ABSTRACTS OF SOME OF THE PAPERS TO BE DELIVERED ON SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 11th.
The Kingdom of Vanand in the Structure of the Bagratuni
Rafayel Matevossyan, Institute of History, Erevan
The Kingdom of Vanand or Kars kingdom was one of the most important formations of the Bagratuni state of the 10th and 11th centuries. Its territorial core was made up of the provinces of Vanand and Arsharunik. The premises of Kars kingdom’s formation, the status of its kings and governors, as well as its institution of local administration characterize the internal policy of Armenian kings and their court.
The main characteristics of this policy are set out in my monograph (1990). These are:
1. Between 929-961 the city of Kars was the capital of Armenia, but in 961 King Ashot III the Merciful transferred the capital to Ani. Ashot's brother Mushegh was left as governor of Kars. In 961 he was recognized as a king and founded the Kingdom of Kars or Vanand.
2. Organization of the Kingdom of Kars was a result of important administrative and political reforms accomplished by the Bagratuni court (transferring of the capital and the Holy See to Ani, and some other arrangements). The aim of those reforms was to improve the state administrative system according to the demands of the time, particularly by creating strong security zones along the borders and assuring their control from Ani. To that end, the administration of Vanand and Tashir-Dzoraget, the first neighboring the Byzantine Empire and the second the Arabic and Kurdish emirates (Tiflis, Gandzak), was entrusted to members of the royal family, conferring on them the title of king.
3. Thus, the Kingdom of Kars and Lori were created from above, by the Bagratuni court, first on the initiative of Ashot III, and not as a result of local separatist tendencies of the governors, as often mentioned in historical works.
4. Ashot III succeeded in reuniting Armenian feudal (local) kingdoms in a federative alliance headed by Ani. During the Ani period (961-1045), the Armenian kingdom included the kingdoms of Bagratuni (Ani-Shirak), Vaspurakan (until 1021), as well as those of Siunik, Kars and Lori.
5. As the time passed, members of Mushegh's family tried to weaken their dependence on the "Head of the Nation" but not to separate fully from him. Separation from Ani was neither probable nor logical, as Kars-Vanand, and Lori-Dzoraget too, had hostile neighborhoods. Finally, the kings-governors of Kars did not achieve hereditary rule. The Armenian King of Kings Gagik I deprived Mushegh's grandson Gagik I Karsetsi of his power. Since 1020 (or maybe a little earlier) the administration of Kars was entrusted to Abas, younger son of King of Kings Gagik, who was followed in 1049 by his son Gagik II Karsetsi. Historians have not given due attention either to the reigns of the last two kings or to Mushegh's dethronement by the King of Kings..
6. After the conquest of Ani by Byzantium in 1045, Bagratuni’s rights of "Head of the Nation" and “King of Kings" were transferred to the king of Kars. But in 1065 Kars fell to Byzantium.
7. So the kingdoms of Kars and Lori were in fact parts of the Bagratuni kingdom and were committed to defend the state borders, just as the "Bedeshkhs\" had done in the Arshakuni period.
8. The kings of Kars were as follows:
Mushegh (961-984)
Abas I Karsetsi (984-990)
Gagik I Karsetsi (990-?)
Abas II Karsetsi (1020-1049)
Gagik II Karsetsi (1049-1065).
The Architectural Legacy of Ani
Sarkis Balmanoukian, Los Angeles
Throughout history, Armenians have built many capitals, most of which lie in ruins today. It is only within the Bagratid capital city of Ani (961 A.D.-1045 A.D.) that remnants of a civilization can attest to the magnificence of a medieval Armenian city. Among the ruins are glorious palaces, numerous churches, fortified walls, bridges, inns, villas, baths, as well as residential buildings. Much of the city's growth was the result of the Bagratuni kings' efforts to fortify and beautify their capital after gaining independence from the Arab Caliphate. Within a few decades, the city quickly rose to become one of the most prominent capitals in Asia Minor.A significant contribution to the city was also made by the Pahlavunis, a dynasty responsible for many of its remarkable churches.
Located in modern-day Turkey, Ani lies on the west bank of the Akhurian River, which serves as a border between Turkey and Armenia. In observing the splendors of Armenian architecture within Ani, it is clearly evident that many talented architects lived and worked within the city. Most renowned among the group is the Royal Architect Trdat (10th-11th c.), builder of the famous Cathedral of Surb Astvatsatsin in Ani (989-1001 A.D.). His work also included the Church of St. Grigor (Gagikashen), and he is remembered for his restoration of the cupola of the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople (989).
