Chapter II

THE ADVENT OF THE AMIRA CLASS

The word amira is derived from the Arabic emir, which means “chief, ” “commander. ” [1] In the classical period, the term was used by Armenian historians to designate a Muslim governor. [2] Not only the chronicler Krikor Daranaghtsi, in the 1630s, and the historian Arakel Davrijetsi, in the 1660s, but even Mikayel Tchamtchiants, considered the first modern Armenian historian, used the term in its classical meaning referring to Muslim or Turkish governors as late as 1785. [3]

In modern times, Armenians used the term amira to honor a group of wealthy individuals who were considered leaders of the millet and who were favored by the Ottoman government in a variety of ways. The determining factors that enabled an individual to acquire that honorific appellation were wealth and concomitant influence, as well as connection with Ottoman officialdom. Though wealth was a necessary “condition, ” by itself it was not sufficient. (This was not the case with çelebis, most, by no means all of whom, were well-connected with government circles, and it was certainly not the case with hocas). [4]

Piuzant Ketchian, the only nineteenth century writer to have attempted a definition of the term amira, states:

the individuals who had the right to be called amira were: the sarrafs [bankers] of the vezirs and of the provincial governors of the state, the gunpowder mill superintendents, the chief architects and the directors of the mint... Although there were other well-known Armenians who were responsible for the provisions of necessities for [other] governmental offices, such as kiliççibaşi, * süngücbaşi, * kurkçubaşi, * kuyumcubaşi, * these were called only aģa. * Among them [however], Harutiun Noradungian, the Armenian ekmekçibaşi* for the commander-in-chief [of the army] and the [commander of] cannon-works, was exceptionally called amira. [5]

Ketchian’s reference to “rights, ” followed by reference to exceptional treatment, unnecessarily confuses the matter. There could be no question of “rights” in the official, legal sense; however, communal customs were strongly established, and the honorific amira was bestowed by the community on virtually all holders of the government offices enumerated by Ketchian in the first part of his statement, and on many but by no means all sarrafs. [6]

It should be emphasized at the outset that amira was an honorific title bestowed upon Armenian individuals by their fellow Armenians, to describe certain other Armenians. Neither the Ottoman government nor Turkish society ever took note of its existence; the figures to whom the Armenians attached the honorific are not cited in available official documents as amiras, whereas the same individuals are always singled out among Armenian notables, in Armenian documents, by the use of the honorific. [7] In short, use of the title is one way in which Armenians denoted their important leaders, indeed their “aristocracy” (the latter will be elaborated later).

The sarrafs who became amiras in the eyes of their compatriots offer a much more difficult case for interpretation than those amiras who held government offices and acquired the title almost automatically. It is true that to many Armenians, sarraf and amira were very nearly synonymous, as evidenced by the remarks of an early twentieth century cleric: “blessed are our sarraf princes, ” and “they would serve the Ottoman government as amira or sarraf. ” [8] However, such an identification is not what the facts warrant.

On a number of eighteenth and nineteenth century epigraphs, there is no title, just the designation sarraf. Such are the following cases: “sarraf tiratsu Krikor, ” dated 1750; [9] “sarraf baron Mateos, ” dated 1756 and 1771; [10] “sarraf mahdesi Hovhannes, ” 1794; [11] “sarraf Bedros, ” 1804 [12]; “sarraf baron Stepan, ” 1849. [13] In these epigraphs the word sarraf refers to the profession of the individuals concerned; and the designation was, apparently, a very high honor in itself but not necessarily synonymous to any specific title, such as amira or hoca. Some sarrafs were simultaneously called aga (or agha) and hoca, and still others amira. Of the former the following may be cited: “sarraf khodja [or hoca] Bedros, ” dated 1776; [14] “sarraf Garabed aģa Terziantz, ” 1832; [15] “Bedrosian sarraf Kevork aģa, ” 1829; [16] “Rubeyan sarraf Krikor aģa, ” 1829. [17] Of the latter case where a sarraf was called amira there are many instances; three should be sufficient to illustrate the point: “Misak amira, pride of the Misakian family, wealthy (“opulent”) sarraf [who] rose in glory in this capital..., ” 1856; [18] “the sarraf of the kaymakam, i. e. mahdesi Geshgeshian Boghos Amira, ” in 1828; [19] “the great sarraf Baron Amira [Dakesian], ” in 1849. [20] In this last case the profession is mentioned using the Armenian word hatavadjar, which was used as a synonym to sarraf. Clearly, sarraf referred only to the profession of the deceased person, while his titles were mentioned separately.

