VirtualANI messageboard: Armenian architecture, art, archaeology, history: Abstracts of UCLA Kars/Ani conference 1

ABSTRACTS OF SOME OF THE PAPERS TO BE DELIVERED ON SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 10th.

The Historical Geography of Kars and Ani
Robert H. Hewsen, California State University, Fresno

Although obscure fortresses in antiquity, in the tenth century both Kars and Ani rose to become capitals of Armenian kingdoms, important commercial and cultural centers, and the sites of major monuments of Armenian architecture. In time, as trade routes shifted, each city came to dominate its respective territory, Ani becoming the center of the district of Shirak and in 984 the primary capital of the Bagratuni kingdom.

Destroyed by the Seljuk Turks in 1064, Ani rose again to become the center of Georgian rule in Armenia, and it continued to flourish under the Mongols and their successors, the Ilkhans of Iran. As the trade routes again changed in the late Middle Ages, however, the town gradually lost its importance and, destroyed again in an earthquake, was finally abandoned shortly before 1500.

Kars maintained its importance and, after the Ottoman and Persian empires divided Armenia between them in 1514, flourished as the major Ottoman fortress guarding the northeastern frontier. At the time of the Russo-Turkish War of 1828-29, Kars fell to the Russians but was returned to the sultan by the Treaty of Adrianople. During the Crimean War (1853-56), the fortress city underwent another Russian siege but, led by British military advisors, held out. In the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78, Kars again fell to the Russians, who this time, by the Treaty of Berlin, were allowed to keep it.

Over the next forty years, Kars became a Russian provincial town, capital of the Kars Oblast or province, and a major military installation. The tenth-century Cathedral of the Holy Apostles, converted into a mosque by the Turks, was appropriated for Russian Orthodox worship, the streets were paved and lined with rows of heavy one-story stone buildings in the Russian style, and numerous Russian sectarians (Molokans and Dukhobors) were settled in local farming villages given Russian names (Vladikars, Novo Estonskoe, Grenadirskoe, etc.).

During World War I, Kars was the base for the Russian invasions of Turkey, and after the Russians withdrew in 1917-18, the city became a part of the first Armenian Republic founded on May 28, 1918. When the resurgent Turks attacked the Republic in 1920, the city and its fortress were abandoned, its Armenian population fled or was massacred, and Kars became Turkish again. For a time, the cathedral was used to store oil drums, then it became a museum. In 1999, it was shuttered but there were plans to restore it as a mosque. The Russian peasantry, curiously unmolested during and after the Turkish reoccupation, were returned to Russia after a minor population exchange that took place quietly after World War II.

Today, Kars is still an important military center and one of the most European towns in Eastern Anatolia. The population is predominantly Turkish rather than Kurdish, the streets are full of soldiers, and women go about in Western clothing, quite unveiled. The traditions of Russian rule linger though, the accordion is a fixture in the local music, and in the hotel dining room the waiters, with a little urging from the locals, will demonstrate their prowess at performing the Lezginka.

The Emergence of the Bagratuni Kingdoms of Ani and Kars
Tim Greenwood, Oxford University

