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.
[1]
Adjarian,
Armatakan,
1:
158;
Edvard
B.
Aghaian,
Ardi
Hayereni
Batsatrakan
Bararan
[Definitional
Dictionary
of
Modern
Armenian],
2
vols.
(Erevan,
1976),
1:
33;
Stepan
Malkhasiants,
Hayeren
Batsatrakan
Bararan
[Armenian
Definitional
Dictionary],
4
vols.
(reprint
ed.,
Beirut,
1955-1956),
1:
67-68.
In
Armenian
the
word
amira
=
³ÙÇñ³
is
used
both
with
and
without
the
Û
=
y
ending
(not
pronounced).
For
simplicity,
the
term
is
transliterated
without
Û
=
y
ending.
[2]
The
term
amira,
in
its
classical
meaning,
designated
not
only
the
governor
of
a
province
but
also
of
a
city.
The
governors
of
Ani,
Dvin,
Kars,
were
called
“amira
of
amiras.
”
See
T.
Kh.
Hagopian,
Hayastani
Patmakan
Ashkharhagrutyun
[Historical
Geography
of
Armenia]
(Erevan,
1968),
p.
324.
[3]
Daranaghtsi,
Jamanakagrutiun,
p.
388
passim;
Davrijetsi,
Patmutiun,
p.
635
passim;
Tchamtchian,
Patmutiun
Hayots,
3:
sec.
II,
150
(a
listing
of
amira
-governors).
[4]
P.
Ketchian,
Patmutiun
Hivandanotsin,
p.
49.
[5]
Ibid.
Kiliççibaşi
=
chief
swordman
süngübaşi
=
servant
in
charge
of
the
sultan’s
bayonets
kürkçübaşi
=
servant
in
charge
of
the
sultan’s
fur
coats
kuyumcubaşi
=
chief
jeweler
in
the
palace
aģa
=
lord,
master;
title
formerly
given
to
certain
officers
ekmekçibaşi
=
head
of
sultan’s
court
bakers
[7]
Alboyadjian,
Les
Dadian,
p.
39.
[8]
Giuleserian,
Kolot,
p.
33,
n.
1
and
p.
206.
[9]
Azadian,
Akn
II,
p.
60.
[10]
Ibid.,
pp.
65,
92
(mentioned
three
times).
[13]
Ibid.,
p.
59.
Hmayag
Ekserdjian,
Hishatakaran
Hngeak
Hobeleani
Surb
Khatch
Ekeghetsovoy
Skiutaru
1676-1926
[Memoir
on
the
Two
Hundred
Fiftieth
Anniversary
of
the
Church
of
Holy
Cross
of
Skudar
1676-1426]
(Constantinople,
1927);
the
names
of
four
sarraf
s
are
mentioned
on
p.
24
and
of
three
others
or.
p.
72.
[14]
Azadian,
Akn
II,
p.
90.
[16]
Torkomian,
Eremia
Tchelepii,
2:
431.
[20]
Azadian,
Akn
II,
p.
88.
[22]
As
a
matter
of
fact
the
members
of
Koranian
or
Koraniants
family
practiced
the
profession
of
sarraf,
but
none
was
called
amira,
although
a
few
married
into
amira
families.
See
Azadian,
Akn
II,
op.
105-108.
[23]
A.
Ketchian,
Akn,
p.
60.
[24]
Ibid.
The
author
does
not
mention
the
source
of
his
information.
Most
probably
he
obtained
it
from
Endardsak
Oratsoyts
Surb
Prktchean
Hivandanotsi
[The
Great
Calendar
of
the
St.
Savior
Armenian
Hospital]
(Constantinople,
1902),
p.
197
where
the
following
is
stated:
"For
the
first
time
in
history
Iskender
Amira
is
mentioned
as
amira;
he
was
a
friend
of
the
physician
and
clerical
scholar
Clemens
Galanus
whom
he
kept
in
his
house
during
the
religious
persecutions
of
the
time
(1641-1642).
”
This
anonymous
article
does
not
provide
a
clue
as
to
the
origin
of
its
information.
