Monthly Archives: March 2011

KEMAL ATATURK AND THE PROCESS OF THE ARMENIANS’ WEALTH SEIZING, – 2011-1

In light of the elucidations of Turkish documents and publications

Anush R. Hovhannisyan

The Armenian wealth was seized by the Young Turk government in 1915. The money, comprised of the sequestered property of the murdered or focibly deported Armenians, was moved out of Turkey and placed in Austrian and German banks. After the war, in an official memorandum presented to the British Prime Minister, there was information that the sum of 5,000,000 Turkish gold pounds (equaling to about 30,000 kilograms of gold), deposited in the Reichsbank of Berlin by the Turkish government in 1916 and taken over by the Allies after the Armistice, was largely Armenian money. After the forced deportation of the Armenians in 1915, their current and deposit accounts were transferred to the State Treasury in Constantinople by government order. Most of the movable property was looted by mobs and houses, farms, lands, and shops were sold at a fraction of their value by the members of the special committees on the Armenians’ “abandoned property” to friends, and the money was either kept by committee members or sent to the Central Treasury. In addition to the slaughter and expulsion of more than 1.5 million souls, the Turkish government stole Armenian assets, seized Armenian property, and destroyed Armenian historical monuments. According to Dickran Kouymjian: “These actions collectively represent an enormous illegal transfer of individual and community wealth from the Armenian to the Turkish and Kurdish population through a carefully planned crime”.

The question of “abandoned property” was again underlined in article 144 of the Treaty of Sevres of August 1920. Provision was made for: 1) the cancellation of the law of 1915 relating to “Abandoned Property”; 2) the return of the Armenians to their homes; and 3) the restoration businesses and all movable and immovable property. Commissions of arbitration were to be appointed by the Council of the League of Nations to consider the Armenian claims. Even if former Ottoman subjects (i.e. the Armenians( had acquired citizenship in new countries, their property and interests in Turkey were to be restored in their original condition.

Of course, these have never been implemented; even worse, the Turkish government began to issue new laws of confiscation. The 1922 Ankara Agreement with France, protecting the Armenian property in Cilicia after the French withdrawal, was made a mockery by a new Turkish law confiscating all “abandoned” property in the areas “liberated” from the enemy.

ON THE LINGUISTIC GENERALIZATIONS BETWEEN ARMENIAN AND PERSIAN – 2011-1

Summary

Vahe G. Arakelyan

In the article the inter-influences of Armenian and Persian are studied, which are first and foremost conditioned by their etymological linkages. Special attention has been paid to the linguistic generalizations between Armenian and Persian broadly dating back centuries, which are expressed in different grammatical structures.

The author also explores the deep traces of the one-facet influence of Persian on Iranian-Armenian dialects. The Armenians dealing with the Iranians not only enriched their word stock with new words, but also made everyday usage copies of Persian word combinations and expressions and, on the other hand, they matched some of the Armenian phonological and grammatical elements with the Persian ones.

THE FEBRUARY REVOLT IN ARMENIAN HISTORIOGRAPHY – 2011-1

Investigatory Comparative Assessments from the Perspective of a 90-year interval

Summary

Ararat M. Hakobyan
In the article, the viewpoints and evaluations expressed in Soviet, Diasporian and Post-Soviet Armenian historiography on the 1921 February Revolt have undergone thorough investigation.

In the previous decades Armenian historiography gave diverse, sometimes contradictory standpoints, viewpoints, interpretations and evaluations of this important event.

On the one hand, in the Soviet-Armenian historiography the February Revolt was qualified as a reckless attempt of the revolutionists and mauserists, and on the other hand, Armenian Revolutionary Federation historiographers and authors presented it as a voluntary pan-national revolution. The position of Soviet-Armenian historiography was also protected in a certain consistent way by the Democratic Hunchakians, Democratic Liberals and Communist authors of the Diaspora.

By making comparative assessments between the two contradictory standpoints of post-soviet elucidations and revolutionists’ interpretations that exist in Armenian historiography, and on the basis of diverse documents, old and new testimonies, memoranda, press, etc. in the article, an attempt is being made to explain the real, factual, impartial image of the February Revolt, to clarify the processes of its preparation, reasons, essence, the moving forces, stages, the influence of external factors, as well as other issues which up to now remain vague.

After the independence of Armenia the Armenian historiographical mind attempts to overcome the previous mistakes and stereotypes existing in Soviet and Diasporian Armenian historiography and to elaborate a scientifically grounded standpoint concerning the 1921 February Revolt.

FERNAND BRAUDEL’S THEORY OF HISTORY – 2011-1

Summary

Smbat Kh. Hovhannisyan

In the context of the French Historical Annals School the achievements of the second Generation are significant. This mainly concerns Fernand Braudel in particular (1902-1985). He is famous not only in the framework of the School, but also in the historiography of the XX century.

F. Braudel’s main contribution to the theory of history was the concept of “Universal History.” It was outlined by L. Febvre and M. Bloch as a synthesis of different methods. The concept of “Universal History” is the result of that very approach.

