Houshamadyan Releases ‘Ottoman Armenians: Life, Culture, Society’
By Contributor on December 19, 2014 in Books & Art, Headline
By Haroutiun Kurkjian
Translated by Khatchig Mouradian
This is the title of the volume that Houshamadyan presented to the
public as its first publication, three years after launching the
website with the same title (houshamadyan.org). Already from a first
glance standing out as an elegant volume, it holds in its 270
large-size (28×22 cm) pages multidisciplinary research articles and
photo galleries documenting a variety of themes.
Cover of ‘Ottoman Armenians: Life, Culture, Society’
The publication is realized in partnership with Haigazian University
and the Department of Turkology at the University of Bamberg.
Houshamadyan’s director, Vahé Tachjian, is the editor of the volume,
while Elke Hartmann served as publication director. Art director
Silvina Der-Meguerditchian has accomplished her task with impressive
professionalism and aesthetics. Other colleagues conducted the
translation, copy-editing, and layout. The volume is fully in
English.1
The media covered the publication of the volume and its presentation
to the public through brief book reviews, event reports, and
interviews.2 But this text is of a quite different nature. Far from
pretensions and responsibilities associated with writing a book
review, it aims at conveying clear impressions about the oeuvre and
the phenomenon, and then emphasizes connections with the present,
using a brief overview of the contents of the book as a springboard.
Overview of content
The preface by Tachjian is followed by three photo galleries
alternating in a structured and neat manner with five research
articles. The articles, with their various approaches, can be
designated respectively as ethno-sociology (“Why Was Pastirmaci
Khatchatur Efendi Killed? The Life of an Ottoman-Armenian Elite in the
Mid-19th-Century Erzurum/Karin” by Yasar Tolga Cora); political
history (“Imprisoned Communities: Punishing Politics in the Late
Ottoman Empire” by Nanor Kebranian); cultural history (“Mapping the
Fatherland: Artzvi Vaspurakan’s Reforms Through the Memory of the
Past” by Dzovinar Derderian); and cultural bibliography (“Manoog
Dzeron and Alevor: Unique Authors of the Houshamadyan Genre” by Vahé
Tachjian). The fifth article is an exhaustive list of memory books
prepared by Mihran Minassian, divided geographically by region.
The three photo galleries are separate from the articles–which have
their own photographs–and stand alone; yet, they stand as equally
amazing productions, themselves a product of a multidisciplinary
approach. They are titled “Families,” “Crafts,” and “School Life.”
It is worth noting that the foreword of the book, penned by Haigazian
University President Paul Haidostian, and then the listing of around a
dozen sponsors whose financial support, alongside the enthusiasm and
impetus in collecting materials for the book, have motivated the
director of Houshamadyan to announce the publication of a new volume
every year. We learn from an interview that preparations for volumes
two and three are already under way.
Dual merit
The publication is to be commended first because its quality sets it
apart from similar works. Other works, published by intellectuals and
scholars or foundations in Europe and America, in particular, have
tried to be albums, research monograms, and encyclopedic indexes,
sometimes all at once, and sometimes unclear about their aims. These
publications are often little more than albums of randomly grouped
photographs, confusing in their amateurish editorial and
“historiographic” elements.
One of the publications that stood out among these earlier works, with
its scholarly and artistic value, was “Les Armeniens 1917-1939: La
Quete d’un Refuge” (The Armenians, 1917-1939: In Search of Refuge”),3
which, by the way, was co-authored by the founder and director of
Houshamadyan, and already showed some of the characteristic contours
of the current Houshamadyan volume.
In addition to the unquestionable superiority of the publication, one
has to note a central issue, which is the overall approach of the
Houshamadyan team, emphasized in the preface. The publication follows
the principles that guided the Houshamadyan website–namely, a
multi-disciplinary approach; a diversity reflecting the Ottoman
Empire’s essence, both multilingual and multicultural; the use of a
variety of multilingual sources reflecting the real character of the
Ottoman Empire; an emphasis on the value and importance of
Armenian-language sources in research in the field, as evidenced by
the very articles contained in the volume; and the impossibility of
disconnecting the Ottoman Armenians from the socio-economic framework
of the empire. A condensed formulation of these principles are also
found on the Houshamadyan website, and is reprinted as an excerpt in
this article.
