HU Repository
HU Repository serves as an academic and research repository, offering a rich assortment of Haigazian Armenological Review research outputs along with publications from the Armenian Diaspora Research Center (ADRC) and Haigazian University Press (HU Press). Additionally, it hosts a repository of MA and MBA theses.
With a focus to meet the needs of scholars, students, and researchers within and beyond the Haigazian University community, our repository provides seamless access to a diverse range of scholarly materials. Whether you're delving into historical studies, exploring contemporary research topics, or seeking insights from thesis works, the HU Repository stands as a cornerstone for intellectual inquiry and collaboration.
Communities in Haigazian University
Select a community to browse its collections.
Recent Submissions
Հայկական հարցի հոլովոյթը 1988-1993-ի միջեւ
(1995) Զաւէն Մսըրլեան
The article presented here gives a minutely studied story of the Armenian-Turkish and the Armenian-Azeri relations, which also bear the social, political, ideological and military expressions of the time, especially in Artzakh, the Nagorno Karabagh of the westerners. The first few sections of the study which cover the last few years of the eighties, draw a clear picture of the last days of the Soviet rule in Armenia, analyze the reasons why Armenia was declared independent on 23 August, 1990, how the Karabagh Movement grew in Armenia, and how Azeri military activities in Karabagh and massacres of Armenians in Baku and Sumkayit were perpetrated by both the Azeri populace and governmental agencies in the Republic of Azerbaijan. Due to all these, Azeri forces backed by the Turkish authorities of Ankara and the Turkish political-double play, the Armenians at Karabagh did at last declare their independence on 2 September 1991. The result was nothing less than the Turkish accusations of the Armenian authorities at Yerevan as not only backing the Karabagh militia but rahter fighting in their stead.
It was thus the Karabagh-Azerbaijani question was taken to the UN, where the Security Council adopted the resolution No 853 asking the Karabagh-Armenians to evacuate all the newly occupied lands and hand them to their legal owner - Azerbaijan.
Meanwhile, the Turkish authorities of Ankara had already started a firm blockade of the Armenian Republic hoping that in due time the Armenian government of Yerevan would hand over to the Azeris, who had never given up their "right" over Nagorno Karabagh. But inspite of the blockade, Armenia survived all the imposed difficulties, tried to find the backing of the Russian Federative Republic, sought the mediation of the U.S.A. and the economic and commerical friendship of Iran, the result was nothing but the Turkish acknowledgement of the failure of all sorts of moves against the Republic of Armenia, which did never accept the Turkish allusions that it was Armenia fighting the Azeris in and around Karabagh, though the Armenian president, Levon Ter-Petrossian did personally declare that the Question of Artzakh was a just question and it was of paramount importance for Armenia to secure both Russian political and diplomatic backing and the neutrality of Turkey if one wanted to see the Question of Artzakh solved.
Հայկական հարցը Տրապիզոնի կոնֆերանսի ժամանակաշրջանում (Փետրուարի 10/23 - Ապրիլի 9/22 1918)
(1995) Հրանդ Աւետիսեան
Just after the opening of the Conference of Brest-Litovsk, the Ottoman Delegation presented their conditions for peace with the Russian Empire. They were these conditions which later, at the peace talks at Trebizond between the Ottoman and Caucasian delegations, served as the bases for the peace talks.
The Caucasian Seim, which had come into existence after the Russian Revolution, could not agree with the Ottoman demands of first rupture from the Russian entity and then of the declaration of independence of the Caucasian regions so as to have the facility of easily occupying all the Caucasus.
The article presents the non-homogeneity of the Caucasian Delegation of the Seim sent to Trebizond. It was made of the various representatives of the Georgian, Azeri and Armenian peoples, as well as the various political parties and religious and political entities. The racial, religious and political differences put the component parts of the Caucasian Delegation at variance in their stand first among themselves and then with the Ottoman Delegation. Backed by the Turks, the Caucasian Azeris openly expressed their stand with the Ottoman side and endeavoured to impose their will on the Georgian and Armenian delegates to accept the Ottoman demands. The acceptance of the Ottoman demands would surely leave the Caucasians at the mercy of the insatiable appetite and greed of the Ottomans.
They were these divergences of stand that at last led the Caucasian Seim to call home its delegation to the Trebizond Conference, and in front of the Ottoman onslaught into the plain of Ararat and the Turkish demands of the immediate evacuation of the Kars and Alexandropole regions, it felt itself unable to resist and hence made known its rupture from the Russian entity and declared the independence of the Caucasus. Meanwhile the Ottoman advance into the heartland of Eastern Armenia was halted by the Armenian forces at Sardarapat, Bash Aparan and Karakilisse.
Making an abundent use of non-published and archival material found both in Tibilissi and Yerevan state libraries, and the published French, Austrian and Russian documents, the author gives the vivid, detailed and exact story of the Conference of Trebizond.
