Monthly Archives: September 2011

FALSIFICATION OF THE HISTORY OF THE ARTSAKH MELIQDOMS IN AZERBAIJAN HISTORIOGRAPHY – 2011-3

Summary

Artak V. Maghalyan

The history of the Meliqdoms of Artsakh constitutes an important segment of the history of Armenia. In the absence of an independent Armenian statehood, for centuries the Meliqdoms represented the sole power which could potentially serve as a basis for the resurrection of the Armenian state.

For decades, Azerbaijani historians have been trying to falsify the History of Armenia and to present events related to Armenia and the Armenians through reflections in distorted mirrors of the Azerbaijani state propaganda. In this context, Armenian Artsakh – with its past and present – remains the primary target of Azerbaijani pseudo-historical constructions. One can hardly find a period in the history of Artsakh which would not be purposefully falsified by the Azerbaijani historian-falsifiers. The latters are targeting particular at the remnants of the Armenian statehoods in Artsakh, namely the history of the Meliqdoms of Khamsa (Five Principalities). Azerbaijani “studies” published in Azerbaijan and abroad make all efforts to present the Meliqdoms of Artsakh as “Albanian” (of Caucasian Albania) entities, which fall in sharp contrast and contradiction to accounts of numerous historical sources and original documents of the time. The Azerbaijani state-sponsored propaganda translates these pseudo-scientific “studies” into various languages and disseminates them around the world.

The present article focuses on two such pseudo-scientific publications, namely by O. Efendiev, Corresponding Member of the Azerbaijani National Academy of Sciences, and G. Mamedova, Candidate of Historical Sciences. Their articles were included in a compilation entitled “Garabag: Kurekchay – 200” published by A. Bakikhanov Institute of History of the Azerbaijani Academy of Sciences on the occasion of the 200-th anniversary of the Treaty of Kurakchay.

The present article reveals the falsifications of the above-mentioned Azerbaijani authors regarding the Meliqdoms of Artsakh in the 17–19-th centuries, and on the basis of reliable historical sources, as well as original documents demonstrates the falsehood of the Azerbaijani “historiographical theories”.

ARMENIA: FACING THE CHALLENGE OF MODERNIZATION – 2011-3

Issues of the State Apparatus and Economic Reforms

Summary

Merujan V. Mikaelyan

To this day, there is a false perception among state and political circles in Armenia that the Third Republic of Armenia is still very young and inexperienced. Thereby, the serious shortcomings that exist in the sphere of state building and the economy are conditioned by that reality.

More importantly, inspiring this position further is that more time is required for our statehood to mature and be in a position to confront all the foreign and domestic challenges facing it and to resolve issues related to a sufficient standard of living, the respect for human rights, the protection of social justice, a civilized political culture, free competition and the issue of establishing a state apparatus based on knowledge. Such a fundamental mentality postulates that it could not have been possible in a 20 year time period to reach more qualitative accomplishments, in particular, taking into consideration the Karabakh Issue, the geopolitical position of the country, the limited natural resources and the centuries-long absence of statehood. We are convinced that this is not the position of responsible, capable and honest political leaders regarding the fate of the country, but rather the attempt at hiding their own mistakes and shortcomings. This is dangerous because it condemns the country to severely modest accomplishments, acquiescence and to the disillusionment and weakening of the entire nation. Certainly, a large part of these factors are a limiting influence on a country’s development.

However, this publication highlights the examples of other countries where natural resources or geopolitical location are not decisive factors for development. Proper political structuring and the presence of an efficient state apparatus are decisive. An efficiently structured state apparatus is completely able to compensate the influence of limiting factors as stated above. And when there are rich natural resources and favorable conditions, an inefficient state apparatus cannot save people from poverty, inefficiency and autocracy. It is exactly in this issue that our leaders have failed. An efficient and quality state apparatus has not been formed in Armenia due to an absence of information and placing personal and group interests above pan-national interests. It is formed incorrectly in an institutional sense and as a result, the potential of its personnel is insufficient. As the example of other countries illustrate, there are clear arguments which attest to the fact that 20 years is entirely enough time to create a high quality state apparatus. The examples of those countries that had experienced war and transformations in their social systems, illustrate that working sensibly during that time period is entirely sufficient to create a mature state governing system and is even able to thoroughly cure corruption that is deeply entrenched in those societies, and formulate a new, just and an accomplished culture. As a result of an absence of professionalism and the existence of self-interest, during the past 20 years, political leaders and civil servants, in conditions of a defective, unjust and incomplete state apparatus, have not properly utilized the capacity of the Diaspora, the unity of the pan-national potential, the great chances rendered by its geopolitical position and the high individual ability of our people. Simply put, our political leaders and the state apparatus until today have not had sufficient abilities to understand, evaluate and utilize this great potential.

