Annual Colloquium in Armenian Studies

Graduate Student Colloquium in Armenian Studies
University of California, Los Angeles
Royce Hall 306 & 314
February 16, 2024

_____________________________________________________________

2024 Graduate Student Colloquium in Armenian Studies Program

RSVP Here

Guests

Nazelie Doghramadjian

Speaker Bio
Nazelie Doghramadjian is a PhD Student at the University of Michigan School of Information. She holds a B.A. in Humanities from Villanova University. She has worked for a variety of non-profit organizations including Data & Society Research Institute, Maine Writers & Publishers Alliance, and A Better Tech NYU. Her research is currently focused on archival silences and personal recordkeeping practices, specifically in the Armenian community in metro-Detroit.

Abstract
Luckily, one of the largest Armenian communities in America also has some of the most important archival institutions, active community members and youth groups, and rich cultural events at its disposal here in Michigan. However, institutions such as the Mardigian Library in Southfield and the Armenian Research Center in Dearborn are replete with memoirs, personal papers, unpublished manuscripts, journals, letters, photos, stories, music records, and academic journals written, edited, and produced by men, yet so much of our cultural heritage is strengthened and carried on by past and current Armenian women—both individuals and women’s groups alike. What do these silences tell us, and in what ways are they filled? What are the other ways in which Armenian women’s voices, stories, and records carry on a heritage and culture that goes unrecognized?

This paper culminates from an ethnographic study of interviewing 12 Armenian women who are seen as cultural linchpins in the metro-Detroit community here in Michigan, as well as participant observation from select events, and archival research at the two cultural institutions mentioned above. I will be qualitatively coding and thematically analyzing each interview and accompanying field notes in order to answer my overarching research question: What types of informal archival practices do Armenian women engage in, and what is the significance of these practices? Specifically among Armenian women in the community that are linchpins of cultural life, how do their practices sustain collective memory and support knowledge production?

Francesca Cheli

Speaker Bio
Francesca Cheli is a medieval archaeologist with a specialization in stratigraphic excavation and Building Archaeology. She holds a Master’s degree and a diploma of Specialist in Archaeology from the University of Florence, Italy. Since 2014, she has been a team member of the Italian Archaeological Mission in Armenia The Making of the Silk Road in Armenia (University of Florence – prof. M. Nucciotti and Yerevan State University/IAE NAS RA – prof. H. Petrosyan). Currently, she is a PhD Student in History within the ERC project ArmEn (P.I. prof. Z. Pogossian), at the University of Florence and Siena. Francesca’s research focuses on the study of Chinese celadon and porcelain imports and imitations in Armenia from the 7th to the 14th centuries. Her work aims to shed light on Eurasian connectivity during this period. The paper she is presenting today, entitled “From China to Armenia. Chinese pottery imports and imitations as indicators of cultural entanglements: the case study of Ani and Dvin” looks into Chinese pottery production and provides some reflections on the cultural exchanges and artistic influences in Bagratid and Seljuks period Armenia, particularly related to the material contexts of Ani and Dvin.

Abstract
Due to its geographical position, Armenia has been a nodal point for Eurasian trade over centuries along the east-west and north-south axes of the so-called Silk Road(s). In this framework, the study of imported ceramics can play a crucial role in comprehending Armenia’s medium and long-range connectivity due to commercial and cultural networks. My Ph.D. research topic focuses on the analysis of the trade routes across historical Armenia, with a specific emphasis on the study of imported and imitated Chinese pottery, mainly celadon and porcelain. This analysis covers a period marked by significant political changes, spanning from the 7th to the 14th centuries. The study relies on excavation data that have documented Chinese imports since the 9th-10th centuries. After providing a brief overview of the original Chinese artefacts, with a specific focus on the raw materials employed and the distinctive technological aspects of the production process, this paper will present the preliminary results of my research and offer some remarks on the cultural exchanges and artistic influences during Bagratid and Seljuk periods, related to the material contexts of Ani and Dvin. It, therefore, aims to highlight connectivities along the Silk Roads, which played an active role in the entanglements of Eurasian cultures. The research is part of the ERC ArmEn project and will contribute to the study of material culture and the material evidence when tracing a broader understanding of Armenia’s historical role in medieval global trade networks.

