359

 ARMENIAN RELIGIOUS ARCHITECTURE IN THE LATE 19th
EARLY 20th CENTURY KAYSERI: SPATIAL AND CULTURAL
CLEANSING

iv
ABSTRACT
ARMENIAN RELIGIOUS ARCHITECTURE IN THE LATE 19th EARLY 20th
CENTURY KAYSERI: SPATIAL AND CULTURAL CLEANSING

Keywords: Armenian religious architecture, Kayseri, Destruction
This thesis is a study of the Ottoman Armenian religious architectural heritage in
Kayseri and surrounding villages, with a particular focus on the destruction process that
interested the Armenian churches and monasteries in the region. This study attempts to
reconstruct the Armenian presence in the city center and the villages from midnineteenth
century until 1915, through demographic make-up and main changes in the
Armenian population of Kayseri. An investigation of the Armenian churches and
monasteries built/rebuilt after the 1835 earthquake and the current conditions have been
conducted through the creation of a catalogue. The thesis argues that the Armenian
religious architecture of Kayseri and surroundings was targeted of spatial and cultural
cleansing, as the removal or neglect process led to the vanishing/transformation of the
majority of the analyzed architectural examples, including space-change and the end of
the local Armenian culture.
v
ÖZET
GEÇ 19. VE ERKEN 20. YÜZYIL KAYSERİ’SİNDE ERMENİ DİNİ MİMARİSİ:
MEKANSAL VE KÜLTÜREL ARINDIRMA
Francesca Penoni
Tarih, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, 2015
Tez Danışmanı: Tülay Artan
Anahtar Sözcükler: Ermeni dini mimarisi, Kayseri, İmha.
Bu tez, Ermeni kilise ve manastırlarını ilgilendiren imha süreci özelinde, Kayseri ve
civar köylerdeki Osmanlı Ermeni dini mimari mirasına odaklanmaktadır. Çalışmada,
Kayseri Ermeni toplumunun nüfusuna ilişkin değişiklikler ve tecrübe ettiği diğer ana
değişimler aracılığıyla, şehir merkezi ve köylerde, 19.yüzyıl ortasından 1915’e kadar
olan süreçteki Ermeni varlığının yeniden inşası hedeflenmiştir. 1835 depremi sonrasında
–yeniden- inşa edilen Ermeni kiliseleri; manastırları ve bu yapıların mevcut durumları,
hazırlanan katalog dahilinde değerlendirilmiştir. Tezde, mekansal değişim ve yerel
Ermeni kültürünün son bulması anlamını da taşıyan yerinden etme ya da görmezden
gelme sürecinin, ele alınan birçok mimari örneğin yok olma/dönüştürülmesine sebebiyet
vermesiyle, Kayseri ve civarı Ermeni dini mimarisinin söz konusu mekansal ve kültürel
imha sürecine hedef olduğu ileri sürülmüştür.
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor Tülay Artan
for her guidance, suggestions and time. I am also thankful to the members of my thesis
committee, Halil Berktay and Hülya Adak for their precious comments and suggestions,
which immensely helped me to improve the first version of the thesis.
I am greatly indebted to Zeynep Yelçe, the second reader of this thesis, who supported
and encouraged me during the most difficult stages of my work.
Special thanks to my friends Sona Khachatryan and Ecem Ömeroğlu for their presence
and support during these years and to Nehal Mohammed Ali for being the best
roommate ever.
I want to thank my friends in Italy who are always with me despite the distance.
Especially I want to thank Marianna Vianello for her constant support and friendship.
Finally, I am particularly grateful to my family and Masis for their love and
encouragement that make me an extremely fortunate person.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
Literature Review ........................................................................................................ 3
Structure and composition ......................................................................................... 19
CHAPTER 1 KAYSERI AND THE SURROUNDING VILLAGES AND TOWNS ... 21
1.1. Demographic Makeup ........................................................................................ 27
1.1.1 Armenians in the City Center ...................................................................... 28
1.1.2. Armenians in the villages within the kazas of Kayseri and Develi ............ 32
1.2. Armenians in the Economic Life of Kayseri ...................................................... 37
1.3. Change in the Armenian Population of Kayseri ................................................. 40
1.4. A Sketch of the End of the Armenian Presence in Kayseri ................................ 44
CHAPTER 2 ARMENIAN CHURCHES AND MONASTERIES IN KAYSERİ AND
SURROUNDINGS ......................................................................................................... 47
2.1. Armenian churches in the center of Kayseri ....................................................... 49
2.1.1. Surp Asdvadzadzin Church ........................................................................ 52
2.1.2. Surp Krikor Lusavorich Church ................................................................. 56
2.2. Armenian Churches and Monasteries in the Surroundings of Kayseri ............... 58
2.2.1. Armenian Churches in the Villages around Kayseri .................................. 60
viii
2.2.2. Armenian monasteries in the villages and town around Kayseri ............... 78
CHAPTER 3 ARMENIAN RELIGIOUS ARCHITECTURE OF KAYSERI AS
TARGET OF SPATIAL AND CULTURAL CLEANSING ......................................... 82
3.1. Spatial Nationalism ............................................................................................. 83
3.2. Spatial Cleansing ................................................................................................ 86
3.3. Cultural Cleansing .............................................................................................. 90
3.4. Destruction of Material Culture .......................................................................... 96
3.4.1.The Case of Ottoman Armenian Architecture of Kayseri and the Villages 97
3.4.2 Armenian Churches as Private or State Properties Today ......................... 111
CONCLUSION............................................................................................................. 115
APPENDIX 1: CHRONOLOGY ................................................................................. 117
APPENDIX 2: The Ottoman Armenian population in 1914 ........................................ 119
BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................................................................................... 121
ix
List of Figures, Maps and Tables
Map 1. The first Ottoman map of the sancak of Kayseri of the year 1910
Map 2. Armenian map of 1937
Table 1. Names of the villages in Armenian and in Turkish
Map 3. Map of Kayseri’s neighborhoods in 1872
Table 2. Kayseri mahalles inhabited by Armenians with corresponding number of male
tax-payers
Table 3. Villages and towns with the number of Armenian male tax payers
Table 4. Villages and towns with the number of Armenian male tax payers
Map 4. The Armenian churches in the center of Kayseri, the Gregorian churches of Surp
Sarkis, Surp Asdvadzadzin and Surp Krikor Lusavorich and the Catholic church of Surp
Khach.
Map 5. A map of the center of Kayseri and the location of Surp Astvadzadzin Church
Fig.1 Surp Sarkis Church in 1910
Fig.2 Surp Asdvadzadzin Church until recently used as a sport center and currently
under restoration
Fig.3 The main entrance of Surp Asdvadzadzin church
Fig.4 The western façade of Surp Asdvadzadzin church
Fig.5 Surp Krikor Lusavorich in 1930’s
Fig.6 Surp Krikor Lusavorich Church in its current condition
Fig. 7 The entrance façade presents partially collapsed walls
Map 6. Churches and Monasteries in the kaza of Kayseri and in the kaza of Develi
Table 5. Armenian Churches of Kayseri and surrounding villages. In the table are listed
the churches present in Kayseri and surrounding villages and towns
x
Map 7. Location of Surp Toros Church in the village of Tavlusun
Fig.8 Tavlusun Surp Toros Church current condition
Fig.9 Efkere Surp Stepanos Church in 1913 the dome and the bell tower
Fig.10 Efkere Surp Stepanos Church current condition with the complete destruction of
its dome and bell tower
Fig.11 The absent dome of Surp Stepanos church
Map 8. Germir and the location of Surp Stepanos Church
Fig.12 Germir Surp Stepanos Church (early 1900s)
Fig.13 Germir Surp Toros Church current condition
Fig. 14 A section of Germir Surp Toros Church utilized as habition
Fig.15 Germir Surp Toros church courtyard currently part of the habitation
Fig.16 Tomarza Surp Boghos Bedros Church current condition
Fig.17 Everek Surp Toros converted in Fatih Mosque
Fig.18 Fenese Surp Toros Church
Fig.19 One of the entrances of Fenese Surp Toros church
Fig. 20 The interior of Surp Toros in Fenese currently used as barn
Fig.21 Photograph of the building identified as an Armenian church in Talas
Fig.22 Talas Surp Toros Church
Fig.23 Talas Surp Toros Church in early 1900s
Fig.24 Talas Surp Asdvadzadzin
Fig.25 Talas Surp Asdvadzadzin Church
Table 8. List of monasteries in the surroundings of Kayseri
xi
Fig.26 Efkere Surp Garabed Monastery
Fig. 27 Tomarza Surp Asdvadzadzin monastery
Fig.28 Tomarza Surp Asdvadzadzin’s ruins
Fig.29 Derevank Surp Sarkis monastery today
Fig. 30 Balagesi Surp Daniel Monastery with Surp Asdvadzadzin church
Fig.31 Ruins of Surp Garabed monastery in Efkere
Fig.32 Surp Sarkis in Derevank
Fig.33 Surp Sarkis church of Kayseri in 1910, completely absent today
Fig.35 Map of Kayseri’s quarters at the end of nineteenth century and the beginning of
the twentieth century
Fig.35 Sign posted on the door of the Greek Monastery of Taksiarhis in Darsiyak saying
“It is forbidden to dig inside the church”
Fig.36 Surp Toros church interior and holes caused by probable treasure seekers
Fig.37 Surp Stepanos in Germir used today as private habitation
Fig.38 The courtyard of Surp Stepanos in Germir as part of the habitation
Fig.39 One of the exterior walls of the church of Surp Toros in Fenese
Fig.40 The interior of the church currently used as a barn today
Fig.41 The absence of the dome and growing vegetation inside Surp Stepanos church of
Efkere
Fig.42 The absent dome of Surp Stepanos church in Efkere
Fig. 43 Inscription above the main entrance of Surp Lusavorich Church in Kayseri
Fig.44 Covered inscription on the main door of Surp Stepanos church in Efkere
Fig.45 Example of initiative to remove the Armenian inscription of the Church of Surp
Asdvadzadzin of Kayseri now used as a sport cente
1
INTRODUCTION
This thesis aims to study the Armenian heritage in the Ottoman Empire through its
material culture, specifically architecture, and its systematic destruction and neglect as a
part of an elimination plan. The Ottoman Armenians experienced a gradual physical
annihilation that culminated in 1915 with the disappearance of almost the entire
Armenian population of the Empire. This physical eradication was combined with and
followed by the destruction of the cultural heritage, intended to completely erase the
Armenian presence both physically and culturally. Architecture represents one of the
aspects of this heritage that was subjected to a process of destruction and neutralization
that caused the disappearance of an enormous part of the Ottoman Armenian
architecture leading to the current status with only few surviving examples, ruins,
reattributed buildings and empty spaces in Anatolia and few others better kept in
Istanbul.
Geographically, the thesis focuses on the Central Anatolian city of Kayseri and
several surrounding towns and villages, which were part of the two Ottoman kazas of
Kayseri and Develi. The choice of Kayseri is due to the magnitude of Armenian
material presence and especially for the wealth of Armenian architectural examples and
the presence of numerous villages with a mixed population and several of them with
almost exclusively Armenian population. For this reason, Kayseri represents a relevant
study case to understand the magnitude of the destruction process that affected the
Ottoman Armenian architecture.
This thesis will investigate only Ottoman Armenian religious architecture
excluding the residential architecture and thus entire villages, for reasons of limited time
and difficulty in locating the sources. The relative availability of sources renders the
identification of destroyed churches and monasteries more practicable, as the majority
have been listed with sufficiently specific information about their location and their
history. Through these records I will try to create a map and a catalogue of the churches
and monasteries of Kayseri and twenty two Armenian villages, with information about
their date of reconstruction, current use and condition.
2
In order to understand the process of destruction I will apply the eight strategies of
destruction summarized by Dickran Kouymjian to the study case of the churches in
Kayseri and in the surrounding villages.1 Furthermore this study investigates the relation
between the Armenian architecture and concepts as “cultural cleansing” and “spatial
nationalism”, upon the work of other scholars who have worked on subjects such as
nationalism, cultural anthropology and geography.
The destruction and the neglect of the architecture represent for the Armenians a
great threat to the only physical evidence of their presence in Anatolia. The Armenian
response to denial and destruction is the claim to their lost homeland and the intent to
reconstruct it, at least virtually, by collecting family stories and photographs; through
the realization of books collecting all the material concerning the history of their
hometowns; and visiting the lost homeland searching for traces of their family histories.
