The Third Annual International Graduate Student Workshop ...

May 10 & 11, 2011 

The Third Annual International Graduate 

Student Workshop: 

Armenian Subjects in the Medieval and 

Early Modern Islamic World 

University of Michigan, International Institute

The Third Annual International Graduate Student Workshop: 

Armenian Subjects in the Medieval and Early Modern Islamic World 

Monday, May 9, 2011 

12pm 

Workshop check-in at the International Institute (II), first floor gallery 

12:30-2pm 

2-5pm 

6:30pm 

Lunch at II- Silvio’s Pizza and Pasta 

Session working groups in 1644 International Institute 

*This is a time to meet informally with those presenting in the same 

session 

Dinner Reception at the University Museum of Art 

Tuesday, May 10, 2011 

9-9:30am Breakfast at International Institute (II), 1644 

9:30-10am 

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 

• Kevork Bardakjian 

Marie Manoogian Professor of Armenian Languages & Literatures, 

Near Eastern Studies, University of Michigan 

• Kathryn Babayan 

Near Eastern Studies & History, University of Michigan 

10am-12pm 

EARLY ENCOUNTERS 

• Gerard Libaridian, Chair 

Director, Program in Armenian Studies 

Alex Manoogian Visiting Professor of Modern Armenian History 

• Ryan Szpiech, Discussant 

Romance Languages & Literatures 

Judaic Studies, University of Michigan 

University of Michigan, International Institute, 1080 South University, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1106 

E-mail: armenianstudies@umich.edu, Telephone: (734) 763-0622, Fax: (734) 763-4918 

1

Religious Polemic in the Early ‘Abbāsid Period: 

The Correspondence between Leo III and ‘Umar II 

• Alison Vacca, Presenter 


12-2pm 

2-4:30pm 

Lunch at II- Shalimar Indian buffet 

RELIGIOUS SITES OF EXCHANGE 

• Ronald Suny, Chair 

Department of History, University of Michigan 

• Kevork Bardakjian, Discussant 

Marie Manoogian Professor of Armenian language & Literatures, 


Armeno-Muslim Cultural Encounters at the Castle of Hromklay 

• Claudia Matoda, Presenter 

Department Casa-Città, Second Faculty of Architecture 

Politecnico di Torino, Italy 

The Creation of Armenian Catholic Monastery in Bzummar/Zmmar/ 

• Lilit Harutyunyan, Presenter 

Department of Arab Countries, Institute of Oriental Studies 

Yerevan, Armenia 

Nadir Shah’s Religious Policy towards Armenians 

• Roman Smbatyan, Presenter 

Department of Iranian Studies, Yerevan State University 


6:30pm 

Dinner @ the Earle (121 West Washington Street) 

Wednesday, May 11, 2011 

8:30-9:30 Breakfast at International Institute, 1644 

9:30-12pm 

ARMENIAN SUBJECTIVITIES: EXILE & MIGRATION IN THE 

SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 

• Kevork Bardakjian, Chair 

Marie Manoogian Professor of Armenian Languages & Literatures, 


• Kathryn Babayan, Discussant 




2

Speaking Strangeness: Exile and the Formation of Early Modern 

Persian and Armenian Selves 

• Michael Pifer, Presenter 

Comparative Literature, University of Michigan 

The Image of the Armenian Merchants: Safavid Iran, Ottoman Empire, 

16 th -18 th Centuries 

• Sona Tajiryan, Presenter 

Department of Arabic Studies, Yerevan State University 


Meaning of Azg, “Nation?” in Arakel’s Book of History 

• Vahe Sahakyan, Presenter 


12-1pm 

1:15-3:15pm 

Lunch at II- Sandwiches from Amer’s 

EREMYA CHELEBI KOMURCUYAN: A LENS ONTO 17 TH CENTURY 

ISTANBUL 

• Kathryn Babayan, Chair 


• Gottfried Hagen, Discussant 


Urbanity and Politics of Coexistence in Eremya Chelebi Komurcuyan 

(1637-1694) 

• Semi Ertan, Presenter 


The Historiographical Heritage of Yeremia Qyomurchian 

• Gayane Ayvazyan, Presenter 

Armenian History, Yerevan State University 


3:15-4pm 

4-5pm 

6:30pm 

Coffee Break 

CONCLUDING REMARKS & DISCUSSION 

• Michael Bonner, Chair 

Department of Near Eastern Studies, University of Michigan 

Dinner @ Dominick’s (812 Monroe Street) 



3

The 

Third Annual International Graduate Student Workshop: 



Tuesday, 

May 10, 2011 

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 

9: 30-10am 

Kevork Bardakjian 

Marie Manoogian Professor of Armenian Languages and Literatures 

Prof of Armenian Languages & Literatures, Department of Near Eastern Studies 

Prof of Slavic Languages & Literatures, College of Literature, , Science, and the Arts 

Kathryn Babayan 

Associate Professor of Iranian History and Culture, Department of Near Eastern Studies 

Associate Professor of 

History, College of Literature, Science, and the Arts 

Session I 

EARLY ENCOUNTERS 

10am-12pm 

Gerard Libaridian, 

Chair 

Alex Manoogian Visiting Professor of Modern Armenian History 

Visiting Professor of History 

Director, Program in Armenian Studies, College of Literature, , Science, And The Arts 

Ryan Szpiech, Discussant 

Assistant Professor of Romance Languages and Literatures 

Assistant Professor of Judaic Studies, College of f Literature, Science, and the Arts 

University of Michigan, International Institute, 1080 Southh University, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1106 

E-mail: armenianstudies@ 

@umich.edu, Telephone: (734) 763-0622, Fax: (734) 763-4918

ALISON VACCA 

Religious Polemic in the Early ‘Abbāsid Period: The Correspondence between Leo III and 

‘Umar II 

As the Arab conquests expanded over the Near East, local populations came in contact with a new 

faith that embraced both familiar and foreign concepts. At least from the Marwānid period on (as is 

evidenced from ‘Abd al-Malik’s coins), the state proclaimed Islam as “the religion of truth.” Greek and 

Syrian Christians were quick to respond to the confessional challenges of Islam with such famed 

champions of the faith as John of Damascus (d. 749) and Abū Qurrah (d. c. 823). 

Although it is clear that Armenians were frequently in contact with Muslims, formal polemical 

responses to the faith of the newcomers are infrequently found in Armenian literature. There are only two 

main polemics extant today: a passage in Łewond’s Arab Invasions in Armenia and Grigor Tat’ewac’i’s 

Treatise against the Tajiks. S. Dadoyan has worked on Tat’ewac’i’s text, arguing that we can extrapolate 

details about Armenian – Muslim interaction based on the specific wording and arguments used in his 

polemics. 

This paper will review Dadoyan’s methodology and recast the question for Łewond’s text. It will 

examine a few select arguments that are presented in the discussion between Leo III (717 – 41) and 

‘Umar II (717 – 20) and—perhaps more importantly—the language and manner in which they were 

presented. It is undeniable that we can learn a considerable amount about Armenian perceptions of Islam 

from this text; however, is it also possible to mine Łewond’s polemics for more concrete facts about 

Armenian interactions with Muslims and/or the state of affairs in the Near East?

Vacca 

Alison Vacca 

Armenian Studies Graduate Workshop 2011 

وقالوا لن يدخل الجنة اال من هودا او نصرا تلك امانيهم قل هاتوا برهنكم ان كنتم صدقين 

And they say, 'None shall enter Paradise except that they be Jews or Christians.' 

Such are their fancies. Say: 'Produce your proof, if you speak truly.' 

Al-Baqarah 2: 111 [Arberry Translation] 

Religious Polemic in the Early ‘Abbāsid Period: 

The Correspondence between Leo III and ‘Umar II 

As the Arab conquests expanded over the Near East, local populations came in contact with a 

new faith that embraced both familiar and foreign concepts. At least from the Marwānid period on, the 

state proclaimed Islam as the sole “religion of truth.” 1 Greek and Syrian Christians were quick to respond 

to the confessional challenges of Islam and the early ‘Abbāsid period saw considerable output of Muslim 

– Christian polemics penned by Christians of the Near East. Although it is clear that Armenians were 

frequently in contact with Muslims from the late 630s on, formal polemical responses to the faith of the 

newcomers are infrequently found in Armenian literature. The only substantial works extant today are 

the correspondence between Leo III and ‘Umar II preserved in Łewond’s history and a chapter in Grigor 

Tat’ewac’i’s fourteenth-century Book of Questions. 

In 1996, S. Dadoyan wrote an article entitled “Grigor of Tatev: Treatise against the Tajiks,” in 

which she concludes that Grigor Tat’ewac’i’s “‘Tajiks’ are Persian by nationality, non-Sunnites, and 

judging from the esoteric nature of the beliefs and doctrines ascribed to them, they belong to a sub- 

Shi’ite sect.” 2 Although I have a few concerns about specific arguments, the main problem with her 

1 R. Hoyland, Seeing Islam as Others Saw it (Princeton: Darwin’s P, 1997), 457. 

2 S. Dadoyan, "Grigor of Tatev: Treatise against the Tajiks," Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations 1, 2 (July 1996), 

193. 

1

Vacca 

conclusion is that she assumes that any knowledge about Islam must stem directly from interactions 

with Muslims, despite the acknowledgement of Tat’ewac’i’s reliance on a document written in Karshuni. 

Tat’ewac’i almost certainly had first-hand knowledge about Islam, but the fact remains that polemical 

religious debates follow certain literary norms that are common to many peoples in the Near East, 

meaning that Tat’ewac’i’s work was not constructed in a vacuum allowing only for Armenian – Muslim 

interaction. 

My interest here is to look at Armenian polemics against Islam as part of a literary genre—not 

simply to tell us what Armenians knew about Islam, but to attempt to sketch out basic knowledge of the 

interaction between multiple communities in dār al-Islām. As my interest focuses mainly on the 

Umayyad and early ‘Abbāsid period, I will examine the letters between ‘Umar II and Leo III preserved in 

Łewond’s Aršawank’ Arabac’ i Hays. Can we understand early Armenian – Islamic interaction based on 

the polemical content of these two letters? I argue that the specific source(s) of any particular assertion 

or charge is less important than some of the broader trends of interaction between various communities 

and general conclusions about the tenor of life under the early ‘Abbāsid caliphate. 

The Correspondence between ‘Umar II and Leo III 

It is not possible to introduce these letters in a cursory manner, as there has been considerable 

debate as to their dating and authenticity. There are multiple references to these letters in Christian 

literatures of the Near East from the ninth and tenth centuries. Theophanes (d. 818), 3 Agapius (d. 942) 4 

3 Theophanes, The Chronicle of Theophanes, trans. H. Turtledove (Philadelphia: U Pennsylvania P, 1982), 91: “And 

he *‘Umar II+ also sent a doctrinal letter to the Emperor Leo, thinking to persuade him to apostasize.” Recorded 

under the year 6210 (September, 717 – August, 718). 

2

Vacca 

and T’ovma Arcruni (late 9 th – early 10 th century) 5 each mention that such correspondence took place, 

but do not record specific information about the content. We have four texts that purport to preserve 

this correspondence: (1) an anonymous late ninth or early tenth century Arabic text with half of ‘Umar’s 

letter; (2) a sixteenth century Aljamiado translation of a ninth century Arabic text preserving the other 

half of ‘Umar’s letter; 6 

(3) a sixteenth century Latin translation of Leo’s letter, likely from a Greek 

original; 7 and (4) Łewond’s short (and inauthentic) letter from ‘Umar and the extended text of Leo’s 

letter. 

It is this last text that interests us here. Łewond’s letter from Leo has engendered considerable 

discussion. Gero argued that it was originally written in Armenian and inserted into Łewond’s history in 

the eleventh or twelfth century, 8 though the text of the letter itself claims to have been written in 

Greek 9 

in the middle of the eighth century. 10 R. Hoyland has convincingly argued against each of Garo’s 

arguments and concludes that the letters were indeed included in Łewond’s original text, which may 

وكتب الى الون 45: 1973), Peeters, 4 Agapius, qtd in S. Gero, Byzantine Iconoclasm during the Reign of Leo III (Louvain: 

الملك كتابا يدعوه فيه الى االسالم ثم جادله في دينه فاجابه الون جوابا قطع فيه حجته واوضح له فساد قوله وبين له نور النصرانية بحجج من الكتب 

المنزلة ومقاييس من العقول ونوازع من القران.‏ 

5 T’ovma Arcruni, Patmut’iwn arcruneac’ tan (Yerevan: Yerevani hamalsarani hratarakčut’iwn, 1985), 166 – 8: 

Ումառ որդի Աբդլազիզա ամս գ: Սա ազնուագոյն եղեալ քան զամենեսին. Գրէ թուղթ հաւատոց առ Ղևոն 

կայսր Յունաց, և ընկալեալ ի նմանէ պատասխանիս՝ բազում ինչ ի Կուրանէ անտի իւրեանց արտաքս 

ընկէց զյոյժ առասպելագոյնն, քանզի ստուգապէս ծանեաւ զզօրութիւնն. Թէպէտ և ոչ համարձակեաց 

զամենայն բառնալ, այլ յոյժ պատկառանօք ամաչեցեալ՝ լքաւ ի ստութենէ անտի, որ յանդիմանեցաւ ի 

թղթոյ կայսերն, և ի ձեռն այսորիկ ցուցանէր բարեմտութիւն մեծ առ ազգս քրիստոնէից: 

6 J. M. Gaudeul, “The Correspondence between Leo and ‘Umar,” Islamochristiana 10 (1984), 123. 

7 Note, however, Gero’s argument that the Latin text was in fact a translation from a Melkite (Arabic) source, 46 

and 153 – 171. 

8 Gero, 153 – 171. Whereas Hildebrand Beck argues that they were inserted earlier, in the ninth or tenth century, 

cf: A. Jeffery, “Ghevond’s Text of the Correspondence between ‘Umar II and Leo III” Harvard Theological Review 

37: 4 (October 1944), 273 no. 11. 

9 Łewond, Aršawank’ arabac’ i Hays (Paris: E. Thunot, 1857), 88: մեր Յունացս in a list of Christian languages. 

10 Łewond, 86: և ժամանակ երևման դորա որպէս դուքդ ասէք՝ հարիւր ամ փոքր ինչ աւելի կամ պակաս: 

One hundred years, more or less, after the hijra means that the author of the letter claims to be writing in 722. 

3

Vacca 

date back to the eighth century. 11 However, other scholars have placed Łewond anywhere from the 

eighth to the tenth century. 12 

Łewond’s letters allow us to imagine Islam as Armenians understood it in the early ‘Abbāsid 

period. In fact, the letter begins with the statement: “We want to learn the significance of your opinions, 

for we have been instructed by regarding this: ‘Examine everything, but accept what is good.’” 13 And, 

without a doubt, the author of Leo’s letter was indeed familiar with Islamic orthodoxy. He mentions a 

number of aspects of Muslim doctrine and orthopraxy, including (1) the humanity of Muhammad; 14 (2) 

basic information about Islamic law, including laws about divorce, 15 witnesses 16 and impurities; 17 (3) 

general knowledge of the Qur’an, including some paraphrasing 18 and the confusion between Mary the 

sister of Aaron and Mary the mother of Christ; 19 (4) detailed information about the hajj, such as the 

stoning of the devil (ramī al-jamarāt), running [between Safa and Marwa] (sa’ī), sacrifice and shaving 

the head; 20 (5) the belief that Jesus was not crucified; 21 (6) an Islamic understanding of heaven; 22 (7) 

11 Hoyland, 494. 

12 N. A. Newman, The Early Christian – Muslim Dialogue: A Collection of Documents from the First Three Islamic 

Centuries (Hatfield, PA: Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute, 1993), 62. 

13 Łewond, 69: Այլ եւ ոչ զձերոց կարծեացդ զօրութիւն այժմիկ նորոգ կամիմք ուսանիլ. Այլ առ ի յԱստուծոյ 

եւ վասն այսորիկ խրատեալք «զամենայն ինչ քննեցէք. Իսկ զբարին ընկալարուք»: 

14 Łewond, 81: Բայց զքոյ Մահմետն չգիտի՞ցես արդեօք մարդ 

15 Łewond, 121. 

16 Łewond, 103: Եւ ու՞ր է իւր իսկ օրինադրին քո հրամանն առանց երկուց վկայից ոչ հաստատել: 

17 Łewond, 115 mentions women’s menstrual periods and human excrement as impure in Islamic belief and 

suggests that they are not impure because they serve a purpose. 

18 Łewond, 121: Compare to Qur’ān 2:223. Cf: Jeffery, 324 no. 79. 

19 Łewond, 104: Զքո օրինադրին զահագին ստութիւնն մոռացար արդեօք. Թէ եւ գիտես իսկ ոչ 

զՄարիամ՝զԱմրամայ դուսրտն, զԱհարոնի քոյրն, նա է մայր Սեառն մերոյ: This, of course, refers to the 

famous confusion in Qur’ān 66:12, which mistakenly calls Mary the mother of Christ the daughter of ‘Imrān. 

20 Łewond, 120: այլ միայն գողաբար խաբէութեամբ՝ ի կարուստ հոգւոց ձերոց պատրեն զձեզ: կամ քարին 

զոր ռոքունն կոչեցեր, զոր ոչ գիտես եթէ ընդէր երկրպագեալ համբուրես, եւ դիւական կոտորածին, յորմէ 

գաղանք եւ թռչունք գարչին եւ միոտանի վազեսցեն. և քարաձգութեանն և փախստեանն եւ զգլուխ 

գերձնլոյն և այլոց ամօթալեաց, զորս գործենն: See also Łewond, 105, where he discusses the qibla. 

21 Łewond, 109: Իսկ զկենարար մահուանէն որ լուեալ եւս ես ասելով ոչ ումեք կարօղ գալ ի մարդկանէ 

սպանանել զնա: Եւ եթէ սոսկ մարդ է ըստ քո կարծեացդ, զի՞նչ անհաւատ է մեռանել մարդոյ: 

22 Łewond, 125. This focuses on the sensual nature of heaven, which the letters describe with a certain amount of 

contempt. The description of heaven could have been interpolated from interaction with Muslims, but it is notably 

a main theme in Greek polemics against Islam. As such, despite the fact that the information is not incorrect, it is 

4

Vacca 

Friday as a day of prayer; 23 and (8) circumcision. 24 This information is generally correct, though delivered 

in an unflattering tone. It is entirely possible, albeit impossible to verify, that the author of the letters 

gleaned this information from quotidian interactions with his Muslim neighbors. 

However, in addition to the aforementioned information, the author also reports several details 

that have not been accepted in mainstream Islam, including (1) a list of Islamic sects that have not yet 

been definitively identified; 25 (2) the charge that Salmān al-Fārisī, ‘Alī and ‘Umar wrote the Qur’ān; 26 and 

(3) the belief that al-Hajjāj fundamentally changed the Qur’ān and destroyed all other copies. 27 This last 

not possible to consider it proof that Armenians had direct knowledge of Islam. Cf: Thomson, “Muhammad and the 

Origin of Islam in the Armenian Literary Tradition,” Armenian Studies in Memoriam Haïg Berbérian (Lisbon: 

Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, 1986), 838. 

23 Łewond, 113: Դու զուրբաթ օր ժողովոյ կարգեցեր՝ զպատճառ և ոչ մի իրաւանց գիտելով: 

24 Łewond, 112: քանզի ի հնումն հրամայեաց Աստուած թլպատել զամենայն արու յաւուր ութերորդի. Իսկ 

դուք ոչ զարս, այլ եւ զկանայս, յորում եւ իցէ հասակի՝ ամօթալեօք խայտառակէք: Cf: Jeffery, 317 no. 69 

notes that the concept of female circumcision is extant in early Arabic literature, including in the musnad of Ibn 

Hanbal and the Thousand and One Nights. However, he also remarks that this charge is found in Greek literature. 

25 Łewond, 86. I consider this list as part of the inaccurate information because the sects have not all been 

positively identified, nor are the beliefs ascribed to them necessarily factual. For example, Jeffery, 296 no. 46, 

identifies the Jahdi as Jāhizites. Despite the fact that Jeffery himself admits that al-Jāhiz was not guilty of the 

charges listed in the letter (“that he denied the existence of God and the resurrection”), this ascription has been 

heralded as proof that the letter must be a later fabrication inasmuch as al-Jāhiz died in 869, long after the 

purported authors of the letters. However, this idea has been challenged recently, cf: Hoyland, 494. Newman, 49 

argues that the author may have been referring to the Yazīdī: “The Jahdi, of whom it is said that in the text that 

they do not believe in God or the resurrection, may refer to the Yazidis, who worship the Malak Ta’us and believe 

in the transmigration of souls… Indeed the paradox of the Yazidis being Kurdish and their scriptures being written 

in Arabic, would seem to indicate that they were heretical Muslims and not Nestorians or Persian Zoroastrians as 

some assume.” 

26 Łewond, 83: Գիտեմ՝ ընդ ճշմարտութիւն մերս Քրիստոնէիցս նեղիս եւ կամիս զի ստութեանդ քոյ ընկեր 

գտանէիր թէ ասէաք թէ գրեալիջոյց զայդ Աստուած յերկնից որպէս դու վասն Փուրկանիդ քոյ ասես. 

Թէպէտեւ չեմք անտեղեակ թէ եւ քոյդ Օմար եւ Աբու-Թուռաբ եւ Սաղման պարսիկք գրեցին. Եւ դուք 

ստելով համբաւէք թէ՝ յերկնից իջոյց Աստուած: This is a curious charge, stemming likely from the fact that 

Salmān was known for translating the Qur’ān into Persian. Thomson, “Muhammad and the Origin of Islam in the 

Armenian Literary Tradition,” 838, states: “Unique to Thomas *Arcruni+ among early Christian critics of Islam is the 

attribution of the Qur'an to a Persian called Salman. This, however, was an important feature of the Muslim 

tradition found as early as Ibn Ishaq.” He cites G. Levi Della Vida’s article “Salmān al-Farīsī” in EI1, which says 

nothing of the sort. Ibn Ishaq, as far as I can find, made no such assertion and this is certainly not a Muslim belief. 

27 Łewond, 88: Բայց դուք սովոր էք առնել զայսպիսիս, մանաւանդ Հաջաջն այն որ ի կողմանս Պարսից առ 

ի ձէնջ ազքապետ կացեալ, ժողովեաց զամենայն հին գրեանն ձեր եւ այլ ըստ ախործակացն գրեաց եւ 

բաշխեաց ընդ ամենայն ազգն ձեր: 

5

Vacca 

assertion demonstrates the author’s familiarity with other Christian literatures, as it is borrowed from 

al-Kindī’s polemic. 28 

It is also possible that even factual information about Islam was actually gleaned from Christian 

sources. For example, John of Damascus wrote about the hajj and the Islamic understanding of heaven 

was a frequent theme in Greek polemics. 29 Furthermore, Łewond comments on female circumcision—a 

topic rarely present in Arabic histories and literature, but mentioned in Greek polemics. 30 

We may also hypothesize that Łewond is certainly not informed solely by personal interaction 

with Muslims due not only to the occasional inaccuracies, but also due to his specific word choices or, 

more frequently, his transliteration of foreign words. The spelling of the sects of Islam and the 

transliteration of the word rukn show that he is likely not working directly from an Arabic source, but 

relies rather a Greek intermediary document. Additionally, the quotations from Scripture are based on 

the Armenian Bible, but the text of the letter itself mentions the Septuagint names for several Biblical 

books and refers to the Pentateuch by its Greek name (nomos). 31 This suggests that the original letter 

was penned in Greek, proving that Armenians were familiar with Greek literature and that it was a 

major influence on the development of Armenian polemics against Islam. 

Griffith argues that Greek and Latin polemics preserve very inaccurate portraits of Islam, due to 

the fact that the authors did not have extended contact with Muslims. In comparison, polemics written 

in Syriac and Arabic were much more informed and respectful. 32 In general, Armenians seem to fall 

28 Jeffery, 331. See also: 298 no. 48. 

29 Thomson, “Muhammad and the Origins of Islam in the Armenian Literary Tradition,” 838 – 9. 

30 Thomson, “Muhammad and the Origins of Islam in the Armenian Literary Tradition,” 842. For the discussion of 

female circumcision in Arabic literature, see no. 24 above. 

31 Łewond, 120: ռոքունն. Cf: Jeffery, 331; Hoyland, 492 

32 Griffith, S. Griffith, “The Prophet Muhammad and his Message according to the Christian Apologies in Arabic and 

Syriac from the First ‘Abbāsid Century,” La Vie du Prophète Mahomet (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 

1980), 131: “There was personal contact between Muslims and Christians within dār al-Islām. Christians were 

6

Vacca 

between these groups. 33 

Gaudeul logically argues that Łewond “probably never lived in a Muslim 

country, but he has met Muslims and he has had access to written information about Islam,” whereas 

the Latin version of Leo’s letter is far more fanciful. 34 

Christian Polemical Literature against Islam in the Early ‘Abbāsid Period 

Christian polemical literature has a history of transcending borders between peoples (and even 

between monotheistic religions), of inheriting early Christian rhetoric, and of following common literary 

tropes. 35 It seems probable that Armenian polemics against Islam may reveal more about the state of 

relations between different communities of Christians in the Islamic world than about factual 

interactions between Muslims and Christians. 

First of all, the main topics of contention listed in Łewond’s letters are very familiar: (1) the 

Trinity; (2) the accusation of selective reading of Scripture; (3) the various interpretations of the verses 

familiar with the Qur’ān, and with Muslim traditions. Whlie they were the adversaries of the Muslims in the 

religious controversies, there was none of the personal isolation, at least in the first Abbasid century, of the sort 

that must have been a factor in provoking so many of the hostile fantasies that are found in the polemical works of 

Christians in other lands, who wrote in Greek or Latin, often depicting Muhammad as demon possessed, an agent 

of the anti-Christ, or as personally morally deprived.” 

33 This is a problematic generalization, given that Łewond is working with a Greek original. Therefore, Griffith’s 

statement is perhaps too simplified to prove useful in this case, unless Łewond somehow altered the Greek 

original. Still, the idea is interesting. 

34 Gaudeul, 115. 

35 Though note that these trends in Christian polemics are clearly differentiated from Islamic polemics, cf: Griffith, 

“Comparative Religion in the Apologetics of the First Christian Arabic Theologians,” Proceedings of the PMR 

Conference 4 (1979), 79 – 80: “To state it quite simply, they *Muslim apologists+ are not grounded in any Greek 

philosophical system, but in the Qur’ān. There is a system of thought that inspires their understanding of the 

Qur’ān, analogous to the role of the Neoplatonic philosophical systhesis in the Christian interpretation of the Bible. 

It is what we would perhaps call the hermeneutics of the Arabic grammatical tradition.” 

7

Vacca 

concerning the Paraclete and the two riders; and (4) relic and image veneration. The very same issues 

are broached by most Christian apologists. 36 

In fact, the manner of discussion is also quite uniform: most early ‘Abbāsid polemics are staged 

as a correspondence or a live debate, usually between high ranking or eminent religious or political 

leaders. Similar to the ‘Umar – Leo pairing, we also see the Jacobite patriarch John I and an anonymous 

Arab amir; Abraham, a monk from Beth Hale and an Arab nobleman; patriarch Timothy and the caliph 

al-Mahdi; and a “disputation between a Saracen and a Christian” attributed to John of Damascus. 37 “All 

of the apologetical literature that has survived from the first ‘Abbāsid century, be it Muslim or Christian, 

in Syriac or Arabic, is dialogical in form…All of them, by convention, are addressed to an inquirer, either 

by name or merely in rhetorical style, in the introduction to the treatise.” 38 

It seems clear that direct borrowing did indeed occur as is evidenced by the translation of 

certain works, including the correspondence between Leo and ‘Umar. Central themes were likely 

adopted and restated as polemic literature spread throughout the Near East. The authors were certainly 

familiar with various works, even allowing for translation between Greek, Armenian, Arabic, Syriac and 

(eventually) Latin. However, the similarities may also stem from the fact that these communities, 

despite their differences, lived in a common environment with shared experiences and expectations. 

Wansbrough’s Sectarian Milieu argues that the erudite scholar must accept that history (be it 

polemical, apocalyptic or heresiographical) is to be read in its Aristotelian sense: as a form of literature. 

He claims that Islamic history necessitates study from a cross-confessional perspective and must be 

understood through comparison with the historical output of neighboring communities. This is not a 

36 Griffith, “Comparative Religion in the Apologetics of the First Christian Arabic Theologians,” 64. Cf: S. Griffith, 

“The Prophet Muhammad and his Message according to the Christian Apologies in Arabic and Syriac from the First 

‘Abbāsid Century.” 

37 See Hoyland, 489. 

38 Griffith, “The Prophet Muhammad, his Scripture and his Message according to the Christian Apologies in Arabic 

and Syriac from the First ‘Abbāsid Century,” 116. 

8

Vacca 

question of borrowing or influence, but rather the concurrent development of multiple strands of 

history based on the proximity of the authors and the universality of monotheist assumptions. In short, 

Wansbrough’s “sectarian milieu” may account for the similarities: Christians in the Near East, sharing 

the same set of religious expectations and enduring the same historical experiences, respond to the rise 

of Islam in similar manner. 

The Realm of Islam and the Relevance of Christian Polemics 

We must therefore consider Łewond’s letters, and the efflorescence of Christian polemics in 

general, as indicative of major historical trends that supersede any of the specific arguments between 

Leo and ‘Umar. We saw earlier that there has been considerable discussion about the dating of the 

‘Umar – Leo correspondence. Recent studies have supported the assertion that the text does in fact 

belong with the original recension of Łewond and that Gero’s arguments are inconclusive. The dialogical 

format and the existence of a ninth century Arabic original of ‘Umar’s letter, complete with isnad 

bringing it back to the late eighth century, at very least adds weight to the conclusion that the Armenian 

version of Leo and ‘Umar’s letters dates to the early ‘Abbāsid period. This is made even more apparent 

when we consider the work from the broader view of the circumstances of the early ‘Abbāsid caliphate. 

First, it is most interesting that these letters, while originally written in Greek and extant today 

in Armenian and Latin, are clearly responding to literature in Arabic. Gaudeul demonstrates that ‘Umar’s 

letter as preserved in Łewond is certainly a forgery and instead publishes information on two other 

manuscripts. The first is a sixteenth century manuscript in Aljamiado and second is a ninth century 

manuscript in Arabic. They both preserve half of the text of the original letter attributed to ‘Umar. 

Although the Aljamiado manuscript is comparatively quite recent, the content of the two manuscripts 

overlaps and it is evidently a faithful record of a much earlier text. Łewond’s letter from Leo is clearly a 

9

Vacca 

response to this document, as it answers the questions posed in the Arabic text, uses the same Biblical 

passages and even cites it directly. 39 This demonstrates not only that ‘Umar’s letter existed in Arabic in 

the late ninth century, but also that it circulated the Islamic (and Christian) world. 

To the best of my knowledge, there is not considerable research on translations between Arabic 

and Armenian literature in the ninth century, though there are a few indications that such endeavors 

were attempted. Consider, for example, the ninth century Arabic translation of Aget’angełos currently in 

St. Catherine’s Monastery in the Sinai. However, if we consider that the original letter was indeed 

written in Greek, it is much easier to consider the correspondence with reference to the famous 

‘Abbāsid translation movement from the early eighth to the late tenth centuries. 

D. Gutas explains that the translation movement, while begun under al-Mansūr as an attempt to 

appropriate a symbol of political legitimacy by adopting the Sassanian practice of translating, saw a 

transformation under al-Mahdī. Instead of using the translation movement as a way to exert claims of 

political legitimacy, al-Mahdī added a religious dimension: establishing the ‘Abbāsid conception of Islam 

as orthodoxy. Al-Mahdī’s interest in debates about key religious topics, including main themes in 

Christian – Muslim theology, is well attested in Arabic and Syriac literature. 40 

In fact, the entire concept of a religious polemic fits quite comfortably with the intellectual 

norms of the ninth century. The mihna, while quite clearly only directly effecting the Muslim population, 

must still have created a tense atmosphere of religious controversy. The diametric division of faith and 

reason is almost assumed when approaching a polemical work—why else would an author attempt to 

argue about religious truths if he did not assume that the truth could be determined through rational 

39 Gaudeul, 123. 

40 D. Gutas, Greek Thought, Arabic Culture: the Graeco-Arabic Translation Movement in Baghdad and Early 

‘Abbāsid Society (New York: Routledge, 1998), 61 – 69. 

10

Vacca 

discourse? If religious truth could only be perceived through faith, polemical discourse would be 

obsolete. 

explained: 

‘Ammār al-Basrī, a Nestorian who wrote a polemic against Islam in Arabic in the ninth century 

A person should look into what the religions in the whole world claim. He should 

examine with his mind their scriptures and the scriptures of those who oppose them. He 

should make his investigation into this matter meticulous and precise until by means of 

it he can differentiate the soundest in terms of meaning (ma’anā), the most forceful of 

them in terms of doctrine (madhhab), and the most correct of them in discourse 

(kalām). Then he should determine about it that it is from God—more adequate than 

any other one regarding soundness (sahhah) of meaning, and force (quwah) of doctrine, 

and correctness (sawāb) of discourse. 41 

This demonstrates that Christian polemicists writing in Arabic adopted the terminology of the 

debate into their argumentation, relying on religious expressions that transcended denominational 

boundaries. 

This trend is obviously not as traceable in Armenian and I do not mean to suggest that the 

mihna had a direct, quantifiable affect on Armenian polemics. In fact, the only reference to reason in 

Łewond’s letter is somewhat oblique. 42 Rather, it seems fortuitous that the efflorescence of Christian 

polemics against Islam would occur at the precise moment of debate between reason and faith in the 

Islamic milieu. If we borrow a page from Wansbrough, we might hypothesize that this trend towards 

polemics grew from the shared experience of the same tension, which initiated the mihna in the more 

central lands and simultaneously sparked Christian polemics elsewhere. 

41 Griffith, “Comparative Religion in the Apologetics of the First Christian Arabic Theologians,” 70. 

42 Lewond, 93: Զիա՞րդ՝ զայս ախտաւոր, ընդդիմահար մարմի՞նս կարծիցես Աստուծոյ ասել պատկեր 

իւր, ոչ՝ այլ զիւր և զԲանին իւրոյ եւ զՀոգւոյն իւրոյ զնմանություն եդ ի նմա զհոգի, զմիտս եւ զբան: 

11

Vacca 

Finally, it is hardly surprising that religious polemic would thrive during the early ‘‘Abbāsid 

period. R. Bulliet published an innovative study of conversion to Islam, which argues that the ninth and 

tenth century saw an enormous leap in the process of Islamization of the Near East. His estimations, 

however, are reliant on prosopographical material that is not available for Armenia. Still, given the 

intellectual exchange that we know occurred in this period, it is hardly surprising that the same general 

reaction to Islam may extend over Christians in the entirety of the Islamic world. 43 After all, Bulliet is 

able to deduce a substantial increase in conversion in Syria, Iraq and Persia during this same period. 

These lands produced polemicists writing in Syriac and Arabic, whose efforts were available to their 

Greek and Armenian speaking neighbors, as we have seen above. Therefore, despite the fact that we are 

unable to extend quantifiable conclusions about the rate of conversions in Armenia based on Bulliet’s 

endeavor, we may still hypothesize that the general effect of the spread of Islam generated an 

atmosphere conducive to polemical debates even in Armenian. Given that Leo’s letter as preserved in 

Łewond is in Armenian, it follows that the intended audience is the Christian Armenian population, 

ostensibly as a means to adequately respond to Muslim challenges to the faith. The message is that 

Christianity is a viable religion despite the rising prevalence of Islam in the Near East. 

In short, Łewond’s letters between ‘Umar and Leo preserve much more than Armenian 

perceptions of Islam in the early ‘Abbāsid period. They are a testament to the literary and ideological 

ties between Armenia and its neighbors—Christian and Muslim. They are a product of interaction 

between Greeks, Syrians, Armenians and Arabs; a sign of how political and religious transformations 

brought on by the rise of the ‘Abbāsids changed the Near East as a whole. 

43 On Syriac and Arabic polemics in response to the spread of Islam, see Griffith, “The Prophet Muhammad and his 

Message according to the Christian Apologies in Arabic and Syriac from the First ‘Abbāsid Century,” 110 – 111. 

12

Vacca 

Works Cited 

Dadoyan, S. "Grigor of Tatev: Treatise against the Tajiks." Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations. 1, 2 July 

(1996), pp. 193-204. 

Gaudeul, J. M. “The Correspondence between Leo and ‘Umar.” Islamochristiana 10 (1984), pp. 109 – 57. 

Gero, S. Byzantine Iconoclasm during the Reign of Leo III. Louvain: Peeters, 1973. 

Griffith, S. “Comparative Religion in the Apologetics of the First Christian Arabic Theologians.” 

Proceedings of the PMR Conference 4 (1979), 63 – 86. 

---. “The Prophet Muhammad and his Message according to the Christian Apologies in Arabic and Syriac 

from the First ‘Abbāsid Century.” La Vie du Prophète Mahomet. Paris: Presses Universitaires de 

France, 1980. 

Gutas, D. Greek Thought, Arabic Culture: the Graeco-Arabic Translation Movement in Baghdad and Early 

‘Abbāsid Society. New York: Routledge, 1998. 

Hoyland, R. Seeing Islam as Others Saw It. Princeton: Darwin P, 1997. 

Jeffery, A. “Ghevond’s Text of the Correspondence between ‘Umar II and Leo III.” Harvard Theological 

Review 37: 4 (October 1944), pp. 269 – 332. 

Łewond. Aršawank’ arabac’ i Hays. Paris: E. Thunot, 1857. 

Newman, N. A. The Early Christian – Muslim Dialogue: A Collection of Documents from the First Three 

Islamic Centuries. Hatfield, PA: Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute, 1993. 

Theophanes. The Chronicle of Theophanes. trans. H. Turtledove. Philadelphia: U Pennsylvania P, 1982. 

Thomson, R. “Muhammad and the Origin of Islam in the Armenian Literary Tradition.” Armenian Studies 

in Memoriam Haïg Berbérian. (Lisbon: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, 1986), 829 – 58. 

