Tweet
WHAT HAPPENED ON 24 APRIL 1915? THE AYASH PRISONERS
Gomidas Institute, UK
22 April 2013
by Ara Sarafian
22 April 2013
Conventional accounts of the Armenian Genocide invariably start
with the arrest of Armenian community intellectuals on 24 April 1915
followed by the unfolding of a genocidal process. The recent attempt
by the former head of the Turkish State Archives Yusuf Sarinay to
argue that nothing untoward happened to the men who were arrested on
that date, especially the political prisoners sent to Ayash, was a
clear attempt to falsify history argues historian Ara Sarafian.
24 April 1915 and the Commemoration of the Armenian Genocide 1
On 24 April 1915 Ottoman authorities began the mass arrest and exile of
Armenians in Constantinople. The arrested were male, and predominantly
intellectuals, community leaders, and political activists. Once in
the state's custody, they were sent to internment camps in Ayash and
Chankiri in the interior of Ottoman Turkey. The liquidation of a large
number of these men, followed by the deportation and destruction of
entire communities in the provinces of the Ottoman Empire, resulted
in 24 April 1915 becoming the commemoration date for the Armenian
Genocide.
Early Accounts of the Arrests
Our critical understanding of the events surrounding the arrests
of 24 April rests on a range of sources. The first general survey
of the killing of Armenians in 1915 was carried out by Teotig who
in 1919 published Houshartsan Abril 11i (Monument to April 11), a
book released in Constantinople for the first public commemoration
of the Armenian Genocide.2 This book presented the names of 761
prominent victims of the Genocide, many of whom were people arrested
in Constantinople on 24 April 1915.3 Some of the men who survived the
arrest and exile to Ayash and Chankiri also published their memoirs
in books and articles. They include Mikayel Shamdandjian,4 Krikoris
Balakian,5 Aram Andonian,6 Piuzant Bozadjian,7 Avedis Nakashian,8
and Khachig Boghosian.9 Their memoirs complement Teotig's work and
are significant sources of information.
Some of the most sensitive information in the memoir literature has
been provided by Turks, Kurds, and other Muslims who had first-hand
knowledge of the atrocities which took place. For example, Aram
Andonian relates how, while he was in hospital in Angora [Ankara], he
shared a room with a Kurd from Haymana, who talked about the massacres
that were taking place around Ankara. Andonian also had the company
of another patient, a Turkish soldier from Beypazar, who discussed the
massacre of Armenians with his visitors. It was from such sources that
Andonian learned of the deaths of a group of Armenians from Ayash,
which included the poet Siamanto, the cartoonist Krikor Torosian,
the writer and editor Kegham Parseghian, the actor Yenovk Shahin, the
kind-spirited Vramshabouh Samouelof, and Parounag Feroukhan.10 Yet
another account was given of the murder of Ayash prisoners by Aram
Andonian, though he did not disclose his sources of information.11
Similarly, Avedis Nakashian narrated the mass execution of Armenians
at Ayash prison based on the testimony of a Turkish notable he had
befriended. After Nakashian's release from Ayash, this notable visited
him in Constantinople and related that 30 of the Ayash prisoners
were first sent to Angora, then deported with local Armenians,
and killed outside of the city. He also stated that the remaining
prisoners at Ayash prison were tied up in front of the government
building and taken away. The Turkish notable was also informed of the
manner in which these prisoners were murdered near Ayash. He listed
some of the victims as Jak Saybalian [Paylag], Kasbarian, Shahrigian,
Zakarian, Samuelov, and Smpad Piurad.12 Krikoris Balakian gave another
description of the murder of the last prisoners at Ayash, citing an
unnamed Armenian doctor who was told of the killings by Khourshid
Chavoush, who had participated in the atrocities.13 Although there are
minor differences in the various accounts, all accounts corroborate
that around 14 prisoners were released and that the remaining 71
or so Ayash prisoners were murdered. Most of the victims were in
either of two batches: one group was led away and killed along with
other Armenians a few hours outside Angora, while another group was
executed a few hours outside of Ayash itself. The names of most of
these victims are listed in in Teotig's Houshartsan Abril 11i.
Denying the Fate of Armenian Victims: Yusuf Sarinay and the Arrests
of 24 April 1915
Despite the evidence at hand presented in an article titled, "What
Happened on 24 April 1915? - The Circular of 24 April 1915 and the
Arrest of Armenian Committee Members in Istanbul," the senior Turkish
archivist Yusuf Sarinay dismisses any notion that these Armenians
were abused or killed and claims to think that there was no general
persecution of Armenians in 1915.14 While Sarinay's sentiments are
not new (the denial of the Armenian Genocide is official policy in
Turkey), they merit a response due to his standing as a Turkish state
intellectual and Head of the Turkish State Archives. Furthermore, since
Sarinay, as a scholar and top archivist, insists on the legality of
these arrests and rejects any charge of mass killings, then he should
be expected to account for the men who were taken into state custody
and verify that they did not disappear. His ability, or failure, to
engage his subject in a creditable manner is a test of his own standing
as a scholar, as well as the standing of the Turkish institutions he
represents, most notably the Ottoman State Archives that he heads.15
Sarinay presents his work as an investigation of the arrest of Armenian
"committee members" in Constantinople on 24 April 1915.
Although he does not provide proper evidence, he argues that these
men belonged to political and revolutionary societies and cooperated
with Allied powers against the Ottoman Empire;16 he insists that the
guilt of these men was beyond question because of the watchful eyes
of Ottoman security agencies;17 and he explains the extraordinary
treatment of these prisoners was because of heightened tensions caused
by the Allied landings at the Dardanelles in April 1915.