The family photographic archives include largely photographs of cities, villages, towns,
family portraits and group photographs taken annually at school. This visual
documentation serves to reconstruct the material culture and memoirs that they were
able to recollect, but the aim of this research is to analyze what is left in loco and its role
in identity and collective memory. In this context, Armenian architectural heritage
acquires a double function: it represents the material culture of those targeted for
elimination and so subjected to destruction and neglect, but at the same time it ensures
that such people can never be erased entirely and thus becomes an extremely valuable
source for claim. For Armenians who experienced the trauma of genocide and who were
dislocated from their hometowns, transmission of family narratives and the practice of
keeping a sort of family archive seem to constitute a frequently used form of
documentation, enabling them to trace their origins and create a space of remembrance.
This study explores memoirs, photographs, maps, and sicils (court recods) of
Kayseri and Develi. As regards memoirs, I encountered many examples for Kayseri and
particularly for the villages. A particular literary genre developed in the 1920s in the
Armenian diaspora that Vahe Tachjian defines as “Houshamadyan” genre, which in
1 Dickran Kouymjian is a Professor in Armenian Studies at Fresno State University. He testified in 1984
about the destruction of Armenian architecture in Turkey before the Permanent People’s Tribunal in
Paris, a civil society organization founded in 1979.
3
Armenian signifies “memoirs”.2 These memoirs aimed to revitalize the history of their
villages of origin and served as a means to reconstruct the past of their lost
communities. These works covered several aspects of the Armenian villages, including
history, architecture, cuisine and family stories. For the case of Kayseri, there is a
memoir written by genocide survivors for almost every village.
Literature Review
There are several studies focused on the architecture of Kayseri mostly conducted
by architects, who focus on the technical features and survey plans. The studies
consulted in this study can be divided in four main groups: a) studies on the residential
architecture of Kayseri and villages; b) studies particularly focusing on Armenian and
Greek religious architecture; c) studies on the Armenians of Kayseri; d) cultural
cleansing and spatial cleansing.
a. Residential architecture of Kayseri
Kayseri residential architectural has attracted the attention of generations of art
and architectural historians most of whom did not acknowledge the Armenian presence
in Kayseri and its villages.3
2 www.houshamadyan.org, Vahe Tachjian is an historian and he is currently the project director and chief
editor of Houshamadyan, a project aimed to reconstruct the Armenian presence in the Ottoman Empire
through different aspects, culture, history, and geography.
3
I hereby refer to a number of studies simply to display the scope and extent of interest in the
residential architecture of Kayseri: Necibe Çakıroğlu, Kayseri Evleri, (Istanbul, İstanbul: Pulhan
Matbaası, 1952); Talat Bozkır, Kayseri’de Profan Sivil Mimari, (Ankara, 1970); Murat Çerkez, Kayseri
Köşkleri, Unpublished MA thesis (Ankara: Ankara University, 1981); Aydan Çoruh, Kayseri Camcıoğlu
ve Kuyumcuoğlu Evleri, Unpublished MA thesis(Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversity Edebiyat, 1986); Lale
Özkaramete, An Evaluation And Typological Study Of “Kayseri Bağ Evleri”, Unpublished MA thesis
(Ankara: METU University, 1983). Sedad Hakkı Eldem, Türk Evi PlanTipleri, (Istanbul: İstanbul Teknik
Üniversitesi Matbaası, 1965); Nesrin Erol, Kayseri Ahmet ve Mustafa Karaca Evleri, Seminar paper (
Ankara: Hacettepe University, 1986); G. Gündoğdu, Kayseri Sit Alanı İçinde Yer Alan Sivil Mimarlık
Örnekleri Üzerine Bir Araştırma, Unpublished MA thesis (Istanbul: Mimar Sinan University, 1986);
4
Vacit Imamoğlu and Gonca Büyükmıhçı are the two architectural historians who
explored the traditional houses built in and around Kayseri, focusing on the
architectonical features and techniques. Moreover, their works are also interesting
because of the existing controversy between the two, especially regarding the Armenian
dwellings included in Büyükmıhçı’s book.
Vacit Imamoğlu’s Geleneksel Kayseri Evleri (1992) (Traditional Dwellings in
Kayseri), after a brief introduction to the history of Kayseri, explores the architectural
characteristics of the houses in the city center and describes both interior and exterior
structure and features. Detailed descriptions of spatial characteristics are provided
through a catalogue of the surviving examples of dwellings, with references to the
mahalle (neighborhood) including information on the location, the construction date and
the current state of the building.4 Imamoğlu’s second book, Kayseri Bağ Evleri (2001)
(The Vineyard houses of Kayseri), explores the seasonal houses in the villages and
vineyards surrounding the city center. 5 His successive book Gesi Evleri (2010) (The
Houses of Gesi ) presents a study of the architecture of Gesi valley focusing on the
Ahmet Gürlek, Develi Evleri, İzmir, 2000; Vacit İmamoğlu, “Kayseri Evlerinde Duvar ve Tavan
Resimleri”, VI. Ortaçağ ve Türk Dönemi Kazı Sonuçları ve Sanat Tarihi Sempozyumu(8-10 April 2002)
Bildiriler, (Kayseri, 2002), pp. 417-428; Vacit İmamoğlu, “Kayseri’de Avlulu Evden Merkezi Hollu Eve
Geçiş”, Zafer Bayburtluoğlu’na Armağan, Sanat Yazıları, (Kayseri, 2001), pp. 359-352; Mustafa
İncesakal, “Kayseri Evleri”, Türk Halk Mimarisi Sempozyum Bildirileri (5-7 March Konya 1990),
(Ankara, 1991), pp.97-110; Mustafa İncesakal, “Geleneksel Kayseri Bağ Evlerinde “Soğukluklar”,
VI.Ortaçağ ve Türk Dönemi Kazı Sonuçları ve Sanat Tarihi Sempozyumu (8-10 Nisan 2002) Bildiriler,
(Kayseri, 2002), pp. 429-442; Mustafa İncesakal, “Kayseri Bağ Evleri ve Bağ Kültürü”, Erciyes ve Yöresi
I. Kültür Tarih ve Etnografya Sempozyumu Bildirileri, (Kayseri: Erciyes University Yayınları, 1990);
Mustafa İncesakal, Orta Anadolu Bağ Evlerinin Tasarım ve Yapım İlkeleri, Unpublished PhD dissertation
(Konya: Selçuk University, 1996); Mehmet Kartaç, “Eski Kayseri Evinde Ahşap Süslemeler”, İlgi
Dergisi, Vol.23/No.56, (1989), pp.16-19; Mehmet Kartal, “Eski Kayseri Evinde Taşın Kullanımı”, İlgi
Dergisi, Vol.24/No.61, (1990), pp. 8-11; Mehmet Kartal, “Eski Kayseri’de Kapı Tokmakları”, İlgi
Dergisi Vol.21/No.51, (1987), pp. 25-27; Mehmet Kartal, “Kayseri Atatürk Evi, (Raşit Ağa Konağı)”,
Erciyes Dergisi No.119, (Kayseri: 1987), pp.5-8; Renda, Günsel, “Büyük Bürüngüz’de Eski Bir Ev”,
Türkiyemiz No.20, (Istanbul,1976), pp.14-19; Tijen Şahin, Kayseri Daniel Arsıkın Evi , Seminar Paper
(Ankara: Hacettepe University, 1986); Hale Tezgören, Kayseri Doktor ve Bezirciler Evleri, Seminar
Paper (Ankara: Hacettepe University, 1986); Meziyet Tiritoğlu, XIX. Yüzyıl Kayseri Sivil Mimari
Örnekleri, Unpublished MA thesis (Ankara: Hacettepe University, 1981); Erdoğan, Cemil, Kayseri
Evlerinin Ahşap Süslemeleri, ş6Unpublished MA thesis, (Ankara: Hacettepe University, 1976; Suraiya
Faroqhi and Ruhi Özcan, “Kayseri’nin 13 numaralı Siciline Göre Evler”, III.Kayseri ve Yöresi Tarih
Sempozyumu Bildirileri, 06-07 Nisan 2000, (Kayseri: 2000), pp.349-362.
4 Vacit İmamoğlu, Geleneksel Kayseri Evleri, (Ankara: LAGA Basim-Yayin, 1992).
5 Vacit İmamoğlu, Kayseri Bağ Evleri, (Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2001).
5
villages of Gesi, Efkere, Darsiyak, Nize, Vekse, Isbıdın, Mancusun, Ağırnas, and
Büyükbürüngüz. In this work, the author gives an introduction to the geography,
history, social and economic structure of Kayseri, concentrating primarily on the Gesi
valley and its villages. For each village the author supplements population data,
photographs, maps, and list of the mahalles.6 Imamoğlu’s studies on Kayseri and Gesi
are limited to the Muslim population of the region and the architecture thereof to the
expense of ignoring the Armenian presence in Kayseri and its villages altogether.
In contrast, Gonca Büyükmıhçı’s Kayseri’de Yaşam and Konut Kültürü (2005)
(Cultures of Everyday Life and Housing) focuses on both Muslim and Armenian
dwellings.7 In the third and last chapter of her work, the author outlines and analyzes the
differences between the two. The visual material utilized in this book is particularly
relevant because it refers to numerous villages surrounding the city of Kayseri. Specific
references to houses, once belonging to Armenian families and then appropriated by the
Muslims (and claimed by İmamoğlu according to their later possessors), provide an
important source for studying the Armenian presence in Kayseri, because it is possible
to discern which parts of a particular village were inhabited by Armenians.
Büyükmıhçı’s study represents an attempt to include Armenian architecture into the
Ottoman heritage as indicator of cultural richness.
The debate between the two architects/architectural historians, which unfolded
immediately after the publication of Büyükmıhçı’s book, has been quite revealing about
the ideological positions taken towards the Armenian architectural presence in Turkey
today. Furthermore, this debate proves to be extremely interesting for a study on
Armenian heritage in Turkey as it represents a case in which a publication on housing
and everyday life in Kayseri, including Armenians and Armenian houses, originates
negative critiques and, more alarmingly, accusation of being a pro-Armenians or a
supporter of the Armenian Genocide question.
Büyükmıhçı’s book was subjected to a strong critique by Vacit Imamoğlu in a
lengthy book review, published in a journal which does not usually include such
6 Vacit İmamoğlu, Gesi Evleri, (Kayseri: Kayseri Büyükşehir Belediyesi, 2010).
7 Gonca Büyükmıhçı. Kayseri'de yaşam ve konut kültürü, Kayseri: Erciyes Üniversitesi, 2005).
6
reviews.8 Throughout his review, Imamoğlu criticizes several passages, where
Büyükmıhçı attempts to compare Armenian and Muslim houses, considering most of
her data and observation wrong and inaccurate. Firstly, according to Imamoğlu,
Büyümıhçı did not give a clear explanation of the criteria she followed for choosing the
houses to include in her study. Secondly, he criticizes the small number of houses she
took into account and the wrong attribution to some houses, considered Armenian when
they were Muslim and vice versa. Thirdly, he believes that she did not provide enough
evidence to discern Armenian houses from Muslim ones. Finally he affirms that there is
a problem in chronology, because Büyükmıhçı made a comparison between Armenian
houses of the nineteenth century with earlier examples of Muslim houses from the
sixteenth and eighteenth centuries.
Imamoğlu regards negatively her choice to include only Armenian houses,
omitting to mention for instance Greek houses, and suggests adding a subtitle to her
book as “Armenians of Kayseri in 19th century”. For Imamoğlu, the fact that many
examples of the houses in her book are considered to be built by Armenians is a reason
to change the title of her book, as if a work on housing of Kayseri is not supposed to
include Armenian houses and for this reason needs to be clarified with a subtitle.
Moreover, Imamoğlu accuses Büyükmıhçı of not being objective. Büyükmıhçı’s
classification of all the houses in the villages as Armenian houses, her exclusion of
Greek houses and her frequent inclusion of Muslim houses among the Armenian ones
lead Imamoğlu to view this as the author’s inclination to support the Armenians to the
detriment of Greeks and Muslims.9
The fact that Büyükmıhçı included many references from the book Les Armeniens
dans l'Empire Ottoman a la veille du genocide by Raymond H. Kevorkian and Paul B.
