by Ara Sarafian^*

Recently the Turkish government opened Sourp Khach church on Aghtamar island in Lake Van. The opening was an important positive step in the development of Turkish-Armenian relations, though it was accompanied by Turkish nationalist protestors, as well as Turkish flags and a poster of Kemal Ataturk around the church. Much of the opening was an ugly show of power by some parts of the Turkish state and reflected the current political paradox of Turkish politics. I am sure the organisers of the opening ceremonies were as appalled by the nationalists as the Armenian guests who had to remain silent observers.

The absence of a cross on Sourp Khach became a major focus in the Armenian press. Diasporan Armenian papers published old pictures of the church with a cross on it and mocked Yakup Hazan, one of the officials in charge of the restoration, because he said that he had not seen a picture of the church with a cross on it. Minister of Culture and Tourism Atilla Koç was astute enough not to rule out placing a cross on the church at a later date. 

The apparent obsession with the missing cross displayed a distinct lack of sophistication of Armenian circles and betrayed a measure of ignorance or dishonesty amongst them. Surely some of them could have digressed from the chorus? For example, there is no canonical reason to insist on placing a cross on a church, especially when it serves secular purposes as a museum. It is a matter of aesthetics and choice. The current choice is not to have a cross on it. Furthermore, throughout discussions about a cross on Sourp Khach no Armenian academic or journalist actually disclosed the fact that the church has also been without a cross in the past (see picture below taken cir. 1910). Such a disclosure would have demonstrated that a significant section of Armenian intellectuals have both integrity and knowledge when discussing Turkish-Armenian issues with their colleagues. 

Unfortunately the opening of Sourp Khach did not go beyond the island of Aghtamar. There were no discussions of other Armenian historic sites in Turkey—even those within sight of Aghtamar—which are in desperate need of protection. Many such sites may literally collapse tomorrow, yet commentators have still not made a detailed case for their urgent protection. While one could lobby for a cross on Sourp Khach next week, next month, or next year, entire monastic complexes and churches are literally in the process of disappearing in Turkey right now. Nor have Armenian commentators discussed the significance of the opening of Sourp Khach as a shift in paradigm within Turkey, and the opportunities such a shift presents to reach Turkish hearts and minds through dialogue and education.

The Turkish nationalists who were protesting against the opening of Sourp Khach were doing so for a reason. They were afraid that the public admission of a tenth century Armenian architectural treasure in their midst raises difficult questions about Turkey’s past. After all, the existence of Armenian history and civilization in this region is still denied in official Turkish historiographies. It is even denied in the Archaeological Museum of Van half an hour away.

It seems that behind all the smiles and solidarity, even in the ranks of progressive Armenians and Turks, there is still an element of double dealing. Such behaviour detracts from the common ground, or the set of ground rules, that are necessary to make progress for better Turkish-Armenian relations.

* Ara Sarafian is an archival historian specialising on late Ottoman and modern Armenian history. He is also the director of the Gomidas Institute. For more information please visit www.gomidas.org

* A Turkish translation of the op-ed piece above appeared with our permission in
Radikal, 14 April 2007.

* The attached photographs were taken from Azkakragan Hantes (Tiflis, 1910, No. 2.)