Part 1

THE ARMENIANS

_By_ C. F. DIXON-JOHNSON

“_Whosoever does wrong to a Christian or Jew shall find me his accuser on the day of judgment_” (EL KORAN).

Printed and Published by GEO. TOULMIN & SONS, LTD., NORTHGATE, BLACKBURN.

1916.

Preface

_The following pages were first read as a paper before the “Société d’Etudes Ethnographiques.” They have since been amplified and are now being published at the request of a number of friends, who believe that the public should have an opportunity of judging whether or not “the Armenian Question” has another side than that which has been recently so assiduously promulgated throughout the Western World._

_Though the championship of Greek, Bulgarian and other similar “Christian, civilized methods of fighting,” as contrasted with “Moslem atrocities” in the Balkans and Asia Minor, has been so strenuously undertaken by Lord Bryce and others, the more recent developments in the Near East may perhaps already have opened the eyes of a great many thinking people to the realization that, in sacrificing the traditional friendship of the Turk to all this more or less sectarian clamour, British diplomacy has really done nothing better than to exchange the solid and advantageous reality for a most elusive and unreliable, if not positively dangerous, set of shadows._

_It seems illogical that the same party which recalled the officials (and among them our present War Minister) appointed by Lord Beaconsfield to assist the Turkish Government in reforming their administration and collecting the revenue in Asia Minor, and which on the advent of the Young Turks refused to lend British Administrators to whom ample and plenary powers were assured, should now, in its eagerness to vilify the Turk, lose sight of their own mistakes which have led in the main to the conditions of which it complains, and should so utterly condemn its own former policy. Whatever hardships the Armenians may within recent years have suffered, the responsibility for them must surely to a great extent rest with the well-meaning idealists who, instead of trying to improve existing conditions, inspired their helpless dupes with impracticable aspirations which were bound to lead to disaster._

_The writer desires to thank those authors and travellers whose works he has so freely quoted, and upon whose information he has relied for the historical and geographical notes, as well as Professor Henry Léon, Mr. Robert Fraser, and other friends, who have afforded him their most valuable assistance._

_The reasons for dealing with the subject at this particular juncture are given in the text and will, he hopes, prove satisfactory to the reader._

_C. F. DIXON-JOHNSON._

_Croft-on-Tees, Yorkshire. February, 1916._

CONTENTS

PAGE.

I.

HISTORICAL: Earliest History—Ethnological Characteristics—Supposed Relation to lost Tribes of Israel—Tiridates and St. Gregory—Introduction of Christianity among the Plain-dwellers—Animal Sacrifices—Monophysite Doctrine—Mass—Ignorance and Bigotry of Clergy—Mountaineers remaining Pagans—Decline of the Kingdom—Seljuk Invasion—Mountaineers converted to Islam—Lesser Armenia—Incorporation in Ottoman Empire 9

II.

GEOGRAPHICAL: Physical Features—Divisions of Population—Sedentary Plain-dwellers: chiefly Armenians—Semi-Nomads: Kurds—Nomads: Kurds and Half-Arab—Four Agricultural Mountain Strongholds 15

III.

ARMENIAN QUESTION: Kurds and Armenians: Equal Historical Rights to Consideration—Mohamed II. grants Religious Freedom—Millets—Root-Evil of all Subsequent Troubles—Sir Charles Wilson’s Explanation—‘Odysseus’ on Excellent Relations between Turks and Armenians—Mr. Geary’s Corroboration of Turkish Tolerance—Armenian Population scattered—Disturbing Factors: Foreign Missionaries, Treaty of Berlin, Revolutionary Societies—Blackmail and Murder—Growing Popular Distrust of Armenians 19

IV.

ARMENIAN CHARACTER: Lord Bryce’s Idyllical Representation—Competent Opinions by Others:—Sir Charles Wilson—Lord Salisbury—Mr. Grattan Geary—‘Odysseus’—Captain Burnaby—Sir Mark Sykes 25

V.

