|
 |
|
Gomidas Institute, London, UK
20 February 2007
On
16 March 2006 Ara Sarafian participated at a symposium in
Istanbul
University where he presented a paper on the
Armenian Genocide (for a copy of the paper see
(www.gomidas.org/papers/004.pdf). Following
his paper, Sarafian was asked by the head of the Turkish Historical Society,
Yusuf Halaçoğlu, for cooperation on joint projects concerning the events of
1915, to which Sarafian agreed.
In a recent interview with the Turkish journal
Nokta (February
2007), Sarafian was asked if there had been any cooperative work
underway with Halaçoğlu. He answered that nothing had been forthcoming but
that did not rule out future projects. He then voiced a possible joint
project with historians working in
Turkey. His offer was made in earnest and
the following is a record from his notes.
"I have a very basic research proposal. Let's take a case study. The Turkish
official thesis maintains that the deportations of 1915 were an orderly
affair and all relevant records on those deportations can still be found in
Ottoman archives in
Turkey. According to the formal
administration of deportations, there should be lists of all deportees,
village by village, person by person, showing when people were deported,
where they were sent, and how they were resettled. There should be records
of their original properties and how they were compensated at their places
of exile.
"So, I suggest that we take the Harput plain as a case study and allow
historians in
Turkey to submit relevant Ottoman records
regarding the deportation and resettlement of Armenians from this area. Do
these records really account for the fate of Armenians in this region? How
many Armenians were deported? How many were allowed to stay behind? And what
happened to them? What are the strengths and limitations to the Ottoman
records at hand?
"I, for my part, propose to present a different set of records which, in
my opinion, reflect why I believe that Armenians in this region were not
simply deported but subjected to a policy of abuse and massacre. Again, what
are the strengths and limitations of these materials? And how can we assess
these two sets of information? How far do they agree or disagree with each
other?
"The reason I ask to use Harput as a case study is because we have a lot of
information outside of
Turkey on this region, and the local
history of this area was not overly complicated by major wartime disruption
or Russian occupation as in the case of Erzrum or Van. A Harput case study
should be a relatively straightforward exercise, which we would undertake in
an open and scholarly manner.
"If we can get such a project underway, perhaps we can invite other
historians to cooperate, and then expand these case studies to other
regions."
If Sarafian's offer to Halaçoğlu and other historians in
Turkey gets underway, it will offer the
prospect of answering some very important questions relating to the events
of 1915. It will also open the possibility of further cooperation between a
wider network of scholars working on the Armenian issue. The importance of
such an initiative cannot be overstated, but the success of such an
initiative will also depend on the support it receives from other scholars,
individuals and public bodies. If you would like to support this initiative
through the Gomidas Institute, please contact us at
info@gomidas.org.uk
|
|
|
