Vol. 3 No. 24 (2021): 2021-3

Since the declaration of independence in May 1918, the Republic of Azerbaijan has been part of Turkey’s genocidal policy. The study of facts shows that the massacres of Armenians were of a massive and regular nature, which are manifested to this day. Even though the 2020 Artsakh war was unprecedented in its scale, with the atrocities of war crimes and violations of international humanitarian law, it was the reflection of Baku’s anti-Armenian policy of more than a century. During the 2020 Artsakh war, the attacks of the Azerbaijani armed forces were accompanied by inhuman and cruel treatment, which was manifested in beheading and torturing both prisoners of war and civilian prisoners. The international community should give a strong assessment of
Azerbaijan’s ongoing aggressive policy, extreme disregard for international law, and attempts to
abandon negotiations on the settlement of the Azerbaijani-Artsakh (Karabakh) conflict.

In the study of the period of the reign of the Armenian king Smbat II (978-990), the problem
of the relationship between him and his brother Gagik is of great importance. In this regard,
mention should be made of the tragic death of Smbat II, which is sometimes associated with
Gagik, who was previously suspected of conspiring against the king. After the death of the king
of Armenia Ashot III (953-978), his sons divided the royal possessions into three parts and
recognized the supremacy of Smbat II. Each of them received his part of the territory. The youn-
gest of them, Gurgen, passed into his possession and was proclaimed the local king in 978. But
Gagik, who also received his part, remained in the capital Ani and since the king had no other
heir, he was appointed heir to the throne. Soon he was suspected of conspiracy, left the capital
and moved to his possessions in the country of Geghama. After a while, the problem between

the brothers was resolved, and Gagik returned to the capital. He received the post of heir to the

throne again and after the death of Smbat II on the same day was proclaimed king. But his

contemporaies, who knew the problems between the brothers, suspected him of organizing

the assassination of Smbat II, and he was forced to unearth the body of Smbat II and show it to everyone.

This article discusses the status of the Armenian Church in Georgia in parallel with the formation of the Armenian community. The economic and political role of Armenians in Georgia is presented, a number of issues related to the formation of the Diocese of the Armenian Church in Georgia, as well as the relations between the secular authorities of Georgia and the ministers of the Armenian Church, are discussed. On the one hand, it is emphasized that the status of the Armenian Church in Georgia is conditioned by the power of the Armenian community in the
country, on the other hand, the religious policy of the Georgian kings is presented.

The Armenian-owned lands in Western Armenian provinces, Cilicia and other Armenian- inhabited places were always targeted by the Ottoman authorities, and since the 19th century were gradually allocated to Turks, Kurds and Circassians. The confiscation of the Armenian lands not only improved the situation of Turks or other Muslims, but it also changed the demographic picture of the country. Deprived of their land, the Armenians found themselves in worse social conditions and had to emigrate. By emptying the Armenian provinces, the Government of the ottomans pursued a vital goal, namely to get rid of the Armenian element or to reduce the number of the Armenian population so as they did not form a majority anywhere. Getting rid of the Armenians, the Ottoman authorities gained territory for the survival of their state, which would be predominantly inhabited by Turks.

In the summer of 1919, the Armenian government tried to resolve the internal issue of
suppressing the divisive movements of the Turkish-Tatar population through diplomacy. On
that occasion, RA Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs A. Khatisyan twice
addressed a telegram to the President of the Paris Assembly G. Clemenceau in August, 1919.
Soon after that, U.S. Army Colonel William Haskell, who was appointed High Commissioner
of Armenia on July 5, 1919 by the “Five Councils” of the Paris Assembly approved by G.
Clemenceau, arrived in Armenia. On August 23, 1919, W. Haskell left for Baku to settle the
Sharur-Nakhichevan issue with the Azerbaijani government. On August 29, 1919, without
consulting the Republic of Armenia, he signed a “Neutral Zone” Agreement consisting of 21
Articles on Sharur-Daralagez and Nakhichevan with the Prime Minister of Azerbaijan Nasib
bey Usubbeyov, which completely contradicted his promises given to Armenians in Yerevan.
According to the Agreement, Zangezur, Nakhichevan and Sharur-Daralagez were handed over
to Azerbaijan. W. Haskell's comprehensible note was discussed in the RA Parliament and the
Government sittings of September 3 and 6, 1919. As a result, an Agreement was signed
between the Prime Ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan, A. Khatisyan and N. Usubbeyov,
American Colonel James Ray, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Interim President of Georgia E.
Gegechkori on November 23, 1919 in Tbilisi.