The objective of the publication, just like that of the website, is
the examination and appreciation of the daily life of the Ottoman
Armenians with a holistic approach (and not only through “tragic and
gloomy episodes”), because today we remain oblivious to many facets of
that past, and a scholarly examination of the very Armenian sources is
necessary to shed light on this multi-faceted Armenian community that
is little known. To revive this Armenian past and, furthermore, to
grant it tangible immediacy, the website and this volume employ visual
material–photographs, drawings, maps–that serve as focal points for
the transmission of memory.
Partnership of historical accuracy, active memory
The photo galleries make this commitment to a true recreation
particularly palpable. The introductory page to the first photo
gallery, “Families,” after citing how photography became closely
associated with Ottoman Armenians in the 19th century and reached the
farthest corners of the empire by the early 20th century, emphasizes
how photographs from that period reached Houshamadyan–often from
private family collections from all over of the world, mainly in
digital form, thus turning these photographs into sacred fragments
from a destroyed world. The author notes, “Each [photograph] is the
glowing reflection and legacy of a particular family’s lost life. At
the same time, each photo is a microcosm, a unique sample of the
collective fate that befell the Ottoman Armenians. Life and
Catastrophe…”4
Such a study of a centuries-old national and communal life not only
enriches the sources of our historical, sociological, and cultural
understanding, but awakens our senses and memory. This approached is
outlined in the second segment presented in this article.
The author cites literary works that testify to this effort to
recreate, and are closely associated with the sacramental value of
remembrances. It is in this context that Krikor Beledian’s “Semer”
[Thresholds] and Norair Atalian’s “Kapuyt Yerznka/Erzincan” [Blue
Yerznka/Erzincan] are quoted. And the introduction to the first photo
gallery concludes with the following statement: “To remember and to
reconstruct our past lives based on these memories, and to never
forget the Great Catastrophe.”
This living presentation of fragments from a past is, concomitantly,
scientifically valid; that is, unlike other publications of the same
nature, it reveals the inception, identity, and trajectory of the
featured artifacts, documents, and photographs. Yet this scholarly
approach to documentation is at the same time sensory-emotional. It’s
never commemorative, ceremonious, and superficial, as that would not
constitute remembrance, but a mere masking of amnesia, and the
mummification of the reality ofYergir [Homeland], a word that we
ceaselessly utter, although it has stopped being a living presence for
us. The Houshamadyan volume is welcome especially for being an active
and a reviving memory.
The volume, as well as the website, stand as a testament to a holistic
vision that is scholarly and artistic, and particularly pedagogical in
the broadest sense of the word. It is the kind of vision that we need
as a collective–as do our education systems and schools. In the words
of the editor, “We must make Armenian studies accessible to the new
generations. … We must turn the Armenian history class, the Armenian
museum, and any effort pertaining to Armenian history appealing… We
should not repeat the mistakes that made all this synonymous with
expired and boring. … [We should also be] creative. The historian
should know how to work with the artist…and to give the historic
material appeal and generate greater interest.”4
***
In view of this work that is imbued with the dual advantages of
scholarly and artistic caliber and the expression of a comprehensive
vision, it is worth pausing and thinking today, a century after the
genocide, about this challenge to our ceremonial, pro-forma memory,
and our abstract love for the homeland–and this, in a time when buried
across Western Armenia, the decimated, transfigured remnants of the
Armenian nation are showing the first signs of revival and taking
ownership of their ancestral homeland.
Houshamadyan participates in this challenge with its website and the
current volume, standing as a factor for revival. Despite being born
from the memory-deprived Western Armenian Diaspora, it weighs in
against the deprivation of memory. And for that, Houshamadyan is
twice, thrice valuable for us.
Notes
It seems to me that it is important to have sections in Armenian–and
another European language besides English–in a volume such as this
(even if a very condensed version was presented in these languages) to
counterbalance the hegemony of the English language. On the website,
the presence of a section entirely in Armenian has essentially
resolved this issue. For the publication, the editors would determine
the format in which other languages appear. What is expressed here is
a general concern on the importance of such diversification.
See, for example, the reports in Aztag (Beirut, May 15) on the event
launching the book, and the interviews in Ararad (Beirut) and Agos
(Istanbul) on March 27 and March 7, respectively, the latter in the
newspaper’s Turkish-language section.
