Armenia in the 19th century. Armenia at the beginning of the 20th century
§ 1. Development of capitalist relations
At the end of the 19th and at the beginning of the 20th century, capitalist relations began to develop in both Western and Eastern Armenia. In the backward Ottoman Empire, capitalist relations developed very slowly. England, France and Germany artificially preserved the integrity of the crumbling empire and turned it into their semi-colony.
The most active role in the development of the economy of the Ottoman Empire was played by the Greek, Jewish and Armenian population. In Constantinople, Izmir, Erzurum and other large cities, Armenian industrialists founded enterprises for the production of flour, oil, wine, vodka, and textiles. In the cities of Western Armenia and Cilicia - Van, Kharberd, Marash, Edesia, Aintape, Bitlis and others, small enterprises were founded to process local raw materials - silk, cotton, leather and tobacco. Small metal-working factories were opened in the regions for the production of agricultural implements. Armenian industrialists ordered modern machinery and equipment for these enterprises from the USA and European countries. Well-known entrepreneurs were the Kyurkchyan brothers, Grigor Ipekchyan, the Barikyan brothers and others. These enterprises gave work to the local Armenian population. During the anti-Armenian pogroms inspired by the Ottoman government, these enterprises were often destroyed and looted. The owners had to, giving bribes to Turkish officials, again with difficulty to restore production.
In agriculture, the development of capitalist relations led to a further stratification of the peasantry. The impoverished peasants turned into hired day laborers or joined the ranks of the emerging working class. Many peasants moved to the cities in search of work. The availability of cheap labor contributed to the further development of production. By the end of the 19th century, the Armenian urban population of the Ottoman Empire increased dramatically due to the decrease in the peasant population in Western Armenia. More than 100,000 Armenians moved to the cities in search of work. Many traveled to European countries, to Russia and even to the USA to escape the constant oppression of the Ottoman authorities and in search of a prosperous life.
In less backward Russia, under the auspices of the state, capitalism developed more rapidly. The reform of 1861, which abolished the serfdom of the peasantry, was applied in Transcaucasia and Armenia only from 1870. In 1867-1874. administrative reform was carried out. The territory of Transcaucasia was divided into 5 provinces: Yerevan, Tiflis, Kutaisi, Elizavetopol, Baku. Yerevan province was divided into 7 districts. Attached in 1878, the Kars region was divided into 4 districts. On the empty lands of the newly annexed territories, the authorities began to settle Russian settlers. In this way, the tsarist government tried to change the demographic picture, weaken the Armenian liberation movement and secure the region for Russia.
The reform of 1861 and subsequent reforms created certain conditions for the development of capitalist relations in Russia. In Transcaucasia, the development of capitalist relations was facilitated by the presence of minerals and rich oil fields in Baku.
At the end of the 19th century, capitalist relations in Russia began to develop rapidly. Russia began construction of the strategically important railway line Tiflis-Kars for the rapid deployment of troops in the event of a war with Turkey. In 1899, the construction was completed and the railway communication Tiflis - Alexandropol - Kars was opened, in 1901 Alexandropol - Yerevan, and in 1908. Yerevan - Nakhichevan - Julfa.
The road contributed to the intensification of the exploitation of copper mines in Alaverdi and Kapan. They were given in concession to French entrepreneurs. There has been a significant increase in the urban population in Eastern Armenia. The construction of railways also contributed to the further development of capitalism in the Transcaucasus. There were no large industrial enterprises in Eastern Armenia, and Armenian entrepreneurs mainly concentrated their activities in Baku and Tiflis. Prominent entrepreneurs were Mantashev, Aramyants, Lianozov, the Ghukasyan brothers, Mirzoyan, Dolukhunyan and others. They invested their capital in the oil industry in Baku. All of them were also major patrons of Armenian culture and were engaged in charity work.
In agriculture, the cultivation of new industrial crops began - cotton, silkworm, tobacco. The arable land was reduced, and instead the area of land devoted to horticulture, melon growing, and viticulture was expanding. To serve the needs of the local market, small enterprises were opened for the manufacture of leather and vegetable oil, for the processing of cotton and silk. The extraction of copper at the mines of Alaverdi and Kapan, salt - at the salt mines of Kokhpa and Nakhichevan expanded. Impoverished and land-poor peasants moved to Tiflis and Baku in search of work, replenishing the ranks of the emerging proletariat.
In 1887, the production of Armenian cognac was founded in Yerevan. The first brandy factory in Yerevan was opened by the Armenian industrialist Tairov. Other industrialists also acted in cognac production. The cognac brand "Ararat" of the winemaker P. Musinyants, produced at the N. Shustov's factory, achieved the greatest fame, which was awarded diplomas of international exhibitions and exported to Russia and Europe.
§ 2. The Ottoman Empire at the end of the 19th century. Anti-Armenian policy of Abdul-Hamid II
At the end of the 19th century, the once strongest Ottoman Empire experienced an economic and political decline. It actually turned into a semi-colony of European powers, which artificially preserved its integrity in their own interests. As a result of the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878. The "Armenian question" has become a matter of international politics. The European powers began to use it to put pressure on Turkey.
The Sultan's government tightened the national and economic oppression of the Armenian population. in some cities there were clashes between the Armenian population and the police, there were casualties. In the summer of 1890, in the Gum Gapu region of Constantinople, on the initiative of the Hnachakian party, a demonstration was organized demanding that the perpetrators of the murders be held accountable and that the reforms of the Armenian population be implemented in accordance with the 61st paragraph of the Berlin Treaty. The demonstrators marched to the Sultan's palace to present a petition to the government. The police shot the demonstration, the instigators were arrested.
Having lost faith in the reality of hopes for resolving the Armenian issue through diplomacy, a tendency has emerged in the Armenian society to achieve a solution to the issue by revolutionary political methods. In 1894, the Armenian population in the mountainous region of Sasun rebelled against the sultan's oppression. The rebels were led by members of the "Hnchakyan" party Murat, Gevork Chaush, Hrayr and others. The irregular Turkish units, and later the regular sultan's troops, were defeated by the rebels. But soon the superior forces of the Turkish troops surrounded and took Sasun. More than 7 thousand Armenians were killed. Those leaders who survived were condemned and exiled.
But the Ottoman government failed to break the Sasunians. Many participants in the uprising continued to fight in small Haiduk detachments.
The rebels hoped by their actions to draw the attention of the great powers to the solution of the Armenian issue. However, the European powers were content only with the fact that they created a commission of inquiry, and the following year presented the Sultan's government with a reform program to improve the situation of the Armenian population, demanding that those responsible for the mass extermination of the Armenian population be punished and reforms be carried out.
The Sultan promised to carry out this so-called May 1895 reform program, but in reality no reforms were carried out.
Convinced that the government was not going to carry out reforms, the Hnchakyan party organized a crowded demonstration in September 1895 in the capital. Foreign diplomats were informed in advance that the peaceful demonstration was aimed at drawing the attention of the powers to the "Armenian Question". The demonstrators marched to the seat of government in Bab Ali to launch a petition. The demonstration was dispersed by the police. With the connivance of the government, pogroms took place in Constantinople, about 2 thousand Armenians were killed. The Sultan was forced to approve the May Reform Program, but even more intensified the oppression of the Armenians.
On the initiative of the "Hnchakyan" party in October 1895, an uprising of Armenians in Zeytun took place against national discrimination and oppression. Nazareth Chaush was elected leader of the uprising. The Zeytuns arrested officials of the local administration and captured the barracks of Turkish soldiers, capturing 700 people. The government sent an army of 30,000 to put down the uprising. Six thousand Zeytuns who took up arms defended themselves for about 4 months. The enemy lost about 20 thousand soldiers, more than half of Zeytuns fell in battles. With the mediation of the powers, the rebels and the government compromised. The Ottoman government granted amnesty to the leaders of the uprising.
In order to resolve the "Armenian Question" and suppress the liberation aspirations of the Armenian people, the government of Abdul-Hamid II began to periodically carry out pogroms against Armenians. At the end of 1895 mass pogroms took place in Erzurum, Trabizon, Bitlis, Sebastia, Edessa and other cities. Almost 300 thousand Armenians were destroyed. A significant number of the Armenian population was forced to leave the country. Many Armenians were forced to accept Islam.