Paboudjian,10 containing the word “genocide” in its title, represents a serious problem
for Imamoğlu. He is critical of the fact that Büyükmıhçı’s book was published by
Erciyes Universiy, a state university of Kayseri.11 Imamoğlu is also concerned with her
8 Vacit İmamoğlu, "Kayseri'de Yaşam ve Konut Kültürü" Kitabı Üzerine”, "METU, JFA", Vol.23, No.1
(2006), pp.83-92.
9 Vacit İmamoğlu, "Kayseri'de Yaşam ve Konut Kültürü" Kitabı Üzerine”, p. 84.
10 Raymond H. Kevorkian and Paul B. Paboudjian, Les Armeniens dans l'Empire Ottoman a la veille du
genocide, (Paris: Editions d'art et d'histoire, 1992).
11 Imamoğlu’s review,p. 91.
7
use of the term “işgal” (occupation), instead of the term “fetih” (conquest) for
describing the Turks’ appearance in Anatolia, considering this term as an indicator of
her inclination to observe “her country” through Western sources.
Imamoğlu’s review was followed by Büyükmıhçı’s reply published in the same
journal, in which she rejects most of his critiques.12 As regards the omission of Greek
houses in her study, she gives an explanation by saying that this was a particular choice
to focus only on the comparison between Armenian and Muslim houses, excluding
other minorities’ housings. (Though it is a legitimate choice, I believe it should have
been explained.) Büyükmıhçı then responds to the criticism that her analysis lacks of a
clear explanation of the criteria followed for choosing and grouping the examples of
dwellings analyzed, by explaining that her book is not based on statistical data, but a
commentary of a synthesis of collected data and information representing an outcome of
impressions given by life and research experiences. She believes that a positivist
approach based on numbers and statistics is not a positive initiative, and Imamoğlu’s
descriptive studies fall short of interpretative analysis. Moreover, Büyükmıhçı rejects
the accusations of not being objective and of supporting the Armenian position vis-à-vis
the fate of architectural heritage in Kayseri, as well as the allegation of a western-based
approach. Thus, she emphasizes the objectivity of her approach and refuses any
intention either to promote Armenian propaganda or to support Genocide claims.
Büyükmıhçı’s book stands out as a noteworthy attempt to include the Armenians
into the culture of everyday life and housing of Kayseri. Such an attempt should not
represent a threat or be interpreted as a work supporting the Armenians. For this reason
Imamoğlu’s criticism appears misleading as it introduces questions such as the wrong
use of the term genocide and the accusation of using Western sources, which are not
related to Büyükmıhçı’s choise of writing a book on the housing and the daily life
culture of Kayseri. On the other hand, Büyükmıhçı’s answer to the critique appears
more intentioned to defend her work from the accusation to support the Armenians and
the Genocide claims, than expressing the reason why the inclusion of the Armenian
architecture in a book on Kayseri is important and should not be cause of such criticism.
12 Gonca Büyükmıhçı, “Bilimsel Eleştiri Hakkının Yanlış Kullanıldığı Bir Örnek Üzerine”, METU, JFA,
Vol.23/No.1 (2006), pp. 171-179.
8
b. Non-Muslim religious architecture of Kayseri and surroundings
The monographs on the Muslim architectural heritage of Kayseri remain few and
limited to the reigns of Danişmenli and Seljukids, as the volume Monuments Turcs
d’Anatolie: Kayseri-Niğde by Albert Gabriel, which includes buildings as hans,
hamams, bridges, fountains, tombs, mosques, and medrasas. 13 On the other hand,
several studies, focusing particularly on the Christian religious architecture can be
mentioned.
Two important studies are the MA thesis by Güner Sağır entitled Kayseri İl
Merkezinde Surp Krikor Lusavoriç ve Surp Asdvadzadzin Ermeni Kiliseleri (2000) (The
Armeinan churches of Surp Krikor Lusavorich and Surp Asdvadzadzin in Kayseri)14
and the doctoral dissertation by Şeyda Güngör Açıkgöz entitled Kayseri ve Çevresindeki
19. Yüzyıl Kiliseleri ve Korunmaları için öneriler (2007) (Nineteenth century churches
in Kayseri and surroundings and suggestions for their preservation).15 The former is a
suggestive survey of the Armenian churches in Kayseri and in ten villages.16 The study
presents the architectonic features and brief indications of the current status of
conservation of the churches. The latter presents a survey of both Greek and Armenian
churches in and around Kayseri, examines their architectural characteristics, analyzes
the social and physical structure of the settlements they were part of and describes their
present conditions including conservation problems and methods. The visual material
collected in Açıkgöz’s study is of extreme importance because it gives relevant
information about the location of the churches in the villages and their present
condition. Along with survey plans, this study includes also maps of the region and of
13 Albert Gabriel, Monuments Turcs D’Anatolie: Kayseri-Nigde, (Paris: E. de Boccard, 1931).
14 Güner Sağır, İl Merkezinde Surp Krikor Lusavoriç ve Surp Asdvadzadzin Ermeni Kiliseleri,
Unpublished MA thesis, (Ankara: Hacettepe University, 2000).
15 Şeyda Güngör Açıkgöz, Kayseri ve Çevresindeki 19.Yüzyıl Kiliseleri ve Korunmaları İçin Öneriler,
Unpublished PhD dissertation (Istanbul: İ.T.Ü University, 2007). See also: Şeyda Güngör Açıkgöz and
Zeynep Ahunbay “19. Yüzyıl Kayseri kiliseleri için koruma önerileri”, İtü dergisi/a mimarlık, planlama,
tasarım Vol.7/No.2, (September 2008), pp. 26-37.
16 See also: Güner Sağır, “Kayseri'de Osmanli Döneminde İnşa Edilmiş Bir Grup Ermeni Kilisesi I”,
Türk Arkeoloji ve Etnografya Dergisi, No.4, (Ankara, 2004), pp. 61-63; Güner Sağır, “Kayseri’de
Osmanlı Dönemi’nde İnşa Edilmiş Bir Grup Ermeni Kilisesi, available ş2online:
http://turkleronline.net/diger/ermeniler/ermenikiliseleri/kayseride_ermenikiliseleri_anasayfa.htm
9
the towns and villages where the examined churches are located along with survey
plans.
A further certainly important source is the three-volume inventory, published by
the municipality of Kayseri in 2008, namely Kayseri Taşinmaz Kültür Varlıkları
Envanteri. These volumes consist of an attempted inventory of the cultural heritage of
Kayseri including mosques, schools, madrasas, fountains, hamams, churches, and
cemeteries. The catalogue presents also a list of Armenian churches located in the
villages around Kayseri defining the date of construction, location, plan and
architectural features, the current condition and images.17
Methiye Gül Çölteli’s doctoral dissertation 19.Yüzyıl Anadolu Şehirsel Ağı ve
Hinterland İlişkileri, Kayseri Örneği focuses on the urban network and relations with
the hinterland for the case of nineteenth century Kayseri. Its importance for a thesis on
the architecture of Kayseri is due to the fact that it contains the first Ottoman map of the
sancak of Kayseri, dated 1910, on which it is possible to locate the majority of the
Armenian villages and towns, which are examined in my study.18
Recently, mostly archeologists but also architectural historians have embarked on
the survey and reconstruction of churches and monasteries found in ruins in a variety of
places in Anatolia.19
17 Yıldıray Özbek and Celil Arslan. Kayseri Taşınmaz Kültür Varlıkları Envanteri, Kayseri Büyükşehir
Belediye, 2006; available online: http://www.kayseri.bel.tr/web2/index.php?page=kueltuer-envanteri
18 Methiye Gül Çölteli, 19. Yüzyıl Anadolu Şehirsel Ağı ve Hinterland İlişkileri, Kayseri Örneği,
Unpublished Phd Dissertation (Istanbul Y.T.Ü University, 2011).
19 Especially noteworthy are the studies of Sacit Pekak who has undertaken extended surveys as part of
two projects aiming to research and record the 18th and 19th century churches in Cappadocia:
“Kappadokya Bölgesindeki 18. ve 19. yüzyıl Kiliseleri”, (Ankara: Hacettepe University, Scientific
Research Unit, 1996-1998); “Kappadokia Bölgesi‟ndeki 18.- 19. Yüzyıl Kiliseleri (Kayseri ve Çevresi),
(Ankara: Hacettepe University, Scientific Research Unit, 2002-2005); and supervised several MA theses
and PhD dissertations on Cappadocia churches : Buket Coşkuner, 11. Yüzyılda Kappadokia Bölgesindeki
İsa’nın Doğumu ve İsa’nın Çarmıha Gerilme Sahneleri, Unpublished PhD dissertation (Ankara:
Hacettepe University, 2009); Nilüfer Peker, Kapadokya Bölgesi Bizans Dönemi Kiliselerinde Son
Mahkeme Sahneleri, Unpublished PhD dissertation, ( Ankara: Hacettepe University, 2008); Nazlı
A.Soykan, Aksaray, Belisırma Köyü, Karagedik Kilise, Unpublished MA thesis (Ankara: Hacettepe
University, 2012); Fatma Nalçacı, Niğde, Aktaş (Andaval) Köyündeki Konstantin ve Helena Kilisesi
Duvar Resimleri, Unpublished MA thesis (Ankara: Hacettepe University, 2010); Gülçin Pehlivan,
Kappadokia Kaya Kiliselerindeki Melek Tasvirleri, Unpublished MA thesis (Ankara: Hacettepe
University, 2005; Cemal Ekin, Kayseri, Kayabağ Osmanlı Dönemi Rum Kiliseleri, Unpublished MA
thesis (Ankara: Hacettepe University, 2005); Selime Aykol, Göreme Vadisinde Bulunan Elmalı Kilise ve
Duvar Resimleri, Unpublished MA thesis (Ankara: Hacettepe University, 2004); Buket Coşkuner,
Göreme Kılıçlar Kilisesi Duvar Resimlerinin İkonografisi, Unpublished MA thesis (Ankara: Hacettepe
University, 2002); Güner Sağır, Kayseri İl Merkezindeki Surp Krikor Lusavoriç ve Surp Asvadzadin
10
c. Literature on Armenians and Armenian heritage of Kayseri
The two-volume work by Arshak Alboyajian, Patmutiun Hay Kesario (History of
Armenian Caesarea)20 is the most complete history of Kayseri Armenians. The volumes
present a detailed description of the Armenian community and complete lists of schools,
churches and monasteries, based on Church records, European travel accounts of
Ermeni Kiliseleri, Unpublished MA thesis (Ankara: Hacettepe University, 2000); Nilüfer Peker,
Kappadokya Bölgesindeki 13. Yüzyıl Duvar Resimleri ve Karşı Kilise, Unpublished MA thesis (Ankara:
Hacettepe University, 1997); Nilüfer Özlem Eser, Orta Bizans Dönemine Kadar Kapadokya ve Lykaonya
Bölgelerindeki Serbest Haç Planlı Kargir Yapılar, Unpublished MA thesis (Ankara: Hacettepe
University, 1997). Sacit Pekak himself has published his findings in a number articles: “Kappadokia’da
Bizans Dönemine ait Haç Planlı İki Kilise”, Ege Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Sanat Tarihi Dergisi,
No.18, (2009), pp. 85-113; “Kasaba, Kilise, Ressam”, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Dergisi, No.133 (2010), pp.77-
100; “Ürgüp, Yeşilöz, (Tağar) Kilisesi”, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, Vol.27/No.1
(2010), pp.203-218; “Kappadokia Bölgesi Osmanlı Dönemi Kiliseleri: Örnekler, Sorunlar, Öneriler”,
METU JFA, Vol.26/No.22 (2009), pp.249-277; “Osmanlı İmparatorluğu Döneminde Gayrı Müslim
Vatandaşların İmar Faaliyetleri ve Mustafa Paşa (Sinasos)”. Bilig, No.51 (2009), pp.203-236;
“Kappadokia Bölgesi Osmanlı Dönemi Kiliseleri: Örnekler, Sorunlar, Öneriler”, ODTÜ Mimarlık
Fakültesi Dergisi, Vol.26/No.2 (2009), pp.249-277; “Mustafapaşa (Sinasos), Konstantin ve Helena
Kilisesi, Kilise I, Kilise II, Kilise III, Kilise IV”, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi,
Vol.26/No.1 (2009), pp.163-186; “Nevşehir’de Osmanlı Döneminde İnşaa Edilen bir Kilise”, Ebru
Parman‟a Armağan, A.O. Alp (Ed.), 2009, pp.335-341; “Mustafapaşa (Sinasos) ve Aziz Nikolaos
Manastırı”, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, Vol.25/No.1 (2008), pp.199-217;
“Kapadokya’da Osmanlı Dönemi Kilisleri”, Yeniden Kurulan Yaşamlar:1923 Türk-Yunan Zorunlu
Nufusu Mübadelesi, M.Pekin (Ed), (Istanbul :Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2005), pp. 245-276; “Christian
Art of Cappadocia from the Middle Ages to the 20.Century”, Common Cultural Heritage, Developing
Local Awareness Concerning The Architectural Heritage Left From The Exchange of Populations in
Turkey and Greece, (Nevşehir, 2005), pp. 29-34; “Kapadokya’da Osmanlı Dönemi Kilisleri”, Yeniden
Kurulan Yaşamlar:1923 Türk-Yunan Zorunlu Nufusu Mübadelesi, M.Pekin (Ed), (Istanbul: Bilgi
Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2005), pp.245-276; “Aksaray Çevresi Osmanlı Dönemi Hıristiyan Kilisleri”, T.C.