Ani's inhabitants included Armenian high nobility, clergy, and military men. It was this aristocracy that was responsible for the erection of numerous monasteries, churches, and mausoleums. From the great number of impressive churches that once filled Ani, only a few have survived the test of time and brutal vandalism. These include St. Grigor (Abugamrents), Church of the Holy Savior, St. Grigor (Gagikashen - a replica of Zvartnots), Church of Holy Apostles, and Shepard's Chapel, each one unique and at the same time incomparable in beauty.
The architects of Ani held high standards in military architecture. An impressive feature is the monumental dual-walls that fortified the city, built by King Smbat II (989 A.D.). On the northern side, they hold three gates flanked by giant semi-circular towers. Built with remarkable design and superb masonry, the walls give an elegant and decorative ambience to the entrance to Ani. Located at a higher elevation in the southern sector, the citadel of the Bagratunis was a prime example of the splendorous architecture of the dynasty. Within the citadel complex was the Royal Palace with auxiliary buildings, seven churches, and exterior fortification.
Perhaps the most significant monument within Ani, the Cathedral remains a masterpiece of both Armenian and world architecture. It takes traditional church design to new heights of sophistication and originality. Novel decorative and structural elements were implemented, such as blind arcades on the exterior facades and pointed arches and clustered pillars on the interior. The architecture of Ani was founded on older styles of Armenian architecture (6th-7th centuries) yet achieved newer interpretations of ancient building traditions. The vast expanse of the city's growth also brought about newer building types. Characteristic of Bagratuni architecture, churches had outstanding designs and elevations. Attributes within churches included decorated entrances, drums, and narrow windows (using multi-colored stonework). Within design, a new rational approach of organizing interior space was developed.
Ani experienced a second life during the Zakarian period (12th-13th cent.), when the city had ceased to be the capital of a kingdom yet continued to grow for over four tranquil decades into a prosperous city. Within this period, magnificent churches, monasteries, villas, and caravanserais continued to be erected. One of the more notable and best-preserved churches of this time is the St. Grigor church, built by the famous merchant, Dikran Honents, in 1215 A.D. Honents was also responsible for the erection of the Monastery of the Virgins, built directly on the rim of the Akhurian river. Both structures were heavily ornamented with decorative elements such as birds, animals, and various geometric shapes, an overall characteristic feature of the architecture of the Zakarian era. Another notable trait of the period was the use of monumental frescos that often adorned church interiors. Within other building types of the Zakarian period are private palaces and hotels. A significant piece of architecture of the time was the porch at the Church of the Holy Apostles. Situated on the western side, the porch displays diagonally intersected arches. There also existed three palaces, notable for their richly ornamented entrances, only one of which survives today.
With its glorious past and historical monuments, Ani has become a part of the Armenian legacy and psyche. The city stands witness to the ability of Armenian architects, in time of relative peace, to build masterpieces of religious and secular architecture that enrich world civilization. Upholding a strong cultural heritage that has passed through the centuries, Ani was and continues to be an inspiration to generations of Armenian and European architects.
The Kars Oblast, 1878-1918
Ashot Melkonyan, Institute of History
National Academy of Sciences, Republic of Armenia, Erevan
On November 6, 1878 Russian armed forces, commanded by Hovhannes Lazarev, Armenian by nationality, captured Kars. After this event Kars joined Russian Empire and was kept under Russian rule until the spring of 1918. On December 27, 1878, under the direct authority of the viceroy of the Caucasus, the Kars Oblast was formed. It was previously comprised of a regional center – Kars City, 6 districts – Kars, Ardahan, Zarishat, Shuragyal, Kaghzvan, Olti-Potskhov – and 2 sub-districts – Chldir and Khorasan. In 1881, as the result of administrative-territorial changes, the oblast was redivided into 4 districts (Kars, Ardahan, Kaghzvan, and Olti), which, in their turn, were split into 14 areas (in Russian - uchastok) and 148 rural communities with approximately 17 thousand square kilometers. During the four decades of Russian rule, considerable administrative-political, social-economic, demographical shift occurred in the oblast. Instead of the Turkish administrative system, the Russian system was implemented. Land, judicial, and financial reforms were carried out. Thanks to the investments made in local economy, the economic life of the oblast became substantially enlivened. By the end of the 19th century, Kars had become the main center for Russian commerce to the Ottoman Empire through Transcaucasia.
