Vol. 2 No. 23 (2021): 2021-2

The 2020 Artsakh war, which resumed on September 27, initially caught the attention of
the international community, and hours later it appeared in the official press of Russia. On
September 30, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation S. V. Lavrov had
telephone conversations with the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Armenia and Azerbaijan, in
the context of which the Russian side expressed serious concern over the ongoing large-scale
hostilities. Russia played a commendable role in the sense that Turkey has not played a
decisive role in the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict to this day. The publications
on the ceasefire agreement signed between the Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia, the
President of Azerbaijan and the President of Russia on the night of November 9-10 are
available on V. V. Putin’s, as well as S. V. Lavrov’s websites. The Artsakh issue and its
peaceful settlement have been and, in all probability, will remain on the agenda of Russia’s
foreign policy for a long time. It is noteworthy that Russian (K. Kalle) and Western (J. J. Coil)
researchers have already referred to the 2020 44-day war in their publications, some of which
are of special interest from the geopolitical, diplomatic and political-military point of view.

In 385, after the death of Commander (Sparapet) Manvel Mamikonyan, the Armenian
military-political elite split, taking advantage of which in 387 Rome and Persia divided Greater
Armenia among themselves. The Mamikonian ruling family was actively involved in the
events. Samvel, Artavazd and Hamazasp Mamikonyans were on the political arena during the
last period of the Arsacid Dynasty. Samvel Mamikonyan, who was an ardent supporter of
Arshak III, moved to Byzantium after his death. Artavazd Mamikonyan took part in the battle
of Zarehavan, but there is no other information about the latter’s activities in the historical
sources. For many years Hamazasp Mamikonyan ruled the Military Department
(Sparapetutyun) of the Eastern Armenian Kingdom (389-415), trying to unite the scattered
ministerial military forces. But finally in 428, Armenian statehood was destroyed in the eastern
part of Greater Armenia.

The end of the IX century in the history of Armenia was marked by the restoration of the
kingdom, which was destroyed four and a half centuries ago. The restoration of the kingdom
led by the Bagratuni was the result of the united struggle of all strata of the Armenian people. It
was implemented with the active support of the Armenian Church, which sought to get rid of
the religious intolerance and persecution of foreigners. In cooperation with Ashot I Bagratuni,
Gevorg II Garnetsi, within the limits of his spiritual and political competence, improved
relations between the Armenian princes and, through an intermediary mission, created an
atmosphere of relative solidarity in the country. Confirming the high position of the Armenian
Church in the state, Patriarch Gevorg actively participated in solving foreign and domestic
political issues of the country. For the sake of the country’s security and prevention of
bloodshed, the noble spiritual leader repeatedly faced imminent dangers and endured untold
sufferings. Gevorg Garnetsi organized and headed the coronation of alternating kings, Ashot I
and Smbat I Bagratuni, strengthened the spiritual and legal basis of their rule. Enthroned as
Catholicos, the Armenian Patriarch consecrated and legitimized Bagratuni's rule, thereby
emphasizing the idea that the restoration of the kingdom is not a gift from foreign rulers, but
the result of the struggle of the active forces of Armenia.

The work is dedicated to the history of the relations between the Armenian Kingdom of
Cilicia and the Sultanate of Egypt. The article begins with the detailed discussion of the battle
which took place near the Mari Pass in 1266 between Cilician Armenia and the Sultanate of
Egypt. In particular, it examines the problem when this clash exactly took place and who led
the Armenian army. Further, we have tried to find out the number of enemy troops, as well as
the details of the battle using the information from a number of historical sources. At the end of
the work we have revealed the reasons of the defeat of the Armenian army.

The article analyzes the relations between the First Republic of Armenia and the Soviet
and non-Soviet (anti-Bolshevik) state formations in the first (June-November 1918) and second
(December 1918 to April 1920) stages of the republic’s existence. In the period from June 1918
to April 1920, the relations of the Republic of Armenia with Russia were on the way of
overcoming huge difficulties. They were conditioned both by the cof the period and by the
serious political processes taking place in the Republic of Armenia and Russia.