Armenian political parties, fearing new pogroms, began to prepare the Armenian population for self-defense. When in 1896 the government tried to repeat the Armenian pogroms, in some places it already met with organized resistance from the Armenian population. An example of heroic self-defense was shown by the inhabitants of Van, Malatia, Edessa and other cities.
§ 3. Armenian liberation movement at the beginning of the 20th century
In 1901, a group of haiduks led by Andranik, wishing to draw the attention of the European powers to the disenfranchised position of the Armenian population in the Ottoman Empire, fortified themselves in the Arakelots monastery.
Andranik's group consisted of 37 people and two dozen peasants who joined them. From November 3 to November 27, haiduks fought off attacks by superior forces of the regular Turkish army. At the talks, haiduks demanded the release of political prisoners, the disarming of the bandit Kurdish detachments, and the return of the villages seized from them to the Armenian peasants. When the ammunition was already running out, the haiduks broke through the encirclement at night and went into the mountains. They proved that the Armenian people continue to fight for their freedom.
In 1904, the heroic self-defense of Sasun took place. In order to finally break the resistance of the Sasunians, the Sultan's government concentrated significant forces for the complete capture of the region. On April 1, 1904, the 10,000 regular army and the 5,000 irregular "Hamidiye" detachments launched an attack on Sasun. They were opposed by 200 haiduks and a thousand local peasants, defending the 12,000 Armenian population.
Having learned in advance about the plans of the Ottoman government to capture Sasun, the parties "Dashnaktsutyun" and "Hnchakyan" sent armed detachments of volunteers to help the population, melted weapons into the region. Haiduk detachments of Andranik, Murad, Arakel, Gevork Chaush and others gathered their forces to Sasun. The Military Council led the self-defense, and the famous haiduk Andranik was elected military leader.
Despite the heroic resistance of the Sasunians, regular troops and Kurdish detachments captured Sasun and brutally massacred the population.
§ 4. The policy of tsarist Russia in the Armenian question at the beginning of the 20th century
The tsarist government feared that the liberation movement in Western Armenia might also rouse the population of Eastern Armenia to the liberation struggle. It interfered in every possible way with the activities of national political parties, persecuted the leaders of the liberation movement, and banned the activities of the Haiduk detachments on its territory.
With the intensification of revolutionary sentiment in the Russian Empire, the tsarist government intensified the policy of national oppression and persecution in order to distract the masses from the revolutionary struggle. The government was convinced that the liberation struggle was directed by the Armenian Church. In 1903, by order of the governor of the Caucasus, G. Golitsin, all the property of the Armenian Apostolic Church was requisitioned and Armenian schools were closed.
Catholicos of All Armenians Mkrtich Khrimyan condemned the anti-Armenian policy of tsarism. The Armenian political parties "Dashnaktsutyun" and "Hnchakyan", as well as the Russian Social Democrats, joined the struggle against tsarism. Rallies and demonstrations of the Armenian population took place in Elizavetopol, Baku and Tiflis, Etchmiadzin, Alexandropol, Shushi and Yerevan, there were clashes with the police, there were killed and wounded. In some villages, the peasants offered armed resistance to the police and the Cossacks.
The persecution of public figures and advanced intelligentsia began, many ended up in prison or in exile. Despite all the efforts of the tsarist government, a revolutionary situation was growing in the country.
In January 1905, the first bourgeois-democratic revolution began in Russia. In Transcaucasia, as well as throughout the country, strikes began. In the summer of 1905, strikes took place in Kars, Alexandropol, Alaverdi and other cities of Eastern Armenia. The tsarist government, worried about the beginning of the revolution, and also having met with a unified rebuff from the Armenian society, on August 1, 1905, canceled its previous decision and returned the requisitioned property to the Armenian Church.
The new governor of the Caucasus, I. Vorontsov-Dashkov, began to pursue a more flexible policy in the conditions of the outbreak of the revolution. In order to distract the peoples from the revolutionary struggle, tsarism began to kindle ethnic hatred. Azerbaijani-Armenian clashes on ethnic grounds took place in Baku, Elizavetopol, Shushi, Nakhichevan and Yerevan.
During 1906-1907. the revolution went into decline. On July 3, 1907, the Second State Duma was dispersed and the unlimited power of the tsar was restored. The revolution is over.
A period of reaction began in Russia. Prime Minister P. Stolypin led the reactionary policy. At the same time, Stolypin tried to carry out reforms in the country for the further development of capitalism. This was the aim of his agrarian reform.
After the suppression of the revolution, tsarism began the persecution of national political parties. Using internal squabbles in the party, the government accused the Dashnaktsutyun party of anti-government and anti-Russian activities. There were mass arrests of members of the Dashnaktsutyun party, and a noisy trial began.
In January 1912 in St. Petersburg, the Judicial Chamber of the Senate began hearings on the Dashnaktsutyun case. Charges were brought against 159 persons. However, contrary to expectations, the sentence was very lenient. About 100 people were acquitted, the rest received relatively light and short sentences.
This lenient sentence was due to several factors. By that time, a new revolutionary upsurge had begun in Russia, P. Stolypin was killed. International relations escalated, preparations were underway for a war with Germany and its ally Turkey. Under these conditions, the tsarist government considered it good not to exacerbate national persecution, to weaken the national oppression of the Armenians in order to use them in the impending war against Turkey.
§ 5. Young Turk coup
In 1908, after a coup d'état, the Young Turks came to power. The peoples of the Ottoman Empire supported the Young Turks in the hope of establishing democratic rule in the country.
The fall of the bloody regime of Sultan Abdul-Hamid II was welcomed by all the peoples of the Ottoman Empire. Hopes were pinned on the Young Turk government that it would abolish the legal inequality of Christians and grant democratic freedoms to the peoples of the empire. However, the government of the Young Turks led a policy of assimilation of other peoples. Pan-Turkism and Pan-Islamism became the official policy. Encountering resistance to their plans, the Young Turk government began to act by violent means.
In Cilicia in April-May 1909, by order of the government, the Armenian population was massacred and plundered. In some cities and villages, the Armenian population was saved thanks to heroic self-defense. In general, more than 30 thousand of the Armenian population were killed.
In 1912, a triumvirate of leaders of the Young Turks came to power in Turkey, which concentrated all power in its hands. All state issues in the Ottoman Empire are now decided by Taleat - Minister of Foreign Affairs, Enver - Minister of War and Jemal - Minister of Internal Affairs.
§ 6. The Armenian question in 1912-1914 and great powers. Russia's position
In 1911, the Turkish-Italian war took place, as a result of which Turkey lost significant territories. In 1912-1913. The First and Second Balkan Wars took place. The Balkan peoples, having joined forces, defeated the sworn enemy and liberated their national territories, once captured by the Turks.
Crowds of Turkish refugees from the lost territories of the European part poured into the Asian regions of Turkey. The government of the Young Turks began to populate the depopulated Armenian villages and city blocks with Muslim immigrants from the European regions of the empire.
After the Balkan wars, the "Armenian question" was again included in the agenda of international diplomacy. Catholicos of All Armenians Gevorg V authorized the well-known Armenian philanthropist and public figure Poghos-Nubar Pasha to negotiate with the governments of the powers to resolve the "Armenian issue". In addition, the Catholicos, through the Viceroy of the Caucasus, asked the tsar to implement the decisions of the Berlin Congress.
In 1913, the great powers came to an agreement and demanded that the Young Turk government carry out reforms in Western Armenia. Russia was entrusted with the mission of overseeing the implementation of the reforms.
On January 26, 1914, a Russian-Turkish agreement was signed to carry out reforms in Western Armenia.
According to the Russian-Turkish agreement, two territorial-administrative units were to be formed from the regions inhabited by Armenians, headed by European governors. Discrimination on national and religious grounds was to be abolished, equality of all citizens was introduced. All nationalities were to have equal representation in administrative bodies, the police, and the courts. By the summer of 1914 European governors had already been appointed. But they did not even have time to start their duties. Taking advantage of the outbreak of the First World War, the Young Turk government refused to implement the planned reforms.
A.E. Khachikyan.
History of Armenia. Brief essay. Edit Print, Yerevan - 2009
1. Economic and socio-political life of Eastern Armenia
In the XX century. Armenia entered as before divided into two parts: the Eastern, which was part of the Russian Empire, and the Western, languishing under the yoke of Sultan's Turkey. This determined the features of the socio-economic and socio-political life of the two parts of the Armenian people: progressive processes took place in Eastern Armenia, inextricably linked with the general development of Russia; the life of Western Armenians, which took place under the conditions of the most cruel regime of Turkish despotism, became even more difficult, full of tragic events.