Towards the end of the ninth century, when Ashot I Bagratuni dominated Armenia, the principal Bagratuni center was Bagaran. Ashot I was crowned king at Bagaran (884) and was buried there (890). It was also the burial place for at least one of Ashot’s sons (the sparapet Shapuh) and one of his grandsons (Mushegh, son of Smbat I). However Ashot I’s son and successor, Smbat I (890–914), was crowned at Shirakavan (892) and founded there the church of the Savior of All. Although we do not know where his son, Ashot II Erkat (914–929) was crowned, it seems that he never possessed Bagaran – this was firmly under the control of his cousin and rival Ashot, who died after him in 936. Abas I (929–952) certainly did not have possession of Bagaran when he succeeded his brother Ashot II and preferred to embellish the fortress of Kars, building the church of the Holy Apostles. Finally in 961, king Ashot III was crowned in Ani and in the same year granted Kars, together with the district of Vanand to his brother Mushegh. Thereafter the two branches of the Bagratuni dynasty retained these two centres, to the extent that the members of each line tend to be identified in terms of one or other place.
Three principal conclusions and one question emerge:
(i) Four successive Bagratuni kings chose to develop four different centers, all within Shirak, rather than relying upon or expanding the contributions of their predecessors. This may reflect a personal attachment to or particular association with each site. However it may have more to do with the expected conduct of a prince. Each foundation expresses the self-confidence of the donor as well as promoting his authority, attesting his wealth and acknowledging his relationship with God.
(ii) We are told expressly that Abas I moved from Shirakavan to Kars because the latter was better defended. Given the martyrdom of his father at the hands of the Sadjid emir Yusuf and the military reverses encountered by his brother Ashot II Erkat at the hands of other Armenian and Iberian princes, his decision appears justified. A shift westwards also took him further away from the threat of Arab interference. The transfer from Kars eastwards to Ani may also have strategic reasons, given the recent boost to the prestige of Iberian princes after the fall of Karin in 949 and their acquisition of lands to the east of the city. The king of Abkhazia was also a threat. The grant of Kars by Ashot III to his brother created a useful defensive buffer for Ani.
(iii) The proliferation of fortified princely strongholds in Vanand, Shirak and Aragatsotn – including Ereruk, Aruch, and Talin requires explanation. These districts lay to the north of the Araxes River, whose valley provided the principal route through the heart of Armenia – hence Karin was first a Byzantine and then an Arab base whilst Dvin was first Persian and then Arab controlled. Armenian princes were not powerful enough to dominate the valley, and hence competed to control the fertile districts further north.
(iv) Unlike Bagaran and Shirakavan, Kars and Ani both developed rapidly into substantial urban centers, and thereby represent important exceptions to the general tendency of urban centers within Armenia to be under non-Armenian control – Dvin, Manzikert, Nakhchevan, etc. The first walls of Ani erected by Ashot III were superseded within a generation by a new barrier that trebled the size of the defended area. Why did Ani expand in this way and why did it remain the centre of royal Bagratuni power? The pattern of tax-remission to outside powers and the transit trade to Trebizond offer two possible avenues for further investigation.

The Church of the Holy Apostles at Kars and the Relief of Judas
James R. Russell, Harvard University

The Bagratid Church of the Holy Apostles at Kars has a circle of
bas-reliefs of Christ's disciples round the drum of the dome. One of these
is a crudely-executed figure at whose shoulders to snakes writhe
threateningly, as he raises his hands. Though some have sought to explain
the scene as a miracle, Armenian tradition considers the figure Judas
(Charents mentions it in his novel, The Land of Nairi). I think the figure
ought to be interpreted in the light of the Zoroastrian Iranian
iconography and mythology of accursed beings, in particular as related to
the well-known arch-heretic and patron of misrule, the dragon-man Azhi
Dahaka, known in Armenian tradition as Azhdahak (and New Persian Zohhak,
in the Shah-nameh of Ferdousi). The paper establishes the Kars relief in
both contexts, using both Persian and Sogdian art, and investigates the
influence of the pre-Islamic Iranian substrate on Armenian Christian and
other conceptions of biblical figures.

My conclusion however is that the man with snakes is, as Thierry
proposed, St. Gregory the Illuminator; and his presentation both undermines
the Iranian imagery, as that of Trdat as a boar was meant to do, and brings
together typologies of Daniel in the lions' den, Christ's harrowing of Hell, and
Jonah in the belly of the whale. Armanian medieval homiletics support this
interpretation. The image has an additional appeal to Armenians as a restatement
of the Indo-European dragon-slaying topos.