Աւստրիացի սպայի մը 1895 տարւոյ կոտորածներու վերաբերեալ վկայութիւնը
(1995) Արթիւր Պէյլերեան
Patmeh Tesnenk: Conversations in the Field
(1995) Suzan Pattie
Հոս տրուող գրութիւնը երկրորդ հատուածն է աւելի ընդարձակ գործի մը, որ դոկտորական աւարտաճառն է Տիկ. Սուսան Բեթի-Չիլինկիրեանին: Հատուածը կը ծանրանայ Հայկական Տասընհինգի ջարդերէն, աքսորներէն եւ սուրիական ու միջագետեան անապատներու մէջ թափառայածումներէն մազապուրծ, եւ նախ Կիպրոս ու ապա 1974-էն ետք, Լոնտոն ապաստանած հայու բեկորներու հոգեկան, հոգեբանական եւ իմացական տագնապներուն վրայ, որոնցմէ պիտի յառաջանար որոշ աշխարհահայեացք եւ ներքին մթնոլորտ անոնցմէ՝ այդ հայու բեկորներէն ներս: Գրութիւնը կը բաժնուի հիմնական երկու մասի, որոնցմէ առաջինով կը տրուին հեղինակին ունեցած կարգ մը հանդիպումներն ու զրոյցները թափառ ինկած հայերու եւ հայուհիներու հետ՝ մանաւանդ կիպրահայերու եւ նախկին կիպրահայերու: Գրութեան երկրորդ մասը գիտական մէկ վերլուծումն է այդ զրոյցներուն ետին գտնուող բեկորներուն ներքին աշխարհին եւ անոնցմէ յառաջացած այլազան հարցադրումներուն, որոնց հիմնականները կը մնան հայ ազգային կարգ մը ընկալումներ — հող եւ հայրենիք, կրօն եւ եկեղեցի, ազգ ու ազգութիւն, հայ եւ հայութիւն, հայկական կարգ մը առաքինութիւններ, լեզու եւ ազգապահպանում, ժողովուրդ, անհատ եւ ընտանիք, եւ տակաւին բազմաթիւ բաներ, որոնք կու գան կերտելու ազգ մը ժողովուրդէն կամ հաւաքականութենէն: Յօդուածին երկրորդ մասի աւարտին հարց կու տայ հեղինակը թէ «Ի՞նչ կը նշանակէ կիպրահայ ըլլալ քսաներորդ դարուն [ըլլալ] կիպրահայ մը որ Լոնտո՞ն կը բնակի, անգլիահա՞յ մը, թէ ի՞նչ»։
Հարցումին պատասխանը պիտի գայ խորունկ մէկ ընկալումէն Սուզան Փեթիի գրութեան։
Համիտեան «զուլումի» քաղաքականութեան արտացոլումը արաբական արդի պատմագրութեան մէջ
(1995) Արշալոյս Հ. Թոփալեան
The modern Arab historiography has recently lenghtily dwelt upon the Armenian-Turkish relations in the fourth quarter of the nineteenth century, the period known as "the period of the oppressive policy of Sultan Abdul Hamid II, the Red Sultan.
After his ascension to the Ottoman throne, Abdul Hamid II decided to get rid of the Armenian Question by getting rid of the Armenian people of the Ottoman Empire, thus doing away the reason for European interference with the internal affairs of the Ottoman Empire.
Thus started the period of oppression just after the Conference of Berlin which by changing the clause Nᵒ XVI of the Russo-Turkish Treaty of San Stefano to clause Nᵒ LXI of the Treaty of Berlin, let the Sultan loose to deal with his Armenian subjects in the way he preferred, in spite of the promise to introduce the locally required reforms in the six Armenian provinces of Western Armenia. The result was the period of the first great massacres of Armenians in 1894-1896.
The story of the beginning of the annihilation of the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire in the days of Sultan Abdul Hamid 11 is deeply dealt with by the Arab historians of modern time. In fact, by making use of the works of the Othman el-Turk, Marwan el-Medawar, Fuad Hasan Hafez, Samir Arbash, Mousa Prince and Saleh Zahr ed-Din, Dr. Topalian has drawn a picture of the Armenian Massacres of the last quarter of the nineteenth century by which to conclude that the Arab historians of the modern times present an impartial and scientific approach to the Armeno-Turkish problem and find the period under discussion a time of oppression, bloodshed, death and annihilation, just because of the fact that in a period of only about two and a half years (1894-1896) some 300.000 Armenians were massacred. It is through an honest and conscious approach that the Arab historians mentioned have been able to present not only the Sultan's policy of anti-Armenians oppression but also to point and prove the truth of the facts which the Ottoman and Turkish historiography tries to falsify and defraud. The modern Arab historians show that the real and only responsibility for the Armenian massacres of 1894-1896 fall on the Sultan himself.