PAST RISINGS: Family-Likeness between so-called Armenian Atrocities and Past Bulgarian ditto—Gross Exaggerations—Sir Henry Layard’s Despatch—The Zeitun Rising in 1895—A Graphic Account—The Malatia Massacres Exception to General Rule—Constantinople Riots in 1896—Mr. Henry Whitman’s Observations—Partisan Correspondents—The Predicament of Mr. Melton Prior 31

VI.

RECENT TROUBLES: Unfair Exploitation of One-sided Reports—Standards of Proof declining in Times of Trouble—Captain Fortescue on the Looting of Pera Palace—Sir William Osler on Emotional Instability—“A Well-known Hand”—Sources of Lord Crewe’s Information—Improbability of Unprovoked Turkish Action:—Military and Political Situation—Habitual Calm and Tolerance of the Turk—Conditions Favourable to Armenian Rising—What Actually Happened—Armenians Capture Van Butcher the Inhabitants—Further Risings—Necessity of Repressive Measures—Moslems alarmed for own Safety—Panic and Retaliation 41

VII.

FIGURES AND FANCIES: Exaggerated Estimates—Over One Million Victims out of 900,000 Inhabitants!—The Mystery of Mersina—The Drownings at Trebizond vouched for by Italian Consul—Different Story by the same Authority—The Curious Case of Canon McColl—Unfounded Armenian Claims to Independence—The Armenians Minority of Population 49

VIII.

BRITISH POLICIES AND RUSSIAN AIMS: Object of Agitation to Influence British Policy—Kurdistan the Key of Mesopotamia—Sir Henry Layard’s and Mr. Grattan Geary’s Opinion—The Danger to Egypt—Cyprus Convention—Russian Opposition to Reforms—Anglo-Russian Entente followed by Reversion of British Policy—Turkish Request for British Administrators Refused—Russian Proposals—Turkey Appeals to Germany—An Impossible Compromise—Band-Warfare and Propaganda 54

IX.

CONCLUSIONS 59

Principal Authors consulted and quoted in the following pages:

BURNABY, Captain Fred: On Horseback through Asia Minor (Sampson, Low, Marston, Searle & Rivington, London 1877).

GEARY, Grattan: Through Asiatic Turkey (Sampson, M. S. & R., London, 1878).

‘ODYSSEUS’: Turkey in Europe (Edw. Arnold, London 1900).

PEARS, Sir Edwin: Forty Years in Constantinople (Herbert Jenkins, 1915).

SYKES, Sir Mark: Dar-ul-Islam (Bickers & Son, London 1904).

” ”: The Caliph’s Last Heritage (Macmillan & Co., London 1915).

WHITMAN, Sidney: Turkish Memories (Wm. Heinemann, London 1914).

WILSON, Sir Charles: Article on “ARMENIA” in the Encyclopædia Britannica.

THE ARMENIANS

I.

The earliest history of Armenia, as Kurdistan was called previous to its conquest by the Osmanli Turks, is lost in the mists of mythology. But even in the pre-Persian era we find Armenia existing as a separate state, populated by a number of fierce and diverse tribes who were continually contending amongst themselves, the victor for the time being imposing its own chieftain as suzerain over the remainder. These tribes differed greatly in their racial characteristics, the main divisions being the Kurds, who were then called Karduchians, the Chaldeans, from whom the Nestorians are probably descended, and the Haikians. The latter race, who are known to us to-day as Armenians, although they still retain the name Haik amongst themselves, do not appear to have had a common origin. They may be divided, at the present time, into two distinct groups: the round-headed and the long-headed. Both, as a rule, are of short stature, with thick necks, and rather solidly built. Many of them possess peculiarly semitic features, amongst these the prominent nose which is generally considered a characteristic of the Jew. This fact has led some ethnologists to advance the theory that one of the lost tribes of Israel wandered to the shores of Lake Van and settled there, intermarrying with the Haikian inhabitants, while others assign these physiological characteristics to the incursion of certain Afghan tribes. It is worthy of note in connection with this latter theory, that the Afghans are likewise, by some writers, believed to be descendants of one of the lost tribes.