Medieval Chroniclers of Ani
Robert W. Thomson, Oxford University

This paper deals not with medieval chroniclers who describe the history of Ani, but with three Armenian historians who were associated with that city in the twelfth century: Hovhannes Imastaser Sarkavag, Samuel Anetsi, and Mkhitar Anetsi.

The importance of Armenian historical writing, both as a facet of Armenian literary and scholarly activity, and as a source for the wider history of the Near East, has often been noted. The early and medieval Armenian historians themselves, however, are rarely associated with a specific city, or even monastery. Occasionally an individual teacher had pupils who also pursued historical studies -- Vanakan vardapet, for example, in the thirteenth century and his disciples Kirakos and Vardan. But rarely can one speak of a local “school” of historical writing whose representatives evince common traits and attitudes.

In the case of Ani, however, three notable historians are associated with the city in the twelfth century. Hovhannes Sarkavag, priest at the cathedral, was famous for his wide learning and teaching as well as for writing several historical works. Samuel of Ani, pupil of Hovhannes, was the author of a comprehensive Chronicle to the year 1180. Mkhitar, also a priest at the cathedral of Ani, wrote a Chronicle to 1193.

The purpose of this paper is to assess whether the association of all three writers with Ani points to a common tradition of scholarship and a common approach to the writing of history. The development of Armenian chronicle writing, which was distinct from the composition of traditional “histories,” will also be considered.

From the Great Church at Ani to the Great Church in Constantinople: The Architectural Career of Trdat
Christina Maranci, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

In 989, the architect Trdat began work on the Cathedral of Ani, one of the most impressive surviving monuments of Armenian architecture. Completed in 1001, the Cathedral is a domed basilica, which was once topped with a tall drum and conical roof. Slender, web-like blind arcades ornament the exterior, and on the interior, pointed and profiled arches emphasize the verticality of the space. Painstaking stonework transformed the piers from monoliths into clusters of bundled colonnettes, and the apse from a solid curved wall into an elegant curve of recessed arches.

In the same year, Constantinople suffered an earthquake, and the Hagia Sophia, the “Great Church” of the city, was damaged: the main western arch and a portion of the dome collapsed. As Stepanos Taronetsi reports, the Byzantines summoned Trdat to aid in the repairs. Byzantinists have generally viewed this event as happenstance: Trdat happened to be available, and was summoned merely as an anonymous technician. Yet why would a technician be sought as far afield as Armenia? Trdat’s reputation as a royal builder at Ani, the numerous churches attributed to him, and the cosmopolitan nature of the city of Ani invite us to rethink this matter. This paper will consider Trdat’s commissions at Ani and in Constantinople in order to understand how his work (and perhaps more generally that of Armenian architects) was perceived during the Middle Byzantine era. It will be shown that the monuments at Ani are not only important statements of architectural virtuosity, but may have also functioned as markers of Armenian skill to a Byzantine audience.

Vardan Anetsi (about 1000) and His Poem on the Divine Chariot
Theo Maarten van Lint, Leiden University - Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster

Research carried out during the past decennia has clarified a great deal about the literary, artistic and intellectual activities connected with the city and kingdom of Ani, including the monastic schools founded at Sanahin, Haghbat, and elsewhere. Grigor Magistros (985-1058), a scion of the highly influential Pahlavuni family residing in Ani and a towering figure of Armenian culture, was
instrumental in the reappraisal of the work of Anania Shirakatsi and thus connected Armenian intellectual culture of the eleventh century with that of antiquity. A layman who established institutions of education, he also translated Plato's Timaeus and Phaedo into Armenian. His unique correspondence, which touches on matters of government, theology and literature is of the greatest importance in Armenian studies.

Study of the work of Hovhannes Sarkavag Imastaser (d. 1129), whose name is connected with the Cathedral school of the city, has among many other aspects revealed a close affinity with the Armenian version of Philo, while his poem on the vardapet and the blackbird marks a watershed in Armenian poetics, because in it a shift from an overriding ethic discourse to a work
ruled by esthetic principles becomes apparent. The examples could easily be multiplied.

