Articles

Permanent URI for this collection

https://haigrepository.haigazian.edu.lb/handle/123456789/42

Browse

Now showing 1 - 20 of 801

Համաստեղին ուղղուած նորայայտ նամակներ
(2017) Վարդան Մատթէոսեան
The files of Armenian-American writer Hamasdegh (Hampartzum Gelenian, 1895-1966) were organized by fellow writer and close friend Aram Haigaz (Chekemian, 1900-1986) in 1971, and later delivered to the Museum of Literature and Art, "Yeghishe Charents" of Yerevan, during Soviet times. However, some items, mostly letters, were not included in the delivery due to their sensitive nature at the time. Hamasdegh was a member of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, as well as some of his correspondents, and the undelivered letters, in Haigaz's view, were of a highly subjective nature as they depicted the party or some of its members in an unfair way. In the end, the cache of letters - some of them apparently lost in the process - reached the archives of the Eastern Prelacy of the Armenian Apostolic Church (New York). Our examination of these documents allowed us select ten letters that, in spite of some controversial or inflammatory characterizations, were suitable for publication given their value as a source of information. The present publication includes annotated letters written to Hamasdegh by Rouben Darbinian (1888-1968), political activist and editor in chief of Hairenik Publications; Gostan Zarian (1885-1969), writer; Dertad Kazanjian (1895-1966), political activist; Rouben Ter Minassian (1882-1951), political activist and former Interior Minister of the first Republic of Armenia; Simon Vratzian (1883-1969), political activist and former Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia; Krikor Chahinian (1930-2009), literary critic; and Papken Papazian (1915-1990), political activist.
Անտիպ փաստաթուղթեր Կիլիկեան կոտորածներու օրերուն Քիլիսի հայութեան իրավիճակին մասին
(2017) Միհրան Մինասեան
Very little is known about the hardships and massacres the Kilis Armenians faced during the Adana Massacres of 1909. Though the town itself was not attacked, at least nine Kilis Armenians who were out of the town were attacked and killed. In addition, the neighborhood and the surrounding Armenian villages and towns were attacked and many Armenians were killed, villages burnt and belongings looted. The documents, eight letters in total, were written between May and August 1909, and all are addressed to Father Shahe Kasbarian, the vice-prelate of Aleppo. Seven of the letters were written by Fr. Vartan Tovmassian, the vice-prelate of the town of Kilis.
Արշակ Չօպանեանի եւ Լեւոն Բաշալեանի նամակները Արփիար Արփիարեանին
(2017) Հայկ Աւագեան
Sultan Abdul Hamid used the occupation of the Ottoman Bank by Armenian revolutionaries as a pretext to persecute Armenian national and cultural figures in Constantinople and give the green light to extensive massacres in the Armenian Vilayets. Indeed, the era 1896 to 1908 is considered the most repressive of Abdul Hamid's regime. Several Armenian political figures fled the Empire and settled in Europe, particularly in France and Great Britain, while others resumed their anti-oppression activities from Egypt. Among these figures was Arpiar Arpiarian (1851, Constantinople-1908, Cairo), a western Armenian author, editor, publisher and a renowned revolutionary member of the Social Democratic Hunchak Party. The letters, dated 1896 and 1897, are addressed to him by two of his revolutionary friends, Arshag Chobanian and Levon Pashalian. The letters are just a few in a bundle of letters addressed to Arpiarian. They discuss matters related to the propagation of the Armenian cause in Europe, pro-Armenian sympathy in Europe, and issues of collaboration with dissident young Turks; they also reflect the life and concerns of Armenian nationals living in exile.
Ժխտողականութեան դրսեւորումներն Ալեքսանդրապոլի գաւառում 1918-1921՝ թուրքական ռազմակալումների շրջանում
(2017) Կարինէ Ալեքսանեան
The research looks for the roots of Turkish denialism of the events of 1918-1921 and examines whether it has its offshoots in the current Turkish denialist policies. In the context of the Turkish genocidal policy against the Eastern Armenians during 1918-1921, the study of Turkish denialism clarifies the nature of Turkish-Armenian relations. Furthermore, it sheds light on the roots which nurture current Turkish denialism. In this paper the author addresses how Turkish denialist policy tried to align Turkish interests with superpower interests, claim support of Armenian interests and pose Turks as liberators of Armenians, blame Armenians for the brutalities commited against Muslim Turks, and generate contradictions and divide the Armenian polity while denying them the ability to resist. Moreover, in order to erase its fingerprints from the 1915 Genocide, Turkish denialist policy attempted to annihilate the decimated Western Armenian refugees who had taken refuge in Eastern Armenia. Moreover, during their occupation of the District of Alexandrapole, the Turkish authorities tried to win the confidence of the local population through popular diplomacy and creation of local government agencies to give legitimacy to Turkish misdeeds. Such methods would enable them to further their policy of brutalities against and lootings of Armenians by discrete and legitimate means, though taking every measure to exterminate them. The author concludes that the major objective of these policies was to make the sustainability of any Armenian statehood impossible.