Kültür Bakanlığı Anıtlar ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüğü XVIII. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı I: 22-26
Mayıs 2000-İzmir, Bildiriler, (2001), pp. 61-74; “Osmanlı Döneminde Kapadokya’da Yaşayan
Gayrımüslim Vatandaşların İmar Faaliyetleri”, Erciyes Üniversitesi Nevşehir Turizim İşletmeciliği ve
Otelcilik Yüksek Okulu 2000‟li yıllara girerken Kapadokya‟nın turizm değerlerine yeniden bir bakış.
Haftasonu Semineri VI, (Nevşehir, 2000), pp.139-151; “Kappodokya’da Post-Bizans Dönemi Dini
Mimarisi -I- Nevşehir ve Çevresi (2)”, Arkeolojı ve Sanat, No.84 (1998), pp.14-23; “Kappadokya’da
Post-Bizans Dönemi Dini Mimarisi-I- Nevşehir ve Çevresi (1)“, Arkeoloji ve Sanat, No.83 (1998), pp.12-
21; “18.-19. Yüzyıllarda Niğde ve Çevresinde Hıristiyan Dini Mimarisi”, T.C. Kültür Bakanlığı Anıtlar
Müzeler Genel Müdürlüğü XVI Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı I: 25- 29 Mayıs 1998-Tarsus Bildiriler,
(1999), pp.25-48; For more on Cappadocia churches see also: Fügen İlter, “Kayseri’de 19.Yüzyıldan İki
Kilise: Darsiyak ve Evkere”, Anadolu, XXII, pp. 353-374; Y.Ötüken, “Kapadokya Bölgesi Çalışmaları”,
I.Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı Bildirileri (23-36 Mayıs 1983), (Istanbul, 1984); Erkan Kaya,
“Eskişehir’in Sivrihisar İlçesinde Bir Ermeni Kilisesi; Surp Yerortutyun Kilisesi”, Akademik Bakış
Dergisi, No.37, (July – August 2013), pp.1-23.
20Arshag Alboyajian was a philologist and historian arrested in Istanbul in 1915 and fled to Cairo where
he completed several works on the history of the Ottoman Armenians. For a recent study on Alboyajian:
Hatice Demirci, Ermeni Asıllı Bir Osmanlı Aydını: Arşag Alboyacıyan’ın Hayatı ve Eserleri, Unpublished
MA Thesis, (Ankara: Ankara University, 2014).
11
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Alboyajian appears to be the main source for
studies on Armenians and Armenian churches in Kayseri and in the villages.21 The
studies on Armenian churches mentioned before relied on Alboyajian’s information for
the dates of construction and reconstruction of the buildings.22 The following recently
book edited by Richard Hovannisian, presents several studies on the Armenians of
Kayseri and the villages and the majority of the historical information are based on the
two-volume work by Alboyajian.
Hovanissian’s Armenian Kesaria/Kayseri and Cappadocia (2013), contains
contributions on the history, religion, economic and social life, and cultural,
educational, and political developments among the Armenians in the city of Kayseri and
in the villages in its vicinity such as Talas, Everek, Fenesse, Tomarza, Çomaklı, Incesu,
Efkere and Germir.23 Three chapters are particularly important for this thesis: In
“Ottoman Armenian Kesaria/Kayseri in the Nineteenth Century”, Bedross Der
Matossian focuses on social, economic, and political transformations during the
nineteenth century. This chapter includes information on the demographic distribution
of the Armenians, their churches and monasteries, their schools and cultural societies.24
“Armenians in Late Ottoman Rural Kesaria/Kayseri” by Hervé Georgelin offers a
picture of the economic situation of Kayseri and Armenians’ role in the economy of the
region, their social life and finally the educational and cultural developments in the
region surrounding the city of Kayseri. This study is based on several testimonies
gathered among Greek Orthodox refugees from Turkey in Greece from the 1930s to the
21 Arshag Alboyajian, Patmutiun Hay Kesario [The History of Armenian Kesaria], (Cairo: Kesario ev
Shrjakayits Hayrenaktsakan Miutiun, vol.I-II, 1937).
22 Güner Sağır, İl Merkezinde Surp Krikor Lusavoriç ve Surp Asdvadzadzin Ermeni Kiliseleri,
Unpublished MA thesis, (Ankara, Hacettepe University, 2000).
22 Gonca Büyükmıhçı, Kayseri'de yaşam ve konut kültürü, (Kayseri: Erciyes University, 2005); Şeyda
Güngör Açıkgöz, Kayseri ve Çevresindeki 19.Yüzyıl Kiliseleri ve Korunmaları İçin Öneriler,
Unpublished Phd dissertation (Istanbul: İ.T.Ü University, 2007); Richard G. Hovannisian (Eds),
Armenian Kesaria/Kayseri and Cappadocia, UCLA Armenian History & Culture Series, (Costa Mesa:
Mazda Publisher, 2013).
24 Bedross Der Matossian, “Ottoman Armenian Kesaria/Kayseri in the Nineteenth Century” in
Hovannisian, G. Richard (Eds), Armenian Kesaria/Kayseri and Cappadocia, UCLA Armenian History &
Culture Series, (Costa Mesa: Mazda Publisher, 2013).
12
early 1970s, describing the Armenian community of Kayseri and villages.25 “A Tale of
Twin Towns: Everek and Fenese” by Jack Der-Sarkissian introduces two small towns,
Everek and Fenese, giving an overview of their origins, history and socio-economic life.
The author then focuses on the educational endeavors during the latter part of the
nineteenth century and the role of expatriate compatriotic societies.26
There is a series of studies, by an amateur historian Hüseyin Cömert, particularly
focusing on the demography of Kayseri and the valleys in the nineteenth century. His
first book, Ondokuzuncu Yüzyılda Kayseri (2007) consists of two main parts, the first
one dedicated to an historical introduction to the city of Kayseri and a second longer
part based on the population structure according to the different districts of the city. As
a result of this detailed study of the population of Kayseri his work may shed light in
identifying the districts and streets of the city and in locating the Armenian population
in their different neighborhoods.27 A successive work by Cömert is Koramaz Vadisi
(2008), which refers specifically to the villages in the Koramaz valley, such as Büyük
Bürüngüz, Üskübü, Küçük Bürüngüz, Ağırnas, Dimitre, Vekse and Ispıdın.28 A similar
book compiled by Cömert, Gesi Vadisi (2011), refers to the specific case of the villages
in this valley.29 This study provides important data on the population of six villages,
namely Gesi, Efkere, Darsiyak, Nize, Balagesi and Mancusun. For some of the villages
the author presents a detailed population census for the Armenian inhabitants in midnineteenth
century including their profession, appellative, physical description, age and
properties. Once more Cömert presents a clear picture of the socio-economic
environment of the Armenian population in the nineteenth century in several villages in
the vicinity of Kayseri. Cömert is currently working on the valley of Derevenk for a
further book entitled Derevenk Vadisi.
25 Hervé Georgelin, “Armenians in Late Ottoman Rural Kesaria/Kayseri”, in “Ottoman Armenian
Kesaria/Kayseri in the Nineteenth Century” in Richard G. Hovannisian (Eds), Armenian Kesaria/Kayseri
and Cappadocia, UCLA Armenian History & Culture Series, (Costa Mesa: Mazda Publisher, 2013).
26 Jack Der-Sarkissian, “A Tale of Twin Towns: Everek and Fenese”, in Hovannisian, G. Richard (Eds),
Armenian Kesaria/Kayseri and Cappadocia, UCLA Armenian History & Culture Series, (Costa Mesa:
Mazda Publisher, 2013).
27 Hüseyin Cömert, 19. Yüzyılda Kayseri, (Kayseri: Mazaka Yayıncılık, 2007).
28 Hüseyin Cömert, Koramaz Vadisi, (Kayseri: Ağırnas Belediyesi, 2008).
29 Hüseyin Cömert, Gesi Vadisi: Gesi, Efkere, Darsiyak, Nize, Balagesi, Mancusun, (Gesi:Vakfı Kültür,
2011).
13
Studies on the material heritage of the Ottoman Armenians deal largely with
economic wealth and properties, as in the case of the recent book by Uğur Ümit Üngör
and Mehmet Polatel, entitled Confiscation and Destruction: The Young Turk Seizure of
Armenian Property (2011), a study “of the mass sequestration of Armenian property by
the Young Turk regime. It details the emergence of Turkish economic nationalism,
offers insight into the economic ramifications of the genocidal process, and describes
how the plunder was organized on the ground.”30 I chose Üngör and Polatel’s study
because it provides a complete insight on the issue of Armenian “abbondoned
properties” and is helpful to understand some of the dynamics that took place during
and adter 1915. Moreover, this study provides several references to the process of
confiscation of immovable properties, including churches and church properties, which
is a relevant aspect for this thesis.31
Dickran Kouymjian’s study Confiscation of Armenian Property and the
Destruction of Armenian Historical Monuments as a Manifestation of the Genocidal
Process investigates different aspects of the destruction of the Armenian heritage
economically and culturally. Kouymjian focuses on the confiscation of Armenian
wealth through bank assets moved out of Turkey, seizure of insurance policies, seizure
and destruction of immovable wealth. Furthermore, the author dedicates a section to the
destruction of Armenian historical monuments. He interprets such destruction as a
continuation of the Genocide “by eliminating all Armenian cultural remains or
depriving them of their distinguishing national content.”32
30 Uğur Ümit Üngör and Mehmet Polatel, Confiscation and Destruction: The Young Turk Seizure of
Armenian Property, (London: Continuum, 2011), p. IX.
31 The book was followed by Taner Akçam’s review criticizing many aspects of Üngör and Polatel’s work
(Taner Akaçam, “Review Essay”, Armenian Review, Vol.54/No.1-2 (Spring-Summer 2013), pp.51-780).
Akçam moves a strong critique to the third chapter of the book especially for the absence of many
indispensable and accessible sources on the topic of laws and decrees and for misinterpretation of some
laws. Akçam’s review was followed by the response of the two authors (Uğur Ümit Üngör and Mehmet
Polatel, “A Straw Man, a Dead Horse, and a Genocide: Response to Akçam”, Armenian Review,
Vol.54/No.1-2 (Spring-Summer 2013), pp. 79-92). The two scholars admit some of the mistakes indicated
by Akçam, but strongly refuse the critiques regarding the misinterpretation of some of the law.
32 Dickran Kouymjian, “Confiscation of Armenian Property and the Destruction of Armenian Historical
Monuments as a Manifestation of the Genocidal Process”, in Anatomy of Genocide: State-Sponsored
Mass-Killings in the Twentieth Century, Lewiston, Alexandre Kimenyi and Otis L. Scott (Eds), (New
York: Edwin Mellen Press, 2011), p. 311. See also: Dickran Kouymjian, “The Destruction of Armenian
Historical Monuments as a Continuation of the Turkish Policy of Genocide,” in A Crime of Silence: The
Armenian Genocide, (London: Zed Books, 1985); “When Does Genocide End? The Armenian Case”,
from a lecture of 11 March 2003, available
14
A number of talks, interviews and newspaper articles by Zaharya Mildanoğlu, an
architect born in Ekrek [Köprübaşı] of Bünyan/Kayseri in 1950, have also been crucial
in developing awareness in the destruction of Armenian architectural heritage in
Kayseri and beyond.33
d. On cultural cleansing and spatial cleansing
Robert Bevan’s book, The Destruction of Memory: Architecture at War (2006),
examines how destruction of architecture is an inevitable part of conducting hostilities.