Since
this
Iskender
Amira
was
a
“friend”
of
the
Teatine
cleric
Clemens
Galanus
or
Clemente
Galano,
this
student
examined
his
three-volume
work:
Conciliationis
Ecclesiae
Armenae
cum
Romana,
3
vols.,
Rome,
1658-1690,
but
to
no
avail.
Another
source
calls
him
“Iskender
Celebi.
”
(See
Mrmerian,
Masnakan
Patmutiun,
p.
25).
Furthermore,
if
such
a
person
existed,
then
the
date
reported
is
either
false
or
misrepresented.
If
he
were
a
friend
of
Galanus,
who
died
in
1666,
he
could
not
have
lived
in
1559!
Could
the
discrepancy
be
ascribed
to
a
printing
error!
Is
the
correct
date
1659?
In
the
latter
case
the
source
remains
unknown.
[25]
Endardsak
Oratsoyts,
1902,
p.
196.
[26]
A.
Ketchian,
Akn,
p.
225.
[27]
Ibid.
The
letters
for
the
date
according
to
the
Armenian
calendar
are
misprinted:
in
R
Kh
H
the
letter
Kh
should
be
omitted
to
obtain
the
correct
date,
corresponding
to
1621.
[28]
Azadian,
Akn
II,
p.
92.
[30]
Asadur,
Polsoy
Hayere,
p.
63,
n.
2:
“the
word
amir
a
is
found
in
colophons
dating
after
1760.
”
[31]
Krikor
Kalemkearian,
Kensagrutiun
Ergu
Hay
Patriarkneru
ev
Tasn
Episkooosneru
[Biography
of
Two
Patriarchs
and
Ten
Bishops]
(Vienna,
1915),
pp-
344-350.
[32]
Azadian,
Akn
II,
p.
85.
[33]
Arakel
Ketchian
and
Mgrditch
Barsamian,
Akn
ev
Akntsik
[Akn
and
Akners]
(Paris,
1952),
p.
197
(addendum).
Two
colophons
are
cited
in
this
source,
one
dated
1742
and
the
other
1750.
[34]
Ibid.;
Azadian,
Akn
II,
p.
85;
Asadur,
Polsoy
Hayere,
p.
57;
A.
Ketchian,
Akn,
p.
255;
Mrmerian,
Masnakan
Patmutiun,
p.
61.
[35]
Asadur,
Polsoy
Hayere,
p.
71:
“the
most
influential
and
wealthiest
Armenian
in
Istanbul.
”
[36]
Ketchian
and
Barsamian,
Akntsik,
p.
191
(addendum);
A.
Ketchian,
Akn,
p.
173;
Torkomian,
Eremia
Tchelepii,
2:
612,
n.
1.
[37]
Ibid.;
Azadian,
Akn
II,
pp.
76-77;
Idem,
Akn
I,
p.
56;
and
sources
cited
in
note
36
above.
[38]
Azadian,
Akn
II,
p.
130.
[42]
Ibid.,
pp.
74-75;
the
eldest
son
had
no
title,
and
available
sources
give
no
explanation.
[45]
Boghosian,
Dadian
Gerdastane,
p.
41.
[46]
Hagop
Varjabedian,
Hishatakaran
Hariuramiay
Hobeleani
Khasgiughi
S[urb]
Stepannos
Egeghetsvoy
1831-1931
[Memoir
of
the
Centenary
of
St.
Stephen’s
Church
of
Khasgiugh
(Haskoy)
1831-1931]
(Constantinople,
1931),
p.
20.
[47]
P.
Ketchian,
Patmutiun
Hivandanotsin,
pp.
40
and
27.
[48]
lbid.,
pp.
53
(
aģa
),
and
27
and
69
(
amira
).
[49]
Azadian,
Akn
II,
p.
124
(
aģa
)
and
p.
122
(
amira
).
[50]
P.
Ketchian,
Patmutiun
Hivandanotsin,
p.
20
(
aģa
);
A.
Ketchian,
Akn,
p.
153
(
amira
).
[51]
P.
