhD dissertation and a monograph in Goethingen, Marburg and Hamburg. The mentioned works were addressed against the pure memory of the witness of the Armenian Genocide, Armin Theofil Wegner. In his dissertation “Armin Theofil Wegner: One Witness’s Claim and the Reality”, separately published as a book in Hamburg in 1993 and 1996, written on the basis of the materials collected by him in the literary archive and extraneous documents, professor M. Tamkey has taken the task to prove that ostensibly Armin Wegner who served as a sanitarian in the German military headquarters did not witness the Armenian Genocide in Mesopotamia in 1915-1916. He also defends the mendacious thesis of the Turkish historiography according to which during World War I thousands of Armenians who were displaced from Asia Minor merely because of military necessity died in the Syrian Desert only because of unfavourable conditions. In the article based on the testimonies of contemporaries, Martin Tamkey’s own new publication and Wegner’s diaries the undivine and insolvent viewpoints of the Doctor of Theological Studies are being one after the other denied.

Part 2. The Extra-Social Civilization Homeostasis of Great Armenia: Tigran II.

Summary

Albert A. Stepanyan
The paper looks at the problems of extra-social homeostasis incorporated by the empire of Tigran the Great (80-60-s B.C.). Scholars define it as global civilization (Pax armenica) consisted of three basic elements. The first was Great Armenia, the core state. The second was “the visible empire” from Caucasian mountains to Egypt. The third represented “the charismatic empire” up to the borders of India.

The empie fell under pressure of Rome, and Great Armenia changed her status into the centre of the region “from Caucasus to North Mesopotamia”.The central issue of the metamorphosus the treaty of Artaxata has been detalized in the paper from the point of view of international right of the time.

Part 1. The Intracommunal Homeostasis. Artaxias I

Summary

Albert A. Stepanyan
The paper looks at the civilizational interpretation of one of the crucial epoques of ancient Armenia. It begins with a brief survey of the term “civilization” in modern humanities. Among the main features of this approach the homeostasis has been taken into consideration.

Two varieties of homeostasis are basic for my discussion – intra/ and extra-social. The first of them made the meaning of reforms of Artaxias I – the founder of the Artaxiad dynasty in Armenia. They embraced a large scope of social stratum including cadastre and administrative system, trade and religious beliefs, culture and army etc. All of them looked at the end of rationalization of social stratum of Great Armenia by overpowering traditional (tribal and dynastic) structures. King Artaxias was successful in his innovation program. Owing to them Armenia could keep step with the developed states of the time.

The branches of the Armenian nobility of Northern Lori (Somkhety)

Sergey K. Zavirev, Sonya S. Mirzoyan
The Zavaryan-Zavriev family originated from the nobility-aznavurs of Northern Lori (Somkhety). During different administrative systems it was mentioned under the names Zavarashvili, Zavarishvili, Zavrashvili, Zavrov, Zavarov, Ab-Zavaradze, Abrozavrov etc. In spite of the Georgian and later Russian endings of the family name, they, unlike Georgian nobles,were the nobles of the “Armenian law”, i.e. the Armenians belonging to the Armenian Apostolic Church.

Beginning from 1655, the time of the King of Kartl, Rostom, the rights of the Zavarashvili-Zavarishvili over urban settlement Gilaghdagh or Giligdak (Gaili gyaduk) and surrounding villages were repeatedly recognized by the rulers of Georgia.

The Zavarashvilis were recognized as a noble family of the Russian Empire by the Georgievsk Tractate (1783), too. They were mentioned under No 48th in the list of noble families of the Tractate.Before that, starting from the 1730s, during the devastating invasions of the Lezgins,thisfamilyofaznavursofnorthernLoribegantoleavetheirnativelandgradually,consequentlyitbranchedout.ThisArmenianfamilywasdividedintothebranchesof Malorosi or Ukrainian, Kakhetian or Sghnakh, Tbilssian and a little while later – Odzun Aigehatianor Armenia’s.

The Tbilssian Abo-Zavradze-Zavriev-Zavriyans branch of the family gave several political, military, cultural and scientific figures to the Armenian people. One of the founders of the ARF (Dashnaktsutyun) Simon Zavaryan was a representative of the fourth generation of the Odzun Aigehatianor Armenia’s Zavarov-Zavaryans branch rooted deeply in the native land.

The comparative analysis of three Turkish documents

Ruben A. Safrastyan
The program of the Armenian genocide implemented by the government of Ottoman Turkey during the World War I has not received all the attention it deserves. Although a number of books exist concerning Armenian genocide, this is the first paper to be devoted solely to problem under discussion.

The subjects of the investigation are the following ottoman documents:

-The 10 points action plan to eliminate Armenians under cover of deportation, approved by the secret meeting of five leading members of ottoman government and army headquarter, including interior minister Talaat. This document represents the early stage of preparing the program of genocide

-Official Decision of ottoman government on the beginning the deportation of Armenian, which unmasks the genocidal intention of Turkish authorities

-The Deportation Law, which aimed to provide “the legal cover” for the criminal act of Armenian genocide

Thoughtfully examination of sources allows author to come to conclusion that above-mentioned documents formed the program of the Armenian genocide.