Still, not all of Ani's treasures have been fully unearthed. One of these is Vardan Anetsi poem. Apart from a single article by Asatur Mnatsakanyan consisting of an introduction and critical edition of this four hundred line encomium, for almost a century silence has reigned supreme over the
work of this remarkable poet from Ani, Vardan vardapet, who possibly was of Mamikonian stock. His poetic reworking and interpretation of the throne vision related in the opening chapters of the old testament book of Ezekiel is the subject of this paper. So far interpretation of the poem has stressed only its perceived secularizing tendency. Productive in such an approach is the attention drawn to the pre-Christian elements of Armenian culture and their remnants in art and architecture. Mnatsakanyan thus stresses the Urartian element in the description of the four beasts, who were indigenous in Mesopotamia as separate dieties. Before him, Chobanian had pointed out the affinity of the poem with Ani's art and architecture. To this may be added the urban, even courtly character of some of its features. In this paper these elements will be considered in combination with fundamental intellectual
strands of the poem, such as its structure governed by a number symbolism deriving from Philo, which enable us to position it in the theological-philosophical milieu familiar from the works of the above mentioned Grigor Magistros and Hovhannes Sarkavag, as well as assign it a place within the development of Armenian exegesis and poetry, by revealing parallels with Grigor Narekatsi's taghs and the poem's affinity with the poetic works of Hovhannes Sarkavag.

Order in Choas: The Armenian Church of the Holy Savior in Ani
Diane Favro, Architecture and Urban Design, UCLA. Philip Stinson, Graduate student, Architecture and Urban Design. Justina Bandol, Graduate student, Slavic Languages and Literatures

In 1036, prince Abulgharib Pahlavuni commissioned the Church of the Holy Savior (Surp Amenaprkitch) at Ani to house a fragment of the True Cross. This centralized building has often been praised for its large dome, rich inscriptions, technical advances in construction and, above all, for its geometric purity. The elemental volumes of cylinders and spheres evident at first glance, however, mask a highly complex system of interconnected forms and proportions based upon sophisticated mathematical, geometrical, and astronomical knowledge. A virtual reality model of the reconstructed Church of the Holy Savior created in the UCLA Cultural Virtual Reality Lab has made possible an in depth formal, proportional, and solar analysis of the structure.

The geometry of Church of the Holy Savior is complex. At first glance the Church appears to have a circular plan and a scalloped interior with seven niches of equal size, and one wider on the east. Closer examination reveals the exterior is faceted, with 18 equal sides and one larger marking the entrance. Thus, the exterior articulation seems geometrically at odds with the interior. Why employ such different ordering systems? Which had primacy? What surveying system could be used to lay out such an intricate form? Similar questions arise in relation to the building's elevation. The 12 blind arcades on the upper drum have few points of coincidence with the architectural forms below or with the surmounting eight-conch cupola. The mixing of such different geometries was not due to lack of skill. In fact, the discrepancy between exterior faceting and interior niches required a highly sophisticated understanding of geometry and surveying in order to reconcile the points where the two systems converged: the doorway and the eastern niche. In like fashion, careful calculation was necessary to reconcile the unevenly spaced blind arcade on the lower level with the evenly spaced smaller blind arcade on the upper level. A working hypothesis is that church's complex articulation was based on the intricate interplay of proportions generated between a pentagon, pentagram, decagon and star-decagon. Such forms could be laid out with relative ease by surveyors using available measuring ropes and rods. More importantly, they reflected contemporary Armenian beliefs associating the intelligibility of god with universal values contained in the circle and sphere, and specific iconographic meanings with certain numbers.