T’ovma Arcruni. Patmut’iwn arcruneac’ tan. Yerevan: Yerevani hamalsarani hratarakčut’iwn, 1985. 

13

Alison Marie Vacca 

2466 Twin Lakes Drive • Ypsilanti, Michigan 48197 

acrossle@umich.edu • (734) 904 – 3769 

Objective 

To participate in the Graduate Student Workshop: “Armenian Subjects in the Medieval and Early Modern Islamic 

World.” 

Education 

PhD program in Near Eastern Studies at the University of Michigan. Interest in Armenia as a province of 

the Caliphate (640 – 886 CE). Embedded MA awarded: 2010. Expected date of completion: 2013. 

Certificate in Museum Studies from the University of Michigan. Completed: January 2011. 

Visiting Student at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2005 – 2007. 

BA from Nazareth College of Rochester, New York. Triple Major in History, Religious Studies and 

International Studies. Minor in Multi-Cultural Studies. Date of Completion: 2005 (degree awarded 2006). 

Language Study 

 

 

Primary research languages: Classical Arabic, Classical Armenian, French, Modern Standard Arabic, 

Modern Eastern Armenian. 

Secondary (reading) languages: Modern Hebrew, Modern Persian, Modern Western Armenian, German. 

Employment Experience 

Three-month internship under the curator of Islamic art at the Royal Ontario Museum (Sept – Dec 2010) 

Editor of the Newsletter of the Society for Armenian Studies (2010 – current) 

Cataloging Arabic manuscripts at Hatcher Library of the University of Michigan (2009 – 2010) 

Graduate Student Instructor: World Religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam (Fall 2008 and Fall 2009) 

Grader: for Prof. Bonner’s classes on Jihad (Fall 2007) and on Islamic Civilization (Spring 2008) 

Study Abroad Experience 

Armenia (Summer 2009): Home-stay and intensive language courses in Modern Eastern Armenian. 

Israel – Palestinian Territories: Fulbright Grant to study the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, 2005 – 06. 

Studied Islamic and Armenian history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2006 – 07. 

Turkey (Spring 2005): studied Islamic history at Boğaziçi University in Istanbul. 

Morocco (Summer 2004): studied Arabic at Al-Akhawayn University in Ifrane. 

Ghana (Spring 2003): studied history of Islam and Christianity in West Africa at the University of Ghana 

in Legon. 

New Zealand (Fall 2002): studied history of religion at the University of Otago in Dunedin. 

France (1999 – 2000): year home-stay in Châteaugiron. High school courses emphasizing French literature 

and history. 

Germany (Summer 1999 and Spring 2000): two short student exchanges to Berlin. 

Other travel experience includes: Western Europe, Balkans, Levant, North Africa, West Africa, Southeast 

Asia, Russia, India, Caucasus.

Public Lectures 

“Islamic Art at the Royal Ontario Museum”: presented on 7 January 2011, University of Michigan Museum 

Studies Brown Bag Lecture 

“A Glory to Islam: Armenia as a Frontier”: presented on 19 November 2010, MESA conference in San 

Diego, California 

“University of Michigan and the Commemoration of the Peace Corps 50 th Anniversary”: presented on 14 

April 2010, University of Michigan Museum Studies Program 

“Competing Historiographies”: presented on 18 April 2009 at the Graduate Students Workshop on 

Armenian Literature, University of Michigan Armenian Studies Program 

Academic Recognition 

K. Allin Luther Award for Excellence in Persian (University of Michigan, 2009) 

Sharon Award for Excellence in Religious Studies (Nazareth College, 2005) 

National Honor Society for Religious Studies (2004 – 2005) 

Scholarships and Grants 

Dolores Zohrab Liebmann Fellowship (2010 – present) 

LSA Regents Fellowship (University of Michigan, 2007 – present) 

Horace Goldsmith Fund Scholarship (Hebrew University, 2006 – 2007) 

Fulbright Grant, Islamic Civilization Initiative (Hebrew University, 2005 – 2006) 

Presidential Scholarship (Nazareth College, 2001 – 2005) 

Regent’s Scholarship (University of Hartford, 2000 – 2001) 

Organizational Affiliations 

 

 

 

 

 

Middle Eastern Studies Association (MESA) 

Society for Armenian Studies (SAS) 

National Association for Armenian Studies and Research (NAASR) 

Historians of Islamic Art Association (HIAA) 

Middle East Medievalists (MEM)





Tuesday, 

May 10, 2011 

Session II 


2-4:30pm 

Ronald 

Suny, Chair 

Charles Tilly Collegiate Professor of Social and Political History 

Professor of History, Collegee of Literature, Science, , and the Arts 

Kevork Bardakjian, Discussant 







CLAUDIA MATODA 

Armeno-Muslim Cultural Encounters at the Castle of Hromklay 

The fortunate relocation of the seat of catholicos and of the relics of Gregory the Enlightner to 

Hromklay castle, independent and easily defensible fief situated on a bend of the Euphrates, was 

the beginning of a new flourishing of the ecclesiastical and cultural institutions. The signs of 

stability and health of the institutions renewed by the catholicos are still perceptible, even if only 

in what remains of their material nature, in the elegance of the buildings and in the artistic 

production flowing from the lively cultural fervour that had its epicentre in Hromklay. As far as 

Armenian history is concerned, the interest for the complex ends in 1292, when the fortress was 

conquered by the Mamluks and the catholicosat moved to Sis; however the destiny of the 

religious buildings andpeople after this date still need to be understood thoroughly. Subsequent 

evidence (first at all travelers’ witnesses and cartographical evidences) seems to demonstrate 

how the reputation of the religious and cultural centre remained almost intact through the 

centuries, despite changes in its use. 

This analysis wants to contribute to knowledge of relationships between Armenians and 

Muslims in the site of Hromklay between XII and XVI century, expressed also through 

architectural witnesses, with a particular attention to his role as a centre of culture and education.

Claudia MATODA 

Politecnico di Torino 


ARMENO-MUSLIM CULTURAL ENCOUNTERS AT THE CASTLE OF HROMKLAY 

Introduction 

The importance of Cilicia in the spread of architectural culture of Armenia is today a field which 

significance has still to be explored. While the student of Cilician history can be supported by a rich 

bibliographical patrimony, enriched during the last thirty years by a trend of studies aimed at the 

drawing of the political context and the clarification of the relationships with the nearby powers more 

or less steady on Mediterranean 1 , on the hand of territorial knowledge and architectural production a 

lot of work has still to be done. The reading of the scant built traces still available, conjugated with the 

richness of documentary sources, allows us to contextualize the Cilician production and its subsequent 

modification in the cultural Mediterranean panorama, which organic unity has not been sufficiently 

underlined yet. 

The area of Hromklay is emblematic of the cultural and religious exchanges in the Mediterranean area; 

Byzantine pre-existence, See of the Armenian Catholicos and in the end cultural and defensive Muslim 

site. The importance of this superimposition of Mamluk identity on the Armenian settlement is still to 

be understood; it seems particularly interesting an analysis of the modifications, reconstructions and 

new buildings made by the Muslims in order to adapt the site to their needs. 

1 On Cilicia's history see for more details: G. Dédéyan, Aux origines de l'etat cilicien: Philarete et les premiers roubeniens, 

Lisbonne 2003, C. Mutafian, La Cilicie au carrefour des empires, Paris 1988, C. Mutafian, Le Royaume Arménien de Cilicie, Paris 

1993, C. Mutafian, ‘Gli inizi della chiesa di Roma nel mondo armeno (1200-1350)’ in C. Mutafian (edited by), Roma-Armenia, 

Roma 1999, pp.155-159, L. H. Ter-Petrossian, ‘Le rôle des Syriens dans la culture de la Cilicie armenienne aux XIIe-XIIIe 

ss.’ in M. Nordio, B. L. Zekiyan (edited by), Atti del II Simposio Internazionale Armenia-Assiria, Venezia 1984, p.73-82, C. 

Cahen, La Syrie du Nord à l’Èpoque des Croisades, Paris 1940, A. Bozoyan, ‘La cultura del “secolo d’argento” e Roma (fine XI 

secolo-inizio del XIII)’ in C. Mutafian (edited by), Roma-Armenia, Roma 1999, pp.131-136. J.Ghazarian, The armenian kingdom 

in Cilicia during the crusades : the integration of cilician armenians with the latins 1080-1393, Richmond 2000. 

1

The choice here is to propose a reading of the settlement based on its three main functions, defensive, 

religious and educational, that concentrated in this spur on the Euphrates both the temporal and 

spiritual power of Armenia, with a particular attention from XII to XV century, proposing new areas of 

research regarding the dialogue between Armenian and Muslim on the architecture of Cilicia 2 . 

Current state of the art and previous scholarship 

The study of Armenian architecture in English and other European languages from the XIX century 

was characterized by a wavering interest and different currents of research; little attention was devoted 

to the distribution on an international scale of these studies. The modern historiography about 

Armenian architecture, both in Caucasus and in Europe, is divided into three parts. 

The first moment of attention was set in the second part of the XIX century; several European 

travelers, mainly French, German and English, led to their homelands the witness of the Armenian and 

Cilician build panorama. The experience of Langlois, Molkte and Mourat 3 allowed the creation of an 

approach to the history of Caucasian architecture. At the same time this interest marked the beginning 

of the study of the relationships between Armenian and European architecture, that found its climax in 

the publication in 1901 of the prominent work Orient oder Rom of Josef Strzygowski 4 . 

A long period of refutation or justification of the Austrian author’s thesis followed; this second 

moment of historiography can be circumscribed from 1901 to 1968. The Armenian architecture is 

2 Hromklay can be fully considered as part of Cilicia or rather should be classified as Syrian possession? Nowadays 

it is in Turkey, near the Syrian border; however, it took strong cultural and political relations with Armenian dominion and 

the upcoming Kingdom of Cilicia. Thus I believe it’s not a simplification to consider it an Armenian enclave, also before 

this relation became official because of the decay of the County of Edessa in the middle of the XII Century. Cf. C. 

Mutafian, E. Van Lauwe, Atlas historique de l’Arménie. Proche-Orient et Sud-Caucase du VIIIe siècle av. J.-C. au XXIe siècle, Paris 

2001, p.54. 

3 V. Langlois, Voyage dans la Cilicie et dans les montagnes du Taurus: execute pendant les annees 1852-1853: par ordre de 

l'empereur, Paris 1861, V. Langlois, Le trésor des Chartes de l'Armenie, Paris 1861, H.Molkte, Lettres du marechal de Moltke sur 

l'Orient, Paris 1872, Mourat, ‘Voyage en Cilicie’ in Revue de l’Orient, 1865. 

4 J. Strzygowski, Orient oder Rom, Liepzig 1901. The fundamental work on Armenian production, however, is: J. 

Strzygowski, Die Baukunst der Armenien und Europa, Wien 1918. On this scholar and his importance in modern architecture 

history, see: C.Maranci, The historiography of Armenian Architecture Josef Strzygowski, Austria and Armenia, REA (Revue des Etudes 

Arméniennes) xxvviii (2001-2002), p.287-308. 

2

mainly used as a tool in reading the built patrimony of the Middle Age, with the creation of two 

currents, the pan-romanians and the pan-orientalists 5 . 

At the end of the sixth decade of the XIX century, a third period starts, which beginning could be 

arbitrarily seen, for what concerns European historiography, in an exposition held in Rome, at Palazzo 

Venezia in 1968 6 ; the Armenian architecture is narrated as an independent production with a definite 

dignity, deserving to be studied for his worth and not only related with the ‘nobler’ European 

architecture. The need to find more or less forced relations with the western production decayed and 

the Armenian patrimony is presented with the same fair eye used by first travelers. Expositions, 

monographs, workshops and symposiums 7 ; different tools that were able to free students from the 

particularism of the previous approach to Armenian architecture. 

The interest in the built patrimony of the Armenian Kingdom followed from a temporal point of view 

the Armenia Major one, and we can pick out two currents. Hild and Hellenkemper have written several 

contributions and a mammoth study 8 about the territorial layout of the area, while the monumental 

Edwards’ work 9 about the defensive structures and ecclesiastical architecture in the fortifications of 

Armenian Cilicia, with a particular attention to the area near Sis, supplies a lot of information about 

materials, functions and forms of buildings. 

5 This definition an codification has been proposed by A. N. Eslami, Architettura e città del Mediterraneo tra Oriente ed 

Occidente, Genova 2002, p.51. Amongst the pan-romanians we can find Riegl, Wichhoff, Kraus, Rivoira e Bettini; these scholars 

were mainly against Strzygowski’s thesis, rather in favor of an approach with the western point of view. Amongst the panorientalists 

were Dalton and Wulff, that accepted the approach of Orient oder Rom author, moving eastward their cultural 

barycenter. In the critic there also were scholars who tried to find a compromise, such as Diehl, Millet and Toesca. 

6 Architettura medievale armena, Roma-Palazzo Venezia, 10-30 giugno 1968, De Luca editore, Roma, 1968. 

7 The production between the Sixties and the Nineties of XX Century is extremely rich; E.Utudjian, Les monuments 

arméniens, Paris 1967, A. Alpago Novello, G. Ieni, A. Manoukian and others, Gli Armeni, Milano 1986, B. L. Zekiyan (edited 

by), Gli Armeni in Italia, Roma 1990, The second international symposium on armenian art, [s.e.], Erevan 1978, C. Mutafian (edited 

by), Roma-Armenia, Roma 1999, G. Ieni (edited by), Atti del primo Simposio internazionale di arte armena, Bergamo, 28-30 giugno 

1975, Venezia 1978, M. Nordio, B. L. Zekiyan (edited by), Atti del II Simposio Internazionale Armenia-Assiria, Venezia 1984, 

p.35-41. P. Cuneo, Architettura armena: dal quarto al diciannovesimo secolo, Roma 1988. 

8 H. Hellenkemper, Burgen der Kreuzritterzeit in der Grefscahft Edessa und im Königreich Kleinarmenien, Bonn 1976, H. 

Hellenkemper, F. Hild, Tabula imperii byzantini 5. Kilikien und Isaurien, Vienna 1990. 

9 R. W. Edwards, The fortifications of Armenian Cilicia, Washington 1987; on ecclesiastical buildings in author’s 

researches see: R. W. Edwards, ‘Ecclesiastical Architecture in the fortifications of Armenian Cilicia’, DOP (Dumbarton 

Oaks Papers) xxxvi (1982) pp. 168-170, R. W. Edwards, ‘Ecclesiastical Architecture in the fortifications of Armenian Cilicia: 

Second Report’ , DOP xxxvii (1983) pp.134-141. 

3

The study of the territory and architecture of Armenian Kingdom has to be based on this knowledge, 

accurate but incomplete, in which the relation with the subsequent occupation of the areas by Muslim 

is still to be discussed 10 . 

From Ani to Sis: the site of Hromklay in the Armenian history 

Rhomaion koula, Hromklay, Ranculat, Qala Romaita, Kalat el Rom, Qal’at ar-Rum: the sequence of 

toponyms - Byzantine, Armenian, Frank, Syriac and Arabian - witnesses the importance of this spur in 

a bend of the Euphrates during the Middle Ages. 

We can suppose a Byzantine settlement in the area, probably characterized by a religious function 11 , but 

the main flourishing is connected to the Armenian presence in the area. It seems plausible to imagine 

an Armenian feudal structure in the middle of XI century 12 ; however the first witness of the Armenian 

presence is connected to the commemoration for the death of Kogh-Vasil and the enumeration of his 

possessions. Among them we can find Hromklay 13 , that seems part of a belt of fortresses. 

The fall of Ani, in the Forties of the XI century, and the aggravation of the pressure on Armenians 

from Islam 14 

led to the progressive displacement of naxarar from Armenia Major to Cilicia; this 

relocation forced to reconsider not only the pre-existing feudal settlement, but also to clarify 

relationships of the new local realities with the nearby powers. Standing out on the international 

scenario because of its strategic position on the principal communication routes and the possibility to 

10 For some historical considerations about this relationships: A.D.Stewart, The Armenian kingdom and the mamluks : 

war and diplomacy during the reigns of Het'um 2. (1289-1307), Leiden 2001. The Armeno-Muslim dialogue in Armenia Major, 

related with ceremonial implications of Bagratids, see L.Jones, Between Islam and Byzantium : Aghtàmar and the visual construction 

of medieval Armenian rulership, Aldershot 2007. 

11 Vers cette époque [612 Armenian Age, 1163 a.D.] le siège patriarcal d'Arménie fut transféré dans une foule de lieux différents: à 

Garmir-vank', à Schough'r, à Dzovk'; enfin il fut fixé à Hr’omgla. Cette forteresse avait été nommée, dit -on, d'un moin romain [Greek] qui 

résidait dans ce lieu. Vartan Le Grand, ‘Histoire’ (extr.trans) in Recueil des Historiens des Croisades, Documents Arméniens, 2 voll., 

Paris 1841-1906, p.434-435. 

12 For the nakharar system and its evolution from Arabic domination to Bagratid era see Dédéyan (2003), pp.xxxvixli. 

13 Year 561 Armenian Age, 1112 a.D.: Le pieux prince Kogh‘-Vasil, signeur de K'éçoun, de Béhesni, Marasch, Raban, 

Ph'arzman, Hr'omgla, Maçara et autres districts mourut en Jésus-Christ. Samuele D’Ani, ‘Tables chronologiques’, in RHCArm, vol.I. 

p.449. Cf. Šempad’s chronique, ad annum 561, Smbat, La chronique attribuee au connétable Smbat (edited and translated by G. 

Dédéyan), Paris 1980. 

14 Due to these pressures after Manazkert battle (1071), almost all Armenia Major moved under the sovereignty of 

Persian Seljuks. Furthermore is a simplification to consider only these two causes: in fact on Armenia Major pressed either 

David III the Constructor and the Mongols. Cf. G. Dédéyan, Histoire du peuple arménien, Toulouse 2007, pp. 327-336. 

4

control ports, Cilicia had to fit in the new political make-up of Asia Minor, clearly defining its role and 

freeing itself from probable interferences from Byzantium, Syria and Crusaders States. The principal 

risk for the newborn entity was to be absorbed by some foreign government, even by the Pope, who 

considered Cilicia as the most important stronghold in the continuing quarrel with the Muslims 15 . The 

exodus of ecclesiastical hierarchies from Armenia Major was inevitable, because it would have been 

inconceivable to keep the Catholicos in a territory subjugated by foreign forces and a different 

religion 16 ; a lot of temporary seats 17 followed Ani to the borders of Cappadocia, subjected to the 

protectorate of local lords and presumably lacking in decisional autonomy. 

The political structure of the Mediterranean states, temporary results of the Crusades, led to the 

annexation of Hromklay to the County of Edessa, controlled by Baldwin of Le Bourg, and the 

subsequent cession to the Catholicos from Dzovk’ 18 . Gregory III 19 succeeded in displace the siege of 

Catholicos and the relics of Gregory the Illuminator to Hromklay castle, independent and easily 

defensible. Moreover, the County of Edessa would have assured religious tolerance and protection due 

to the tribute payment, allowing a flourishing cultural center free from too strict interferences from the 

Franks 20 . 

The rise of the Catholicos See of Hromklay was more than the conversion of a fortress into a religious 

center; it marked the beginning of a new period of stability and, in some way, legitimated and gave 

more strength to the Kingdom of Sis. By then, the sorrowful decline of Ani is past and the cultural and 

commercial barycenters are on the coast of Mediterranean, the chroniclers write the facts that happen 

on the Southern part of Taurus and the historiography is a symptom of the new configuration. 

15 Dédéyan (2007), p.338. 

16 

The Catholicos See officially moved from Anì in 1064, when the city was conquered by the Seljuks. 

17 

On Catholicos See moving see the map in Mutafian (2001), p. 77. 

18 Different sources provide different attestations on how Catholicos moved his See to Hromklay. Michel Le Syrien, 

p.342-343, Gregoire le Pretre, ‘Continuation de la chronique de Matthieu d’Edessa’, in RHCArm, vol.I. p. 154, Nerses 

Shnorhali, ‘Elegie sur la prise d’Edessa’, in RHCArm, vol.I, p. 223. 

19 Gregory III Pahlawuni is particularly interesting; brother of Nerses, descendant from a noble and mighty dynasty, 

he tried to develop dialogue and pacification between the Churches. He held vivid relations with Roman and Syrian 

Churches; just because of this ecumenic behaviour he had been stigmatized by his contemporaries, which often interpreted 

this pacific approach to his codardy more than to his foresight. The Iranian Jakobite historian Aboulfaradj supplied the tale 

that an Armenian named Micheal, governor of Hromklay, proposed to josselin's wife and son to call for the help of the 

catholicos which stayed on the Kharpert lake. The holy man, once arrived, would have intrigued in order to chase away 

Michael and steal all his wealth.Cf. Gregorio Il Prete, 'Continuazione della Cronaca di Matteo d’Edessa', in Recueil des 

Historiens des Croisades, Documents Arméniens (here onward RHCArm), 2 voll., Paris 1841-1906., vol.I p. 154. 

20 Cahen (1940), p. 335-338. 

5

Catholicos Gregory III was an important personage, that reformed the structure of Armenian Church 

and looked for a compromise with Syrian and Western contexts; besides his innovations to the spiritual 

buildings, he also devoted himself to the realization of the plan of Hromklay. He commissioned the 

updating of defensive structures, the new catholicos’ church and created a school for the translation 

into Armenian of Holy Books, that had a constant and intense production from 1113 to 1168 21 . 

Therefore Gregory III gave to Hromklay its tripartite nature, i.e. defensive stronghold on the 

Euphrates, religious center and didactic structure. These three functions were kept in the subsequent 

periods and declined following the requirements of different occupants. 

The Armenian-Muslim conflict and the siege of 1292 

The strengthening of the Armenian power in Cilicia during the XIII Century, even if fated to be 

temporary, led the Kingdom to dialogue with the others emerging powers; several Hethoumids kings 

adopted a particularly aggressive diplomacy. The relations with the Pope, but particularly the alliance 

with Mongols 22 , attracted on the Kingdom of Cilicia a dangerous attention by the Mamluks. The arrival 

of the Tartars on political panorama was devastating for the international equilibrium and allows to 

consider connected the Armenian-Mamluk conflict with the Armenian relation with Mongols 23 . 

Because Het‘um I formalized his dependence on Tartar King in order to resist to Seljuk advance 24 and 

21 Guiragos De Kantzag, p.417. Engraving and manuscript work was particularly relevant Mutafian (1993), p.27. On 

the development of Hromklay school see Mutafian (1993), p.127-132. 

22 

On the relations between Armenians, Mamluks and Mongols see: A. D. Stewart (2001). There is here a wide and 

up to date bibliography on the relations between Mongols, Armenian and Mamluks. 2009 Exhibition: I Mongoli in Armenia: 

storia e immaginario dal 26 al 27 novembre 2009. In the University of Bologna, is running a research project called Realtà e 

immaginazione sui popoli dell’Asia centrale nelle fonti medievali armene e occidental, directed by Anna Sirinian, in which are involved 

either scholars from Bologna - G. Uluhogian e M. Bais –, from Yerevan State University and from the National Academy of 

Sciences of Armenia – P. Chobanyan, A. Bozoyan e H. Margaryan. R.Amitai-Preiss, Mongols and Mamluks: the Mamluk- 

Ilkhanid war 1260-1281, Cambridge 1995. 

23 Stewart (2001), p. 43, cf. M. Canard, ‘Le royaume d’Arménie-Cilicie et les Mamelouks jusqu’au traité de 1285’, 

REA iv (1967): 217-235. 

24 Armenia became independent from Mongols in 1244; Jean de Joinville in The Life of Saint Louis underlines that the 

choice of the King of Armenia to become his vassal was in order to escape to the subjection of the Sultan of Iconium. 

Stewart (2001), p. 45. 

6

gave the Armenian support to the Mongols to conquer of Syria 25 , the Mamluks started thinking to take 

an offensive against the Armenian Kingdom, that became possible with the decline of Tartars. 

The king Lewon had to face the Mamluk aggression in 1268, when he had to leave the capital Sis and 

other Cilician possessions to Baybars; in 1285 a treaty between Lewon and Qalawun led the Kingdom 

to become subject to the Mamluk sultanate 26 . 

In 1289 Het‘um II ascended to the throne and had to deal with the decline and subsequent fall of the 

Crusader States 27 , economic problems and instability of the Ilkhanate 28 and, most important, with the 

belligerent policy of the Mamluk Sultanate 29 . The growing tensions culminated in the siege of Hromklay 

in 1292, a consequence of the fall of the Frankish states in the Mamluks strategy 30 ; not only the castle 

was the religious center of the Armenian culture, as important as the capital city of the Kingdom Sis, 

but it was also the most isolated outpost to the borders of the Sultanate. 

The sources describe the attack and the siege in a clear and exhaustive way and, after one month of 

siege, there was an attempt made by Het‘um, with the assistance of Mongols, to free the Catholicosate 

See, but the captured fortress was lost. The capture of Hromklay led to the devastation of the 

structures, the temporary removal of the holy relic of Gregory the Illuminator 31 

and the pillage of the 

settlement. 

On 28 June 1292 Qal‘at al-Rūm was superimposed on the fortress of Hromklay; the passage of the 

structure to Muslims led to the updating of the defensive apparatus, to the creation of mosques and of 

an Islamic school. 

25 Stewart (2001), p. 46.-47 The Mongol destruction of the Muslim principalities in Mesopotamia and Syria allowed Het‘um to 

expand his ream and recover places on his Cappadocian, Mesopotamian end Syrian borders, lands crossed by important trade routes…Between 

660/1262 and 662/1264, Het‘um launched a series of expeditions into northern Syria. 

26 

Stewart (2001), p. 51-58. The interest in this treaty was in the fact that the Catholicos, his monks and his residence, 

so the entire site of Hromklay was included in the text and determined that Lewon could not start works in order to built 

new fortifications and he could not clearly start any offensive. 

27 C. Cahen, La Syrie du Nord à l’Èpoque des Croisades, Paris 1940, C. Cahen, Oriente e Occidente ai tempi delle Crociate, 

Bologna 1986, A. Hatem, Les poemes épiques des Croisades, Genève 1973, S. Runcimann, Storia delle crociate, Torino 1966. 

28 D. Morgan, Medieval Persia 1040-1797, London 1988. 

29 Stewart (2001), p. 71. 

30 Stewart (2001), p. 73. In author’s opinion these two facts are strictly related. 

31 Brought subsequently to Sis from Het‘um, where was founded the Catholicosate See. 

7

The evolution of the defensive role 

As already underlined, the site was extremely interesting by a territorial point of view; the morphology 

of the area, an isolated spur protected by the water of Euphrates and by a deep cut in the rock on the 

southern side, was exploited in the defensive structure certainly already traced by Kogh-Vasil. The 

Armenian defensive system should have been comparable, for defensive techniques and organization to 

its contemporary, Amberd 32 ; we can imagine the Armenian defensive structure composed by semicircular 

or circular towers. The use of squared elements started in Cilicia at the beginning of the XIII 

Century, maybe due to the contact with Crusaders. The arrangement of the vaulted gate on the west 

side can be related to the work of Gregory. Another important aspect of analysis is the system of water 

supplying; on the northern part of the site there is a circular pit, with a stair to the Euphrates 33 . 

After the capture of several sites, Qalawun started thinking about the restoration of the defensive 

systems; the architect who was charged of the restoration of the site of Hromklay is known, thanks to 

the attestations of some Arabic and Syrian sources. Qalawun charged ‘Alam al-Dīn Sanjar al-Shujā‘ī of 

the updating of the structures 34 and the challenge had to be extremely interesting for this architect. We 

know him from his work as construction supervisor in other fortified sites, always with Qalawun, with 

whom there must have been a fortunate cooperation. We can read the present state of the site by 

comparing it with the contemporary structure drawn by al-Shujā‘ī, to get a more specific knowledge. 

The main similarities can be read with the citadel of Damascus 35 ; after the building of the first structure 

32 See: N. M. Tokarskyij, ‘La fortezza e la chiesa di Amberd (X-XIV secolo)’, in Amberd. Documenti di Architettura 

Armena 5, Milano 1978. Hromklay defensive structure is coherent with Armenia Major one for what concerns its plan and 

construction techniques. The continuity in defensive structure, studied by Edwards and Hellenkemper, could be an effective 

starting point for the study of religious institutions. 

33 Dans les temps reculés, Rumkale a été le siège de prêtres arméniens, qui fondèrent ici un couvent magnifique. La furie de la destruction 

n’a pas réussi à renverser complètement ces quartiers immenses […]. Un travail des moins arméniens est de leurs prédécesseurs: c’est un puits 

profond de près de 200 pieds, où un escalier circulaire, taillé dans le roc, descend jusqu’au niveau de l’Euphrate. Molkte (Von), Lettres du 

maréchal Moltke sur l’Orient, transl. A. Marchand, Paris 1841 in Mutafian (1993), p.106. 

34 Stewart (2001), p. 83. Cf. P. M. Holt (estracts translated), The Memoirs of a Syrian Prince: Abu’l-Fidā, Sultan of Hamāh 

(672-732/1273-1331), Wiesbaden 1983, p.19. The same evidence is confirmed by others chroniclers: J. Sauvaget, La 

Chronique de Damas d’al-Jazari (années 689-698), Paris 1949, E. M. Quatremere (part. Trans.), Histoire des sultans Mamlouks de 

l’Egypte, 2 vol in 4 parts , Paris 1837-1854. 

35 About Damascus citadel: S. Berthier, ‘La Citadelle de Damas: les apports d’une etude archéologique’, in H. 

Kennedy (edited by), Muslim military architecture in greater Syria: from the coming of Islam to the Ottoman period, Leiden 2006; D. J. C. 

King, “The defences of the Citadel of Damascus; a Great Mohammedan Fortress of the Time of the Crusades”, Archeologia 

or Miscellaneous Tracts relating to Antiquity, xciv (1951), p.57-96, J. Sauvaget, “La cìtadelle de Damas”, Syria, 11 (1930). 

8

at the end of the XI Century for the Seljuks will to displace the royal residence, an important set of 

restoration works started in the XIII Century for the Ayyubid Sultanate 36 . Al-Shujā‘ī had to work on the 

structure after the Mongol invasions, during a restoration campaign started by Qalawun. 

The Mamluks intervention on the defensive system of Hromklay is more legible in the northern part of 

the site; the galleries at the northern end of the fortress presents Mamluk box machicolation 37 that 

seems to be strictly connected to the one of Damascus citadel 38 . Other important analogies can be 

found in the defensive system of Aleppo. One open question is connected to the wokforce used in 

Hromklay; we can in fact recognize different types of masonry that can be helpful in the attribution of 

the different part. While for the west gate we have a rusticated masonry with drafted margins, the Type 

VII of Edward’s catalogue 39 , on the external part of the north wall the technique, a smooth ashlar with 

narrow interstices on the poured wall technique, seems to be connected with other experiences. 

Sauvaget assumes in Damascus citadel the use of workmen came on purpose from Aleppo 40 ; even if it 

should be strengthened from further analysis, it seems plausible the use of the same building skills. The 

research on the different constructive techniques at Hromklay seems to be extremely promising. 

The religious and didactical structures 

The most important innovations referred by the Armenian chroniclers about the site of Hromklay 

concern the erection of the church of catholicos and in general of buildings connected to the 

ecclesiastical function, which today are emblematic, particularly the palace. While knowledge of 

religious architecture offers several examples that allow a quite satisfactory awareness of the 

36 Doubling of the walls with three doors and fourteen three levels towers. 

37 Not only with the citadel of Damascus, but used at Crac of Chevaliers and at Marqab. Cfr. B. Michaudel, ‘The 

development of Islamic Military Architecture’ in H. Kennedy (edited by), Muslim Military Architecture in Greater Syria, Leiden 

2006, p.118-119 

38 Damascus citadel had to dialogue with the city and was a punctual defensive system in the fortificated curtain, 

while Hromklay is a fortificated settlement, with little components extra moenia. The connection with the city, absent in 

Hromgla, is fundamental in the plan of the citadel. 

39 Edwards (1987), p.23: Type VII. This mansory consists of well-cut regular blocks that have a projecting boss on the outer face. The 

edge of the outer face have neatly drafted margins that facilitate the alignment of the blocks during construction. Normally this mansory is 

pseudoisodomic. 

40 Sauvaget (1930), p.222: Elles relèvent toutes, en effet, des méthodes de construction en usage à cette époque dans la Syrie 

septentrionale, et on peut poser comme certain que des techniciens et des ouvriers venus d'Alep ont collaboré d'une façon très active à l’édification de 

la Citadelle. 

9

constructive panorama, palatial architecture is lacking in terms of comparison because of the 

generalized disappearance of the architectural patrimony in Greater Armenia. 

In XVII century Marsili Plan, Hromklay is still represented as a center of great importance 41 ; as midway 

through the XIX century French travelers, above all Von Molkte 42 , payed attention to the structure. 

The great impact of the church of catholicos can only be partially hypothesized today, since there are 

only the remains of the apsidal wall dominating the southern summit of the promontory. The build 

traces left are important in order to understand the possible shapes of the church. These remains are 

strengthned by literary sources; on one hand Armenian chronicles of Crusades, on the other knowledge 

of liturgies, declined in the Cilician version in Gugerotti’s work 43 . All these tools bring to a domed 

structure as in the way of East, as described by Samuel of Ani and Guiragos de Kantzag 44 . The 

dimensional proportion attributable to the building remains uncertain; the architectural consistence is in 

fact not analyzable unless using a length that can be supposed as a proportional connection, based on 

the persistence of the apsidal wall 45 . 

The traveler Richard Pococke, an English traveler of the XVIII century, gave us with his work on the 

Middle East 46 an important witness about the religious state of the site; he describes two different 

churches and we can make some considerations about his narration. The first church is lower and 

Pockocke described it as the more ancient, with three naves 47 ; the second one is on the top of the hill 

41 G. Uluhogian, Un’antica mappa dell’Armenia. Monasteri e santuari dal I al XVII secolo, Ravenna 2000, p.141, n.623. 

Eremia Çelebi K‘ēōmiwrčean realised the map of the religious network of Armenia for the count Luigi Ferdinando Marsili, 

representing the Armenian Church with its monasteries and sanctuaries. 

42 Dans les temps reculés, Rumkale a été le siège de prêtres arméniens, qui fondèrent ici un couvent magnifique. La furie de la destruction 

n’a pas réussi à renverser complètement ces quartiers immenses […]. Un travail des moins arméniens est de leurs prédécesseurs : c’est un puits 

profond de près de 200 pieds, où un escalier circulaire, taillé dans le roc, descend jusqu’au niveau de l’Euphrate. Von Molkte in Mutafian 

(1993), p. 106. 

43 C. Gugerotti, La liturgia armena delle ordinazioni e l’epoca ciliciana. Esiti rituali di una teologia di comunione tra Chiese, Roma 

2001. 

44 Après Basile, la dignité fut conferée à Gregoire [Pahlawuni], qui la conserva cinquante trois ans. Cet admirable prélat, s'étant mis 

à l'oeuvre, bâtit dans la forteresse de Hr'om-gla une magnifique église, surmontée d'une coupole. Guiragos de Kantzag, p.416. 

45 Two hypotheses are, in my opinion, the principal whom the church could be related to; from a side a Byzantine 

model, on the other the Armenian type of the cathedral of Anì. For the hypothesis: C. Matoda, ‘Il catholicosato armeno di 

Hromkla: testimonianze architettoniche’, in «Rassegna degli Armenisti Italiani» xi (2010), pp. 35-39, on-line: 

http://www.padusaraxes. com/rassegna/index.htm. 

46 R. Pococke, ‘A Description of the East and Some other Countries’, Vol. ii, London 1745, in J. Pinkerton, A 

General Collection of the Best and Most Interesting Voyages and Travels in All Parts of the World: Many of which are Now First Translated 

Into English ; Digested on a New Plan, Vol. xv, London 1814, p. 531-532. 

47 There are two churches in the castle; the lower one seems to be more ancient, and consists of three naves; the west end of the middle nave 

is adorned with an angular pediment amd the side ones with a half pediment, which from this appears to be the style of the Greeks; and it may be 

supposed that Palladio borrowed this kind of architecture for them. Pococke (1814) p.532. 

10

and it is described as a tetragonal building 48 . Pococke was describing the catholicos church; it still 

remains the problem of the localization of the second church. Even if the traveler presents us the lower 

church as the more ancient, we do not have any reply in the documentary sources; this second structure 

is still to inquire. It could have been connected to the Byzantine past of the site or to the ancient castle 

of Kogh-Vasil. 

The shape, orientation and position in relation with the main church led us thinking that the rectangular 

room on the eastern side of the promontory of the catholicos church could be a refectory 49 . 

The Basravma Monastery, a squared cross-vaulted structure in the northern part of the site, seems 

particularly interesting and it could be the building in which the Armenian-Muslim contact could be 

investigated in a profitable way. The Muslim and Ottoman use of the structure and palace, after some 

restorations, seems now to be assumed as certain; however the masonry and the form of the building 

lead to hypothesize an Armenian dating 50 . Material evidences, not strengthened by an accurate relief as 

it would be necessary, present a semi-hypogeum space, with barrel vaults and pits for the light; the 

presence of several internal niches has to be considered. We can see a series of rooms with the same 

characteristics used as scriptorium or didactic spaces in the Hogeac e vank e , but this analysis on the 

possibile Armenian origin of the room has to be developed. The knowledge about the architecture for 

the transmission of culture and for the didactic spaces is still at an embryonal state 51 ; the few materic 

48 On the top of the hill there are some very magnificent old buildings, and a small church in a Gothic taste, though very grand. This 

church on some certain days is much resorted to by the neighbouring Christians, and is called Ter Nasite, from which one would imagine, that there 

was antiently a convent here. This church is almost a square; and there are two chapels on each side of the high altar; the ascent to the church is by 

a flight of eight steps on each side to a landing place; at the bottom of these flights there are two great octagons pillars with Gothic capitals. 

Pococke (1814) p.532. 

49 As the one seen in the almost contemporary Dadivank e , Kiranc e Vank e and Gošavank e cfr. Cuneo (1988), i, 

respectively p. 450, p. 336 and p. 348. This spaces were usually barrel vaulted and not necessarelly connected directly with 

the main church. 