Հարիւրամեայ շփոթ. Կոմիտասի քուրդ երաժշտութեան թեզը
(2017) Մարինէ Մուշեղեան
The art of Komitas plays a central role in the history of Armenian music. His biography and his musical and musicological works have been relatively well studied. There are, however, certain issues which are understudied and have been circulating for decades now in the media and in certain professional circles. One of these issues is the baseless claim that Komitas wrote a graduation thesis, a claim which misrepresents some details of his biography and research work. The author tackled this issue through a deep and thorough investigation in the archives of the University of Berlin, where Komitas studied musicology. The extensive research in the archives and registers of the University of Berlin produced no evidence whatsoever of such a document and thus brought the author to the conclusion that Komitas had not written any dissertation in the University of Berlin and accordingly had not defended any thesis on Kurdish music.
Կիլիկիոյ Ազարիա Կարկառեցու հակաթոռութեան թուականը (ԺԷ-ԺԸ. դդ.) (ըստ Հալէպի Շարիա դատարանի արաբերէն արձանագրութեան)
(2017) Վեներա Մակարեան
Aleppo is the second largest and oldest prelacy of the Catholicosate of Cilicia, which has its seat in Sis. Between 1660 and the 1920s Aleppo became the administrative and religious centre of the Catholicosate, with its prelacy located at the Holy Forty Martyrs Church. In the 17th century a new wave of unrest started in the Catholicosate due to internal disagreements, as well as the spreading of Catholicism. These developments eventually led to the emergence of a rival seat of Cilicia in the prelacy of Aleppo. The first rival Catholicos was Petros Karkaretsi, who challenged the office of Hovhannes IV Ayntaptsi, the Catholicos of Sis (1601-1621). The challenge was repeated by David Beriatsi during the Catholicosate of Khachatur Gaghatatsi (Sebastatsi) (1657-1674). No clear information is available about the dates of Sahak Meykhanedji, Catholicos of Cilicia and his rival, Azaria Karkaretsi (1677-1683). Basing her statement on the Aleppo Sharia court's Arabic document preserved in Mashtots Matenadaran, and with further proof from adjunct-Catholicos Babken A. Kyuleserian's, Fr. Mikayel Chamchian's, and Archb. Malakia Ormanian's studies, the author resolves the existing discrepancy regarding their datesin office.
Հայկական վերածնունդ (ժամանակը եւ առանձնայատկութիւնները)
(2017) Դաւիթ Գասպարեան
Basing his comments on the European definition and experience of the Renaissance, the author highlights and compares the views of several Armenian philologists, including Manoug Apeghian, Megerdich Megerian, Vazken Chaloyan, Hrant Tamrazian and Jenya Kalantarian on the Armenian Renaissance. He refutes their statements on the Armenain renaissance, which they claim, paralleled or preceded the European renaissance. The author notes that the European renaissance was defined as a reconnection with the classical Greek and Latin after a long break. He argues that the Armenians did not have a break with their past so did not reconnect during the European renaissance. The author claims that the Armenian renaissance took place at a later stage and was the result of the cultural activities of the Mekhitarist congregation (late 17th century), who reconnected to the detached past and revived it through contemporary research, textbooks, translations, etc.
Սուրբ Գրքի հայերէն թարգմանութեան խնդիրը եւ Մաշտոցի դերը այդ գործում
(2017) Փառանձեմ Մէյթիխանեան
The article focuses on the translation of the Holy Bible into Armenian after the invention of the Armenian alphabet. The author notes that the Bible had three translations. The first two were partial and hastily conducted translations, while the third one was completed after 433 AD and was designated "Sahak-Mesrop's original Vosgeghenik".