Twenty years is an extremely long period of time to have undertaken great projects. And we are still in a tumultuous stage – the small and medium-sized businesses, who, subjected to the oppression of monopolies have been pushed out, the all-embracing corruption which has established an interest-pursuing society; has made big business the enemy of society; and transformed the state apparatus into an apparatus of injustice. In terms of democracy, free competition, and social justice and in terms of serving the demands of the empowerment of the nation and the state, Armenia’s state apparatus has completely failed.

Aside from different paths and tools to untie this complex knot, the complete renewal of the state apparatus and an innovative restructuring of the economy will have decisive importance. The present realities require that we approach these issues outside of standard approaches. A whole grouping of solutions is brought forth in this article, whose realization requires extraordinary measures for authorities; and in case of their inability, on behalf of civil society.

SEMI-INDEPENDENT ARMENIAN AUTHORITIES AND MELIKDOMS IN WESTERN ARMENIA AND MOUNTAINOUS CILICIA (17TH CENTURY TO THE SECOND HALF OF THE 19TH CENTURY) – 2011-3

Summary

Gegham M. Badalyan

Up until the second half of the 19th century, and in separate cases even up until the end of the same century, there existed about two dozen semi-independent Armenian authorities, autonomous provinces or communities on the territory of Western Armenia. The strongest among them were the authorities in Sassun and Zeitun, whose semi-independent status was established on behalf of the Ottoman power through special edicts. The Melikdoms of Shatakh, Moks, Baghlu, the Mirakyan’s of Dersim, and the authorities of Isyan and Savur also enjoyed wide autonomy, while acknowledging the supremacy of their powerful neighboring Muslim country. As a rule, these authorities were governing formations of Armenian or foreign dynasties, who were endowed with the rights of “junior ally.” At the next level were a number of smaller units, whose territory was limited by one or a few settlements – the Melikdoms of the Tarkhanyans, Zirakyans, Liz, and Yonjalu in Van, the Melikdoms of Khnus and Manazkert in Erzerum including also separate communities strewn throughout the territories of Southwestern Armenia, Pontos and Gamirk.

ARMENIA’S CULTURE DURING THE 20 YEARS OF INDEPENDENCE – 2011-3

From the Perspective of the Protection of Artistic Heritage

Summary

Ruben S. Anghaladyan (St. Petersburg)

The article is a critical analysis of the difficult fate of Armenian culture during the existence of the 20 years of independence of the Third Armenian Republic. It is accompanied comments and recommendations of a professional nature. The author shows that at the time of the collapse of the USSR, the high quality of Armenian culture that was achieved, compared to the losses it incurred in the 1990s was conditioned largely by the irresponsible attitude of the ruling authorities of the day and by the lack of professionalism by the successive leaders of the Culture Ministry. By disclosing the reasons for the latter’s lack of policy, it is shown how Italy’s experience can be instructive for Armenia, where the state takes fundamental care of the protection of artistic heritage. Meanwhile, the existence of a Culture Ministry in Armenia, from the perspective of social and state interests, in fact provides no benefit, because it has turned into a means for satisfying the personal and collective interests of successive ministers.

The simplistic notions that have taken root in independent Armenia regarding the interchange of culture are subjected to criticism; concrete recommendations are presented to rectify these and to present Armenian culture to the world according to its worth. One of the most serious shortcomings in the country’s cultural policy is accorded a special place in the article and that is the fact of the millions of dollars of worth of cultural treasures that have been accumulated by Diasporan Armenian collectors and which have not been protected and a part of which are now found in museums in the United States, Portugal, Romania, Russia and other countries. To rectify this serious shortcoming, the idea of creating an Armenian Collectors Union is being put forth which could open the way to the establishment of new museums and to make Armenia a touristic center.

A NEW EXAMINATION OF THE OLD MODELS OF ARMENIAN AND TURK RELATIONS IN Z. PIPERYAN’S NOVEL, “LKRTATS” – 2011-3

Summary

Hovhannes K. Yeghoyan

Zaven Piperyan’s creation was a new voice in modern Turkish-Armenian literature. The great writer understood profoundly the meaning of the new era of national literature, and his own accountability before time. For the development and progress of highly valuable literature, Z. Piperyan considered the psychological examination of wide swaths of society as a precondition for social perception, for the universal depth of beauty within the constant influence of the lessons of the national past.

The novel, « Lkrtats » which is one of the best examples of Western Armenian fiction writing, presents Turkish life and post-war misery of the past century. It is a reflection of the new process of Armenian-Turkish relations, in light of the redrawing of tragic historical memory. The Armenian woman, Kyulkun becomes the victim of Ali the butcher’s passions who slaughters her with the call of “old blood” with “equanimity” just as his ancestors and comfortably removes himself toward the city’s Asian section, the hint of which, from a historical perspective, is transparent. The feature of the new era is reflected in the novel; however Z. Piperyan’s literary commitment in TurkishArmenian life is the aspiration to overcome the inculcated fear of national existence and its complexities.

