About the history of the «Armenian question»

 As any national question, the «Armenian question» remains to be a major focus of interest of politicians. It’d be appropriate if the «…question» would become a talking point of historical discussions and thus contribute to the establishment of lasting peace in Transcaucasia.

It is worth remembering that the «Armenian question» is of human origin. It is my policy, and I realize that my statement forces me out to name taletellers of the «Armenian question» and their purposes. That’s why I wrote a book dedicated to Israel Ori called conspicuous figure of liberation movement by Armenians. 

A banner of the «Armenian question» is clearly apparent at the turn of the 17-18 centuries. A discriminating reader is apt to see the beginning of the process.

Speak plainly, the «Armenian question» is a conflict between a part of society - «Armenians, on the one hand, and those surrounding them or sharing one and the same territory, on the other hand. For conflict to occur, it is essential for all conflict participants to have a clear idea of «Armenianism». These borders are to be easily readable especially for lower strata from both sides; otherwise, they will be unable to channel their anger and enmity in the right direction, so the conflict will be settled unbegun.

One of the most effective marker for designation of Armenianism borders is language: if you speak Armenian, you are Armenian. However, when it comes to Asia Minor and Transcaucasia in the end of the 17 century, one must allow that absolute majority of the population speaks languages called Moslem ones. It was Turkish in Turkey; Persian in Persia (from this point onward, I’ll refer to names used in European sources of the 17-18 centuries: it is obvious that other names were used in local languages and dialects of Levant, unexpended in the world literature).

Added to this can be that the clerical establishment only spoke Armenian and the divine service was ministered in this language. However, in everyday living they spoke the Moslem language, conducted business, told tales, etc. … It should be remembered that in the reviewed period the Armenian language was used for the divine service only unadjusted for everyday communication. Later on, it blended with Moslem languages to serve ordinary people.

As a matter of fact, the Armenian language had not adequate «literary barrel» to develop and get upgraded as was the case with European languages. This language had not sufficient quantity of authors, critics, philologists, lexicographers (even dictionaries); however, most important of all, it had no wide readership as premier source of inspiration for men of letters and scholars.

In other words, the linguistic marker was absent or too weak to separate Armenians from non-Armenians. From the late 17 century onwards the Armenian language was «assisted» to develop. A great quantity of the Christian literature was issued in Europe and sent to Turkey and Persia with the help of missionaries. Note that these books were adapted, so that not only priests but the common people could see their meaning as well.

My research provides documents with revelations of missionaries on the development and spreading of the Armenian language among the Christian population of Asia Minor and Persia.

Religion is another marker

It is worth pointing out that in reality the Armenian church had been mentioned in the documents of the 17 century. However, references to the Armenian church are found in European sources only. As for local sources, «European Armenians» were frequently called as Christians or Nazarites, Maronites, Jacobites, Carmelites or merely «Romans», i.e. Catholics.

One has to admit that sources at the local level had no clear understanding which of Christians were Armenians. Moreover, European sources had no general consensus on the matter at hand until Catholic missionaries first appeared. Treatises on spiritual and secular conditions of Armenia and Armenians were created over three decades (in 1670 – 1690s). Authors of the treatises were members of Catholic order, primarily Jesuit order. The treatises were practically identical as if authored by one and the same professor.

Thus, a religious component failed to specify distinct boundaries for a group of population called Armenians by Europeans.

Ethnic identity

A few people in the 17 century were aware of the issue, so it was not surprising that scholars did not even trouble to explain readers the crux of the issue, neither in Europe, nor in Asia. Suffice it to say that European authors described lower social strata as «people». That was one large people titled «common folk» which was divided into smaller peoples as follows:

•  by professional, trade, handicraft, servicemen signs, etc;
• by names of towns and states: imperials (Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation), Florentines, Muscovites, Venetians, Ottomans;
• by names of geographical regions: Britishers, Bretons, Gascons, Anatolians, Armenians, Scandinavians, Crimeans.

It must be acknowledged that the population of Levant was divided into three peoples: Moslems, Christians and Judaists. Lower strata of the population of Western Asia were divided into Moslems and Christians.           

It should be noted that everyday habits and traditions of groups of population were attributable to their professional and religious identity and failed to reveal ethnic boundaries. Suffice it to recall that details of the Armenian everyday life were first described in the 19 century only, and these details fully coincided with those of Tatars’ domestic life. It is as well to remember that in the reviewed period Azerbaijanis and a part of the Turkish population of the Russian Empire were called Tatars.

No details of this sort are found in the written sources of the 17 century. It was possible to create ethnos out of kindred families. However, it was not possible to identify these relations farther than one-two villages and deeper than three-four generations, so the ethnos of this kind would be too thin to play an important role in Persia and the Ottoman Empire.

In other words, inventors of the «Armenian question» a challenging task: single out an independent group out of local population titled «Armenians». For this to happen, they had to create or escalate existing controversies and make them obvious and noticeable for the local population proper.

It should be realized that in the history of Israel Ori and meliks we are witnessing an initial stage of the process. It is worth citing that the process came to an end in the beginning of the 20 century where outlines of the notion «Armenian people» became not only easily discernible but overflowed with blood both of Armenians and non-starters near them.

To my thinking, the nation-building process in the 17 century was different from what we are witnessing today in terms of the scope of modern mass media.

The 17 century was notable for books that had just been printed in rather large circulation; it was rumors, mostly missionaries, travelers, ambassadors, messengers, etc., who traveled long distances and spread unverified information across the world. Hence, the most bright-headed were able to avail of the information in their own interests.

It must be borne in mind that today these storytellers dispose of large arsenals of information weapons, so the production of «national question» takes much lesser time while hatred hotbeds have long been devouring our world just as well as the deadliest epidemics.

As for my monograph «Israel Ori. Pandora’s box», you will find evidence to all I’ve suggested. That’s just the first out of several books I’ve conceived. The book is intended for all those identifying themselves as Armenians and taking interest in the authentic past of our people. Beyond any doubt, the book is referred to those fearing no truth and seeking to brood about it.