50 The stones cut like bricks were used in similar forms in some armenian fortifications of Cilicia, like Payas,the 

second level of Silifke and Sinap, near Lampron. Cfr. Edwards (1987), plates 117, 202 and 208. 

51 

About the armenian educational system in the Middle Ages: G.Ter Vardanian ‘L’educazione, il sistema scolastico, i 

diversi gradi delle scuole e dell’istruzione nell’Armenia Medievale’ in A. Sirinian, S. Mancini Lombardi, L.D. Nocetti (edited 

by), Le scienze e le arti nell'Armenia medievale : seminario internazionale, 29-30 ottobre 2001, Bologna 2003. Some other consideration 

for the plan of monastic libraries in mediaeval Armenia, C.Matoda, ’Gli spazi della cultura nell'Armenia medievale: 

prospettive di indagine’ , in the upcoming «Rassegna degli Armenisti Italiani». 

11

traces and the huge patrimony connected to the analysis of manuscripted colophones 52 

allow us, 

through future studies, to increase our knowledge about the theme. 

It is still to explore the possibility to find cultural spaces in the Muslim gates and towers, as seen in 

Damascus. 

Conclusions and future perspectives of research 

In order to conclude this short intervention, I would like to synthesize the most interesting open 

question for the future. First of all, it still remains to individuate the mosques that some sources localize 

in the site; the use of the catholicos church as muslim cultual space has still to be clearly demonstrated, 

explaining through material evidences how this structure should have been turned into a mosque. 

Another point to study is the analysis of the different masonry techniques, that can give us a lot of 

information about the phases of work on the site. Hromklay represents the expression of a new 

language, the architectural product of a mutated social structure; the most important question for the 

future remains the contextualization of these vocabularies in the architectural and decorative panorama. 

52 The indications that can be draw by the colophons as sources constitute a little explorated patrimony. About the 

theme, see: G. Dédéyan, ‘Les colophons de manuscrits armeniens comme sources pour l'histoire des Croisades’ in J. 

France, W.G. Zajac (edited by), The Crusades and their sources : essays presented to Bernard Hamilton, Ashgate 1998, p. 89-110. 

12

Claudia MATODA 

curriculum vitae 

claudia.matoda@polito.it 

Turin (IT), 05.12.1984 

ACADEMIC 

QUALIFICATIONS 

2010- now PhD student at Department Casa-Città, Second Faculty of Architecture, Politecnico di 

Torino, Italy. 

Main fields of interest: History of architecture in Middle Ages, Armenian Architecture 

on Mediterrean Sea. 

http://www.polito.it/ricerca/dipartimenti/dicas/ 

2006-2008 Master Degree in Architecture; mark: 110/110 with Honours. 

Dissertation title: Armeni tra Bizantini e Normanni: indagine sull'architettura tra 11. e 

13. secolo/ Armenians between the Byzantines and the Normans: a survey of on 

architecture from 11. and 13. century 

http://webthesis.biblio.polito.it/1335/ 

2003-2006 Bachelor Degree in Architecture; mark: 110/110 

ACADEMIC 

EXPERIENCE 

Since 2009 

Since 2008 

Member of the national association Storia della Città (History of the Cities), Rome 

Online: http://www.storiadellacitta.it/ 

Professor Claudia BONARDI (Politecnico di Torino, Italy); sector: Research about 

History of Architecture and Territory; position held: free research collaborator; activity: 

didactical activities for the students of professor Bonardi. 

PUBLICATIONS 

Workshops 

2010 MATODA C., The spaces for culture in Armenia. Casa Armena Milano, Piazza Velasca 

4, Milan, 13 November 2011. Workshop of the association Padus-Araxes 

(http://www.padus-araxes.com), from Prof. Boghos Levon Zekiyan and Prof. Anna 

Sirinian, University of Venezia and University of Bologna. Upcoming publication 

(2012). 

2009 MATODA C., The Armenian catholicos of Hromklay: architectural witnesses. Casa 

Armena Milano, Piazza Velasca 4, Milan, 14 November 2009. Workshop of the 

association Padus-Araxes (http://www.padus-araxes.com), from Prof. Boghos Levon 

Zekiyan and Prof. Anna Sirinian, University of Bologna. 

Proceedings 

2010 MATODA C., The Armenian catholicos of Hromklay: architectural witnesses, in 

“Rassegna degli Armenisti Italiani” XI (2010), pp.35-39 

online: http: //www.padus-araxes.com/rassegna/index.htm 

Articles on book 

2011 (upcoming publication) MATODA C.,The House of Savoy and Dominicans in Southern France, in CLAUDIA 

BONARDI A CURA DI, Atti del Convegno Gli Ordini Mendicanti nella Città: I Frati 

Predicatori (The Mendicant Order in the Town: The Preachers), Editore Kappa, Roma 

2009 MATODA C., San Michele Cesani a Prazzo, in CLAUDIA BONARDI A CURA DI, 

La Valle Maira (Alta Valle Maira, Valle di Canosio e di Elva), Atlante dell’edilizia 

montana nelle Alte Valli del Cuneese(collana a cura di Lorenzo MAMINO), vol. 5, 

Mondovì, 2009, p.180. 

MATODA C., San Michele Castiglioni, in CLAUDIA BONARDI A CURA DI, La 

Valle Maira (Alta Valle Maira, Valle di Canosio e di Elva), Atlante dell’edilizia 

montana nelle Alte Valli del Cuneese(collana a cura di Lorenzo MAMINO), vol. 5, 

Mondovì, 2009, p.183-184 

MATODA C., Acceglio a Villar, in CLAUDIA BONARDI A CURA DI, La Valle 

Maira (Alta Valle Maira, Valle di Canosio e di Elva), Atlante dell’edilizia montana 

nelle Alte Valli del Cuneese(collana a cura di Lorenzo MAMINO), vol. 5, Mondovì, 

2009, p.311.

LILIT HARUTYUNYAN 

The Creation of Armenian Catholic Monastery in Bzummar/Zmmar/ 

Maronite monasticism, which was reorganized in Mount Lebanon in the XVII century, 

provided the environment for young Armenians who were coming from Aleppo to find the 

opportunity to receive religious education and offer their administration, artistic and intellectual 

talents for development of the Maronite Antonine monasteries in their organizational phase. 

Another consequence of this early interaction between the Maronits and Armenian Catholics 

was the encouragement and support offered by the Maronite religious authorities and the Khazin 

feudal lords. Armenian individuals, including the trainees of the Maronite convent of Qozhayya 

in Besharreh, were helped. Permission was granted for the Armenian Catholics to found their 

community, convent of Kraym in Ghosta in 1720 and in 1749 the convent of Bzummar, thus 

creating a foothold for the Catholic Armenians in Lebanon, which would attract in course of 

time, other Armenians, who escaping anti-Catholic persecution perpetrated by the Armenian 

Orthodox patriarch and the Ottoman government in Aleppo, would seek refuge within these 

monasteries under the protection of the Maronites. 

Within a short period, the monastery of Bzummar, with its silk production and supply of 

wheat flour and money lending, became a center of commerce in the local market, which in its 

turn promoted the status of the community members not only as polite and intelligent, but also as 

an economically useful element to the prosperity of Mount Lebanon.

Dr. LILIT HARUTYUNYAN 

THE CREATION OF ARMENIAN CATHOLIC MONASTRY IN BZUMMAR /ZMMAR/ 

16-18 centuries considered the centuries of development of the Armenian 

community of Aleppo. With its many trading houses it was a major trading center 

between Europe and Asia 1 . Prominent Armenian traveller Simeon Lehatsi (Poland) 

described Aleppo: “The city is a great center of commerce ... where there are 365 

Khans, a large number of shops and stalls. The baths are wonderful” 2 . 

The Franco-Ottoman agreement of 1535, and the other ones that have 

succeeded, signed between the Ottoman Empire and a number of European countries 

(later became the basis of the system of Surrender) 3 , opened a road for installation of 

the Latin missionaries in Aleppo from 1670. The missionaries were under the auspices 

of the Consul of France Francois Picquet 4 . 

The rich cultural life of the prosperous Armenian community of Aleppo was mainly 

centered around two churches: the Churches of the Forty Martyrs (built in 1509) and of 

the Holy Mother of God /Virgin Mary Church/ (renovated in 1535). Armenian merchants 

1 M. I. Tikadze, Lebanese Trade and Syrian Cities of XVI-XVIII Centuries, History and Economics of Arab 

Countries, Moscow, 1997, p.132 (in Russian), A. K. Sanjian, The Armenian Communities in Syria under 

Ottoman Domination, Harvard, 1965, p. 49. 

2 Simeon Lehatsi, Guide, Annals and Memoirs, Published by H. Nerses V. Akinian,Vienna, 1936, pp. 317- 

324; Nerses V. Akinian, The Armenian Life in Aleppo, Monthly Review, March-June, Aleppo, 1993, pp. 

307-308. /êÇÙ¿áÝ ¹åÇñ È»Ñ³óÇáÛ, àõÕ»·ñáõÃÇÇÝ ï³ñ»·ñáõÃÇÇÝ »Ç ÚÇß³ï³Ï³ñ³ÝÇ, Ññ³ï. Ð. 

Ü»ñë»ë ì. ²ÏÇÝ»³Ý, ìÇ»ÝÝ³, 1936, ¿ç 317-324: Ü»ñë»ë ì. ²ÏÇÝ»³Ý, Ð³Û ÏÛ³ÝùÁ Ð³É»åÇ Ù»ç, 

Ð³Ý¹»ë ³ÙëûñÛ³, 3-4, Ù³ñï-ÑáõÝÇë, 1933, Ð³É»å, ¿ç 307-308:/ 

3 H. Kh. Topuzian, The History of the Armenian Diaspora in Syria and Lebanon, Yerevan, 1986, p. 33 (in 

Armenian). / Ð.Ê. Âá÷áõ½Û³Ý, êÇñÇ³ÛÇ ¨ ÈÇµ³Ý³ÝÇ Ñ³ÛÏ³Ï³Ý ·³ÕÃûç³ËÝ»ñÇ å³ïÙáõÃÛáõÝ, 

ºñ¨³Ý, 1986, ¿ç 33:/ 

4 Panos S. Jeranian, Armenian- Maronite Relations in Mount Lebanon / 1720-1840 /, Haykazian Armenian 

Studies Jurnal, Ed. 26, Beirut, 2006, p. 4. /Ð³ÛÏ³½Û³Ý Ñ³Û³·Çï³Ï³Ý Ñ³Ý¹»ë, h. Æ¼, ´»ÛñáõÃ, 2006, ¿ç 

41:/ 

1

were very interested in the cultural life of the community, and had a special interest 

towards these churches. In addition, with the spirit of Christian brotherhood, they 

attended the Maronite Church of St. Elias, located in the proximity of the Holy Mother of 

God Church 5 . In the late 15th century Rayis Issa has expanded the church of the Holy 

Forty Martyrs and helped renovate the Maronite church of St. Elias 6 . 

In the 17th century the Maronite community of Aleppo played an important role in 

the spread of Catholicism among the Armenians. Catholic preachers, who had the 

support of the consuls, attracted the Armenians with the promises of assistance in their 

further trading activities 7 . This provoked the discontent of the Armenian Apostolic 

Church and the Ottoman government. The Ottoman government still in the early 16th 

century recognized the Armenian Apostolic Patriarch as the leader of the Armenian 

Millet 8 . 

In 1776 the number of Catholic Armenians was 4,000, in 1794 they were 5,000 9 , 

and in 1827 3,000 10 . The declining number of Catholic Armenians was due to their 

migration to other countries, particularly Lebanon, where comfortable conditions were 

created for them in Kesrouan region where they could comfortably preach their religious 

doctrine. In the 18th century, Armenian Catholics in Aleppo and Constantinople were 

5 Antoine Rabbath, Documents Inédits Pour Servir a l’Histoire du Christianisme en Orient, Paris, 1905, p. 388. 

6 Msgr. Artavazd Surmeyan, History of Armenians of Aleppo, T. II, Paris, 1946, p. 33. (In Armenian.). 

/²ñï³õ³½¹ ²ñù»åÇëÏáåáë êÇõñÙ¿»³Ý, ä³ïÙáõÃÇõÝ Ð³É¿åÇ Ð³Ûáó. Ð³É»å, Ñ. ´., ´»ÛñáõÃ, 1946, ¿ç 

33:/ 

7 Ibid, p. 518. 

8 M. A. Gasparian, S. F. Orechkova, Y. A. Petrossian, Studies on the history of Turkey, Moscow, 1983, p. 

50 (in Russian). / Ì.À. Ãàñðàòÿí, Ñ.Ô. Îðåøêîâà, Þ. À. Ïåòðîñÿí, Î÷åðêè èñòîðèè Òóðöèè, Ì., 

1983, ñ. 50./ 

9 Ibid, p. 15. 

10 Mesrob Terzian, Le Patriarcat de Cilicie et les Arméniens Catholiques, Beyrouth, 1955, p. 25. 

2

persecuted by the Apostolic Patriarchate and the Ottoman government. The main 

reason for these persecutions was their relations with the Catholic missionaries 11 . 

In 1735-1736 prosecutions against Armenian Catholics resumed in the Ottoman 

Empire. France is trying to defend Catholics, what was seen as an attempt to intervene 

in the Empire’s affairs. The Armenian Apostolic Patriarchate was using any tension in 

Franco-Ottoman relations in helping to strengthen prosecution of Catholics in the 

Empire. In 1828 the Sultan has declared a firman to prosecute Catholics 12 . Many 

Catholics were imprisoned and exiled, and most have taken refuge in Lebanon. 

The situation of Armenian Catholics in Aleppo was unstable and precarious. The 

support of European ambassadors, particularly of France, was not always effective 13 . 

Armenian Catholics understood that in such conditions they could not organize as a 

separate community. And it was natural that they were leaning toward Lebanon, where 

among the Maronites there were created favorable conditions for theirs’ installation 14 . 

In the late 17th and 18th centuries the Armenians of Aleppo began to settle in the 

Mount Lebanon’s Maronite monasteries. In 1701 the Maronite Patriarch Douaihy 

appointed Abd Allah Qarali (1672-1742), preacher at Aleppo, as chief director of the 

Monastery of Mar Elisha (St. Elisha) in Lebanon 15 . It was situated in the north of the 

11 Pierre Raphael, Le Role des Maronites dans le Retour des Eglises Orientales, Beyrouth, 1935, p. 7. 

12 Vartan Tekeyan, Le Patriarcat Arménien Catholique de Cilicie au Temps de Gregoire Pierre VI (1812-1840), 

Beyrouth, 1954, p. 140. 

13 Charle-Roux, France et Chrétiens d’Orient, Paris, 1939, p. 301. 

14 Panos S. Jeranian, p. 48. 

15 Archbishop Maghakia Ormaneian, History of the Nation: The Details of the Armenian Orthodox Church 

from the Beginning to Our Days with the National Related Attributes, T. II, Holy Edjmiatsin, 2001, p. 3145 

/in Armenian/. /Ø³Õ³ùÇ³ ²ñù»åÇëÏáåáë úñÙ³Ý»³Ý, ²½·³å³ïáõÙ. Ð³Û áõÕÕ³÷³é »Ï»Õ»óÇáÛ 

³Ýóù»ñÁ ëÏ½µ¿Ý ÙÇÝã»Ç Ù»ñ ûñ»ñÁ Û³ñ³ÏÇó ³½·³ÛÇÝ å³ñ³·³Ý»ñáí å³ïÙáõÍ, Ñ.µ, Ø³Ûñ ³Ãáé ê. 

¾çÙÇ³ÍÇÝ, 2001, ¿ç 3145:/ 

3

village Becharreh, in the valley of Kadisha River which originates from the Cedars region 

and empties into the Mediterranean Sea 16 . 

Many young people of different ethnicities: Greeks, Assyrians, Armenians and 

Jewish, have settled in the monastery where they had to equal obligations and 

opportunities. The documents of the Antonine monastery created in 1707 in Luwayzeh 

certify that the number of young Armenians settled in the Maronite monasteries, grew to 

the wall and measure. Armenian monks were distinguished by their mental abilities. 

Several of them after went to Rome making their higher education at the college of 

Propaganda 17 . 

The few Armenians occupied important administrative positions in the Antonian 

congregation. In 1707 in Luwayzeh the Antonine congregation opened a school in which 

the Armenian Jakob Haroutin was named director 18 . 

Boutros Saati, one of the Armenian monks also held important positions in the 

Maronite monasteries. He was the governor of the Maronite Antonine congregation, and 

the head of the central library of the monastery of Luwayzeh where there were kept 

valuable documents on the history of Lebanon and the Maronite community 19 . 

In the 18th century the idea of establishing monasteries on the example of 

Maronite Antonine congregation grew gradually among the Armenian Catholics. The 

four Catholic brothers of Aleppo: Hakob, Hovhannes, Abraham and Minas Hovsepian 


17 Ibid. 

18 Farhat Jermanos, Tarikh ‘al-Rahbaniyya’ (History of the Congregation), Manuscript Held in the Monastery of 

Luwayzeh, p. 24, see Panos S. Jeranyan, p. 50. 

19 Louis Blaybil, Tarikh al-Rahbaniyya al-Maruniyya (History of the Lebanese Maronite Congregation), Egypt, 

1924, p. 287, see Panos S. Jeranian, p. 53. 

4

(Mouradian) became the founders of the Armenian Catholic congregation in Kesrouan 20 . 

They were merchants and had good relationships with Maronite merchants of Aleppo, 

later became known as famous clerics, one of whom was also Abd Allah Qarali. 

In 1702 Abraham, the eldest brother, visited his old friend Qarali in Lebanon with 

whom he discussed the plan to create there an Armenian Catholic monastery 21 . It 

should be noted that Qarali enjoyed great fame in Kesrouan, especially among Khazen 

sheikhs who were nobles of that region 22 . He effectively used his connections to help the 

Armenian brothers. 

In 1718 in the village Kesrouan brothers met with Sheikh Sakhr al-Khazen who 

has promised to discuss that issue with the Maronite Patriarch Jakob Aouad and the 

bishops 23 . 

The same year after their first meeting with the sheikhs Khazen Hovsepian 

brothers sent a letter to Pope Clement XI where they expressed their devotion to 

Catholicism and accepted the primacy of the Pope. They also expressed their intention 

to establish a monastery at Mount Lebanon 24 . The Pope has endorsed the initiative of 

brothers and sent a letter of guarantee to the sheikhs Khazen and Maronite Patriarch 

asking them to present a territory to them 25 . Meanwhile Hakob and Minas returned to 

Aleppo, sold their assets to obtain funding necessary to build the monastery. On June 

19, 1719 the Propaganda Committee considered the letter sent to Rome and gave his 

20 Jean Mésérian, Histoire et Institutions de l’Eglise Arménienne: Evolution Nationale et Doctrinale Spiritualité- 

Monachisme, Beyrouth, 1998, p. 319. 

21 Archbishop Maghakia Ormaneian, T.II, p. 3145. 

22 Pierre Raphael, p. 24. 


24 Jean Mésérian, p. 319. 

25 Srabian Isaak, The Creation of the Antonian Congregation, Monthly Magazine, IX, September, XVI, 

1902, p. 289./ Æë³Ñ³Ï êñ³µÛ³Ý, Ð³Û ²ÝïáÝÛ³Ý ÙÇ³µ³ÝáõÃÛ³Ý ÑÇÙÝ³¹ñáõÙÁ, Ð³Ý¹»ë ³ÙëûñÛ³, IX, 

ë»åï»Ùµ»ñ, XVI, 1902, ¿ç 289:/ 

5

approval to the initiative of Mouradian brothers by adding the condition of founding a 

school and an educational center. The decision was taken March 8, 1720 and was sent 

to the Maronite Patriarch 26 . 

Before that Hakob was ordained a priest by Abraham Ardzivian, Armenian 

Catholic Bishop 27 . After Hakob also returned to Lebanon. 

In July 1721 the Maronite Patriarch has received the brothers and told them that 

back in March, the sheikhs Khazen had signed the document giving a parcel of land to 

the Armenian brothers from their territory in Kreim 28 . There was marked that this parcel 

of land would not be the object of the sale and should serve only for the purpose of 

building a monastery. The brothers had to pay miri tax to the sheikhs Khazen 29 . 

In late July 1721 Maronite Patriarch Jacob Awad declared a speech where he 

called the people of Kesrouan to respect and help the Armenians brothers, as much as 

possible 30 . The Armenian Catholics have become full citizens of Kesrouan. 

The same year Hovsepian brothers have created the monastery of Saint Anthony 

and Saint Saviour church in Kreim, nearby Ghosta village 31 . 

Abraham Ardzvinian (1679-1710) played a major role in the creation of the 

Armenian Catholic community in Mount Lebanon. In 1710 he was consecrated bishop in 

Aleppo. Even during the years when he studied at Melkon Taspasian he made concrete 

plans to create an independent Armenian Catholic community and to strengthen its 


27 Ibid. 

28 Archives of the Armenian Antonine Monks, Box N 43, see Panos S. Jeranian, p. 58. 

29 Ibid, p.59. 

30 Archbishop Maghakia Ormaneian, T.II, pp. 3280-3281. 

31 Ibid. 

6

positions 32 . As a result of his activities Ardzivian was imprisoned three times in 1712, 

1715, 1720 33 . On September 2, 1720 Ardzivian was exiled to the island of Arwad by the 

Ottoman government on the proposal of the Patriarch of Jerusalem Grigor Shxtayakir 

and the Armenian Apostolic Patriarch of Constantinople 34 . 

After spending two years in exile through the intervention of Maronite Antoine 

Tourbay, vice-consul in Tripoli he moved to Kreim and established among the Armenian 

monks 35 . 

Here Ardzivian has taken strong positions. The Armenian monastery of Lebanon 

has become a haven for all Catholic religious having problems with the Armenian 

Patriarchate. 

The Maronite patriarch Yusuf al-Khazen (1733-1742) felt sympathy towards 

Ardzivian and Armenian monks of Kreim. In 1733 he published an official letter in which 

he allowed them to make ecclesiastical rites in Maronite churches of Kesrouan and 

stressed that the Maronites and Armenians are brothers 36 . 

On September 14, 1735 Sheikh Jumblatt al-Khazen offered to the Armenian 

monks of Kreim the Monastery of Mar Jirjis (Saint George) in Debey with its gardens and 

plots of land 37 . 

In 1739 when the proceedings were impaired in Aleppo, Ardzivian returned to his 

diocese. There he ordained three Catholic bishops who, in turn, have selected him a 

32 Bazmavep Review, N 1, January, Venice, St. Lazar, 1903, p. 506. M. Terzian, A confessor’s letter, 

Beirut, 1958, p. 20-21 /In Armenian/. /´³½Ù³í»å Ñ³Ý¹Çë³ñ³Ý, ÚáõÝí³ñ, ÃÇÇ 1, ì»Ý»ïÇÏ, êáõñµ 

Ô³½³ñ, 1903, ¿ç 506: Ø. Â»ñ½»³Ý, Êáëïáí³ÝáÕÇ ÙÁ Ý³Ù³Ï³ÝÇÝ, ä»ÛñáõÃ, 1958, ¿ç 20-21: / 

33 Khatchik Athanassian, Abraham-Pierre I er Ardzivian Catholicos, Beyrouth, 1959, pp. 56-57. 

34 Ibid, p. 77. 



37 Archives of the Monastery of Bzummar, Box N 122, Year (1679-1749), see Panos S. Jeranian, p. 62. 

7

Patriarch. On November 26, 1740 Ardzivian made his consecration of Catholicos 38 . On 

September 10, 1741 at the request of Ardzivian the Maronite religious elite sent a 

guarantee letter to Pope Benedict XIV by asking to expedite the Arzivian’s as a Patriarch 

confirmation process 39 . On November 26, 1741 Abraham Petros I Ardzivian received 

Pope’s Condak making him the Armenian Catholic Patriarch of Cilicia after which he 

returned to Mount Lebanon and moved to Kreim 40 . 

After Ardzivian’s installing in the Monastery of Kreim it became a Patriarchy 

where a number of Armenian Catholics of different regions of the Ottoman Empire was 

ruled. From 1742 when it was spread that Ardzivian was in the Mount Lebanon, a great 

number of Armenian Catholics of Aleppo have settled in Lebanon. A lot of Armenian 

pilgrims, who went to Jerusalem, visiting the monastery on their return and settled 

there 41 . 

Ardzivian ruled the monastery of the Constitution of Maronite Antonine 

congregation 42 . In 1739 he submitted it to the examination of the monks who were 

adopted after some amendments as the Constitution of the Armenian Antonian 

congregation. On July 15, 1738 Father Abraham Mouradian, founder of the monastery 

of Kreim died at the age of 75. The significant items in the monasteries were now 

occupied by the two cousins of Ardzivian: father Bedros and father George Nersissian. 

After the death of Abraham's father Bedros has succeeded in his post for a period of 

three months 43 . 


39 Pierre Raphael, p. 40. 


41 Panos S. Jeranian, p. 64.. 

42 Ibid, p. 65. 


8

Over time the monastery of Kreim became larger, including other lands. Many 

young people from Aleppo and other regions of the Ottoman Empire settled in Kreim. 

The relationship between the Armenian Catholic Antonine and Mkhitarian 

congregations are quite interesting. There are some documents in the monastery of 

Bzommar which prove the intention to unite the two congregations. For example 

Ardzivian’s letter of 18 July 1741 addressed to Mkhitar the founder of Mkhitarian 

congregation where Ardzivian talked about Antonine Constitution’s changing by those of 

the Mkhitarian 44 . However the idea of unification was not achieved because of the 

controversy between the congregations. On February 9, 1742 Mkhitar in his letter to 

Ardzivian refused the proposal for the unification with the Antonine 45 . 

After 1740 the increasing number of Armenian monks in the monastery of Kreim 

discussed the idea of creating a new monastery. Ardzivian decided to build another 

monastery. To this end, in 1749 he published a letter in which he sought funding for its 

community 46 . However he could not see the realization of his project because he died on 

1 October 1749. 

Before the election of new Patriarch bishops have tried to carry out the intent of 

the deceased Patriarch. They met with the Maronite Patriarch Siman Aouad, after 

obtaining his permission, began working on the project. 

44 Ibid, pp. 3407-3408. 

45 Ibid, pp. 3408-3409. 

46 Jean Mésérian, p. 325. 

9

Mid-October 1749 a meeting was held with the sheikhs Mushrif and Qabalan al- 

Khazen. They have offered farm in Bzommar 47 to build the monastery of Saint Virgin 

belonging to the Church of Rome 48 . 

It is interesting that in the documents of donation of land as the holders of power 

was the Maronite Patriarch and Khazen lords as a senior officers of the community, who 

supported the Armenian Catholics to avoid prosecution of the Armenian Apostolic 

Patriarch and the Ottoman government 49 . This proves that 18th century the Maronites 

had an important influence in the Mount Lebanon that allowing them to support the 

Armenian Catholics in favor of their own interests. 

October 14, five Antonine monks convened a meeting and declared Catholicos 

Hakob Hovsepian (Mouradian) the bishop of Aleppo. In the ecclesiastical works is called 

Hakob Poghos II. On 22 December the consecration of Catholicos took place, and 

September 23, 1750 the new post was approved at the meeting of cardinals 50 . 

Patriarch Hakob began construction of the monastery of Bzommar. He bought 

new land around the monastery where vineyards and mulberry trees were planted. The 

epigraph on the monastery marks the year 1749 as the date of commencement of 

construction, but construction was finished in 1771 51 . In 1750 Hakob left Kreim and 

moved to Bzommar with some monks from the Antonine congregation. 

47 Bzommar is situated in the Middle Kesrouan. To the west of Kesrouan are situated the villages Harissa, 

Daroun and Ghosta, in the east: the villages Rayfoun and Ashqout, whose inhabitants are Maronites. 

48 Sisak Jacob Varjabedian, The Armenians in Lebanon: Encyclopedia of the Armenian Diaspora of 

Lebanon, Beirut, 1982, p. 270./In Armenian/. /êÇë³Ï Ú³Ïáµ ì³ñÅ³å»ïÛ³Ý, Ð³Û»ñÁ ÈÇµ³Ý³ÝÇ Ù»ç. 

Ñ³Ýñ³·Çï³ñ³Ý ÉÇµ³Ý³Ý³Ñ³Û ·³ÕáõÃÇ, Բեյրութ, 1982, էջ 270։/ 

49 Archives of the Monastery of Bzummar, Box N 26, Year 1753, see Panos S. Jeranian, p. 66. 

50 Mesrob Terzian, Le Patriarcat de Cilicie et les Arméniens Catholiques, p. 93. 


10

In 1750 the Armenians of the Antonine congregation had the opportunity to build 

another monastery in Lebanon on the hill Beyt Khashbo. The document was signed April 

12, 1750 by Sheikh Sinto al-Khazen and approved by the patriarch Tabiya al-Khazen 52 . 

On June 10, 1753 Hakob Petros II Catholicos died. He also had great merit in the 

creation of the Armenian Catholic congregation. Hagop has managed well to be careful 

and do not have controversies with the Armenian Apostolic Church. Hovsepian was 

buried in Kreim 53 . 

On June 23, 1753 Michael Pedros III was elected Catholicos whose election was 

approved by Pope May 6, 1754 54 . He also as Ardzivian has tried to spread its influence 

over all the Armenian Catholic of the Ottoman Empire, however, this idea was not 

approved by Rome. On April 30, 1759 the powers of Catholicism have been limited to 

Cilicia, Assyria and Mesopotamia 55 . 

The construction of Bzommar continued under his leadership. New lands were 

purchased. Gaparian died on November 16 and was buried in Bzommar 56 . Basil 

Avqadian, the patriarch following, was appointed on 1 December 1780. The new 

Patriarch hosted the Catholics who avoided prosecutions of Apostolic Patriarch 

Zachariah (1780-1781) of Constantinople. Basil died February 15, 1788 57 . 



54 Ibid. 


56 Andreas Alexandrian, A Concise History of Twelve Patriarchs of Cilicia, Venice, 1906, p. 22. /In 

Armenian/ /²Ý¹ñ¿³ë ²É¿ùë³Ý¹ñ»³Ý, Ð³Ù³éûï å³ïÙáõÃÇÇÝ »ñÏáï³ë³Ý Ï³ÃáÕÇÏáë³ó ÎÇÉÇÏÇáÛ, 

ì»Ý»ïÇÏ, 1906, ¿ç 22:/ 

57 Ibid, p. 32. 

11

On March 11, 1788 Archbishop of Adana Krikor Kupelian was elected Patriarch. 

The approval of the Pope was on December 15 of that year 58 . 

One of the most prominent work of Kupelian was the creation of seminar in 

Bzommar in 1810 that prepares religious until today 59 . The studying language was 

Armenian in this seminar. The only financial source of the seminar was the gifts of 

Armenian merchants of Madras which was restored by the agreement signed 

September 29, 1791 between the Patriarch and Armenian merchants 60 . 

Even today many young people are studying at the seminary in Bzommar 

receiving a quality education. Those who graduate seminar, as teachers, play an 

important role in educational process of the younger generation of Syrian and Lebanese 

Armenian communities. 

Kupelian died June 17, 1812. The same year Bishop Krikor Jeranian was elected 

Patriarch 61 . By order of Maronite Patriarch new lands were offered to the monastery in 

Zibdin and Bzommar that are the villages of Kesrouan. 

58 Archbishop Maghakia Ormaneian, T.II, pp. 3680. 


Lebanon, Beirut, 1982, p. 270./In Armenian/, /êÇë³Ï Ú³Ïáµ ì³ñÅ³å»ïÛ³Ý, Ð³Û»ñÁ ÈÇµ³Ý³ÝÇ Ù»ç. 

Ñ³Ýñ³·Çï³ñ³Ý ÉÇµ³Ý³Ý³Ñ³Û ·³ÕáõÃÇ, Ñ. ³, ¿ç 271,/ Pierre Raphael, p. 51. 

60 Mesrob Terzian, The Armenian Monastery of Bzummar, Beirut, pp. 49-50. 


12

On June 14, 1828 Krikor Saraian with sixteen other religious from Anatolia 

settled in the monastery of Bzommar to avoid prosecutions against the Catholic 

Armenians in Aleppo and Constantinople 62 . On 15 November the same year a new 

group of monks from Taron settled at Bzommar. With the help of the Patriarch these 

religious remained at the monastery until 1830 63 when Sultan Mahmud has published a 

manifesto in recognizing the Armenian Catholic community as a millet, an independent 

community separate from the Apostolic Patriarchate. Therefore, the prosecution was 

discontinued. That order has allowed the Armenian Catholics to practice their faith 

freely. This has greatly facilitated the propagandist activity of the monastery of 

Bzommar. 

Patriarch Jeranian died September 22, 1840 and was buried in Bzommar 64 . 

The period of governance of the Emir Bashir II /1788-1840/ in Lebanon had an 

important meaning for the Armenian community of Kesrouan. His good attitude towards 

the Armenian community of Bzommar was also due to friendly relations with the bishop 

of Bzommar Hakob Holassian. He was the spiritual father of Hasn Jahan, the second 

wife of Bashir 65 . At the request of Bashir Holassian has made their marriage ceremony. 

In 1838 the Emir Bashir has offered a sum of one thousand piaster to the 

Armenian Catholic community 66 . In 1832 by its order the lands of the monastery of 

Bzommar located in different regions of Kesrouan were exempted from tax miri 67 . 

The political, moral and economic support of Emir Bashir to the Armenian 

community has contributed to strengthening the positions of the community in Mount 

62 Ibid, p. 69. 

63 Andreas Alexandrian, p. 40. 

64 Mesrob Terzian, The Armenian Monastery of Bzummar, p. 174. 


66 Ibid, p. 74. 

67 Ibid, p. 75. 

13

Lebanon. The exemption of this tax has allowed the community to accumulate large 

financial sources. 

The installation of the Armenian Catholics in Mount Lebanon coincided with the 

period when the silk trade was the major economic issues of that region. In the mid 19th 

century the silk was still one of the main products of Lebanon. The miri tax exemption’s 

order of Emir Bashir II has also developed the production and trade of silk in the 

community. 

Even during the meeting of August 4, 1749 at Kreim a decision was made on 

expanding the mulberry garden. They should never be a sale 68 . According to documents 

from the monastery of Bzommar of 1749-1847, at the time of various Patriarchs, the 

monastery had bought gardens of mulberry trees and vineyards total of 9689 piaster 69 . 

Today Bzommar’s gardens are of 120,000 m 2 70 . 

The community had a small silk factory. For a short time the Armenian Catholic 

community of Bzommar could obtain enough economic potential. The economic 

activities of Armenians in turn fostered the development of the Mount Lebanon. 

The monastery also has a valuable collection of Armenian manuscripts. The 

summary list of Bzommar manuscripts was published in the book of Sisak Jacob 

Varjabedian entitled “The Armenians in Lebanon. Encyclopedia of the Armenian 

Diaspora of Lebanon” 71 . 

68 Khatchik Athanassian, p. 340. 



Lebanon, T. I, p. 271. /In Armenian/, 

71 Ibid, p. 465-470. 

14

One of the treasures of the monastery is the picture of the Blessed Virgin that 

belongs to the pencil of Raphael. Catholicos Abraham Bedros I brought it from Rome in 

1742 72 . 

After the Armenian genocide of 1915 the installation of thousands of Armenians in 

Lebanon, where they found a warm welcome, also stems from the existence of the 

monastery in Bzummar engaged for over two centuries at Mount Lebanon that was the 

best guarantee for the Armenian newcomers. 

72 Ibid, p. 270. 

15

LILIT HARUTYUNYAN 

Marshal Bagramian Ave, 24G 

Yerevan, 0019 

Armenia 

Home tel : +37410 239165 

Office tel : +37410 523872 

Mob: +37493 559194 

E - mail : hlilit@sci.am 

l_harutyunyan@hotmail.com 

Date of Birth: Octobre, 9, 1977 

Place of Birth: Yerevan, Armenia 

Citizenship: Republic of Armenia 

Civil status: single 

Gender: 

female 

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND 

1999-2002 Institute of Oriental Studies NAS (Ph.D studying), 


• Department: Arab Countries 

PhD's Degree of History 

1994–1999 Yerevan State University, 


• Faculty: Oriental Studies 

• Master's Degree of Arabic Studies 

Diploma with Distinction 

1991 – 1994 Collage of Foreign languages 


Diploma with Distinction 

WORK EXPERIENCE: 

1999 – till now Institute of Oriental Studies of NAS 

Department of Arab Countries 


Research Assistant 

2005 January-April Institute of Oriental Studies of NAS Yerevan, Armenia 

Scientific secretary 

2005 – till now Yerevan State University Yerevan, Armenia 

Faculty of Oriental Studies 

Assistant professor 

Subject matter: Ethnic and Confessional Situation in Arab Countries 

Subject matter: Political Parties of Arab Countries 

2006 – till now “Gladzor” University Yerevan, Armenia

Faculty of International Relations 

Assistant professor 

Subject matter: History of the Regional Countries 

2007-2009 Yerevan State University Yerevan, Armenia 

Faculty of Oriental Studies 

Supervisor of MA program “Actual problems of the Arab East” 

PHD RESEARCH THESES 

Lebanon between Two Civil Wars (1958-1975) 

MAIN RESEARCH INTERESTS 

Modern History of Syria & Lebanon 

Modernization of Regimes and Governments in Arab World 

Political Elites of the Arab Countries 

Political Islam in the Middle East 

Gender Problems in Arab East 

Interreligious Dialogue 

Muslim communities of the U.S.A. & EU 

Democratization processes in the Middle East 

Non Muslim /Christian & Jews/ Communities of Arab Countries 

PUBLICATIONS 

Monography 

Lebanon from 1958 till 1990, Yerevan, 2007. 

Articles 

1. Palestinian Factor in the Lebanese Internal Political Life, // 

Proceedings of Conference of Public Sciences towards XXI Century, 

Yerevan, 2000, (Arm.) 

2. Confessional Political System of Lebanon, Proceedings of XXI 

Conference of Young Orientalists, Yerevan, 2000, (Arm.) 