The author considers the destruction of particular buildings not as ‘collateral damage’ of
hostilities, but as
the active and systematic destruction of particular building types or architectural
traditions that happens in conflicts where the erasure of the memories, history and
identity attached to architecture and place – enforced forgetting – is the goal itself.
These buildings are attacked not because they are in the path of a military
objective: to their destroyer they are the objective.34
In this case architecture acquires “a totemic quality: a mosque, for example, is not
simply a mosque; it represents to its enemies the presence of a community marked for
erasure.”35 Among the cases studied by Bevan, neglect and destruction of Armenian
monuments in Turkey is presented as part of the cultural cleansing process that
accompanied the genocide. In the book it is introduced with the impressive chapter title
Cultural Cleansing: Who Remembers the Armenians?36
As far as specifically the cultural destruction in the Ottoman Armenian case is
concerned, Peter Balakian, in his article “Raphael Lemkin, Cultural Destruction, and the
online:http://armenianstudies.csufresno.edu/faculty/kouymjian/speechs/2003_kouymjian_when_does_gen
ocide_end.pdf; “The Crime Against Cultural Heritage and Historical Memory: The Question of
Abandoned Property,” in The Crime of Genocide: Prevention, Condemnation and Elimination of
Consequences, Aram Harutyunyan (Eds), (Erevan: Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2011).
33 Zakarya Mildanoğlu, “1915’in ‘Cansız’ Canları Aranıyor”, in Agos, No. 785, (19/05/2011).
34 Robert Bevan, The Destruction of Memory: Architecture at War, (London: Reaktion Books, 2007), p.
8.
35 Bevan, p. 8.
36 Bevan, p. 8
15
Armenian Genocide”, explores Raphael Lemkin’s concept of cultural destruction in the
case of the Armenian Genocide.37 Lemkin considered vandalism and destruction of
Armenian cultural monuments as a genocidal practice, defined as “cultural genocide”,
which “can accomplished predominately in the religious and cultural fields by
destroying institutions and objects through which the spiritual life of a human group
finds its expression, such as houses of worship, objects of religious cult, schools,
treasures of art and culture.”38
Kerem Öktem explores different strategies aimed to change space and landscapes,
by excluding the externalized ‘other’, as well as of strategies of re-construction and reproduction
for the sovereign and hegemonic ‘self’ of the nation.”39 Öktem gives the
case of Turkey in the late nineteenth and twentieth century as “an almost ideal-typical
model of the discursive imagination and the material practice of nationalism and its
geographical strategies, aimed at the creation of an ethnically homogenous
‘homeland’.”40 The author argues that the process of nationalism and the process of
reproduction of geography worked together for creating a new homeland, where “the
Turks were to be the only rightful dwellers.”41 The process of space change involved
moreover population and resettlement policy regarding Greeks, studied by Taner
Akçam in his book The Young Turks’Crime against Humanity: the Armenian Genocide
and Ethnic Cleansing in the Ottoman Empire,42 which contributed to the complete
annihiliation of the Ottoman Armenians.
As regards the concept of “spatial cleansing” studies by a renown cultural
anthropologist, Michael Herzfeld, represent an important source of inspiration for this
thesis. Herzfeld analyzed three study cases: the city of Rethymnos in Crete, Mahakam
fort in Bangkok and Rione Monti neighborhoods in Rome. In each of these cases, a
37 Peter Balakian, “Raphael Lemkin, Cultural Destruction, and the Armenian Genocide,” in Holocaust
and Genocide Studies, Vol.27/ No.1, (Oxford University Press, Spring 2013).
38 As quoted in Peter Balakian, “Raphael Lemkin, Cultural Destruction, and the Armenian Genocide”, p.
60.
39 Kerem Öktem, Creating the Turk’s Homeland: Modernization, Nationalism and Geography in
Southeast Turkey in the late 19th and 20th Centuries, Paper for the Socrates Kokkalis Graduate
Workshop 2003, “The City:Urban Culture, Arcitecture and Society”, p. 1.
40 Öktem, p. 1.
41 Öktem, p. 3.
42 Taner Akçam, The Young Turks’ Crime against Humanity: The Armenian Genocide and Ethnic
Cleansing in the Ottoman Empire, (Princeton University Press, 2013).
16
community was subjected to removal and relocation. The reasons for dislocation in the
three examples are mainly caused by gentrification. In the case of Crete, the area of the
old market was transformed in a tourist attraction, where “the Muslim presence was
reduced to a symbolic historic shadow and subjected to a respatialization that framed
the mosque as cultural upgraded (it is now a music conservatory!) and as a monument to
the liberal tolerance of the West.”43 The architectural heritage of the Ottoman past
became for the Greeks a “dangerous cultural embarrassment” and “an attraction for the
orientalist gaze of the tourist.”44 In the case of Thailand relocation is conceived as a step
towards modernization and westernization, aimed to remove a significant segment of
the local population from a central area in order to create expensive western-style shops
and export displays.45 Likewise in the case of the Rione Monti in the historic center of
Rome, partly destroyed by Mussolini in order to build Fori imperiali, a process of
gentrification occurred creating a condition in which the local population awaits for its
removal. Herzfeld associates the process of spatial cleansing with the notion of ethnic
cleansing “since, although the latter is usually far more physical in its violence, both
entail the disruption of fundamental security, and especially of ontological security, for
entire groups of people.”46
Another important study on spatial cleansing and dislocation is by Roxane
Caftanzoglou on the case of Anafiotika, a quarter in the center of Athens, located under
the Acropolis. The quarter is inhabited by a small community settled in 1860’s
composed by migrant workers from the Cyclades. In the process of building Athens as
the capital of the Modern Greek state by revitalizing the glorious past through
archeological excavations, the neighborhood of Anafiotika became a sort of obstacle
and for this reason subjected to obscuration and expropriation. This particular case
represents an example of the intention to obscure a place creating a sort of non-place. In
fact the city plans and travel guides of the city of Athens present a shadowed or colored
strip on the point where the neighborhood of Anafiotika stands, a fact that indicates that
“thus represented, the settlement is relegated to a non-place; the existence of a
43 Michael Herzfeld, “Spatial Cleansing: Monumental Vacuity and the Idea of the West”, in Journal of
Material Culture, Vol. 11/No.1/2 (2006), p.134.
44 Herzfeld, p.134.
45 Herzfeld, p. 133.
46 Herzfeld, p. 134.
17
neighborhood with its houses, paths, and above all, its living component, citizens of the
Greek State, is obscured.”47 The members of the Anafiotika community are facing “the
prospect of the end of their social reproduction as a spatially bounded and based
community”48 and they respond to this reinforcing “their symbolic boundaries by telling
stories of themselves and their settlement, constructing a counter-discourse of space,
time and history based on shared collective and individual memories…”49
Also inspiring are the studies on the use and abouse of archaeology and
architectural heritage. I intent to explore more on studies such as Peter Buxton’s
Possessing the Past: The use and abuse of archaeology in building nation-state,50 Nadia
Abu El-Haj’s Facts on the Ground: Archaeological Practice and Territorial Self-
Fashioning in Israeli Society,51 and Rachel S. Hallote and Alexander H. Joffe’s The
Politics of Israeli Archaeology: Between ‘Nationalism’ and ‘Science’ in the Age of the
Second Republic.52
e. Primary Sources
For this study I was able to consult memoirs of Kayseri, Everek-Fenese, Çomaklı,
Nirze and Tomarza.53 The memoirs, moreover, present several images of the villages,
47 Roxane Caftanzoglou, “The Shadow of the Sacred Rock: Contrasting Discourses of Place under the
Acropolis”, in Barbara Bender and Margot Winer (Eds), Contested Landscapes: Movement, Exile and
Place, (Berg Publishers, 2001), p. 27.
48 Caftanzoglou, p. 29.
49 Caftanzoglou, p. 30.
50 Peter Buxton, Possessing the Past: The use and abuse of archaeology in building nation-state,
(London: Ministry of Defence, 2009).
51 Nadia Abu El-Haj, Facts on the Ground: Archaeological Practice and Territorial Self-Fashioning in
Israeli Society, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001).
52 Rachel S. Hallote and Alexander H. Joffe, “The Politics of Israeli Archeology: Between ‘Nationalism’
and ‘Science’ in the Age of the Second Republic”, Israel Studies, Vol.7/No.3 (Fall 2002), pp. 84-116.
53 For Tomarza: Haroutiun Barootian, Reminiscences from Tomarza’s Past, (London: Taderon, 2007).
Sargis Jivanian, Դ ր ո ւ ագ ն ե ր թ ո մ ար զ ահ այ կ ե ան ք է ն [Episodes of Tomarza Armenian
Life], (Paris, 1960).
For Nirze: Senekerim Khetrian, Հ ամ առ օ տ պատմ ո ւ թ ի ւ ն Կ ե ս ար ի ո յ Ն ի ր զ է գ ի ւ ղ ի
[Concise History of Kesaria/Kayseri’s Nirze/Güzelköy Village], (Watertown, 1918).
For Everek/Fenese: Khoren H. Gelejian (editor), Ալ պո մ - յ ո ւ շ ամ ատե ան Է վ ե ր է կ -
Ֆ ե ն ե ս է ի [Album-Memory Book of Everek/Develi-Fenesse], (Beirut: Altapress, Lebanese branch of
Everek-Feneseh Mesropian-Rupinian Compatriotic Society, 1984).
Aleksan Krikorian, Evereg-Fenesse. Its Armenian History and Traditions, (Detroit: Evereg-Fenesse
Mesrobian-Roupinian Educational Society, 1990).
18
including churches and monasteries, which appear as the centers of Armenian
communal life. These narratives provide also much information on the schools,
including photographs, lists of students and teachers.
Regarding visual material there is an embarrassing richness of visual
documentation available online. Especially useful are the websites:
www.efkere.com
www.evereg-fenesse.org
www.fresnostate.edu/artshum/armenianstudies/resources/churches
www.houshamadyan.org
www.virtualani.org
For the maps, I had to consult with the works of Şeyda Güngör Açıkgöz54 and
Yıldıray Özbek and Celil Arslan55 that provide several maps, which are particularly
useful to locate the churches. Regarding the quarters of Kayseri the work by Kemal
Demir and Suat Çabuk provides maps of the city center with references to the quarters
inhabited by Muslims and non-Muslims. Furthermore, this study is an attempt to locate
on map the historical monuments of Kayseri. Even though some of the Armenian
churches are wrongly indicated as Seljukid architecture, the maps included in the book
are very useful to identify the location of the Armenian churches in the city center.56 In
addition I create a map approximately locating the churches and monasteries according
to the information provided by Alboyajian.
For Çomaklı: Aris Kalfayan, Chomaklou:The History of an Armenian Village, trans. Krikor
Asadourian, (New York, 1982).
For Kayseri: Հ ի ն ե ւ ն ո ր Կ ե ս ար ի ա, յ ո ւ շ ամ ատե ան [Old and New Kesaria/Kayseri,
Memory Book], (Paris: Azet Press, published by Paris branch of Kesaria and Environs Compatriotic
Union, 1989).
54 Şeyda Güngör Açıkgöz, Kayseri ve Çevresindeki 19.Yüzyıl Kiliseleri ve Korunmaları İçin Öneriler,
Unpublished PhD dissertation, (Istanbul: İ.T.Ü University, 2007).
55 Yıldıray Özbek and Celil Arslan. Kayseri Taşınmaz Kültür Varlıkları Envanteri, (Kayseri Büyükşehir
Belediye, 2006), available online: http://www.kayseri.bel.tr/web2/index.php?page=kueltuer-envanteri
56 Kemal Demir, Suat Çabuk, Türk Dönemi Kayseri Kenti ve Mahalleri, (Kayseri: Erciyes Ünivesritesi
Yayınları No. 188, 2013).
19
As regards the sicils, I analyzed only the ones from late nineteenth and early
twentieth century Develi, with reference to several MA theses completed at Erciyes
University of Kayseri. The sicils proved to be very valuable for this study since they
provide transcriptions and short summaries of numerous court cases involving
Armenians.57
Because of the limitations of time and my research capabilities, I have postponed
the use of several primary sources might be useful in the future:
· photographs, maps, memoirs collected for the project Houshamadyan, aimed to
reconstruct Ottoman Armenian town and village life.58
· travelers and missionaries’ accounts
· sicils from Kayseri and Develi
· Muslim and non-Muslim vakıfs
· İmar Planı/ Master Plan for Kayseri and the villages.