Ketchian,
Patmutiun
Hivandanotsin,
p.
52
(
aģa
);
Ketchian,
Akn,
p.
207
(
amira
).
[52]
P.
Ketchian,
Patmutiun
Hivandanotsin,
p.
40
(
aģa
);
Asadur,
Polsoy
Hayere,
p.
157
(
armira
).
[53]
P.
Ketchian,
Patmutiun
Hivandanotsin,
p.
40
(
aģa
);
Asadur,
Polsoy
Hayere,
p.
157
(
amira
).
[54]
Sarkis
Dbir
Sarraf
Hovhannesian,
as
referred
to
in
Torkomian,
Eremia
Tchelepii,
2:
612
and
3:
279.
[55]
A.
Berberian,
Patmutiun,
p.
188
passim.
Significantly,
the
first
time
this
chronicler
uses
the
title
amira
is
in
connection
with
Harutiun
Amira
Bezdjian.
[56]
Asadur,
Polsoy
Hayere,
p.
113,
n.
1
and
p.
116;
A.
Berberian,
Patmutiun,
pp.
134
and
168;
Mrmerian,
Masnakan
Patmutiun,
p.
107.
[57]
A.
Berberian,
Patmutiun,
p.
104;
Asadur,
Polsoy
Hayere,
p.
113.
[58]
Mrmerian,
Masnakan
Patmutiun,
p.
106.
This
author
observes
that
“five
or
six
families
among
the
wealthy
Catholic
Armenians
were
sometimes
called
amira,
and
in
general,
hoca
or
çelebi,
in
the
first
quarter
of
nineteenth
century...
”
[59]
A.
Berberian,
Patmutiun,
pp.
82-83
and
190.
The
names
of
twelve
individuals
are
cited
without
any
titles.
[60]
Asadur,
Polsoy
Hayere,
p.
113,
n.
1;
a
list
of
prominent
Armenians
was
published
in
1818;
among
the
Catholics
eight
had
the
title
aga
and
three
celebi.
[61]
Mrmerian,
Masnakan
Patmutiun,
p.
139.
[62]
Leo,
Kotjayakan
Kapitale,
p.
248.
[63]
Epigraph
speaks
for
itself;
an
inscription
can
be
a
statement
engraved
on
a
wall
in
a
church,
a
fountain
head
or
in
a
school;
record
implies
statement
written
in
a
book,
document
or
church
record-book;
minutes
are
simply
records
of
meetings
and
gatherings.
In
addition
to
these,
colophons,
bulls
(issued
by
Katholikos,
a
prelate
or
a
patriarch),
certificates,
proclamations
are
used
as
proof.
[64]
G.
D.
H.
Cole,
Studies
in
Class
Structure
(London,
1955),
p.
9.
[65]
A.
Ketchian,
Akn,
p.
226;
A.
Berberian,
Patmutiun,
p.
203.
[66]
Joel
Shinder,
“Career
Line
Formation
in
the
Ottoman
Bureaucracy,
1648-1750:
a
New
Perspective,
”
Journal
of
the
Economic
and
Social
History
of
the
Orient"
16
(1973):
236.
[67]
A.
Ketchian,
Akn,
p.
226;
A.
Berberian,
Patmutiun,
p.
203.
[68]
P.
Ketchian,
Patmutiun
Hivandanotsin,
p.
73.
[71]
Asadur,
Polsoy
Hayere,
pp.
89
and
91.
[72]
Azadian,
Akn
II,
p.
63;
see
also
note
1,
p.
59
above.
[73]
Ibid.,
pp.
153
and
156
(Bull
from
the
Catholicos).
[74]
Respectively
Azadian,
Akn
II,
p.
69;
P.
Ketchian,
Patmutiun
Hivandanotsin,
p.
32;
Torkomian,
Eremia
Tchelepii,
1:
337,
2:
682.
There
is
a
partial
listing
of
the
adjectives
in
Mrmerian,
Masnakan
Patmutiun,
pp.
143-144.