The orientation and lighting of the Church of the Holy Savior also reflected potent and meaningful symbolic associations. The main entrance was placed on the side, rather than opposite the larger niche containing the altar was more typical in medieval Armenian architecture. On the practical side, this orientation may have responded to Ani’s pre-existing urban plan. Nevertheless, other factors should be considered as well. Analysis of the restored building in the Virtual Reality model reveals how light penetrating through a window above the altar at the lower lever, as well as through other windows in the upper drum, dramatized important parts of the contemporary Armenian liturgy. Overall, close examination of the building reveals important aspects not only of Armenian architectural design, but also of contemporary iconography, science, and religious practices.

Ani after Ani
Claude Mutafian, Université de Paris-Nord

The capture of Ani by the Byzantines in 1045 and by the Seljuk Turks in 1064 did not at all mean the end of Armenian Ani. It just meant the end of Armenian overlordship. In 1072, Sultan Alp Arslan handed over the city to Manuche, son of the last Bagratid king’s daughter and of Emir Abul Aswar, from the Kurdish Sheddadid dynasty which had been ruling Dvin and Ganzak for more than a century. Manuche called back the surviving Christian princes, favored the enthronement of Catholicos Basil of Ani, and restored life in the city. His son Abul Aswar II did not follow his Christianophile policy. The Armenians called for help the powerful King of Georgia, David, who captured Ani provisionally in 1124. The city fell again to the Tiflis Bagratids in 1161, in 1174, and finally in 1198. During the reign of the famous Queen Tamar, the two Armenian brothers, Zakare and Ivane, reconquered the whole of Shirak on behalf of the Georgian Crown.

Athough the « Sheddadid century » of Ani has not, in the main, been too bad for the Armenians, the Armeno-Georgian rule of the Zakarian was incomparably more comfortable. The city was governed by a council of notables, with a pretty autonomous administration. Like Kars, it resisted the assault of the powerful Khwarezm Sultan Jalal-ed-Din in 1226, and the Zakarian princes were pretty close to being considered as the heirs of the Bagratids. The few decades of Zakarian rule were particularly prosperous for Ani, but the city was to be soon confronted to the terrible Mongol invasion.

Under the kingship of Ogodaï, son of Gengis Khan, the Tatar general Chormaghan had been put in charge of the conquest of the Caucasus. He dispatched his lieutenants in the different regions. The South Caucasus was laid waste, and several Armenian princes chose to submit; in exchange, they had to participate to the next Mongol campaigns. Chormaghan had kept for himself the cities of Ani and Kars. The ruler of Ani, prince Shahenshah son of Zakare, was away when the Mongol ambassadors came to ask for surrender; the population put them to death. Consequently, the city was stormed and suffered terrible massacres and destructions. Many survivors chose emigration, particularly to the Crimea. Armenia and Eastern Georgia fell under Mongol yoke, the population became subject to heavy taxes and the rebellions of 1249 and 1259 were cruelly crushed. Nevertheless, thanks to the princes who had passed to the service of the new masters, the « pax mongolica » allowed a kind of resurrection of Armenia, and especially of Ani. This is confirmed by several eyewitnesses, particularly the Franciscan Rubruck in 1255 and the Nestorian Rabban Sauma two decades later, and by many inscriptions and colophons.

The Islamization of the Mongol Ilkhanate of Persia at the end of the 14th century was a hard blow and increased the emigration. Ani continued to be an important Armenian city, although declining. It had survived the Seljuk (1064) and Mongol (1236) invasions, but the fatal blow was to be given by the Timurid invasion at the end of the 14th century. After that, Ani is from time to time mentioned as a small borough; it disappeared little by little under the Persian Safavid rule which depopulated the whole area in front of the Ottoman enemy.