· Kayseri Municipality’s minutes regarding the implementation of the Master Plan
and various decions taken toward the reuse of Armenian buildings
· Local newspapers and journals
Structure and composition
The first chapter of this thesis aims to give an historical introduction to the sancak
of Kayseri with a particular focus on the Armenian presence in the center of Kayseri
and in the villages of the two kazas of Kayseri and Develi, which respectively included
16 and 6 villages inhabited by Armenians. As regards the demographic information on
57 Ayşe Arık Kaygısız, I Numaralı Develi Şer’iyye Sicili (H. 1311/M. 1893-H. 1313/M. 1895)
Transkripsiyon ve Değerlendirilmesi, Unpublished MA thesis (Kayseri: Erciyes University, 2006);
Mustafa Salep, 9/1 Numaralı Develi Şer’iyye Sicili (H. 1317-1318/ M. 1899-1901) Transkripsiyon ve
Değerlendirilmesi, Unpublished MA thesis (Kayseri: Erciyes University, 2008); Emine Subaşı, 52
Numaralı Develi Şer’iyye Sicili (H. 1320-1/M. 1902-3) Transkripsiyon ve Değerlendirilmesi,
Unpublished MA thesis (Kayseri: Erciyes University, 2006); Mustafa Ova, H. 1324-1325/ M. 1906-1907
Tarihli Develi Sicili Metin Çevirisi ve Değerlendirme, Unpublished MA thesis (Nevşehir: Nevşehir
University, 2013).
58 www.houshamadyan.org.
20
the Armenian population I refer to the poll tax register of 1843, studied by Doğan
Yörük, which reports the Armenian male tax payers for the different quarters of the
town of Kayseri and for the villages.
The second chapter presents a catalogue of the churches and monasteries of
Kayseri and surrounding villages, including the main information as the name of the
church, the date of reconstruction, the current use and the present condition.
Furthermore, in this chapter I try to create a map of the disappeared or ruined churches
and monasteries, locating them as precisely as possible according to the list of churches
and indication given by Alboyajian in Patmutiun Hay Kesario.59
The third chapter analyzes the destruction process of the Armenian religious
architecture of Kayseri through the framework of cultural cleansing and spatial
nationalism. The current conditions of the churches, verified during my field visit to
Kayseri and the surrounding villages in November 2014, are investigated according to
the eight strategies of destruction introduced by Dickran Kouymjian.
59 Arshag Alboyajian, Patmutiun Hay Kesario [History of Armenian Kesaria], Vol.I, (Cairo: Kesario ev
Shrjakayits Hayrenaktsakan Miutiun, 1937).
21
1
KAYSERI AND THE SURROUNDING VILLAGES AND TOWNS
Kayseri, immediately after the Ottoman conquest of the1460’s, acquired the status
of sancak of the Karaman eyalet, becoming the administrative centre (paşa sancağı)
where the beylerbeyi [governor] of the sancak resided. After a very long while, first
transformation took place in 1845 when Kayseri was incorporated into the eyalet of
Sivas and separated from the kazas of Develi, Karahisar-ı Develi, Incesu, Sarıoğlan and
Zamantı. In the state yearbook (Devlet Salnamesi) of the year 1850, Kayseri is indicated
as to be transferred into the eyalet of Bozok and in the year 1856 the same eyalet was
subdivided into seven districts (nahiye): Kayseri, Sarıoğlan, Karahisar-ı Develi, Incesu,
Kozanlu, Zamantı and Köstere.60 In the Encyclopedia of Islam Ronald C. Jennings
indicated 1864 as the year when Kayseri was transferred into the vilayet of Ankara.61
With the establishment of the Turkish Republic in 1923, Kayseri acquired the status of
province (il).
From the earliest tahrir registers onwards, Ottoman Kayseri and the surrounding
villages and towns presented an ethnically variegated population, including diverse non-
Muslim subjects. Among the non-Muslims Greeks and Armenians were the two most
crowded communities, with a strong Greek presence in the villages, while the Armenian
presence appeared to be stronger in the city center of Kayseri.62
60 Doğan Yörük, “H. 1259/M. 1843 Tarihli Cizye Defterlerine göre Kayseri’de Rum ve Ermeniler,”
Turkish Studies, International Periodical For The Languages, Literature and History of the Turkish or
Turkic, Vol.8/No.11 (Fall 2013), pp. 441-442.
61 Ronald C. Jennings, Studies on the Ottoman Social History in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries:
Women, Zimmis and Sharia Courts in Kayseri, Cyprus and Trabzon, (Istanbul: Isis Press, 1999), p. 11.
62 Yörük, p. 442; See also: Mehmet İnbaşı, 16.yüzyıl Başlarında Kayseri, Kayseri, (Kayseri:Kayseri
Valiliği, 1992); Ahmet H.Aslantürk, “Kayseri ve Havalisinin Tarihine Dair Bir Dizi Arşiv Kaynağının
Neşri”, Osmanlı Araştırmaları, No.35 (2010), pp. 329-336; Rıfat n. Bali, “1965 yılında kayseri ermeni
cemaati”, Toplumsal Tarih, No.172 (Nisan 2008).
22
The Armenian presence in the sancak of Kayseri, partially covering the entire
province of ancient Cappadocia, had been long established. The increase of the
Armenian population is evident in the third and fourth centuries during the Arab
conquest of Asia Minor, when Armenian settlers were installed by the Byzantines to
reinforce the provincial military units or themes in the Taurus Mountains. In the
eleventh century, the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia and the ephemeral principalities of
Sebaste (Sivas) and Caesarea (Kayseri) were established on the basis of mass
emigration caused by the pressure of nomadic Seljuks and orders by the Byzantines.
This process of colonization and the subsequent weakening of Byzantine authority in
the region allowed the Armenians to establish an archbishopric in Caesarea at the end of
the eleventh century. In the following century the archbishopric63 was finally installed
in the monastery of Surp Karapet in Efkere, situated in the periphery of the
Cappadocian capital. According to the testimony of Crusaders who passed through the
area at the same time, the majority of the population was Armenian as indicated by the
name Hermonorium Terra,64 utilized by the Westerners to refer to this part of Asia
Minor. Despite massive migrations to Istanbul at the end of the fifteenth century, after
the Ottoman conquest of Cappadocia, the region retained a dense Armenian
population.65
The Armenians of Kayseri were divided into three groups: Cemaat-i Ermeniyân-ı
Kaysariyân, Cemaat-i Ermeniyân-ı Şarkiyân and Cemaat-i Ermeniyân-ı Sisiyân.
According to the Ottomanist Ronald C. Jennings this division might have been related
with their affiliation to different dioceses. The first community, Kaysariyan, was, most
probably, composed of local Armenians whose allegiance was to the patriarch of
Istanbul. The second community paid allegiance to the catholicos of Echmiadzin in
Erivan in the east as indicated with the term Şark, while the third one was supposedly
affiliated to the diocese of Sis (modern Kozan). Therefore, according to their diocese of
63 Archbishopric: the area of which an archbishop is in charge (Cambridge Dictionaries Online.
www.dictionary.cambridge.org)
6464 According to Kevorkian and Paboudjian the region of Kayseri in the twelfth century was called by the
Western travel “Hermonorium Terra”, which in latin supposedly means “the land of Armenians”. No
other references have been found to confirm their statement.
65 Raymond H. Kevorkian and Paul B. Paboudjian, Les Arméniens dans l'Empire ottoman à la veille du
genocide, (Paris: Arhis,1992), p.220.
23
affiliation the members of Şarkiyan and Sisiyan communities were immigrants from Sis
(Kozan) and the Caucasus.66
Map 1. The first Ottoman map of the sancak of Kayseri of the year 191067
66 Ronald J. Jennings, “Urban Population in Anatolia in the Sixteenth Century: a Study of Kayseri,
Karaman, Amasya, Trabzon, and Erzurum”, in International Journal Middle East Studies, No.7, (1976),
p. 30.
67 Methiye Gül Çöteli, 19. Yüzyıl Anadolu Şehirsel Ağı ve Hinterland İlişkileri, Kayseri Örneği,
Unpublished PhD dissertation, (Istanbul, I.Y.Ü. University, 2011), p. 186.
16
14
K
18
17
6
7
15
5
11
8 1
9
3
22
D
12
10
21
20
4
24
Map 2. Armenian map of 193768
K. Kayseri D. Develi
1. Balagesi, 2. Belviran, 3. Cücün, 4. Darsiyak, 5 Derevenk, 6. Efkere, 7. Erkilet,
8. Germir, 9. Gesi, 10. Mancusun, 11. Muncusun, 12. Nirze, 13. Sarımsaklı, 14. Talas,
15. Tavlusun, 16. Tomarza, 17. Çomaklı, 18-19. Everek-Fenese, 20. Ilibe, 21. Incesu,
22. Karacaviran.
68 http://www.evereg-fenesse.org/
16
18
17
14
5
4
11
K
6
10 9
1
3
7
8
15
21
22
20
12
D
25
Table 1. Names of the villages in Armenian and in Turkish
Armenian Transliteration69 Turkish
կեսարիա Gesaria Kayseri
Թալաս Talas Talas
Տէրէվանք Derevank Derevenk
Թաւլուսուն Tavlusun Aydınlar
կէրմիր Germir Konaklar
Պալակէսի Balagesi Balagesi
Մանճըսըն Mancusun Yeşilyurt
Մունճուսուն Muncusun Güneşli
Տարսիեախ Darsiyak Kayabağ
Էրքիլէթ Erkilet Erkilet
Էվերէկ-Ֆէնէսէ Everek-Fenese Develi
Իլիպէ Ilibe İlibe
Գարաճավիրան Karacaviran Karacaviran
Թոմարզա Tomarza Tomarza
Ճիւճիւն Cücün Cücün
Նիրզէ Nirze Güzelköy
Էֆքէրէ Efkere Bahçeli
Ջօմաքլու Çomaklı Çomaklı
Ինճէսու Incesu İncesu
Սարմուսաքլը Sarmusaklı Sarımsaklı
69 The transliterated form indicated does not follow the rules of the Armenian scientific transliteration, it
presents a simplify version of the names used in this study.
26
Kayseri was an important religious center for the Armenians. The Christian
hierarchy of Caesarea played a crucial role in their conversion to Christianity in the
early fourth century and in maintaining close ties between the two Churches
(Echmiadzin and Patriarchate of Constantinople). After the changeover of Armenians in
Monophysitism, Armenians were deprived of churches under the Byzantine rule,
especially in Cappadocia; they were forced to attend the Greek Orthodox churches. This
is a reason why the first Armenian Church in Kayseri was built as late as in the twelfth
century, named Surp Krikor, according to Alboyajian, the church of Surp Krikor
Lusavorich was built on the site of this previous church.70 The second church Surp
Stepanos in Kayseri, according to Alboyajian, appeared in a religious document dated
1275 and disappeared before the nineteenth century.71 The third church, Surp
Mergerios, already in ruins in 1617 as Simeon of Poland noted in his travel account:
“There was a large church facing it on the eastern side. It is now in ruins and Armenians
bury their dead there.”72 The third church Surp Asvadzadzin in the town is evidenced in
1277 by the colophon of a manuscript written in the presbytery on the same date. It was
located inside the fortified walls of the city, in the İçeri Şar (İceri Hisar)
neighborhood.73 In the same neighborhood is found the Surp Sarkis church, which
appears to have been already constructed at the time when Simeon visited Kayseri in
1617.74
70 Arshag Alboyajian, Patmutiun Hay Kesario [History of Armenian Kesaria), Vol.1, (Cairo: Kesario ev
Shrjakayits Hayrenaktsakan Miutiun, 1937), p. 892.
71 Alboyajian, p. 899.
72 George A. Bournoutian, The Travel Accounts of Simeon of Poland, (Costa Mesa: Mazda Publishers,
2007), p. 273.
