Download PDF :
We are pleased to announce the publication of the 51st issue of the Review of Armenian Studies (RAS), marking another significant milestone in our ongoing mission to deliver rigorous, evidence-based scholarship on Armenian and Caucasus affairs. This latest edition emerges at a pivotal juncture for Armenia, as the nation grapples with profound constitutional reforms, shifting geopolitical alliances, and enduring questions of identity and statehood.
Building on the innovations announced in our landmark 50th edition, the 51st issue introduces a Commentary Section—a platform designed for concise, evidence-driven analyses of emerging developments in Armenian studies. The inaugural commentary by R. Assoc. Prof. Jeremy Salt, titled “‘Real Armenia’ or ‘Historic Armenia’?”, exemplifies the strategic relevance of this addition. Salt dissects the precarious Armenia-Azerbaijan peace negotiations, particularly the 17-point settlement framework currently under debate. Through forensic analysis of the constitutional amendments proposed by Prime Minister Pashinyan’s government, the commentary reveals how Article 49’s unresolved claim to “historic Armenian territories” perpetuates diplomatic stagnation. Salt contextualizes these legal tensions within broader regional shifts, including Armenia’s fraying alliance with Russia and the growing mediation role of Western powers.
A new special section, “Statecraft and Identity: Historical Foundations of Armenian Geopolitics,” investigates the interplay between historical trajectories and contemporary political dynamics in Armenian state formation. In this section, Ayşegül Güler’s article traces Armenia’s historical inability to establish sustained sovereignty prior to 1991, highlighting how Armenian political aspirations during the Ottoman era were often mediated through external powers, particularly Russia. Güler argues that Armenia’s reliance on Russian patronage has perpetuated its status as the Caucasus’ “weakest link,” leaving it economically stagnant and geopolitically marginalized, and underscores the paradox of formal independence versus de facto dependency.
Assist. Prof. Cem Karakılıç’s contribution examines how educational institutions, specifically Sanasarian College in late Ottoman Erzurum, served dual roles as both cultural hubs and coordination centers for Armenian separatist activities. Through archival analysis, Karakılıç demonstrates how the school’s closure exacerbated communal tensions, illustrating the intersection of education, identity politics, and anti-Ottoman mobilization. Dr. Elnur Ağdamlı’s article deconstructs the mythos of Armenian indigeneity in the South Caucasus, drawing on Tsarist Russian migration records and Armenian self-identifiers to document how 19th-century mass relocations from Anatolia and Iran facilitated Russia’s creation of a “buffer zone” in today’s Armenia. Ağdamlı’s analysis of Russian colonial archives exposes how demographic engineering shaped modern territorial disputes, particularly with Azerbaijan.
Complementing the special section is an independent research article by Drs. Mohammad Reza Pashayi, which analyzes the Metsamor Nuclear Power Plant. Pashayi examines Metsamor as both a relic of Soviet-era energy policies and a modern liability, documenting how seismic risks, radioactive leakage, and the facility’s dual-use potential for weapons-grade material exacerbate regional tensions with Azerbaijan and Türkiye.
This edition also features a critical book review by Independent Researcher Ahmet Can, who analyzes Kemal Çiçek’s “The Armenians of Musa Dagh, 1915–1939: A Story of Insurgency and Flight.” Can evaluates Çiçek’s meticulous deconstruction of Franz Werfel’s novel The Forty Days of Musa Dagh, which romanticized Armenian resistance during World War I. By cross-referencing Ottoman administrative records, Armenian insurgent diaries, and international diplomatic correspondence, Çiçek challenges the mythologized narrative of the revolt, revealing its logistical coordination with Entente powers and the consequential Ottoman security response. This review underscores Çiçek’s contribution to disentangling historical fact from literary fiction—a task central to RAS’s mission of rigorous scholarship1.
As we navigate Armenia’s ongoing “existential recalibration,” this issue reaffirms RAS’s dedication to archival rigor, interdisciplinary inquiry, and the disentanglement of historical myth from fact. Our contributors’ work is indispensable as Türkiye and Armenia cautiously rebuild dialogue and as regional power dynamics continue to evolve.
We extend our sincere gratitude to all authors and reviewers whose scholarship enriches this edition. For electronic access to the 51st issue and our archives, please visit our website. For inquiries about printed copies, contact us at honalp@avim.org.tr or call +90 312 438 50 23.
Join us in this intellectual journey as we continue to illuminate the complex realities of the Caucasus, striving to provide academic insights and practical perspectives for a rapidly changing World.