If the theory that the Armenian race is descended from one of the missing tribes be correct, it is not improbable, judging from their aptitude in financial affairs and the manner in which they have made usury and money-changing a fine art, that these people may be the lineal descendants of the money-changers whom Christ scourged and drove from the Temple at Jerusalem. Even at the present day most of the _sarafs_, or money-lenders and changers, in the Ottoman Empire are Armenians, and their sharp practice and unscrupulousness in commercial pursuits is so notorious that it has given rise to the saying: “It takes ten Turks to cheat one Jew, ten Jews to cheat one Greek, but twenty Greeks assisted by seven Jews and five Turks to cheat one Armenian.”

It would be a tedious endeavour to follow the changes in the rulers whom the alternate ascendancies of Persia, Parthia, Greece, Rome and Byzantium subsequently imposed upon the territory of Armenia. The court, which at one time was modelled on that of Persia, became a centre of intrigue. The rulers of the contending Empires controlled the destinies of the kingdom by political rather than by forcible means, finding it easier, as a rule, to remove an unamenable king by assassination, bribery, or by fomenting revolution, than by sending armed forces into an inaccessible country populated by fierce tribes. For this reason the Kings of Armenia practically became puppets in the hands of their more powerful neighbours.

The most important event in the early history of Armenia came with the accession in 284 A.D. of Diocletian as Emperor of Rome. Diocletian, desirous of establishing his influence there, sent from Rome a young Armenian by name Tiridates, the last living representative of the Armenian branch of the Arsacid dynasty, which was originally of Persian origin. Tiridates rallied the nobles, and supported by them and a few Roman troops who had accompanied him, drove out the Persian governors. A decade or so after being proclaimed king, Tiridates became a convert to Christianity, and with the help of his cousin, St. Gregory the Illuminator, established the Christian faith in Armenia.

The priestly families, when they heard that the new religion required no sacrifices, were much perturbed and threatened violent opposition. But astute St. Gregory was equal to the occasion. He not only promised that the sacrifices should continue, but that the priestly share of the slaughtered animals should be greater than ever before, and he furthermore assured to them the hereditary succession of the priesthood. Thus thoroughly satisfied, the priests unanimously adopted the new doctrines and became servants of the new religion.

The change was nominal rather than real; the new religion was grafted on to the old, and ancient rites were maintained under fresh names. In order to ensure to the priesthood their full share of the slaughtered animals, it was ordered that no animal except those slain in the chase should be killed by anyone but the priests themselves. Animal sacrifice still forms an important part of the ritual of the Gregorian, or, as it is called, the Armenian Church. Even to-day the priests are able to terrify recalcitrant members of the church by threatening to withhold the _matal_ or sacrifice made for the ablution of sins after death.

In the cities and plains, where the population was engaged in commerce, agriculture and other peaceful pursuits, St. Gregory, with the aid of his newly converted priests, had little difficulty in imposing the new religion. The people, freed by the apostacy of the priesthood, were glad to rid themselves of the Zoroastrian religion, which they disliked because it had been imposed upon them under the domination of the Persians. It should be noted that what is termed the Orthodox Armenian Church stands apart and distinct, both in its doctrines and ritual, from either the Greek or Protestant Churches. It was not represented at the Council of Chalcedon and never signified its acceptance of, or adherence to the doctrines there promulgated. It holds to a certain extent what is known as the Monophysite doctrine: that the mortal body of Jesus was incorruptible. Many of the Orthodox Armenian clergy still cling to the tradition that after the entombment of Jesus His body was conveyed by angels to Mount Ararat and deposited beside the remains of Noah’s Ark, which, according to them, are still to be found there. During the period when He made Himself visible to His disciples, as related in the New Testament, Christ again assumed this earthly body, which after His ascent to Heaven was re-conveyed by the angels to Mount Ararat, where it still lies in a secret tomb, uncorrupted and ready to be reassumed once more at His second coming upon earth.