According to Sarinay, the number of men who were initially arrested
was estimated to be around 180 and this number rose to 235 between
24 April and 24 May 1915. These prisoners were sent to two locations
in the interior of the Empire: an open prison in Chankiri and a
high-security prison in a military depot at Ayash. Around 100 of these
prisoners were sent in the first convoy to Chankiri and subsequently
this number rose to 140 people. In the case of Ayash, he estimates
the number of prisoners to be around 60-70 people.18 While his initial
estimate of prisoners is correct, he does not seem aware of a second
dispatch of prisoners to Ayash and Chankiri following the arrests of
24 April 1915. The first group that left Constantinople constituted
the bulk of prisoners, while a second group made up of around 30
people were sent a few days later via Ankara.19
Once arrested and exiled, many of the prisoners petitioned Ottoman
authorities and a number of them were released because, as Sarinay
explains, they were found to be innocent, foreign nationals, or
ill.20 Once again he intimates that the prisoners were afforded the
full protection of Ottoman law and humane consideration.
The Chankiri Prisoners
One of Sarinay's core references is a report by the Chankiri
chief of police listing the names of all 155 prisoners sent to
Chankiri--including those who were no longer in Chankiri when the
report was written.21 This report is probably the most complete list
we have of Armenian prisoners sent to Chankiri following the arrests
of 24 April 1915.22 The list seems highly creditable in light of
other primary accounts related to these arrests.23
However, while Sarinay succeeds in identifying the prisoners who
were sent to Chankiri, he does not discuss their fate after they were
'discharged' from Chankiri. Practically all of the prisoners had been
'discharged' from Chankiri by the end of August 1915. Instead Sarinay
simply credits the Chankiri police report's notes about the dispatch
of prisoners to other locations. This abrupt end is most astonishing
given that Sarinay's apparent purpose is to take issue with the
Armenian Genocide thesis. His avoidance of any discussion of the
ultimate fate of these prisoners while in state custody is remarkable.
He avoids any consideration of the political nature of the arrests,
the illegal treatment of prisoners, and the murder of so many of them.
At least 39 of the prominent prisoners sent to Chankiri never returned
to Constantinople, while the number of the lesser known victims has
never been established.24
The Ayash Prisoners
Sarinay's account of the Ayash prisoners is much more problematic
than his account of Chankiri prisoners. Starting with the statement
that there is no complete list of the Ayash prisoners in the Turkish
archives, Sarinay estimates the number of these prisoners to be
around 71 people.25 This estimate is probably correct in regards to
the initial number of prisoners but it does not take into account
the additional 13 men who arrived a week later.26 Having estimated a
figure of 71 prisoners, Sarinay generates the names of 71 supposed
inmates using an Ottoman report (which surprisingly includes no
details about its provenance, authorship, and date).27 While the
Turkish archives estimate the date of this document as 14 Sept. 1920
[30.Z.1338], Sarinay states that it was prepared by the Constantinople
General Directorate of Security, Ismail Djanbolat, "probably around
August 1916."28 This report lists the names of 600 Armenians who
were wanted by Ottoman authorities, including those who were already
noted as dispatched to Ayash or Chankiri on 24 April 1915. Sarinay
mentions the names of three more prisoners who had been sent away from
Ayash (and were therefore not found on the list of 600 prisoners,
or his list of 71 Ayash prisoners).29 As we show in our appendix,
the prisoners sent to Ayash numbered around 85 people.
A comparison of the original list of 600 men wanted by the police to
Sarinay's list of 71 prisoners at Ayash raises some basic issues: (1)
Some of the names are wrongly or poorly transliterated to the point
of non-recognition in Sarinay's work. Adom Yardjanian [Siamanto] is
listed as "Avram Bazcayan," Yenovk Shahen is "Penodo S[h]ahin," Artin
Kalfayan" is "Artin Kalenderyan," etc.; (2) Eight people Sarinay lists
as Ayash prisoners, supposedly on the basis of the list of 600, were
wrongly included. The list of 600 did not say they were sent to Ayash.
These are Artin Hatsakordzian, Hagop Kufedjian [Oshagan], Ardashes
Ferahian, Aram Hadjian, H. Palandjian, Hamazasp Panosian, Parsekh
Dinanian, and Nshan Kaldjian; (3) Conversely, four men who were sent
to Ayash according to the list of 600 do not appear on Sarinay's list.
These are Hampartsoum Boyadjian (Mourad), Krikor Torosian (Kevo),
Krikor Armouni, Haroutiun Djangiulian. (4) As mentioned earlier,
the number of Ayash prisoners was significantly more than 71, and it
is surprising Sarinay does mention references to them in the Turkish
archives. Most of these people were actually discharged from Ayash;
those discharged include Avedis Nakashian,30 Levon Shamdandjian,31
and Servet Margos.32 There is also the case of Khachig Boghosian
who appears in Sarinay's lists for both Ayash and Chankiri. As
Boghosian explains in his memoirs, he was first sent to Ayash and
then transferred to Chankiri.33
The most bewildering part of Sarinay's article is his claim that the
71 Ayash prisoners he lists remained there until 1918. He actually
does not present evidence to support this central assertion. Instead,
he states that the Ayash prisoners "apparently were kept under arrest
throughout World War I.... Only after the signing of the Mudros
Armistice did Karnik Madukyan, Krikor Hamparsumyan and Pantuvan
Parzisyan receive the chance to be released on November 10, 1918. The
rest were freed after the Allied Powers took control of the Ottoman
Empire following the armistice."34 This is a breathtaking and brazen
statement; for one thing, the three Armenians who were released in
1918 were not amongst the 71 prisoners under discussion, nor on the
list of 600 Armenians who were wanted by the Ottoman authorities.35
Sarinay's inability to provide any actual evidence to make his point
is worth noting.
In both cases regarding Chankiri and Ayash, there is a clear list of
prisoners who were arrested and disappeared while in state custody.