OLD TBILISI AND THE CREATIONS OF GABRIEL SUNDUKYAN – 2011-3

Summary

Aram G. Alexanyan

Soviet literary criticism assessed the historical context and cultural calling of Gabriel Sundukyan as an expression of opposition to market capitalism. This understanding of research during the Soviet era came to rest on extremes and a failure to understand, because it was dictated by the Marxist theory of class struggle.

To explain the historical and cultural context of Sundukyan’s creations with Marxist postulations is not scientific and disregards the principles of historiography. In reality, Sundukyan’s creations are penetrated by a dramatism typical of a transitional era. Values characteristic to the new capital made by traders and money-lenders are in contraposition to Christian morality, the understanding communal justice and to the necessity of the restoration of man’s essence. Thus, Sundukyan’s creation in its historical-cultural calling is multi-layered and extremely original.

A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ETHNIC AND POLITICAL HISTORY OF THIS SO-CALLED AGHVANK (ALBANIA) – 2011-3

Part II: Political-Historical Issues in the Context of Ethnic Belonging

Summary

Babken H. Harutyunyan

The historical geography of all the Eastern part of the kingdom of Great Armenia is discussed in the article, it illustrates that Colthene (Konqhnhv) Claudii mentioned by Ptolemy corresponds to the region of Great Armenia’s Kaspk’(Կասպք) or Caspiene (Kasphnhv).

The information given by Movses Khorenatsi about the governorships of Utik’, Gardmanatsik’ and Tsavdeatsik’ and about the principality of the Gargaratsik’(Gargarians) is elucidated through the source study examination. It is clearly illustrated that the rule of the Gardmanatsik’ was to be found on the left bank of the river Kura, the name Utik’ in Armenian simply means Ovits (Ովիտք), something which due to the development of the language became Utik’ (Ուտիք) and the name Tsavdek’ originated from the name of the Southern Armenia’s region called Tsavdek’ (Ծաղդեք).

It was also examined the issue of how many names of 26 tribes of so-called Albanians mentioned by Strabo were preserved. Comprehensive research has shown that only the name of the Caspians was preserved, and the purely Albanian declared Gargarians (գարգարացիք), Udins (ուդիններ) in those days lived in the Northern Caucasus, outside of the borders of Albania. It is illustrated also that Ouitioi (ուիտիները/վիտիները) were not found in Armenia and have no connection with the region of Utik’. The Greeks knew it very well; if the Uitis were called [Ouitioi, then Utik’ was called [Wthnh. Rich factual material shows that the name of muvkoi has absolutely nothing to do with Mukan (Մուղան), whose old Armenian form Movkan is preserved in Georgian as a loan.

Through the comparative study of the dates by Curtius Rufus and Arrianus it becomes clear that these so-called Albanians did not participate and could not have taken part in the famous Battle of Gaugamela in 331 BC. Their name is simply confused with the Massagets – Mazkuts who had invaded the left bank of the river Kura and who had taken over the Albanian kingdom, whose fellow Mid-Asian tribsmen had participated indeed in the Battle of Gaugamela. The article shows that the Albanian – Massaget confusion also was to be found in the works by Plinius Secundus and Solinus.

It is proved that ’Alarodioi are not Albanians, they belong to the Iranian-speaking Saspeir tribes, which have taken the way to the georgianisation. It is also shown very clearly and objectively that only the Achaemenid Persia’s XIII satrapy was situated in the territory of Armenia, and the XVIII satrapy occupied the territory of the Eastern Georgia and the left bank of the river Kura, and included Matiens, Saspeirs and Alarodis.

The basic conclusion of the article is that the name Albania given by Greek and Roman authors and the name Aghuank’ given by Armenian historiographs has a purely Armenian origin and means “Country of fertile field”. And as the left bank of the river Kura was the continuation of the Armenian fertile | eld, the state formed there was called by the Armenians Alobank’ (Ալոբանք), which through the development of the Armenian language became Aluank (Aghuank’), and in the Greek – Roman world the Armenian “Alobank’” was associated with the Celtic toponym of Albania, and thus was transformed to Albania.

THE BASICS OF RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ABOUT NATIONAL MENTALITY – 2011-3

Summary

Karlen A. Mirumyan

During the breakthrough stages of the development of society, a necessity arises to reevaluate the old value system, the principles of world views, and to develop new critical directions. These issues are extremely important including also for independent Armenia. However, its solution demands a serious, based on the creation of a methodological doctrine, which would be in the position to relate to the Armenian nation’s past and present; to view Armenians as a complete system. To create such a methodological doctrine it is necessary to choose, cultivate a baseline concept.

In the opinion of the author, the concepts of nation and national entity can play a role. In addition, put forward in the article is the idea that each nation that has a rich spiritual cultural history must create just like its history, the history of the mentality; studying their own methodological thesis, surely accounting for the existence of theses in international sciences. The other primary idea is not that methodological theory has to be “put” onto a concrete historical process, but the opposite. The methodology has to come from the study of a concrete (national) history.