Բազմաձեւ գրուող բառեր (Ա - Ծ)
(2017) Արմենակ Եղիայեան
The author highlights a number of words with different spellings in contemporary Western Armenian. Based on various Western and Eastern Armenian dictionaries, the author speculates why these have different spellings and when they started having diverse spellings. The author analyses the different spellings of these words based on diverse criteria, like the existence (or non-existence) of similar suffixes/prefixes, shifts of pronunciations of certain letters, or historical changes in the meaning of the word, and suggests a unified/single spelling for each word with an eye to unified spelling with contemporary Eastern Armenian.
Թուրք-հայկական յարաբերութիւնները Թուրքիայի տարածաշրջանային քաղաքականութեան ենթախորքում (մինչեւ 2008 Օգոստոսի ռուս-վրացական «հնգօրեայ պատերազմ»ը)
(2017) Գրիգոր Արշակեան
In the November 2002 legislative elections the pro-Islamic Turkish justice and Development party won the race and brought in significant changes to Turkey's domestic and foreign policies. Certain positive developments were observed in the Armenian-Turkish relations, which led to dissatisfaction among both the Azeri authorities and the public. To calm Azeri concerns, Turkish authorities announced that there were no changes in Turkish foreign policy and that Ankara would never take steps against the will of the Azeri people. In fact, it was the US government who showed great interest in the normalization of Armeno-Turkish relations. In fact, the Armenian-Turkish Reconciliation Committee was formed with the support of the US government. In parallel, the Turkish authorities continued in their Armenian Genocide denialist policy. This policy was supported by the ruling Turkish party, the nationalist opposition in parliament, the State Security Council, and research and analytical centers which functioned in the state system. The paper discusses basic aspects of the Armenian policy conducted by the Turkish authorities between 2002 and 2008. It touches upon the geopolitical factors and expectations of such a policy, the reasons behind the anti-Armenian Azeri stance, and the steps taken in that direction. The paper analyzes as well the most important factors for Turkish Denialism and the steps adopted to enhance this policy with fresh, new approaches.
Փաստը որպէս դրամատիկական հիմք Ուիլիըմ Սարոյեանի «Հայկական եռագրութիւն» թատերախաղերում
(2017) Անուշ Ասլիբէկեան
In 1986, five years after the death of William Saroyan, "Armenian Trilogy" ("Armenians" (1971), "Bitlis" (1975) and "Haraj" (1979) was taken from Saroyan's manuscripts and published by the efforts of Prof. Dickran Kouymjian. These were translated into Armenian and published in 2008. These plays are a revelation in the literary heritage of Saroyan not only in terms of open and quite bold statements concerning Armenian identity and the Armenian question but also in terms of form and structure. Saroyan called these plays "plays about Armenians". In determining the genre of these plays, the author observes them in the post-modern context and highlights distinctive features of contemporary documentary drama in the plays. The author notes that in staging these plays directors may need to make use of features of documentary theater.
Լեւոն Շանթի «Հին աստուածներ»ը եւ եւրոպական թատերգութիւնը
(2017) Վաչագան Գրիգորեան
The author analyzes why Levon Shant's play, Hin Asdvadzner (Old Gods), written in the early 20th century, bought him unexpectable fame and appreciation. He argues that the play was an absolute novelty in every sense of the word, compared to past and contemporary Armenian plays. The author notes that the innovations which characterised the play were not inspired by the legacy of Armenian plays and must have had a different source. Accordingly, Grigoryan explores the plays of a number of leading European playwrights of the late 19th and early 20th century, including Henrik Ibsen, Knut Hamsun, Gerhart Hauptmann, Moris Meterlink, and Johan Strindberg. He compares the features of their plays and finds similarities between some of their features and those of Shant's Hin Asdvadzner.
Հայոց ցեղասպանութեան եւ վերապրումի թեման Դերենիկ Դեմիրճեանի ստեղծագործութիւններում
(2017) Կարինէ Ռաֆայէլեան
Derenik Demirchyan has always been solicitous of the Armenian people's fate and has written about it. WWI and the Armenian Genocide have not been an exception. Indeed, these have been reflected in Demirchyan's literary works, though the geography and chronology of the said catastrophes are not often clearly defined. The study highlights Demirchyan's works which speak about the tragedy and its consequences. The author names the specific stories where Demirchyan emphasized these tragedies: "Avelorte" (The Redundant), "Jepite" (The Smile), "Asttso Tane" (In the House of God), and "Girk Tzaghkants" (the Book of Flowers). The author notes that Demirchyan touched upon the subject prior to the Sovietization of Armenia and after the 1950s, as in the essay "The Armenian" (written in the 1920s) and the unfinished note called "Reflections on the Nagorno Karabakh and Nakhichevan issues" (written in the 1950s). In these two essays, Demirchyan more or less overtly speaks about the Armenian Genocide, without using the G word. He describes the catastrophe as a bloody conflict, massacre and depopulation. In this publication we have made an attempt to reveal a few manifestations reflected in his works.