At the end of the 19th century, Russia entered the era of imperialism. The intensive development of industry embraced not only the central, but also the outlying regions of the empire, including the Transcaucasus. Large industrial centers such as Baku, Tiflis, Kutaisi, Batumi arose here, the urban population increased, and the size of the working class increased. The rise of industrial production was also characteristic of Armenia.
The leading branch of industry in Eastern Armenia was copper smelting, based on the local raw materials, the copper mines of Alaverdi and Zangezur. From the end of the 19th century, copper smelting in Armenia began to increase sharply, which was stimulated, on the one hand, by Russia's increased demand for copper, and, on the other hand, by the penetration of foreign, in particular French, capital into the copper ore industry of Armenia. Mercilessly exploiting the local labor force, improving production technology, foreign industrialists have achieved an increase in copper smelting. If in 1900 copper smelting at Alaverdi plants did not exceed 20 thousand poods, then already in 1901 59.7 thousand poods were produced, and in 1904 - 116 thousand poods. In Zangezur in 1900, 50 thousand poods of copper were smelted, in 1904 - 68.4, and in 1907 - 94 thousand poods of copper.
Copper production continued to increase in subsequent years, until the outbreak of the First World War. So, in 1910, 278.2 thousand were produced in Armenia, in
1913 - 343 thousand pounds. On the eve of the First World War, Armenia accounted for 17 percent of all copper produced in Tsarist Russia.
Wine and cognac production also received significant development. Large enterprises in this industry were the Yerevan factories of Shustov and Saradzhev. In the Erivan province, the cost of alcohol-cognac production in 1901 was 90 thousand, and in 1908 - 595 thousand rubles. In 1913, 188,000 decaliters of wine and 48,000 decaliters of cognac were produced in Armenia. About 80 percent of cognac, spirits and wines produced in Armenia were exported to Russia and also entered the international market.
Enterprises of copper ore and wine-cognac production essentially determined the industrial image of Armenia, since, in addition to them, there were only a few food industry enterprises, as well as a large number of various handicraft workshops. According to official data, in 1912 there were 2,307 manufacturing enterprises in the Erivan province, which employed 8,254 people. Thus, on average, each enterprise had no more than 3-4 workers. Basically, these were primitive productions for the primary processing of agricultural raw materials, mechanical workshops, etc.
The development of industry was accompanied by an increase in the number of workers in Armenia. (This was also facilitated by the unfolding railway construction. In 1895, the construction of the Tiflis-Kare railway line began; the first trains along this road went in 1899. The construction of the Alexandropol-Yerevan railway (ended in 1902) and Yerevan-Julfa ( ended in 1906. In addition to the road builders, the ranks of the Armenian proletariat were replenished by railway workers who serviced these roads. Work collectives were formed at the railway stations and depots of Alexandropol, Sanahin, Kars, Yerevan, Julfa. At the beginning of the 20th century, the number of workers in Armenia reached about 10 thousand people.
The proletariat of Transcaucasia from the very beginning of its formation was international in composition. The main detachments of the working class were concentrated in the oil fields and industrial enterprises of Baku, in factories and factories in Tiflis, Batumi, Kutaisi and other cities of Transcaucasia. Georgians, Russians, Armenians, Azerbaijanis, Ukrainians, Greeks and workers of other nationalities worked together in these industrial centers. A large number of landless and poor peasants from Armenia went to work in these cities, often settled here and turned into proletarians.
Especially many Armenians worked at the enterprises of Baku, the largest industrial center of Transcaucasia. There were also many Armenian workers at the enterprises of Tiflis, Batumi, Kutaisi. At the beginning of the century, about one third of the workers employed at the enterprises of Batumi were Armenians, including refugees from Western Armenia who moved here after the massacre of the Armenian population in Turkey in 1894-1896. In turn, a significant number of workers - Russians, Azerbaijanis, Greeks, Persians - worked at the industrial enterprises of Armenia. In the first decade of the 20th century, the total number of Armenian workers in Transcaucasia reached 35-40 thousand people.
The Armenian commercial and industrial bourgeoisie was also scattered throughout Transcaucasia. The big industrialists Mantashev, Ter-Gukasov, Aramyants and others invested their capital in the oil industry of Baku, received huge profits, and advanced to the forefront of the Russian industrial bourgeoisie. Armenian capitalists owned quite a few light and food industries in Tiflis. In Armenia itself, copper mines and various industrial enterprises were owned by the capitalists Melik-Azarian, Melik-Karagezov and others.
The position of the workers was difficult. They were subjected to brutal exploitation by entrepreneurs who sought only to obtain maximum profit. The work of the workers of copper mines and copper smelters of Alaverdi and Zangezur was especially exhausting. The working day here lasted 12-14 hours, or even more; wages were low; safety equipment at mines and enterprises was virtually absent; occupational diseases were widespread among workers - a consequence of harmful working conditions. The workers had no trade unions of their own and did not take any part in public life. Their families lived in unbearably difficult conditions. Gradually, the discontent of the workers grew, whose protest against unbridled exploitation took on ever more persistent and organized forms.
More disastrous was the position of the peasantry. At the beginning of the 20th century, the process of disintegration of patriarchal relations and the growth of commercial agriculture continued in the countryside. The stratification of the peasantry deepened, the impoverishment of its majority. The best lands passed into the hands of the landlords and kulaks. Landlessness became a terrible scourge for the working peasants, who were forced to leave the village in search of work and go to the cities, to a foreign land. Otkhodnichestvo has become a common feature of rural life. heavy
taxes, forced labor, complete lack of rights, the dominance of merchants and usurers made the life of a peasant worker hopeless. Describing the situation in the Armenian village, a correspondent of one of the newspapers of that time wrote: "Sorrow, pain, tears, sweat, need, poverty, oppression, ruin, deprivation - such is the village."
Despite the general backwardness of Armenia's agriculture, since the end of the 19th century, cotton crops have expanded, which was due to the needs of the textile industry in Russia, and the area of vineyards has increased, providing raw materials for the wine and cognac industry of Armenia.
The beginning of the 20th century was marked by major events in the socio-political life of Transcaucasia: the rise of the workers' revolutionary movement, stormy
broad masses against tsarism, the emergence of social democratic organizations. The revolutionary uprisings of the workers that began in Transcaucasia were part of the general revolutionary movement that engulfed Russia and took place under the influence of Marxist ideas.
It is known that since the beginning of the 20th century Russia has become the center of the world revolutionary movement. The revolutionary struggle of the Russian working class, supported by the peasant masses, had an enormous impact on the world historical process. The Russian proletariat became the leading force in the liberation, revolutionary movement. The peculiarity of the new stage of the labor movement in Russia was its combination with Marxist theory. This is one of the greatest historical merits of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, the great revolutionary, brilliant scientist and theorist, founder of a new type of Marxist party, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
Having embarked on the path of revolutionary struggle as early as his student years, V. I. Lenin, from the very first steps of his activity, closely linked the propaganda of Marxist ideas with the political and economic struggle of workers in enterprises. Through the efforts of V. I. Lenin and his comrades-in-arms, in the fall of 1895, the St. Petersburg workers' circles were united into the "Union of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class." This organization, together with similar unions and groups soon created in Moscow, Kiev, Ivanovo-Voznesensk and other cities of the country, marked the beginning of the union of Marxism with the labor movement. In the ranks of the St. Petersburg "Union" many revolutionaries were hardened, including those from the Transcaucasus.
The ideas of Marxism began to penetrate into the Armenian reality from the 80s of the XIX century. From the first information in the Armenian democratic press about K. Marx, his teachings,. International Association of Workers-Internationale before translations into Armenian of Marxist literature and its illegal distribution, from the activities of the first Marxist-Armenian participants in the all-Russian revolutionary movement to the emergence of local social democratic organizations that were part of the Russian social society created by V. I. Lenin -Democratic Party - this is the way of penetration of Marxism into the Armenian reality.