Mass is celebrated in the Armenian Church with a very elaborate ritual entirely distinct from and much more ornate and oriental than that of either the Latin or Greek Churches. During the celebration the assistants at the ceremonial rattle a curious instrument, not unlike the ancient Egyptian sistrum, composed of a huge cross set with jangling brass rings.

The head of the Church is styled in Armenian Katoghikos (Catholicos). The Armenian clergy is none too well educated, and is extremely superstitious and bigoted. All other forms of Christianity are denounced by them as heretical, and they have not scrupled to persecute those of their flock who have listened to the persuasive appeals of Protestant missionaries.

Mr. Grattan Geary, when at Mosul, found that each of the churches belonging to the warring sects had a guard of Turkish soldiers to keep the peace. Camp bedsteads were placed outside the church doors, on which these soldiers slept at night, and the sentries pacing up and down presented arms as he entered. When he endeavoured to get some definite knowledge respecting the various antagonistic sects of native Christians, the one distinctive idea which he derived from their answers was that, in the opinion of each sect, all the others were hopelessly perverse, besotted, ignorant and dishonest, and that, in a word, they were somewhat worse than Mussulmans. He tells us (in his book “Through Asiatic Turkey”) that

The hatred, malice, and all uncharitableness, characterizing the different native sects in their inter-relations could not be easily exaggerated; and I am sorry to say that in the opinion of men who have had ample opportunity of judging from personal observation, there is only too much foundation for the bad opinion which each of those sects entertains of the other. “When a Mohammedan gives me his word,” said a gentleman who had a long experience of the country, “whether he be a Turk or a Kurd, I can always rely upon it. I have never been what is called ‘done’ by a Mussulman, although I have had transactions of all kinds with Moslems for years; but when a native Christian tells me anything, I have cause instinctively to ask myself where the deception lies—in what direction I am going to be tricked. There are exceptions, of course; but if anyone has many dealings with Mussulmans and native Christians in these parts, he will soon learn that the one may be depended on, and the other will almost to a certainty deceive and cheat you if you give him a chance.”

In the meantime, while the Armenian of the plains had accepted St. Gregory’s teaching, the mountaineers, who had never adopted the religion of their alien rulers, continued to remain pagans. This circumstance was an important factor in accentuating the natural cleavage between the cultivators of the plains and the pastoral mountaineers, a cleavage due, in a great measure, to the physical conditions of the country, the plains being wide and extensive and the mountains distant and not very accessible, with the result that the population of Armenia at that time was more acutely divided than the Highlanders and the Lowlanders of Scotland a few centuries ago.

So far as archæological remains are concerned, practically no trace is to be found of this early Armenian kingdom. Whatever towns there may have been were probably constructed chiefly of wood or mud, and the cultural level of the inhabitants seems to have been far below that of their neighbours. This is not to be wondered at when we take into account the climatic conditions of the country, the lack of communications and the state of anarchy into which it was so frequently plunged. Although for a brief period under Tigranes II. Armenia in alliance with Mithridates, king of Pontus, became a kingdom of considerable importance, it reverted to its former dimensions after his defeat by Lucullus in the year 69 B.C. To speak of “the glories” historical or material, of ancient Armenia is simply a misuse of words.

After the abdication in the year 430 A.D. of King Bahram, who was the last really independent ruler, although the kingdom was nominally divided between the Eastern and Western Empires, the condition of Armenia became worse than ever before. Anarchy and disunion reigned supreme. The nobles, jealous, intriguing, covetous and mercenary, continually transferred their allegiance from one side to another, or, when not busy fighting as partisans for Rome or Persia occupied their time congenially in warring amongst themselves and ravaging each others’ territories.