[75]
The
first
word,
“aznuazarm,
”
is
an
Armenian
word
meaning
“of
noble
ancestry,
origin,
”
while
the
second,
“bayazad,
”
is
a
compound
word
of
“bay”–Turkish–
meaning
prince,
chief
(of
archaic
usage,
now
Mr.,
Sir),
and
“azad”–Persian–
meaning
free,
not
enslaved.
[76]
Azadian,
Akn
II,
p.
123.
[77]
In
a
letter
to
the
editor,
in
Arshaloys
Araratean
(Smyrna,
Izmir),
9
December
1844,
p.
4.
[78]
Among
many
references
Torkomian,
Eremia
Tchelepii,
3:
78.
[79]
Galanus,
Conciliationis
Ecclesiae
Armenae
cum
Romana
[Rome,
1658],
1:
475.
[80]
Emile
Pin,
Les
Classes
sociales
(Paris,
1962),
p.
27.
[81]
Cole,
Class
Structure,
p.
9.
[82]
Kurt
B.
Mayer,
Class
and
Society
(Garden
City,
N.
Y.,
1955),
p.
23.
[84]
Azadian,
Akn
II,
p.
99.
[86]
Varjabedian,
Hobeleani
Khasgiughi,
p.
156.
The
name
of
the
husband
is
not
mentioned.
[87]
Torkomian,
Eremia
Tchelepii,
2:
693.
[88]
Azadian,
Akn
II,
p.
124.
[89]
Varjabedian,
Hobeleani
Khasgiughi,
p.
170
(marriage
should
have
been
between
1830
and
1840).
[90]
Torkomian,
Eremia
Tchelepii,
2:
659.
[91]
Boghosian,
Dadian
Gerdastane,
p.
264.
[92]
To
be
exact
45
percent,
73
out
of
a
total
of
164.
[93]
The
town
changed
its
name
from
Egin
to
Kemaliye
in
1938,
see
Islam
Ansiklopedisi,
s.
v.
“Egin,
”
by
Besim
Darkot;
Türk
Ansiklopedisi,
s.
v.
“Kemaliye;
”
Haykakan
Sovetakan
Hanragitaran
[Soviet
Armenian
Encyclopedia],
s.
v.
“Akn.
”
[94]
Three
Armenian
authors
have
written
exclusively
on
Akn:
Toros
Azadian,
Arakel
Ketchian
and
Mgrditch
Barsamian;
see
cited
works
in
the
Bibliography.
[95]
Ghazarian,
Arevmtahayeri,
p.
397.
[96]
Ketchian
and
Barsamian,
Akntsik,
p.
380.
Thanks
to
its
commerce
and
cottage
industries
Akn
was
so
rich
that
it
was
called
“Küçük
Misir,
”
i.
e.
“Little
Egypt,
”
in
A.
Ketchian,
Akn,
p.
20.
[99]
Ibid.,
p.
381.
The
word
“sila”
belongs
to
the
peculiar
dialect
of
Akn.
[100]
Ghazarian,
Arevmtahaeri,
p.
397.
[101]
The
word
“nakharar”
does
not
have
an
exact
translation;
the
closest
would
be
prince,
lord,
feudal
lord.
For
a
good
understanding
of
the
term
see
Nicolas
Adontz,
Armenia
in
the
Period
of
Justinian;
the
Political
Conditions
Based
on
the
Naxarar
System,
tr.
and
rev.
Nina
G.
Garsoïan
(Lisbon,
1970),
pp.
183-371.
[102]
This
characterization
was
made
by
Minas
Tcheraz,
a
well-known
Armenian
public
servant
and
writer,
reported
in
A.
Ketchian,
Akn,
p.
11.
[103]
Alexan
Papazian,
Hayots
Patmutiun
[Armenian
History],
reported
in
A.
Ketchian,
Akn,
p.
11.
[104]
In
Sebastia
Senekerim
established
the
Kingdom
of
Sebastia
which
included,
among
other
towns,
Akn,
Arapgir
and
Divrig.
The
kingdom
was
probably
swept
away
during
the
invasion
of
Seljuk
Turks
into
central
Anatolia
at
the
end
of
the
eleventh
century.