The first attempts to translate Marxist literature into Armenian were made by Armenian students studying in Europe in the late 80s and early 90s of the 19th century. The first work they turned to for translation was the programmatic document of Marxism, the Manifesto of the Communist Party. At the end of the 19th century, “Wage Labor and Capital”-K. Marx, "Scientific Socialism" by F. Engels, a number of works by prominent Western European Marxists of that time P. Lafargue, F. Lassalle, W. Liebknecht and others, as well as popular revolutionary literature. This literature was delivered to Transcaucasia in various ways, distributed among the workers and students.
The spread of Marxist ideas in the Transcaucasus, the first steps of the revolutionary movement of the proletariat of the region, were largely facilitated by the Russians exiled to the Caucasus and working here, the revolutionaries-V. G. Kurnatovsky, G. Ya. Franceschi, I. I. Luzin, M. I. Kalinin, S. Ya-Alliluev and others.
The Armenian Marxist revolutionaries, together with the revolutionary leaders of other peoples of Russia, took an active part in the revolutionary struggle of the Russian proletariat, in the creation of a new type of Marxist party. Isaac Lalayants (1870-1933), an associate of V. I. Lenin in the Samara period of the leader’s activity, who then took an active part in the publication of the Iskra newspaper, became major revolutionary figures on a national scale. Bogdan Knunyants (1878-1911) is a prominent revolutionary who went through a revolutionary school in the St. Petersburg Union of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class, headed by V. I. Lenin, who then actively fought for the Leninist principles of building a proletarian party at the II Congress of the RSDLP Stepan Shaumyan (1878-1918)
An outstanding revolutionary, a major theoretician of Marxism, a glorious leader of the heroic Baku Commune; Suren Spandaryan (1882-1916) - a professional revolutionary, an ardent propagandist of Marxism, a member of the leading core of the RSDLP.
Under the influence of the Russian revolutionary movement in Transcaucasia, primarily in its industrial centers, Marxist groups and circles began to emerge, united under the banner of social democracy. In 1898, the first Marxist group of Armenian workers was created in Tiflis, which included Melik Melikyan (Grandfather), Asatur Kakhoyan and others. The group carried out propaganda work among the workers, maintained ties with the Georgian and Russian Social Democrats in Tiflis, published the handwritten newspaper Banvor (Worker). In 1901, the group was crushed by the tsarist authorities. In the summer of 1899, the first Marxist circle in Armenia appeared in Jalalogly (now Stepanavan), headed by Stepan Shaumyan.
The circle included local revolutionary youth who studied Marxism and spread revolutionary ideas among the working people.
The creation of a Marxist workers' party in Russia stimulated the emergence of social democratic organizations in Transcaucasia, which were built on the principles of internationalism and were local organizations of the RSDLP. Most of them actively supported V. I. Lenin and the Iskra newspaper edited by him in the struggle against all kinds of opportunists who tried to prevent the creation in Russia of a truly Marxist revolutionary party.
In 1901, the Tiflis, Baku, Batumi committees of the RSDLP were formed, which had their own underground printing houses. At the end of 1902, the first social democratic cell was created in Yerevan, which included workers from the railway and Shustov's factory. Following this, social democratic circles were organized in Alexandropol - in the city and the garrison, in Karey, Alaverdi, in a number of villages of Lori.
In the summer of 1902 in Tiflis, on the initiative of S. G. Shaumyan, B. M. Knunyants and A. Zurabyan, the "Union of Armenian Social Democrats" was created. This organization worked under the leadership of the Tiflis Committee of the RSDLP, and then became part of it. "Union" founded the first illegal Marxist newspaper in Armenian - "Proletariat". V
In October 1902, the first issue of this newspaper was published, in which the manifesto of the "Union of Armenian Social Democrats" was placed. Having familiarized himself with the Russian translation of this document, V. I. Lenin responded to it with a special article “On the Manifesto of the Union of Armenian Social Democrats”, which was published in 1903 in Iskra. V. I. Lenin highly appreciated the activities of the Union and the manifesto he published. On all the fundamental questions of revolutionary theory and practice, the Union of Armenian Social Democrats stood on the positions of Lenin's Iskra. The Union defended the Leninist organizational principles of building the party, promoted the ideas of proletarian internationalism, and actively fought against opportunist trends in Russian social democracy. The "Union of Armenian Social Democrats" and its organ-newspaper "Proletariat" played a big role in spreading the Marxist ideology in the Armenian reality and in the revolutionary education of the Armenian working people.
The interests of leading the labor movement in Transcaucasia, the strengthening of the activities of the Social Democratic organizations of the region required the organizational unification of disparate Social Democratic groups and organizations and the creation of a single regional leadership center. This task was carried out by the first congress of Caucasian organizations
RSDLP, which took place illegally in March 1903 in Tiflis. The congress decided to form the Caucasian Union of the RSDLP and proclaimed it an integral part of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party. The congress elected the governing body of the Caucasian Union - the Caucasian Union Committee of the RSDLP. At different times, it included prominent revolutionary figures of Transcaucasia - B. Knunyants, A. Tsulukidze S. Shaumyan, A. Dzhaparidze, M. Tskhakaya, F. Makharadze and others. The creation of the Caucasian Union of the RSDLP was an important step in rallying the revolutionary forces of the region on the eve of the first Russian revolution.
The revolutionary movement of workers that unfolded in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century soon spread to the Transcaucasus. On May 1, 1901, a powerful demonstration of working people took place in Tiflis, led by the Tiflis Social Democratic Organization. The May Day demonstration in Tiflis served as the signal for deployment; revolutionary movement throughout the region. The Iskra newspaper noted that "from this day on, an open revolutionary movement begins in the Caucasus."
The revolutionary movement of the workers of the Caucasus developed in close connection with the all-Russian worker-peasant movement; revolutionary movement. It is known that in the years preceding the first Russian revolution, yakal revolutionary; struggle in Russia steadily intensified. A wave of workers' protests, imbued with the spirit of political consciousness, swept across the country. The universal was especially powerful; strike in southern Russia that began in 1903. In contrast to the strikes of the previous period, the Social Democratic organizations connected with Iskra played an active role in this strike. The combination of economic and political demands, the participation in the movement along with the Russian workers of the Ukrainian and Transcaucasian proletariat made this movement especially dangerous for tsarism. In Transcaucasia, strikes took place at the enterprises of Baku, Tiflis, Batumi, Alexandropol, and Alaverdi. The general strike of the workers of the Baku oil fields and enterprises in July 1903 was especially stubborn. In Armenia, the workers of the Alaverdi copper mines were at the forefront of the strike movement. Local social-democratic organizations sought to direct the workers' movement into the mainstream of organized political struggle.
Under the influence of the revolutionary movement of the workers, on the eve of the first Russian revolution, the peasant movement revived. At the end of 1903, there was an uprising of the peasants of the village of Haghpat in the Lori district. The landlord of this village was distinguished by his cruelty, merciless exploitation of the peasants. He owned the best arable land and pastures. Driven to extreme poverty, the indignant peasants refused to rent land, and arbitrarily seized those plots of land that they had cultivated before. The landowner went to court, which, of course, protected his interests. In November, police and guards were sent to Haghpat to enforce the court's decision and take away the land, livestock and property from the peasants. Haghpatians resisted the authorities; there was a clash between the peasants and the police, during which five peasants were killed. The angry peasants revolted and drove the guards out of the village. The authorities sent troops and police to Haghpat. The uprising was crushed, and its participants were massacred. About 200 peasants were arrested and put on trial, the village was subjected to a brutal execution.
A major event in the socio-political life of Armenia at the beginning of the 20th century was the powerful uprising of the Armenian masses against the reactionary national policy of the tsarist autocracy. Since the end of the 19th century, the tsarist government and its local bodies in Transcaucasia began to implement a number of measures aimed, in particular, against the national rights of the Armenian population of the region. Armenian schools were closed, the activities of charitable and publishing societies were limited, and strict censorship of the periodical press was established. Especially zealous in carrying out these repressions was the governor of the Caucasus, Prince Golitsyn, a zealous conductor of the great-power policy of tsarism in the region subject to him.
On June 12, 1903, the tsarist government adopted a law on (confiscation of lands and profitable property of the Armenian church and transferring them to the jurisdiction of the relevant ministries of Russia. This law not only undermined the economic foundations of the Armenian church, but at the same time was directed against the people, its political rights, national identity and culture, against the Armenian school, since it was at the expense of the church that the majority of Armenian schools in Transcaucasia were maintained.
cultural and educational institutions was supposed to facilitate the implementation of the colonial policy of tsarism. This is exactly how the law of June 12, 1903 was perceived by broad sections of the Armenian people. The royal law caused general indignation among the Armenian population of Transcaucasia. When the government and its local bodies tried to start implementing the law, the masses of the Armenian population everywhere rose up to fight against the tsarist autocracy.