If some of the sarrafs had no title, while others had different ones, then all the sarrafs could not automatically be called amira, nor could the word sarraf be taken as synonymous to the title. Undoubtedly, due to their wealth, all the sarrafs belonged to the higher echelons of Armenian society. It is noteworthy that the epigraphs and colophons of the sarrafs with the title amira, or any title for that matter, are dated after 1820s. This is another indication to the fact that by the first quarter or the nineteenth century amira was a title of great prestige which the wealthy, including the sarrafs, coveted. Yet, as late as 1849 [21] the epitaph of at least one sarraf shows no title, lending support to the view that all the sarrafs were not necessarily amiras. [22]

The first use of amira, in its modern meaning, is reported to date from 1559; it refers to an Iskender Amira of Istanbul. [23] But the reliability of this information is questionable. [24] A study of the subject claims that the title amira was used between 1550 and 1870. [25] Armenian sources, at least those examined in the course of this study do not bear this out. The earliest report is based on flimsy evidence.

Arakel Ketchian, writing in the 1930s, refers to a lost memoir by a provincial priest who claimed to have seen in his village of Abutchekh, near Akn, church records attesting that “mahdesi Pilibos the great benefactor amira of [the family of] Varents initiated and built from its foundation the church of St. Minas... in the Armenian calendar year R Kh T (which corresponds to 1600), ” [26] In addition the same source reports that the existence of Pilibos Amira is attested by another, equally unverifiable item from Akn region, which is said to have testified that the “wealthy Pilibos Amira of Varents was elected [as supervisor for the construction of a public fountain] in the Armenian calendar year R H (which corresponds to 1621). ” [27] There remains no way for checking thes accuracy of these two reports, since Ketchian could not recall where the priest’s memoir was published.

One of the earliest fully confirmed uses of the word amira is found on an epitaph dating from 1758; [28] a colophon written between 1745 and 1770 mentions the names of five amiras. [29] After 1760 the use of the title in colophons, epitaphs, inscriptions and official records becomes widespread. [30] The official document certifying the election of the Patriarch Krikor Basmadjian, dated 1772, bears the signature of amiras right after those or the clergy [31]. Around this date, it became customary in records of churches and minutes of meetings to mention the names of amiras first, followed by those of other participants.

It is significant that amira was perceived as a higher title than aģa, which was used by Turkish officials and was part of the official honorific nomenclature of Ottoman hierarchy, albeit at middle levels. For instance, the commander of the janissary forces was called aģa. The case of Seghpos Erevaniants supports this perception of the esteem reserved by Armenians for the title amira: as a sign of respect for his position and in appreciation of his numerous benefactions, Patriarch Krikor Shghtayagir of Jerusalem bestowed on him the honorific “great Agha, ” but he was posthumously referred to as amira by most sources, including those who recorded the Patriarch’s title. [32] This man of great wealth and high standing in the government is also called sarraf and bazirgänbaşi, i. e. “great merchant or purveyor, ” in contemporary colophons, [33] but later writers continued to give place of honor to amira. [34]

This is not an isolated incident. Another equally well-known Armenian, Hagop or Yacub Hovhannesian, very influential in Ottoman governing circles and in the Armenian millet, [35] is called aģa in contemporary records and inscriptions [36], yet later biographers rank him among the amiras. [37] Still another such case is provided in an Armenian inscription in St. Illuminator’s church at Galata, a district in Istanbul: “the late Mahdesi Asduadzadur Khonjagiulents of Pengan... ” (dated 1799). [38] Later, the colophon of a Bible referring to the same person reads: “In memory of the late Mahdesi Asduadzadur Amira Ghontjegiulian [sic] of Pengan... ” (dated 1823). [39]

Obviously, such examples indicate that the prestige of the title amira increased so rapidly after the turn of the nineteenth century that it ceased to be one of several symbols of eminence and became the one retrospectively bestowed on notables who, in their lifetime, had borne other titles.