See
Alboyadjian,
Patmutiun
Hay
Gaghtakanutean
[History
of
the
Armenian
Migration],
3
vols.
(Cairo,
1941-1961),
2:
507.
[105]
Tchamtchian,
Patmutiun,
2:
903;
Antoine
Jean
Saint
Martin,
Mémoire
sur
l'Arménie,
2
vols.
(Paris,
1819),
1:
189;
Darkot,
“Egin,
”
p.
194.
[106]
After
the
first
settlement
there
was
a
continuous
movement
of
newcomers
from
Ani,
the
Bagratid
capital,
after
the
city
was
seized
by
the
Mongols
in
1236.
This
trickle
turned
into
a
flow
when
the
city
was
ruined
from
the
earthquake
of
1319.
[107]
Darkot,
“Egin,
”
p.
195.
[108]
In
the
early
period
of
their
rule
Ottomans
allowed
local
Christian
princes
to
keep
their
lands
and
privileges,
provided
they
would
join
the
Ottoman
army
in
fighting
the
enemy.
But
once
the
Ottomans
were
firmly
established
in
a
region,
these
feudal
lords
were
asked
either
to
convert
to
Islam
and
keep
their
rights
and
properties,
or
remain
Christian
but
give
up
their
feudal
privileges
and
lands.
See
Halil
Inalcik,
The
Ottoman
Empire,
trans.
Norman
Itzkowitz
and
Colin
Imber
(London,
1973),
p.
114.
[109]
A.
Ketchian,
Akn,
pp.
121-305;
see
note
94,
p.
48,
above.
[110]
Azadian,
Akn
II,
pp.
4-5;
Alboyadjian,
Les
Dadian,
p.
21;
Boghosian,
Dadian
Gerdastane,
p.
4;
A.
Ketchian,
Akn,
p.
131.
[111]
The
text
of
the
genealogy
is
found
in
Boghosian,
Dadian
Gerdastane,
pp.
16-20;
Azadian,
“Dadian
Gerdastani
Dzagume
ev
ir
Akanavor
Demkere”
[“The
Origins
of
the
Dadian
Dynasty
and
its
Prominent
Figures”],
Asdghaberd
8-9
(Istanbul,
1951):
153-156;
Idem.
Akn
II.
pp.
4-5.
[112]
The
word
used
in
the
text
is
²Ì²¼²ð¸
=
ADZAZARD,
which
should
read
²ëïáõ³Í³½³ñ¹
=
Asdouadzazard,
meaning
“blessed”
(literally
“ornamented”)
by
God.
This
could
be
interpreted
in
three
ways:
(a)
it
could
be
a
proper
name;
in
this
case
it
is
not
shown
in
H.
Adjarian’s
Hayots
Andsnanounneri
Bararan
[Dictionary
of
Armenian
Proper
Names]
5
vols.
(reprint
ed.,
Beirut,
1972);
(b)
it
could
be
an
adjective
for
a
son
of
Vahram
whose
name
is
not
mentioned;
(c)
it
could
be
an
adjective
for
his
brother
who
might
have
been
very
young
and,
therefore,
raised
by
him
(Vahram)
as
a
son.
(I
thank
Dr.
Krikor
Maksoudian
for
his
observation
about
the
above-mentioned
three
possible
interpretations
of
the
word.
)
[113]
Azadian,
Akn
II,
p.
3;
French
translation
is
found
in
Alboyadjian,
Les
Dadian,
p.
23
(transiation
into
French
of
the
word,
see
note
2
above,
is
as
follows:
“...
de
mes
fils
ornés
de
Dieu.
”)
[114]
Azadian,
Akn
II,
p.
5.
[115]
Alboyadjian,
Les
Dadian,
p.
23.
This
historian
objects
to
the
conjectures
of
katholikos
Karekin
Hovsepian
and
H.
Djanigian,
who
were
the
first
to
copy
and
publish
the
colophon,
that
this
Bible
dates
from
the
eleventh
or
twelfth
century.