In July-September 1903, in many cities of Transcaucasia - Alexandropol, Karey, Yerevan, Echmiadzin, Tbilisi, Elizavetpol (Kirovabad), Shusha, Baku, Karan Lisa (Kiro-Vakan), Batum, Igdir, Jalal-Ogly and others - took place crowded rallies and demonstrations, the participants of which demanded the abolition of the tsarist law and urged not to obey the authorities. In many places, the protests of the Armenian workers turned into clashes with the police and the Cossacks. Bloody events took place in Alexandropol, Elizavetpol, Tiflis. Troops were put into action in Yelizavetpol, the authorities severely cracked down on the participants in anti-tsarist protests: there were casualties among the Armenian population, hundreds of people were arrested. In Tiflis, the authorities were forced to introduce martial law.
The uprising of the working people against the tsarist autocracy acquired the character of a nationwide movement. All sections of the Armenian people took part in the struggle - workers, peasants, artisans, intellectuals, clergy. Political parties were also actively involved in the struggle, each of which, of course, pursued its own goals, sought to direct this movement along its own path. The Dashnak Party, which previously denied the need for a political struggle of the Caucasian Armenians, now, in the face of the unfolding events, was forced to declare that along with the “national issue of Turkish Armenians”, it also recognizes the existence of the “question of Russian Armenians”. The Dashnaks sought to use the national liberation movement of the people for their own political purposes, to isolate the struggle of the Armenian working people from the general revolutionary movement of the peoples of Russia and direct it into a narrow national channel.
The Hnchak party after the Armenian pogroms in Turkey in 1894-1896 experienced a serious crisis due to the disappointment of a significant part of the working people in the politics of the Hunchakisg Party. Many members of this party left it gladly and joined the RSDLP. During the struggle of the Armenian working people that unfolded after the adoption of the law of June 12, 1903, the Hunchak party resorted to terror tactics, which, of course, could not lead to positive results, but only distracted the masses from the organized struggle against the autocracy. In October 1903, Hunchakist terrorists made an unsuccessful attempt on the life of the governor of the Caucasus, Golitsyn, who was only slightly wounded.
With regard to the anti-tsarist movement of the Armenian people, the social democratic organizations took a different position. Exposing the true essence of the colonial policy of tsarism, they supported the Armenian people and called on them to unite with the Russians and other peoples of Russia in their common struggle against the tsarist autocracy. The Bolshevik committees issued numerous leaflets and appeals in which, responding to the events of the day, they called on the working people to rally under the banner of the proletariat. The central organ of the RSDLP, the Iskra newspaper, noted with satisfaction that the Social Democrats of the Caucasus "quite correctly assessed the political significance of the tsar's campaign against Armenian church property and showed by their example how the Social Democracy in general should treat all such phenomena."
The social-democratic organizations of Transcaucasia urged the peoples of the region to support the just struggle of the Armenian workers. This was all the more important because the tsarist authorities sought to cause inter-ethnic strife in Transcaucasia and thereby prevent a further strengthening of the revolutionary movement. However, the Georgian, Azerbaijani and Russian workers of the industrial centers of the region united with the Armenian working people and thwarted the cunning plans of the autocracy. At the same time, social-democratic organizations opposed the attempts of the Dashnaks to divert the Armenian workers from the class struggle, rebuffed their nationalist preaching, and condemned the tactics of individual terror. After the failed assassination attempt on Golitsyn, the Caucasian Union Committee of the RSDLP issued a leaflet “The Beast is Wounded,” which stated in particular that the Golitsyns would disappear only with the overthrow of the autocracy.
The tsarist government, however, having broken the resistance of the people with the help of armed force, began to implement the law of June 12, 1903. By the end of this year, the confiscation of the property and lands of the Armenian church was basically completed.
But the struggle continued. Armenian peasants refused to cultivate the lands seized by the tsarist authorities, did not rent trade, handicraft and other enterprises. The unrest of the people increased. The first Russian revolution that began in Russia forced tsarism to retreat. On August 1, 1905, the Tsar repealed the law of June 12, 1903; property of the Armenian Church, as well as those received from him during 1903-1905. income were returned.
The events of 1903 showed the Armenian working people that their liberation could be achieved only in the common struggle of all the working people of Russia against the tsarist autocracy. At the same time, these events played a big role in the revolutionization of the working people. That is why S. G. Shaumyan noted that "1903 was a turning point in the history of the Caucasian Armenians."
|
Ethno-confessional composition of the population of the Yerevan province in 1865 (p. 113)
Changes in the ethnic composition of the population of eastern Armenia in the 1830-1850s (p. 115)
Distribution of the ethnic composition and population of Eastern Armenia by sex according to the 1897 census (p. 136)
Ethnic composition and population of the Yerevan province by sex at the beginning of 1914 (p. 151)
The natural movement of the population in four counties of the Yerevan province for 1908-1914. (page 154)
Dynamics of the ethnic composition of the population of Eastern Armenia in 1873-1914 (page 155)
The natural movement of the population of Eastern Armenia in 1891-1914. (page 159)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The study is devoted to the study of ethno-demographic processes on the territory of Eastern Armenia in three historical sections: before joining the Russian Empire - at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries; in the first half of the 19th century: - with the disclosure of the features of resettlement processes, ethnic composition and population dynamics; in the second half of the 19th - early 20th centuries. - against the background of administrative-territorial transformations and the specifics of socio-economic development, the change in the ethnic composition and population density, the direction of the main migration flows in the territory of Eastern Armenia are characterized.
The book was first introduced into scientific circulation and analyzed significant factual material of interest to ethnographers, historians, demographers, geographers and a wide range of readers.
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER I. Eastern Armenia at the turn of the 18th-19th centuries
§ 1. Historical, cultural and ethno-ecological characteristics of the region
§ 2. Ethnic situation in the region at the end of the 18th - beginning of the 19th centuries.
CHAPTER II. Dynamics of the ethnic composition of the population of Eastern Armenia in the first half of the 19th century
§ 1. Stages of accession of Eastern Armenia to Russia and features of resettlement processes
§ 2. The population of Eastern Armenia in the middle of the XIX century. and the process of stabilizing the ethnic composition
CHAPTER III. Ethno-demographic characteristics of the population of Eastern Armenia in the second half of the 19th - early 20th centuries.
§ 1. Shifts in the ethnic composition and distribution of the population of the region in the second half of the 19th century.
§ 2. The ethnic composition of the population of Eastern Armenia at the beginning of the 20th century. and features of ethno-demographic processes
CONCLUSION
SUMMARY (in Armenian)
SUMMARY (in English)
LIST OF SOURCES AND LITERATURE
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
APPENDIX(Cards)
I. Eastern Armenia on the eve of joining Russia (at the turn of the 18th-19th centuries)
II. Armenian Region in 1828 - 1840
III. Ethnic Composition of the Population of Eastern Armenia (30s of the 19th century)
IV. Ethnic composition of the population of Eastern Armenia (mid-19th century)
V. Population density of Eastern Armenia (1870s)
VI. Administrative-territorial division of Eastern Armenia (late XIX - early XX century)
VII. The main historical and ethnographic regions of Eastern Armenia (late XIX - early XX century)
VIII. Ethnic composition of the population of the Yerevan province (according to the data of 1886)
IX Ethnic composition of the population of Eastern Armenia (according to the 1897 census)