3. Syrian and Israeli Factors in the Lebanese Crisis, //Orient, Yerevan, 

2001, (Arm. with English summary) 

4. Palestinian Military and Political Structures in Lebanon 1958-1975, // 

Middle East, Yerevan, 2002, (Arm. with English summary) 

5. Lebanon under Fuad Shihab 1958-1964. Shihabizm, // The Countries 

and Peoples of the Near and Middle East,Vol. XXII, , Yerevan, 2003, 

(Arm. with English summary) 

6. To the Question of the Growth of Shi’i Factor in Lebanon (1970- 

1980’s), //The Countries and Peoples of the Near and Middle 

East,Vol. XXIII, Yerevan, 2004, (Arm. with English summary) 

7. The Lebanese-Israeli Peace Treaty of May 17 1983 in the Context of 

the Internationalization of Lebanese Conflict, // The Countries and 

Peoples of the Near and Middle East, Vol. XXIV, Yerevan, 2005, 

(Arm. with English summary) 

8. On the Deepening of Contradictions in “Lebanese Rightists’ Front” in 

the Late 1980’s and in the Early 1990’s, // The Countries and Peoples 

of the Near and Middle East, Vol. XXIV, Yerevan, 2006, (Arm. with 

English summary) 

2

9. Lebanon between Stability and Crisis, //21 Century, Noravank 

Scientific and Educational Foundation, 2 (16), Yerevan, 2007 (Arm. 

with Russian summary) 

10. Sunni Islamist Groups in Lebanon (1970-2000’s), The Middle East and 

the Caucasus, Theses of Reports, Yerevan, 2008 (Arm.) 

11. Sunni Islamist Groups in Lebanon (1970-2000’s), // The Countries 

and Peoples of the Near and Middle East, Vol. XXVIII, Yerevan, 

2008, (Arm. with English summary) 

12. The Armenian catholic communities of Syria and Lebanon/French 

Institute of Middle Eastern Studies/- Institute of Oriental Studies NAS 

RA Joint Conference “Armenians in Bilad Al-Sham: Between 

Integration and Marginalization /Xth Century – XVth Century/” 

More than 50 paper articles. 

CONFERENCES AND SEMINARS ATTENDED 

13. April 4-10, 2000 - Public Sciences Towards XX Century, University of 

Foreign Languages of Armenia, Yerevan 

14. May 30-31, 2000 - Yerevan – XX Scientific Conference of Young 

Orientalists of Armenia 

15. July 7-8, 2001 Yerevan - Leadership and Democracy trainingworkshop 

presented by the Institute for Democracy in Eastern Europe 

(USA) 

16. October 19 – November 17, 2001 Damascus, Syria, Research on 

Syrian-Lebanese Relations in IFEAD/IFPO (French Institute of Arab 

Studies) 

17. May 30-31, 2001 - Yerevan – XXI Scientific Conference of Young 


18. May 30-31, 2002 - Yerevan – XXII Scientific Conference of Young 


19. June 20-23, 2002, Yerevan – Youth and Elections training-workshop 

presented by the Institute for Democracy in Eastern Europe (USA) 

and Helsinki Citizen Assembly 

20. August 19-23, 2002, Yerevan, “Forum for the 21 st Century Leaders” 

initiative of the Center for Legal and Political Studies the “Concord” in 

Partnership of the Alfred Mozar Foundation, Netherlands and Olof 

Palme International Center, Sweden 

21. June 3-6, 2003 - Yerevan – XXIII Scientific Conference of Young 


22. May 25-28, 2004- Yerevan – XXIV Scientific Conference of Young 


23. November 19-December 9, 2004 – Cairo University, Center of Arabic 

Language 

24. October 05 – November 02, 2007 Damascus, Syria, Research on Syria 

and Lebanon under French Mondatin IFEAD/IFPO (French Institute 

of Arab Studies) 

25. November 05-07, 2008 - Yerevan-The Middle East and the Caucasus 

26. October 07-08, 2009 – Aleppo, Syria- IFPO/French Institute of 

Middle Eastern Studies/- Institute of Oriental Studies NAS RA Joint 

Conference “Armenians in Bilad Al-Sham: Between Integration and 

Marginalization /Xth Century – XVth Century/” 

3

COMPUTER SKILLS 

Word, Excel, Access, Internet, Quark Express 

LANGUAGES 

Armenian, Russian - fluent, English – fluent, French- fluent, Arabic – good 

INTERESTS 

Internet, Sports, Traveling, Intellectual Games 

4

ROMAN SMBATYAN 

Nadir’s religious policy towards Armenians 

Many observations have been made about Nadir’s attitude towards religion and his religious policy. 

Some characterized him as a Sunni, others as a Shiite. He was also regarded to try to found a new world 

religion. The Caucasus was then inhabited by various national and religious groups: Christians, Sunnis, 

Shiites and Jews. When in 1734 Nadir entered the Caucasus for the first time, he pursued policy of 

religious tolerance towards the all non-Muslim ethnic groups, especially Armenians. According to the 

Persian documents kept in Matenadaran that relate to this period there was a complete convergence of 

interests between Armenian Church of Ejmiatsin and new ruler of Iran. Contemporary Armenian sources, 

such as Abraham Kretatsi and Abraham Yerevantsi also prove the reality of this point. 

Nadir has had special close relations with Armenian archbishop Kretatsi and Armenian Meliks as he 

considered them to be his natural allies to oust the Ottomans and Russia from Armenia and the Caucasus 

in general. On the hand Armenian archbishop as well as Meliks correctly realized that Nadir is the only 

dominant power in the region. This convergence also can be observed before Nadir when Armenian 

Meliks expressed their readiness to help Safavid Shah Tahmasb II to send the Ottoman forces out of the 

region. And now Nadir appreciated their help against the Ottomans by restoring the rights and giving 

more privileges to Ejmiatsin Church and Armenian Meliks. The analysis of Nadir’s religious policy in 

Armenia proves his relative success in the region.

Nadir’s religious policy towards Armenians 

1.1. Nadir’s religious worldview 

Many observations have been made about Nadir’s attitude towards religion and his 

religious policy. Some characterized him as a Sunni taking into consideration his Turkmen 

ancestors 1 , the famous contemporary historian Mohammad Kazem Marvi due to Nadir’s 

demonstrative religious actions, such as visiting Najaf and Karbala, renewing the tomb of 

Emam Reza in Mashhad and also the names of his sons, considers him to be a devoted Shiite. 2 

Hanway and Kishmishev thought he was inclined to found a new world religion. 3 Bazin 

believes that the only thing Nadir believed in was his own personality and wasn’t a follower 

of any religion and he merely used it as means to reach his personal goals. 4 

According to the studies of American orientalist Ernest Tucker for Nadir religion was 

an important factor to legitimize his political power both in Iran and in relation with foreign 

states. 5 The newest and the most realistic opinion on this issue is suggested by Michael 

Axworthy who emphasizes the physiological factor of the formation of Nadir’s religious 

worldview. He mentions that the fact that Nadir was fatherless from the early age, 

1 Astarabadi, Mirza Mehdi Khan, Jahangoshaye Naderi, be ehtemame Seyyed Abdollah Anvar, Tehran, 

Anjomane Asar va Mafakhere Farhangi, p. 269; Sha’bani, Reza, “Siasate Mazhabie Nader Shah Afshar”, majaleye 

“Vahid”, 1349/1970, Shomare 9, p. 1132. 

2 Marvi, Mohammad Kazem, Alamaraye Naderi, be tashihe va moghadame va tozihat va havashi va fehrestha 

Mohammad Amin Riahi, Tehran, Elmi, 1358/1979, pp. 826-827, 921-925. 

3 Hanway, Jonas, Zendegie Nader Shah, translated into Persian by Esmail Dowlatshahi, Tehran, Elmi va 

Farhangi, 1365/191986, pp. 262-265; Kishmishev S. O., Pokhodi Nadir Shaha v Heart, Kandagar, Indiu i sobitiya 

v Persii posle ego smerti, Tiflis, 1889, p. 213. 

4 Bazin, Pierre, Namehaye Tabibe Nader Shah, translated into Persian by Ali Ashghar Hariri, Tehran, Taban, 

1340/1961, p. 42. 

5 Tucker, Ernest, Nadir Shah’s Quest for Legitimacy in Post-Safavid Iran, Gainesville, University Press of 

Florida, 2006, pp. 2-12.

widowhood of his mother and indifference of Muslim clergy towards their state could have 

influenced negatively on his attitude to religion. 6 It should be added that another important 

event that could have affected at his religious views was his captivity by Sunni Uzbeks in his 

childhood. His life experience has taught him that religious rivalry and even enmity between 

Iran and its Sunni neighbors has had direct influence both at the interior and foreign affairs 

this state and only by solution of these disputes Iran could become a prosperous country. 

Taking into consideration all the above-mentioned opinions conclusion can be made 

that Nadir believed at least in Deity and his actions in this sphere cannot be considered to be 

only demonstrative. 

1.2. Nadir’s policy towards Armenian Church and Meliks 

When in 1734 Nadir for the first time launched a military campaign to retake the 

Caucasus from the Ottomans and Russian Empire, he pursued policy of religious tolerance 

towards the all non-Muslim ethnic groups, especially Armenians. According to the Persian 

documents kept in Matenadaran that relate to this period there was complete convergence of 

interests between Armenian Church of Ejmiatsin and the new ruler of Iran. Contemporary 

Armenian historians such as Abraham Kretatsi and Abraham Yerevantsi also prove the 

6 Axworthy, Michael, The Sword of Persia: Nader Shah from Tribal Warrior to Conquering Tyrant, London- 

New York, I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd., 2006, p. 20.

eality of this point. 7 Before that Armenian saghnaghs 8 of Zangezur and Gharabagh 

established relations with Shah Tahmasb II. These relations turned into real cooperation only 

in 1727 when the leader of Armenian national resistance movement David Beg began 

negotiations with Shah Tahmasb’s staff. 9 Both Tahmasb and David Beg have realized that the 

Ottomans are their common enemy and that they should unite their forces in the war against 

them. Thus the roots of the cooperation of Armenian Meliks with Iranian government go 

back to the period when Nadir hasn’t joined Tahmasb yet. 

In 1734 when Nadir entered the Caucasus Armenian Meliks hurried to help Nadir and 

put their forces under his service. Abraham Yerevantsi mentions that during the campaign 

against the Ottoman army of Tupal Osman Pasha there were 6 Armenian regiments in Nadir 

forces under the leadership of Armenian commanders. 10 In return Nadir treated Armenian 

Meliks respectfully. For instance his attitude towards Melik Shahnazar of Gegharkunik who 

joined Iranian army immediately after Nadir entered Armenia, was full of respect and the 

ruler of Iran not only reestablished and recognized all his political and economic rights but 

even advised all Armenian Meliks to keep solidarity. 11 

7 See: Abraham Kretatsi,Patmagrutyun Antsitsn Yurots ev Nadr-Shahin Parsits, Vagharshapat, i tparani Srbots 

Katoghike Ejmiatsin, 1870; Abraham Yerevantsi, Patmutyun Paterazmtsn 1721-1736 tui, patrastets Sahak 

Mkhitaretsi, Venetik-Surb Ghazar, 1977. 

8 Arduous mountainous fortifications 

9 Leo, Hayots Patmutyun, v. III, Yerevan, HSSR Gitutyunneri Azgayin Academiayi Hratarakchutyun, 1946, p. 

692. 

10 Abraham Yerevantsi, opt. cit., pp. 69-70. 

11 Hay Zhoghovrdi Patmutyun, v. 4, Yerevan, Haykakan SSH Gitutyunneri Academiayi Hratarakchutyun, 1972, 

p. 182.

Iranian contemporary historian Marvi mentions that one of the most influential 

Armenian Meliks named Yegan when met with Nadir, stated the importance of having good 

relationships with Armenian archbishop. 12 Nadir himself has fully realized that the 

partisanship of the people of the regions where he launched military campaigns was of great 

importance to succeed there. Armenian archbishop of the time Abraham Kretatsi also states 

that due to the recommendations of Armenian Meliks he went to welcome Nadir as he 

reached Ejmiatsin and gained his respectful attitude. After that Nadir attended a mess in 

Ejmiatsin church and followed it with special interest. 13 Before leaving the holy place he 

ordered that famous masters of the time renovate the church and dedicated one thousand 

tumans for that work. He also urged his officials to bring some famous carpets from Kerman 

for the church 14 and told Armenian archbishop. “Never worry and fear of anything. This is 

our home, you are a good old man and may your church thrive and flourish”. 15 

Also during that meeting due to the request of Abraham Kretatsi, Nadir issued new 

firmans to reaffirm the rights of the church on its properties. 16 He also issued another firman 

according to which taxes paid by church remained on the level of previous years. 17 

Thereafter when Kretatsi was accompanying Nadir in Tiflis, the Iranian ruler gathered 

together all the khans, Meliks, kalantars and kadkhodas of the region and ordered them to 

support the church of Ejmiatsin amd never prosecute to the rights of the archbishop. He 

12 Marvi, Mohammad Kazem, opt. cit., p. 410. 

13 Abraham Kretatsi, opt. cit., pp. 198-200. 

14 Marvi, Mohammad Kazem, opt. cit., p. 410. 

15 Abraham Kretatsi, opt. cit., p. 202. 

16 Matenadaran, Archbishop’s Archive, catalogue №29/1g, document № 353. 

17 Ibid, document № 358.

especially warned all the officials of Armenian regions to fully obey the archbishop and 

always ask his opinion about different affairs. 18 Kretatsi mentions in his book that Nadir was 

satisfied with Armenians and commanded that all the officials never put any pressure at 

Armenians and he who doesn’t obey his order will be punished strongly. He also ordered 

that except for jezye Armenians should pay only half of the amount of all taxes levied from 

Armenian regions and the other half should be paid by the Muslim inhabitants of those 

regions. Trying to regulate all his orders Nadir issued 15 new firmans on the abovementioned 

matters that aimed to improve the situation in the regions inhabited by the 

Armenians. 19 Most of these firmans related to the fields that Ejmiatsin Church was 

responsible for, such as marriage, divorce, heritage and so on. 20 

The study of the documents that relate to the problems of heritage and marriage shows 

that Nadir was concordant with Kretatsi and was confidant to prohibit all the Muslim 

officials and regional rulers from compulsory marriage and conversion into Islam of 

Armenian girls. 21 According to another firman issued by Nadir those Armenians who had 

converted into Islam, had no right to inherite any property from their Christian families. 

One of the documents stated that no one of the Muslim officials except for the permission og 

Nadir could enter Ejmiatsin. 22 

18 Leo, opt. cit., p. 70. 

19 Abraham Kretatsi, opt. cit., pp. 210-212. 

20 Matenadaran, opt. cit., documents № 374, 378, 379. 

21 Ibid, documents № 370, 377. 

22 Abraham Kretatsi, opt. cit., p. 200.

Although his kind and special attitude to the religious and political institutions of 

Armenians meanwhile Nadir ordered to expatriate 600 Armenian families from Tiflis and 

Ararat region to Khorasan. As a result of Kretatsi’s request not to undertake that action, 

Nadir exiled only 300 families from Ararat region. 23 

Nadir also expatriated a large number of Armenians from Van region to Khorasan in 

1735 when he kept the siege of Kars. 24 With this step Nadir aimed to build a town in 

Mashhad inhabited by Armenians and named New Nakhijevan like that of Shah Abbas’s 

New Julfa in Isfahan. But the Armenian representative of the Ottoman Empire Tambur 

Kuchuk Arutin who visited Mashhad at that time says that not a single wealthy Armenian 

lived there and the church there that was built due to the order of Nadir had no roof. 25 The 

reason of Nadir’s failure to build prosperous Armenian town in Mashhad was that most 

Armenians brought to this city were villagers and had no skills in trade and craftsmenship. 

Nadir didn’t oppose to the policy of expatriation of people, but it was the regional 

leaders and khans who were mainly interested in such policies as they used to sell many of 

these exiled people as slaves and get much benefits. In Mughan plain during the quriltai 

when Nadir was declared as a Shah of Iran, there were 700 Georgians and Armenians slaves 

that were brought to be presented as gifts to the Iranian nobles. Due to these facts conclusion 

can be made that Nadir had no special kind attitude towards all the Christians of his Empire 

but it mainly concerned to the religious and political grandees of them. That’s why it’s not 

23 Leo, opt. cit., p. 70. 

24 Abraham Yerevantsi, opt. cit., p. 83. 

25 Tucker, Ernest, opt. cit., pp. 68-71.

surprising that some sources state that Armenian Meliks helped Nadir not only by providing 

their military forces, but also levying taxes, supplying provisions. 26 

At any rate Nadir always reminded Abraham Kretsatsi that because of much support of 

Armenians during the wars against the Ottoman Empire, he would always protect the 

Church and the Archbishop of all Armenians. 27 With Nadir’s support Armenian Meliks of 

Gharabagh could strengthen their position and in late 1730s founded a new administrative 

organization called Moluke Khamsa 28 that was uniting five Armenian Melik authorities of 

Gharabagh. 29 Nadir assigned the most influential Armenian Melik named Yegan as a head of 

Moluke Khamsa. Yegan gained all the rights of administrative ruler of biglerbeg, a local head 

of a region in Iranian state, who was especially in charge of gathering taxes. 30 

On the other hand in recognition of Armenian Meliks’ services Nadir reaffirmed all the 

political and economic rights of Meliks of Gharabagh and Yerevan and even granted them 

more rights in comparison with local Muslim leaders. 31 

More than Armenian Meliks it was archbishop Abraham Kretatsi who was of great 

honor at Nadir. Simeon Yerevantsi another archbishop who ruled after Nadir’s death states 

that Nadir treated Abraham Kretatsi very kindly and the archbishop was alive the church of 

26 Leo, opt. cit., pp. 181-182. 

27 Ibid, p. 182. 

28 Five Melik authorities 

29 Ibid, pp. 185-186. 

30 Mirza Sami’a, Mohammad Sami’, Tazkirat al-Moluk, sazemane edari hokumate Safavi ya talighate Minorsky 

bar Tazkirat al-Moluk, be kusheshe Seyyed Mohammad Dabir Siaghi, tarjomeye Masoud Rajabnia, Tehran, 

Amire Kabir, 1378/1998, p. 186. 

31 Abraham Kretatsi, opt. cit., p. 244.

Ejmiatsin was protected and kept all its privileges. 32 When Nadir introduced the new 

biglerbeg of Yerevan to the Armenian archbishop he said to him: “Pirmohammad Khan 33 is 

not aware of the affairs of this region and you are in charge of informing and helping him 

during his reign and I assign you as the head of all aghayan of Iravan”. 34 

Nadir’s policy towards Muslim and especially Shiite clergymen differed that of 

Armenian archbishop. After his crowning he ordered to confiscate much of the properties of 

Shiite clergymen and levy taxes from seyyeds. Nadir even mentioned that if people needed 

them, they should pay for their expenses not the state. 35 By this Nadir aimed to gain 

additional financial sources for his army and prospective military campaigns. Contrary to this 

as mentioned above his policy towards Armenian Church was tolerant. According to one of 

his firmans the Church of Ejmiatsin could have properties (moqufāt) even out of Yerevan 

region and also could not only repair the old ones, but build new churches which was 

prohibited due to the Islamic laws. 36 

It’s interesting that these rights were granted only during the rule of Abraham Kretatsi 

and didn’t relate to the archbishop’s institution in general. Nadir’s relations with the next 

Armenian archbishop Ghazar Jahketsi was tense 37 and he even resigned him in 1744. 38 

32 Simeon Yerevantsi, Jambr, Yerevan, Mughni Hratarakchutyun, 2003, p. 209. 

33 The new biglerbeg 

34 Abraham Kretatsi, opt. cit., p. 243. 

35 Axworthy, Michael, opt. cit., p. 171. 

36 Matenadaran, opt. cit., documents № 886. 

37 “Banber Yerevani Hamalsarani”, hasarakakan gitutyunner, Arandznatip # 2(83), 1994, p. 94. 

38 Simeon Yerevantsi, opt. cit., pp. 44-45.

It should be mentioned that during the reign of Nadir the situation of Armenians in 

Eastern Armenia and the Caucasus was much better than that of the Armenians of Isfahan. 

1.3. Nadir’s aim to get acquainted with different religions and his disapproval with the 

activities of foreign missionaries among the Armenians 

Nadir has completely realized the important role of religion in eastern societies and 

although he wasn’t a religious person, he was eager to know well the main religions of his 

empire. To fulfill his goal Nadir ordered to translate Bible, Quran and Torah into Farsi and 

assigned Mirza Mehdi Khane Astarabadi his official historian in charge of that work. 39 Mirza 

Mehdi formed a group of religious experts which consisted of 8 Armenian priests, 4 orthodox 

and 4 catholic, 4 Muslim and 4 Jewish clergymen. They translated the three holy books into 

Persian and brought it to Nadir Shah. Nadir is said to be indifferent to that issue at that time, 

but the significant fact is that after getting acquainted to the contents of the holy books, he 

got surprised and said why all these religious rivalry and disputes exist while all three books 

state that God is single. Hanway mentions that at that time Nadir was in the thought of 

founding a new world religion that would be complete and solve all the disputes between 

various religious identities. 40 But this statement of Hanway was denied by a newly found 

source in Matenadaran that is called “Qnnikon”. The author of this manuscript is one of 

those Armenian priests who participated in the work of translation. He states that after they 

39 “Banber Yerevani Hamalsarani”, opt. cit., p. 91. 

40 Hanway, Jonas, opt. cit., p. 262.

have finished the work all of them were present at Nadir’s court in Qazvin. After the Shah 

saw the translations he praised the clergymen, and said that as the God is single the holy 

book also should be single, so all three holy books are the same. Then he gave thousand 

tumans and six hundred golden coins to each of them and let them go. The author mentions 

that Nadir’s main goal was to get acquainted with these religious books. 41 So taking into 

consideration these facts it can be concluded that Nadir was curious to recognize these 

religions but he had no aim to create a new religion. 

Another issue that can be considered to be important in the context of Nadir’s religious 

policy towards the Armenians is his negative attitude to European catholic missionaries that 

were propagandizing Catholicism among the Armenians. There are two documents in 

Matenadaran that relate to this problem and both are dated to 1741. According to these 

raqams the Armenian archbishop Ghazar Jahketsi complains before Nadir that European 

missionaries by cheating and dividing money make many Armenians in Tiflis, Ganja, 

Nakhijevan, Tabriz, Esfahan, Hamedan convert to their religion and immigrate to European 

countries. Nadir’s reaction was clear, he condemned those actions and issued a firman due to 

which none of missionaries could interfere in the religious affairs of Armenians. 42 The 

important fact that can be observed in this problem is that many European priests and 

missionaries aimed to spread their influence among the Armenians whom they considered to 

be their eastern allies and on the other hand by immigrating to European countries 

41 “Banber Yerevani Hamalsarani”, opt. cit., p. 92. 

42 Matenadaran, Archbishop’s Archive, opt. cit., documents № 375, 380.

Armenians transferred their financial sources from Iran and the Caucasus to Europe and by 

so debilitating the economic ability of these regions. 

Conclusion 

During the reign of Nadir and in the history of Iranian societies in general religion was 

regarded to be an important source to gain power and legitimacy and to regulate the relations 

among various ethno-religious communities. Nadir has pursued pragmatic and realistic 

religious policy toward the Christians and especially Armenians whom he considered to be 

his natural allies against the Ottoman Empire. Religious tolerance, respectful attitude to the 

Armenian archbishop and Holy Ejmiatsin in general were of course counted diplomatic acts, 

as Nadir badly needed the support of Armenian Meliks and also archbishop who at the time 

of absence of independent state in Armenia was considered to be the religious and political 

head of all Armenians. But on the other hand he was sure that Armenians were reliable and 

would never betray him in the war against the Ottomans. Caucasian Armenia was bordering 

Turkey and was of great importance in Nadir’s plans to conquer the Caucasus. As to 

Armenian Meliks they needed a strong ruler that would oust the Ottomans from the region 

and the only real power to implement that was Nadir. Thus it can be stated that during the 

reign of Nadir there existed nearly a complete convergence of interests between Iranian Shah 

and the Armenian political and religious nobility that resulted a strong cooperation and re-

establishment of Iran’s power on the region and affirmation of the previous political, 

economic and religious rights of Armenian Church and Meliks.

Roman Smbatyan CV 

Roman Smbatyan 

Yerevan,Karapet Ulnetsy 2, 

4 building, apt.4 

Tel: 00374-9990-9797 

E-mail: iranistrom@gmail.com 

EDUCATION: 

ISFAHAN UNIVERSITY (2005-2010)- Department of History 

▪ 2005-2007 – Comprehensive studies in a. History of Islamic Iran b. Social History of Islamic Iran 

c. Historiography of Islamic Iran 

▪ January 2010 – PhD in History of Islamic Iran, topic of the thesis: “The Position of the 

Caucasus in the policies of Iran during the reign of Nadir”. Supervisors: Morteza Dehghan 

Nezhad, Loghman Dehghan Nayyeri, and advisor: Ali Akbar Kajbaf 

YEREVAN STATE UNIVERSITY, ARMENIA (2002-2004) - Department of Iranian Studies 

▪ MA in History of Iran, advisor: Garnik Asatrian 

YEREVAN STATE UNIVERSITY, ARMENIA (1998-2002) - Department of Iranian Studies 

▪ BA in Iranian Studies 

Non-degree studies 

Lexington Christian Academy, Boston, Mass (January-February 1997) - Course of English 

organized by CYSCA 

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 

Teaching 

Yerevan State University, Armenia (February 2010 to present)- Assistant Professor, “History of 

Islamic Iran”, “Social History of Islamic Iran”, “Persian Language”, “Historiography of Islamic 

Iran”, “Islam in the Caucasus”. 

Islamic Azad University, Abadeh, Iran (January 2008-January 2009)- Visiting Instructor, 

Department of History: “ History of Islam in Caucasian region”, “History of Islam in Central Asian 

countries”. 

Arya International University, Armenia (July-August 2010)- Teaching Fellow at Summer School 

on Persian and Armenian Languages: “Persian Language”.


CONFERENCES 

Papers presented 

Yerevan State University, Armenia (February 2011) – International Conference 

Tabriz University, Iran (October 2009) – International Conference of Caucasus Through History: 

“The representatives of Russian State in Iran and the Caucasus from the reign of Peter I till the 

crowning of Nadir 1715-1736”. 

Yerevan State University, Caucasian Center for Iranian Studies and academic journal “Iran and 

the Caucasus”, Brill Leiden, Boston (June 2008) – International Conference of Iran and the 

Caucasus: Unity and Diversity; “The importance of the Caucasus and Nadir Shah’s multipartite 

policies to control it”. 

National Academy of Sciences of Republic of Armenia, Institute of Oriental studies (May 2004)- 

XXV Republican Convention of Young Orientalists: “Introduction the History of Kurdish Jews”. 

National Academy of Sciences of Republic of Armenia, Institute of Oriental studies (May 2004)- 

XXIV Republican Convention of Young Orientalists: “The problem of Aturpatakan as a threat to 

Iran’ territorial integrity and national security”. 

Panels organized 

Association for the Study of Persianate Societies (April 2004, Yerevan) – Member of 

Organizational Committee. 

Second Convention of “Cultural bridge between Iran and Armenia” (November 2009, Isfahan) – 

Member of Organizational Committee and interpreter from Armenian into Persian. 

AWARDS 

Isfahan University (2005-2010)- Doctoral Scholarship 

LANGUAGES 

Armenian, Persian (Classical and Modern colloquial), English, Russian – Excellent 

Arabic, Classical Armenian- reading ability


PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIP 

Armenian Association for Academic Partnership and Support: ARMACAD 

PUBLICATIONS 

[with Morteza Dehghan Nezhad] “The Economic Situation in the Caucasus during the reign of 

Nadir”. Journal of Historical Researches at Isfahan University (in Persian; in progress) 

[with Morteza Dehghan Nezhad and Loghman Dehghan Nayyeri] “Nadir Shah’s Religious Policy 

in the Caucasus” (in Persian). Journal of Humanities “History Islam and Iran” at Al-Zahra 

University, vol. 19, No. 3, 2009: 67-94 

“Buddhism in Iran” (in Persian). Orientalia vol. 4, Yerevan, 2007: 22-32





Wednesda 

ay, May 11, 2011 

Session III 

ARMENIAN SUBJECTIVITIES: EXILE & MIGRATION IN THE SEVENTEENTH 

CENTURY 

9: 30-12pm 

Kevork Bardakjian, 

, Chair 




Kathryn Babayan, Discussant 







MICHAEL PIFER 

Speaking Strangeness: Exile and the Formation of Early Modern Persian and 

Armenian Selves 

In 1604, Shah 'Abbas deported some 300,000 to 350,000 Armenians from the 

Ottoman empire into Safavid Iran in an attempt to weaken the advancing Ottoman armies 

and to economically strengthen the Safavid empire. In my brief study, I will look at how 

Armenian and Persian poets, merchants, sovereigns, and historians drew from similar 

textual precedents to develop a discourse on what exactly it meant to be a stranger in a 

strange land. In so doing, I will examine how the trope of being a “stranger,” or gharib, 

implicates not only how one encounters others from another city, empire, or culture, but 

also how such encounters with “others” contributed to the formation of early modern 

Armenian and Persian subjectivity. 

Early modern exile and migration meant more than the mass movement of bodies or 

material resources across geographic space. Rather, exile and migration produced an 

episteme of difference about selves vis-a-vis others. Consequently, my object of study 

will be how representations of otherness came to be expressed by a remarkably similar 

semiotic language that was shared between Armenians and Persians. My paper will 

suggest that the semiotic language of “strangeness” expressed by diverse people within a 

shared space might provide a valuable window for scholars to conceptualize alternate 

conduits of cross-cultural interaction during the early modern period.

Speaking Strangeness: Exile and the Formation of Early Modern Persian and Armenian Selves 

Michael Pifer 

1. “Word Histories as World Histories” 

A particularly unsettling narrative from Aṛak'el Tavrizhec'i's 17 th century History perhaps best 

frames the complicated relationship between conversion, or a turning towards something new, and what 

is broadly referred to as exile, which I will define in this paper more specifically as a process of 

intentionally and unintentionally maintaining degrees of alienation and difference between one's self 

and others. The narrative begins in the year 1610, just six years after Shah 'Abbas forcibly relocated 

some 300,000 to 350,000 Armenians from the Ottoman Empire into the interior of the Safavid Empire. 1 

In the story, Shah 'Abbas desired to learn what the resettled Armenians thought of him, and 

consequently devised a scheme to disguise himself as a common soldier and walk about the region of 

P'eria. He soon encountered an Armenian woman and began bargaining with her over the price of a 

hen. Over the course of the conversation, 'Abbas suggested that the woman sell him the hen “if she 

loves the shah,” and further tried to persuade the woman that the shah had acted with kindness and 

leniency towards the Armenians, as he had settled them in a “good and pleasing land” and kept them 

safe from any harm. 2 Unpersuaded, the woman rebuked 'Abbas, not realizing his true identity: “Would 

that he had not brought us [here],” she declared, “for having made us exiles (vtarandi), he displaced us 

from the land of our ancestors, from our native residences, from the inheritance of our fatherland, and 

brought us from there to this foreign land (hōtar ashxarhi), settling us as aliens (pandxtutyamb).” 3 

Stunned, 'Abbas became so enraged that even his own companions did not approach him. At 

1 Edmund Herzig's 1991 dissertation, The Armenian Merchants of New Julfa, Isfahan: A Study in Pre-Modern Asian 

Trade, notes that 300-350,000 deportees during Shah 'Abbas' reign is the general number cited in most scholarship, 

although the actual number of deportees is “almost impossible” to estimate. Georgian sources suggest 80,000 families 

were deported, and the New Julfan Armenians put forth the estimate of 400,000. Another account puts the number at 

500,000 individuals with as many as 100,000 casualties. Herzig notes that while the actual figure is unverifiable, what is 

certain is that “the deportation was on a massive scale and deeply impressed observers; the huge figures they suggest are 

indicative of their own shocked reactions, if not of the actual numbers involved.” Herzig. P 61 

2 Aṛakʻel. Patmutʻiwn Aṛakʻel Vardapeti Dawrizhetsʻwoy. 711 p.: ill., 1896. p 164 

3 Ibid. p 164

that moment, the priest of the village, Tēr Awetis, was returning home from the field. Still full of rage, 

'Abbas stopped the priest and demanded to know his identity. The priest simply responded, “I am 

Armenian.” After 'Abbas further questioned the man's long beard, Tēr Awetis affirmed that he was the 

priest of that village, to which 'Abbas immediately demanded, “Come and become a Muslim.” The 

priest declined, arguing that he was too old to perform Muslim rites. Still incensed by the woman's 

insistence that the shah was unjust, 'Abbas reportedly grabbed a nearby ax, swung it at the priest's head, 

and cut a deep gash that rendered the man unconscious, “like one of the dead”. 4 'Abbas immediately 

ordered those present to strip the priest naked and to circumcise him on the spot. The episode concludes 

as 'Abbas leaves the priest naked, newly circumcised, and bleeding from the head on the ground. 

Aṛak'el reports that from that moment forward, 'Abbas pursued a policy of forced conversion for all 

Armenians in the P'eria region. 

Exile, the story suggests, forces one to reconfigure one's own subjectivity as an alien amongst 

aliens, to continuously recall the absence of a distant homeland, but perhaps most significantly, exile 

also implies that one must successfully articulate estrangement from one's own surroundings. Failure to 

do so, or in the case of this particular story, the loss of the right to articulate the difference between 

“native residences” and a “foreign land” implicates the eventual erasure of even knowing what that 

difference was. In this case, that erasure finds its most extreme expression in the forced circumcision 

and conversion of the village's priest. Elsewhere, Aṛak'el argues that 'Abbas didn't need to forcibly 

convert the displaced Armenian population—he simply had to keep the Armenians within the Safavid 

Empire. All those who identified themselves as strangers in a strange land would eventually die, and 

the next generation would voluntarily assimilate into Safavid society and convert to Islam. 

That Aṛak'el found the twin problem of exile/conversion to be particularly disturbing should 

come as no surprise, but what interests me here is that Aṛak'el conceptualized this problem not as 

endemic to one particular Armenian population living within the Safavid Empire, but rather as the 

4 Ibid. p 165

paramount problem of the age for all Armenians, everywhere. Due to a lack of spiritual discipline, 

Aṛak'el writes, the Armenian nation (azq) had become captives “to foreign tribes and kings” to such an 

extent that “the entire Armenian people became exiles (vtarandi). They departed from their native 

homes and lands and went as far as the eye can see,” to Cyprus, Constantinople, Moldavia, Poland, 

Crimea, Azerbaijan, Erevan, and Tabriz. Consequently, for Aṛak'el, one of the hallmarks of his time was 

that Armenians had begun to live in seemingly universal dispersion, even as that dispersion came to be 

expressed according to the particularities of regional and individual circumstances. 

Contemporary exile studies often focus on exile as a productive category for understanding 

cross-cultural contact, but rarely does modern scholarship invite authors from the medieval and early 

modern periods to join this discussion, let alone to challenge basic assumptions about exile as a 

category today. For example, although Edward Said often mentions Hugh of St. Victor and Dante as 

medieval exiles par excellence, he still concludes in his famous essay, Reflections on Exile, that: 

In other ages, exiles had similar cross-cultural and transnational visions, suffered the same 

frustrations and miseries, performed the same elucidating and critical tasks […] But the 

difference between earlier exiles and those of our own time is, it bears stressing, scale: our 

age—with its modern warfare, imperialism, and the quasi-theological ambitions of totalitarian 

rulers—is indeed the age of the refugee, the displaced person, mass immigration.” 5 (Reflections 

on Exile, 174). 

What matters for Said here is that by crossing borders, the exile inhabits a liminal space between 

nations, neither fully at home in an alien culture nor able to comfortably return to a native homeland. 

Said notes that “most people are principally aware of one culture, one setting, one home; exiles are 

aware of at least two, and this plurality of vision gives rise to an awareness of simultaneous 

dimensions, an awareness that—to borrow a phrase from music—is contrapuntal”. 6 While it would be 

productive to examine exactly how the exile's “plurality of vision” across multiple cultural landscapes 

might condition new epistemes about one's own subjectivity and what it means to be a civilized 

5 Said, Edward W. Reflections on Exile and Other Essays. Convergences : Inventories of the Present. Cambridge, 

Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2000. p 174 

6 Ibid. p 186

member of a community, to some extent Said's conceptualization of exile runs the risk of projecting 

modern assumptions about exile onto all places and times. It's hard to square Said's assertion that the 

modern age is “the age of the refugee” against Aṛak'el's conceptualization that the entire Armenian 

people were in “exile” during the early modern period. 

This paper attempts to fill a gap in comparative literature and exile studies by understanding the 

deeply perspectival dimension of “exile” from the point of view of medieval and early modern subjects 

themselves. By placing primary texts in dialogue with one another, I hope to particularize—not 

universalize—different ways that notions of foreignness or strangeness produced epistemes about self 

and belonging. My hope is that by arguing against a Saidian understanding of universal exile, we might 

better understand how a “plurality of vision” across cultures may have mattered for the formation of 

individual and group subjectivity. Being an exile did not mean the same thing (or produce the same 

kind of knowledge about one's subjectivity) to a displaced Armenian as it did to a displaced Persian, 

even in cases where both hailed from the same city. However, even competing pluralities of vision 

tacitly require the presence of “others” whom that vision encompasses and against whom that vision is 

conditioned. 

It would likewise be a mistake to project modern terminology backwards onto the primary 

sources themselves—even terms in English as seemingly innocuous as “exile.” Aṛak'el's description of 

Armenians as vtarandi can mean exile, but can also mean vagabond, wandering, in doubt, and 

anguish. 7 He also uses ōtar, meaning foreign or alien, as well as panduxt for stranger, foreigner, alien, 

or pilgrim to describe the sense of alienation that Armenians felt after resettling in the Safavid Empire. 

Strikingly, and perhaps not accidentally, Aṛak'el's word choice reflects the language of the classical 

Armenian translation of the book of Exodus in both lexical and thematic senses. Aṛak'el frequently 

notes that the Armenians were a “new Israel” and had need of a “second Moses” to save them from the 

clutches of a “second Pharaoh,” further suggesting Aṛak'el's attitude that the Armenians were a 

7 Bedrossian, Matthias. New Dictionary: Armenian-English. Beirut: Librairie du Liban, 1974. Print. p 683

eligious community who, like Israel, came to be articulated through the lived experience of traumatic 

departure as well as through biblical and literary tropes of exile. 