These lists comprising of 39 prisoners from Chankiri and 71 prisoners
from Ayash should have been the heart of Sarinay's contention that
no injustice befell the Armenians who were arrested and exiled on
24 April 1915. Instead, he avoids a serious appraisal of the fate of
the men who were arrested and exiled.
Sarinay's failure includes ignoring Ottoman records in the Turkish
archives. For example, while the Chankiri police report stated that the
former editor in chief of Sabah newspaper, Diran Kelegian, was due to
leave Chankiri for Izmir in August 1915,36 Krikoris Balakian describes
how Kelegian was actually sent to a court-martial in Diyarbekir on 12
October 1915 and killed on the Halys river [Kizil Irmak] in Sivas. His
source is the Turkish manager of the tobacco regie in Chankiri.37
Kelegian's removal from Chankiri is also noted in Turkish archives,
which include a telegram stating that Kelegian had left on his way to
Diyarbekir on 29 October 1915.38 He was later located in Iskilib kaza
(Sivas),39 and an inquiry in 1919 requested information about his fate
in Amasya (Sivas).40 Clearly, even extant Ottoman records in Turkish
archives show that Kelegian was not sent to Izmir as the Chankiri
police report suggested. Similarly, while the Chankiri police report
states that a group of prisoners consisting of Roupen Chilingirian
(the writer Roupen Sevag), Onnig Maghazadjian (a book-binder),
Taniel Chiboukirian (the poet Taniel Varoujan), Artin Boghosian
(baker), and Vahan Kehyayan (blacksmith) were due to go to Ayash,
Sarinay does not mention that these people were reportedly killed
within a matter of hours upon leaving Chankiri. News of the killing of
these men spread almost immediately amongst the remaining prisoners
in Chankiri. Mikayel Shamdandjian states that they received news of
these killings that same night. He describes how the local military
police chief Nureddin and the CUP secretary Oghuz were amused by the
killings, while the governor's deputy was furious about it.
These details were conveyed to Shamdandjian and others by the deputy
governor. Shamdandjian states that the killing was organized through
the chete Arabadji Ismail, who had been at the crime scene two hours
before the crime, trying to instigate the killings. The provincial
governor, Reshid Pasha, who was against these killings, arrested 11
peasants for these murders.41 Krikoris Balakian also gives a very
detailed account of the killing of these five Armenians.42
In the case of Ayash, the 71 prisoners that Sarinay claims survived in
prison until 1918 include Parsegh Shahbaz. Yet, his fellow inmates in
prison state that Shahbaz was sent to a court-martial in Mamuret-ul
Aziz and add that he was murdered while in prison.43 A number of
records in the Turkish archives also place him in Mamuret-ul Aziz
(but say nothing of his eventual fate).44 Even Sarinay mentions, in
passing, that Shahbaz was sent for imprisonment to Mamuret-ul Azęz
(Elazęg), although he still includes him amongst the 71 prisoners
he claims remained in Ayash until 1918.45 A further group of Ayash
prisoners, Dr. Nazaret Daghavarian, Khachadour Maloumian (Agnouni),
Karekin Chakalian (Khazhag), Sarkis Minasian, Roupen Zartarian, and
Haroutiun Djihangiulian were similarly sent to be court-martialled in
Diyarbekir and were murdered on their way.46 All of these men were
obviously never seen again and recorded as victims of the Armenian
Genocide by Teotig.47 Yet Sarinay maintains that they remained in
Ayash until 1918 upon which they were supposedly released alongside
other prisoners.48
Conclusion
We have discussed two opposing historiographical traditions regarding
the arrest of Armenians in Constantinople on 24 April 1915. The first
is set against the background of the Armenian Genocide and draws on
specific works related to the fate of the arrested. The disappearance
of so many people amongst the arrested was first recorded by Teotig
in Houshartsan Abril 11i, while additional accounts from memoirs
have given us more detailed information about the process of the
arrests, the exile of prisoners, and the ensuing disappearance of
victims. Some of the details in the information could be debated,
but the evidence as a whole is compelling and points to the mass
abuse and disappearance of prisoners.
Alongside this historiographical tradition is a darker tradition of
the continuing denial of the Armenian Genocide by official Turkish
historians. It is within this tradition that Yusuf Sarinay presents
his case. He insists on the guilt of the arrested and states that
nothing untoward happened to them. However, as we have argued above,
despite his greater resources as Head of the Turkish State Archives,
his discussion is contrived and the evidence he presents does not
support his conclusions. While he accounts for most of the men
who were arrested, he fails to show any evidence that even hints
that some of them might have been alive after 1915 - let alone any
evidence that they re-entered public life after 1918. Sarinay's work
raises disturbing questions, which he seeks to mask, about the lack
of information in the Turkish archives concerning the fate of the
Armenian political prisoners who were sent to Ayash in 1915.
APPENDIX 1. LIST OF AYASH PRISONERS
ENDNOTES 1 This article is a work in progress, part of a broader
project on the arrests of 24 April 1915. It was originally published
in Turkish translation in Agos (30 May 2012).
2 Teotig (comp. and ed.), Constantinople: O. Arzouman, 1919. April
24 was April 11 in the old calendar then in use.
3 Teotig continued to publish information related to the Armenian
Genocide in his yearbooks, especially Amenoun Daretsouyts 1916-1920.
4 Mikayel Shamdandjian, "Recollections from Chankiri," in Teotig's
Monument to April 11. Also see Mikayel Shamdandjian, Hay Mdki Hargu
Yeghernin, Constantinople: O.Arzuman, 1919.
5 Krikoris Balakian, Armenian Golgotha: A Memoir of the Armenian
Genocide, 1915-18, trans. Peter Balakian with Aris Sevag. New York:
Alfred A. Knopf, 2009.
6 Aram Andonian, Exile, Trauma and Death, trans. Rita
Soulahian-Kuyumjian. London: Gomidas Institute, 2009.