X. Population density of Eastern Armenia (according to the 1897 census)
XI. Ethnic composition of the population of Eastern Armenia (according to 1914 data)
XII. The main migration flows of the Armenian population in the XIX century.
XIII. Population density of Eastern Armenia (according to 1914 data)
Title “Demographic processes and population of Armenia in the 19th – early 20th course of the Eastern centuries.” (historical and anthropological aspects) ______________________________________________________ Course author(s) Arsen Hakobyan Course status: read __1___years/ included in the program for 2006 other:___________________________________________________ . University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of History ____ _____________________________________________________ Arsen Hakobyan The demographic process and the population in the Eastern Armenia in the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries. (The historical and anthropological aspects) Resume The cours presents the ethno-demographic and ethno-historical description of Eastern Armenia’s population in the period between the 18th and 19th centuries and the beginning of the 20th century. In the different historical periods the notion of “Eastern Armenia” was associated with a diversity of territories. Armenia has been s scene for clash of interests of the neighboring powerful countries for centuries and was finally divided between Turkey and Persia in the frontier of the 18th and 19th centuries. Devastating raids and disasplacments, as well as the anti- Armenian policy of Foreign rulers, led to the drain of the Armenian population from Armenia, especially from it's eastern part, as a result of which Turkish and Iranian language ethnic groups gradually seeped in and settled East Armenia, achieving quantitive prevalence towards the native Armenian population of the country. During the first thirty years of the 19th century the greatest part of Eastern Armenia was gradually unified with the Imperial Russia. For the Armenian people were of especially fatal 1 significance the treaties, signed between Russia and Persia, Turkey in the 19th century. These treaties gave the opportunity to the native Armenian population of Eastern Armenia for stable development and also for the immigration of some parts of Western Armenians as well as Armenians resided in Persia to Eastern Armenia. In the 19 century Eastern Armenia had often been under admistrative reformations, being divided between different provinces and districts. The correlation in the ethnic and social structure was also under changes. The anthropological method and view give us opportunities to understand the process in deep. “New” view to history. The ethno-demographic processes in the anthropological context. “Resettlement” and memory. The "oral history". What is this? "Past" and "Present". The “oral history” in Armenia. The histories of villages, female’s “stories” in the context demographic, historical process in the 19- beginning 20 centuries. The role of memory and the “landscape”. Arsen Hakobyan “Demographic processes and population of Eastern Armenia in the 19th – early 20th centuries.” (historical and anthropological aspects) Summary The study of more than a century of ethnic history of the population of Eastern Armenia testifies to the many changes in its ethno-demographic characteristics. In different historical times, the name “Eastern Armenia” in the territorial sense had different meanings. Outside 18-18 centuries. almost the entire territory of Eastern Armenia was under the rule of Persia, which had a strong impact on the dynamics of the ethnic composition and population. And before that, Armenia was the arena of struggle between Turkey and Persia. The deportation of the Armenian population, national oppression led to a sharp reduction in the indigenous Armenian population in many parts of Eastern Armenia, as a result of which many Armenian settlements were destroyed, and later settled mainly by Turkic-speaking and Iranian-speaking ethnic groups, who were partly settled, but mostly nomadic and semi-nomadic. life. In the first third of the 19th century, the territory of Eastern Armenia finally became part of Russia. Many Armenians of Persia and Western Armenia /in the transfers of Turkey/ got the opportunity to resettle in the redistributions of Eastern Armenia. These circumstances 2 served as a prerequisite for restoring the former share of Armenians in the ethnic structure of the population. In the context of these processes, various administrative reforms were also envisaged. The ethnic and social structure of the region has been deceived. The anthropological method makes it possible to understand these historical processes more deeply. In Armenia, there are entire regions where settlers of the 19th century dug in and memory in various manifestations is still preserved. Migration, memory. Oral history. What's this? "Past" and "Present". Theoretical approaches. Oral history projects in Armenia. Histories of settlements, family histories in the context of historical, demographic processes of the 19th - early 20th centuries. Memory and landscape. 3 Rationale The study of demographic processes and population is one of the most pressing problems in the social sciences. It is known that the Caucasian region has been and is a zone of active ethnic, political and demographic processes. Meanwhile, the history of Armenians is also “bogota” with various demographic and migration shifts. Within the framework of the Gavar State University, this course is also of local interest, since the population of the region was formed precisely in the 19th century, in the context of the demographic processes that are studied within the course. The relevance of the course within the framework of historical disciplines is also important in the context of the Caucasian and Armenian regularities in the development of history in the 19th-20th centuries. It makes it possible to understand the ethno-cultural history of Eastern Armenia, reveal regional and intra-regional features, shed light on the dynamics and structure of the population in ethnic and demographic terms, as well as present the anthropological aspects of these processes. The historical context of these events makes it possible to use oral historical methods proper. In essence, the course is a "symbiosis" of political history, demography and anthropology. It makes it possible to understand other “dimensions” of political history, i.e., to view migratory groups, families, settlements under the “one-line” process, since the use of anthropological approaches makes it possible to understand the process from the inside, using anthropological approaches (oral history, memory ... ). The course will also include components of regional history, microhistory. The purpose of the course is to highlight the demographic processes and the formation of the population of Eastern Armenia in the 19th-20th centuries. Tasks: - to reveal the peculiarities of the impact of political, socio-economic and socio-psychological factors on ethno-demographic processes. - Identify the main trends in the development and functioning of the region's population. - To give anthropological “measurements” of these processes in the context of oral historical methods and approaches. THEME OF THE COURSE 4 Topic 1. Statement of the problem. Subject, tasks and content of the course. The main components of demographic processes. Features of the study of demographic processes in historical retrospective. The relevance of studying the course within the framework of regional and Patriotic history. Anthropological aspects of the processes under study /introduction/. Methodology of historical and demographic research. Compilation of static and dynamic tables. Interpretation of the obtained results. Topic 2. Sources and historiography Armenian and foreign sources. Russian sources of the 19th century on the Caucasus. Features of Russian sources and tsarist policy in the Caucasus. Statistical data. The first censuses - 1886, 1897. Contains statistical data. Archival materials. Historiography. “Narrative” stories and “local” stories, that is, the stories of individual villages, regions. Can oral history be a source for research processes? Oral memoirs and anthropological materials about the migrations of the 19th century. Topic 3 “Another story…?” 5 Oral history and political history, history of historical anthropology. everyday life, “Narrative” stories and “local” stories, i.e. the stories of individual villages, regions. Democratization of historical science through fixing the "voice and voices of the silent majority". History from below and history from above. alternative science. The main genres of historical research using oral sources: biographics, the history of small societies, ethnic groups, political and social marginals, etc. Topic 4 The practice and methodology of oral history: The work of a researcher: conducting an interview and interpreting it: The process of writing / creating history as documenting the present and the past for the future. Fixing events through observation (with direct or indirect participation) and through the use of written and oral narrations, narratives. Accordingly - oral history and oral tradition through a direct or indirect relationship to an event / fact. Oral history projects in Armenia. Concepts of "key texts" and "world events".. Interview. Types of interviews and interviewing methods. Storage and selection of materials. Interpretation. Creation of scientific work. Topic 5 Eastern Armenia at the turn of the 18th-19th centuries Concepts Eastern Armenia. Historical, cultural and geographical characteristics of the region. The political situation in the region. Armenia between Iran and Turkey. Political, demographic, ethnic, cultural consequences of these dominions. Ethnic situation in the region in the late 18th - early 19th centuries. Features of the social structure of the population. Topic 6 Dynamics of the ethnic composition of the population of Eastern Armenia in the first half of the 19th century. 