In the year 1079 the Seljuks swept through the land, and with the fall of King Hagig II. the last remaining semblance of an independent Armenia disappeared. The Seljuks respected the Christian religion of the plain dwellers but converted the mountaineers to the Islamic faith, thus still further accentuating the line of demarcation between what may fairly be described as the Highlanders and Lowlanders of the district.

The rule of the Seljuks, who showed their tolerance by allowing the Lowlanders to remain Christians, was mild and liberal. They greatly improved the condition of the country, restored law and order and erected many public buildings and mosques, traces of which are still visible. On the other hand the country suffered grievously during the subsequent invasions of the Mongol hordes.

The year following the invasion of the Seljuks the Pagatrid Rhupen founded a small principality in Cilicia, which by gradually extending its boundaries became known later as the kingdom of Lesser Armenia. Internal disputes between the Catholics and Gregorians weakened this little State and facilitated its conquest by Egypt in 1375.

In 1414 Selim I., Osmanli Sultan of Constantinople, drove out the Mongols, and with their disappearance Armenia was incorporated in the Ottoman Empire under the name of Kurdistan.

II.

The physical features of Kurdistan have an important bearing on the political history of the country. It is a high tableland 6,000 feet or so above the sea level. On the north it descends somewhat abruptly to the Black Sea, on the south it exhibits a series of rugged terraces ending in the lowlands of Mesopotamia, while on the east and west it slopes more gradually, until it reaches the low plateaux of Persia and Asia Minor.

The general appearance of this tableland is uninteresting and monotonous. Most of the hills are grass-covered and treeless except for patches of scrubby looking bushes, while the plains are wide and cultivated. The winters are long and severe; the summers, which last about five months, are very hot and almost without rain.

The population falls into three distinct groups: sedentary, semi-nomadic and nomadic.

THE FIRST GROUP, consisting of Armenians, Greeks, Turks, Jews, and some few Kurds, lives in the plains, chiefly as agriculturists, merchants and traders, but their staple means of livelihood is undoubtedly agriculture. During the short summer months they till the fields, and in the winter retire to their towns and villages. They are a hard-working, thrifty and prosperous race.

THE SECOND GROUP, the semi-nomads, are Kurds. They migrate with their flocks along the valleys in the spring, the slopes in summer, and the mountain tops in autumn. They sell wool, butter, goats’ hair, skins, and animals for slaughter to the traders in the plains, and in return purchase domestic necessaries such as barley, petroleum and sugar for their own use, and hay for their herds. Thus provided they move, as winter approaches, to the mountain villages, there to await the coming of the following spring.

These Kurds are a truculent, warlike, yet simple, generous and industrious race. They live in separate tribes or communities under their own chieftains. The character of the tribes varies considerably, some being fiercer than others. Some regard all strangers with suspicion and repel them, while others welcome and confide in them. In this respect, and in fact in many other characteristics, they very much resemble the Scotch Highland clans of some two hundred years ago. Like these they at times war with one another, the usual cause for dispute being either the ownership of the ground on which the flocks are grazed, or the proprietorship of a well.

Mr. Grattan Geary, who travelled through Asiatic Turkey in 1878, describes the Kurds as “fine, strong fellows, with well marked features, which are, however, often marred by a sinister expression and a furtive glance, for which it is not easy to account in the descendants of a race of martial mountaineers who have never bowed the neck to any yoke. They have a reputation for treachery and cruelty, which I am afraid is not undeserved.” Mr. Geary during his journey found that the outlying Christian and Moslem villages were again being plundered by the Kurdish mountaineers although

the raids and disturbances which distracted the country before the Sultan’s authority was made real in the more hilly parts of Kurdistan, had been reduced to very small dimensions before the war with Servia, and afterwards with Russia, caused the Turkish troops to be withdrawn.

but in the opinion of those with whom he spoke on the subject