The title amira is associated with particular frequency with the honorific aģa. Many an amira was the son of an aģa. Mgrditch Amira Djezayirlian’s father was called simply Sarkis Aģa; [40] Varteres Amira Tchayents or Tchayian’s father was Asduadzadur Aģa; [41] and the enumeration could continue. The reverse was also true. Not all the sons of amiras were entitled to bear their fathers’ title: of the three sons of Shnorhk Mgrditch Amira Miridjanian only his second son was called amira (Mourad Amira), while the youngest was known as Manuel Aģa; [42] of the two sons of Varteres Amira Tchayents the older was Hagop Aģa while the younger was Baron Stepan; [43] Garabed Amira Pishmishian’s fourth son was named Krikor Aģa. [44] Even the second son of such a well-known amira as the founder of the Dadian family, Dad Arakel Amira, had no title, while the two other sons were both amiras: Simon Amira and Hovhannes Amira Dadian. [45]

In the official record of the decision to reconstruct St. Stephen’s church in Hasköy (Khaskiugh in Armenian), dated May 7, 1830, only one person is named amira, Eram (or Yeram) Amira, who was to supervise the reconstruction work as “nazir. ” [46] The other four wealthy contributors whose names, too, appear in the text of the resolution, and who are called aģa.

It is clear that the title amira carried greater prestige and higher stature, and implied more wealth and stronger influence than aģa or any other title, though in the earlier period especially there is no consistent preference for one title over another. Sources refer to the same person sometimes as aģa and sometimes as amira: Hovhannes Aznavourian is called aģa and amira [47] in the same source; so are Mikayel Pishmishian [48] and Garabed Pishmishian, [49] while Stepan Aznavourian, [50] Kasbar Tcherazian, [51] Misak Misakian, [52] Ghazar Movsesian [53] and many others are referred to both as aģa and amira in different sources. An eighteenth century chronicler called Yaghoub Hovhannesian aģa and amira, [54] while a nineteenth century chronicler called all the notables of Istanbul aģa, up to 1823, when he started to use the title amira. [55]

The evidence at hand suggests that between 1550 and 1750 there was a group of titles, hoca, çelebi, aģa, mahdesi, amira. The rise in the frequency of use of the specifically Armenian accolade, amira, begins in the eighteenth century, where it is clearly an honorific which takes wealth, court position and status into account. For a while, from 1750 to 1800, its use is confused because those who confer this unofficial title have, as yet, no tacit agreement about “criteria, ” inheritability, etc. Then, between 1800 and 1850, the title becomes clearly special, superior to the other titles, not heritable, and the mark of highest communal esteem; its application becomes “systematized” by tacit communal agreement.

There were notables in the millet who were never referred to as amira. Such are the cases of Boghos Aģa Markarian [56] and Hagop Aģa Mananian, [57] who were so prominent that their names were always cited along with those of the illustrious amiras of the time.

Catholic Armenian notables had a predilection for the title çelebi and, to some extent, for hoca too; no Catholic Armenian of some prominence was called amira. [58] Members of the famous Catholic Armenian Diuzian family were all called çelebi. The other wealthy Catholic Armenians who were leaders of the sect (later a separate millet) are listed simply by family name by the nineteenth century chronicler Avedis Berberian. [59] In still another source, some of them are named aģa and çelebi. [60] We have discussed the preference of Catholic Armenian notables for the title çelebi in the first chapter.

I have prepared a roster of amiras, keeping in mind all the above-mentioned considerations and clarifications (see appendix). Up to now, there has been no reliable tabulation of the amiras who lived in the century between 1750 and 1850. One writer claims that in this period they numbered about 150, [61] another put it around 100, [62] while a more recent scholar estimates their number at approximately 200. [63] I consider it vital for a study such as this to have a roster which is intended to fulfill several purposes. First, it gives us a more reliable and realistic idea about the number of amiras; second, to trace their family relations insofar as these can be uncovered, and third, to examine (in attached annotations) the nature of the supporting evidence. Clearly, an epigraph naming a man amira is more dependable than a non-contemporary’s later chronicles or memoir, in which memory or the desire to flatter descendants may lead a writer to attach the honorific amira retrospectively to a prominent ancestor of friends or patrons. The list I have prepared attempts to substantiate the claims of amira-hood made by or for each individual listed. The roster is not definitive, but is the most complete work possible under present circumstances.

Nineteen families had three or more amiras. These, together with the Diuzians (who, being Catholic, preferred the appellation çelebi -see note 58, page 42), produced 91 individuals on the list, or 60 percent of the total. Clearly, this nucleus concentrated enormous wealth and power in its hands.

Despite the fact that these 166 amiras were never more than a tiny percentage of the Armenian population of Istanbul, they represented a concentration and localization of power and strength; one must remember that each amira maintained a retinue of servants and assistants (for further details refer to pp. 54-55). Whatever their prestige and stature, the size of this elite is so small in relation to the general population that certain questions arise: can we speak of amira class, as most Armenian historians have done? Since the latter had only a vague idea about the number of amiras, did they not use the term “class” rather loosely? More pertinently, is there a minimum number that a “class” should have to be so classified?