The demographic situation in the oblast radically changed because of Muslim population outflow to the Ottoman Empire and, simultaneously, the population inflow from Western Armenia, Akhaltskha and Akhalkalak districts of Tiflis province, and Armenian and partially Greek population of Erevan province, as well as Russian sectarians, under the tsarist government patronage. If in 1882 Armenians comprised 31.518 of the oblast’s population and in 1887, 38,518, in 1897, particularly after the Hamidian massacres in Western Armenia, they numbered 73.000, and in 1913, 113.000. The Armenian element prevailed in the Kars and Kaghzvan districts. The Russian imperial government, aiming to strengthen its position in the region, set up dozens of Russian villages, particularly around Kars, with a combined population of some 20.000 inhabitants. The Greek settlements were located primarily around the southwestern borderland of the Kars Oblast. Muslims (Turks, Kurds, Turkmens, Karpapaks, and others) were settled primarily in the Ardahan and Olti districts.
In the 1890s Kars Oblast became one of the main centers of the Western Armenian liberation struggle movement. Through this path the fedayis advanced detachments and armed groups (S. Kukunyan, Khan, Nevruz, Ashot Erkat, Torgom and others) passed to Ergir. At the beginning of the 20th century, great fame was acquired by a leading body of revolutionary struggle – “Horn of Kars,” headed by Aram Manukian and then – Ruben Ter-Minasian.
From the last decade of the 19th century within the territory of the oblast, especially on the right bank of Akhurian, research work on medieval architectural masterpieces, chiefly conducted by famous Armenian and Russian scientists (N. Marr, T. Toramanian, H. Orbeli), started.
On November, 1914, the Turkish army invaded the Kars oblast, massacring its Christian population. From December 1914 to January 1915 in a bloody battle near Sarikamish, the Turkish army suffered an utter defeat and was thrown out of the oblast. Exploiting the situation, when the Russian Caucasian Army was broken up and withdrew due to 1917 October/November Revolution, the Turks captured the Kars Oblast in April 1918.
Archaeological Expeditions to Ani (1892/93, 1904-1917, and 1989-2000)
Raymond H. Kévorkian, Université Paris III, Sorbonne nouvelle
We plan to examine the circumstances that led the Academy of Saint-Petersburg to undertake excavations to Ani under the direction of Nicolas Marr. We will present members of the mission (Russians and Armenians), the organization of excavations and the daily life in Ani in the course of excavations. We shall then give a methodical description of the advance of works in three phases:
A. Excavations of 1892-1893 and its results;
B. Excavations of 1904-1914, with interruptions;
C. Work undertaken during the World War I and the evacuation by Armenians of a part of the museum, to the spring 1918, during the offensive of Turks
Through these three sections, we will give a historical overview of the urban development of the city, including its suburbs, from the origins to the period of Zakarids. A final brief part of this lecture is devoted to excavations conducted between 1989 and 2000 by Turkish archaeologists.
A precise topographic statement of the city of Ani intra muros, with the location of the religious, civic and defensive constructions of the city, will also be presented.
Résumé
Les fouilles archéologiques à Ani (1892-1893, 1904-1917 et 1989-2000)
Nous nous proposons d¹exposer les circonstances qui amenèrent l¹Académie de Saint-Pétersbourg à entreprendre des fouilles à Ani sous la direction de Nicolas Marr. Dans un premier temps, nous présentons les membres de la mission (Russes et Arméniens), l¹organisation des fouilles et la vie
quotidienne à Ani au cours des fouilles. Après quoi, nous donnons une description méthodique de l¹avance des travaux en trois phases :
A . Fouilles de 1892-1893 et ses résulats ;
B. Fouilles de 1904-1914, par grandes étapes ;
C. Travaux entrepris durant la guerre et évacutation par les Arméniens d¹une
partie du musée, au printemps 1918, lors de l¹offensive turque.
A travers ces trois sections, nous donnerons un historique du développement
urbain de la ville, y compris de ses faubourgs, de ses origines à la période
Zakaride. Une dernière et brève partie de l¹exposé est consacrée aux fouilles opérées
entre 1989 et 2000 par les archéologues turcs.
Un relevé topographique précis de la ville d¹Ani intra muros, avec la
localisation de chacun des édifices fouillés et des constructions défensives
et civiles de la ville, sera par ailleurs présenté.