Les Armeniens 1917-1939: La Quête d’un Refuge, Raymond H Kévorkian;
Lévon Nordiguian; Vahé Tachjian, eds. (Beirut: Saint Joseph
University, 2006)
The editor of the volume has used the term “Catastrophe” in English in
reference to the genocidal crime, the Medz Yeghern. In European
languages–in English in this particular case–one may be obliged to
employ the term. On the Houshamadyan website as well, Medz Yeghern and
“genocide” are used as equivalents of that “Catastrophe.”
It is worth noting here that academics and intellectuals in the West
do not always demonstrate sensitivity to this terminology and,
prompted by the Judeo-Christian thinking, employ the termAghed.
The use of the term Aghed in reference to the Medz Yeghern or Armenian
Genocide of 1915 is not simply an understatement, but a serious
mistake that demotes the act from a historical-political Crime to a
metaphysical-theological concept, or simply a natural disaster, like a
flood or an earthquake. At best, the Crime becomes the victim of a
dubious game of dual-meaning.
(Here, I remember how in Turkey in the years following the 1895-96
massacres, the euphemismsTebk and Medz Tebk were used in reference to
the massacres, under conditions of censorship and self-censorship. Are
we still there? What censorship are we subjected to now?)
Let us not forget that Aram Andonian, a witness to the Medz Yeghern
and a pioneering historian documenting it, titled the French version
of his book Le Grand Crime, which was a literal translation of Medz
Yeghern, unlike “Catastrophe” or some Aghed.
Conclusion: The genocide must be termed as Yeghern, Crime, and not as
Aghed or Catastrophe, even if capitalized, in order to convey the
political and legal dimensions of the act.
Interview in Ararad (Beirut) on March 27, 2014.
First Excerpt: Historiographical overview, the aims of the website
In the first place historical difficulties led us to think that we
should create a website of such wide content and size. Thus
researchers in Ottoman studies very often find serious difficulties in
source utilization. … [T]he materials comprising Ottoman history are
also multi-lingual and their study demands multi-disciplinary work.
When…this or that people’s language and therefore potentially rich
sources are ignored, then it is obvious that the given study will be
somewhat lacking…
In this sense Armenian sources have, for a long time, been the missing
link in Ottoman studies. There exist many books and articles of a
scientific nature that occasionally relate directly to the Ottoman
Armenians, but they are mostly based on materials written in
Ottoman-Turkish. These kinds of works are found so frequently that,
over time, it has become usual or even ‘acceptable’ to ignore Armenian
sources in Ottoman studies. … This is something that is lacking and
unacceptable.
Indeed, the Armenian element’s view concerning its own questions is
missing, as is that of its daily life. Thus, concerning these
subjects, the materials written in the Armenian language are varied
and very rich. They lead us into a new Ottoman world, where even
traces of its many faces are impossible to find in non-Armenian
sources. … Thus it is our aim to give a new value to Armenian-language
materials concerning Ottoman Armenians and to make them available to
the public that does not speak Armenian. We consider all this to be a
natural necessity for Ottoman studies.
Second Excerpt: One-sided polarization and a break in Armenian historiography
One-sided polarization and a break in Armenian historiography…the
Armenian element has made a special effort in the period subsequent to
[the genocide] to make the division between the one-time
Ottoman-Armenian and Ottoman-Turkish environment sacred. Ottoman
Armenian historiography has not been exempt from this either, and has
been ascribed to the influence of new facts upon it and whose axis
from then on was the catastrophe. We think that this influence
persists until the present day.
Indeed, in the historiography concerning the Ottoman Armenians,
subjects connected with the genocide are preponderant presences. Every
time an attempt is made to move away from this and study the
pre-catastrophe Ottoman Armenian era, there is still a general
tendency to choose disaster dates, for example the 1895-96 massacres
of Armenians or the 1909 Adana massacres.
There is also a diametrically opposed tendency which is bounded by
Ottoman Armenian heroic events, the Armenian rebellions against the
Ottoman government, revaluing them and making them subjects for
studies.
In any case, what is missing is Ottoman Armenian social life, local
microhistories, the daily round and the socio-economic environment
that are immediately connected with the general Ottoman social context
and, we think, in the end are important keys to the understanding of
all the other events…
It is clear the result is that Armenian and Ottoman studies, instead
of becoming academic disciplines that mutually complement and enrich
each other, they have, for a long time, become areas of
specialization, each ignoring the other.
http://armenianweekly.com/2014/12/19/houshamadyan-ottoman-armenians/