Համօ Օհանջանեանի նամակները Զօր Քէյսիի եւ Դրոյի (Բ. Համաշխարհային պատերազմի շրջան)
(2017) Զաւէն Մսըրլեան
During WWII, when the fate of the battle of Stalingrad was still undecided, the Soviet Armenian poet Avedik Issahakian submitted an article entitled "The Adventurers..." to the Armenian Diaspora media, accusing ARF party leaders Alexander Khadissian, Tro Ganayan and Ardashes Apeghian of collaborating with the Nazis. Months later, after the Nazis had surrendered in Stalingrad, Hamo Ohanjanian, a former prime minister of the first Republic of Armenia (1918-1920) and a leading member of the Tashnag Party Bureau, replied to Issahakian in an open letter, arguing that he had offered no proof and that the said leaders had neither uttered a word in favor of Hitler, nor signed any document, nor made any declarations. Facts on the ground were different, however The Armenian National Council, led by Apeghian, had signed a document on February 15, 1943 calling for the liberation of Armenia from Soviet rule and for the political autonomy of Armenia under the protection of the Third Reich. In their publication, Azad Hayastan (Free Armenia), Apeghian had written a leading article on this subject. News spread about the formation of national legions, including an Armenian legion. There were conflicting reports on the involvement of Tro, who had a team of 65 to 120 collaborators. Thus, Ohanjanian, wrote a letter to the British Minister of State, Richard Casey, dated July 15, 1943. Ohanjanian reminded Casey that the Party supported the Allied cause and reiterated that position, announcing that in the Nazi occupied European countries, where 150,000 Armenians resided, the Tashnag newspapers, chapters, and lecture halls had all ceased functioning, that there had been no formation of an Armenian Legion, and that the Armenian broadcast from Berlin Radio only gave news and no political speeches. It mentioned Goring's decree where had said Armenians were inimical to Germans. Furthermore, in the letter Ohanjanian requested that an accompanying letter addressed to Tro be dispatched to a party member either in Paris or Bucharest. The said letter was in Armenian and forbade Tro from undertaking any collaboration. A commentary on both letters by British Col. Simson's indicated that, despite London's denial of the receipt of a letter dated July 6, 1941 which assured Tashnag party supoort to the Allies, that letter indeed had been sent and the Tashnag party had remained faithful towards the Allies. However, London had decided to cut all ties with the Tashnag party so as not to arouse the suspicions of Turkey and USSR. Simson noted that the main reason for Ohanjanian's letter was the undisciplined actions of some individuals in the occupied European territories. There were unconfirmed reports in October 1942 that Ganayan and Khadissian were collaborating with the Germans. As the political section of British intelligence had given its orders, the Minister of State did not reply to the letter, but did send it to London. These documents are being published for the first time, with comments on some of the matters raised by both letters.
Արցախի փակուած թեմի պատմութիւնից (1933-1988)
(2017) Տ. Ներսէս Քահանայ Ասրեան
After the closure of the Artsakh Diocese in 1933 the spiritual and political problems of Artsakh remained in the center of attention of the Catholicosate of Etchmiadzin. Etchmiadzin also tried to revive church life and reclaim churches in Nagorno Karabakh both through sending priests to Artsakh and through the clergy of the Diocese of Baku and Turkestan, but to no avail. After the meeting of Archbishop Gevorg Chorekchyan with Joseph Stalin on April 19, 1945, the Soviet authorities' pressure on the Armenian Church was reduced, and some closed churches were reopened. Thanks to the efforts of the Prelate of Baku and Turkestan, Fr. Vardges Grigoryan, in 1945 the Martakert Surp Hovhannu Garabed Church was reopened. The church, however, was closed and reopened several times during 1955 and 1956. Eventually, the lack of a priest and the difficult conditions created by the Azeri authorities led to the closure of the church. Later on it was converted to a cinema. The Azeri authorities prevented all further attempts to reopen churches and send clergy to Artsakh. In 1957 Catholicos Vazgen I paid a three-day pastoral visit to Artsakh. This was an exceptional visit during the Soviet period, and a very important event, which gave new impetus to the reclamation of the churches of Artsakh. In addition, the Catholicos raised the issue of the unification of Artsakh with Soviet Armenia. These issues, however, remained unaddressed by the Soviet authorities. In order to fully eliminate Armenians and any traces of the Armenian Church from the Autonomous Region of Nagorno Karabagh, throughout the 1950 and 1960s the Azeri authorities continued to destroy the spiritual and cultural heritage of the Artsakh diocese through vandalism and barbarity on a large scale. They also rewrote the history of the region, claiming Azeri ancestry for the natives of the region and integrating them into Azeri history. For the natives of Artsakh the 1988 national liberation movement was the only way to restore and preserve national identity, the right to freedom of conscience and religion. Mainly using unpublished archival documents and material, the author sheds light on the history of the Diocese during these difficult decades.