Hayarpi Hakobyan

Speaker Bio
Hayarpi Hakobyan (she/her) is a PhD Candidate at the Department of Christian Orient and Byzantium, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg. She received her BA and MA in Art History from Yerevan State University. She has also carried out short-term studies and research at the Universities of Aix-Marseille, Paul Valery Montpellier 3, the Institute for Advanced Studies in Levant Culture and Civilisation in Bucharest, the University of Hamburg, and the University of Lille. Her research focuses on medieval Armenian manuscript production and book illumination around Lake Van in the late 13th and mid-14th centuries. Her academic interests include medieval Armenian art and its references to Eastern Christian and Middle Eastern art.

Abstract
The paper examines the medieval Armenian book production in the Lake Van basin between 1275 and 1350. Manuscripts from this period have been listed on the basis of catalogues of manuscripts and Armenological literature. The research brings together all the available manuscripts from the period in question, making a statistical assessment of their thematic content and structure, their current distribution in the world’s libraries, and an estimate of their approximate loss. We have grouped the monastic scriptoria around the centres of the cantons – Aghtamar, Ardjesh, Artzkē, Berkri, Lim, Khizan, Moks and Van. In addition to the famous monastic complexes, manuscripts have also been produced in certain villages, the existence of which is often only known today thanks to the colophons attached to the manuscripts. Of the 121 known manuscripts from the region created during this period, 85 have survived and 36 are considered lost. Most of the preserved manuscripts are now kept in the Matenadaran, and a smaller number in the libraries abroad. In terms of content, the majority of manuscripts are gospels, while a smaller number are theological compendia, ritual books and historical accounts. This grouping allows us to gain an insight into the cultural life that developed around Lake Van during this period, the activities of the monastic and educational centres, and the life and relationships between scribes, artists, and clerics.

Orhun Yalcin

Speaker Bio
Orhun Yalçın is a Ph.D. candidate in Geschichte und Kultur des Nahen und Mittleren Ostens at the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (LMU), specializing in Ottoman history. He studied the internal relations of Armenians and their relations with the state during the modernization period of the Ottoman Empire in the Department of History at Boğaziçi University between 2014-2019. He continued his master’s studies there and was graduated in 2022, where his thesis explores later Ottoman politics as reflected in articles of the Azadamard Armenian newspaper. Besides teaching history at Boğaziçi, Yalçın has also worked with the Hrant Dink Foundation as co-editor of a book about the socioeconomic conditions of the Armenians in Van during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The paper being presented today is titled “Armenians of Kawar and the Armenian Revolutionary Federation in the Ottoman Empire”. It demonstrates the Ottoman modernization process through the political trajectory of ARF from the 19th century to the 20th century, a period that laid the foundations of the nation-state of Turkey.

Abstract
This presentation examines the policies of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) through the articles published by the Azadamard newspaper, the publishing organ of the ARF, between March 1911 and September 1912. The ARF was the “new Armenian knight,” and it pinned its hopes on the 1908 constitution by becoming allies with the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) when the chronic problems that the state had refused to solve during the Tanzimat and Hamidian eras persisted. Security of life, honor and property, military service, decentralization, elimination of non-Muslims, socialists and peasants in the system, and land usurpation were the main issues that the ARF frequently discussed in the Azadamard in 1911 and 1912. This presentation will argue that the trajectory of ARF from the Ottoman provinces to the Ottoman capital underwent a significant change. While its starting point in the provinces was protecting Armenians, ARF’s engagement in the capital was a different one. I believe this policy shift is a significant turning point in understanding the politics of the ARF and its relationship with the state. The ARF’s understanding of socialism before the 1908 constitution encouraged revolutionary armed struggle under the influence of the Russian Narodniks, which was intertwined with nationalist ideas. Nevertheless, ARF’s policy could be called Socialist Ottomanism after the proclamation of the 1908 constitution. In short, this presentation will demonstrate the Ottoman modernization process through the political trajectory of ARF from the 19th century to the 20th, a particular period that laid the foundations of nation-state Turkey.