Die Dr. Lepsius deutsche Orient-Mission traf im Jahr 1924 die Entscheidung, ein Waisen-
werk in Libanon zu begründen. Da damals von Frankreich in dem nach dem Friedenschluss
ihm zugefallenen Mandatsgebiet eine Zulassung deutscher Hilfsarbeit nicht zu erwarten war,
könnte eine Hilfsarbeit deutscher Organisationen dort erst im Anschluss an die jeweils politisch
nicht behinderten internationalen Werke geschehen. Die Missionsgesellschaft schloss sich
daher der großen internationalen Organisation des Near East Relief an und übernahm einen
Anteil der Kosten für 400 Waisenkinder, die ihr alter Mitarbeiter, Jakob Künzler, in Ghasir auf
dem Libanon im Dienst des NER betreute. Bis 1928 gestaltete sich die Zusammenarbeit mit
dem NER dergestalt, dass die Missionsgesellschaft für eine Hälfte der Unterhaltungskosten für
die Kinder, nämlich für die Beköstigung und Kleidung – in einer Kostenleistung von 240 M.
jährlich – sorgte, während die andere Hälfte bzw. die ärztliche Pflege, Unterricht und
Verwaltung vom NER getragen wurden. An der Arbeit im Waisenhaus, die sich über die
Waisenpflege hinaus auf die Bildung und Erziehung der Kinder bezog, nahmen das Ehepaar
Kavoukdjyan sowie Paul Gerhard Demniz und andere Armenierfreunde teil. Im Aufsatz ist die
im betreffenden Zeitraum im Waisenhaus von Ghasir, das später nach Kessab bzw. Kaja-Punar
übersiedelte, geleistete Arbeit eingehend erleuchtet und dargestellt worden.

The article is dedicated to the Armenian community of Argentina in 1950s, the
resettlement of Armenians to Argentina, the cities where many Armenians lived and their
approximate numbers. The process of formation of the Armenian community and community
organizations in Argentina is described. The article also refers to the religious trends that
existed in the Armenian diaspora of Argentina, as well as the significant role of the Armenian
Apostolic Church in the life of the Armenians in Argentina. The article refers to the Armenian
schools, community organizations and press, the spheres in which the majority of Armenians
living in Argentina were active. All the issues existing in the Armenian community of
Argentina are discussed.

Tavush fortress is located in the southeastern part of Berd city. The monument was one of
the important fortifications of the region, which is often mentioned by medieval historians,
especially in listing important fortifications of medieval Tavush. To this day, on the territory of
the ancient fortress the northern walls of the citadel built on a rocky hill, some parts of the
walls of the lower fortress and the church of Holy Mother on the eastern slope can be seen. The
article is devoted to the previous studies of Tavush fortress, to the research of written sources,
and also to the preliminary results of new archaeological excavations carried out in 2020.
Further study of the archaeological material will make it possible to characterize the
chronological boundaries of the monument, the construction and restoration work and the
historical course of the castle in more detail.

The article presents the problem of the author of the Armenian medieval hymn from the
point of view of presenting the biblical text, expressing personal feelings, and the way of
artistic reproduction of the presented material. The canonical content of the anthems and the
previously accepted “template” determine the author’s attitude in the content and expressions
of the text. In the hymns of a glorious nature, the author’s attitude is significant in the case of
the correlation between biblical canon, national and historical material, while in the hymns of a
repentant nature, the author’s personal feelings, his direct “presence” as an acting character are
significant. According to these distinctions, the author’s problem is presented in three main
aspects:
1. The author’s task in expressing the biblical text through hymns,
2. The role of the author in hymns containing national-historical texts,
3. Expressing the author’s personal feelings in the hymns.