Sociologists assert that there is no criterion of number that a grouping of persons should meet to be considered a separate social stratum or class. The exact number of individuals who make up a class is never known. [64] Without delving into the ramifications of this sociological question, we are content to state that in the absence of a requirement for a number, amiras can be said to have formed an extremely well-defined social elite, if not a class.

As a group, amiras possessed many social features which distinguished them from the rest of the population. Foremost among these was the prestige they enjoyed in the society they lived in. A most obvious mark of this prestige and distinction was their clothing. There are many references to “amira clothing, ” which included items of apparel that Armenians could only wear by receiving permission from the Ottoman Court. Such permission gave amiras the right to wear a fur coat and to cover the head with a kavuk, a quilted turban. [65] Amiras’ clothing differed not only from the ordinary Armenian’s, but also from the Muslim Turk’s; it was of the type that only privileged Turkish officials would wear. At the time, clothing marked a person’s place in society; the non-Muslim or zimmi subject wore a different garment than the one worn by Muslim citizens. In a society where an individual’s clothing was an important symbol, such outward trappings implied more than a special care for one’s appearance; they gave the person a special status and immediate recognition. The amira was neither an ordinary member of the Armenian millet nor a simple zimmi subject of the sultan; he had a special niche within the Ottoman ruling class. The latter, according to a recent study, was composed of “well under one thousand men” in the eighteenth century. [66] Placed in this environment and setting, amiras did form a sizeable and prestigious social stratum.

Still another mark of their prestige and distinction was their right to ride on a horse and even to possess a retinue of horsemen. [67] In general, only a Muslim could ride a horse; Christians and Jews could ride and travel only on donkeys or mules.

Less obvious and pompous was the fact that amiras were known by their first names, perhaps to stress the title amira. Their limited number made such a practice possible. “Djanig Amira” meant Simon Amira Papazian’s son Djanig who had two last names: Papazian, the usual family name, and Simonian, in honor of his famous father. [68] “Misak Amira” referred to Misak Misakian, [69] “Mikayel Amira” to Mikayel Pishmishian, [70] “Mgrditch Amira” or “Shnorhk Amira” to Mgrditch Miridjanian, [71] “Eram Amira” to Eram Karakehia Terzian, [72] and many others.

Such was the awe and respect they either inspired or imposed upon the Armenian people they were dealing with that a series of special adjectives was devised to designate them. Starting from the simplest, gerabadiv and hargamedzar (meaning “superior in honor” and “of honorable dignity”), these terms ranged to ishkhanazun (“of princely race”) and aznuazarm (“of noble ancestry”). [73] The last two terms are of particular significance in that they lend linguistic support to the amiras’ desire to view themselves as Armenian “aristocracy” (on this subject, see below). Similar terms proliferated rapidly: medzapar ishkhan (“prince of great honor”), baydzar ishkhan (“bright prince”), medzadohm ishkhan (“great prince”). [74] The most commonly used, aznuazarm bayazad (“free-born man of noble ancestry”) can also lend support to aristocratic pretensions. [75] A few prominent amiras were given the title azgapet (“chief” or “leader of the nation”). [76] As a group, amiras were addressed in public occasions with such words as hargapativ azgapet Amirayk (“amiras of great honor, leaders of the nation”). [77] Most striking among the adjectives was the one given to Harutiun Amira Bezdjian: kristosazor (“strengthened by Christ”), a term used only for him. [78] It is not clear whether the use of this adjective for Bezdjian was intentional or not, because, at least in one source, it is an attribute given to Roubenian kings. [79]

“Prestige, ” according to a social scientist, “est le mètre qui permet de ‘classer’ les hommes d’une société donnée. C’est l’unité’ sur laquelle repose la stratification sociale. ” [80] Another student of the subject ranks prestige first among the criteria or requirements in the defining of a class. [81] If such is its importance and function in the stratification of a society, then amiras, definitely enjoying an inordinate measure of prestige, clearly stand out as a distinct social stratum.