Andranik Nahapetian

Speaker Bio
Andranik Nahapetian (he/his) is a master’s student in the Free University of Berlin Institute of Iranian Studies. He holds a Diploma from INALCO (Paris) in Armenian Language and Civilization as well as a Master’s degree from Southern Federal University in Foreign Regional Studies. Andranik has carried out an extensive research of genealogical sources in historical archives of the Republic of Armenia and Russian Federation. The paper he is presenting today, entitled “The Genealogy of the Armenian Colony of Nor Nakhichevan by the Example of the Ancestry of Simon Vratzian” provides an insight into six generations of family history of the fourth Prime Minister of the first Republic of Armenia since late 1700s. His study is based on the data of archival sources, memoirs, oral history, DNA testing and other sources.

Abstract
The Armenian colony of Nor Nakhichevan was founded by Armenians of Crimea at the end of 1779 – the beginning of 1780, after the resettlement of Christian population of Crimean Khanate to the Azov Governorate of Russian Empire, organized by the Russian Empress Catherine the Great in 1778-1779. Genealogy as a separate branch of auxiliary historical sciences, among codicology, epigraphy, numismatics, onomastics, palaeography, toponymy and others is probably the most underrepresented one in the academic field of Armenian studies. As stated by a record in a parish register of the local Armenian church, Simon Vratzian (né Simavon Kuruzian) – the fourth prime minister of the First Republic of Armenia (December, 1920), was born in Medz Sala – the one of the five historical Armenian villages of Nor Nakhichevan, on March 24, 1882 by Old Style (Julian calendar), which equals April 5, 1882 by modern Gregorian calendar. The study applies interdisciplinary approach with an analysis of the combined data contained in archival sources from Armenia and Russia: population censuses, local parish registers etc; oral history and fieldwork in Medz Sala; DNA analysis of Y-chromosome; the six volumes of autobiographic recollections left by Simon Vratzian; as well as the other sources. The analyzed data enabled us to reconstruct the family tree chart for the period of 1780-1924 and documentally confirm and complete the information provided in autobiographic recollections. It also sheds light on the historical demography of the Armenian colony of Nor Nakhichevan and partially on the origin and formation of the late medieval and early modern times’ Armenian colony of Crimean peninsula.

Kima Sarbekyan

Speaker Bio
Kima Saribekyan (she/her) is a PhD Candidate in the Pazmany Péter Catholic University History Department in Global Armenian Studies. She holds two master’s degrees from PPCU and Russian-Armenian University (Yerevan) in History and International Relations as well as Bachelor’s degree in International Relations from Russian-Armenian University (Yerevan). Kima’s research at PPCU delves into unexplored narratives surrounding the French Mandate in Cilicia during the Interwar Period, 1918 to 1939. The paper she is presenting today is titled “Interpreting Cilicia and the French Mandate in Armenian Educational Materials.” The article’s key objective is to analyze the main themes and perspectives of the French Cilician campaign portrayed in the Armenian high school history textbooks.

Abstract
This study explores the fascinating complexities of the Interwar Period, revealing its profound impact on the Middle East landscape following World War I. One of the central issues of this work lies in France’s endeavors in Cilicia, a region steeped in historical significance within the post-Ottoman Middle East. The core of this research seeks to unravel Cilicia’s historical standing within the post-World War I Middle East, thoughtfully considering the international agreements and the conflicting claims of France, Syria, and Turkey. A key objective of the research is to answer the following questions: What themes and perspectives are evident in Armenian high school history textbooks when it comes to portraying the French Cilician campaign, and how do these relate to the region’s broader historical narratives? The study of historical narratives surrounding Cilicia and the French Mandate System during the Interwar period (1918-1939) will reveal a complex interaction of political, cultural, and socio-economic factors that shaped societal perceptions and understandings at that time. Depending on how these histories are constructed and interpreted by different stakeholders, they may highlight the tensions between colonial ambitions, local identities, and international influences. Furthermore, the exploration of these narratives could potentially unveil overlooked perspectives and offer insights into the broader dynamics of imperialism, nationalism, and post-World War I reconstruction in the Eastern Mediterranean region. In the backdrop of ideological and geopolitical showdowns between French colonial powers and Soviet Russia, this study offers a meaningful contribution to the scholarship on the Interwar period, extending across France, Russia, and Armenia.