G.I. Gurdjieff and the Armenian Quest in Kars and Ani
David S. Calonne, Wayne State University
G.I. Gurdjieff, born in Alexandropol in 1877, was a significant figure in modern esoteric spirituality who influenced many of the twentieth century's greatest thinkers and artists, including Frank Lloyd Wright, Rene Daumal, and Henry Miller. The son of an Armenian mother and Greek father, Gurdjieff traveled the world in search of the meaning of human life. Particularly important in this quest were the cities of Kars and Ani. The Kars Military Cathedral was the location of his early education under the tutelage of Dean Boorsh, as Gurdjieff informs us in Meetings with Remarkable Men. Kars, as the meeting place of Armenian, Turkish, and Russian traditions profoundly shaped his emerging philosophy.
Gurdjieff later traveled throughout Armenia—to Etchmiadzin in 1883, to Ani in 1886. Ani was particularly important, for here Gurdjieff and his friend Sargis Poghosian found a quantity of old Armenian manuscripts which contained references to the "Sarmoun Brotherhood," which Gurdjieff believed to be an ancient group devoted to spiritual wisdom.
My paper explores the central importance of Kars and Ani in Gurdjieff's quest for the secret of the life's meaning, as well as the centrality of Armenian traditions in his shaping of his philosophy.
Kars, 1914-1921: War, Revolution, Republic, Collapse
Richard G. Hovannisian, UCLA
The fortress city and province of Kars had great strategic importance during the years of war and revolution from 1914 to 1921. During the decades of Russian control. its fortifications had been
developed and expanded, adding to the natural defensive nature of this great outcropping from the
Armenian Plateau. During World War I it served as a key staging ground and defensive barrier for
the Russian imperial armies. It was a key objective in Enver Pasha’s disastrous 1914 winter campaign
which bogged down at Sarikamish.
The Russian revolutions of 1917 endangered the Caucasus front, as thousands upon thousands of Russian troops, caught up in the slogan of “land, peace, bread,” abandoned their positions and the occupied portions of the Turkish Armenian provinces. The hastily-organized Armenian corps was required to hold a front of some two hundred miles with only a few thousand men. Realizing the imminent peril to all the hard-won gains of the previous years, Armenian leaders in Tiflis attempted
to cooperate with Georgian and Muslim (Azerbaijani) leaders in denouncing the Bolshevik revolution
in Russia and of establishing a temporary Transcaucasian regional administration known as the Commissariat and its legislative counterpart, the Seym.
These attempts were thwarted, however, by the Brest-Litovsk peace treaty between Soviet Russia and Germany and its allies, including the Ottoman Empire. As relating to the Caucasus, the
treaty not only returned to Turkey all occupied territories in the eastern provinces but also awarded to Turkey the entire province of Kars. A new Turkish offensive in the winter and spring of 1918 rolled
over Erzinka (Erzinjan) and Karin (Erzerum) into Kars province. General Nazarbekian’s preparations to defend the Caucasus by putting up a stiff resistance at gateway fortress of Kars were annulled by a command from Tiflis, from the premier-designate of an entity known as the Federated Republic of
Transcaucasia, in which the Armenians had decided to participate in the hope of getting Georgian and local Muslim cooperation in blocking further Turkish advances into the Caucasus. Thus in April of 1918 the great citadel fell to the Turkish armies and remained under Turkish control until the end of World War I.
After the collapse of the short-lived Transcaucasian Republic and the formation of the three separate republics of Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia, the Armenian leaders tried to persuade the Turkish leaders to withdraw from half of the Erevan province and Kars but to no avail. It was only
after the Turkish defeat in the war and some degree of Allied hesitation that at last the Turkish armies
withdrew from Kars in April of 1919, allowing the small land-locked republic to double in size. During
the year and a half that the city and fortifications of Kars remained in Armenian hands, thousands of
Armenian refugees returned to the region, hoping soon to be press over the pre-war borders to their homes in Turkish Armenia. At the same time, however, Turkish resistance leaders, headed by Mustafa Kemal and General Kiazim Karabekir sent arms, equipment, and officers into the province to foment Muslim rebellions against Armenian rule. Nonetheless, by September of 1920, the Armenian republic
had expanded almost to the outer limits of the province.