Amiras practiced one of a small number of professions. The great majority were sarrafs; a few were bazirgâns, i. e. merchant or palace purveyors, while still others worked as industrialist-technocrats and architects. These professions, along with their economic, financial and industrial backgrounds and effects, will be studied in the next chapter. For the moment, suffice it to mention that the amiras’ economic power formed the very foundation upon which they built their social status and prestige, and their political power in the Armenian millet. Their wealth and professions separated them from the rest of Armenian society, for such factors as income, property, capital and occupation, together with status, are the ones which divide societies into social strata or classes. [82] Since “classes are aggregates of individuals and families in similar economic positions, ” [83] amiras obviously met this criterion of societal organization.

The amira social stratum or class was neither a totally “closed” nor wholly “open” one. It is true that there were no such restrictions as nobility of blood, but entry into this group was not easy. Even the practice of the profession of sarraf did not necessarily lead to amira-hood, as was pointed out earlier. Only appointment to such positions as Director of the State Mint, Chief Imperial Architect and Superintendent of Gunpowder Mills, seem to have resulted automatically in “obtaining” the title of amira from the Armenian community.

Marriage practices are one of the factors that can serve as an index of the self-awareness of a class, especially of one that aspires to “aristocratic” status. The kinship relations of amiras are not clear enough to permit a totally confident generalization, but the available evidence strongly suggests that amira families were related to each other through marriage, baptism and other social functions (bestmen, godfathers’ roles, etc. ). In the early period of the amiras’ rise to prominence, these relations were either so infrequent that they were not noticeable, or historical sources have failed to record them. In 1797 one of Kasbar Amira Aznavourian’s sons is reported to serve as the godfather for the baptism of Garabed Amira Pishmishian’s son. [84] The same person, Madteos Aznavourian, was godfather of another son of Garabed Amira Pismishian in 1799. [85] Karakehia Apraham Amira Terzian’s daughter was married to a member of the Apigian family. [86] Mgrditch Amira Miridjanian’s daughter was married to Bedros Amira Papazian; [87] both families enjoyed great renown and were active in Armenian millet affairs.

Up to the 1820s and 1830s there is no noticeable trend of intermarriage among members of amira families. After this period, however, a pattern of intermarriage among prominent amira family members emerges. To mention a few, Mikayel Amira Pishmishian’s (“chief of the nation”) second daughter was married to Harutiun Amira Bezdjian’s nephew Grabed Aģa in 183l; [88] a daughter of Djanig Amira Papazian was married to a member of the Hovuian family. [89] Such marriages occurred more frequently around the middle of the nineteenth century, when the amiras had been a power in Armenian life for nearly a century. Arakel Bey Dadian’s daughter married Sarkis Bey Balian; [90] a granddaughter of Varteres Amira Misakian married Krikor-Mihran Bey Dadian; [91] the enumeration could go on much longer.

Despite the increase in family relations among amiras, there was never a decisively dominant endogamic pattern. Many an amira married into families of lower social rank, at times of humble economic condition. If, on the one hand, amicable relations developed through marital and baptismal ties between amira families, on the other hand feuds and conflicts created an inimical atmosphere which pitted individual amiras and families against each other. (This point will be discussed in Chapter IV. )

The geographical origins of amiras are diverse; yet it is a fact that about half of them came from the town of Akn [92] (in Ottoman Turkish Egin, presently Kemaliye [93] ), or were the children of emigrants from that town. Many students have written extensively on Akn, yet none has ever attempted to provide a satisfactory answer to the following question: why did so many amiras come from Akn? [94] In a recent study, a Soviet Armenian scholar correctly observed that

in the beginning, more than twenty amira families worked in Akn and its surroundings, created [working] capital, and later moved to Constantinople, and [eventually] took control of the empire’s economic superintendencies. [95]

But this observation, like all the others preceding it, does not provide the necessary response to the question posed.

For strategic reasons the town of Akn was built by its original settlers in a mountainous region; therefore, it had limited economic possibilities. The townspeople grew fruits and vegetables in their skillfully created gardens and groves, and exchanged these fruits of their labor for cereals and other agricultural products with the villagers living in the surrounding plains. In addition to these garden products, the Akn-ers had developed thriving cottage industries and especially a vigorous trade. Akn bazirgans, i. e., merchants, would organize large caravans to travel long distances and bring erchandise from such commercial emporiums as Istanbul and Aleppo. They would sell their imported goods to the population of the whole region. “The store of the Armenian merchant was sometimes like a ‘grand magasin’ (“geeral store”) where all kinds of merchandise could be found. ” [96] The owner of this relatively large store would not only sell but also exchange his goods for the products of the peasants. He would also loan money to his customers. Then, in the winter, this merchant or store-owner would tour the surrounding towns and villages to collect his debts or loans. [97] Apparently, this is how Akn merchants entered the money-lending trade and turned into sarrafs, on a small scale. With time they would accumulate enough capital to enable them to move to Istanbul.