The article addresses the manifestations of genocidal policies by the Kemalists in the
territory of Alexandrapol province during 1920-1921. It is based on the analysis of the
accounts of eyewitness-survivors and their generations. The oral materials were obtained as a
result of ethnographic and folkloric field research and observations, as well as archival
materials, press materials pertaining those years and professional literature. Relevant memoirs
of the eyewitness-survivors retained by the Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute were also
studied. References are made to the genocidal actions of the Kemalists against the Armenian
civilian population, the forms of massacre execution, and, especially, the goals they pursued.
The relevance of the study at the current stage of the recognition and condemnation of the
Armenian Genocide, and the resolution of the Armenian Question is that it points out to the
continuation of the Armenian Genocide in the Eastern Armenia. This is the continuation of our
ethnographic study, this time in the Shirak plain. Horrendous Turkish massacres were executed
in the villages located on the slopes of the Pambak mountain range – both in the Shirak plain
and the Pambak valley. We have made a comparative analysis of the actions of the Turkish
army in the provinces of Gharakilisa and Alexandrapol

Karabakh conflict, stereotypes as barriers to an adequate understanding of the conflict
On the example of the Karabakh conflict, the article examines the role that key concepts
have in the formation of the image of the conflict and an adequate understanding of its essence.
Parallels are drawn between the meanings of those concepts which are scientifically grounded
and the ones which are spontaneously rooted in the public consciousness. The thesis is
substantiated by the fact that concepts that do not meet the criteria of objectivity and are not
involved in the negotiation process of a politicized conflict distort their essence and become
barriers to a fair settlement. The thesis is substantiated by the example of the concept of
“refugees”.

Hovhannes Draskhanakerttsi, a famous Armenian historian of the 10th century, wrote a
complete history of Armenia, presenting the period of the first quarter of the 10th century.
While writing about certain religious or state figures, particularly of 7th-8th centuries, in addition to manuscript sources and ancient folkloric evidences, the author independently used
widely memorized stories, folk and church tales and by historicizing them, certainly sought and
wished to personalize, sanctify, and present his sympathetic historical heroes more perfectly.
These valuable stories of folklore origin, due to the author’s comments, have an impressive
fiction style and high literary value.

One can distinguish principles of symbol usage in the medieval Armenian lyric poetry, by
means of preservation of primary perception of evangelical sign, as well as reinterpretation of
the already known symbol. Symbolism of early medieval poetry inherited the philosophical
religious symbolic thinking of previous eras and was changed by the appropriate solutions of
the given period, likewise the symbolic system of late medieval lyric poetry acquired a
compositional character including symbols of the early Middle Ages, Renaissance, as well as
those of a new way of thinking of folk songs and was manifested by individual means of
expressiveness created by the medieval lyricist.

The topic under discussion led to the following conclusions. Riddles hold an insignificant
part among the multifaceted works of 17th-18th-century author from New Julfa Stepanos
Dashtents; however, their study is important in Armenian pamphlet context. In literature, after
Nerses Shnorhali, Stepanos Dashtents was the one who continued the classic traditions of
oblivious pamphlets, not just duplicating, but also transmitting new form and content to the
genre. Thematically Stepanos Dashtents’s riddles bear secular character, they have educational
value, they describe the phenomena of nature, household and technical scientific novelties,
which the author presented objectively, with clear and simple summaries. These subjective
features also refer to Stepanos Dashtents’s linguistic aspect, which might be considered
impolite from aesthetic point of view, but are common and relevant to the readers of his time -
the merchants of New Julfa.