7 Piuzant Bozadjian, "To Ayash," in Teotig, Monument to April 11.
8 Avedis Nakashian, Ayashi Pandu. Boston: Hairenik, 1925, reprinted
by Ghougas Garabedian, Beyrout, 1978.
9 Toros Toranian, ed., Yeghernen Verabrogh Halebahay Kaghoutin
Yerakhdavoru: Doktor Khachig Boghosian (1875-1955). New York, 2006.
This publication includes an autobiography by Khachig Boghosian
covering his experiences of 24 April 1915 and its aftermath.
10 Aram Andonian, "Hampartsoum Hampartsoumian," in Almanach de
Renaissance, Paris, 1920, pp. 65-83.
11 Aram Andonian, Exile, Trauma and Death, p. 57.
12 Nakashian, Ayashi Pandu, pp. 168-69.
13 Balakian, pp. 94-95.
14 International Journal of Turkish Studies, Vol. 14, Nos. 1 & 2
(Fall 2008), pp. 75-101.
15 Yusuf Sarinay is currently the head of the General Directorate of
State Archives (2001); member of Executive Board of Turkish Military
History Commission (2002), member of Board of Directors of the European
Branch of the International Archive Council (2004).
16 Sarinay, "What Happened on April 24, 1915?" p. 78.
17 Ibid.
18 Ibid., p. 79.
19 See the works of Andonian, Balakian, Boghosian, Bozadjian and
Shamdandjian, Nakashian cited above.
20 Sarinay, "What Happened on April 24, 1915?" p. 79.
21 This report was dated 24 August 1915 and enclosed in a communication
from the Kastamonu governor's office to the Ministry of Interior
on 31 August 1915. See Dh.EUM.2Shb, 10/73. This police report also
appears in T. C. Basbakanlik Devlet Arsivleri Genel Mudurlugu, Osmanli
Belgelerinde Ermenilerin Sevk ve Iskani, (1878-1920), Ankara, 2007,
Report no. 182, pp. 232-238. The English translation of the Ottoman
document appears as an appendix to Sarinay's article but it does not
include vital information appearing on the last page which dates and
identifies the authorship of the report.
22 The transcription and rendition of Armenian names into Latin script
should be corrected. See our Appendix I.
23 These invaluable sources (which Sarinay does not mention) are
Teotig's "Monument to April 11," Boghosian's autobiography in Toranian,
ed., Yeghernen Verabrogh Halebahay Kaghoutin Yerakhdavoru, Balakian,
Armenian Golgotha, Andonian, Exile, Trauma and Death, and Bozadjian,
"To Ayash."
24 The aforementioned 39 prisoners were prominent individuals,
such as artists, community leaders, well-to-do individuals, and
members of political parties. Their social standing was probably the
main reason why Teotig noted them as victims in his book. However,
there were also men at the other end of the social spectrum who were
overlooked by Teotig. One comes across such lesser-known characters in
Aram Andonian's accounts mention a butcher wearing his bloodied apron
(Garabed Tashdjian, survivor), a Catholic Armenian who vociferously
denied being Armenian and was teased about it (Apig Djanbaz,
killed), a baker (Artin Agha Boghosian, killed), a former municipal
dogcatcher in Constantinople who spoke in a naïve and broken mixture
of Armenian-Turkish (Artin Asadourian, survivor), and a number of
Turkish speaking tobacco smugglers who spoke with much bravado (names
and fate unknown). These were all cases of ordinary individuals
who stood out of the ordinary crowd, and undoubtedly there were
many others who have been forgotten. Similarly, Krikoris Balakian,
who was imprisoned in Chankiri and published his memoir-account in
1922, could only name 70 of the Chankiri prisoners, while he could
name most of the Ayash prisoners. This is probably because the Ayash
prisoners were more prominent individuals. Since the recent release
of the Chankiri police report, a large number of the lesser-known
Chankiri prisoners can be named.
25 Sarinay, "What Happened on April 24, 1915?" p. 80.
26 See Boghosian's autobiography in Toranian, ed., Yeghernen Verabrogh
Halebahay Kaghoutin Yerakhdavoru, pp. 40-41 and Bozadjian, "To Ayash,"
p. 199.
27 See BOA.DH.EUM.2.Shb, 67/31.
28 Sarinay, "What Happened on April 24, 1915?" pp. 81-82. Sarinay's
dating of this document creates new problems for him, though he does
not address them. For example, the report prepared by the Chankiri
chief of police states that most of the prisoners in Chankiri had left
that prison before September 1915, while another list of prisoners he
cites to name the prisoners at Ayash names dozens of Armenian prisoners
in Chankiri in 1916. Krikoris Balakian states that practically all
prisoners left in the summer of 1915, while he left in the last group
of Armenians--including local Armenian families--in February 1916.
29 The three prisoners who were released from Ayash, according to
Sarinay, were Hayg Tiryakian (wrongfully arrested for his namesake--the
real Tiryakian was in Chankiri and came forward); Dr. Allahverdian,
who was arrested instead of his son; and Akrik Kerestedjian, who was
sent to Zor but soon released. Sarinay also includes Akrik Sarkis
Kerestedjian on his list of Chankiri prisoners, p. 81 30 BOA.DH.ShFR,
480/96.
31 BOA.DH.EUM.2.Shb, 8/88.
32 BOA.DH.ShFR, 52/254.
33 Boghosian, p. 41-42.
34 Sarinay, "What Happened on April 24, 1915?" pp. 81-82.
35 According to Balakian, Andonian, and Nakashian, most of the Ayash
prisoners were killed around August 1915.
36 The Directorate for Pubic Security in Constantinople identifies
a Diran Kelegian who had been sent to a court-martial in Diyarbekir
and inquired about his fate in Sivas. See Dh.SFR, 95/45, 186.