It is beyond the scope of this essay to discuss every word capable of expressing “estrangement” 

in Armenian and Persian, although one word perhaps best captures how philology, or what Emily Apter 

calls “word histories as world histories,” 8 can illuminate the stranger's “plurality of vision” across 

cultures on a lexical level: gharib. A loan word from Arabic, the word “gharib” itself traveled through 

Persian and Armenian literatures in a variety of contexts involving strangeness and strangers, especially 

from the time of the Mongol incursions in Anatolia onward. In Persian, gharib can stand as a noun for a 

stranger, traveler, foreigner, homeless person, as well as an adjective for strange, uncommon, rare, or 

queer. 9 Similarly, in Armenian, gharib can indicate a stranger, foreigner, exile, outcast, or destitute 

person. The phrase ghaributyan gnal, to go into exile, is often used to substitute other ways of 

expressing banishment while still emphasizing notions of foreignness or strangeness. Similarly, at 

lexical and semantic levels, “gharib” exists in both Armenian and Persian, although the ways in which 

it came to be expressed served radically different purposes, as I hope to demonstrate. 

2. Selves and Strangers 

The blend of strangeness, displacement, alienation, and travel that the word gharib encompasses 

could perhaps make it a better candidate for conceptualizing what we might otherwise only think of as 

“exile” in English. Just as importantly, in Arabic, Persian, and Armenian, uses of gharib often involved 

a heightened awareness of subjective experience and epistemic production. Since roughly the 10 th 

century onward, medieval thought was heavily saturated with a revival and reinterpretation of 

Aristotelian philosophy in the Latin world as well as in the Near East. According to Aristotle, 

8 Emily, Apter. "Global Translatio: The Invention of Comparative Literature, Istanbul, 1933." Critical Inquiry 29 2 

(2003): 253-81. Print. p 281 

9 Ḥayyīm, Sulaymān. The Larger English-Persian Dictionary, Designed to Give the Persian Meanings of 80,000 Words, 

Idioms, Phrases, and Proverbs in the English Language, as Well as the Transliteration of Difficult Persian Words. 

Téhéran: Béroukhim, 1941. Print.

strangeness, or the process of meaning making through the observation and creation of difference, 

deeply implicated both the formation of a subjective experience as well as the prerequisites for 

intellectual development. Aristotle argued that “all men begin... by wondering that things are as they 

are.”10 The notion that observing difference is also the gateway to wisdom additionally finds a variety 

of iterations in medieval Armenian intellectual history. For example, the 13 th 

century Armenian 

intellectual giant and clergyman, Hovhannes of Erznka (modern day Erznçan), noted that “the 

beginning of becoming wise is wonder (sk'anch'ac'um),” and that without marveling at the transforming 

nature of the moon in its waxing and waning, or the multicolored and hued appearance of the rainbow, 

one would never be led to study the essence of the nature of those phenomena. 11 Similarly, from the 

12 th century onward, Arab historians and art theorists commonly discussed the phenomenological 

concepts of 'ajib and gharib, which one experienced when art objects represent something unfamiliar 

and strange, and consequently evoke a particular subjective experience – a sense of wonder – in the 

gazer.12 

The observance of difference also found particular expression in the development of medieval 

Arabic and Persian cosmologies, geographies, and the science of the occult, or 'ilm-e gharib. For 

example, the 10th century Egyptian cosmology, Book of Curiosities of the Sciences and Marvels for the 

Eyes (Kitāb Gharā’ib al-funūn wa-mulaḥ al-ʿuyūn), describes the occult sciences and movements of 

the celestial spheres, the geography and peoples of the Mediterranean, and finally culminates in the last 

five chapters with discussions on “the marvelous (ajā'ib) aquatic creatures amongst the fishes and 

monsters of the sea,” “deformed quasi-human creatures,” “wondrous (ajā'ib) waters,” “curious 

(gharā'ib) plants,” and finally “curious (gharā'ib) animals” which are simultaneously meant to inform as 

well as produce a sense of difference by cataloging sometimes fictional qualities of foreign plants, 

10 Aristotle. Metaphysics. Trans. Apostle, Hippocrates George. book A 983 a ll. 13-21, p. 16. For a fascinating article on the 

perspectival aspect of medieval “wonder,” see Caroline Walker, Bynum. "Wonder." The American Historical Review 

102 1 (1997) 

11 Srapyan, Armenuhi. Hovhannes Erznkatsʻi Pluz: Kyankě u Gorts. Erevan: "Nairi", 1993. p 52 

12 Nasser. Pp 1-2

animals, and “quasi-humans.” 13 Here, wonder-inducing marvels and the blurry line between the human 

and the non-human intersect under the umbrella of cosmographic and geographic knowledge. 

By the 15 th century, the epistemic gain from observing difference by crossing boundaries and 

borders acquired an explicitly disciplinary character for Persian spiritual and chivalric brotherhoods, or 

futawwats. In his 15 th century manual on chivalric brotherhoods, for example, Husayn Wa'iz Kashifi 

Sabsawari posits travel as the fundamental human activity. “Since it is clear that the task of man is to 

travel,” Kashifi states, “either in the illusory world of appearances or the world of spiritual reality, then 

he must observe the rules of travel in order to give his just due at each stage.” 14 Kashifi's developmental 

stages of travel were meant to do more than provide a conceptual framework for observing those rules. 

Instead, the disciplinary program that he prescribed and codified was meant to produce a certain kind 

of knowledge about one's self in relation to other human subjects at different stages of the same 

journey. The stakes of Kashifi's disciplinary program are no less than conditioning the episteme which 

crossing borders and boundaries produces—in essence, to help the individual form their own 

subjectivity through disciplined encounters with others, either from another culture or another city. Or, 

as Kashifi states, “travel is the tutor of man and the threshold of dignity,” and that “the acquisition of 

knowledge […] is best done through travel.” 

Kashifi defines beneficial travel as the circulation of dervishes between the graves of the 

prophets, saints, and great ones, the disciplining of the carnal self, and witnessing with one's own eyes 

the “luminaries of the age” as well as attending “to people on the way of God.” He develops this 

thought by further specifying the kind of knowledge that travel produces, as one of the benefits of 

travel is “seeing the different customs of each people and sect, and learning from them.” 15 Aside from 

sight, these encounters also depend to a great degree on speech. Kashifi further lauds travel because it 

13 “ Book of Curiosities of the Sciences and Marvels for the Eyes.” 

 

14 Kāshifī, Ḥusayn Vāʻiẓ, and Jay R. Crook. The Royal Book of Spiritual Chivalry = (Futūwat Nāmah-Yi Sulṭānī). 

Futūvatńāmah-ʻi Sultānī. [S.l.] : Chicago, IL: Great Books of the Islamic World, Inc. ; Distributed by KAZI 

Publications, 2000. p 233 

15 Ibid. p 234

provides the traveler with many opportunities to profit from the “intercourse with the learned and the 

distinguished one is able to meet.” However, being able to participate in such discourse does not come 

without a cost, as dialogue with others from “different customs” require separation from “one's 

companions, brothers, and family,” a fact which is “extremely hard for the carnal soul.” This distancing 

from a familial support structure requires the self-imposed exile to develop a large degree of selfdiscipline. 

However, once one's body and mind has properly weathered such separation, one is able to 

appreciate “the kindliness of strangers,” or gharib, as well as witness “the wonders of creation and the 

works of God,” which increase the comprehension of God's Power. 

In essence, Kashifi's understanding of travel asks the wanderer to produce difference within his 

or her own life—to take leave of one's home and family—and observe difference in others by coexisting 

with other peoples and above all by engaging others in dialogue. Although one may be able to 

witness the works of God and consequently gain a greater spiritual understanding for the wonders of 

creation, wandering would not be a fruitful endeavor without being able to accrue the kindness of 

strangers or to converse with them—to live, as it were, as a gharib among friendly gharibs. 

As a result, although Kashifi encourages the wandering dervish to observe difference, he also 

advises the wanderer to carry accoutrements which act as semiotic reminders of dignity and upright 

religion. One must always have “in one's possession a copy of the Quran or a book in which various 

Quranic verses and Traditions of the Prophet are written,” an inkpot and pen, a comb for one's beard, an 

ewer which must be held in the left hand while walking, a staff in the right hand, and a cup and 

beggar's bowl. 16 In short, even if one is not literate, the bare essentials for traveling still require one to 

take into possession scripture and to carry outward signs both of one's status as a traveler, such as a 

ewer and staff, as well as inward signs of one's hygiene and civilized status, such as the comb and 

beggar's bowl. 

While the wandering dervish produced difference and learned from it, either in the case of 

16 Ibid. p 236

sensual encounters with external phenomena or from the discourse of learned men from various sects 

and peoples, that difference had self-imposed limits built into it—one might speak another language, 

hail from another empire, or observe different dress codes or religious rites, but Kashifi's wandering 

strangers would still participate in a more broadly shared semiotics of travel. Consequently, such 

wanderers belonged to a community of circulating individuals who had certain rights. One of the most 

important of these, of course, was the right to make meaningful semantic gestures to an interpretive 

community and to participate in the discourse of others even as one learned to recognize and preserve 

that otherness visually and discursively. 

The question of how dervishes distinguished themselves from and interacted with strangers 

might be further illuminated by another section of Kashifi's futawwat-nameh, “Concerning the Rules of 

Conduct for the Travelers of the Way with Other Classes of People.” The chapter again scripts a certain 

set of behaviors one must exhibit when interacting with strangers (gharib) who are not included in the 

categories of spiritual guides, masters, parents, relatives, friends, acquaintances, or neighbors. The rules 

for encountering strangers are relatively simple: a stranger must not be looked upon with contempt “for 

it is possible that he is beloved by God,”one must not interrupt the discourse of strangers, one must 

ignore their “improper words,” one must counsel them against “inappropriate action,” and finally, one 

must not withhold mercy from strangers, but if that person is deemed unsuitable, one must also not 

allow intimacy with them. 17 

It is perhaps not surprising that Kashifi focuses so much attention on how to speak with 

strangers properly, as elsewhere in his chapter, “Concerning the Rules of Speaking,” he states that “the 

dignity of a person is in his speech.” 18 Kashifi even goes on to quote a hemstitch from Sa'di, noting that 

“beasts are dumb; man speaks.” 19 On a very fundamental level, then, the right to speak includes one in 

the collective body of humanity, but the right to participate in discourse with others, whether oral or 

17 Ibid. p 210 

18 Ibid. p 219 

19 Ibid. p 219

written, is reserved for those who are able to perform their own status as civilized and dignified 

wanderers. The end goal, in other words, is to benefit from the discourse of “similar” strangers and the 

observation of strangeness while excluding those strangers who do not perform travel for the right 

reasons or speak in the proper way. The observance of difference in the context of inclusion in and 

exclusion from certain kinds of discourse is at the heart of understanding Said's notion of crossing 

borders as a factor of self-fashioning and “pluarlity of vision.” 

Just as Kashifi used wandering to understand our transient life on earth, Mgrdich Naghash, who 

was the Armenian bishop of Amida in the fifteenth century and whose name is often mentioned 

synonymously with the development of Armenian exilic poetry, also advised his audience, “you have a 

road to travel of great breadth / you have no means, you have no means to save you from death.” 20 He 

elaborates, noting that we have all come as guests into the world, and consequently we cannot remain 

here—we must depart. In another poem, Naghash likens the world to a house of lodging, and he urges 

the captive sons of Adam to remain alert, always keeping in mind that many men and women have 

passed through this inn before. It is better to live as exiles like the biblical Lazarus, Naghash warns, 

than to become overly attached to specific communities in this world. Here, Naghash conceptualizes 

the totality of life as a state of estrangement, just as Kashifi theorized around individual stages of life as 

legs of a journey. In these examples, exile operates as an ethical imperative to come to our senses and 

realize that we too are wanderers in a friendless world that was never really home. Naghash's poetry 

uses alienation—again, exile as a producer of difference and as a product of difference—as a means to 

sever real and metaphoric ties with this world, ensuring the salvation of the believer's soul. 

In another poem, “Sayings of Naghash on Gharibs”, the concept of exile becomes inexorably 

tangled with the problem of language. The poem opens with a sorrowful litany of the tribulations of the 

exile, or gharib: “When he becomes a vagrant in a foreign land (ōtar yergir), / The strangers (ōtar) do 

not recognize the gharib, they do not know him.” As in Naghash's metaphor of exile, here banishment 

20 Khondkaryan, Ēd. Mkrtichʻ Naghash. Selections. Erevan: Haykakan SSṚ GA Hratarakchʻutʻyun, 1965. Print. p 132

falls indiscriminately on the poor and rich alike. Doors slam in the gharib's face, because “The gharib 

was a stranger (ōtar) and an exile (panduxt) in a strange land (yergir ōtar).” 21 Most significantly, 

however, refusal to recognize the gharib also engenders a refusal to comprehend, or even allow, the 

gharib to speak. Naghash complains, “Even if the [gharib] be more intellectually dazzling than 

Solomon, / and he voice thoughts like priceless gems, / They would rebuke him, saying “Be silent, 

idiot, fool!” 22 

Naghash's poem is itself silent on the matter of whether the gharib's speech is 

comprehensible to others who may or may not speak the same language. What matters is that the 

unnamed group of others refuses to acknowledge the relevance of the gharib's speech, and 

consequently, his thought. 

Naghash's complaint can be found in other exilic poems in the Armenian tradition as well. In a 

poem that was likely written in the mid sixteenth century by a poet named Ter Awedik, the narrator 

complains, “Even if the gharib be wise, / loquacious in speech as Khigar, / they will call him a fool.” 

Coupled with the trope of ridiculing the gharib into reticent silence, the poem goes on to demonstrate 

how the act of renaming the exile complicates our ability to recognize, acknowledge, and consequently 

respond adequately to the other in a way that affirms his or her humanity. Aristotle posited that “spoken 

words are the symbols of mental experiences,” 23 that is, that speech is the most immediate reflection 

and direct signifier of human thought, and it is perhaps also not surprising that the Armenian word for 

animal, anasoon, literally means “not speaking.” Muteness implies a kind of exile that by definition 

excludes human contact and companionship. In the Armenian case, the act of renaming a stranger as 

gharib also entails a complete and total erasure of familial history, ties to a particular location, and even 

bonds of cultural and linguistic identity. Even if the exile is rich in appearance, with a visage that 

pleases wherever he goes, “they still give him another name,” 24 Ter Awedik notes. One is redefined as a 

21 Ibid. pp 127-128 

22 Ibid. pp 127-128 

23 Aristotle. De interpretatione, 1, 16a 

24 Mkrtchʻyan, Levon, and Arshak Madoyan. Hay Mijnadaryan Kʻnarergutʻyun. Title in Colophon; Title in

stranger by strangers, and in the tongue of others. 

The act of being renamed a gharib and denied the ability to make a meaningful discursive 

contribution to an interpretive community also evokes Kashifi's notion that wandering essentially 

entails navigating the threshold of human dignity. Semiotic reminders of civilization, literacy, and 

religion are necessary to prevent the gharib from slipping from the threshold of dignity into the realm 

of the quasi-human. In some respects, the very genre of exilic literature attempts to restore the 

relevance of speech to the gharib, as such literature was meant to both console and entertain a wide 

variety of Armenian wanderers, merchants, and clergy who were on the road, as well as those who were 

left behind. Navigating that threshold begins and ends by articulating the dignity and difference of the 

self in relation to others. It requires both speaker/traveler and listener/host to create a dialogue between 

strangers about strangeness in order to facilitate new ways of moving across spiritual, discursive, 

social, and cultural landscapes. Encountering others, encountering strangeness, consequently orients an 

individual within a broader semiotic constellation of humanness even as that constellation is 

renegotiated with every step. While Aṛak'el may have defined exile as one of the hallmarks of 

Armenian experience during the early modern period, Naghash reminds us that on a human level, “we 

are all gharibs, brothers.” 

3. “Eyes with the vision of the world” 

The process of becoming a gharib was more than a literary trope expressed in a diverse but 

small body of medieval and early modern exilic poetry. We have, for example, a number of historical 

examples of Gharib—or Gharib Khatoon for women—being used as an Armenian first name since the 

fourteenth century. These names, like the word gharib itself, also allow us windows into particularizing 

the “plurality of vision” of the gharib's experience. 

One such example comes from a gravestone dated the 27 th of November, 1697, in Chinsura, 

Colophon in Russian. Erevan: "Nairi" ;distributed by ATC Books International, Inc., 1996. Print.

India. The epitaph in classical Armenian declares that the famous Gharib Khoja Hovhannes, the son of 

an Armenian merchant from Julfa, lies buried there. Gharib Khoja Hovhannes' family was among those 

Julfan Armenians whom Shah 'Abbas deported in 1604. In some ways, Gharib Khoja Hovhannes 

exemplifies how voluntarily and involuntarily crossing borders (his family hailed from the Ottoman 

Empire, he was likely raised in New Julfa in the Safavid Empire, and he died in the Mughal Empire) 

can condition a “plurality of vision” that encompasses several different cultures at once while still 

clearly maintaining degrees of alienation—here foregrounded by his own name—from any one of those 

regions at any given time. The epitaph tells passers-by that Gharib Khoja Hovhannes traveled “north, 

south, east, and west,” before he died suddenly in the city of Hooghly, finally delivering his soul to the 

Angel and resting “here in a foreign land (ōtar erkri), remaining in longing (karōd) for his lodging 

place (ōt'evani).” Like Aṛak'el's History as well as Armenian exilic poetry, the gravestone draws 

attention to the great distances that Gharib Khoja Hovhannes traveled while constantly longing for a 

“lodging,” or ōt'evan.. 

The Mekhitarist dictionary, Nor Bargirk' Haykazyan Lezui, defines ot'evan as “diversorium,” 

“hospitium,” “guest house” (hiwranoc'), “hotel” (pandōk), “dwelling” (ijevan), and “home” (tun), 

which hardly evokes a specific hearth or homeland, even though the epitaph states that Hovhannes' 

father, Margar, was “nationally” (azgaw) from Julfa. However, in the classical Armenian translation of 

the New Testament, Christ declares in John 14:2 that “In my Father's house there are many dwelling 

places (ōt'evank'),” 25 

which perhaps adds another dimension of meaning to the declaration that 

Hovhannes died in “longing for his lodging,” as the following sentence on the gravestone describes the 

apocalypse and the second coming of Christ. “The world will be completed,” the epitaph reads, “the 

cross will dawn in the east, the trumpet of Gabriel will blow suddenly in the middle of the night,” and 

we are told that Gharib Khoja Hovhannes will enter the nupital chamber which the righteous inherit—a 

25 Hambardzowmyan, S. A. Nor Baṛgirkʻ Haykazean Lezowi. Hayagitakan Hedazodowtʻyownneri Matenashar. 

Erevan: Erevani hamalsarani hradarakchʻowtʻyown, 1979. Print.

dwelling not to be found in this world, no matter how many cities and empires Hovhannes passes 

through. By marking Hovhannes as a Gharib in this world, it may not be apparent which geographic 

region he most associated with home or homeland, but partially through a shared Christian 

eschatological expectation of the second coming, he implicitly belongs to a greater imagined 

community of Armenians who hail from distinctive and distant geographic regions (on the gravestone 

itself, we are told that Hovhannes' father is by nation or tribe (azgaw) from Julfa, and the priest who 

wrote the inscription in India also tells us that by tribe (azgaw) he was from Erevan). Aṛak'el insisted 

that the Armenians were a people in collective exile—geographically displaced, culturally alienated, 

and spiritually estranged from God through sin—a state of foreignness which Hovhannes' gravestone 

speaks to from the perspective of one individual. 

While Julfan Armenians settled communities in India, many prominent Persian poets also left 

their native homes and sought patronage at Mughal courts in the early 17 th century. As with the Julfan 

Armenians, Shah 'Abbas also deported the prominent mercantile family of one such poet, Ṣāʾeb 

Tabrizi, and resettled him in Isfahan. The process of deportation does not seem to have been anywhere 

near as traumatic as it was for the Armenians, but the notion of entering into a strange place, a “gharib” 

place, still held important implications for Ṣāʾeb regarding breaking through epistemological barriers 

and self-fashioning. 

In one poem from his diwan, Ṣāʾeb warns that entering a strange place and consequently being 

changed by strangeness should not be attempted by everyone, but instead holds great risk for the 

arrogant or those who did not voluntarily set out on such a journey. “Beware placing your foot 

thoughtlessly in the gharib place,” Ṣāʾeb cautions, and then elaborates on the dangers of traveling 

through strange deserts, places, and conditions: “Those inexperienced (literally, without sight) at travel 

do not become seeing / they become doubly blinded and sightless from the gharib place.” 26 

As the 

26 Ṣāʾib Tabrīzī, Muḥammad ʻAlī, and Muḥammad Qahramān. Dīvān-I Ṣāʾib Tabrīz. Poems. Tihrān, Irān: Shirkat-i 

Intishārāt-i ʻIlmī va Farhangī, 1985. Print.

poem continues, Ṣāʾeb makes it clear that “Mature men have dressed their eyes with the vision of the 

world,” and even though one may fear the gharib place, the true beloveds “have no peace of happiness 

upon silk,” because the humble are those who “have shirts of thorns from the gharib place.” He 

suggests that have to expose yourself to the thorns before you can take them “like a needle from the 

foot of the gharib.” While the dust on the road may play tricks on the eyes, Ṣāʾeb states that those who 

can pierce through that dust have also polished the mirror of their own heart. 

Similar to the final lines of Gharib Khoja Hovhannes' gravestone, the final lines of the poem 

likewise involve a heavenly ascension of sorts: “The Angel has no body in the guesthouse of the age / 

what is the Strange Army (lashkar-e bigāna) but the powers of the the gharib?” Ṣāʾeb ends by 

posturing that he himself should “let go” of the “powers of the gharib,” which transform beloveds into 

gharib and dress humble eyes with the vision of the world, possibly as a prerequisite for joining the 

bodiless Angel in the guesthouse of the age. What matters here is that by attempting to “dress his eyes 

with the vision of the world,” Ṣāʾeb must pass through new stages of spiritual, epistemological, and 

subjective estrangement, entering into realms that are alien to his own self, just as he must pass beyond 

the world to arrive on another metaphysical plane of corporeality. 

For Ṣāʾeb, even individual words and images could be made “strange” by juxtaposing them 

against other tropes in striking and even bizarre ways, and he called this poetic technique maʿnā-ye 

bigāna, “strange meaning,” or as Paul Losensky has translated it, “unfamiliar or alien conception.” 

By placing Gharib Khoja Hovhannes and Ṣāʾeb Tabrizi within the same comparative frame, I have 

attempted to create a strange juxtaposition of my own (or a contrapuntal juxtaposition, as Said might 

phrase it), a juxtaposition that is cognizant of the different registers of meaning that strangeness and 

strangers inhabit across cultures, space, and time, even when those registers may draw from a similar 

lexical bank or share similar Aristotelian underpinnings. Although we might traditionally think of 

Hovhannes and Ṣāʾeb as embodying different religious and literary worlds, both came from mercantile 

families who were forcibly resettled near Isfahan and both sought their livelihoods in India, the land of

wonder, or “ajab,” as one Armenian poet from the New Julfan school of minstrels phrased it. It would 

be more than a mistake to conceptualize strangeness in isolation—that is, without taking into account 

how the radical differences of other people and places have the potential to configure one's own 

subjectivity along new alignments of belonging and remaining apart. It would be, as Ṣāʾeb suggests, to 

remain doubly blind.

EDUCATION 

MICHAEL BEDROSIAN PIFER 

2102 Pauline Boulevard, Apt. 104, Ann Arbor, MI 48103 

mpifer@umich.edu (269)-599-7782 michael.pifer@gmail.com 

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 

(09/2008 – Present) 

• Ph.D. candidate (ABD) in the Department of Comparative Literature 

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (09/2003 – 05/2007) 

• Highest Honors with a double major in Arabic, Armenian, Persian, Turkish, and Islamic 

Studies and in Creative Writing with the Residential College 

University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (06/2009 – 08/2009) 

• Persian at the UW-Madison Arabic, Persian, and Turkish Language Immersion Institute 

Matenadaran, Yerevan, Armenia (05/2007 – 08/ 2007) 

• Classical Armenian with professor and translator Dr. Gohar Muradyan 

Aleppo, Syria (08/2007 – 07/2008) 

• Modern Western Armenian in a yearlong cultural immersion program tailored by Dr. 

Kevork Bardakjian 

LANGUAGES 

Modern Western and Eastern Armenian, Middle Armenian, Classical Armenian, Farsi 

Reading knowledge of Arabic and Latin 

TEACHING AND RESEARCH INTERESTS 

Developmental English, Argumentative Writing, Art of the Essay, Journalism, Creative Writing 

(Fiction and Poetry), Trauma Studies, Imagining America, The Writing Life, Contemporary and 

Medieval Middle Eastern Literature, Cross-Cultural Interaction and Literary Hybridization 

TEACHING EXPERIENCE 

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (09/2010 – 05/2011) 

Primary Instructor of Comparative Literature 122: Writing World Literature 

• Selected readings, drafted writing prompts, and created course to train students how to 

use comparative frameworks to study literature from various languages and cultures 

• Equipped eighteen undergraduate students with an 'analytic toolbox' to read and write 

about a variety of mediums, including film, poetry, legal documents, literary theory, news 

reports, photographs, popular music, and short stories 

• Motivated students to be proactive about their own educations by writing on critical 

subjects relevant to their own lives, disciplines, and intended vocations 

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (o9/2009 – 05/2010) 

Primary Instructor of English 125: Introduction to Writing for an Academic Audience 

• Designed course and tailored lessons to meet the needs of eighteen undergraduate 

students from a variety educational and cultural backgrounds 

• Organized full-class peer review workshops to hone students' skills as analytic writers, 

readers, editors, and revisers 

• Worked one-on-one with students to develop more nuanced theses, more critical 

engagement with evidence, and more significant conclusions




University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 

(09/2008 – 05/2009; 10/2010 - Present) 

Tutor to Supplement Language Course in Modern Western Armenian 

• Activated and applied classroom learning to everyday social situations 

• Helped students create, reflect upon, and rethink their own strategies for learning a 

foreign language 

• Fostered an environment that encouraged students to take risks and become more 

conversational 

National Academy of Science, Yerevan, Armenia (06/2006 – 08/2006) 

Primary Instructor of English as a Second Language for Armenian and Russian Speakers 

• Designed and taught a course for twenty non-native English speakers that emphasized 

mastery of colloquial English 

• Created classroom activities to meet the needs of both highly advanced and beginning 

students of the English language 

RELATED WORK AND SKILLS 

Armenian Studies Program, University of Michigan (05/2010 – 09/2010) 

Assistant Editor of ASP Newsletter and Webmaster 

• Collaborated with ASP director, Gerard Libaridian, and post-doctoral fellows to publicize 

the scholarship of one of the world’s largest and most prestigious Armenian Studies 

programs 

• Conducted web-development for the Armenian Studies Program, including multimedia 

presentations, public relations, fund-raising efforts, faculty relations, and graphic design 

Society for Armenian Studies 

(06/2010 – Present) 

Co-Editor of SAS Newsletter 

• Solicited information relevant to the field of Armenian Studies from hundreds of 

members across North and South America, Europe, and the Middle East 

• Edited, compiled, and graphically designed twenty-page informative newsletter 

Workshop for Armenian / Turkish Scholarship (09/2006 – 06/2008) 

Editor of Web Content and Webmaster 

• Attended the 5 th Meeting of the Workshop for Armenian-Turkish Scholarship (May 14-16, 

2006) at New York University as the web-relations coordinator 

• Oversaw the development of the Workshop for Armenian / Turkish Scholarship website 

which provides a forum for discussion and workshop news for over 50 scholars worldwide 

Ann Arbor Observer (09/2003 – 06/2007) 

Freelance Journalist 

• Tracked story leads across Washtenaw county and pitched ideas for upcoming articles to 

editorial staff 

• Wrote a variety of human interest pieces to highlight diverse aspects of Ann Arbor 

business and community life




CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS 

23rd Annual Medieval Studies Symposium. Presenting: The Threshold of Dignity: Performing the 

Human in Medieval Armenian and Persian Wandering. Indiana University. April 1, 2011. 

165 th American Historical Association annual meeting. Forthcoming. Presenting: The study of 

books, the fear of the Lord: The early modern Armenian book market. Boston, MA. January 6-9, 

2011. 

Eighth Annual Graduate Student Colloquium in Armenian Studies. Presented: Stunning acumen, 

silent Solomon: The speechless death of the exile in Armenian literature. University of California, 

Los Angeles, Friday, February 19, 2010. 

University of Michigan: Graduate Workshop on Armenian Literature. Presented: Encounters with 

the ineffable and the role of the senses in the gardens of Armenian medieval poetry. University of 

Mighigan, Ann Arbor. Spring 2009. 

FORTHCOMING PUBLICATIONS 

Pifer, Michael. “Encounters with the ineffable and the role of the senses in the gardens of 

Armenian medieval poetry.” In preparation to be published in a monograph for the Spring 2009 

Graduate Workshop on Armenian Literature at the University of Michigan. 

Pifer, Michael. “The forgetful figure: Armenian representations of trauma during the early modern 

period and twentieth century.” In preparation. 

Pifer, Michael. “The anxiety of origin: Orientalism and the lyric of others.” In preparation. 

AWARDS AND RECOGNITIONS 

• Outstanding Graduate Student Instructor Award, University of Michigan, 2010 

(nominated; award pending) 

• K. Allin Luther Award in Persian, University of Michigan, 2010 

• Foreign Language and Area Studies Award in Farsi. Summer, 2009 

• Helen J. Daniels Prize for Best Essay, Winter 2007, Hopwood Awards 

• University of Michigan Hopwood Writing Award, Winter 2007, Essay Division 



• Michigan Interscholastic Press Association, Award of Merit for First Place, Comic Strip, 

Division 2, April 2003 

References available upon request.

SONA TAJIRYAN 

The Image of the Armenian Merchants: Safavid Iran, Ottoman Empire, 16 th -18 th 

Centuries 

The proposed paper examines the main characteristics in the personality and world-view of a 

Medieval Armenian merchant. It is based on the personality study of Armenian merchants (Zakaria 

Aguletsi, Ibrahim Sadi, Petros di Sarkis Gilanents, Yeghia Karnetsi, Hovhannes Tovmajanyan, etc.) 

trading in Asia, Africa, Middle East, and Europe and the accounts written about them or by them. 

The multilingualism, the ability of mastering foreign languages with ease, extrasociability, more 

specifically, the flexible attitude in diverse ethnic environments were the great advantages of the 

Armenian merchants. Due to these qualities the Armenian merchants became one of the biggest 

“trade diasporas” of the time. 

The literary heritage (diaries, letters, etc.) left by the mentioned trade agents and others is an 

excellent source in terms of understanding the codex of a Medieval Armenian merchant and some 

important peculiarities and traditions of the peoples living in the Arab world, Iran and the Ottoman 

Empire. Behaviour of representatives of the network of New Julfa Armenian merchants, as well as 

the merchants trading in Constantinople, Akn, Aleppo, and Cairo, has often been idealized in 

Armenian scholarly research. 

This paper argues that Medieval Armenian merchants trading in Iran, Europe, Russia, Ottoman 

Empire and the Arab world in reality were not always the ideal class of the Armenian community as 

represented by the scholarly research. This statement will be proved on the example of other images 

of merchants found in all the genres of Armenian literary heritage and will shed light on the worldview 

of Armenian merchants and their relations with the foreign communities in the abovementioned 

geographic areas.

THE IMAGE OF THE ARMENIAN MERCHANTS: 

SAFAVID IRAN, OTTOMAN EMPIRE, 16TH-18TH CENTURIES 

(Sona Tajiryan) 

A significant body of evidence about the Armenian merchants, the Armenian 

merchants’ network and their success in the 16 th -18 th centuries has motivated Fernand 

Braudel to express the following opinion about them: “Was it by the transport trade 

that the two mighty pitches colonized by the merchants of Julfa – no less than the 

eastern and the western worlds respectively - were locked to each other?” 1 

Braudel’s statement is at first sight presumably in contrast to the perceptions 

that can be met in the works of the Armenian authors of the time. For instance, 

according to the famous eyewitness Grigor Vardapet Kamakhetsi’s or Daranaghtsi’s 

perceptions from the first thirty years of the 17 th century, the representatives of the 

Armenian trade capital had the following characteristics: “…they do not follow the 

Holy Testament and have left their wives, sons and daughters ownerless, missing and 

1 

Fernand Braudel, Civilization and Capitalism, 15th-18th Century: The Wheels of Commerce, 

University of California Press, 1992, p. 157. 

1

in disturbance, they had spread all over the world as grasshoppers and snow...” 2 . And 

all these because of one reason: “by reason of disease of greed and collecting 

treasures” 3 . 

“And if someone says that it’s impossible to live on the Earth without 

merchants, as all the inventions everywhere come up from their travels and voyages. 

I’ll say yes, what you say is right, but God set limits on everything…” 4 It’s natural that 

the clergyman would call on to the representatives of the trade class to remember the 

2 

Grigor Daranaghtsi, Chronology of Grigor Vardapet Daranaghtsi or Kamakhetsi, Jerusalem, 1915, 

pp. 457-458 (in Armenian) (The pages from this source will be given in the text from now on). See 

the whole quotation in Armenian: «Նա' կոյր աչօք միտ չեն դներ սուրբ աւետարանին եւ 

թողեալ են զկին, զուստերս եւ զդստերս իւրեանց անտէրունչս եւ կարօտեալս եւ նեղեալս, 

եւ իւրեանքն ցիր եւ ցան եւ տարածեալ ընդ ամենայն երեսս երկրի` որպէս զմարախ կամ 

որպէս զձիւն, մինչ ի Հնդիկս ներքինս եւ յԵթովպիա եւ յԵգիպտոս եւ յամենայն աշխարհս 

Ֆռանգաց եւ ի Կոստանդինուպօլիսս եւ յամենայն աշխարհն Թրակացւոց եւ Գութացոցն, 

որ են Լեհաց եւ Ուռուսաց եւ Մոսկոֆաց եւ Վրկանաց եւ ընդ ամենայն աշխարհն Թուրքաց 

եւ Քրդաց եւ Քաղդէացւոց եւ ամենայն Պարսկաստանաց եւ արեւելայս` մինչեւ ի Չինն եւ 

Մատչինն, ի Թօնն եւ ի Թօնճան եւ յԱնգալիան եւ յամենայն աշխարհին Տաթարաց եւ 

Ափխազաց, մինչեւ ի ծագս աշխարհաց անծանօթից, որպէս զփոշի ցիր եւ ցան եղեալք…»։ 

3 

«...ի պատճառս ագահութեան ախտից եւ մթերման գանձուց յաւելուածութեան, զոր Տերն 

հանապազ ուսուցանելով Քրիստոսի հաւատացելոցն` զօրստօրէն խնդրել եւ մի ցանկալ 

յաւելուածոցն, եւ դարձեալ թէ` Մի' գանձէք ձեզ գանձս յերկրի, ուր ցեց եւ ուտիճն 

ապականեն» (457-458)։ 

4 «Եւ եթէ ասիցէ ոք` եթէ առանց վաճառականից ոչ գոյ հնար լինելոյ ի վերայ երկրի, զի նոցա 

երթեւեկութեամբ եւ շրջագայութեամբն լինի ամենայն իրաց պատուականաց գիւտից ընդ 

ամենայն տեղիս, ասեմք թէ` այո', բարիոք է զոր ասացեր, բայց ամենայն իրաց չափ եւ 

սահման է դրել աստուածութիւնն, որպէս ծովուց, որպէս ասաց Աստուած առ Յովբ թէ` 

Փակեցի զծով աւազով եւ սահման եդի զաւազ նորա` թէ մինչեւ ցյայդ վայր եկեսցես եւ 

խորտակեսցին ալիք քո, որպէս հանապազ կու տեսանեմք» (pp. 458-459) 

2

Biblical verse. “Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust 

doth corrupt:” 5 . 

The academics of economic history state the great activity and the huge 

success of the Armenian merchants’ network representatives of 16 th -18 th centuries in 

the world trade. 

This paper is an attempt to reveal the peculiarities of the image of the 

Armenian merchants trading in the Safavid Iran, Ottoman Empire and the Arab 

world, particularly their behaviour and worldview, based on Armenian and foreign 

sources of the time. This will give the opportunity to understand the reasons for their 

success. 

A. THE PROFESSIONAL SKILLS AND EXCELLENT ABILITY OF 

MASTERING AND TRANSFERRING THE NEWEST TECHNOLOGIES 

The representatives of the Armenian merchants’ network had the opportunity 

to receive a special education. It will suffice to mention the existence of the “higher 

business school” of New Julfa founded by Kostand Jughayetsi (Kostand of Julfa). The 

textbook of this school on the foreign trade entitled “Universal Collection of Measures 

and Yards, Gems and Weights” or “Askharajoghov” (in Armenian) has reached us. It 

is a unique source on the world business of the time. Based on this Ghukas Vanandetsi 

5 

[The Heavenly Treasure (Mt. 6:19-21)] 

3

wrote the first “business guide” entitled “Treasury of Measures, Weights, Numeration 

and Currency From All Over the World” 6 , which was printed in 1699 in Amsterdam 

for the Armenian merchants. The Armenian merchants were masters not only in the 

diamond, silk, dyes and spices trade, but also knew perfectly well the cutting of 

diamonds, all the types of silk, the secrets of dyes and spices. European authors speak 

with great sympathy about the professional skills of the Armenians. 

1. A good example is the image of the Armenian jeweller Ibrahim Sadi in 

Edward Brown’s (1641-1704) “The Travels And Adventures of Edward Brown, Esq; 

formerly a merchant in London” travel notes 7 , whom the British traveller meets in 

Rosetta, Egypt. The professional skills of Ibrahim Sadi surprised the English traveller, 

who considered himself a professional in the field. Ibrahim Sadi “was perfectly skilled 

in jewels, and in all the trades relating to them; he understood the cutting and setting 

them to the utmost nicety, and had so many secrets for helping their defects, and 

heightening their lustre, that tho’ I had been now for many years conversant in these 

6 

See: Ghukas Vanandetsi, Treasury of Measures, Weights, Numeration and Currency From All 

Over the World, Amsterdam, 1699 (in Armenian). 