A characteristic of the Akn-ers was their “extreme thriftiness; ” [98] undoubtedly, this facilitated the formation of a working capital. Furthermore, they had the custom of going on sila, i. e. long trip, to the large cities of Anatolia, and especially to Istanbul, to earn money. [99] After a few years’ stay, with frugality and hard work they were usually able to bring back some amount of savings. This social acceptance of temporary emigration made it easy for sarrafs to make their move to the capital. Once settled, they sent for members of their family. By the turn of the eighteenth century there were hundreds of Akn families settled in the Ottoman capital, most of them doing rather well. Many were sarrafs lending money to Turkish officials.

While so much is written about amiras from Akn, there is very little information about the origins of other amiras. Many had come from Van, Sebastia (Sivaz in T. ), Kesaria (Caesaria, Kayseri in T. ), Divrig (near Sebastia on the upper Euphrates) and from other cities and towns of Anatolia and Western Armenia, as well as from Persia, especially Tabriz. [100] Others rose from the ranks of the long-established Armenian population of Istanbul.

Despite the fact that the ancestral origins of amiras are not clear, and perhaps because of it, many Armenian authors have written extensively on the subject. Much of this writing has been speculation based on very limited information. Some authors have claimed that amiras “were descended from the nakharars [101] of Ani, like whom they had subtlety of mind, were arrogant and lewd in character, and extremely generous. ” [102] Another goes so far as to state:

Almost all of these amiras were from Akn, where about 72 distinguished Armenian nakharars and princes went to settle with all their possessions when Ani was ruined, and [from where they] gradually migrated to Constantinople where they advanced [economically]. [103]

In their zeal to elevate the amiras, some Armenian writers ascribed to them noble origin, the authentic mark of distinction and respect. These same writers on Akn try first to establish the veracity of the creation and settlement of the town by Armenian nakharars, then to prove that a certain family of amiras had authentic lineage from a noble dynasty. Historically, the last Ardzruni king of Vaspurakan, Senekerim or Senacherim, left his kingdom to the Byzantine Emperor Basil II in exchange for the city of Sebastia in Cappadocia in 1021. [104] Some of Senekerim’s nakharars left Sebastia and built the towns of Akn and Arabkir on the edge of the river Euphrates. [105] The nakharar dynasties who settled in Akn and the surrounding villages [106] were able to keep the town under their control, in a semiautonomous status for some fifty years, until the Seljuks put an end to Byzantine rule in the region towards the end of the eleventh century. After the Seljuks, the whole area was ruled by the Ak-Koyunlu and Kara-Koyunlu tribal confederations, and eventually by the Ottomans, who occupied it during the reign of Celebi Mehmet I (1403-1421). [107]

There is no record of the fact that these Armenian nakharars held on to their lands and privileges. Furthermore, even if they had somehow survived the earlier periods, they could not continue their status under the Ottomans, for the latter did not permit a non-Muslim feudal lord to enjoy seigniorial rights, except in some specific cases, and even then, only for a short period. [108] Extant Armenian sources make no mention of any special status of the Armenian notables in Akn. Yet nineteenth and twentieth century Armenian writers and historians insist on the noble origins of a number of prominent amira families. Such are the cases of the Dadians, the Djezayirlians, the Aznavurians, the Diuzians, the Tcherazians, the Arpiarians or Varians, the Zohrabians, the Bleokhanian-Ardzrunis, the Misakians, the Torosian-Minasian-Aliksanians, the Ashnanians, the Azadians, the Hovian-Hovuians and many others. [109]

Since nakharars from Vaspurakan and Ani did settle in Akn it is possible that some of the aforementioned families had noble lineage. An examination of the origin of a few of them might help us to better understand if not solve this problematic issue. The origins of the Dadian family are the most extensively researched and best documented. The family was first called Berozian, Berenk or Berian, in the name of their ancestor Beroz, and later Zadaian, and finally Dadian. The latter was derived from the name of their illustrious ancestor Dad Arakel. [110] At first their claim to noble lineage was based upon a genealogy written by the prelate of Akn in 1758 at the end of a Bible from Darsoun (Tarsus), dated 1212. In this genealogy, the prelate stated that he had investigated the origins of the Dadian family, and that through his conversations with the elderly and the notables of the city, and by his reading of the book of baptisms rescued from a church that had burnt down one hundred years earlier, he was able to trace back the family ancestry to Beroz, a descendant of King Senekerim Ardzruni of Vaspurakan. Beroz had a son, Mihrtad, who was born in 1350. From him the prelates brought the lineage up to Dad Arakel (b. 1753). [111] In another Bible, known as “Sasants, ” the following colophon was found:

I, Count Vahram, have bought [“received”] this Holy Bible in memory of myself, my parents, my brother Beroz, my son blessed [“ornamented”] by God [112] and all the members of my family, deceased and alive; I promised to donate this book to the convent... in memory of the race of Senekerim... [113]

Analyzing these two inscriptions, one student of the topic concluded:

The Dadians, formerly Berenk or Berozian, descendants of Senekerim Ardzruni, emigrated from Sebastia to Akn around the 1300s, brought with them the ‘Sasants’ Bible, which Count Vahram, one of the ancestors of the same family, promised to donate to the monastery Hromoulos in memory of the race of Senekerim. [114]

But another scholar reached a different conclusion:

La ressemblance des noms n’est pas une justification suffisante pour identifier le Comte Vahram avec Vahram petit-fils de Beroz [mentioned in the prelate’s genealogy] sans considérer les difficultés qui s’élèvent contre une telle identification. [115]

Had there been any other corroborating evidence, in terms of an epigraph, another colophon, a baptismal record or an inscription in a church, the origins of the Dadian family might have been established. The descendance of the Dadians from a nakharar dynasty, let alone from “the race of Senekerim, ” presents some semblance of historical truth, but it cannot be sustained under close scrutiny. [116]

While the Dadians claimed nobility of origin on the basis of slim historical evidence, other amira families made similar claims supported by minimal or totally “fabricated” evidence. Toros Azadian, who investigated extensively Akn and the amiras from that town, noted that on the tombstones of members of the Azadian family, of which he was a progeny, there were such symbols as throne, eagle, crane, sun, crescent, etc., and he concluded:

These sculptures are exceptionally valuable, for they represent the throne and two-headed eagles of the Ardzruni royal dynasty. Their [Ardzrunis’] migration from Vaspurakan to Akn is symbolized in the open-winged crane which has a twig in its beak. The sun represents their Aryan origin while the crescent is the symbol of Ottoman rule. [117]

Azadian refrains from drawing explicit conclusions about the origins of the family based on these symbols, but the implication is very clear: there is royal blood in the family. For whatever reason, he attempts neither to elaborate on the significance of these symbols nor substantiate the obvious but unstated claim.

Other amira families, not to be left out, obtained “sealed” and signed certificates from high clerical officials. In 1854, Patriarch Hagop Seropian issued a certificate wherein he certified that the origins of Mgrditch Amira Djezayirlian, whose family name used to be Hovuiants, went back to the Arshakuni dynasty, and that this noble family moved to Ani during Bagratid rule. After the fall of the Bagratid dynasty, it claimed, a branch of the family moved to Poland, while another migrated to Roubenian Cilicia. In the aftermath of the fall of the Roubenian kingdom, a member of this branch settled in Akn, where an ancestor named Markar was born in 1691. [118] In a futile attempt to give his claim some historical authenticity, this cleric mentions the historian Zenob Glak. Yet this Patriarch fails to mention, by design or ignorance, that another cleric had issued a similar genealogical certificate in 1779: the prelate of Akn, in his search for the origins of the same family, traces it back to 1494, to a progenitor belonging to “the royal Roubenian race. ” [119] There was no evidence for the whole story, just the good word of the Vartabed, i. e. the celibate cleric. Contemporary writers questioned the blood relation of the family to the royal Roubenian dynasty, but accepted its descent from the fifteenth century ancestor at face value. [120]

Although available sources cite only a few instances in which amiras deliberately sought proof of nobility, all indications point to the conclusion that such ambition was prevalent and general. Hovhannes Amira Dadian had instructed the prelate of Akn to look for his ancestral lineage, [121] while Mgrditch Amira Djezayirlian, at the pinnacle of his power, must have elicited the certificate from the Patriarch. Wealthy and therefore economically secure, these people cared most about prestige and honor in their own circle, and they could aspire to no status than that given by nobility of blood, which could confer upon them a special place in their “high society. ” Epigraphs and inscriptions continually make reference to their “princely ancestry” and “nobility of lineage. ”

Their life-style and behavior reflected this preoccupation and mentality, which was as much Middle Eastern as European. Amiras lived in large, comfortable and beautiful houses, some of which were actually palaces. Mgrditch Amira Djezayirlian built a sumptuous palace in Yeniköy, on the seashore, [122] which was the envy of Armenian and Turkish notables, while the Dadians, the Diuzians, the Balians and others owned large estates with palatial houses.