The abovementioned makes it clear that Fernand Braudel’s concept of “Universal History” has a holistic and complex content. At the same time it doesn’t turn into one “true” and “common” interpretation. Braudel’s concept of Universal History combines its different parts into one system. Moreover, their synthesis is various. Some of them have a primary, others a secondary role. Sometimes they tend to change. The concept of “Universal History” is possible as a consequence of the harmonization of the terms “civilization,” “identity,” “mentality,” and “world-economy,” in three-dimensional time. In other words, the concept of “Universal History” is a constant element of Braudel’s understanding of history. They differ in different historical ages and events.

THE LEGEND OF LEBERATIOM IN MEDIEVAL ARMENIA – 2011-1

Part 2: The Prediction of Nerses the Great and Other Visions

Summary

Vardan G. Devrikyan

The second part of the article is devoted to the visions connected with the legend of liberation: particularly, the visions of Nerses the Great and Sahak Partev have undergone meticulous examination.

It is being shown that the Pan-Christian visions mentioned in Daniel’s foretelling records lie on the basis of the latters together with their actual elucidations, which were perceived as assaults of wild animals in medieval times, and then extermination which symbolized the cruelties committed by the malicious and ruthless enemy, and afterwards the defeat and the retreat from the stage of history.

It was completely concurrent with both the liberation expectations of the Armenian nation and the thrills experienced during the Arabic, Seljuk and Mongol invasions.

In the article it is being noted that the same regularity is also found in Byzantine Literature where similar feelings and expectations have been expressed via the apocryphal vision of Daniel and its numerous variants.

From this perspective, the visions of Nerses the Great and S. Partev are being examined in their historical development: starting from the records of the 5th century till the 13th century. It is also being shown how they were perceived and reinterpreted in each historical-political situation.

From the same angle, in a succeeding order it is also being shown which historical development S. Partev’s vision underwent, which had an exceptional place in the Armenian liberation legend, after Pavstos Buzand’s “From the Armenian History”, first in the work “A History of St. Nerses Partev” by Movses Vayotszoretsi in 967, and then in the republications of the latter in the 13th century and in the succeeding centuries, as well as in diverse mentionings of that very vision present in the Armenian records.

THE PROBLEM OF CIVILIZATION HOMEOSTASIS IN GREAT ARMENIA – 2011-1

Great Armenia and the Civilization Frontier of Euphrates (At the turn of I B. C. – A. D. I centuries)

Summary

Albert A. Stepanyan

The paper deals with the problems of Great Armenia during the mentioned period. Some important aspects of the geopolitical status of the kingdom are taken into consideration. It resulted from the Roman, Parthian and Armenian scenarios interwoven under concrete situations. Four paradigms of the status are the main focus of the paper: Great Armenia as a Roman province, a client kingdom under Roman nominees, independence under Artaxiads and independence secured by the national aristocracy. The last two paradigms consolidated Armenian society and looked at the settlement of the problem through compromise.

This compromise, in a sense, is reminscent of the settlement of the Treaty of Artashat arranged by Gn. Pompeius and Tigran II (66 B.C.). In 18 A.D., one of the most influential members of the imperial house, Germanicus, arrived in Armenia. In Artashat, he called an assembly (agora) and managed the accession of Zenon to the throne of Artaxiads. This Pontian prince (probably, an Artaxiad by his mother) was brought up in Armenia, and had gained the favour both of the aristocracy and the people. As a result of this settlement, Artashat was again recognized as the political center of the region from North Mesopotamia to the Caucasian Mountains.

ARMENIA AND THE ARMENIAN QUESTION IN MODERN ARABIC HISTORIOGRAPHY – 2011-1

Summary

Nora M. Arissian

The objective of this article is to present Armenia and matters of the Armenian question in modern Arabic modern historiography. The Arabic Encyclopedia in Syria also seems to count this topic with its historical facts. The Christianity factor of Armenia is mostly presented in Arabic historiography. Mohamed Sadek al-Kerbasi in his book “Islam in Armenia” reflects on the notion of Armenia’s Christianity. Many historical researches reflect the Arabic point of view concerning Armenia and the Armenian question in recent years, for instance Fuad Hasan Hafez in his book “Independent Armenia” and Ahmad Fuad Reslan in “Armenia, Nation and Government,” dedicating many chapters to the study of the Armenian question in the 19th and 20th centuries.

It is also mentioned in the studies of Mohamed Rifaat al-Imam from Egypt who had many historical researches concerning the Armenian question, such as “Armenians in Egypt in the 19th Century”, “The Armenian Question in the Ottoman Empire,” “Armenians, the West and Islam,” “The Genocide 1946-1948”, etc.

The article also stresses on the Arabic press that has dealt with the facts of the Armenian question, especially lately dealing with the Protocols between Armenia and Turkey

ON THE “PLAIN OF GERAN” OF THE HISTORY OF SEBEOS – 2011-1

Summary

Hayrapet G. Margaryan

The author states that Sebeos (VII century Armenian historian) speaking about the battle of “Plain of Geran” means the battle of Nersehapat which is well-known from the History of Ghazar Parpetsi.