73 Alboyajian, p. 894.
74 Bournoutian, p. 272.
27
1.1. Demographic Makeup
Cizye (poll-tax) registers of 1843, published in a study by Doğan Yörük, reveal
1,949 male tax-payers in the city of Kayseri.75 Although European travelers who visited
Kayseri and surroundings in the nineteenth century mention demographic information in
their accounts, the different numeric indications therein render them inconvenient for
my purposes. Data provided by Yörük, on the other hand, reflect official number
presented in the three customary categories of ala (rich), evsat (a sort of middle class)
and edna (poor), including all the active non-Maslim males within an age comprised
between 14-75, excluding the sick, the disabled people and religious functionaries. The
cizye tax collected from the adult non-Muslim men is also denominated as “head-tax”;
however in the rural regions, the heads of the households paid the cizye tax for the entire
household, at least until the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, when the taxpayers began
to be individually registered.76
Cizye registers of 1843 the Armenian and Greek taxpayers are indicated separately
according to their districts of residence, such as Develü, Incesu, Sarıoğlan, Karahisar,
and Zamantu. Moreover this register includes the name of the guests residing in hostels,
public baths and bazirhanes,77 who were paying the cizye tax from Kayseri. Then, for
each quarter of Kayseri the taxpayers’ names are indicated with their profession, if
known, or in some cases only the profession is mentioned in substitution with personal
names, and finally the wealth status is reported, according to which the amount of
taxation was determined. The second register does not give separate lists, but includes
the cases in which non-Muslims were leaving for other places. Their names and
professions are indicated separately according to the district or village of their
provenance.
75 Doğan Yörük, H. 1259/1843 Tarihli Cizye Defterlerine göre Kayseri’de Rum ve Ermeniler, in Turkish
Studies - International Periodical for The Languages, Literatures and History of Turkish or Turkic,
Vol.8/No.11, (Ankara, Fall 2013), p. 439-466.
76 Yörük, p. 441.
77 Bezirhane is the place is the place for estraction of linseed oil for commercial purposes.
28
1.1.1 Armenians in the City Center
As regards the quarters in the city center, Armenians resided also in quarters with
a mixed population of Greeks and Muslims. The cizye registers of 1843 shows that 39
mahalles were inhabited by non-Muslims; of which 25 mahalles were inhabited by
Armenians, three by Greeks and 11 villages by both Armenians and Greeks. Among the
mahalles inhabited by Armenians, Sınıkçı resulted in being the most crowded with 167
nefers, followed by Oduncu with 160 nefers and Köyyıkan with 145 nefers.78 The
following map represents the distribution of the different religious communities in
Kayseri in the year 1872, when the 28,7% of the households belonged to non-
Muslims.79 The Armenians resided in quarters located in the southern part of the city.
78 Yörük, p. 445.
79 Kemal Demir, Suat Çabuk, Türk Dönemi Kayseri Kenti ve Mahalleri, (Kayseri: Erciyes Ünivesritesi
Yayınları No. 188, 2013), p. 141.
29
Map 3. Map of Kayseri’s neighborhoods in 187280
As for the economic wealth of the Armenians of Kayseri the 1843 cizye registers
provide important information revealing three different categories of taxpayers, among
the 1.949 Armenian nefers, 1.186 belonged to the poorest group (edna), 670 to the
“middle class” (evsat) and 93 to the wealthiest group (ala). From these dates it is also
possible to identify which quarters of the city were inhabited by the wealthiest
Armenian population. In the quarter Eslim Paşa were the highest number of rich
80 Demir and Çabuk, p. 140.
30
taxpayers (12 nefers), this number was followed by Tavukçu and Harput (9 nefers),
Emir Sultan (8 nefers) and Kiçikapı (7 nefers).81
Table 2. Kayseri mahalles inhabited by Armenians with corresponding number of
male tax-payers82
81 Yörük, p. 445.
82 The data of this table are based on the of Doğan Yörük’s study on 1843 cizye registers of Kayseri and
they include only the information on the Armenian population.
Mahalles of
Kayseri
Âlâ (rich) Evsât (average) Ednâ (poor)
Nefer (total
male
taxpayers)
1. Ahi İsa 0 0 0 0
2. Batman 6 16 22 44
3. Bektaş 1 7 34 42
4. Dadır 4 19 33 56
5. Emir Sultan 8 22 36 66
6. Eslim Paşa 12 17 12 41
7. Fıruncu 5 23 20 48
8. Genlik 0 5 8 13
9. Gürcü 4 10 9 23
10. Hacı Kasım 1 13 11 25
11. Hacı
Mansur
1 10 9 20
12. Harput 9 49 65 123
13. Hasan
Fakih
0 5 10 15
14. Hasinli 0 0 0 0
15. Hisayunlu 0 9 11 20
16. Karabet 0 12 34 46
17. Karakiçi 6 15 26 47
31
I
I
n
t
h
e
f
i
r
s
t
q
u
a
r
t
e
r
o
f
the nineteenth century Kayseri experienced a wave of immigration including
83 According to Yörük’s study the quarter of Şarkıyan in 1843 was inhabited exclusively by Greeks; this
seems impossible given the fact that the name of the quarter itself was the appellative of one of the three
Armenian communities (Cemaat-ı Şarkıyan). Moreover Mustafa Keskin describes Şarkıyan as a quarter
with a mixed population, Armenian, Greek and Muslim in the mid 19th century (see Mustafa Keskin,
“1247-1277 Tarihli Kayseri Müfredat Defterine Göre Kayseri ve Tabi Yerleşim Yerlerinde Nüfus
Dağılımı (1831-1860),” in II. Kayseri ve Yöresi Tarih Sempozyumu Bildirileri, 16-17 April 1998,
(Kayseri: Erciyes University, 1998), p. 291).
18. Karakürkçü 0 2 10 12
19. Kayadibi
Oduncu
Beldesi
0 0 0 0
20. Kiçikapu 7 17 12 36
21. Konaklar 0 3 14 17
22. Köyyıkan 0 22 123 145
23. Mermerli 1 2 4 7
24.Mürekkebci 0 8 21 29
25. Oduncu 4 54 102 160
26. Puşegân 0 6 22 28
27. Rumiyan 2 22 47 71
28. Sasık 0 0 0 0
29. Sayacı 4 21 18 43
30. Selaldı 1 35 93 129
31. Sınıkcı 1 56 110 167
32. Sisliyan 1 21 46 68
33. Sultan 0 4 10 14
34. Süleyman 0 40 85 125
35. Şarkıyan83 0 0 0 0
36. Tavukçu 9 64 68 141
37. Tus 3 24 33 60
38. Tutak 1 13 13 27
39. Varsak 2 24 15 41
Total 93 670 1186 1949
32
Armenians coming from villages in the vicinity of Kayseri, from different cities of
Anatolia, and from other cities of the Empire. From the cizye register of 1843 it is
possible to identify a number of 44 nefers who immigrated into the city of Kayseri that
year. On the other hand, in the mid-nineteenth century, a migratory wave from Kayseri
towards the coastal regions, for commercial purposes, led to a depopulation of certain
quarters of Kayseri, depriving them of almost their entire non-Muslim population.
Among the quarters Oduncu, Seladi ve Süleyman witnessed the highest number of
migrants, whereas Hasinli and Kayadibi Oduncu Belkesi lost their entire non-Muslim
population.84
1.1.2. Armenians in the villages within the kazas of Kayseri and Develi
In the kaza of Kayseri the non-Muslim taxpayers were registered in 25 villages,
among which 16 villages (including 27 mahalles and two monasteries) resulted in
having Armenian taxpayers, with the highest concentration in the town of Tomarza with
472 nefers. The 16 villages inhabited by Armenians were: Balagesi, Belviran, Cücün,
Darsiyak, Derevenk, Efkere, Germir, Gesi, Mancasun, Muncusun, Nize, Sarımsaklı,
Talas, Tavlusun, and Tomarza.85
84 Ibid, p. 447.
85 Yörük, p. 452.
33
Table 3. Villages and towns with the number of Armenian male tax payers:86
Village/To
wn of
Kayseri
kaza
Âlâ
(rich)
Evsât
(average)
Ednâ (poor)
Nefer (total male
taxpayers)
Bala Gesi 0 28 69 90
Belviran 0 13 17 30
Cucun 0 41 32 73
Darsiyak 0 2 6 8
Derevank 3 10 22 35
Efkere 3 100 166 269
Erkilet 0 22 36 58
Germir 0 22 94 116
Gesi 0 2 6 8
Mancusun 0 17 73 90
Muncusun 1 52 37 90
Nize 1 22 58 81
Sarımsaklı 0 13 31 44
Talas 7 47 188 242
Tavlusun 1 17 14 32
Tomarza87 1
2
279 181 472
Total
2
8
687 1030 1745
Besides the kaza of Kayseri, non-Muslims resided in the other several kazas, such
as Develi, Incesu,88 Karahisar, Sarıoğlan and Zamantı. The kazas of Develi and
Sarıoğlan were inhabited also both by Armenians and Greeks, whereas Zamantı was
86 The data utlized for this table are based on the study by Doğan Yörük and include only the information
on the Armenian population of Kayseri.
87 Tomarza in the Develi shari’a records of the years 1899-1901 is indicated as nahiye (sub-district)
within the kaza of Develi, while in Yörük’s studies of the year 1843 Tomarza appeared as part of the kaza
of Kayseri.
88 Incesu appears Yörük’s study both as a kaza and as a village (karye) within the kaza of Develi. This
aspect is confirmed in several court records of Develi from late nineteenth and early twentieh centuries, in
which Incesu is indicated as “Develü kazası kurasından Incesu karyesi” (the village Incesu of the Develi
kaza), (Mustafa Ova, p.34) and as “Incesu kazası”, (Ova, p.34).
34
inhabited only by Armenians and Incesu and Karahisar exclusively by Greeks. Among
these kazas Develi resulted to be the one where the non-Muslim population was mostly
concentrated.89
The kaza of Develi included six villages inhabited by Armenians, such as
Çomaklı, Everek, Fenese, Ilibe, Incesu and Karacaviran. According to Doğan Yörük’s
study on the cizye registers of Kayseri for the year 1843, the total male taxpayers
population of the kaza of Develi was 1049, of which 776 Armenians and 273 Greeks.90
Table 4. Villages and towns with the number of Armenian male tax payers:91
Villages/Towns of Develi
kaza
Âlâ (rich)
Evsât
(avarage)
Ednâ (poor)
Nefer (total
male
taxpayers)
Çomaklı 0 43 53 96
Everek 20 214 150 384
Fenese 10 92 80 182
Ilbe 0 2 4 6
Incesu 0 31 43 74
Karacaviran 0 13 21 34
Total 30 395 351 776
Develi shari’a court records of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries
reveal that the villages and towns of the kaza of Develi developed into:
· 1 nahiye (sub-district) of Tomarza
· 2 kasabas (towns) of Everek and Fenesse
· 4 karyes (villages) of Çomaklı, Ilbe, Incesu and Karacaviran.
The nahiye (sub-district) of Tomarza in the sicils of the years 1893-1895 appeared
to include the karye (village) of Tomarza with three mahalles inhabited by Armenians,
89 Yörük, p. 457.
90 Yörük, p. 457.
91 The data utlized for this table are based on the study by Doğan Yörük and include only the information
on the Armenian population of Kayseri.
35
Tomarza mahallesi, Tomarza Yukarı mahallesi and Cami mahallesi.92 On the other
hand, according to later sicils as, for instance, the ones for the years 1899-1901, only
two mahalles are mentioned, Tomarza Yukarı and Tomarza Cami, both inhabited also
by Armenians.93 In the shari’a court records of the years 1902-1903 Tomarza’s status
was changed into kasaba (town).94 Tomarza was also an important religious center as,
in addition to the church of Surp Boghos located in the center, it hosted Surp
Asdvadzadzin, monastery which was an important pilgrimage site.95
The two towns Everek and Fenese were part of the Develi kaza located south-east
of Kayseri and about 5 kilometers from the southern foot of Mount Erciyes.96 Until
1915 they consisted of four adjoining villages, such as Everek, Fenese, Aygosten
(Greek) and Develi or Everek Islam (Muslim).97 In the sicils of the late nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries, the Muslim neighborhood might be identified with three
different names Everek Cami-i Cedid, Everek Cami-i Kebir, Everek Fenese Islam,98
whereas the Armenian ones as Everek Kilise, Everek Fenese Yukarı and Fenese
Aşağı.99
The probable origins of the names Everek and Fenese are explained by Aleksan
Krikorian.100 As stated in his memoirs the name Everek (Evereg) derives from the
Armenian word “averag” with the meaning of ruins, given to the town because of its
establishment on the site of the ruins of a Byzantine city, attested by the ruins of Ayas
Kadrina (Gedine) monastery and the ruins of the ancient Greek viallage of Gereme
92Ayşe Arık Kaygısız, I Numaralı Develi Şer’iyye Sicili (H. 1311/M. 1893-H. 1313/M. 1895)
Transkripsiyon ve Değerlendirilmesi, Unpublished MA thesis, (Kayseri: Erciyes University, 2006), p.