Նախիջեւանն ըստ Մ. Նահանգների պետքարտուղարութեան եւ Հայաստանի ազգային արխիւի փաստաթղթերի (1918-1920)
(2017) Գայիանէ Մախմուրեան
The paper focuses on the basic turning points in the fate of Nakhidjevan Province, which was made part of the Armenian Oblast in 1828. The article, using new archival materials from the US State Department, particularly highlights the battles which led to the destruction of the Armenian villages of the province and the killing of thousands of Armenians as the province changed hands between the Armenians and local Muslims, who outnumbered the native Armenians. The paper details the involvement of British, Soviet and Turkish forces in the area, the Republic of Armenia, and both the local Muslims and the native Armenians, all trying to grab this strategic piece of land. Eventually, between 12 and 15 July 1920 the Armenian army moved forth, and the Muslims recognized Sharur-Nakhidjevan as part of the Armenian Republic. However, the entrance of the Red Army into the region on July 28, the unsuccessful Soviet Armenian negotiations in Moscow and the war launched by Mustafa Kemal against the Republic of Armenia on September 20 blocked the accession of Nakhijecvan to Armenia.
Հնչակեանների գործունէութիւնը 1917ի ռուսական յեղափոխութիւնների շրջանում (1917 Փետրուար-1918 Մայիս)
(2017) Գեղամ Յովհաննիսեան
The 1917 February revolution in Tsarist Russia gave a further stimulus to the Hnchakyan Party. The party welcomed the overthrow of the tsarist regime and supported the policies of the Provisional Government. However, the party was not unified in its views. The fate of Western Armenia further fueled ideological differences. The Western Armenian Hnchakyans were against the activity of Bolsheviks, who called for the withdrawal of the Russian army from the Russo-Turkish battlefronts. Such a withdrawal would leave the Armenians undefended against the Turkish nationalists who had committed genocide against the Western Armenians. Besides, such an act would render the establishment of Armenian governance over Western Armenia and Cilicia almost impossible. Indeed, for the Western Armenian Hnchakyans the most eminent issue was the liberation of Western Armenia from the Turks. On the other hand, most of the Eastern Armenian Hnchakyans were inclined towards the social democrat Mensheviks, while others were inclined towards the Bolsheviks. In order to resolve these outstanding issues a party conference was held in Tiflis in June 1917. The Conference came up with a new policy platform for the Party. Against the backdrop of the messy conditions of the Armenians lived in during the February 1917 Russian revolution and the mixed and conflictual views they had regarding the ongoing political developments, the article analyses the steps taken by the Social Democrat Hnchak Party leadership in upholding the rights of the Armenians.
Ս. Դ. Հնչակեան կուսակցութեան Ալեքսանդրապոլի «Արագած» մասնաճիւղի 1895-1904 շրջանի գործունէութիւնից
(2017) Արմէն Հայրապետեան
The tense reactivation of the SDHP Aragats Chapter of Alexandrapol and its environs, in the mid-1890s was triggered by the anti-Armenian policy of Tsarist Russia. The Chapter had 6000 members listed in 70 groups, and a 40-member-strong paramilitary group. The Chapter's popularity and reputation rose significantly due to the vigorous struggle it launched against the Tsarist "Law on the Confiscation of the Property of the Armenian Church". This act of expropriation aroused indignation among the Armenians, since the Armenian Church was perceived as the main Armenian institution safeguarding Armenian interests in Eastern Armenia. The first mass demonstrations led by the Hunchaks took place in Alexandrapol. Masses rallied in other Armenian-populated towns of Transcaucasia too. The state reacted by conducting a spate of intimidating acts. The Chapter counter-acted by assasinating a Russian priest, Vasilyev, who was accused of converting Orthodox Armenians to the Russian Church. The assasination was the result of a decision taken by the inner circle of the Chapter on August 12, 1903. The assasination was followed by a more daring decision, to kill Prince G. Golitsyn, the governor of the Caucasus, who headed the anti-Armenian state policy. A party-member volunteer by the of Harutyun Zakaryan was to head the assassins, and the decision was executed on October 14, 1903. Three Hunchak hitmen attacked the governor with poisoned daggers on his way from Tbilisi to Kojor. Badly injured, the governor survived the attack, yet suffered mental illness. Eventually, on January 1, 1905 Golitsyn was dismissed and on August 1, the notorious anti-Armenian law of Armenian Church property confiscation was annulled.