The pages of Abovyan’s memoir literature combine both personal memories, experiences
and their artistic incarnations. Personal life stories are sometimes expressed by different artistic
techniques (image, plot, narrative). In the Dorpat Diaries, the writer combines the peculiarities
of letters, personal memories, travel notes and memoirs, in one case referring to a specific
reader, and in the other, composing a very personal text. Unlike diaries, travel notes are written
to be read. Placing a real journey on the axis of content, Abovyan weaves mock and imaginary
features into the plot, which determines its inter-genre character

The artistic image of the rye field, as a stage of literary dialogue, has brought together
three talented authors – R. Burns, V. Saroyan, and J. D. Salinger. This point of the path of
human existence – the rye field, as a stage of literary dialogue of the three writers – expands
the light course of the trajectory of its path becoming a symbol of human existence. In R.
Burns’s work the rye field as a geographical reality is visible. In poetic speech it takes on a
philosophical space, whereas in the works of V. Saroyan and J. D. Salinger it is not depicted as
a geographical reality, it is only an imagery field, concentrated in the inner layers of the image
with peculiar symbolic accents. The rye field, as a stage of literary dialogue, creates an
interesting philosophical space of thoughts and ideologies for the three authors, where the
unique worldview layers of each author become visible.

Along with the development of literary language, over time inconsistencies arose between
the patterns of the normative grammar in the existing textbooks and in the literary language in
use. This is expressed at all levels of the language. These changes are significant in the verbal
system. The article presents the shifts in the morphological norm of modern literary Eastern
Armenian language, in particular, the discrepancies between the grammatical-morphological
norm recorded in the two textbooks used in the higher education system and the realities used
in the living language. Our observations are supported by linguistic factual material, which is
mainly taken from written sources posted on the Arevak website.

The article shows that St. Grigor Tatevatsi (1346-1409) saw no contradiction between the
apophatic (God is unrecognizable and unnamable) and cataphatic (God is recognizable and
namable) ways of theophany, because he believed, first, that the names which were attributed
to God did not discover God’s essence, but referred to the His essence, His works. Secondly,
the cataphatic was the basis of the highest form of theophany – the apophatic. Tatevatsi’s
doctrine, by conventionally distinguishing God’s names into philosophical and religious-
theological entities, showed that in case of philosophical entities, God was treated as an
essence (being), as a prime-cause and prime-mover, as a necessary and exert being, whose
predicates were simplicity, intangibility, sameness, eternity, inalterability, etc., while in case of
religious-theological ones God was treated as an absolute Person, Creator, Father, Judge,
attributed with will and intellect, wisdom, love, justice, truth, graciousness, benignancy,
mercifulness, perfection, etc. In fact, in Tatevatsi’s doctrine the philosophical and religious-
theological entities of God’s names, although different, complement each other creating a full
depiction of God.

The work is based on the origin of Tsat tribe and their relation problems with Armenians.
The facts revealed that tsats are the ancestors of gypsies: chalcedons, which partially
assimilated with Armenians, Greeks completely losing their national identity. On one hand it is
emphasized, that the theories of scientists, who considers tsat tribe Armenians are bacically
based on assumptions, and on the other hand illustrated the century of the process of
assimilation with Armenians.

The article presents the opinions and assessments of the day of sovietization of Armenia
in Soviet, Post-Soviet and Diasporian historiography. The authors representing these three
groups have covered and assessed both the issue of the sovietization of Armenia and the day of the sovietization of Armenia. While there was a consensus in Soviet-Armenian historiography
on considering November 29 as the day of Armenia’s sovietization, there is no such common
opinion in the historiography of the Diaspora and the period of independence. In addition to
presenting these views and evaluations in the article, we have also tried to clarify the confusion
created around the day of Armenia’s sovietization.

The history of 1909 Armenian massacres in Cilicia is reflected in the archival documents
of the foreign policy of various countries, including the Russian Empire. Here the author found
some interesting documents in Russian and French, which were mainly addressed by Russian
diplomats to the heads of Russian diplomacy, in particular the Minister of Foreign Affairs of
the Russian Empire A. P. Izvolsky and his colleague N. V. Charikov. These documents prove
that the Armenian massacres were organized by Abdul-Hamid II in order to prevent the
intention of his enemies, namely the Young Turks to overthrow him.