37 Balakian, Armenian Golgotha, p. 69, 113-4. Kelegian is also listed
as one of the victims of the Armenian Genocide by Teotig.
http://gomidas.org/submissions/show/5
Gomidas Institute, UK
22 April 2013
by Ara Sarafian
22 April 2013
Conventional accounts of the Armenian Genocide invariably start
with the arrest of Armenian community intellectuals on 24 April 1915
followed by the unfolding of a genocidal process. The recent attempt
by the former head of the Turkish State Archives Yusuf Sarinay to
argue that nothing untoward happened to the men who were arrested on
that date, especially the political prisoners sent to Ayash, was a
clear attempt to falsify history argues historian Ara Sarafian.
24 April 1915 and the Commemoration of the Armenian Genocide 1
On 24 April 1915 Ottoman authorities began the mass arrest and exile of
Armenians in Constantinople. The arrested were male, and predominantly
intellectuals, community leaders, and political activists. Once in
the state's custody, they were sent to internment camps in Ayash and
Chankiri in the interior of Ottoman Turkey. The liquidation of a large
number of these men, followed by the deportation and destruction of
entire communities in the provinces of the Ottoman Empire, resulted
in 24 April 1915 becoming the commemoration date for the Armenian
Genocide.
Early Accounts of the Arrests
Our critical understanding of the events surrounding the arrests
of 24 April rests on a range of sources. The first general survey
of the killing of Armenians in 1915 was carried out by Teotig who
in 1919 published Houshartsan Abril 11i (Monument to April 11), a
book released in Constantinople for the first public commemoration
of the Armenian Genocide.2 This book presented the names of 761
prominent victims of the Genocide, many of whom were people arrested
in Constantinople on 24 April 1915.3 Some of the men who survived the
arrest and exile to Ayash and Chankiri also published their memoirs
in books and articles. They include Mikayel Shamdandjian,4 Krikoris
Balakian,5 Aram Andonian,6 Piuzant Bozadjian,7 Avedis Nakashian,8
and Khachig Boghosian.9 Their memoirs complement Teotig's work and
are significant sources of information.
Some of the most sensitive information in the memoir literature has
been provided by Turks, Kurds, and other Muslims who had first-hand
knowledge of the atrocities which took place. For example, Aram
Andonian relates how, while he was in hospital in Angora [Ankara], he
shared a room with a Kurd from Haymana, who talked about the massacres
that were taking place around Ankara. Andonian also had the company
of another patient, a Turkish soldier from Beypazar, who discussed the
massacre of Armenians with his visitors. It was from such sources that
Andonian learned of the deaths of a group of Armenians from Ayash,
which included the poet Siamanto, the cartoonist Krikor Torosian,
the writer and editor Kegham Parseghian, the actor Yenovk Shahin, the
kind-spirited Vramshabouh Samouelof, and Parounag Feroukhan.10 Yet
another account was given of the murder of Ayash prisoners by Aram
Andonian, though he did not disclose his sources of information.11
Similarly, Avedis Nakashian narrated the mass execution of Armenians
at Ayash prison based on the testimony of a Turkish notable he had
befriended. After Nakashian's release from Ayash, this notable visited
him in Constantinople and related that 30 of the Ayash prisoners
were first sent to Angora, then deported with local Armenians,
and killed outside of the city. He also stated that the remaining
prisoners at Ayash prison were tied up in front of the government
building and taken away. The Turkish notable was also informed of the
manner in which these prisoners were murdered near Ayash. He listed
some of the victims as Jak Saybalian [Paylag], Kasbarian, Shahrigian,
Zakarian, Samuelov, and Smpad Piurad.12 Krikoris Balakian gave another
description of the murder of the last prisoners at Ayash, citing an
unnamed Armenian doctor who was told of the killings by Khourshid
Chavoush, who had participated in the atrocities.13 Although there are
minor differences in the various accounts, all accounts corroborate
that around 14 prisoners were released and that the remaining 71
or so Ayash prisoners were murdered. Most of the victims were in
either of two batches: one group was led away and killed along with
other Armenians a few hours outside Angora, while another group was
executed a few hours outside of Ayash itself. The names of most of
these victims are listed in in Teotig's Houshartsan Abril 11i.
Denying the Fate of Armenian Victims: Yusuf Sarinay and the Arrests
of 24 April 1915
Despite the evidence at hand presented in an article titled, "What
Happened on 24 April 1915? - The Circular of 24 April 1915 and the
Arrest of Armenian Committee Members in Istanbul," the senior Turkish
archivist Yusuf Sarinay dismisses any notion that these Armenians
were abused or killed and claims to think that there was no general
persecution of Armenians in 1915.14 While Sarinay's sentiments are
not new (the denial of the Armenian Genocide is official policy in
Turkey), they merit a response due to his standing as a Turkish state
intellectual and Head of the Turkish State Archives. Furthermore, since
Sarinay, as a scholar and top archivist, insists on the legality of
these arrests and rejects any charge of mass killings, then he should
be expected to account for the men who were taken into state custody
and verify that they did not disappear. His ability, or failure, to
engage his subject in a creditable manner is a test of his own standing
as a scholar, as well as the standing of the Turkish institutions he
represents, most notably the Ottoman State Archives that he heads.15
Sarinay presents his work as an investigation of the arrest of Armenian
"committee members" in Constantinople on 24 April 1915.
Although he does not provide proper evidence, he argues that these
men belonged to political and revolutionary societies and cooperated
with Allied powers against the Ottoman Empire;16 he insists that the
guilt of these men was beyond question because of the watchful eyes
of Ottoman security agencies;17 and he explains the extraordinary
treatment of these prisoners was because of heightened tensions caused
by the Allied landings at the Dardanelles in April 1915.