Trade, Administration, and Cities around Kars and Ani,14-16 Centuries
Tom Sinclair, University of Cyprus

The cities of Ani and Kars dominate he landscape of the plateau of Vanand and Shirak, which stretches from the mountains of Tao on the west to Alagöz on the east. However the true picture in the late Middle Ages was that the plateau was occupied by and administered from a number of towns, mostly in strong, naturally defensible positions created by ravines or erosion, such as Kechror/Gechvan and Bagaran. Kars and Ani were merely pre-eminent among these settlements. What was the fate of this constellation of fortified towns after the collapse of Mongol power, and did the Ottomans, even temporarily, restore the prosperity of the region and its towns?
In the Mongol period Ani and Kars lay on the line from the principal silk-producing regions of Iran, south of the Caspian Sea, to Erzerum and Constantinople. The trade with Constantinople seems to have suffered a relapse in the mid-14th century, when the Il-Khanid state finally disappeared. This in turn seems to mark the end of the commercial role of Kars and Ani in the pre-Ottoman period. At the same time there is no question of a standstill in the silk trade. Different routes were opened up: Aleppo rose as a commercial center after the conclusion of peace between Mongols and Mamluks in the early 14th century, and truly flourished in the mid-15th Century. This meant a partial realignment in favor of the Lake Van region cities. The general northern alignment continued in use, however, especially with the emergence of Bursa as a silk-trading and silk–weaving center. But the particular line chosen was that of Bayazid (former Dariunk) and Alashkert to the south of the Kars plateau. Lower volumes and the need for more secure sites may explain the shift.

Ani, however, despite its loss of population, remained the region´s local administrative capital, seat of governors installed by overlord powers such as the Jalayrids and Kara Koyunlu, until the late 14th or perhaps the early 15th century. Thereafter its role was taken over by Kars. Until taking over this role, Kars had been only one of a number of small towns, seat of a local Turkish lord, depending on a castle in a strong position. The other towns do seem to have experienced something of a decline, but some, such as Surmari, seem to have grown. Further east the overlord powers maintained a mint at Garni, which may be evidence of the growth of Erevan.

After further devastation in the Ottoman-Safavid wars of the early 16th century, the Ottomans captured Kars in 1534. The capture of the remainder had to wait until the campaigns of 1578. Kars became the capital of a province covering the whole region. It was heavily fortified in 1579 and built up as a settlement. The plateau´s small towns and strong citadels all became sanjak capitals. Ani, however, had been reduced to such a small size that it no longer had any administrative function.

In the late 16th century trade was organized along the same line of movement as in the Il-Khanid period: from the silk-producing regions, through Tabriz, Erevan, Kars, Erzerum and so to Bursa and Constantinople. The region had regained its former role. Why, then, did Ani not experience a resurgence and repopulation? In part Kars had taken over its commercial role, but the principal explanation seems to lie in the development of another city: Erevan.

Kars in the Russo-Turkish Wars of the 19th Century
Christopher J. Walker, London

Kars had international military and political significance from 1800 to
1878. It was a fortress town which grew to be a militarized area covering
about 8 square miles. The main question about it is: did it have real
defensive capacity for Anatolia (notably Erzerum), or was it a symbol of
imperial prestige whose only military use was as a forward position for the
capture of Tiflis (Tbilisi)? Arguments are assessed, and the issue of the British
trade route along the Alashkert valley is given a brief reference. Russian General
Paskievich conquered Kars and large areas of Turkish Armenia in 1828 and
1829, though most of the gains were returned by the 1829 Treaty of Adrianople..

In the 1830s the Ottoman Empire relied for its security first on Russia and
then on Great Britain. But the Ottomans continued to show an inability to win
wars, despite the Turks' self-description as an ordu or military millet.

The British were the leading force in the defense of Kars in 1855, even
though their presence was minuscule. Why were they there? (The French
were absent). The rationale given by the more hawkish of the British
establishment was the need to impress Persia and India that the British
meant better business than the Russians. Nevertheless Kars fell, and its
fall was debated for three sessions of the British House of Commons.