After the waning of the power of the amiras, the most pious of later writers were willing to appear scandalized in print about the nature of the lavish festivities that the amiras organized in their houses, some of which apparently had an oriental character and were marked by self-indulgence, with professional entertainers to amuse them. In addition to a large number of domestic helpers, which included not only cooks, servants and chambermaids, but wine-keepers too, some amiras kept a retinue of notables and their own clowns and musicians for their amusement. Amiras had their scribes, priests and vartabeds (celibate priest), and managers to supervise their domestic affairs as well as their properties and employees to run their businesses. [123]

They also held group outings, pilgrimages and festivities. They had established set rules and codes for marital ceremonies and receptions, as well as for funeral processions. [124] Their customs and mores have been criticized as being lax, permissive and even reprehensible. [125] They were said to be jealous, callous and arrogant. Some amiras are perceived to hide behind a glittering façade of extreme selfishness and greed. [126] However, there were also those who conducted exemplary lives marked by pious religiosity and generous charity. [127]

They lived in certain quarters of Istanbul, especially Ortaköy and Hasköy. [128] Apparently some families even had a preference for certain cemeteries; [129] such preference for a fixed burial ground and for family mausoleums tends to indicate dynastic pretensions.

Very little is reported about the educational level of amiras. Harutiun Amira Bezdjian barely had an elementary education; perhaps that accounts for the number of schools he founded and endowed. As a rule, amiras had some schooling which, more often than not, amounted to an ability to read and write. They kept scribes as much out of necessity as for prestige. However, there were a few who were highly educated. Seghpos Erevanents was the interpreter of the British Ambassador. [130] The correspondence of Arakel Amira Dadian with the Mekhitarist Congregation in Venice and Istanbul is very significant: in his letters to Mekhitarist vartabeds he asked for an 11-volume encyclopedia, “preferably in Italian, ” but if not available in that language, then in French. [131] During the second half of the eighteenth century, certainly the best educated person among his peers must have been Mgrditch Amira Miridjanian, who had received his higher education in Italy. [132] Hovhannes Amira Dadian, on the contrary, was given only a basic education by his private tutors, but later became well-versed in mathematics and French. What he lacked in formal higher education he made up for by reading widely in Western writings and by making long trips to Europe. He was a self-made man intellectually, who obtained several diplomas in technical fields from European institutions. [133]

As a group, amiras were better educated than the rest of Armenian society. Contact with the learned men of the time as well as with Westerners living in Istanbul had helped raise their level of general knowledge and widen their mental horizon.

Living clustered in a few quarters of Istanbul, practicing half a dozen professions, serving the state in high offices, controlling the affairs of the Armenian millet, limited in number, wealth and influential, amiras were very conscious of their position in society and of their membership in a compact social stratum, albeit an internally divided one. The limited number of their membership, on the one hand, and the concentration of economic and political power (the latter limited only to Armenian millet), on the other, gave them the necessary characteristic features of a social elite.

As members of this elite, amiras enjoyed a special status at whose foundation lay wealth and honor. This status was as much real as apparent: real, in the privileges accorded to them by the government, such as tax exemption, and hereditary high offices; apparent, in such rights as clothing and the right to ride horses. It was the government that gave them this special status. Without it, amiras would simply be rich individuals, not fundamentally different from many of their Armenian contemporaries.

By definition, “a status group is characterized by specific behavior patterns, [and] a definite ‘style of life, ’ which must be adhered to by those who wish to belong to it. ” [134] But status implies more than behavioral pattern and life style; it means “prestige and deference among individuals and groups in a society. ” [135] We have seen earlier the amiras’ characteristic life style and social pattern. We have also noted that prestige was a sine qua non in the rise to amira status. Wealthy by itself was not sufficient, nor was the practice of the profession of sarraf and the nomination to a high governmental office, except in some specific cases. In this context, where status is considered one of the “dimensions of stratification in modern societies, ” [136] it was also the cutting edge which at once separated amiras from the other wealthy individuals and the rest of society and turned them into a distinct social class.

The next two chapters will further define the special class status of the amiras through the dual role they played in the Ottoman government and the Armenian millet.