7 

The Travels And Adventures of Edward Brown, Esq; formerly a merchant in London. Containing 

his observations on France and Italy. (1739). London: Oxford University: J. Applebee, for A. 

Bettesworth and C. Hitch. 

4

things, yet I found myself, in respect to him, Mr. Pucci’s secret excepted 8 , a perfect 

novice” 9 ,- says Edward Brown. 

2. The Scottish traveller James Bruce (1730-1794) during his voyage to 

Ethiopia in 1770-1771 provides us with interesting information about the rulers and 

the history of Abyssinia. He tells about the Ethiopian Empress Eleni, who had about 

her court an Armenian merchant named Matthew 10 , “a person of great trust and 

discretion, who had been long accustomed to go to the several kingdoms of the East 

upon mercantile commissions for the king and for his nobles. He had been at Cairo, 

Jerusalem, Ormus, Ispahan, and in the East Indies on the coast of Malabar…; “He was 

one of those factors which, as I have already said, are employed by the king and great 

men in Abyssinia to sell or barter, in the places above mentioned such part of their 

revenue as are paid them in kind” 11 . 

Bruce then says, that these men (probably the trading agents or merchants) are 

chiefly the Greeks and the Armenians, “but the preference is always given to the 

8 

This is probably about the famous Francesco Pucci (1543-1597) from Florence, who was famous in 

16th-17th centuries Europe, who was a philosopher and an utopist. He had a plan to create a 

secret “republic” of good people. For more details see: Rob Heisler, John Dee and the Secret 

Societies, The Hermetic Journal, 1992, pp. 7-8. (available from 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/12393713/John-Dee-and-the-Secret-Societies, Date of access: 

20.12.2010). 

9 

The Travels And Adventures…, p. 417. 

10 

Probably Matteos in Armenian. 

11 

James Bruce, Travels to…, vol. 2, pp. 130-131։ 

5

latter” 12 . The description of the image of the Armenian merchants then follows, 

which perfectly describes the main components of professional skills of the Armenian 

merchants. This statement is more interesting and important mainly because Bruce is 

not Armenian. “The Armenians, of all the people in the East, are those most 

remarkable for their patience and sobriety. They are generally masters of most of the 

eastern languages; are of strong, robust constitutions; of all people, the most attentive 

to the beasts and merchandise they have in charge; exceedingly faithful, and content 

with little” 13 . 

3. When Matthew left for Aden in 1519, from whence he left for India, 

everyone was surprised why an Armenian was sent as an envoy instead of an 

Ethiopian. Bruce states. “…there could be nobody in the empress’s power that had 

half his qualifications”. Bruce also mentions that an Abyssinian “would not have 

ventured to go, as knowing very well that everywhere beyond the limits of his 

country, he would have been without protection, and the first Turk in whose power 

he might have fallen would have sold him as a slave” 14 . 

12 

Ibid, vol. 2, p. 131. 

13 

Ibid. 

14 

Ibid, vol. 2, p. 135. 

6

Therefore, besides the fact that the Armenians and the Armenian merchants 

were extremely skilled professionally and were very qualified to be sent for 

diplomatic missions, they also had a patronage and legal freedom, which the 

foreigners did not have. As seen from the example, they enjoyed the patronage of the 

Grand Signor and they were also free to trade wherever they wanted. 

5. Another worthy example of a reliable, balanced and responsible Armenian 

merchant is a young man, whom his father left in Abyssinia in times of the Emperor 

Iyasu (1730-1755) and the Greeks had taken care of him. Iyasu distinguished him 

from early ages and employed him for going on errands to Masuah and Arabia. This 

Armenian was soon appointed a chamberlain, which was the third post in the 

government 15 . 

6. The French traveller and doctor Francois Bernier (1625–1688) during his 

voyage to India 16 tells about an Armenian, named Murat. Bernier tells about the two 

envoys: Murad and a Muslim merchant, who were in the Ethiopian king’s service. 

They, as Bernier states, “…doubtless enjoyed the greatest distinction at court, and 

were best qualified to attain the important ends he (the Abyssinian king- S.T.) had in 

15 

Ibid, vol. 2, pp. 665-666. 

16 

Bernier François, Travels In The Mogul Empire, Edinburgh, 1891. 

7

view” 17 . From these two envoys the first was a Muslim merchant, the second was an 

Armenian and a Christian merchant, who was born and married in Aleppo. Bernier 

tells that he saw him in Mokha, where Murad accommodated him. Murad, in 

Bernier’s words, was being sent to Mokha every year for the same object, as the 

Muslim merchant “and always takes with him the annual presents from his master to 

the English and Dutch East-India Companies, and conveys those which they give in 

return to Gondar” 18 . 

Thus, accomplishing the diplomatic missions of their Eastern masters to 

Europe, the Armenian merchants were becoming unique mediators between the two 

worlds- The East and the Europe, as well as between Islam and Christianity. 

B. THE PERSONALITY OF THE MERCHANT AND HIS LINGUAL 

SKILLS 

One of the most typical features of the Armenian merchants trading in vast 

geographic areas is their multilingualism and their personal qualities. Understanding 

the language of the locals and carrying on trade in these languages was vital for them. 

The multilingualism was the obvious privilege of the Armenians in the world trade 

rivalry. 

17 

Bernier François, Travels…, p. 134. 

18 

Ibid, p. 135. 

8

The young Armenian described in Bruce’s “Travels”, who was left by his father 

in Abyssinia, held a high position in the government. In addition to his own language, 

he knew Turkish, Arabic and Malabar, he was also a great master of Tigre 19 . Bruce 

also mentions, “…his great excellence was his knowledge of Amharic, which he was 

thought to speak as chastely and elegantly…” 20 . Bruce also mentions that he has met 

this Armenian with his father in Loheia (Yemen) and that he did not understand any 

European language. 

Contrary to this, James Bruce mentions that “…an Abyssinian speaks no 

language but his own, which is not understood out of his own country; and is 

absolutely ignorant even of the existence of other far distant nations” 21 . The 

knowledge of several languages completely resembles Ibrahim Sadi’s image, who 

knew nine languages. “This signior Ephraim was a man of wonderful genius; he spoke 

nine languages perfectly, among which were English and Low Dutch” 22 . Here is 

Arakel Davrijetsi’s evidence about Sargis Beriatsi or Haleptsi: “and he was perfectly 

19 

James Bruce, Travels…, vol. 2, p. 666 

20 

Ibid. 

21 

Ibid, p. 135. 

22 

The Travels And Adventures…, p. 417 

9

skilled in the language of the Arabs and the Ottomans and the Francs, he was also 

acquired with the language of the Romans and the language of the Jews 23 . 

What can be implied from James Bruce’s account is that the Armenian 

merchants of the time: 1. mastered several languages, 2. were communicative and 

responsible, 3. were cosmopolitans. 

The multilingualism of the Armenian merchants is also reflected in the 

commercial records written in the “merchants’ language”, a term suggested by 

Alessandro Orengo 24 . These include the account books, bills, receipts, letters, which 

are impossible to understand without using the knowledge of Arabic, Persian, 

Turkish, Italian, French, Tibetan, Nepali, Mongolian, Russian, etc. 

C. THE WORLDVIEW OF THE MERCHANTS 

The evidence about the communicative character of the Armenian merchants 

“working” in multiethnic and multi-confessional environments is vast. It will suffice 

to mention the trading class in Safavid Iran directly working with the Shah and the 

ruling elite, or the separate representatives of it-, Geraks, Shehrimans, Yeghia 

Karnetsi, etc. In the Ottoman Empire there existed the institute of famous Armenian 

23 

Arakel Vardapet Davrijetsi, History, Vagharshapat, 1896, p. 595 (in Armenian). 

24 

Orengo A., Una lettera del XVII secolo, scritta nell' "armeno dei mercanti" (vacharakanakan 

hayeren), Ashtanak, Vol. 3, 2000, pp. 24-35. 

10

azrgan-bashis (vacharakanapet) (an Armenian who privately served the Sultan, 

vizier, who put into circulation their money and provided their profit)- Seghbos, 

Tovmachan. 

The “Travels” of Edward Brown contain unique and, what is more important, 

direct information about the world-view of the Armenian merchant. The 

acquaintances of the merchant, who was loyal and cosmopolite in terms of politics 

and international relations, were always multinational. “I have seven people 

constantly in my family; my physician, who is a Spanish Jew; my steward, a Greek; 

my secretary, an Italian; my two footmen, Swiss; my cook, a Frenchman; and my 

groom, a native of Lorrain” 25 . 

Ibrahim Sadi (of whose origin we know nothing) was “immensely rich” 26 , 

“affable, communicative, sincere, beneficent” “and the most amiable man in the 

world, if he could ever have thought of staying in a place” 27 . 

Ibrahim Sadi managed to skillfully describe his lifestyle. This was a new 

formula, formed and dictated by the world trade transit routes, which the world 

would name cosmopolitism in the future. For this reason, the young European was 

25 

Travels and adventures…, p. 418. 

26 

Ibid, p. 416. 

27 

Ibid, p. 417. 

11

confused with the philosophic meditations of the Armenian merchant which seemed 

indisputable. Before him was standing the Armenian merchant-cosmopolitan with a 

world-view which was uncommon and alien to his own, yet at the same time new 

and powerful. “He laughed at the love of one’s country, as an idle and narrow notion. 

One God, said he, created us all; we come the same way into the world; we have the 

same business in the world, and when we go out of it we are to account before the 

same judge: all men therefore are brethren, and the world only is every man’s 

country” 28 . 

Here is the general image of a Medieval Armenian merchant-cosmopolitan in 

Ibrahim Sadi’s form. The words and actions of the Armenian are at first sight very 

alien and at the same time up to date. Nevertheless, these are the qualities that have 

likely been the guaranties of the longevity of the Armenian Trade Network. 

We do not tend to idealize the image of any of the representatives of the 

Armenian trade capital, which can often be met in the modern historiography. For 

instance, here is an example of an idealized image of an Armenian merchant: 1. “he 

(the Armenian merchant- S.T.) was conservative in his lifestyle”, 2. “was not wasting 

money in foreign countries”, 3. “was very discreet about the women, alcoholic drinks, 

28 

Ibid, p. 418. 

12

gambling, and was faithful to his family”, 4.. “always sought to return to his 

hometown and when already back, he loved to arrange parties” 29 . 

Here are Kamakhetsi’s words: 1. “All of these I wrote I have been an 

eyewitness to, they (the merchants- S.T.) are all arrogant, insolent, conceited, 

heartless, ruthless, unfaithful, dishonourable and do not bring honour to anyone” 30 . 

2.Kamakhetsi tells that during his first visit to Egypt in 1605, a lot of Julfans 

have become Muslims. They were caught with Muslim women, and a Coptic 

clergyman reproached him. And there are a lot of them who became Muslims for the 

sake of women. Not to say about those who were caught with prostitutes and were set 

free in return for paying a lot of money 31 . 

3.Kamakhetsi tells that once in the city of Akn, during the Great Fast a group 

of Julfans were staying in a house. They were eating all the time, drinking obscenely 

and singing. The whole village: the adults and the children were frustrated, so they 

came to the head of the village to ask if they were aware what nationality these 

29 

Khachatur Dadayan, Codex Image of the Armenian Merchant, 

Bulletin of Noravank Sсientific Educational Foundation N 2(18), Yerevan, 2006 (in Armenian). 

30 

Grigor Daranaghtsi, Chronology…, p. 465. 

31 

«Եւ թէ ի Մսըր առաջին գնալոյս, որ թվին ՌԾԴ (1605)ին էր, բազում ջուղայեցիք էին 

տաճկցեր ի վերայ տաճկի կնոջ ըմբռվելով, որ խփթի երէց մի նախատեաց զմեզ վասն 

նոցա: Եւ յԸստամբօլ քանի~ ու քանի կան տաճկցած վասն կնոջ համար: Թողում ասել 

զայլսն զայնոսիկ, որ ի վերայ բոզից կու բռնուին, այնչափ փող եւ դրամ տալով հազիւ կու 

զերծանին»: (Daranaghtsi: 462) 

13

people belonged to, as they spoke Armenian, but were acting illegal. The answer was 

that they were pure Armenians. They asked if they were the followers of Gregory the 

Illuminator. The answer was that they were true Armenians, but they were guttlers, 

incredulous and act like that because they are very rich. A clergyman was sent to visit 

these Julfans, who came back and told that their immorality was tenfold. Kamakhetsi 

cursed them, but they did not come to reason 32 . 

32 

«...ի մեր գեղաքաղաքի Ակինն` ի մեծ պահոց աղուհացին, որ Մեծ Պօլու կայ, գունդ 

մի ջուղայեցիք իջեւաներ էին ի տուն մի եւ գլխաւոր կարաւանին Տիտար ասէին` վարազի 

խոզ մի վայրենի: Նա' անխտիր ուտէին զպահսն ձիթակերութեամբ եւ անառակ 

արբեցութիւն գործելով եւ թաթերաց ձայնիւք կաքաւէին, որ բոլոր գիւղն` մեծ եւ փոքր 

զամէնքն խռովեցուցին ի կարծիս թերահաւատութեան արկանելով, որ եկին առ մեզ 

գլխաւոր գեղջն եւ հարցին թէ` գիտա՞կ ես այտոնք ի՞նչ ազգ են, լեզու հայերէն խօսին եւ 

գործովք անօրէնք են: Ասացի թէ` բուն հայք են, ես ի դոցա Հին Ջուղայն գնացեր եմ: 

Ասացին. Լուսաւորչի հաւատոց եւ օրինա՞ցն են: Ասացի. այո', ստոյգ հայք են, բայց կարի 

թերահաւատք են եւ որկրամոլք եւ որովայնապաշտ են, բայց առաւել հարուստ լինելով 

ընչիցն այդպէս գործեն, միթէ՞ ի տարապարտուց Տէրն Քրիստոս վայ տալով չար 

մեծատանցն թէ` Վա~յ ձեզ մեծատո'ւնք, զի ընկալայք զմխիթարութիւն ձեր: Եւ գեղջացիքն 

աղաղակեցին թէ` մեր կին եւ տղայքն ամէնքն ծոմապաս եւ միաճաշակ կու պահենք, նա' 

դոքա թերահաւատեցուցին զմեր ժողովուրդն, միթէ մենք վաճառական չե՞նք, այլ զամենայն 

աշխարհի վաճառական մե'ք շուրջ կու ածեմք` վարձաւոր լինելովն մեր, դոքա պիտիր 

զմեր գինին ստակով գնեն եւ ըմպեն, մեք ձրի եւ առանց գնոջ չե՞մք կարող ըմպել եւ 

անառակել. կամ մեզ այլ նոցա նման հրաման տուէք, կամ նոցա հախէն եկէ'ք, որ մերոցն 

խրատ լիցի, եւ ուղարկէ' գաղտ ի սպասաւորացդ` թէ ո՞րպէս են: Եւ ուղարկեցի զմին 

յաբեղայիցս, գնաց ետես եւ երեկ ասաց թէ` քան զդոցա ասածնի տասնապատիկ են 

անառակութեամբ: Եւ անիծից գիր զրկեցի` թէ կսկծին եւ զղջան եւ գան յուղղութիւն եւ 

գեղջին գայթակղութիւնն այլ հաստատի: Նա' առ ոչինչ համարելով, ելեալ անիծիւք չու 

արարեալ գնացին: Եւ յելանելն գեղջէն` երկու նշանք եղեն, մին` որ յաւաներն զգլուխ միոյն 

պատռեցին եւ երկրորդ` յանդիման գեղջին զառիվերն գլորեցաւ չար Տիտարին բարձեալ 

ջորին դէպ ի գետն, որ բազմամբոխ մարդիկ հազիւ արգելին: Նա' ամենեքեան` մեծ եւ 

փոքր, տաճիկք եւս գիտացին եւ հաւատացին, որ անիծիցն էին ցոյցք եւ նշանք, այլ 

իւրեանքն մոլեգին եւ կատաղեալ բարուքն առ ոչինչ վարկանելով, ոչ դարձեալ գալով ի 

զղջումն»: (Daranaghtsi: 460-461). 

14

Daranaghtsi tells about a Julfan merchant named Khachik, who was met in 

Egypt, who came to Jerusalem and who himself had a wife and children. He bought a 

Russian maid and was travelling with her for adultery among the group of merchants. 

So these merchants complained to Kamakhetsi asking either to prohibit him to bring 

this woman or to let them do the same, as the temptation was great. So Kamakhetsi 

cursed him, but Khachik did not regain consciousness. He then went to Poland, lost 

his property, became a woman and transformed to a homosexual 33 . 

3.Talking about the Armenian merchants, trading abroad, Kamakhetsi states: 

“…some stay (abroad- S.T.) for ten years, some for twenty, some for thirty and some 

of them for their whole lifetime, spending their lives in exile and dying there, leaving 

all the money they collected in the hands of the enemies and dogs at the same time 

33 

«Եւ այլ մին Խաչատուր անուն` լինելով ընդ վաճառականացն ջուղայեցւոց, որ 

պատահեցան յԵգիպտոս, որ գալով մեր յԵրուսաղէմայ, նա ինքն ի վեր ի տեղին կին եւ 

տղաքներ ունելով, մէկ ուռուս աղախին գնելով, շնութեան համար հետն շրջեցուցանելով ի 

մէջ բազմամբոխ վաճառականաց, եկին գանկատեցան թէ` մեզ այլ հրաման տո'ւք, կամ 

նորա մէկ ճար արարէ'ք որ թողու, ի մեր հետ չբերէ, շատ գայթակղութիւն է մեզ: Բերի 

մօտս, շատ անգամ խրատեցի` ի զեղջ չերեկ, ես այլ յետ բազում խրատուցն բանադրեցի 

ցաւագին անիծիւք, թերեւս գայցէ ի զղջումն. նա ոչ երեկ, այլ մնաց չար Տիտարին պէս ի 

ներքոյ անիծից: Յետ ժամանակի լսեցաք` թէ ի Լեհաց աշխարհին կայ, թափել է յընչիցն եւ 

եղեալ է խիզան եւ այլակերպեր է քան զգոդի»: (Daranaghtsi: 461-462) 

15

depriving their fathers, mothers, wives and children, their brothers and the whole 

family, their souls, their bodies, etc” 34 . 

Our modest research gave the opportunity to understand that in reality there 

is no contradiction between the perceptions of Braudel and Kamakhetsi. Moreover, 

these two opinions supplement each other. Thus, the issue needs a careful study. 

34 

«....մանաւանդ ի վերայ այնոցիկ որ գնան զհետ ժանգահար կորստական գանձուցն 

մթերելոյ, ոմանք տասն ամ յամելով, ոմանք` քսան, ոմանք` երեսուն եւ ոմանք զամենայն 

ժամանակս կենաց իւրեանց ի պանդխտութեան եւ ի նժդեհութեան անցանելով եւ 

մեռանելով եւ ժողովեալն թշնամեաց կերակուր լինի եւ շանց մասն եւ բաժին, եւ զհայր եւ 

զմայր եւ զկինն եւ զորդիսն զրկելով, զեղբայրսն եւ զամենայն ընտանիսն տան իւրոյ եւ զիւր 

հոգին եւ զմարմինն այլ եւս»: (Daranaghtsi: 458) 

16

SONA TAJIRYAN 

Curriculum Vitae 

http://yerevan.academia.edu/SonaTajiryan 

Department of Arabic Studies, Yerevan State University, 

Armenia, MA Student 

Mailing address: 45 Charents Street, 

0025 Yerevan, Armenia 

E-mail: stajiryan@yahoo.com 

stajiryan@gmail.com 

Mobile: (+374) 77501939 

EDUCATION 

YEREVAN STATE UNIVERSITY, Department of Arabic Studies (2009-2011) 

- Master of Arts in Oriental Studies, in the field of Middle Eastern Studies 

- Supervisor: Dr. Hayk Kocharyan, Assistant Professor of Islamic Studies, Yerevan State 

University 

YEREVAN STATE UNIVERSITY, Department of Arabic Studies (2004-2009) 

- Bachelor of Arts in Oriental Studies, in the field of Arabic Studies 

- Thesis: ‘‘James Bruce’s “Travels” as a Source of 18th century History of Egypt and Some 

Neighbouring Areas’’ 

- Supervisor: Dr. Hayk Kocharyan, Assistant Professor of Islamic Studies, Yerevan State 

University 

AWARDS AND FELLOWSHIPS 

Yerevan State University (YSU) 

Full two year Study Award for Master’s Degree at the Department of Arabic Studies (YSU) 

(01/Sep/2009- 30/05/2011). 

Cairo University 

Full one year Fellowship to study at the Department of Arabic Literature: Courses in Arabic 

Language and Literature, Cairo University, (01/Oct/2007 – 28/May/2008). 

PUBLICATIONS 

 

 

“Abū Ṣāliḥ al-Armanī’s “History”: source study”, Arabic Studies (Armenian Journal of Arabic 

Studies), Volume 2, Yerevan, 2007, pp. 40-56 (In Armenian). 

“Ibrahim Sadi: Armenian Jeweller (17 th century)”, Arabic Studies (Armenian Journal of Arabic 

Studies), Volume 4, Yerevan, 2010, pp. 63-71 (In Armenian). 

LANGUAGES 

Armenian (Native), Russian (Fluent), English (Fluent), Arabic (Fluent), French 

(Intermediary), Hebrew (Good) 

PROFESSIONAL CONFERENCES 

“Ibrahim Sadi: Armenian Jeweller”, Graduate Conference at the Department of Arabic 

Studies (YSU), March 10-12/2010

“Abu Salih Al-Armani's "History" or "Chronology" as a Source on the History of Muslim- 

Christian Relations in 12th-13th Centuries Africa”, Panel: “Armenians and Islam”, Central 

Eurasian Studies Society 10th Annual Conference, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. 

(https://www.cess.muohio.edu/CESSpg_conf_prog2009.html), October 08-11/2009 

Member of the Organizing Committee, “The Turkic World, the Caucasus, and Iran: 

Civilisational Crossroads of Interactions”, Tsaghkadzor, Armenia, July 10-12/2009 

TRAININGS, COURSES 

Euro-Mediterranean Training Course for Human Rights Education with Young People (In 

Arabic), Beirut Arab University, Debbiye, Lebanon, 21/Jun/2009-29/Jun/2009 

Intensive Courses of Armenian Language and Culture of the Ca’Foscari University of 

Venice, Venice, Italy, 30/Jul/2007-22/Aug/2007 

MEMBERSHIP IN ACADEMIC ORGANIZATIONS 

Armenian Association for Academic Partnership and Support (ARMACAD) 

( http://www.armacad.info) 

Students Scientific Society of Yerevan State University 

INTERNSHIPS 

Embassy of RA in Egypt, Cairo, Egypt (www.armembegypt.com) 

Translator from Arabic into Armenian and English, and vice versa, Assistant in creating the 

electronic database of the Embassy Library, Nov/2007-May/2008 

Armenian Patriarchate of Cairo, Egypt 

Translator/Assistant, Documentation and Correspondence Management, March -May 2008 

VOLUNTEERING 

“US Alumni Association of Armenia” 

- Organizer of Lectures and Seminars, (01/Jun/2010-to present) 

“Armenian Association for Academic Partnership and Support” (ARMACAD) 

- Student Academic Involvement Manager, Organizer of Academic Lectures, Coordinator 

of Armenian Studies Yahoo!Group 

(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ArmenianStudies/) 

- Responsible for www.armacad.info “Conferences” section content, helping Armenian 

students in continuing their education at the best international universities, etc., 

(01/Jun/2008-to present) 

“Digital Library of Classical Armenian Literature”(www.digilib.am) 

- Website Content Manager, Jul/2009-Aug/2009

VAHE SAHAKYAN 

Meanings of azg “nation?” in Arakel’s Book of History 

The designation azg has many meanings and connotations in Armenian language one 

of which is the equivalent of English word nation. Many prominent theories of 

nationalism argue that nation is the product of the modernity, which became possible 

only as a result of certain events happened in the eighteenth-nineteenth centuries. The 

eighteenth century in Armenian historiography is also presented as the age of national 

‘revival’ and renaissance. The word azg, however, does not emerge in this period in the 

works of Armenian historians. It had been used by earlier historians as well. This makes 

certain confusion, since number of modern Armenian historians tend to see a continuity 

and the idea of Armenian azg (nation) is taken for granted in their works. 

This paper will focus on designation azg and discuss the meanings this term has in 

Arakél Davrižecí’s history. Arakél was a seventeenth century Armenian historian. His 

aim wasn’t to produce a comprehensive history of Armenian people, but to write a 

history of his own time, which was spatially and temporally limited. In terms of 

geography, his history is mostly about Armenians in the Persian Empire under Safavids. 

Temporally it covers a period of 60 years - from 1602 to 1662. My paper will 

demonstrate that the designation azg acquired new meanings throughout the eighteenth 

and nineteenth centuries for Armenian intellectuals and ordinary people, which it didn’t 

have in the minds of Armenians living in the Persian Empire in the seventeenth century.

Vahe Sahakyan 

Near Eastern Studies, 

University of Michigan 

Paper to be presented at the 

Third Annual International 

Graduate Student Workshop 

March 11, 2011 

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 

Meanings of azg “nation?” in Arakel’s Book of History 

The understanding and definition of nation in the case of Armenians proved to be one of the 

most problematic themes. Scholars in Armenian studies follow different paths of defining and 

presenting the phenomenon of nation with relation to Armenians. The spectrum of definitions of 

the Armenian nation varies from the pole of scholars, who claim that the Armenian nation was 

created in the fifth century to the other pole, the representatives of which argue that the 

Armenian nation was created in the nineteenth centuries as part of the development of world 

nations. The formers, which I call primordialists 1 , believe that the Armenian nation was created 

after the adoption of Christianity early in the fourth century and the invention of the Armenian 

alphabet in the first decade of the fifth century. The latter, the modernists 2 believe that the 

Armenian nation emerged in the modern age of so called nationalism. One might rightly wonder 

why and how there are different and conflicting approaches to the understanding of the same 

phenomenon - the Armenian nation. To answer this question, one needs to study the differences 

in the points of departure of the representatives of each particular approach. The primordialists 

1 Armenian scholars belonging to this group are James Russell (1997: 34-35), Dikran Kouymjian (1997: 32), Hrair 

Dekmejian (1997: 438), Armen Ayvazyan (1998: 41-42, 46-47, 58), and others. 

2 The most prominent advocate of this approach is Ronald Suny (Suny 1997: 116; 1993: 52-62). 

1

depart from the histories produced by the Armenians in the middle ages. The modernists take 

their point of departure from modern theories of nationalism. The third group of scholars tries to 

create a middle ground between these two poles, which I call moderate primordialists. The most 

prominent representatives of this approach are Levon Abrahamian and Razmik Panossian. They 

are primordialists, because they believe that the Armenian “proto-nation” or “ethnie” was created 

in the fifth century, but Armenians turned into a nation in a modern sense in the nineteenth 

century. They are moderate, because they see a certain difference between the Armenian protonation/ethnie 

created in the fifth century and the Armenian nation developed in the eighteenthnineteenth 

centuries. 

In this paper I will demonstrate that the root of the problem is in the Armenian word for nation – 

azg. The designation azg has been used in Armenian language since the earliest Armenian 

manuscripts through many centuries. Armenians as people have been referred to as azg in almost 

all histories of Armenians. Movses Khorenatsi, the earliest Armenian historian uses the word azg 

extensively in his work basically to mean big family, descendents of the same patriarch. 

Khorenatsi places the Armenians in the context of the biblical history tracing back the genealogy 

of Armenians to Noah‟s great-great-grandson – Hayk. Armenian historians of later periods also 

use the word azg, but with a quite different meaning. I will use the case of Arakel‟s Book of 

History to demonstrate, that azg acquired new meanings in the seventeenth century, but it still 

did not have the meaning of nation as it later acquired in modern times. 

2

Arakel‟s history incorporates the events of sixty years (1602-1662) reflecting mostly the history 

of Armenians in the Persian Empire during the Safavid rule (Arakel 1896: D [Դ]). Some of the 

chapters are devoted to the events happening with the Georgians and the Jews, but most of the 

chapters are about the Armenians. Factual materials for the work Arakel collected in personal 

observations and stories he heard during his travels as a nuirak-nuncio 3 of the Catholicos of 

Armenians. Arakel started to write the history in 1651, which he interrupted after four years 

following the death of Catholicos Pilippos Aghbaketsi. He resumed working on it in 1658 and 

finished in 1662. The book was printed during his lifetime in 1669 (see Bardakjian 2000: 68-69). 

Before going into details of Arakel‟s text, it is worth to examine how the Armenian dictionaries 

define the word azg, which came to mean nation in modern times. Interestingly, while the 

Armenians had long established tradition of translations, they gave preference to the word azg 

and did not create a new word for nation, when the modern concepts of nation emerged in the 

European discourse. Abrahamian explains this with the fact that “…like the original Latin natio, 

it [azg] embraces such meanings as „tribe‟, „clan‟, „people‟, „order‟, „class‟. However, by 

acquiring this new meaning, the Armenian azg, in contrast to the not translated foreign word 

nation, nevertheless didn't lose its traditional “tribal” and “family” meaning.” (Abrahamian 2006: 

146). Indeed, in the earliest Armenian dictionary, which came out in 1749 prepared by Mekhitar 

Sebastats‟i, azg is “…dividing number of human beings into various races, those races into 

tribes, those tribes into dwellings, and those dwellings into persons. Accordingly we say 

Armenian azg, Greek azg, etc.” (HHB). According to the New Armenian Dictionary (Nor 

3 Nuirak was a clergyman representing the Armenian see. He usually distributed the holy chrism and collected 

donations for the Holy See of Echmiatsin (Arakel 1896: 414); (Bournoutian 2006: 309). 

3

Bargirk’ Haykazean Lezwi) published almost a century later by Mekhitarists in 1836-37, azg 

appears in number of other meanings: depending on various contexts it can mean a) sort and kind 

of animals, b) descendants of the same patriarch, for example azg Hayots (Armenian nation), azg 

hunats (Greek nation), the synonym is millet; c) a dynasty or lineage of a particular patriarch, for 

example, hazgen Siwneats (from Suni dynasty), hazgen Mamikoneits (from Mamigonian 

dynasty), and so on. According to the same source one of its meanings is zhogovurd, ambokh, 

mardik¸ which usually are translated into English as people (NBHL 1: 6-7) Acharian‟s Armenian 

Etymological Dictionary, which was published already in the twentieth century, defines azg as 

“race, generation, dynasty, people, nation, sort of things” (HAB 1: 29-30). This brief dictionary 

research also demonstrates that the early meaning of azg was big family, a family tribe, a race. 

Azg acquires new meaning with the time, and in the modern period, it mostly comes to mean 

nation, while at the same time preserving the old meanings. 

Arakel uses the word azg with relation to Armenians, Georgians, Persians, Ottomans, Kurds, 

Jews and other groups of people, which is very close to the old meaning of azg – division of 

human beings into different races, but it is also close to the new meaning of azg as nations. But 

what are the criteria of dividing human beings into different azgs in Arakel‟s book? Close 

reading of the text explicates that the most crucial distinctions between azgs are their religious 

affiliations. The first chapter of Arakel‟s History starts with the following sentence: 

“Արդ ի ժամանակս յետինս՝ յորում նուազեցան ազգքն, որք էին քրիստոնէական 

հավատոյս պաշտօնեայք, և զօրացան ազգքն, որք էին մահմետական կրօնիւք: Ի կողմս 

արևելեան՝ Պարսիկք և ի կողմն արևմտեան՝ Օսմանցիք, որք առին զհռչակաւոր 

քաղաքն զԿոստանդնուպօլիս յազգէն Հոռոմոց ՋԲ. թուին Հայոց:” (Arakel 1896, p. 5) 

4

“In the recent past, the people [azgkn] who believed in the Christian faith became weaker and 

those [azgkn] who followed the Muslim faith became stronger – in the east, the Persians, and in 

the west, the Ottomans who in the year 902 (1453) of the Armenian calendar, took the 

magnificent city of Constantinople from the Romans [hazgen Horomots].” (Bournoutian 2005: 

10) 4 

This passage demonstrates that the criterion of separation of azgs is religion. The azgs being 

Muslim became stronger, while Christians became weaker. Indeed, this is the depiction of early 

modern world, the so called “age of empires,” where religion mattered more than any other 

affiliation. But can we argue that by azg Arakel meant only religious affiliation? Or by Armenian 

azg he only meant those who were Christian and belonged to the Armenian Church? 

From the paragraph quoted above, it seems that Arakel realized there was a certain distinction 

between religion and azg, because he doesn‟t explicitly say the Christian and Muslim azgs, but 

the azgs who were “officially Christian” and azgs “who were Muslims.” However the nature of 

azg is still not clear. He makes a distinction between religion and azg in many other passages 

too: 

“…վասն զի յոյժ չարաչար նեղութեամբ նեղէին զնոսա ազգն Օսմանցւոց ծանր 

հարկապահանջութեամբ, և կեղեքմամբ զրկէին և կողոպտէին, և հաւատոց 

կուռէճութիւն (խստութիւն) առնէին, և այլ բազում տառապանօք չարչարէին, ոչ միայն 

զազգս Հայոց, այլև զազգն Վրաց և զՄահմետականաց, …” (Arakel 1896: 15). 

“For the Ottomans [azgn Osmantswots] were subjecting them to harsh treatment and looting; 

oppressing them with heavy taxes, ravaging their land, mocking their religion and inflicting other 

such torments. [This was done] not only to the Armenian people [zazgs Hayots] but also to the 

Georgians [zazgn Vrats] and Muslims.” (Bournoutian 2005: 18) 

Here in this passage, Muslims are not portrayed as a separate azg, as Armenians and Georgians. 

Muslims are also divided into different azgs, such were the Ottomans and the Persians. Similarly, 

4 Bournoutian (2005;2006) translates the word azg as people, nation, tribe, birth, race depending on contexts, which 

make better sense in English. For the purpose of this paper, in all cases, where the original uses the word azg, when 

quoting Bournoutian‟s translations, I put the original azg in the brackets. 

5

oth Georgians and Armenians are Christians, but Christians as such are not a separate azg. 

Being a Christian or a Muslim is only one of the characteristics of azg. This seems to be a 

plausible conclusion based on the above quoted passages, but what are the other characteristics 

of azg? 

Fortunately, Arakel‟s history provides many instances, where he discusses the relations of 

different azgs, who happened to live side by side in the capital of the Persian Empire – Isfahan. 

In one of the chapters, where Shah Abbas II tries to learn about why the royal ban on wine didn‟t 

work in Isfahan, he is told the following: 

“…ի զուր է աշխատանք ձեր, և ոչ հաստատի արգելումն գինւոյդ, զի պատճառք 

բազումք գոն, և մանաւանդ այս, զի ամենայն ազգք ի միասին խառն ի խուռն ընդ 

միմեանս բնակեալ են, մահմետականք, որք ոչ ըմպեն գինի և այլ ևս ազգքն՝ որք ըմպեն 

գինի, այսինքն, Ֆռանկք, Հայք, և Ջհուտք: … Արդ՝ եթէ հաւաստեաւ կամիցի թագաւորն, 

զի վերասցի գինըմպութիւն ի քաղաքէս, բաժանեալ տրոհեսցէ զազգս զայսոսիկ ի 

միմեանց, զմահմետականսն անխառն յայլոց ազգաց բնակեցուսցէ ի քաղաքամիջի 

աստ. և զայլ միւս ազգսն, զՀայք և զՋհուտ հանեալ ի քաղաքէն տարեալ յեզր քաղաքին 

ի պատշաճաւոր տեղիս բնակեցուսցէ, և իւրաքանչիւր ազգաց ըստ իւրում պատշաճին 

կարգս և սահմանս կարգեսցէ….” (Arakel 1896: 445-446) 

“All your efforts are useless. The prohibition of wine will not take root, and there are many 

reasons for this, the main reason being that all the people [amenayn azgk] live mixed together – 

Muslims, who do not drink wine, and other people [azgkn], who do drink wine, that is the Franks, 

Armenians, and Jews…. Therefore, if the king truly desires that wine not be consumed in the city 

at all, he has to divide and separate these people [zazgs zaysosik]. He has to settle the Muslims 

separately from other people [haylots azgats], in the center of the city, and evacuate all others, 

Armenians and Jews [myus azgsn], from the city and resettle them on its outskirts, in an 

appropriate place. Laws and regulations have to be set for each people [azgats].” (Bournoutian 

2006: 338-339) 

By Muslims here Arakel most probably means the Persians, and by Franks, he most probably 

means the Catholic Armenians, who were referred to as Franks in the Ottoman and Persian 

empires at the time. As opposed to the distinction between azg and religion in the previously 

quoted passages, in this part it seems Muslims, Franks, Armenians, Jews represent different azgs, 

6

ut most importantly, the differences between these azgs are uniquely of religious matter. This 

passage also illustrates that similar understanding of azg was typical not only to Arakel, but also 

to ordinary people (consider the words of a person quoted above). Classification of azgs into 

Armenians, Christians, Georgians, Muslims, Persians, or Ottomans makes sense only if to 

assume that azg was basically defined and understood along religious lines. The assumption that 

azg is mostly associated with religious affiliation of the people in Arakel‟s work becomes more 

and more plausible especially in the passages, where the author describes the differences 

between various azgs, particularly when contrasting non-Muslims – the Armenians and the Jews 

to the Muslims. As non-Muslims, they were secondary citizens in the Muslim empires, were 

inferior to Muslims in many ways and rights, and were mostly organized in religious 

communities (see also Braude 1982: 69-70, Bardakjian 1982: 90). But even in such situations the 

conversions to Islam and thus getting a better life, were treated as acts of treason and were 

condemned by fellow Armenians, because the conversion meant not only change of religious, 

but also of azg affiliation. The ultimate priority of religion in the definition of azg proves to be 

true for Arakel, since throughout the text the problem of conversion or non-conversion to Islam 

is presented as a matter of utmost importance. Several chapters of the book are entirely devoted 

to the cases of martyrdom, where the Armenians refused to convert to Islam, preferring to 

sacrifice their lives and to preserve their religious affiliation and identity and thus their belonging 

to the Armenian azg. 