Kars returned as a focus, but militarily speaking less centrally, in the
war of 1877-78. The Russian army of the Caucasus was led by four Armenian
commanders. Great Britain was present only in an observer capacity. The Turkish
commander chose his main base of action at the Aladja Dagh, very near Ani,
perhaps anticipating a chance to push eastwards towards Erevan. But his
lines of communication to Kars were too long, and the tactics of the
Russian Armenian commanders outfoxed him; and despite winning a victory
which gave him the title of Gazi he was driven back first to Kars and then
to a spectacular collapse of the Ottoman army just east of Erzerum. Kars
itself capitulated in November 1877. In the subsequent treaty, Russia
retained Kars; the behavior of the Ottoman irregular forces had mirrored
that of the Bulgarian massacres, and the powers showed a slight awareness
that slaughter of villagers should not be rewarded

Kars in the Armenian Liberation Movement
Rubina Peroomian, UCLA

Freedom had been the central ideology of the Armenian Renaissance thought, and in the ever-deteriorating situation of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, armed struggle was to many the only way to attain that goal. The example set by the Greek and other Balkan peoples was encouraging. Archbishop Khrimian Hayrik’s admonishment to follow the example of self-help (the iron ladle) was sinking in the minds of the masses.

It was impossible to procure arms in the Ottoman Empire to conduct a planned and sustained armed resistance. Supplies had to be smuggled in by bands of fedayis carrying the heavy loads across the border. Between 1890 and 1904 the border regions of Kars and Kaghzvan were important gateways, and the city of Kars was the starting point for deliveries to destinations such as Karin (Erzerum), Khnus, Akhlat, Sasun, Alashkert, and Akhlat. This paper discusses the importance of the region of Kars as a meeting point for revolutionary activists and a place where Armenian youth were trained, inculcated with Armenian liberation ideology, and dispatched into the “homeland,” the Erkir. The political revival of the Armenian community in Kars, the development of a practical view of the Armenian liberation movement in the region, and the special ways the Karsetsis devised to purchase arms and ammunition and divert them to Western Armenia are examined. In fact, revolutionary work in Kars, under the most difficult circumstances and the constant threat of the Russian secret police, was shouldered mainly by local intellectuals and political activists. This paper will demonstrate that it was not only the strategic importance of the region but also the intense labor and dedication of its local activists that earned Kars a special place in the Armenian liberation movement.
The transportation or smuggling of weapons and ammunition into the Ottoman Empire with small and large bands of Armenian men from the region of Kars continued until late 1904. The obstacles were many, but the most difficult one, detrimental to the campaign, was Russian tsarist cooperation with the Turkish government to neutralize every movement across the Russo-Turkish border.
By 1904, experience had shown that it was counter-productive to arm Western Armenians through such costly and inadequate methods, and other means had to be pursued. Besides, in this new phase in the Armenian liberation movement, the need for a continuous supply of manpower and material from outside had diminished as had the role of Kars in that movement.

Armenians and Molokans: Karakala, 1870s-1920
Joyce Keosababian Bivin, Jerusalem

The Armenians living in Karakala were in daily contact with Russian Molokans
living in nearby villages. A group of these Armenians adopted the Molokan's religious beliefs and
customs. The community that was thus created survived the impending persecution by immigrating to the United States where it still exists, primarily in Southern California..

This paper focuses on part of the Armenian population of Karakala during the period of the 1870s to 1920. With the help of personal letters (written in Armenian from 1898 to 1922, and in Russian until as late as 1954), especially the correspondence between the members of the Keosababian and Perumian families who remained in Karakala and the Kars region and members of their families who immigrated to the United States, some progress can be made in sketching this unique community's history. Oral testimonies, a few autobiographies, and the writings of Russian Molokans supplement the information gleaned from personal correspondence.

A brief history of the Russian Molokans describes their expulsion by the Russian tsar to the Kars region, their unique form of worship, and their observance of biblical dietary laws and five biblical feasts. Of special significance is the influence of two young prophets on the Russian and Armenian Molokan communities.

The geographic location of Kars is discussed to determine which of three locations in Turkey is the Armenian Karakala. An old photograph of the Armenian Karakala provides a glimpse of the village and its inhabitants.