6 Stages of accession of Eastern Armenia to Russia and features of resettlement processes. Russian resettlement policy. Settled Armenians from Iran and Turkey in the first half of the 19th century. resettlement areas. Armenian “project” and “Armenian region”. Resettlement of foreign ethnic groups. The population of Eastern Armenia in the middle of the 19th century. and the process of stabilizing the ethnic composition. Change in the total population. Features of the change in the social structure in the 19th century. Theme 7 Ethno-demographic characteristics of the population of Eastern Armenia in the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Shifts in the ethnic composition and distribution of the population of the region in the second half of the 19th century. Relocation from Turkey. Russian sectarians in Eastern Armenia. Appeared Russian toponyms and settlements. The ethnic composition of the population of Eastern Armenia at the beginning of the 20th century and features of ethno-demographic processes. The main sources of formation of the national structure. Peculiarities of the ratio of representatives of individual nationalities in various types of settlements and regions. Gender, age and social characteristics of national communities. Administrative-territorial divisions of Eastern Armenia – late 19th and early 20th centuries Social composition and social structure of the population. Theme 8 Resettlement and migration in the anthropological context 7 Resettlement, memory. Oral history. "Past" and "Present". Theoretical approaches. Kinds and types of migrations. Types and types of migrations characteristic of the region. Histories of settlements, family histories in the context of historical, demographic processes of the 19th - early 20th centuries. Memory and landscape. Toponymy. Basic literature 1. Abelyan P., The population of Armenia in the pre-Soviet and Soviet period, Yerevan, 1930. (in Armenian). 2. Adonts M., Economic development of Eastern Armenia in the 19th century, Yerevan, 1957. 3. Hakobyan M., Rural community in Eastern Armenia in the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries, Yerevan, 1988. 4. Aristova T., Kurds of Transcaucasia, Moksva, 1966. 5. Aristova T., Material culture of the Kurds in the 19th-first half of the 20th century, M. 1990. 6. Assman Ya. Cultural memory: Letter, memory of the past and political identity in the high cultures of antiquity / Per. with him. M.M.Sokolskaya. - M.: Languages of Slavic culture, 2004. 7. Aytyan A., Russian settlers in Armenia 1830-1920, Yerevan, 1989. / in Armenian. language / 8. Badalyan A., The population of Armenia from the time of its accession to Russia to the present day, News of the Academy of Sciences of Arm. SSR, 1953, I5. 9. Bdoyan V. Armenian ethnography, Yerevan, 1977. 10. Borozdin K. Settlers in Transcaucasia, St. Petersburg, 1891. 11. Valentey L., Kvasha A., Fundamentals of demography, M., 1989. 12. Volkova N., O settlement of Armenians in the North Caucasus before the beginning of the 20th century, IFJ, 1966, I3. 13. Vinogradov V., Volkova N., Ethnic composition of the population of the North Caucasus in the 18th century, SE, 1975, I3. 14. Gazaryan I., Resettlement of Armenians from Persia to the Armenian region in 1828, Izvestiya AN Arm. SSR, Social Sciences, 1957, I7. 15. Grigoryan Z., Accession of Eastern Armenia to Russia at the beginning of the 19th century, M. , 1959. 8 16. Darbinyan M., Resettlement of Western Armenians to the Armenian Region and neighboring regions in 1828-1829, Institute of Journalism, I2, 1974. / in Armenian. language/. 17. Demographic processes and their patterns. - M: Thought, 1986. 18. Documents and materials on the history of the Armenian people. Socio-economic situation of Eastern Armenia after joining Russia /1830-1870/, Yerevan, 1985. 19. Documents on the resettlement of Persian and Western Armenians, Bulletin of the Archives of Armenia, 1973, I3. 20. Dolzhenko I., Economic and social life of the Russian peasants of Eastern Armenia / late 19th - early 20th centuries /, Yerevan, 1985. 21. journal. Azgagrakan andes, 1898, 1904, 1906, 1907, 1908, 1910. 22. Ismail Zade D., Population of the cities of the Transcaucasian region in the 19th and early 20th centuries, M. 1991. 23. Historical demography, M. 1989. 24. History of the Armenian people t 4. Yerevan, 1972. 25. History of the Armenian people t 5. Yerevan, 1974. 26. History of the Armenian people t 5. Yerevan, 1978. 27. Karapetyan E., Affinity group “azg” among Armenians, Yerevan, 1966. 28. Kozlov V., Ethnic demography, M., 1977. 29. Marutyan A. Historical memory in the structure of national identity, Yerevan, 2006. / in Armenian. language/. 30. Population of Eastern Armenia in the last 100 years /1831-1931/, Yerevan, 1932. 31. Settlements and population of the Armenian SSR from 1831 to 1959. Yerevan, 1962. 32. Sargsyan G., Ethno-geographical characteristics of the Aleksnadrapol district / end of the 19th century /, Scientific works, 1, Gyumry, 1998. / in arm. language/. 33. Sarkisyan G., Population of Eastern Armenia in the 19th - early 20th centuries, Yerevan, 2002. 34. Smbatyants M., Description of the Gekarkunik district, which is called New Bayazet, Vagharshapat, 1895. / in arm. language/. 35. Statistical analysis in demography, M., 1980. 36. Thompson P. Voice of the past: Oral history / P. Thompson; Per. M. L. Korobochkin, Per. E. M. Krishtof, Per. G. P. BLYABLIN. 37. Halbvaks M. Collective and historical memory. Part 1-2. 38. Khodzhabekyan V., The population of Armenia and its employment / 1828-1978 /, Yerevan, 1979. / in arm. language / 39. Reader on oral history / Translated, comp., introduction, general. ed. M. V. Loskutova. St. Petersburg: Publishing house EUSP, 2003. 9 40. Ethnic processes in Transcaucasia in 19-20 centuries. KES, vol. 4, Moscow, 1974. 41. Hobsbawm E. Introduction: Inventing Traditions // The Invention of Tradition / Ed. Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger. - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. P. 1 - 14. Russian translation: Hobsbawm E. The invention of traditions / Per. from English. S. Panarina // Bulletin of Eurasia. 2000. No. 1 (8). pp. 47 – 62. Further reading 1. Harutyunyan Vl., Noratus village, Yerevan, 2000, / in arm. language/. 2. Darveshyan M., Cattle farm of the Kurds of Eastern Armenia, Yerevan, 1986. 3. Manukyan K., Sarukhan village, Yerevan, 1998, / in arm. language/. 4. Mezikhovsky V., Brief essay on the Novobayazate district, Erivan province, St. Petersburg, 1908. 5. Migration from Armenia / ed. G. Kharatyan /. Yerevan, 2003. 6. Nora P. France - memory / Per. D. Khapayeva. - St. Petersburg: Publishing House of St. Petersburg. University, 1999 (Nora P. Between memory and history (Problems of places of memory); Nora P. Nation - memory.) 7. Sargsyan G., Ethnic composition of the Armenian region 1828-1840, Bulletin of Yerevan University, 1986, I2, / in arm. language/. 8. Svazlyan V., Cilicia: the oral tradition of Western Armenians, Yerevan, 1994 / in arm /. 9. Svazlyan V., Armenian genocide and historical memory, Yerevan, 2005 / in Armenian /. 10. Dictionary of toponyms of Armenia and adjacent regions / in Armenian. language /, t1-4. 11. Eliade M., History and space, M. 1987. 12. Portelli A. The Battle of Valle Giulia: Oral History and the Art of Dialogue/ A. Portelli . 1997. 13. Titon J. T. The Life Story, in: The Jounal of American Folklore. 1980, vol. 3, issue 369. P. 276-292. 14. Schuman H., Scott J. Generations and Collective Memories, in: American Sociological Review. 1989 Vol. 54. No. 3. P. 359-381. 15. Bauman R. “We was always pullin’ jokes”: the management of point of view in personal narrative experiences, in: Bauman R. Story, Performance and Event, in: Bauman R. Story, Performance and Event. Contextual Studies of Oral Narrative. Cambridge, 1986. P.33-53. 10 16. Olick J. K., Robbins J. Social Memory Studies: From “Collective Memory” to the Historical Sociology of Mnemonic Practices, in: Annual Review of Sociology. 1998 Vol. 24. P. 105-140. Degh L. Manipulation of Personal Experience, in: Degh L. Narrarives in Society: A Performer-Centered Study of Narration. Helsinki 1995. P. 70-70-78. 17. Forms of control The course ends with a test. Seminars and writing abstracts are also planned. The topics of abstracts are the history of individual settlements, clans, families, various aspects of the “development” of the landscape, etc.1 The method of abstract work is oral-historical. Interactive methods of work within the framework of the course Discussion of individual “stories” recorded by students. Presentation, comparison and discussion of “stories” in different versions, i.e. “narrative”, “local”, family stories, etc. Watching and discussing films that demonstrate the historical context of these processes or different aspects of migrations. 1 Since the region is a “settlement region”, the topic is quite consistent with the realities and makes it possible to “understand” and “imagine” the process of resettlement of the 19th century using specific examples. eleven
Expulsion of the Transcaucasian Armenians to Persia. "Great Surgun"
Despite wars, invasions and migrations, it is likely that Armenians still made up the majority of the population of Eastern Armenia until the 17th century. In 1604, Abbas I the Great used scorched earth tactics against the Armenians in the Ararat valley. More than 250,000 Armenians were deported from Eastern (Transcaucasian) Armenia. Arakel Davrizhetsi, a 17th-century author, reports:
"Shah Abbas did not heed the prayers of the Armenians. He called his nakharars to himself and appointed overseers and guides of the inhabitants of the country from among them, so that each prince with his army would evict and expel the population of one gavar."
The city of Julfa in the province of Nakhichevan was taken at the very beginning of the invasion. After that, Abbas's army fanned out along the Ararat plain. The shah followed a cautious strategy: advancing and retreating depending on the situation, he decided not to jeopardize his campaign in head-on collisions with stronger enemy units.