Anush Apresyan

Speaker Bio
Anush Apresyan is a Senior Researcher at the Matenadaran, Mesrop Mashtots Research Institute of Ancient Manuscripts, in the Department of Medieval Literature and Philology. She is a Ph.D. Candidate specializing in Classical Armenian Literature and holds a Master’s and Bachelor’s Degree in Philology from the Yerevan State University of Armenia. Anush’s research at Matenadaran focuses on Medieval Armenian literature, specifically on St. Gregory of Narek, a 10th-century monk and theologian, and his work, the Book of Lamentation, as well as its translations, interpretations, and editions. Additionally, her studies include issues related to the theory of Armenian and world translation literature. The title of the paper being presented today is “The Spiritual-Cultural Significance of the Translation: Nemesius of Emesa’s Treatise On Human Nature” focuses on one of the notable Armenian translations from the late period of the Greek school. This presentation highlights the importance of this translation for medieval Armenian theological and philosophical thought, as well as reveals the peculiarities of the translation traditions developed by the representatives of the Greek school.

Abstract
One notable translation from the late period of the Hellenistic school is the Armenian translation of Nemesius of Emesa’s treatise On Human Nature by Step‘anos Siwnec‘i and Davit‘ Hypatos in 717. This research, on the example of a Byzantine translation, attempts to study how the translator perceives, interprets, and reproduces Greek works in Armenian, what problems he encounters in translating the text, and what solutions he offers. The analysis of this translation not only provides an opportunity to evaluate the translator’s efforts but also detect problems and some peculiarities of the translation, which may also be applicable and effective for the future translators of Emesa’s work. Thus, the importance of this translation is examined from the following perspectives: The translation of Emesa’s treatise is of inestimable importance for medieval Armenian theological and philosophical thought. Its significant premises were incorporated into the works of Armenian authors, greatly influencing the development of anthropological and medical thought. It was also used as a manual in monastic schools. In the study of translation from the perspective of textual phenomena, it is evident that the representatives of the Greek school formed translation traditions to translate hard-to-understand works. Firstly, the translators enriched the Armenian language with new words and concepts, creating a specialized vocabulary that allowed for the expression of even the most abstract ideas. Secondly, they relied on literal translation to maintain the linguistic complexities of the original, which could be subject to different interpretations. The Armenian translators of Nemesius’ book also followed these principles.

Levon-Leonidas Ntilsizian

Speaker Bio
Dr. Levon-Leonidas Ntilsizian was awarded his PhD in history and political science in 2023 from Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences (Greece). He holds a MSc in Southeastern European Studies from the University of Athens and a Bsc in Political Science and History from Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences (Greece). His research interests are based on Balkan history, foreign policy and minority issues. Dr Ntilsizian’s PhD thesis which focuses on the historic presence of Armenians in Greece during the Cold War is under publication by Crete University Press.

Abstract
The research paper investigates Greece’s state policy towards the Armenian community in Greece from 1945 to 1975. The paper focuses on the main issues raised by the presence of Armenians in Greece, such as living conditions, education, citizenship, housing and community’s legal personality – issues which determine Armenian’s connection with the Greek state and their daily life in Greece throughout the Cold War era. Special emphasis is given on the presentation of the great wave of repatriation from Greece to Soviet Armenia during the Greek Civil War (1946-1947) which defined the Armenian’s community role in Greece for the following years, as well as to the immigration of Armenians to Argentina and Canada (during the 1950s) in combination with the measures taken by the Greek government to facilitate and influence Armenian’s movements. Despite the fact that the Armenian’s imprint in Greece can be traced at least from the 17th century with a timeless presence in the Greek area consisting one of the main minority groups in Greece, the research effort has only partially covered the Armenian local communities in Greece. The aim of the paper is to shed light to this research gap and point out the relations of the Armenians with the Greek state during the post-war period 1945-1975. The paper follows through a historical analysis a chronological narration based on unknown and unreleased documents from the historical archives of the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs in combination with local Armenian and Greek primitive archives.