This article discusses the theoretical issues of Hagop Oshakan’s “Death Flowers” series.
Special reference is made to the peculiarities of the genre, as well as to the writer-reader
relationship. Oshakanean understandings of the role of the artist, literature and the author’s
style are presented herein. Particular attention is paid to the theoretical-aesthetic provisions of
“Mehyan” magazine, the layers of Greek mythology, and the manifestations of myths. The
relations with the aesthetics of symbolism, literary currents and directions of the turn of the
century are considered as well.

There is an interesting image unit in Bakunts’s aesthetic system – the color, which takes
on a multi-layered philosophical spectrum in storytelling becoming a means of expressing the
author’s worldview and ideologies. The color in Bakunts’s narrative has a wide spectrum of
symbolization, which in numerous semantic flows reaches ideological varieties, where the
author’s bio-thinking, worldview approaches, as well as ways of uncovering and valuing hu-
man relations are revealed. The implicit meanings conveyed by the author through colors
become the foundation of Bakunts’s biophilosophy. The variety of color sounds and coloring in
Bakunts’s color perception creates interesting imagery developments, which are studied in the
article.

The famous Armenian poet of the second half of the XX century Vahagn Davtyan often
used the genres of medieval Armenian literature in his poems. In the 1980s he wrote two
poems in which he adopted the structure of colophons of Armenian ancient manuscripts. The
poem “Colophon of the Nameless Scribe” is written entirely in the stylistic genre of colophon.
The medieval Armenian scribe wrote the colophon of the “History of Armenia” by Movses
Khorenatsi at the end of his reproduction of the manuscript. The poem depicts the events of the
XIII-XIV centuries, especially the Mongol invasions, which are often found in medieval
colophons. V. Davtyan wrote the colophon in verse, but he used prosaic colophons as sources
as well. In the next poem – “Momik”, telling the story of Momik’s sudden blindness, the
colophon written by the famous medieval scribe, artist, and architect Momik himself is used as
a source.

Disagreements over the existence and use of different forms of the three tenses in
question (հարակատար + չէ // չի + հարակատար; մի՛ գրեք // մի՛ գրեցեք; չպիտի գրի
// պիտի չգրի) lead to a preference for one or the other form, or one of the options is selected.
Research, which is largely based on the statistics of the use of the mentioned forms in written
and oral speech (according to the data of Արեւակ), “comes” to the following conclusions: a) in
the modern Eastern Armenian language the third person singular of the (participle + եմ)
paradigm can also be expressed by (չի + participle) with the auxiliary preceding the participle,
and the latter should be accepted as a canonical variant, and parallelly used with the regular
(participle + չէ) paradigm; b) the versions (մի՛ գրեք//մի՛ գրեցեք) discussed in the plural
paradigm of the modern Armenian prohibitive imperative should be fixed as optional; of course, the present tense formations should be considered as preferred options; c) in the compulsive mood, in structures with modals «պիտի and պետք է», where the forms with «պիտի» have an incomparably active use, unconditionally prevail with the negative modal
(չպիտի գնա, չպիտի խոսի, չպիտի երգի) and not with the negative verb formations
(պիտի չգնա, պիտի չխոսի, պիտի չերգի). Therefore, considering both optional canons as
normal, preference should be given to the version with a negative modal.

St. Grigor Tatevatsi (1346-1409) found resemblances bet-
ween a human being and God, the universe, the city, the farmstead and the garden, which
allowed him to present his understandings of a human being in a broader context. In essence,
each simulation is an act of self-knowledge, which reveals new aspects of human nature,
essence and activity. Godlikeness demonstrates the greatness of man, his unique status in
creation, his superiority over other creatures, cosmos-likeliness of the human being – the
natural and functional correspondence of Big and Small universes, the “consanguinity” of
cosmic beings and men. The simulation of the city demonstrates the vertical and horizontal
relations between the parts of the human soul and the inner forces of man. By likening the man
to the field and the garden, it is shown that the man, as a moral being, is obliged to think about
both his earthly and heavenly life, that is, to make the right choice (in line with the spirit of
religious commandments) between good and evil. Although all the resemblances are based on
the principles of religious anthropology, each of them has a certain direction. The resemblance
of the man to God is mostly religious and philosophical, the resemblance to the universe is
naturalistic, the resemblance to the city is epistemological and socio-psychological, and the
resemblance to the farmstead and the garden is predominantly socio-moral.