While besieging the city of Kars, he learned of the approach of a large Ottoman army led by Jighazade Sinan Pasha. An order was given to withdraw the troops. To prevent the possible replenishment of the enemy's supplies from this land, Abbas ordered the complete destruction of all cities and rural areas in the plain. And as part of all this, the entire population was ordered to accompany the Persian army in their retreat. About 300 thousand people were thus sent to the banks of the Araks River. Those of them who tried to resist the deportation were immediately killed. Earlier, the Shah ordered the destruction of the only bridge, and people were forced to pass through the water, where a huge number of people drowned, carried away by the current, never reaching the opposite shore. This was only the beginning of their ordeal. One eyewitness, Father de Guyan, describes the situation of the refugees thus:
"Not only the winter cold caused torment and death to the deported people. The greatest torment was due to hunger. The provisions that the deportees took with them soon ran out ... Babies cried, asking for food or milk, but none of this that women's breasts were dried up from hunger. Many women, hungry and emaciated, left their starving children on the side of the road and continued their painful journey. Some went to the nearby forests to try to find some food. As a rule, they did not return. Often those who were dying served as food for those who were still alive."
Unable to support his army in the desert plain, Sinan Pasha was forced to spend the winter in Van. The armies sent to pursue the Shah in 1605 were routed, and by 1606 Abbas had reconquered the entire territory, which he had previously lost to the Turks.
Part of the territory of Armenia from the 15th century was also known as Chukhur-Saad. Since the time of Ismail I, it administratively formed the Chukhur-Saad beylarbek of the Safavid state. After the death of Nadir Shah and the fall of the Afshar dynasty, local rulers from the Qizilbash tribe of Ustajlu, who were the hereditary rulers of Chukhur-Saad, declared their independence with the formation of the Erivan Khanate. As a result of the displacement of the Armenian population from Armenia, by the 18th century Armenians accounted for 20% of the total population of the Chukhur-Saad region. Later on the Khan's throne, the Ustajlu family was replaced by the Turkic tribe Kangarli. Under the rule of the Qajars, the Erivan Khanate recognized vassal dependence on Qajar Iran. The khan's family of Kangarli was replaced by a khan from the Qajar family. The Nakhichevan and Karabakh khanates also existed on the territory of historical Armenia.
Eastern Armenia on the map of the Persian Empire. John Pinkerton, 1818
From the beginning of the 17th to the middle of the 18th century on the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, under the Safavid Shah Abbas I, five Armenian melikdoms (small principalities) known under the common name Khams were created. The Armenian population of Khamsa was ruled by princes from the families of Melik-Begleryan, Melik-Israelyan (later Mirzakhanyan and Atabekyan), Melik-Shahnazaryan, Melik-Avanyan and Hasan-Jalalyan, of which Hasan-Jalalyan, their younger branch Atabekyan and Melik-Shahnazaryan were the indigenous dynasties , the rest of the princes were immigrants from other regions of Armenia.
In the 18th century, David-Bek and Joseph Emin led the struggle of the Transcaucasian Armenians against the Turks and Iranians.
Armenian national liberation struggle of the 18th century
In Moscow, Israel Ori meets with Peter I and gives him a letter from the Syunik meliks. Peter promised to help the Armenians after the end of the war with Sweden. Thanks to his wide erudition and his intellect, Ori attracted the sympathy of the imperial court. Ori proposed to Peter the following plan: to liberate Georgia and Armenia, a 25,000-strong Russian army of 15,000 Cossacks and 10,000 infantry should be sent to Transcaucasia. The Cossacks must pass through the Darial Gorge, and the infantry to sail across the Caspian Sea from Astrakhan. On the spot, Russian troops will have to receive the support of the armed forces of Georgians and Armenians. It was decided that it was necessary to send a special mission to Persia, led by Ori, who would find out the mindset of the local residents, collect information about roads, fortresses, etc. In order not to arouse suspicion, Ori would have to say that he was sent by the pope to court of Soltan Hussein to collect information about the life of Christians in the Persian Empire.
In 1707, after all the necessary preparations, Ori, with the rank of colonel in the Russian army, set out with a large detachment. French missionaries in Persia tried to prevent Ori's arrival in Isfahan by reporting to the Shah that Russia wanted an independent Armenia and Ori wanted to become an Armenian king. When Ori arrived in Shirvan, he had to wait several days for permission to enter the country. In Shamakhi, he met with local leaders of Georgians and Armenians, supporting their orientation towards Russia. In 1709 he arrived in Isfahan, where he again negotiated with political leaders. Returning to Russia from Persia, in 1711 Ori died unexpectedly in Astrakhan.
In 1722, the Armenians of Syunik and Nagorno-Karabakh rebelled against Persian domination. The uprising was led by David Bek and Yesai Gasan-Jalalyan, who managed to overthrow Iranian domination for several years. The uprising also engulfed the Nakhichevan region. In 1727, the Safavids recognized the power of David Bek over the region, and the commander himself even received the right to mint coins. In 1730, with the assassination of his successor Mkhitar Sparapet, the 8-year uprising of the Armenians of Syunik ended.
A new revival of the Armenian national liberation movement is observed in the second half of the 18th century. So, already in 1773, Sh. Shaamirian in his work “The Trap of Ambition” outlined the republican principles of the future independent Armenian state. Iosif Emin and Movses Bagramyan, who put forward plans for the restoration of the Armenian state, became significant figures in the national liberation struggle of the era.
At the end of the 18th century, the Armenian meliks of Nagorno-Karabakh fought tirelessly against Ibrahim Khalil Khan in the hope of restoring Armenian statehood in Karabakh.
The entry of Eastern Armenia into the Russian Empire
From the beginning of the 19th century, the territories of historical Eastern Armenia gradually joined the Russian Empire. As a result of the Russian-Persian war of 1803-1813, the Karabakh Khanate was annexed to Russia (it was formed in the middle of the 18th century after the capture of the Armenian melikdoms of Khamsa), which was inhabited mainly by Armenians, as well as Zangezur in historical Syunik with a mixed population at that time. Twice attempts to besiege Erivan were unsuccessful. On October 5, 1827, during the Russian-Persian war of 1826-1828, Erivan was taken by Count Paskevich; a little earlier (in June) the capital of the Nakhichevan Khanate, the city of Nakhichevan, also fell.
The Turkmanchay peace treaty signed later gave the territories of these khanates to Russia and established the right of free resettlement of Muslims to Persia, and Christians to Russia within a year. In 1828, the Armenian region was formed on the site of the Erivan and Nakhichevan khanates, and the descendants of Armenians who were forcibly evicted from Transcaucasia by the Persian authorities at the beginning of the 17th century were massively resettled into it from Iran. Subsequently, in 1849, the Armenian region was transformed into the Erivan province.
As a result of the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878, another part of historical Armenia, Kars and its environs, came under the control of the Russian Empire, from which the Kars region was organized.
Armenian region within the Russian Empire (existed until 1849)
Western Armenia
Mehmed II captured Constantinople in 1453 and made it the capital of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman sultans invited an Armenian archbishop to establish an Armenian Patriarchate in Constantinople. The Armenians of Constantinople grew in number and became respected (if not full-fledged) members of society.
The Ottoman Empire was governed according to Islamic law. Such "infidels" as Christians and Jews had to pay additional taxes in order to meet the requirements of their status as dhimmis. The Armenians living in Constantinople enjoyed the support of the Sultan, unlike those who lived in the territory of historical Armenia. They were subjected to cruel treatment by local pashas and beys and were forced to pay taxes to the Kurdish tribes. Armenians (like other Christians living in the Ottoman Empire) also had to give part of the healthy boys to the Sultan's government, which made them Janissaries. It is known that some Ottoman generals were proud of their Armenian origin.
In the XVI - early XX centuries. the rulers of the Ottoman Empire actively populated the historical Armenian lands with Kurdish Muslims, who were more loyal to Turkish rule and had less political ambitions than the Armenians. With the beginning of the decline of the Ottoman Empire in the 17th century, the attitude of the authorities towards Christians in general, and towards Armenians in particular, began to noticeably worsen. After Sultan Abdulmejid I made reforms on his territory in 1839, the position of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire improved for some time.
Subscribe to the site by liking the official Facebook page (