Arev Papzian

Speaker Bio
Arev Papazian (she/her) is a PhD candidate in Sociology and Social Anthropology at the Central European University. Her research project is an ethnography of fishing and nature protection at Lake Sevan in Armenia, and looks into nature management through conservation and resource use, its relation to labor, capital, and the state. She holds an MSc in Social Anthropology from the University of Oxford, and a BA in Sociology and Anthropology from the American University of Beirut. Today she is presenting an ethnographic analysis of the annual fishing ban at Lake Sevan and relating it to conflicts over property, rights to use natural ‘resources’, as well as labor and market relations.

Abstract
There is a consensus among the general public in Armenia, in harmony with the official state narrative, that Lake Sevan is a ‘national park’ of strategic importance and a natural space that has to be preserved. At the same time, Lake Sevan has for centuries been the habitat of people who have established residence there to live with and by the lake and its resources, namely fish. While the official and dominant narrative stresses the importance of state regulation of fishing for the sake of ‘nature preservation’, local communities fight against the waves and the dominant narratives and state practices to survive through fishing. This paper is about the annual ban on fishing at Lake Sevan, and specifically the period of ‘stiffened measures’ that reveals the counter-narrative to nature preservation discourses. It is the event that brings to the surface the contestations over power and knowledge between citizens and the state, locals of the regions and metropolitans, the poor and the rich, the exploited and the exploiters. Rather than being a conflict between ‘illiterate, uncivilized’ people and ‘knowledgeable, environmentally conscious’ officials, experts or metropolitans, the dispute over the ban (its existence, timing, and duration) sheds light on a deeper and structural conflict and contestation over projects of nature management, and by that projects of statecraft, as well as development and control of capital. This paper is an anthropological and ethnographic account of the fishing ban at Lake Sevan, with a political ecology approach, and rejecting the binary of nature/humanity.

Emma Aragyan

Speaker Bio
Emma Avagyan (she/her) is a PhD student in the Middle East Department at the University of Michigan, specializing in Judaic and Armenian studies. She holds a Master’s degree from HJfH in Jewish civilizations and Israel and Hebrew studies from Ben Gurion University of the Negev and a Bachelor’s degree in Oriental studies from Yerevan State University.

Emma’s research at UM centers around the Armenian and Hebrew language revitalization movement in the 19th century during the Enlightenment era. The paper she is presenting today, titled “Armenian and Hebrew Revitalisation Movements in the 19th Century through the Lens of Khachatur Abovyan and Eliezer Ben-Yehuda,” offers a comparative socio-linguistic history of Hebrew and Armenian languages. The aim is to examine the similar visions of Khachatur Abovyan and Eliezer Ben-Yehuda in their efforts to preserve and revitalize the language through different means, ideologies, and methods.

Abstract
In the 19th century, the ideas of national and linguistic independence flourished in central and southern Europe as a result of the Enlightenment movement, which influenced the formation of the collective European society and the subsequent nationalist ideas of the ethnic and religious minorities coexisting with them. As a consequence , the languages of mass communication and those used predominantly in religious texts and rituals, such as Classical Armenian and Biblical Hebrew, underwent significant changes. Therefore, one of the most pressing issues for the pioneers of Armenian and Jewish enlightenment was to give these languages new vitality and make them usable for the populace. . This paper analyzes the comparative socio-linguistic history of Hebrew and Armenian languages in order to examine the similar visions of Khachatur Abovyan and Eliezer Ben-Yehuda in their efforts to preserve and revitalize the language through different means, ideologies, and methods in their newly formed national pedagogical arenas, despite living in different time periods and geographical locations. . Each of them experimented with and implemented various strategies and methods for reviving the national language, disseminating the vernacular-spoken language, and advancing education. Compilation of Abovyan’s “Nakhashavigh” (Abovyan, 1838, 1862) textbooks, teaching, and secular use in his literary works, Ben-Yehuda’s “Hebrew in Hebrew” (“ha-Tsvi,”1895) teaching method, various ways of bringing the Hebrew word into everyday life (editing works, creating new words and a dictionary) demonstrate the language as the primary indicator of national existence and revival.