Հայերի դերը Օսմանեան կայսրութեան առեւտրական կեանքում եւ պոլսահայ գաղթօջախի թուաքանակը (1780-1820ականներ)
(2017) Արման Մալոյեան
In the second half of the 18th century a considerable number of urban Western Armenians lived in Constantinople, the capital of the Ottoman Empire, which had a mixture of Armenians from different provinces of Western Armenia. As Constantinople was the main sociopolitical centre of Western Armenians, it is important to study the demography of its Armenian community; in addition, the second half of the 18th century has been relatively little studied. The sustainability and vitality of the Armenian community of Constantinople greatly depended upon the continuous inflow of Armenians from the provinces. Owing to this fact the town maintained its role as the political, spiritual and cultural-educational centre of Western Armenians. Basing his conclusions on a comparative study of data provided by Armenian and foreign authors, the author states that the information provided by the French traveller G.-A. Olivier, who rated the Constantinople Armenians as the main and most knowledgeable traders in the Ottoman Empire, must be true. This means that Armenians had the largest markest share of the Ottoman Empire's domestic trade. On the other hand, the author disagrees and has reservations when Olivier puts the number of Constantinople Armenians at around 7-8000. The author argues that in the 1790s the number should be closer to 10,000 but not more than that. The author notes that the fluctuation of the number of Armenians in Constantinople was due to domestic and foreign factors. For instance a number of those who came from the provinces returned to their birthplaces at a later stage or continued on to Europe. The increase of the number of Armenians in Constantinople was at the expense of their number in the provinces. Armenians fled the provinces because of the increasing persecution against Christians.
Հայոց վանքերի ու բնակավայրերի անուանումներ պարսկերէն վաւերագրերում
(2017) Քրիստինէ Կոստիկեան
Armenian monasteries and settlements are named in Persian documents in ways different from those registered in Armenian sources and are closer in pronunciation to Muslim names. This fact has enabled many Azeri falsifiers to claim the ethnic 'Azeriness' of Armenian villages and regions, and to politicise their claims rather than sticking to scientific research and intentions. These falsifications have gone to the extent of claiming Turkish origin for not only Armenian villages but also whole regions and provinces including Yerevan, Nakhichevan and Karabagh. The paper analyses the transformation of these toponyms in Persian, Turkish and Russian sources as a reflection of the development of the relations between the Armenian population of the South Caucasus and their nomadic neighbours. The author underlines the main features of these transformations and proves that the changed toponyms had nothing to do with the ethnic composition of these villages and regions. The paper notes that these names were more acceptable for the Turkish nomadic tribes, who since the 12th Century had made certain Armenian regions their preferred winter and or summer grazing lands. The paper notes that these nomadic tribes constituted the backbone and the military forces of the ruling powers, like the Qara Qoyunlus, Aq Qoyunlus, Safavids, Afsharids and Qajars. The article analyses the modes of corruption of these toponyms, for example: a. Derived from the Armenian original names but underwent certain changes to fit the phonetical system of the Persian and Turkish languages. b. The result of misreadings and attempts to give suitable meanings and explanations in Persian or Turkish. c. Direct translations from Armenian, sometimes with the addition of the Persian verbal noun "kent" (meaning built by). d. The result of historical facts, which the region was identified with, like the name Chukhur Sa'ad given to the Yerevan region in the 15th Century, and Karabagh. e. Denoting certain handicrafts (Qazanchi - pot maker in Turkish, Chanakhchi - bowl maker in Turkish, Chomlakchi - ceramist in Turkish) which male adults were occupied with alongside agriculture.

Browse

Recent Submissions