Religious affiliation solely defines national-azg affiliation in Arakel‟s Book of History. This is 

true not only for Christians, but also for Muslims. In one case, Arakel particularly describes Shah 

Abbas‟s extermination of a Muslim tribe, because their faith was similar to the Ottoman‟s faith. 

7

The Ottomans were Sunni and Persians Shiite Muslims and therefore they were perceived as 

different azgs. And because the Persians and Ottomans were deadly enemies, the co-religionists 

of the Ottomans were perceived as enemies by the shah. 5 Thus, the proof for belonging to a 

particular azg, is one‟s religious affiliation. “Եւ էր մէլիք Շահնազարս յազգէն Հայոց՝ և 

հաւատով քրիստոնեայ:” (Arakel 1896: 96); “Melik Shahnazar was an Armenian by birth 

[hazgen Hayots] and a Christian by faith.” (Bournoutian 2005: 78) He was an Armenian and the 

proof of that was his Christian faith. It is worth to mention here that Bournountian translates 

“hazgen Hayots” as being an “Armenian by birth,” which could be what Arakel had in mind, 

considering the early meanings of azg (see above in the dictionaries). But this does not seem to 

be an important factor in defining azg for Arakel, because one could change his azg affiliation by 

simply converting to other religion. 

No matter, one was an Armenian or Jewish by birth, converting to Islam meant changing of azg 

affiliation. In fact, this was the only way of changing one‟s belonging to a particular azg. There 

are some examples of religious conversion and change of azg affiliations in Arakel‟s history, but 

the most striking is when Arakel writes about a Jew, who renounced Judaism and converted to 

Islam: “…աս այր յառաջագոյն էր ազգաւ և հաւատով Հրեայ. բայց յետոյ թողեալ 

զհրէութիւն և մտեալ յօրէնս Մահմետի և եղեալ տաճիկ. …” (Arakel 1896: 663) “This 

man was originally a Jew by birth [azg] and by religion, but he had renounced Judaism, had 

5 “They say that after the shah took Ganja, there still lived in the Ganja province a Muslim tribe, called Jekirlu. They 

followed the religion and customs of the Ottomans, called the Sunni. The Shah ordered that they all be gathered in a 

certain place carved out by a river and accessed only by a narrow pass guarded by the Persians. The ravine widened 

farther away from the narrow pass and was surrounded by high cliffs; one could not get climb or escape from it. The 

shah then ordered all of the be killed; men and women, old people and children. Even the infants were cut and 

slaughtered with sharp swords.” (Bournoutian 2005: 77) (Arakel 1896: 95). 

8

accepted the religion of Muhammad and had become a Muslim [Ottoman] 6 (Bournoutian 2005: 

549). This is one of the direct references to the link between religious affiliation and belonging to 

an azg: in order to become an Ottoman, which was a separate azg for Arakel, it was enough to 

convert to their religion. There are number of other such examples in the text, where azg 

belonging is strongly determined by religious affiliation. 

Although Arakel‟s emphasis is basically on religion, and his perception of azg is mostly based on 

religious symbols and practices, rarely he mentions some other descriptive characteristics of azg. 

In one of the passages it seems he implies that language is also an important part of azg 

characteristics. 

“…ազգ և ժողովուրդք մեր… եղեն վտարանդեալք և տարամերժեալք յերկիր օտար և 

յազգ այլասեռ և այլալեզու, որ և թշնամիք հոգւոյ և հայատոյ, և արեան ծարաւիք 

մարմնոյ: Որք և անդէն օր աւուր առ սակաւ սակաւ նուազին, ոմանք մահուամբ և 

կորստեամբ, և ոմանք հաւատոյ ուրացութեամբ, որք դառնան յանօրէն օրէնս պղծոյն 

անապատի:” (Arakel 1896: 54) 

“…our race [azg] and our people… have been driven out and resettled in a foreign land [among 

foreign azgs]. They are among those who speak another tongue, are their enemies in spirit and 

faith, and are thirsty for their blood. The number of Armenians is reduced daily through natural 

death and killings, as well as through apostasy, for some of them accept the wrong faith of the 

impious man of the desert.” (Bournoutian 2005: 47) 

Although he mentions azgs speaking different languages, which implies that language is also 

important for azg, but the Armenian language does not become an object of major discussion in 

his History. He never emphasizes the role of language and never presents linguistic assimilation 

of the Armenians as an alarming problem, as he does with regards to the religious conversions 

and the decline of religious piety. This can be explained by two assumptions. On the one hand 

6 In the original, Arakel uses the word տաճիկ [tachik], from the context it becomes clear, that Arakel meant the 

Ottoman. This man acted as a Hebrew (Jewish) – Ottoman interpreter for the Sultan. With tachik Armenians mostly 

referred to the Ottomans and Turks. 

9

perhaps because there were many Armenian dialects spoken in various towns and villages, 

sometimes mixed with local Arabic or Persian dialects, which might have been quite different 

from each other to be perceived as common characteristic of the Armenians; on the other hand, 

the classical Armenian, which was the language of manuscripts at the time, was mostly used by 

clergy, and it wasn‟t spoken or used by ordinary Armenians. So it would be very hard for Arakel 

to draw linguistic lines between different azgs, especially considering that there were no 

linguistic studies at the time to prove that all those dialects were part of the Armenian language. 

Interestingly, common history as another characteristic of the Armenian azg does not become a 

matter of discussion in Arakel‟s work as well. There is no doubt that he was aware of Movses 

Khorenatsi‟s history, because he very briefly mentions Khorenatsi in one of the first chapters 

(see Arakel 1896: 55; Bournoutian 2005: 48). But there is no effort to incorporate Khorenatsi‟s 

history anyhow in his history, neither Arakel claims any continuity between Khorenatsi‟s work 

and his work. 

Without the common language and history, the only common thing among all Armenians is their 

religion and culture created by Christianity. The Holy See of Echmiatsin, the Holy Right Hand 

reliquary of Grigor Lusavoritch, the cult of ancestors, and the land mostly associated with those 

religious symbols, become important characteristics of the Armenian azg in Arakel‟s History. 

Nevertheless, there is no evidence, that all Armenians shared the Christian traditions and culture. 

Quite the contrary: Arakel was witnessing the decline of azg-religious traditions, of which he 

was mostly concerned: 

10

“Արդ՝ եթէ եկեղեցականք այսպէս, զի՞նչ ևս ասացից զաշխարհականաց, որք ոչ բնաւ 

գիտէին թէ պարտ է քրիստոնէից խոստովանիլ և հաղորդիլ. կամ յամենայն աւուր ի 

տեղի աղօթից կանխիլ, և նաև զպահս ձիթով և գինեաւ ապականէին, ոմանք կնահանք, 

և ոմանք երկկանայք, և չհաս և մեղօք ազգաշաղախ պղծութեամբ:” (Arakel 1896: 290) 

“Thus, if the clergy was like that, what is there to say about the lay people, who did not even 

know that Christians had to confess and receive communion, or had to rush every day to prayers? 

They profaned Sundays by consuming olives and wine; some were divorced from their wives; 

some had committed bigamy with underage girls; others had sinned by committing incest. 

Churches and monasteries were all disfigured and abandoned. Church furniture and utensils were 

completely looted, to the point that even the holy aotar was naked and uncovered. (Bournoutian 

2005: 214) 

It is difficult to argue, whether or not Arakel actually thought of religious symbols and traditions 

as mechanisms contributing to the Armenian national integrity and of the church as an institution 

producing such integration, but his descriptions of religious holidays and events, his sorrowful 

attitude towards the decline of religious traditions, and his enthusiastic words when writing about 

the renovations in Echmiatsin and establishment of new churches and monasteries, are 

illustrations of the importance of the role he attributed to the church in the life of Armenians. It 

can be argued that for Arakel it was Christianity and the Church that preserved Armenianness, 

and if Armenians had converted to Islam or other religions, they would have been lost as a 

separate asg. 

Summarizing the major findings of this paper, it can be concluded that there is a certain 

understanding of the Armenian azg as a religious-cultural entity in Arakel‟s history in the 

seventeenth century, which is quite different from the azg-family or the azg-nation, mentioned 

by Abrahamian, or from ethnie mentioned by Rasmik Panossian. Azg in Arakel‟s history means 

more than family tribe, but it lacks many of the characteristics of modern nations, first and most 

11

importantly the political organization 7 and shared high culture – shared language, history, rights 

and responsibilities 8 . 

On the other hand, azg in Arakel‟s history also lacks most of the characteristics of ethnie, defined 

by Anthony Smith 9 and applied by Razmik Panossian to the case of Armenians. Following 

Smith‟s analysis of ethnie, Rasmik Panossian describes the basic characteristics of the Armenian 

ethnie as follows: 

1. “a collective name (hai, in the case of Armenians); 

2. a widespread myth of common descent (the story of Hayk); 

3. a fund of shared historical memories (Noah, the ancient kings, saints); 

4. a distinctive shared culture (language, alphabet and religion); 

5. association with a specific territory (Ararat and the other mountains on the Armenian 

Plateau, the capital cities and religious centers); 

6. a sense of solidarity (with the church, the nakharars, kings and other Armenians)” 

(Panossian 2006, 53). 

Evidently, the most prominent historian of the seventeenth century didn‟t present the Armenians 

as sharing any “historical memories” about Noah, about the ancient kings, or any myths about 

the common ancestor - Hayk; language also was not presented as part of the distinctive culture of 

7 Anderson defines nation as a “horizontal comradeship”, an “… imagined political community - and imagined as 

both inherently limited and sovereign” (Anderson 2006: 6-7). 

8 For Gellner, nation is defined around shared homogeneous culture, created by nationalism: “It is nationalism which 

engenders nations, and not the other way round. Admittedly, nationalism uses the pre-existing, historically inherited 

proliferation of cultures or cultural wealth, though it sues them very selectively, and it most often transforms them 

radically…. Dead languages can be revived, traditions invented, quite fictitious pristine purities restored." (Gellner 

1983: 55-56) 

9 Smith defines ethnie or ethnic community “as named human population with shared ancestry myths, histories and 

cultures, having an association with a specific territory and a sense of solidarity” (Smith 1986, 32). 

12

the Armenians; the territory of Armenia was not very specific – there is no mention of Ararat, 

Armenian plateau, or any ancient Armenian capital city; and finally, the sense of solidarity with 

the church was very doubtful, which caused Arakel to grieve the decline of the Armenian 

Christian traditions. By azg Arakel meant people belonging to a certain religious community 

which imposed on them certain religious culture and institutions. A conversion to another 

religion meant also a change of azg affiliation. Consequently, Armenians were those, who were 

Christian and belonged to the Armenian Church. If they converted to Islam, they stopped being 

Armenians. 

13

Bibliography 

Abrahamian Levon. 2006. Armenian Identity in a Changing World. Costa Mesa CA: Mazda 

Publishers. 

Anderson Benedict. 2006. Imagined Communities. Reflections on the Origin and Spread of 

Nationalism. London – NY: Verso 

Arakel Davrizhets'i.1896. Patmut’iwn Arakel Vardapeti Dawrizhetswoy.[History of Vardapet 

Arakel of Tabriz] Vagharshapat: Printing House of the Mother Holy See of Echmiatsin. 

Ayvazyan, Armen. 1998. Hayastani Patmutyan Lusabanume Amerikyan Patmagrutyan Mej [The 

History of Armenia as Presented in American Historiography]. Yerevan: “Artagers”. 

Bardakjian, Kevork B. 2000. A Reference Guide to Modern Armenian Literature, 1500-1920: 

With an Introductory History. Detroit : Wayne State University Press 

Bardakjian, Kevork B. 1982. “The Rise of the Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople.” in 

Braude and Lewis eds. Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a 

Plural Society. Vol. 1: The Central Lands. New York, London: Holmes & Meier 

Publishers, Inc. pp. 69-88. 

Bournoutian Georgie (trans). 2005. The history of Vardapet Arakel of Tabriz. Vol. 1. Consta 

Mesa CA: Mazda Publishers. 

Bournoutian Georgie (trans). 2006. The history of Vardapet Arakel of Tabriz. Vol. 2. Consta 

Mesa CA: Mazda Publishers. 

14

Braude, Benjamin. 1982. "Foundation Myths of the Millet System," in Braude and Lewis eds. 

Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural Society. Vol. 1: 

The Central Lands. New York, London: Holmes & Meier Publishers, Inc. pp. 89-100. 

Dekmejian Hrair, R. 1997. "The Armenian Diaspora," in Hovannisian R. G. (ed.) The Armenian 

People from Ancient to Modern Times. Vol II. Foreign Dominion to Statehood: the 

Fifteenth century to the Twentieth Century. New York: St. Martin's press, 412-443. 

Gellner, Ernest. 1983. Nations and Nationalism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 

Kouymjian, Dickran. 1997. “Armenia From the Fall of the Cilician Kingdom (1375) to the 

forced emigration under Shah Abbas.” in Hovannisian R. G. (ed.) The Armenian People 

from Ancient to Modern Times. Vol II. Foreign Dominion to Statehood: the Fifteenth 

century to the Twentieth Century. New York: St. Martin's press, 1-51. 

Panossian, Razmik. 2006. The Armenians: From Kings and Priests to Merchants and 

Commissars. NY: Columbia University Press. 

Russel James. 1997. “The formation of the Armenian nation,” in Hovannisian R. G. (ed.) The 

Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times. Vol I. The Dynastci Periods: From 

Antiquity to the Fourteenth Century. New York: St. Martin's press, 19-36. 

Smith, Anthony D. 1986. Ethnic Origins of Nations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 

Suny Ronald. G. 1993. Looking Toward Ararat: Armenia in Modern History. Bloomington and 

Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press. 

Suny Ronald. G. "Eastern Armenians under Tsarist Rule," in Hovannisian R. G. (ed.) The 

Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times. Vol II. Foreign Dominion to Statehood: 

15

the Fifteenth century to the Twentieth Century. New York, St. Martin's press, 1997, 109- 

134 

Bibliographical abbreviations 

HHB – Hin Haykazian Bararan [Old Armenian Dictionary] 

HAB – Hayeren Armatakan Bararan [Armenian Etymological Dictionary] 

NBHL – Nor Bargirk Haykazean Lezwi [New Armenian Dictionary] 

16

CURRICULUM VITAE 

VAHE SAHAKYAN 

University of Michigan 

Department of Near Eastern Studies 

Phone: (734) 277-1450 

Email: sahakv@umich.edu 

EDUCATION: 

Doctoral Student 

University of Michigan, Department of Near Eastern Studies, Ann Arbor, MI 

September 2010 - present 

MA in Near Eastern Studies 

University of Michigan, Department of Near Eastern Studies, Ann Arbor, MI 

September 2008 – May 2010, Diploma issued on December 22, 2010 

Kandidat Nauk (Candidate of sciences) in Sociology 

Yerevan State University, Yerevan, Armenia, Candidate of Sciences in Sociology, 

September 1999 - April, 2003. 

Diploma with Honors in Sociology (equivalent to Master of Arts) 

Yerevan State University, Yerevan, Armenia. 

September 1994 - July 1999. 

Grade Point Average: 4.85/5.0. 

TRAININGS/CERTIFICATES: 

Genocide and Human Rights University Program, “Zoryan Institute of Canada,” 

University of Toronto, Canada, Certificate. August 3-14, 2009. 

The Role of Education in Poverty Alleviation Process, civic conference, “Institute for Democracy 

and Human Rights” NGO, Yerevan, Armenia, Certificate. December, 2006 – February 2007. 

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: 

Graduate Student Instructor, Department of Near Eastern Studies, University of Michigan, 

Ann Arbor, MI. September 2010 – present 

ACABS 122/REL 122, “Introduction to the New Testament.” Teaching 3 discussion sections a 

week. Winter 2011. 

AAPTIS 200/REL 201, “Introduction to World Religions.” Teaching 3 discussion sections a 

week. Fall 2010. 

Research Assistant, Armenian Studies Program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 

December 2008 – August 2010. 

Assisted in designing questionnaires within the frameworks of the project “The State of 

Armenian Studies” 

Collected information from the Armenian studies related institutions/organizations 

Prepared a tentative report on the collected information 

Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, Yerevan State University, Yerevan, Armenia, 

May 2003–July 2004, September 2005 – July 2008,

• Taught several graduate and undergraduate level courses in the Departments of Sociology and 

Conflict Resolution. Courses taught: 

o Undergraduate level: “Principles of Sociology,”, “History of Sociology,” 

“Armenian Sociological thought in the US”, “Sociology of Education.” 

o Graduate level: “Globalization and Nationalism,” “Sociology of the Global 

Processes.” 

• Supervised students’ internships 

• Mentored undergraduate and graduate students 

• Conducted research on issues of Armenian identity 

Center Director, “Dialogue” Training and Social Integration Center for the Deaf and Hard of 

Hearing Persons, (within the project “Deaf: dialogue possible”, funded by the EU, implemented 

by the Association “Arménienne d’Aide Sociale” (France). 

February 2008 – August 2008 

Managed and coordinated daily activities of the Center to recruit beneficiaries 

Prepared monthly reports 

Organized TV programs about the activities of the Center 

Deputy Head of the Department of Sociology, Yerevan State University, Yerevan, Armenia, 

February 2003- July 2004, September 2005 – May 2006. 

• Managed departmental educational process. 

• Assisted in designing and developing of the curriculum, individual workloads. 

• Arranged administrative issues of students’ annual internship works. 

Library assistant, Hatcher Graduate Library, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA 

June 2005 – July 2005 

• Assisted in cataloging books in Armenian language at the U of M Library 

• Data input to the library system using OCLC Connexion for cataloguing 

Visiting Scholar, Center for Russian and East European Studies, University of Michigan, Ann 

Arbor, MI, USA, 

August 2004- July 2005 

• Developed new courses on Sociology of Education 

• Studied Armenian Sociological Thought in the US, 

• Conducted Research on Armenian identity issues among Armenians living in the Diaspora 

Lecturer-Researcher, Department of Sociology, Yerevan State University, Yerevan, Armenia. 

September 2002 – July 2003. 

• Conducted a research on community theory and practice in Armenia. 

• Undergraduate courses taught: “Principles of Sociology”, “History of Sociology.” 

Lecturer, Department of Sociology, Yerevan State University, Yerevan, Armenia 

September 2001 – May 2003. 

• Undergraduate courses taught: “Principles of Sociology,” “History of Sociology,” “Rural and 

Urban Sociology”. 

• Supervised of the Students’ Field Practice. 

• Mentored undergraduate course works. 

Head of the Student’s Trade Union at the Department of Philosophy, Sociology and 

Psychology, Yerevan State University, Armenia, 

September 1997- May 1999. 

• Identified needy students, advocated on protection of their rights 

• Coordinated extra-University research activities of YSU student’s trade union’s club “Young 

Sociologists” 

• Identified general problems of students in the Department of Sociology.

SOCIOLOGICAL PROJECTS/RESEARCH EXPERIENCE 

Senior Researcher, Laboratory for Applied Sociological Research, Yerevan State University, 


January 2006-December 2008 

• Coordinated Field work sociological researches carried out by the laboratory 

• Supervised a research team to study the “Accordance of YSU curriculum to the needs of labor 

market and society” 

• Co-supervised a research team on the study of “Quality of Education in Master’s Level in 

YSU” 

• Developed projects 

Research Coordinator, Center for Regional Integration and Conflict Resolution NGO, Yerevan 

State University, Yerevan, Armenia, 

June 2007 – August 2007, 

• Coordinated field work using qualitative and quantitative research methods to study the “Nor 

war, no peace society” in Armenia 

• Traveled to various regions of Armenia to lead research teams 

• Prepared reports 

Research Coordinator, Department of Sociology, Yerevan State University, Chambarak, 

Gegharkunik region, Armenia, 

July 2006 – August 2006, July 2007 – August 2007 

• Led a team of students to conduct a research on “The Impact of migration on families and 

community” 

• Prepared reports 

Sociologist, French-Armenian Development Foundation / “Kamk yev Korov” Organization of 

Young Disabled People, Yerevan, Armenia 

May 2006 – December 2006 

• Trained people with hearing disorders to conduct a research on the “Community Services for 

people with hearing disorders in the Shengavit community in Yerevan” 

• Led a sociological research team composed of people with hearing disorders and sign 

language translators 

• Prepared reports, round table presentation. 

Researcher, Center for Applied Research and Support of Initiations, NGO, Yerevan, Armenia, 

March 2004-May 2004 

• Conducted several focused interviews in some villages of Tavush region on “Improvement of 

Rural infrastructures” 

• Analyzed and prepared reports on the “Possibilities of Improvement of Rural Infrastructures 

particularly that of the First Aid and Irrigation” 

Research Assistant, Armenian Democratic Forum NGO, Yerevan, Armenia, 

September 1999- September 2001 

• Conducted research on social, economic and technological aspects of private enterprising, 

field coordinator 

• Compiled data and assisted in carrying out a survey on poverty reduction in Armenia, 

• Assisted in organizing conferences, seminars, and other public engagements. 

Assessor, World Learning NGO, NGO Strengthening Program, Yerevan, Armenia 

May 2001 

• Worked in the team to assess activities of the “Institute for Democracy and Human Rights 

(IDHR)” NGO using the Institutional Assessment Instrument (ISA) 

• Prepared the final report

MEMBERSHIP IN PROFESSIONAL AND ACADEMIC ORGANIZATIONS: 

Member, Central Eurasian Studies Society (CESS), US, August 29, 2004 - Present 

Member, American Sociological Association, Washington D.C., USA, January 2005 – January 

2006 

Advisory Board Member, International Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 

October 28, September 2004 – May 2005 

LECTURES, PRESENTATIONS AND OTHER ACADEMIC ACTIVITIES: 

Paper. “Historic Achievement or Historic Blunder? The Armenia-Turkey Protocols,” Armenian 

Studies Program, Unviersity of Michgian, Ann Arbor, October 23, 2009. 

• Topic: “Various National/International Interests around the Armenian-Turkish Protocols” 

Presentation. French-Armenian Development Foundation, “Kamk ev Korov” NGO, Yerevan, 

Armenia, November 24, 2006. 

• Topic: “Accessibility of Community Services for People with Hearing Disorders in 

Yerevan” 

Paper CESS 7 th Annual Conference, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA, 

September 28-October 1, 2006. 

• Topic: “Nationalistic Movements in the Globalizing World: Identity Problems in the South 

Caucasus Region” 

Presentation, Lorain County Community College, Elyria, Ohio, USA, May 5, 2005 

• Topic: “Armenia: Historical and Cultural Remarks” 

Paper, Tenth Annual ASN World Convention 2005 “Understanding Nationalism: Identity, 

Empire, Conflict” Harriman Institute, Columbia University, New York, USA 14-16 April 2005 

• Topic: “Non Diplomatic Aspects of Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict Resolution” 

Paper, Midwest Institute for International/Intercultural Education, 12th Annual Conference 

Illinois Valley Community College, Oglesby, Illinois, USA, April 7-9, 2005 

• Topic: “Sociology in Armenia: Challenges to Teaching” 

Lecture, International Institute, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA, March 16, 

2005 

• Topic: “Democratization in Armenia: A Sociological Analysis” 

Presentation, Kalamazoo Valley Community College, Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA, December 8, 

2004 

• Topic: “Armenia: Historical and Cultural Remarks” 

Paper, Young Scientists’ X Scientific Conference, National Academy of Sciences of Republic of 

Armenia, Institute of Ethnography, Spring, Yerevan, Armenia, 2003 

• Topic: “About the Question of Sociological Understanding of the Civic Society” 

Lecture, Department of Sociology, Yerevan State University, Summer School on “Quantitative 

Methods in Sociology”, Yerevan, Armenia, July, 2001. 

• Topic: “Team Work.” 

AWARDS AND FELLOWSHIPS: 

Manoogian-Simone Fellowship, Armenian Studies Program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 

September 2008-May 2010 

Junior Faculty Development Program Grant, American Councils for International Education, US 

Department of State, May 18, 2004. 

Gold Medal for Outstanding Achievements in Studies and Work, Ministry of Education and 

Science of the Republic of Armenia. July 5, 1994. 

PUBLICATIONS:

Sahakyan V., “Field Sociological Practice: Methodological Issues,” 2006-2007 Yearbook of the 

Department of Sociology, Yerevan, 2007, pp. 166-175 (In Armenian). 

Sahakyan V., People with Hearing Disorders in the Armenian Reality, Yerevan, 2006. (In 

Armenian) 

Sahakyan V., Atanesyan A., “Democratization in Armenia: Some Trends of Political Culture and 

Behaviour,” Demokratizatsiya: The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization, Vol. 14, No. 3, 

Summer 2006, Washington D.C. (in English) 

Abedi, M., Sahakyan V., “Consumerism and the Developing Countries (Sociological analysis),” 

Banber Yerevani Hamalsarani [Yerevan University’s Bulletin], Yerevan State University, 

Yerevan, N1 (118), 2006, pp. 195-198 (In Armenian) 

Sahakyan V., “Research on Higher Education: Armenia in the Context of the Bologna 

Declaration,” Reports of Scholarly Session, Gitutyun, National Academy of Sciences of the 

Republic of Armenia, Yerevan, 2006 pp. 112-119 (In Armenian). 

Sahakyan V., “Systematic Analysis of the Armenian Community.” Methodological Guide for 

Implementation of Community Development Programs. Yerevan, 2003, pp. 9-18 (In Armenian). 

Sahakyan V., “About the Question of Sociological Understanding of the Civic Society,” 

Problems of Armenian Ethnology and Archaeology II: Materials of Young Scientists’ X Scolarly 

Conference, Yerevan, 2003, pp. 23-29 (In Armenian). 

Sahakyan V., “Infrastructure Changes in the Armenian Village”, Garun [Spring], Yerevan, 

9.428.2002, pp. 26-33 (In Armenian). 

Sahakyan V., “About the Question of Sociological Understanding of the Communal Society,” 

Banber Yerevani Hamalsarani [Yerevan University’s Bulletin], Yerevan State University, 

Yerevan, N2 (107), 2002, pp. 158-163 (In Armenian). 

LANGUAGES: 

Fluent in Armenian, Russian and English 

Reading skills in German and French





Wednesda 

ay, May 11, 2011 

Session IV 

EREMYA CHELEBI KOMURCUYAN: 

A LENS ONTO 17 TH 

CENTURY 

ISTANBUL 

1:15-3:15pm 

Kathryn Babayan, Chair 




Gottfried Hagen, Discussant 

Associate Professor of Turkish Studies, Department of Near Eastern Studies 

CONCLUDING REMARKS & DISCUSSION 

4-5pm 

Michael Bonner, Chair 

Professor of Medieval Islamic History, Department of Near Eastern Studies, 

Collegee of Literature, Science, and the Arts 




SEMI ERTAN 

Urbanity and politics of coexistence in Eremya Chelebi Komurcuyan (1637-1694) 

This paper is part of a larger project trying to explore the social and intellectual 

life of seventeenth century Istanbul, and the construction and subversion of communal 

boundaries through the life, literary production and autobiographical writings of Eremya 

Chelebi Komurcuyan of Istanbul (1637-1694). His works vary over a large span of genres 

from poetry to history, from religious pamphlets to his long diary and to polemical works 

against Jewish Messianism of the period. In this paper, I will focus on the use of urban 

geography of Istanbul as a means of negotiating social boundaries, identities and 

difference in the framework of politics of coexistence. 

In recent scholarship on the nature of the early modern Ottoman society, there has 

been a tendency to rethink on the social and political turbulences of the seventeenth and 

eighteenth centuries. It was lately marked by the publication of Baki Tezcan’s ambitious 

and comprehensive book. Although his discussion of a notion of ‘limited government’ is 

productive for our purposes, Marc Baer’s and Tijana Krstic’s works have been especially 

inspirational and intellectually engaging due to their focus on questions of conversion, 

communal boundaries and moments of social confrontation including discussions of non- 

Muslim communities. 

The corpus of works produced by Eremya Chelebi Komurcuyan of Istanbul 

provides us with a picture of the urban geography of Istanbul useful for a better 

understanding of the larger processes of transformation. I aim at giving a perspective of 

the creative social tension that was caused by local urban conflicts, confrontations and 

negotiations specifically taking place in the second half of the seventeenth century. Using 

his diary, history of Istanbul, history of the fires of Istanbul, his map of Istanbul and 

Evliya Chelebi’s work on Istanbul (the first volume of his Seyahatname), I will 

demonstrate how some unsettling social and political events of this period were met by a 

member of the Armenian community. I intend to show how he uses urban geography as a 

canvas on which he (re)draws social boundaries. It is reflected in his works as a 

manifestation of the anxieties triggered by confessional competition, conversion of souls 

and spaces, and messianic movement of Sabbatai Sevi.

Urbanity and politics of coexistence in Eremya Chelebi Komurcuyan (1637-1694) 

Semi Ertan 

This paper is part of a larger project trying to explore the social and intellectual 

life of seventeenth century Istanbul, and the construction and subversion of communal 

boundaries through the life, literary production and autobiographical writings of Eremya 

Chelebi Komurcuyan of Istanbul (1637-1694). His works vary over a large span of genres 

from poetry to history, from religious pamphlets to his long diary and to polemical works 

against Jewish Messianism of the period. In this paper, I will focus on the use of urban 

geography of Istanbul as a means of negotiating social boundaries, identities and 

difference in the framework of politics of coexistence. 

In recent scholarship on the nature of the early modern Ottoman society, there has 

been a tendency to rethink on the social and political turbulences of the seventeenth and 

eighteenth centuries. Marc Baer’s and Tijana Krstic’s works have been especially 

inspirational and intellectually engaging due to their focus on questions of conversion, 

communal boundaries and moments of social confrontation including discussions of non- 

Muslim communities. The corpus of works produced by Eremya Chelebi Komurcuyan of 

Istanbul provides us with a picture of the urban geography of Istanbul useful for a better 

understanding of the larger processes of transformation. I aim at giving a perspective of 

the creative social tension that was caused by local urban conflicts, confrontations and 

negotiations specifically taking place in the second half of the seventeenth century. I 

intend to show how he uses urban geography as a canvas on which he (re)draws social 

1

oundaries. It is reflected in his works as a manifestation of the anxieties triggered by 

confessional competition, conversion of souls and spaces, and messianic movement of 

Sabbatai Sevi. 

As the capital of the Eastern Roman and later, of the Ottoman Empires, Istanbul 

/Constantinople, throughout its history, has gathered groups of people that made it into a 

real center of economic, social and cultural activity but also helped it have a recognizable 

symbolic or even mythical sphere around itself. The city has been unique in terms of the 

scope of the material world of exchange it sustained and beyond that, it developed into a 

locus of contact in the realms of economy, politics and culture. Largely depending on its 

imperial character and structures, Istanbul can be thought as an interface where a constant 

process of brokerage and mediation between actual and potential powers takes place. It is 

therefore not surprising that Istanbul becomes a focus of attention that is made and 

remade in the imagination of its inhabitants and visitors through narration of stories and 

myths, written works and visual representation. 

Eremya, in his History of Istanbul, portrays the bird-eye view of the city as a 

human body whose head lies at the Topkapi Palace. In his imagination, one eye looks 

towards Bithinya to the south and the other looks towards Galata to the north. The legs 

point to Ayvansaray on the left and Yedikule on the right. With this creative 

representation of the triangular shape of the old, walled and gated city of Istanbul, 

Eremya not only utilizes a living and a practically very useful metaphor for this vibrant 

2

city but also gives the reader a sense of the layers of significance and power within the 

city. He also spares a separate chapter to the description of the palace from the outside 

and also briefly discussing the inner parts. One gets the impression that his choice of a 

human body when he introduces the palace is a conscious one and it works nicely and 

smoothly for anyone without a prior knowledge of the city. 

Following this choice of visual representation, a clear sense of attachment and 

mindset stands out in Eremya’s portrayal of Istanbul. For him, Istanbul is not just a place 

but a symbol of a distinct style of life where variety and excitement thrive. First of all, the 

demographic structure of the city is certainly intriguing for him. He tries to incorporate 

into his account all social groups be it religious, ethnic, linguistic, professional or 

administrative with as much depth and specificity as possible regarding their origins and 

functions. Secondly, it is a common connector in Eremya’s depiction of Istanbul he 

doesn’t miss to include in every passage that the city is composed of a high variety of 

landmarks from churches to mosques, palaces to heavenly gardens and forts to ports. And 

as a last example, he brings in stories about the city and its inhabitants in every chapter 

that are interesting, compelling, saddening and funny. With these stories, he engages the 

reader to the narration and presents the excitement that encounter within this diverse set 

of social groups produces. In the last chapter in which he dedicates this book to Vartaped 

Vartan of Bitlis residing in the Amirdolu Vank, Eremya refers to the fact that it is beyond 

his capacity to introduce each and every aspect and structure of the city. He gives a sense 

of scale for the entirety of the city that a single effort is not capable of encompassing its 

3

form and meaning. Variety and excitement thrive in Istanbul but it is difficult to grasp 

entirely which also gives it an urban character. 

In his diary, on the 27 th of May 1657, Eremya gives a very detailed and vivid 

description of the ceremony organized for the assault on Crete by the Ottomans. This 

long passage in itself is meant to stun the reader with the scope of the enterprise and with 

the level of involvement it gathered from all walks of the urban fabric. He presents all 

parties involved in the ceremony in its hierarchical form and gives a vivid description of 

the excitement and interest the people of the city showed from all social groups and ages. 

This was an example of a an event that incorporates the whole city around a common 

goal and spectacle contributing to the imperial civic culture created in Istanbul in a 

unique way. Another site of urban engagement would be seen in the provisioning of the 

city. Eremya presents wheat, meat, vegetable, fruit and water supplies and suppliers of 

the city in his account. However, since his adopting father Haci Ambakum ran a bakery 

business and made Eremya part of it, he dedicates a rather detailed account of the bread 

supply for the entire city. While he includes different kinds of bakery items and bread 

produced for the populace, he distinguishes the bread produced for the elite, which 

included the households of the residents of the grandees, the old and the new palaces. The 

process of supplying the city with a vital part of its daily diet is represented again as an 

urban phenomenon but interestingly revealing the hierarchy of significance in it. 

“Our city is of heavenly nature with its beautiful weather and unmatchable 

water.” Eremya says in one of the few instances he explicitly praises Istanbul for its 

4

characteristics. It comes interesting to me as he turns to the quality of air and water 

among portrayals of grandeur through displays of pageantry and power, through the 

diversity of people and the intriguing excitements the city produces. As simple as air and 

water may sound to modern individuals like us, this is a vital and unique feature of the 

city Eremya resides. In connection with this simple and vital note of Eremya, fires have 

been a constant and unsurprising component of the urban life in Istanbul. In addition to 

his separate work on the fires of Istanbul in the size of a pamphlet, he uniformly presents 

fires in his diary and his History of Istanbul. Although he always writes in a saddened 

and lamenting tone about fires especially those influencing Armenian structures, he 

doesn’t sound all too surprised at the occurrence such phenomena. Like the fresh air and 

water of Istanbul, fires are reversely connected to the nature of the urban life of Istanbul 

From the accounts Eremya narrates, one can come to the conclusion that while it is 

almost ordinary to have fires in the city, they create an extra amount of anxiety on the 

city-dwellers especially for those communities that are politically in more fragile 

position. Specifically in the 17th century, non-Muslim communities of Istanbul go 

through a process of negotiating their communal dignity, stability and boundaries. This 

process is more painfully lived through after the fires to get their communal buildings 

rebuilt or repaired. Istanbul of the 17 th century required more mediation and brokerage 

than the preceding centuries for its non-Muslim inhabitants. 

In his History of Istanbul, History of its Fires and his Diary, Eremya makes the 

city a focal area and wanders in it as an individual. By making use of the landscape of the 

city as a canvas, he portrays a ‘world in itself’ from his own unique point of view. He 

5

consciously creates a city of his own by the choices he made as he introduces it. At the 

very start of his History of Istanbul and at its ending passages, he defends himself against 

those who openly criticized him as producing such works in vain and telling them things 

that they already know, he is confident and conscious of the benefit of his efforts and that 

he will be understood by those with wisdom. Thus, writing, in his view, becomes an 

instrument of creating an archive and a higher level of knowledge. The city and urban life 

embodies this instrument with content and power to contribute to the improvement of 

communal life. In addition, his History of Istanbul is very unique for the 17 th century 

Ottoman and Armenian literature with its conscious and exclusive focus on a city. The 

only work equivalent to Eremya’s is Latifi’s Evsaf-I Istanbul (Qualities of Istanbul) 

written in the 15 th 

century. Although Istanbul covers a volume of Evliya Celebi’s 

Seyahatname and we have Katip Celebis’ translation of a work on the history of Istanbul 

from Greek, neither of them are equivalent to Eremya’s work. Furthermore, his work 

opens up new genre of literature on Istanbul followed in the 18 th century by Sarraf Sarkis 

Hovhannesyan and Ghukas Inciciyan. Thus, Eremya is a clearly pioneering character in 

his efforts of insistently putting forward such works despite criticisms from the lay and 

clerical circles. 

Eremya set the city of Istanbul as the abode of a personal and communal life in 

his works. His personal and communal attachments are reflected with special emphasis 

on the Kumkapi area and Balikli areas. The church of Surp Asdvadzadzin was of higher 

significance since it was the seat of the Patriarchate and the church he personally 

continued with his household. He mentions the churches of Surp Sarkis and Surp 

Nigogos that burned down in a recent fire in a lamenting way. In his tour around Balikli, 

6

he focuses extensively on the cemetery and some significant Armenian figures in buried 

there. In the list of people he provides, mostly important figures among the clergy were 

mentioned with their places of origin. With the presentation of these places of origin it is 

possible to draw the picture of an entire Armenian world from Erzincan to Kilikia, from 

Urfa to Ethiopia from Megri to Amid/Diyarbekir. Thus, it is visible that Istanbul as the 

capital of the Ottoman Empire and with the seat of the increasingly powerful Armenian 

patriarchate attracts people from all around the Armenian world. Balikli Armenian 

cemetery with its roots in the 16 th century, even possibly in the Byzantine period, creates 

a site of a large Armenian metropolis. Although this is significant in terms of the 

communal nature of the Istanbul Armenians, his focus on cemeteries and the deceased 

throughout his narrative brings death to closer to the daily life of the Istanbulites and 

makes it a significant part of the symbolic structure of the urban landscape. With its 

churches, cemeteries, mahalles/neighborhoods, artisans and their guilds, the Armenian 

community stands out as distinct but an integral part of the urban fabric of Istanbul. 