It was then in September of 1920, after conclusion of a secret Soviet-Turkish preliminary treaty and the receipt of the first shipments of Soviet gold and weapons that the Turkish Nationalist armies invaded the Armenian republic and made Kars their foremost objective. A superior strategist, General Karabekir had soon surrounded the fortress, causing panic among the Armenian troops, whose defenses collapsed at the end of October. Thereafter the Turkish armies occupied the rest of the province, forcing
an onerous treaty on the Armenian republic and compelling the Armenian leaders to accept Soviet rule
over whatever territories could be salvaged. By the treaties of Moscow and Kars in 1921, the Akhurian and Araxes rivers became the new borders between the new Turkey and the Soviet Caucasus, and Kars, Ardahan, Ani, and Mount Ararat were lost to the Armenians.
To Right a Wrong: Kars, Ardahan and Soviet Irredentism, 1945-1946
Robert O. Krikorian, Harvard University
Throughout most of the last several centuries, the territories once inhabited by Armenians were gradually reduced in size, either as a result of war, massacre or diplomatic intrigue. By the time the Russians occupied Eastern Armenia in the first decades of the 19th century, traditional Armenian lands had been devastated by a more or less continuous series of invasions, wars, deportations and migrations, between Turks, Persians, Russians and their various surrogates.
At the time of the creation of the independent Republic of Armenia, 1918, the territory of Kars had been incorporated into the tsarist Russian Empire for over a generation. Its strategic fortress stood guard over more vulnerable Armenian territories to the east and control of Kars was considered essential for the security of the Armenian State. As the quintessential borderland, it changed hands several times during the turbulent period during and after World War I.
Its loss to Kemal Ataturk’s Nationalist forces in 1920 was a devastating blow for the fledgling republic, which was never able to recover from this loss. This ignominious defeat was enshrined in the 1921 Treaty of Kars, which was signed between Turkey and the three Transcaucasian Soviet Republics. Thus the Armenian popular image of Kars was transformed from a symbol of strength into one of weakness and defeat.
On the eve of victory in World War II or the Great Patriotic War, Joseph V. Stalin initiated claims against the Republic of Turkey for the return of Kars and Ardahan. Armenians, both in Armenia and in the Diaspora, greeted these claims with enthusiasm and mobilized their resources to aid in the campaign for the reattachment of these lands to the Armenian SSR. A drive to repatriate Armenians from the Diaspora in order to populate these newly “liberated” lands was undertaken in support of the campaign, along with the publication of numerous tracts explaining the Armenian reasons for wanting these lands back.
The Armenians of the Diaspora, especially in the US, ultimately found themselves in a precarious position as the cordial relations of the World War Two era gave way to the Cold War. Their earlier enthusiasm for the reclaiming of Kars and Ardahan as well as the repatriation effort raised doubts and suspicions in the minds of many. Ultimately, Cold War politics intervened, Stalin’s claims were rejected, the Truman Doctrine was formulated, which aided Greece and Turkey in their struggle against perceived Soviet interference, and the Armenians were left once again with no tangible gains.
This paper will explore the purposes behind the original land claims, the efforts of Soviet and Diaspora Armenians to mobilize in support of these claims, and the course of events, which led to the eventual abandoning of the claims.
At the Crossroads of History: A Reappraisal of Eghishe Charents’ On the Road (Girk janabarhi)
Vartan Matiossian, University del Salvador, Buenos Aires
Eghishé Charents (Kars, 1897 --Erevan, 1937) is rightfully considered as one of the top names in 20th century Armenian poetry. He lived almost half of his life under the Soviet regime and was the star of Armenian literature during that period. He remained that even after being a victim of the Stalinist purges and having gone through sixteen years of complete prohibition and oblivion.
Charents' career and complex poetry reached its apex in his last published work, "Book of the Road" (Girk janabarhi), which saw light in 1933. It was released only after some of its contents was eliminated due to censorship. "Book of the Road" was attacked from the very first moment for its so-called "ideological deviations" and labeled as "nationalistic."
The first section, "At the Crossroads of History" (Patmutian karughinerov), was mainly under fire. It contains, among others, two quite controversial texts: the one which gives title to the section, a meditation about Armenian history as a whole, and the long narrative poem "Vision of Death," (Mahvan tesil), devoted to the late 19th century-early 20th century period, when Armenians went through the movement of national liberation and the catastrophe of the Genocide. He anonymously depicts here many figures involved with this historical period, whose sole mention was usually forbidden during his time.
The third poem which stirred much controversy and was pointed as the cause of Charents' disgrace is “Bidding” (Patgam),a seeming piece of Soviet propaganda which contains an acrostic composed through the second letter of every line. The acrostic reads, in English translation: "Oh Armenian people, your only salvation lies in your collective power." It has been frequently quoted as a catch phrase by speakers and journalists.