According to Sarinay, the number of men who were initially arrested
was estimated to be around 180 and this number rose to 235 between
24 April and 24 May 1915. These prisoners were sent to two locations
in the interior of the Empire: an open prison in Chankiri and a
high-security prison in a military depot at Ayash. Around 100 of these
prisoners were sent in the first convoy to Chankiri and subsequently
this number rose to 140 people. In the case of Ayash, he estimates
the number of prisoners to be around 60-70 people.18 While his initial
estimate of prisoners is correct, he does not seem aware of a second
dispatch of prisoners to Ayash and Chankiri following the arrests of
24 April 1915. The first group that left Constantinople constituted
the bulk of prisoners, while a second group made up of around 30
people were sent a few days later via Ankara.19
Once arrested and exiled, many of the prisoners petitioned Ottoman
authorities and a number of them were released because, as Sarinay
explains, they were found to be innocent, foreign nationals, or
ill.20 Once again he intimates that the prisoners were afforded the
full protection of Ottoman law and humane consideration.
The Chankiri Prisoners
One of Sarinay's core references is a report by the Chankiri
chief of police listing the names of all 155 prisoners sent to
Chankiri--including those who were no longer in Chankiri when the
report was written.21 This report is probably the most complete list
we have of Armenian prisoners sent to Chankiri following the arrests
of 24 April 1915.22 The list seems highly creditable in light of
other primary accounts related to these arrests.23
However, while Sarinay succeeds in identifying the prisoners who
were sent to Chankiri, he does not discuss their fate after they were
'discharged' from Chankiri. Practically all of the prisoners had been
'discharged' from Chankiri by the end of August 1915. Instead Sarinay
simply credits the Chankiri police report's notes about the dispatch
of prisoners to other locations. This abrupt end is most astonishing
given that Sarinay's apparent purpose is to take issue with the
Armenian Genocide thesis. His avoidance of any discussion of the
ultimate fate of these prisoners while in state custody is remarkable.
He avoids any consideration of the political nature of the arrests,
the illegal treatment of prisoners, and the murder of so many of them.
At least 39 of the prominent prisoners sent to Chankiri never returned
to Constantinople, while the number of the lesser known victims has
never been established.24
The Ayash Prisoners
Sarinay's account of the Ayash prisoners is much more problematic
than his account of Chankiri prisoners. Starting with the statement
that there is no complete list of the Ayash prisoners in the Turkish
archives, Sarinay estimates the number of these prisoners to be
around 71 people.25 This estimate is probably correct in regards to
the initial number of prisoners but it does not take into account
the additional 13 men who arrived a week later.26 Having estimated a
figure of 71 prisoners, Sarinay generates the names of 71 supposed
inmates using an Ottoman report (which surprisingly includes no
details about its provenance, authorship, and date).27 While the
Turkish archives estimate the date of this document as 14 Sept. 1920
[30.Z.1338], Sarinay states that it was prepared by the Constantinople
General Directorate of Security, Ismail Djanbolat, "probably around
August 1916."28 This report lists the names of 600 Armenians who
were wanted by Ottoman authorities, including those who were already
noted as dispatched to Ayash or Chankiri on 24 April 1915. Sarinay
mentions the names of three more prisoners who had been sent away from
Ayash (and were therefore not found on the list of 600 prisoners,
or his list of 71 Ayash prisoners).29 As we show in our appendix,
the prisoners sent to Ayash numbered around 85 people.
A comparison of the original list of 600 men wanted by the police to
Sarinay's list of 71 prisoners at Ayash raises some basic issues: (1)
Some of the names are wrongly or poorly transliterated to the point
of non-recognition in Sarinay's work. Adom Yardjanian [Siamanto] is
listed as "Avram Bazcayan," Yenovk Shahen is "Penodo S[h]ahin," Artin
Kalfayan" is "Artin Kalenderyan," etc.; (2) Eight people Sarinay lists
as Ayash prisoners, supposedly on the basis of the list of 600, were
wrongly included. The list of 600 did not say they were sent to Ayash.
These are Artin Hatsakordzian, Hagop Kufedjian [Oshagan], Ardashes
Ferahian, Aram Hadjian, H. Palandjian, Hamazasp Panosian, Parsekh
Dinanian, and Nshan Kaldjian; (3) Conversely, four men who were sent
to Ayash according to the list of 600 do not appear on Sarinay's list.
These are Hampartsoum Boyadjian (Mourad), Krikor Torosian (Kevo),
Krikor Armouni, Haroutiun Djangiulian. (4) As mentioned earlier,
the number of Ayash prisoners was significantly more than 71, and it
is surprising Sarinay does mention references to them in the Turkish
archives. Most of these people were actually discharged from Ayash;
those discharged include Avedis Nakashian,30 Levon Shamdandjian,31
and Servet Margos.32 There is also the case of Khachig Boghosian
who appears in Sarinay's lists for both Ayash and Chankiri. As
Boghosian explains in his memoirs, he was first sent to Ayash and
then transferred to Chankiri.33
The most bewildering part of Sarinay's article is his claim that the
71 Ayash prisoners he lists remained there until 1918. He actually
does not present evidence to support this central assertion. Instead,
he states that the Ayash prisoners "apparently were kept under arrest
throughout World War I.... Only after the signing of the Mudros
Armistice did Karnik Madukyan, Krikor Hamparsumyan and Pantuvan
Parzisyan receive the chance to be released on November 10, 1918. The
rest were freed after the Allied Powers took control of the Ottoman
Empire following the armistice."34 This is a breathtaking and brazen
statement; for one thing, the three Armenians who were released in
1918 were not amongst the 71 prisoners under discussion, nor on the
list of 600 Armenians who were wanted by the Ottoman authorities.35
Sarinay's inability to provide any actual evidence to make his point
is worth noting.
In both cases regarding Chankiri and Ayash, there is a clear list of
prisoners who were arrested and disappeared while in state custody.
These lists comprising of 39 prisoners from Chankiri and 71 prisoners
from Ayash should have been the heart of Sarinay's contention that
no injustice befell the Armenians who were arrested and exiled on
24 April 1915. Instead, he avoids a serious appraisal of the fate of
the men who were arrested and exiled.