Lorenzo Colombo

Speaker Bio
Lorenzo Colombo (he/him) is a Phd candidate in Armenology at the University of Geneva, in the Mediterranean, Slavic and Oriental Studies Department (MESLO). He holds a Master’s and a Bachelor’s degree in Classics from the University of Pisa, and is going to obtain a Specialization Diploma in Classics from the Scuola Normale Superiore of Pisa. His research interests revolve about Old Armenian translations of Greek texts, Late Antique and Byzantine literature, and Classical Philology. The paper he is presenting today, entitled “Censorhip in Pseudo-Nonnos’ armenien Scholies?”, suggests a possible explanation about some omissions in the manuscript tradition of the text, which may reveal an intentional act of censorhip by the Armenian translator.

Abstract
The Armenian translation of the Mythological Commentaries of Pseudo-Nonnos is listed among the works of the Yownaban Dproc’, or Hellenising School. It consists in the explanation of the myths mentioned in four discourses by the Greek Church Father Gregory of Nazianz, who was well-versed in classical culture, while his audience and specially his readers didn’t understand much of what he was referring to while talking about pagan gods and heroes. In this text, edited by J. (H.) Manandean in 1903, a recurrent pattern can be noticed. There are many occurrences of indecent situations in the myths narrated, such as rapes, pederasty, and sodomy; however, the Armenian manuscripts of this work often omit exactly the parts of the Commentary which could arouse the reader’s outrage or embarrassment. The aim of this paper is to study the cases in which this censorship is put in place and determine whether the omissions in the manuscript tradition of the text are to be attributed to the original translator of the work (around VII century) or are just a case of pruderie by the scribes. Given that the first option is probably correct, a reflection on the duties and purposes of a translator must be carried on, even if this translator worked almost 1500 years ago.

Nils Berliner

Speaker Bio
Nils Berliner (he/him) is a master’s student at the Faculty of Humanities and Education at the Technical University of Berlin with specialization in history of science and humanities. He holds a bachelor’s degree in Near and Middle Eastern Studies from Ludwig Maximilian University Munich. In his master’s degree, he focused in detail on the exclusion of gendered and racialized knowledge from the academic canon and its explanations based on materialist theories. For two years, together with a fellow student, he led the student research project “(a)political scholarship” in which students from various fields of study dealt with the exclusions of their disciplines. The paper “The scholarly Aufarbeitung of the Armenian Genocide in Germany”, which he will present in the Colloquium, and which is based on his master’s thesis, provides an overview of the continuity of the exclusion of Armenian knowledge in the academic study of the Armenian Genocide in Germany.

Abstract
Since the 1880s, the German Reich pursued a colonial policy in the Ottoman Empire at the behest of German companies. Within the framework of this colonial policy, German companies and entrepreneurs profited from the primitive accumulation by murdering and overexploiting Armenians to an increasing extent. Despite the strong colonial intertwining of German history and present with the Armenian Genocide, there is hardly any research on the topic in Germany. My paper approaches this gap by looking at the colonial structures and historical continuities in the Humanities in Germany. The paper follows a tradition of materialist theories that understand scholarly practices and discourses also as testimony to the rationalisation and justification of the inherent violence of primitive accumulation. The outcome of this scholarly rationalisation in connection with material distributional struggles in science and the Humanities has been extensively theorised in philosophic, sociological, and historic works in racism and gender studies. Through interviews with contemporary witnesses in the Humanities, continuities in the representation and allocation of research funds are revealed in the paper. The contemporary witnesses I selected are representative of different traditions of coming to terms with German-Ottoman colonial history, the postcolonial present and the Armenian Genocide. The interviews provide structural background information on the research conditions under which scholars from different traditions work in Germany. My paper is intended to show impossibilities, perspectives, and horizons on the scholarly Aufarbeitung of the Armenian Genocide in post-genocidal Germany.