If
these
conjectures
were
true,
then
there
is
a
chronological
gap
and,
therefore,
“une
telle
identification
n’est
pas
possible.
”
But
if
it
is
a
manuscript
written
in
the
fourteenth
century,
then
“la
situation
change
et
il
prend
de
l'importance
au
point
de
vue
de
la
généalogie
Dadian.
”
[116]
For
a
detailed
discussion
of
the
topic
see
Alboyadjian,
Les
Dadian,
pp.
19-25.
[117]
Azadian,
Akn
II,
p.
95.
[118]
Ibid.,
pp.
159-160.
[119]
Ibid.,
p.
160.
This
childless
ancestor,
named
Melik
Bugham,
was
finally
blessed
with
a
son
whom
he
named
Hoviv,
as
suggested
by
the
monk
seen
in
his
dreams.
The
family
was
called
Hovuian
after
this
Hoviv.
[120]
Arshag
Tchobanian,
editor’s
note
in
Anahid
3,
nos.
3-4
(Paris,
1931):
151-152.
[121]
Boghosian,
Dadian
Gerdastane,
pp.
9-14
[122]
Zartarian,
Hishatakaran,
p.
28;
Azadian,
Akn
II,
p.
115.
[123]
Mrmerian,
Masnakan
Patmutiun,
pp.
112.
A
poem
written
by
a
contemporary
Mekhitarist
vartabed,
reproduced
in
Mrmerian's
Patmutiun
on
page
113,
depicts
in
great
detail
and
quite
vividly
amira
s’
way
of
life.
[124]
Ibid.
The
account
of
the
funeral
procession
of
Boghos
Amira
Dadian
(d.
24
December
1863)
is
reproduced
here,
giving
every
minute
detail
as
to
who,
how
and
when
each
part
of
the
procession
will
proceed.
An
indication
of
the
duration,
as
well
as
the
pomp,
of
the
funeral
ceremonies
is
provided
by
the
fact
that
it
had
started
at
7:
30
A.
M.
It
is
significant
that
official
security
troops
(“zabtiye,
”
i.
e.
gendarme)
took
part
in
the
solemn
non-Muslim
ceremonies.
[125]
Giuleserian,
Hishatakaran
Basmadjian
Krikor
Patriarki
[Memoir
of
Patriarch
Krikor
Basmadjian]
(Paris,
1908),
pp.
5
and
70.
[127]
Varjabedian,
Hariurameay
Hobelean
Verashinutean
Patriarkaranist
Mayr
Egeghetsvoyn
Kumkapui
1828-1928
[Centenary
of
the
Reconstruction
of
the
Patriarchal
Cathedral
at
Kumkapu
1828-1928]
(Constantinople,
1928),
p.
37;
Mrmerian,
Masnakan
Patmutium,
p.
111.
[128]
P.
Ketchian,
Patmutiun
Hivandanotsin,
p.
73;
Torkomian,
Eremia
Tchelepii,
2:
437,
458,
678;
Mrmerian,
Masnakan
Patmutiun,
p.
94.
[129]
Torkomian,
Eremia
Tchelepii,
2:
657.
[130]
Asadur,
Polsoy
Hayere,
p.
71
[131]
Letter
from
Mahdesi
Arakel,
Chief
of
Canon
Works,
to
Father
Kevork
Abdullahian,
14
April
1804,
and
letter
from
Fr.
Mgrditch
Avkerian,
in
Istanbul,
to
Fr.
Gabriel
Avedikian,
in
Venice,
11
May
1804,
in
Archival
Collections,
Correspondence,
vol.
35.
For
these
and
other
letters
I
thank
Fr.
Sahag
Djemdjemian
of
the
Mekhitarist
Congregation
in
Venice
who
located
the
letters
and
made
available
to
me.
[132]
Azadian,
Akn
II,
p.
74;
Idem,
Akn
I,
p.
55.
[133]
A.
Ketchian,
Akn,
p.
137;
Boghosian,
Dadian
Gerdastane,
pp.
43,
52,
106
passim.
[134]
Mayer,
Class
and
Society,
p.
26.