Sarinay's failure includes ignoring Ottoman records in the Turkish
archives. For example, while the Chankiri police report stated that the
former editor in chief of Sabah newspaper, Diran Kelegian, was due to
leave Chankiri for Izmir in August 1915,36 Krikoris Balakian describes
how Kelegian was actually sent to a court-martial in Diyarbekir on 12
October 1915 and killed on the Halys river [Kizil Irmak] in Sivas. His
source is the Turkish manager of the tobacco regie in Chankiri.37
Kelegian's removal from Chankiri is also noted in Turkish archives,
which include a telegram stating that Kelegian had left on his way to
Diyarbekir on 29 October 1915.38 He was later located in Iskilib kaza
(Sivas),39 and an inquiry in 1919 requested information about his fate
in Amasya (Sivas).40 Clearly, even extant Ottoman records in Turkish
archives show that Kelegian was not sent to Izmir as the Chankiri
police report suggested. Similarly, while the Chankiri police report
states that a group of prisoners consisting of Roupen Chilingirian
(the writer Roupen Sevag), Onnig Maghazadjian (a book-binder),
Taniel Chiboukirian (the poet Taniel Varoujan), Artin Boghosian
(baker), and Vahan Kehyayan (blacksmith) were due to go to Ayash,
Sarinay does not mention that these people were reportedly killed
within a matter of hours upon leaving Chankiri. News of the killing of
these men spread almost immediately amongst the remaining prisoners
in Chankiri. Mikayel Shamdandjian states that they received news of
these killings that same night. He describes how the local military
police chief Nureddin and the CUP secretary Oghuz were amused by the
killings, while the governor's deputy was furious about it.
These details were conveyed to Shamdandjian and others by the deputy
governor. Shamdandjian states that the killing was organized through
the chete Arabadji Ismail, who had been at the crime scene two hours
before the crime, trying to instigate the killings. The provincial
governor, Reshid Pasha, who was against these killings, arrested 11
peasants for these murders.41 Krikoris Balakian also gives a very
detailed account of the killing of these five Armenians.42
In the case of Ayash, the 71 prisoners that Sarinay claims survived in
prison until 1918 include Parsegh Shahbaz. Yet, his fellow inmates in
prison state that Shahbaz was sent to a court-martial in Mamuret-ul
Aziz and add that he was murdered while in prison.43 A number of
records in the Turkish archives also place him in Mamuret-ul Aziz
(but say nothing of his eventual fate).44 Even Sarinay mentions, in
passing, that Shahbaz was sent for imprisonment to Mamuret-ul Azęz
(Elazęg), although he still includes him amongst the 71 prisoners
he claims remained in Ayash until 1918.45 A further group of Ayash
prisoners, Dr. Nazaret Daghavarian, Khachadour Maloumian (Agnouni),
Karekin Chakalian (Khazhag), Sarkis Minasian, Roupen Zartarian, and
Haroutiun Djihangiulian were similarly sent to be court-martialled in
Diyarbekir and were murdered on their way.46 All of these men were
obviously never seen again and recorded as victims of the Armenian
Genocide by Teotig.47 Yet Sarinay maintains that they remained in
Ayash until 1918 upon which they were supposedly released alongside
other prisoners.48
Conclusion
We have discussed two opposing historiographical traditions regarding
the arrest of Armenians in Constantinople on 24 April 1915. The first
is set against the background of the Armenian Genocide and draws on
specific works related to the fate of the arrested. The disappearance
of so many people amongst the arrested was first recorded by Teotig
in Houshartsan Abril 11i, while additional accounts from memoirs
have given us more detailed information about the process of the
arrests, the exile of prisoners, and the ensuing disappearance of
victims. Some of the details in the information could be debated,
but the evidence as a whole is compelling and points to the mass
abuse and disappearance of prisoners.
Alongside this historiographical tradition is a darker tradition of
the continuing denial of the Armenian Genocide by official Turkish
historians. It is within this tradition that Yusuf Sarinay presents
his case. He insists on the guilt of the arrested and states that
nothing untoward happened to them. However, as we have argued above,
despite his greater resources as Head of the Turkish State Archives,
his discussion is contrived and the evidence he presents does not
support his conclusions. While he accounts for most of the men
who were arrested, he fails to show any evidence that even hints
that some of them might have been alive after 1915 - let alone any
evidence that they re-entered public life after 1918. Sarinay's work
raises disturbing questions, which he seeks to mask, about the lack
of information in the Turkish archives concerning the fate of the
Armenian political prisoners who were sent to Ayash in 1915.
APPENDIX 1. LIST OF AYASH PRISONERS
ENDNOTES 1 This article is a work in progress, part of a broader
project on the arrests of 24 April 1915. It was originally published
in Turkish translation in Agos (30 May 2012).
2 Teotig (comp. and ed.), Constantinople: O. Arzouman, 1919. April
24 was April 11 in the old calendar then in use.
3 Teotig continued to publish information related to the Armenian
Genocide in his yearbooks, especially Amenoun Daretsouyts 1916-1920.
4 Mikayel Shamdandjian, "Recollections from Chankiri," in Teotig's
Monument to April 11. Also see Mikayel Shamdandjian, Hay Mdki Hargu
Yeghernin, Constantinople: O.Arzuman, 1919.
5 Krikoris Balakian, Armenian Golgotha: A Memoir of the Armenian
Genocide, 1915-18, trans. Peter Balakian with Aris Sevag. New York:
Alfred A. Knopf, 2009.
6 Aram Andonian, Exile, Trauma and Death, trans. Rita
Soulahian-Kuyumjian. London: Gomidas Institute, 2009.
7 Piuzant Bozadjian, "To Ayash," in Teotig, Monument to April 11.
8 Avedis Nakashian, Ayashi Pandu. Boston: Hairenik, 1925, reprinted
by Ghougas Garabedian, Beyrout, 1978.