The poems of the first section have been alternately regarded both as a product of anti-nationalism (nihilism) and nationalism. From opposite poles, the last view was broadly favored both in the Soviet Armenian press contemporary to Charents and in the A.R.F. (Dashnaktsutiun) literature, as an attack over the internationalist views held by Communism. Vahan Navasardian, a long-time editor of the A.R.F. daily Husaber, published in Cairo, must be especially noted for his lengthy attempt at explaining the nationalist thesis in his posthumous book Charents (in Armenian, Cairo, 1957). He based his opinions on an assessment of the three above mentioned poems.
This paper will deal with these politico-ideological interpretations and attempt a fresh look at the question through the analysis of the poems under consideration.
Ani and Kars in Post-Stalin Soviet Armenian Literature
Anahid Keshishian, UCLA
The loss of the cities and villages of Western Armenia was not significantly present in theSoviet Armenian literature of the1960s onward, with several exceptions such as the poetry of Hovhannes Shiraz and some prose by Vartkes Petrosian, Hrant Matevosian, Armen Martirosian, and others.
As a consequence of the brutal purges of the Stalin era, Armenian literature was doomed to a state of impotency. The literary arena was swamped by “minstrel”quality poems. Any expression of national soul or sentiment was viewed as an anti-revolutionary act and was squashed before it might have a chance to flourish.
In order to boost the morale of the men under arms during the last years of World War II, a slight tolerance was granted for the publishing of certain patriotic literature. Even though contemporary national issues were not depicted in the literature during those years, it was refreshing to be able once again to read works by such literary giants as Raffi, Nalbandian and others. The restrictions and literary censorship were again implemented and even hardened after the war and persisted for more than another decade. It was only after Stalin’s death and the beginning of the de-Stalinization campaign that the entire country finally entered into a relatively open way of life. During the1960s the previous soulless and panegyric poetry was being replaced by poetry that would strive to penetrate into the deeper layers of the human soul and focus on the individual human being rather than the heroic masses.
It was during these years that Paruyr Sevak’s “Anlreli Zangakatun” was published, for the first time depicting the tragedies of a very near past of Armenian history. And it was during these same years that Hovhaness Shiraz dipped his pen into the national soul and lamented the loss of his country.
Descending from Karsetsi and Anetsi parents, Hovhaness Shiraz made Ani and Kars the centrifuge of his laments to the lost lands. The pain his parents bore witnessing the loss of these cities heavily affected him. It was an obsession for Shiraz to see Ani, Kars, and other lost cities of the homeland. That is why he sings the longing for these cities with such rage and passion. By doing so, he also intends to waken and keep the memories of these cities in the hearts of Armenians.
”I want to see Ani, and then die,”
”Am I not going to see my Kars any more?”
”If the road opens, I’ll go to Kars barefoot,”
”My mother wanted to be buried in Kars, my father, in the mother city of Ani.”
Such expressions fill the poetry of Hovhanes Shiraz, especially in the
books Statue to My Mother and Statue to My Father.
In the 1980s a few literary prose pieces were dedicated entirely to Ani, among these a play by Hrand Matevosian and historical novels by Vardan Grigorian and Armen Martirosian. Although not as abundant, there are references to Kars and Ani in poetic works by Gevork Emin, Vahagn Davtian, Silva Kaputikian, Hovhaness Grigorian, Davit Hovhannes. By showing the literary concern with Kars and Ani, this paper may convey an understanding of the phenomenon of singing for a lost homeland.
The Armenian Dialect of Kars
Bert Vaux, Harvard University
The residents of Kars and surrounding villages spoke a distinct dialect of Armenian, but this dialect has yet to be studied by linguists. (It is not even mentioned in the most inclusive treatment of Armenian dialects, Gevork Jahukyan's Hay barbaragitutyan neratsutyun (1972). Adjarian 1911 and Gharibyan 1954 label it a subdialect of Erzerum, but provide no linguistic information.) Though to the best of my knowledge no native speakers of the dialect remain, it is still possible to piece together a coherent picture of the dialect in the period immediately before its final annihilation in 1920-21. In this talk I begin this task, drawing from contemporary letters, songs, and dialogs ensconced in novels and histories produced or based in Kars. I then place the Kars material in its dialectological context, focusing on relations to the dialects of Erzerum, Bayburt, Basen, Gyumri, Akhaltskha, and Akhalkalak.
|