Andranik Yesayan

Speaker Bio
Andranik Yesayan is a PhD Candidate and Senior Assistant in the Institute of History at NAS RA Department of Medieval History. He holds a Master’s and Bachelor’s degree in History from Yerevan State University. His dissertation is entitled “Northeastern Armenia in 1600-1725: A Historical-Demographical Analysis”. Andranik’s research interests include demographic transformations in Armenian peripheral cantons (Tavush, Gardman, Miapor) during the Early Modern period. The paper he is presenting today is entitled “Demographic Transformations in Armenian Peripheral Canton Tavush Under Safavid and Ottoman Rule (1600-1725)”. This research provides a detailed analysis of the historical dynamics, demographic shifts, and socio-political complexities that defined Tavush Canton during this transformative period.

Abstract
This study examines the historical evolution and demographic shifts in Armenian Peripheral Canton Tavush, located near the Georgian kingdoms, during the period from 1600 to 1725. Utilizing a diverse range of sources including Armenian, Persian, archaeological artifacts, and Ottoman documents, this research offers a nuanced understanding of the historical dynamics, demographic shifts, and socio-political complexities characterizing Canton Tavush during this transformative period. During the Safavid era, Turkic tribes were deliberately settled in Tavush by the Safavid kings to strengthen their rule in the region and prevent potential rebellions by Georgian and Armenian populations. In response, the Armenian population migrated to the canton’s mountainous terrain, establishing exclusive Armenian settlements in these elevated regions. During conflicts, the nomadic nature of these tribes allowed them to vacate the region, leaving Armenians to endure hardships stemming from incursions by Lezgins and Turks. In 1725, the Ottoman Empire conquered Georgia and northeastern Armenia, conducting a census that has received limited scholarly attention. Our analysis of this archival material uncovered evidence of widespread destruction in numerous Armenian villages. Despite these devastations, the mountainous regions of the canton retained a predominantly Armenian population. The census data also provides insights into the socio-economic conditions of the region. Additionally, the census data offers valuable insights into the socio-economic conditions of the region. In the lowland areas, Turkic tribes, originally settled by the Safavids, are now integral to the population of the Republic of Azerbaijan.

Aram Ghoogasian

Speaker Bio
Aram Ghoogasian is a doctoral candidate in Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University. He holds a master’s degree in Middle Eastern Studies from the University of Chicago and bachelor’s degrees in English and History from UCLA. His dissertation is an exploration of Armenian print and reading culture in the middle decades of the nineteenth century. His work has appeared in Middle Eastern Literatures, the Journal of the Ottoman and Turkish Studies Association, Études arméniennes contemporaines, and LARB Quarterly. Today he will be presenting his working paper, “Blood, Sweat, and Tears: Learning to Read at Midcentury,” which offers a look at the often-negative experiences of children in nineteenth-century Armenian primary schools.

Abstract
The education of children and the promotion of the reading habit in particular were hallmarks of Armenian reform movements in both the Ottoman and Russian empires. The spread of formal schooling is indeed often noted among the notable social and cultural changes taking place within the Armenian communities of the two empires in the nineteenth century. Often lost in discussions of literacy and its apparent rise, however, are the experiences of those who learned to read in the period. Lofty ideals had their costs. Celebrated by contemporary adults and, later, historians as a benchmark of progress, literacy demanded literal blood, sweat, and tears from schoolchildren. The young objects of reformers’ campaigns often had a difficult go of it. Many had to endure uncomfortable, makeshift classrooms led by untrained teachers who were not shy with a cane. Learning to read was widely associated with pain and misery, leaving an indelible mark on those who would go on to recount their school years. This darker side of education, so often buried, would be rendered invisible absent the testimony of those who lived through the brunt of it. By channeling the memories of mid-nineteenth-century students, this paper pulls back the curtain on the acquisition of childhood literacy, warts and all.