9 Toros Toranian, ed., Yeghernen Verabrogh Halebahay Kaghoutin
Yerakhdavoru: Doktor Khachig Boghosian (1875-1955). New York, 2006.
This publication includes an autobiography by Khachig Boghosian
covering his experiences of 24 April 1915 and its aftermath.
10 Aram Andonian, "Hampartsoum Hampartsoumian," in Almanach de
Renaissance, Paris, 1920, pp. 65-83.
11 Aram Andonian, Exile, Trauma and Death, p. 57.
12 Nakashian, Ayashi Pandu, pp. 168-69.
13 Balakian, pp. 94-95.
14 International Journal of Turkish Studies, Vol. 14, Nos. 1 & 2
(Fall 2008), pp. 75-101.
15 Yusuf Sarinay is currently the head of the General Directorate of
State Archives (2001); member of Executive Board of Turkish Military
History Commission (2002), member of Board of Directors of the European
Branch of the International Archive Council (2004).
16 Sarinay, "What Happened on April 24, 1915?" p. 78.
17 Ibid.
18 Ibid., p. 79.
19 See the works of Andonian, Balakian, Boghosian, Bozadjian and
Shamdandjian, Nakashian cited above.
20 Sarinay, "What Happened on April 24, 1915?" p. 79.
21 This report was dated 24 August 1915 and enclosed in a communication
from the Kastamonu governor's office to the Ministry of Interior
on 31 August 1915. See Dh.EUM.2Shb, 10/73. This police report also
appears in T. C. Basbakanlik Devlet Arsivleri Genel Mudurlugu, Osmanli
Belgelerinde Ermenilerin Sevk ve Iskani, (1878-1920), Ankara, 2007,
Report no. 182, pp. 232-238. The English translation of the Ottoman
document appears as an appendix to Sarinay's article but it does not
include vital information appearing on the last page which dates and
identifies the authorship of the report.
22 The transcription and rendition of Armenian names into Latin script
should be corrected. See our Appendix I.
23 These invaluable sources (which Sarinay does not mention) are
Teotig's "Monument to April 11," Boghosian's autobiography in Toranian,
ed., Yeghernen Verabrogh Halebahay Kaghoutin Yerakhdavoru, Balakian,
Armenian Golgotha, Andonian, Exile, Trauma and Death, and Bozadjian,
"To Ayash."
24 The aforementioned 39 prisoners were prominent individuals,
such as artists, community leaders, well-to-do individuals, and
members of political parties. Their social standing was probably the
main reason why Teotig noted them as victims in his book. However,
there were also men at the other end of the social spectrum who were
overlooked by Teotig. One comes across such lesser-known characters in
Aram Andonian's accounts mention a butcher wearing his bloodied apron
(Garabed Tashdjian, survivor), a Catholic Armenian who vociferously
denied being Armenian and was teased about it (Apig Djanbaz,
killed), a baker (Artin Agha Boghosian, killed), a former municipal
dogcatcher in Constantinople who spoke in a naïve and broken mixture
of Armenian-Turkish (Artin Asadourian, survivor), and a number of
Turkish speaking tobacco smugglers who spoke with much bravado (names
and fate unknown). These were all cases of ordinary individuals
who stood out of the ordinary crowd, and undoubtedly there were
many others who have been forgotten. Similarly, Krikoris Balakian,
who was imprisoned in Chankiri and published his memoir-account in
1922, could only name 70 of the Chankiri prisoners, while he could
name most of the Ayash prisoners. This is probably because the Ayash
prisoners were more prominent individuals. Since the recent release
of the Chankiri police report, a large number of the lesser-known
Chankiri prisoners can be named.
25 Sarinay, "What Happened on April 24, 1915?" p. 80.
26 See Boghosian's autobiography in Toranian, ed., Yeghernen Verabrogh
Halebahay Kaghoutin Yerakhdavoru, pp. 40-41 and Bozadjian, "To Ayash,"
p. 199.
27 See BOA.DH.EUM.2.Shb, 67/31.
28 Sarinay, "What Happened on April 24, 1915?" pp. 81-82. Sarinay's
dating of this document creates new problems for him, though he does
not address them. For example, the report prepared by the Chankiri
chief of police states that most of the prisoners in Chankiri had left
that prison before September 1915, while another list of prisoners he
cites to name the prisoners at Ayash names dozens of Armenian prisoners
in Chankiri in 1916. Krikoris Balakian states that practically all
prisoners left in the summer of 1915, while he left in the last group
of Armenians--including local Armenian families--in February 1916.
29 The three prisoners who were released from Ayash, according to
Sarinay, were Hayg Tiryakian (wrongfully arrested for his namesake--the
real Tiryakian was in Chankiri and came forward); Dr. Allahverdian,
who was arrested instead of his son; and Akrik Kerestedjian, who was
sent to Zor but soon released. Sarinay also includes Akrik Sarkis
Kerestedjian on his list of Chankiri prisoners, p. 81 30 BOA.DH.ShFR,
480/96.
31 BOA.DH.EUM.2.Shb, 8/88.
32 BOA.DH.ShFR, 52/254.
33 Boghosian, p. 41-42.
34 Sarinay, "What Happened on April 24, 1915?" pp. 81-82.
35 According to Balakian, Andonian, and Nakashian, most of the Ayash
prisoners were killed around August 1915.
36 The Directorate for Pubic Security in Constantinople identifies
a Diran Kelegian who had been sent to a court-martial in Diyarbekir
and inquired about his fate in Sivas. See Dh.SFR, 95/45, 186.
37 Balakian, Armenian Golgotha, p. 69, 113-4. Kelegian is also listed
as one of the victims of the Armenian Genocide by Teotig.
http://gomidas.org/submissions/show/5