Eremya Celebi is definitely an urbanite individual and observer. I would like to 

briefly raise a point about how he consistently depicts an unidentifiable group of people 

coming from different religious segments of the society as ‘our citizens’/’kagakatsis’ in 

the sense of being from the same city, ‘hemsehrilik’ can be a approximate concept in 

Turkish. In the way he talks about non-Armenian and mixed groups, one can sense the 

level of consciousness of an urban nature qualified by a distance or sense of difference 

that is short enough to recognize the distinctive qualities of different social, political and 

confessional groups. The critical threshold looks to me to be the way he internalized 

7

these recognized differences with the other Christian communities, Jews, Muslims, 

Europeans and different groups of Ottoman political elites as the ruling strata. Eremya’s 

voice is in usual calm, unsurprised and only alarmed under situations of perceived or real 

attacks on communal and religious dignity through conversion of souls and messianic 

turbulences. He sounds to be both an urbanite and a political being with an internalized 

cosmopolitancy. His way of presenting the day-to-day occurrences in the city 

demonstrates the perspective of an urban consciousness enabling him to transcend and 

also consolidate, at the same time, the urban communal boundaries as his identity. 

Despite the fact that Eremya’s voice is usually calm, he dedicates detailed and 

alarmed accounts of perceived and real threats to the integrity of the Armenian 

community of Istanbul. These are cases of conversion, forced or voluntary, messianic 

turbulences created by the Shabbati Zvi movement around the empire and specifically in 

the heavily non-Muslim neighborhoods of Istanbul and unjust treatment of Armenian 

individuals and the community (church and the Patriarchate) by the Ottoman political 

establishment in matters of taxation, church reparation, conflicts with Muslims and 

criminal issues. In these cases, he shows a considerable degree of anxiety by adding his 

notes slightly denigrating depictions of others and prayers for protection and mercy. 

These among other occurrences lead him to strictly enclosing himself to communal 

sensitivities and boundaries. Additionally, these are times when he is led to return to a 

main embracing self of the religion/God and his community, which the modern 

individual in most instances lack. To further clarify, out of the dealings of the daily life 

and the attachments that they create for an individual, he still has a larger welcoming 

8

space of attachment that he can ultimately return and heals his soul from the wounds of 

any other state of being might have caused but not able to recover. If we can speak of an 

early modern individual, there seems to remain a warm ontological terrain that the 

individual can feel safe within. 

9

SHORT BIBLIOGRAPHY: 

Akinean, N. (1933). Eremia Chʻēlēpi Kʻēōmiwrchean: keankʻn ew grakan 

gortsunēutʻiwně, matenagrakan usumnasirutʻiwn. Vienna: Mkhitʻarean Tparan. 

Aksan, Virginia, and Goffman, Daniel, (ed.), The Early Modern Ottomans:remapping the 

Empire, New York, Cambridge University Press, 2007. 

Arakʻel, Dawrizhetsʻi, 17th cent, The history of Vardapet Arak'el of Tabriz 

=Patmutʻiwn Arakʻel Vardapeti Dawrizhetsʻwoy /introduction and annotated 

translation from the critical text by George A. Bournoutian, Costa Mesa, Calif. : Mazda 

Publishers, 2005. 

Andreasyan, Hrand, ‘ Eremya Celebi’nin Yanginlar Tarihi’ in Tarih Dergisi (Istanbul 

Universitesi Edebiyat Fakultesi) no, 27, March 1973, p. 59-84. 

Arakel Vardapeti Davrizhetsvoy Patmutiun, Vagharshapat, 1896. 

Baer, Marc, Honored by the Glory of Islam: conversion and conquest in Ottoman 

Europe, New York, Oxford University Press, 2007. 

Bardakjian, Kevork,‘The Rise of the Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople’ in 

Benjamin Braude and Bernard Lewis (eds.), Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire, 

vol. I: The Central Lands, New York, 1982. 

Braude, B. (1982). Christians and Jews in the Ottoman empire: the functioning of a 

plural society. New York: Holmes & Meier Publishers. 

Dankoff, Robert. Evliya Çelebi - an Ottoman Mentality. Leiden; Boston: E. J. Brill, 2004. 

Develi, H. (1998). XVIII. yüzyıl İstanbul hayatına dair Risâle-i garibe. Cağaloğlu, 

İstanbul: Kitabevi. 

Evliya Çelebi,, ., Tekin, (1989). Evliya Çelebi seyahatnamesi. [Cambridge, Mass.]: 

Harvard Üniversitesi Basımevi. 

Ghougassian, Vazken S., The emergence of the Armenian Diocese of New Julfa in the 

seventeenth century, Atlanta, Ga. : Scholars Press, c1998. 

Gregorian, Vartan, ’Minorities of Isfahan: The Armenian Community of Isfahan 1587- 

1722’ Iranian Studies, 7:3-4, summer-autumn 1974. 

10

Hovannissian, Richard and David Myers (eds.), Enlightenment and Diaspora: The 

Armenian and Jewish Cases, Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1999. 

Kâtip Çelebi,, ., Solak,. (2009). Târih-i Kostantiniyye ve Kayâsıre. 1. baskı. Konya: 

Gençlik Kitabevi. 

Kʻēōmiwrchean, E., Tʻorgomean, V. H.. (19131938). Eremia Chʻēlēpii 

Kʻēōmiwrchian Stampōloy patmutʻiwn. Vienna: Mkhitʻarean Tparan. 

Kʻēōmiwrchean, E., Nshanean, M. (1939). Ōragrutʻiwn Eremia Chʻēlēpi 

Kʻēōmiwrcheani. Erusaghēm: Tparan Srboy Hakobeantsʻ. 

Kʻēōmiwrchean, E., D. Andreasyan, H. (1988). İstanbul tarihi: XVII. asırda İstanbul. 2. 

baskı. Cağaloğlu, İstanbul: Eren. 

Kʻēōmiwrchian, E., Sanjian, A. Krikor. (1981). Eremya Chelebi Kömürjian's Armeno- 

Turkish poem "The Jewish bride" / c edited by Avedis K. Sanjian and Andreas Tietze. 

Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 

Kʻēōmiwrchean, Eremia, (1991), Patmutʻiwn Hrakizman Kostandnupōlsoy : 1660 

tarioy, hratarakutʻean patrastetsʻ G. Bampukʻchean. Istanpul. 

Mantran, Robert, Istanbul dans la second moitie du XVIIe siecle, 1962. 

Sahakyan, H. (1964). Eremia Kʻyomurchyan / H. S. Sahakyan. Erevan: Haykakan SSṚ 

GA Hratarakchʻutyun. 

Sarkis Sarraf Hovhannesyan, Payitaht İstanbul’un tarihçesi, (translated by), Elmon 

Hançer, Beşiktaş, İstanbul : Türkiye Ekonomik ve Toplumsal Tarih Vakfı, 1996. 

11

SEMI ERTAN 

Campus: 

Permanent: 

411l Thayer Building 

620 Hidden Valley Dr. 

South Thayer Street Apt. 307 

Ann Arbor, MI 48104 

Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1608 (734) 2391329 

sertan@umich.edu 

CURRENT 

STATUS : Ph.D. candidate in Turkish and Armenian Studies Programs in 

Near Eastern Studies at the University of Michigan 

INTEREST: 

EDUCATION: 

17th and 18th century Ottoman Cultural and Intellectual History 

with a specific interest on the Armenian community 

Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and International Relations, 

July 2002 

Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey 

Masters In Political Science, June, 2003 

Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey 

Masters with Thesis in History, August, 2005 

Sabanci University, Istanbul, Turkey 

Ph.D. Program in Turkish and Armenian Studies in NES 

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 

EXPERIENCE: Teaching Assistanship in World History, 2003-04 and 2004-05 

Sabanci University, Istanbul, Turkey 

GSI (Graduate Student Instructor) in Modern Central Asian 

History, 2006-07 Fall, 2007-08 Fall and 2009-10 Winter 

University Of Michigan, Ann Arbor 

GSI in World Religions, 2007-08 Fall and 2009-10 Fall 


GSI in African-American Religion between Christianity and 

Islam, 2007-08 Winter 


GSI in Introduction to Arab Culture, 2010-2011 Winter 

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

CONFERENCES: 

'Berc Turker-Keresteciyan(1870-1949): An Armenian at the Turkish 

Parliament' in Historical Continuities, Political Responsibilities: Unsettling Conceptual 

Blind-Spots in Ottoman and Turkish Studies, Graduate Student Conference, May 4-5, 

2007, New York University and The Graduate Center, CUNY 

'Trajectories of Cultural Symbiosis in 17th Century 

Istanbul/Constantinople' in 8th Annual Central Eurasian Studies Society (CESS) 

Conference at the University of Washington, Seattle, 18-21 October, 2007 

„Formation of the “Self” in Eremya Chelebi Komurcuyan‟s 

Biographical Accounts‟, MESA 2009 Annual Meeting, November 21-24, 2009, Boston, 

MA. 

LANGUAGES: 

Modern Turkish (native) and Ottoman Turkish (reading) 

English (fluent) 

Modern Western Armenian (advanced) and Classical Armenian 

(intermediate, reading) 

French (advanced, reading) 

Russian (elementary) 

German (advanced, reading )

GAYANE AYVAZYAN 

Historiographical Heritage of Yeremia Qyomurchian 

Our scientific research examines the historiographical heritage of the 17 th century author Yeremia 

Qyomurchian. On the background of general principles and traditions of medieval Armenian 

historiographical science, formed basically among a monastic environment, Qyomurchian is one of those 

unique figures, who though working with a monkish diligence and productivity provides us with the 

history of his time and place in a view and perception of a worldly, secular observer, at the same time 

being in no contradiction with his warm Christian feelings. 

The vast literary heritage preserved by Qyomurchian includes historiographical, religious, 

geographical, calendar, cartography, and fiction works. 

Exceptional is the author’s approach to literary material, when he compares the criteria of 

classical historiography with Eastern literature and the tradition of folk creation stimulating the 

“folkarization” and popularization of history. 

Yeremia actively participated in the social-political events and issues of his time, had relations 

with European diplomats, religion and science figures in Polis, knew several languages, made many 

translations, particularly translating long sections of the Bible and “Armenian History” of his creation into 

Turkish. 

We have the long and brief versions of 400 years of Ottoman sultans’ history he had put down 

(1299-1678), the works “History of Istanbul”, “History of Costandinople Incineration”, the diary notes 

(1648-1690), the work “Annals History” based on them (1648-1690) and more than 20 published and 

unpublished works, which give comprehensive information about foreign and internal policy, ethnic 

situation, the everyday life, customs, religion practicing of the population, the history of Armenian 

refugee areas of Ottoman Empire.

Historiological heritage of Yeremia Qyomurchyan 

Due to some historical-geographical premises and political conditions, Armenian 

people has correlated quite a lot and straightly with Muslim elements, especially after 

the latter’s political role was increased. And although these relations can never be 

conceived as stainless, it did not become an obstacle for Muslim world to be reflected 

with all its demonstrations in Armenians’ consciousness, in their historical worldview 

and to become writing, grief, canto (tagh) or history. Thus, the treasury of Armenian 

historiography accumulates quite rich and multisided information, concerning not only 

the history of Armenian-Muslim correlations, it throws light also upon Muslim world’s 

past, enriches the conceptions about it, about its spiritual and material heritage and at 

last, Islamic studies. 

One of the most fundamental Armenian primary sources of Muslim world’s and 

mainly Ottoman Empire’s history is the voluminous historiological heritage of Yeremia 

Chelepi Qyomurchyan (1637 - 1695), who is one of the most eminent representatives of 

Armenian historiological thought in the period of its new ascent. Yeremia Chelepi is an 

original and particular author in Armenian historical studies, who imports totally new 

spirit and new approaches into the Armenian literature notably wandering away from the 

existent circle of traditional concepts. 

It is known that because of the fact that Armenian bibliography was developed in 

cloistral environment, it was gradually endowed with common principles, 

historiographical traditions and particularities. Certainly, Qyomurchyan has never been 

away from Armenian ecclesiastical estate, moreover, he was born in ecclesiastic’s 

family; he has got his primary education in the church Saint Sargis of Constantinople, 

1

where he received deacon’s degree and he was always among ecclesiastic relatives 

and friends of exalted rank. But in spite of this, he remained a mundane man first of all, 

mundane thinker, which predetermined greatly the nature and originality of his literary 

heritage. From the other hand, as his name Chelepi points out (it derives from the word 

Chalab “God”, means master, mister, erudite and was given as title of nobility, to 

mundane and ecclesiastic people of exalted rank and to some singular intellectuals), 

Yeremia was not a simple mundane, he was a man who had multiple wide connections, 

great authority not only in Armenian environment, but also in governmental circles, he 

had also some relations with European ambassadors residing in Constantinople, with 

spiritual and scientific figures. Though not only the above mentioned factors influenced 

the literary heritage of Qyomurchyan: on the one part multicolor cultural life of 

Constantinople, which was probably full of various historiographical 

intercommunications, left appreciable traces, on the other part he was the immediate 

bearer of the intellectual progress existing in Armenian environment (life) including 

Armenian historiological thought of 17-18 centuries, that had begun due to political and 

economical movements of the time. Though underlining the tendencies of new worldview 

in Qyomurchyan’s works, however we have no intention to overemphasize this 

author and to estrange him from medieval historiographical traditions. The name of God 

is too viable in his lips; his work is rich of Christian ideology’s directives, this man still 

strongly believes in the power of cross, in the superior factor of sin, in the angels and 

daemons, in the intervention of hosts of heaven to the natural calamities. So, let’s try to 

reveal those fragments of Yeremia Chelepi Qyomurchyan’s heritage, which contain 

information about the history of the Ottoman Empire, its urban living, culture, social and 

economic relations, and demographic image. 

2

The writing of Qyomurchyan §ä³ïÙáõÃÇõÝ Ñ³Ù³éûï ¸Ö ï³ñõáÛ úëÙ³Ýóáó 

Ã³·³õáñ³óÝ¦ (“Short history of 400 years of the Ottoman Empire”) has its special place 

among his works and in Armenian historiography in general. In contrast with other 

Armenian sources, which affect the ottoman history and Turks mostly in the context of 

Armenian history, is the first historical complete work dedicated to the history of the 

Ottoman Empire. §ä³ïÙáõÃÇõÝ Ñ³Ù³éûï ¸Ö ï³ñõáÛ úëÙ³Ýóáó Ã³·³õáñ³óÝ¦ 

(“Short history of 400 years of the Ottoman Empire”) includes about 400 years’ history 

(1299 - 1678) of Ottoman empire, i. e. 19 ottoman sultans’ history from the rule of 

Ottoman I (1299 - 1326) until the 30 th year of the domination of Muhammad IV (1678). 

Especially the history chronology is interesting, which is given by the Armenian and 

Hegira chronological systems as if dividing the history into 4 parts, so, the period from 

Ottoman I (1299) to the first year of Selim I’s accession to the throne is presented in 

Hegira’s chronological system, then, until Muhammad III’s domination (1595) – in 

Armenian chronological system, the period from Muhammad III to Muhammad IV (1648) 

– in Hegira chronological system, and the history of 1648-1678ss is written in Armenian 

chronological system. The History of Qyomurchyan was mentioned also with the name 

§½úëÙ³ÝóáóÝ ¸ Ñ³ïáñë¦ (“the IV volume of the Ottoman history”). Apparently, the 

division into 4 parts of the History was not an accident, Qyomurchyan preferred the 

system of quadripartite periodization of the history, which had Iranian origins, but was 

mostly common among Jewish people (Hebrews). The work has been written in 1675 – 

1678ss by the order of the Catholicos of all Armenians Hakob Jughayetsi (Jacob of 

Jugha), to whom Qyomurchyan addresses sometimes during his working period, and at 

the end he dedicates him the book, as promised. It is an extraordinary precedent, when 

the person who has ordered the History, is the Armenian Catholicos and he undertakes 

the creation of the complete ottoman history in Armenian language: it is difficult to say 

3

that the real cause of this order was the wish of the catholicos just to bequeath the 

ottoman history to the generations 

Probably it was dictated by his political projects, but it is just a supposition, as I 

haven’t yet any proves. Especially taking into account the fact that in spite of the kindest 

attitude towards the clergyman, Qyomurchyan has never openly adjoined his so called 

liberation undertakings. 

The history is written in poetical genre composed of 1811 two-row verses. 

Proceeding from the genre particularities Qyomurchyan was obliged to preserve the 

line-size, the rhythm, the rhyme and melody, which forced him to combine his words 

with heaps of words, tangled tautologies and irrelevancies or he inclined to give 

preference to those historical processes that he could form as a poem. Though, as it 

was already mentioned, Qyomurchyan divided his History into 4 parts, but from the 

point of view of source study’s value it is possible to divide it into 2 parts: from 1299 to 

the author’s lifetime – 1648, is written in compiled mode, concerning the events of the 

period of his lifetime (1648-1678), he presented them as a witness historian or upon the 

evidence of others 1 . During the writing process of this work Qyomurchyan used both 

Armenian and Turkish sources, though he did not mention them one by one 2 , which 

doesn’t mean of course that he is not a scrupulous writer, just due to the traditions 

dominating in medieval historiography, historians were not used to mention the sources 

they have used. Besides, there is another common factor, i. e. the historiograph did not 

1 ²Ï³Ý³ï»ëù Ù»½ å³ïÙ»óÇÝ, see ºñ»ÙÇ³ ø»ûÙÇõñ×»³Ý, ä³ïÙáõÃÇõÝ Ñ³Ù³éûï ¸Ö ï³ñõáÛ 

úëÙ³Ýóáó Ã³·³õáñ³óÝ, ³ßË³ï³ëÇñáõÃÛ³Ùμ` Ä. ²í»ïÇëÛ³ÝÇ, ºñ¨³Ý, 1982, p. 165: 

2 He makes exceptions only in several cases, so he mentions the work of Tovma Metsopeci §ä³ïÙáõÃÇõÝ È³ÝÏ 

Â³ÙáõñáÛ ¨ Û³çáñ¹³ó Çõñáó¦. 

§ÂáõÙ³ ñ³μáõÝÝ, ½áñÙ¿ å³ïÙ¿, 

½³ÛÉ ÇÙÝ ½·áñÍÇëÝ áã ¿ Éáõ»³É¦, See Yeremia Qyomurchyan, “Short history of the Ottoman Empire of 

XIV century” (in Armenian language) worked out by J. Avetisyan, Y. , 1982, p. 81. 

4

differentiate the mediated and the real sources, as he had no task to analyze or study 

any fact, but just to retell the facts that have been already well-known. 

This is quite a characteristic image also for Turkish historiography, when the 

historiographs profiting successively one from another, create some mess that makes 

difficult the defining of the main source. Nevertheless, the researchers have been able 

to indicate some examples of Turkish historiography, which have been extremely 

important for Yeremia’s History. I find unnecessary to put here the fragments that are 

literally repeated in Qyomurchyan’s work. Yet, the resemblance between Qyomurchyan 

and Turkish historiographs Lutfi and Solakzade (17 th century) is evident, or at least it is 

clear that they have used the same sources. The next Turkish source that has been 

used by Qyomurchyan, is the work “Fezleke” of 17 century’s famous historiograph 

Katip Chelepi (Kâtip Çelebi), which is dedicated to the history of the Ottoman Empire in 

1592 – 1657. Qyomurchyan shows an interesting taste choosing this historiograph, as 

he is a realistic author, because he describes the 34 years of the included period of time 

as witness. As it was shown by research, Qyomurchyan had some critical approach, 

which is proved by those noticeable digressions present between him and his argued 

sources. Actually, he used also other sources and had the chance to make choice 

before giving his reliable confidence to any of them. 

th 

As we have mentioned above, Yeremia Chelepi has widely used also Armenian 

sources, but instead of just enumerating them, I would like to concentrate on the fact of 

applying Armenian national epos or its particular subjects bequeathed to all of us and 

Qyomurchyan by Armenian historiography in History. 

Thus, Turkish sources report contradictory information about sultan Bayezid II’s 

(1481 - 1512) death and for the most part remain silent about the murder of the father 

5

y Selim I (1512 - 1520), which is stated by Qyomurchyan. It is well-known that Bayezid 

had abdicated from the throne under the pressure of janissaries in favor of Selim and 

was preparing to settle in the region of Demotika, but on the way he was offered a last 

cup by the order of reigning king, the father, gassing his son’s conspiratorial idea, 

pronounce a malediction, then, as Qyomurchyan describes in a very touching way,he 

does his last namaz (prayer) with eyes full of tears, drinks the cup and gives up the 

spirit. Besides, the sourceological meaning, this fragment is very interesting from the 

point of view of the scene choice. So, the sultan damns his son by the following words: 

§ÒÇ ùá` ÷áõÃ³ëÉ³ó ¨ ëáõñ ùá ëáõñ ÉÇóÇ ëÁñ»³É, 

ö¿ß¹ Ç ÙÇç³ó¹ ÙÇ° ÃáõÉ³ëóÇ, µ³Ûó Ï»³ÝùÁÝ ùá ÉÇóÇ Ýáõ³Õ»³É¦. 

A similar subject of a damn is described in the “Armenian History” of the father of 

historiography Movses Khorenatsi, when the prince Artavazd upset from the behavior of 

the people bewailing for the dying king Artashes I reproaches his father, the latter 

pronounces: 

§ºÃ¿ ¹áõ Ûáñë Ñ»ÍóÇë 

Û²½³ïÝ Ç í»ñ Ç Ø³ëÇë, 

¼ù»½ Ï³ÉóÇÝ ù³çù, 

î³ñóÇÝ Û²½³ïÝ Ç í»ñ Ç Ø³ëÇë. 

²Ý¹ Ï³Ûó»ë, ¨ ½ÉáÛë ÙÇ° ï»ëó»ë¦: 

In both cases father’s damn is powerful and irreversible, in spite of his wise and 

courageous activity, Selim does not take delight in his reign and dies in the 9 th year of 

his domination, as to Artavazd, he is binded round with metal and bedded in a cave, he 

tries to escape from there, but because of the sounds of 

smiths his chains become 

stronger all the time and keep him in eternal agony. I have no intention to persuade you 

6

in the truthfulness of those legends, though you may do it with the best will in the world. 

The most interesting phenomenon is the wish of the historiograph to condemn strictly 

and to punish perpetrators for each and every intention to disturb the legitimacy of 

succession of the throne. It must be admitted that Qyomurchyan is an open apologist of 

centrist, more precisely sultan power’s legal succession’s preservation, even the most 

marginal encroachment upon the throne does not slip away from his eyes, moreover, it 

is completely refused by the author, which is reflected in many fragments of the 

History 3 . Furthermore, never can be said that Qyomurchyan is a typical Turkish author, 

as he is a thinker absorbed by pan-Christian ideology and he is free to describe and 

denounce unacceptable actions of Turks, though he differs neatly from the other 

Armenian sources or from their major part by his noticeable pro-ottoman orientation, 4 

which is not conditioned as much by the influence of Turkish sources, but by the 

Qyomurchyan’s conscience of being a competent representative of the Ottoman 

Empire, in other words – by his Turkish patriotism. 

§The history of Ottoman¦ is rich of interesting and valuable sourciological 

information’s variety: thus, the exposition is full of numerous descriptions of campaigns, 

4 

Գովութեան իմ ոչ կարօտին, ծառն ի պըտղոցն ահա ծանեալ. 

Որոյ թոռունքն զաշխարհ տիրեն` մին քան զմիւսքն 

առաւելեալ: 

Describing the battle between Polishes and Turks Qyomurchyan presents the success of Turkish side, 

which was not interchangeable, see Yeremia Qyomurchyan, “Short history of 400 years of the Ottoman 

Empire” (ä³ïÙáõÃÇõÝ Ñ³Ù³éûï ¸Ö ï³ñõáÛ úëÙ³Ýóáó Ã³·³õáñ³óÝ,) (in Armenian language ) p. 

194-196. 

He writes about the Hungers in the battle of Mohacs of August 29, 1526: 

²ñÓ³Ï»ó³Ý Ç å³ï»ñ³½Ù, 

ë³ëïÇÏ µ³ËáõÙÝ ³Ýï³Ýûñ É»³É, 

Ø³×³ñù ·ÇÝ»³õ ÛÇÙ³ñ»³É Ï³Ý` 

½Ãû÷ ¨ Ãáõý¿Ï áã Ñá·³ó»³É: 

ÐÁå³ñïáõÃ»³Ùµ ³é³ç í³½»Ý, 

Áã ·Çï»Éáí ½áñ ÇÝã ·áñÍ»³É, 

ÇëÏ úëÙ³ÝóÇù Ïáõé í³é¿ÇÝ` 

Çµñ ½Ù»Õáõ ËÇëï ç³Ý »¹»³É: 

See also not. 490. 

7

invasions, attacks, which are formulaic and monotonous texts as a rule. The next group 

of descriptions is composed of witnesses of internal reforms, progressive demographic 

movements (captivities, migrations, child-gathering (devshirme), population census and 

so on), economic-constructional, national-cultural etc 5 . A particular attention was paid to 

janissaries’ insurrections, jelali revolts and internal political restructurings. The 

witnesses about jelali’s are especially circumstantial, Qyomurchyan even enumerates 

the jelalis name by name 6 , he gives the geographical area of the revolt, 7 but in fact not 

being content with that, he writes a whole book about the revolutionary actions of Jelalis 

in the Ottoman Empire, as he witnesses by himself, which did not reach to our days 

unfortunately or at least did not come to light till nowadays 8 . 

Certainly, the aesthetic value of this work should never be over-estimated, as in 

contrast with Qyomurchyan’s aspirations and influences, this one does not astound at 

its poetical worths, moreover it repeats the literal traditions imported by the previous and 

not always successfully. Though with all this, the History is rich of beautiful images, 

epithets, comparisons and metaphoric-allegoric expressions, which flavor delicately the 

separate passages of historical processes. In general, Qyomurchyan’s heritage 

balances between the space of bard’s (ashugh) and tragedian’s world-views and 

writer’s tricks and preferences. Before going ahead I would like to mark out a little note 

in this context that Qyomurhyan has quoted in Turkish transliteration, it concerns the 

acts of the Ottoman Empire realized on the occasion of closure of the cafes and pubs 9 . 

5 see Yeremia Qyomurchyan, “Short history of 400 years of the Ottoman Empire” (ä³ïÙáõÃÇõÝ 

Ñ³Ù³éûï ¸Ö ï³ñõáÛ úëÙ³Ýóáó Ã³·³õáñ³óÝ,) (in Armenian language ) p. 150-151, 157-159, 176- 

177, 186-187 ect 

6 see Yeremia Qyomurchyan, “Short history of 400 years of the Ottoman Empire” (ä³ïÙáõÃÇõÝ 

Ñ³Ù³éûï ¸Ö ï³ñõáÛ úëÙ³Ýóáó Ã³·³õáñ³óÝ,) (in Armenian language ) p. , not. 411 

7 See the same, p. 160-162: 

8 See the same, p. 167, not. 410: 

9 êÇñ³Ñ³ñÇ ëñïÇ ÝÙ³Ý ³í»ñ ¹³ñÓñÇÝ ·ÇÝ»ïáõÝÁ 

ºí å³ÛÙ³ÝÝ áõ áõËïÁ ¹ñÅ³Í, ßáõé ïí»óÇÝ ·ÇÝáõ ·³íÁ: 

8

“The ottoman history” of Yeremia Chelepi ends on March 31, 1678. Nevertheless 

the historiograph brings the ottoman history till the end of his life, i. e. 1695. Another 

ottoman history authored by Qyomurchyan has also come to our days and one example 

of this manuscript is in manuscripts depository of Matenadaran 10 . It is a work composed 

of 96 pages written in prose, but in a neater style. Apparently, this version was created 

to make the History more unobscure (understandable) and intelligible, so here we can 

see Yeremia’s “disarmed” vocabulary, who poses a totally different problem this time. 

The same manuscript has conserved also a poetry 11 , that due to Michael Chamchyan 12 , 

is written also by the order of Catholicos Hakob. This is a little poem containing the 

names of 19 ottoman sultans by the order of their successive domination. 

The works of Yeremia Qyomurchyan of topographic nature form a special group 

in his heritage. Their main subject is Constantinople with its images, colors, urban face, 

communicative means, social-economic and demographic description. In this regard, 

Qyomurchyan’s “History of Constantinople” 13 

enriches in truth his heritage and 

generally Armenian topographical literature as an exceptional adornment. This is a 

beautiful poetical writing, walking and conversation at the same time that unfolds from 

the beginning to the end of composition. Yeremia of Constantinople invites his teacher 

and orderer Arakel Baghishetsi (Arakel of Baghesh) to make a tour in the yards of the 

city, offering him to mount, to navigate or just to continue walking. And in contrast with 

the infusion of Qyomurchyan that it is possible to walk in Constantinople only if you 

10 

§Â³·³õáñáõÃ»³Ý úëÙ³Ýóõáó Ñ³Ù³éûïÇõ å³ïÙáõÃÇõÝ… ³ñï³·ñ»³É Ç Ù³ï»Ý³·ñ³óÝ 

ûëÙ³Ýóõáó áõÙÇÝ ºñ»ÙÇ³ â¿É¿åáõ ø¿ûÙÇõñ×Ç úÕÉõáÛ Î. äáÉë»óõáÛ Ù»ñÓ Ç Ãáõ³Ï³ÝÇÝ Ð³Ûáó èÖÊ¸ ÇÝ 

(1695), ï»°ë Ø³ï»Ý³¹³ñ³ÝÇ Ó»é³·Çñ № 1786, ¿ç 1³-81μ: 

11 àïÇõ ß³ñ³¹ñ»³É ³Ýáõ³Ýù Ã³·³õáñ³ó úëÙ³Ýóõáó, ï»°ë Ø³ï»Ý³¹³ñ³ÝÇ Ó»é³·Çñ, № 1786, ¿ç 

97³-98³: 

12 Ø. â³Ùã»³Ý, ä³ïÙáõÃÇõÝ Ð³Ûáó, Ñ³ï., ì»Ý»ïÇÏ, 1786, ¿ç 723: 

13 This work is composed of 8 toms. It was published in 1689, see ºñ»ÙÇ³ â¿É¿åÇ ø»ûÙÇõñ×»³Ý, 

êï³ÙåûÉáÛ å³ïÙáõÃÇõÝ, ³ßË³ï³ëÇñáõÃÛ³Ùμ` ì. Âáñ·áÙÛ³ÝÇ, Ñ³ï. I, ìÇ»ÝÝ³, 1913: 

9

have money in your pouch 14 , the reader gets the possibility to have that motion without 

any means in his pocket, to become the onlooker of urban intertwined images and 

contours, to see the city. The author begins the description from West to the East, then 

from North to South, opening gradually this city – medley of West and East, which in 

spite of its progressing inclinations 15 , was not muslimized as much and was presented 

as a unity of numerous ethnic groups, cultures, traditions and habits. 

“History of Constantinople” differs greatly from travel sketches and notes widely 

practiced in medieval period, it is not a travel repercussion, first look or impression of a 

stranger. It is a multisided and detailed description of the city, which is given by a 

person who knows inside out the spine of the city, its life and humdrum. 

Qyomurchyan's evidence about the demographic image of Constantinople is 

especially valuable. Thanks to him we get information not only about Turks that had 

possessed the city, but also about other nations inhabiting it like Armenians, Greeks, 

Jews, Ethiopians, Buglers, Egyptians, Chinese people, Armenian and Greek gypsies 

etc., also about their allocation, occupations, spiritual centers, way of life, even about 

separate jails assigned for them and generalized national characters. The next 

particularity is the social structure specific to Constantinople, social rules of rank, which 

is formed on the base of people's integrity level in urban life, their activity and 

occupations. So from the words of the author concerning the central market of 

Constantinople where he says that it resembles a spring valley 16 , we may guess that 

the environment of the city was fabulous for economic, social and cultural various 

interpenetrations. Here he mentions about 100 nations, which realize not just 

14 See the same, p. 64: 

15 There are multiple evidences also about the transformation of churches into mosques, aviaries, zoos. 

16 àñå¿ë Ã¿ ½Í³ÕÏáó ï»ëó»ë` 

ºñ÷Ý »ñ÷»³Ý ÁÝ¹ ÑáíÇïë Ç ·³ñÝ³Ý, see ºñ»ÙÇ³ â¿É¿åÇ ø»ûÙÇõñ×»³Ý, êï³ÙåûÉáÛ å³ïÙáõÃÇõÝ, 

¿ç 31: 

10

commodity circulation, but also input their taste, traditions and world-view into this 

environment. 

Though at the end of the work Qyomurchyan confesses that he did not include all 

the parts of the city, 17 

nevertheless, various districts, streets and quarters of 

Constantinople are presented quite in details. It is a rich, flourishing and eventful city, 

city of life, which was heartily built and reconstructed by all the nations inhabiting 

Constantinople, though their vital presence in that city is not a reality any more, so their 

merits and traces have been just transformed to history. 

Though Qyomurchyan does not report statistical correct data about the 

population number of the city, he brings additional evidences, which give some picture 

about the solid number of inhabitants: thus, due to his data, there were 120 bake 

houses 18 , more than 100 beef and mutton stores only near the 13th door of the city, not 

taking into account janissaries' and court butchers’ stalls 19 . I don’t fine necessary to 

mention here numerous stores, manufactories, shops, hospitals and other 

establishments of social importance quoted by the historiograph. Nevertheless, I think 

that Constantinople having the traditions and characteristics mentioned above claimed 

to have the status of the city of modern times, to adopt the new components and 

notions that have been interposed by historical thinking of new period. 

The poetical work §Ð³Ù³éûï ëïáñ³·ñáõÃÇõÝ Î. äáÉëÇ Ý»ÕáõóÇ¦ (“Short 

signature of Constantinople’s channel”) is classified to the serial of topographic writings 

which is conceivably translated also into Italian. It is a work of topographic nature, 

17 Ì³ÝÇ°ñ ½Ç ³Ûëù ÁÝ¹ μáÉáñ` 

³ñï³ùáÛ å³ñëåÇë ï»ë³Ý. 

½Ç ½Ù¿ç ù³Õ³ùÇÝ ÃáÕ³ù` 

Ù»½ ß³ï ¿ ³ë»É ³ñ¹ ½³Û¹ù³Ý: Then he enumerates which to parts of the city he did not refer. See 

Yeremia Qyomurchyan, “History of Constantinople” (in Armenian language) , volume I, p. 111-112. 

18 See the same, p. 36. 

19 See the same, p. 54. 

11

which gives information about the villages and other population clusters of Bosporus 

strait, mentions their ancient and modern names. Anyway, we are obliged to state with 

pain that this work was not familiar to the researchers, we don't know if it has been 

saved, or in which library of the world is it? In which collection? The sources remain 

silent about it. 

The works “Diary” (§úñ³·ñáõÃÇõÝ¦) 20 

¨ “Chronicle history” (§î³ñ»·ñ³Ï³Ý 

å³ïÙáõÃÇõÝ¦) 21 

are quite valuable in the literary heritage of Qyomurchyan, though 

they refer mainly to the Armenian life and culture, they contain also rich information 

about the ottoman reality of the 17 th century (I had no occasion to read the second work 

and the information I get about it is still mediated). Yet, as from the very outset we had 

the task to refer only to the materials concerning the ottoman studies, we'll not give 

careful argumentation to those writings, considering them as separate subject of 

conversation and leaving them for other occasions. 

Thus, I would like to sum up this small essay concerning Muslim theme in 

Yeremia Chelepi Qyomurchyan’s historiological heritage, which is a modest and 

imperfect attempt to present roughly only one part of his behest, so I testify again the 

great chance that have the Turkish historiology thanks to this eminent Armenian author 

and his ties with ottoman life and history. 

20 “Diary of Yeremia Chelepi Qyomurchyan” (§úñ³·ñáõÃÇõÝ ºñ»ÙÇ³ â¿É¿åÇ ø»ûÙÇõñ×»³ÝÇ¦), was 

prepared to publication by Catholicos M. Nshanyan, Jerusalem 1939. 

21 

Separate fragments have been published by S. Yeremyan, S. Yeremyan, Yeremia Chelepi 

Qyomurchyan, see “Bazmavep” (§´³½Ù³í¿å¦), Venice, 1902-1903. Unfortunately the complete version 

is probably not published yet, the manuscript is in the matenadaran of Mkhitaryan congregation in Venice, 

№ 509, paper 255. 

12

CV 

Gayane Ayvazyan 

Address: Yerevan, Avan, Narekatsi 39-50 

Tel:(37410) 62-19-94 

Cell: (37494) 35-17-32 

Email: ayvazyan_gayane@yahoo.com 

Date of Birth February 25,1986 

Nationality 

Marital Status 

Armenian 

Single 

Education and Qualifications 

Date 1993-2003 Secondary school #170 

Date 

Bachelor Graduation 

Research Work 

2003-2007 Yerevan State University, 

Faculty of History (Bachelor’s degree) 

“The cooperation of Armenian Political Parties and Young Turks in the 

late 19 th century and the beginning of 20 th century” 

Date 

Master’s Graduation 

Research Work 

2007-2009 Yerevan State University, Faculty of Armenian 

History- Ancient and Middle Age (Master’s degree) 

“The church and the Armenian Liberation Movement in the 

16-17 th centuries” 

Date 

2009 up to now Research student 

Candidate Thesis “The Historiographical Heritage of Yeremia Qyomurchian ” 

Work Experience 

Date 

Company Name 

Job Title 

Date 

Company Name 

Job Title 

2008 up to now working on Research work “Nickolas Adontz’ 

Historical Heritage” 

September 2010-up to now 

Yerevan State University, Armenian History Faculty 

Laboratory Senior Assistant 

Skills 

Languages 

Armenian, Russian, German, French

The Third Annual International Graduate Student Workshop ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?