254.
93Mustafa Salep, 9/1 Numaralı Develi Şer’iyye Sicili (H. 1317-1318/ M. 1899-1901) Transkripsiyon ve
Değerlendirilmesi, , Unpublished MA thesis, (Kayseri: Erciyes University, 2008), p. 32.
94Emine Subaşı, 52 Numaralı Develi Şer’iyye Sicili (H. 1320-1/M. 1902-3) Transkripsiyon ve
Değerlendirilmesi, , Unpublished MA thesis, (Kayseri: Erciyes University, 2006), p.123; See also:
Mehmet Müse, Develi Kazası (1839-1910), Unpublished PhD dissertation, (Ankara: Gazi Üniversitesi,
2008).
95 Barootian, p. 35.
96 Kevorkian and Paboudjian, p. 225.
97 Jack Der-Sarkissian, “A Tale of Twin Towns: Everek and Fenese”, in Hovannisian, G. Richard (Eds),
Armenian Kesaria/Kayseri and Cappadocia, UCLA Armenian History & Culture Series, (Costa Mesa:
Mazda Publisher, 2013), p. 266.
98 These names might indicate all the same Muslim neighborhood in Everek-Fenese.
99Ayşe Arık Kaygısız, I Numaralı Develi Şer’iyye Sicili, 1893-1895, p. 254.
100Aleksan Krikorian, Evereg-Fenesse: Its Armenian History and Traditions, (Detroit: Evereg-Fenesse
Mesrobian-Roupinian Educational Society, 1990), (the original version was published in 1959).
36
(Kereme), an early Christian settlement on the southern foot of Mount Erciyes and the
several fallen columns at the edge of Mount Erciyes.101 Concerning Fenese, Krikorian
gave the assumption that the name derived from the ancient local Greek monastery
Fenis.102
Armenians started to settle in Everek in the early fourteenth century; they were
originally from Adiyaman (Adıyaman), Vahka (Feke) and Sis (Kozan).103 On the other
hand, Fenese was settled almost two centuries later mostly by Armenians natives of
Konya and later from Hajin (Saimbeyli). These two separate waves of immigrants led to
some differentiations between the two towns, especially regarding linguistic aspects.
For instance the dialect spoken in Fenese was more influenced by Turkish than the one
spoken in Everek.104
In his memoirs Krikorian gives more specific information on the origins of the
Armenian settlers of Fenese by affirming that the migrants were largely from Konya
and vicinity, from Chemeshgatzak (Çemişgezek) and from Cilicia. He reports much
information from Arzumanian’s History of Evereg “the migrants from Konya started
building their houses at the end of the Turkish quarter and continued building in the
valley. The Armenians from Chemeshgetzek, according to tradition, settled near the
Veri Ked (Upper River) developing that area.”105 Moreover, several families settling in
Fenese were from Hadjin and some were natives of Ani, Erznga (Erzincan), Muş (Muş)
and Vaspurakan (the region of Lake Van).106
Among the villages, Çomaklı resulted to be an important Armenian settlement,
divided in two main Armenian quarters Çomaklı Yukarı (Uptown) and Çomaklı Aşağı
(Downtown).107 In the memoirs by Aris Kalfaian, Çomaklı is described as “one of the
points on a triangle made up by Caesaria, Everek and Çomaklu.”108 It is situated 50
kilometers southeast of Kayseri and 10 kilometers from Mount Erciyes (Map I and Map
101 Krikorian, p. 4.
102 Krikorian, p. 3.
103 Raymond and Kevorkian, Paul B. Paboudjian, p. 229.
104 Der-Sarkissian, p. 266.
105 Krikorian, p. 11.
106 As quoted in Krikorian, p. 11.
107 Mustafa Salep, 9/1 Numaralı Develi Şer’iyye Sicili, 1899-1901, p. 223.
108 Aris Kalfaian, Chomaklou: The History of an Armenian Village, (New York: Chomaklou Compatriotic
Society, 1980), p. 3.
37
II). From the analysis of the shari’a court records of Develi for the late nineteenth and
the early twentieth centuries, the majority of the population of Çomaklı were Armenian,
as this demographic appears clearly from the higher number of cases brought to the
court by Armenian subjects. Moreover, in the sicils, Çomaklı occurred to be the only
village with an Armenian muhtar (head of a village) for the year 1894: Muhtar-ı evvel:
Sergiz Kahya.109
1.2. Armenians in the Economic Life of Kayseri
In the nineteenth century, Kayseri evolved into a center for manufacturing and
supplying of goods to other cities of the Ottoman Empire as Adana, Yozgat, Egin,
Tokat, Sivas, and Istanbul. The Armenian merchants of Kayseri played an important
role in the economy of the city both locally and internationally.
Some local merchants began to include into their business networks cities like
Istanbul and Manchester:
According to Bishop Mushegh Seropian, this process started with Senekerim
Manougian, who arrived in Constantinople in 1840 at the age of seventeen and
began working in trade. Soon, he founded his own commercial firm and
subsequently sent his cousin Garabed Yeghiazarian to Manchester to establish a
branch of the family’s firm.110
The Armenians controlled several marketplaces in Kayseri and they were
exporting mostly cured sausages (sucuk), cotton, wool, leather, carpets, agricultural
products and dry fruits.111 Among all products produced, the production of pastrami
(pastırma) was managed almost entirely by the Armenians of Kayseri. Moreover they
were engaged in disparate professions, from manufacturing to professions as doctors,
dentists, pharmacists, architects, painters, poets, and musicians.112
109 Ayşe Arık Kaygısız, I Numaralı Develi Şer’iyye Sicili,1893-1895, p. 255.
110 Hovannisian, p. 198.
111 Hovanissian, p. 198.
112 Hovanissian, p. 200.
38
Everek and Fenese (Develi) appear to be an important commercial center.
According to Krikorian’s memoirs the commercial activities were almost exclusively
practiced by the Armenians, as they “were primarly merchants, artisans, and investors
who received commissions in livestock trading.”113 In both Everek and Fenese the
business activities were concentrated in the main street around the marketplace and the
bazaar areas. Fenese appeared to be the town where the blacksmiths shops were
concentrated in the Western section of the town, whereas the Everek was the center of
the master goldsmiths. Many Armenian families were involved in commercial activities,
possessing stores of fine clothing goods, as silks, patterned cotton fabric, veils,
coverlets, and such. Most of the commercial activities were family-run businesses
passed from generation to generation. In his memoirs Krikorian mentions several
examples of family-run businesses in Fenese as the fine clothing stores of M. Mıgırdiç
Markarian and Sons, M. Kalaijian and Sons, M. Hagop Vanerian and Sons, and the
Uçkardashian Brothers, as well as many others.114
According to Alboyajian, Everek had a large bazaar called Yoğurt Pazarı with 150
shops “all in Armenian hands.”115 Greek Orthodox testimonies highlight the higher
social position of the Armenian traders and shopkeepers in Everek by affirming that:
“there was a large market, some forty-two villages used to come and buy there. It was a
rich marketplace populated by the Everek Armenians until 1915-1916.”116 Another
Greek testimony reinforces saying: “At Everek, there was a big marketplace… Most of
the shops were owned by Armenians, a few by Turks, and very few by Hellenes. Most
of the trade was in the hands of Armenians.”117 According to Herve Georgelin the fact
that these affirmations were made by Greek Orthodox refugees accentuates even more
the social-economic situation of the Armenians in Everek because the Greek refugees
were inclined to praise their own successes in the lost homeland rather than the
achievements of another community. So it is clear that the Armenian economic
supremacy was in Everek and was perceived even in the Greek village of Aykösten:
113 Krikoryan, p. 28.
114 Krikoryan, p. 28.
115 Herve Georgelin, “Armenians in Late Ottoman Rural Kesaria/ Kayseri,” in Armenian Kesaria/Kayseri
and Cappadocia, eds. Richard G. Hovannisian (Eds), UCLA Armenian History & Culture Series, (Costa
Mesa: Mazda Publisher, 2013), p. 239.
116 Georgelin, p. 239.
117 Ibid, p. 239.
39
There were only Armenian craftsmen. Whenever we wanted a craftsman in
our village (Aykösten), we called an Armenian. We had no Hellene
craftsman…The Armenians were medical doctors and pharmacists, too.
They used to study in Constantinople and come back to Everek.118
The sicils of the kaza of Develi include several references about the Armenian
population of the villages. In the sicil of Develi of the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries there are many references to the Armenian market of Everek
(Ermeni Çarşısı) and to the bazaar (Yoğurt Pazarı) located in Köleoğlu Street (Köleoğlu
sokağı) in Everek. The cases related to Yoğurt Pazarı were brought in front of the kadı
by Armenians as in the following examples:
Menam the wife of Tekir oğlu Ohannes and Turfanda the wife of Ohan
were both owners of two shops in the Yoğurt Pazarı.119
In the inheritance (terekke) of Ohanyan Ohan veled-i Kirkor there is also a
shop in the Yoğurt Pazarı.120
Similarly the market of Fenese appears to be mainly in the hands of the Armenian
population as it is showed by the cases in sharia court records:
Meryem Binti Mıgırdic was the owner of a shop in the Fenesse market.121
Seltanoğlu Tavid veledi Agop owned a shop in the Fenesse market.122
Makruhi binti Bedros inherited from his housbound Kevork Efendi two
shops in the market of Fenesse in Melek Kirfer street.123
Despite the fact that most of the commercial activity in the region was in the
hands of non-Muslims and that Armenians were known to be sarafs (moneychangers)
118 Hovannisian, pp. 239-240.
119 Mustafa Salep, 9/1 Numaralı Develi Şer’iyye Sicili -1899-1901, p. 32.
120 Emine Subaşı, 52 Numaralı Develi Şer’iyye Sicili - 1902-3, p. 123.
121 Mustafa Ova, Numaralı Develi Şer’iyye Sicili -1906-1907, p. 32.
122 Ibid, p. 33.
123 Ibid, 1906-1907, p. 36.
40
and traders, the majority of the local Armenian population consisted of poor stock
breeders and peasant farmers. In fact, the area of Kayseri was essentially agricultural
and the regional economy was not suitable for sustaining a large bourgeoisie.124 As
regards especially the villages in mid-nineteenth century, the Armenians were mostly
engaged in agriculture and the lack of adequate economic opportunities led to a
movement of emigration to bigger cities, where they worked as traders and craftsman.
For instance, Armenian shoemakers from Everek and Fenese left their towns and
continued their work in Istanbul. Similarly, the village of Germir experienced a
remarkable flow of emigration, as several inhabitants “migrated to Constantinople,
Smyrna, Samsun, even Russia or Mosul as tailors, weavers, bricklayers or masons.”125
Similar dynamics were at play also in the village of Talas, a mostly Greek settlement
located five kilometers to the south of Kayseri (Table 1 and Table 2). Even though Talas
was in a privileged condition, because of the economic success of some local families
such as the Gulbenkian and the Khoubesserian, the majority of the male population
migrated, at least temporarily, in search for occupation in other cities.126 In Tomarza the
Armenians were mostly engaged in husbandry, agriculture, and carpentry. There was
also a great number of Armenian blacksmiths who were employed in family
businesses.127
1.3. Change in the Armenian Population of Kayseri
At the end of the nineteenth century a population of around 15,000 Armenians
seems to be residing the city of Kayseri, although the number varied through the course
of the century due to several factors related to socioeconomic and political conditions.
Among these conditions the immigration of Circassians and Afşars appears to have
124 Hovannisian, pp. 233-234.
125 Hovannisian, p. 236.
126 Bedross Der Matossian, “Ottoman Armenian Kesaria/Kayseri in the Nineteenth Century,” in Armenian
Kesaria/Kayseri and Cappadocia, Richard G. Hovannisian (Eds), UCLA Armenian History & Culture
Series, (Costa Mesa: Mazda Publisher, 2013), p. 238.
127 Barootian, p. 27.
41
changed the ethnic balance.128A study by Metin Hülagü investigates the role of several
Oğuz and Türkmen tribes in attacks to the people and goods in the city and
surroundings of Kayseri.129 The study refers to the Afşar, Dölek, Kazıklı, Kuzugüdenli,
Küçüklü and Rişvan tribes as the ones responsible for the growing insecurity and
violence in the sancak of Kayseri. The Afşar tribes resided in tents and pursued a
nomadic life; Kayseri constituted a place of resort for other Afşar tribes from other
eyalets or sancaks, as for instance the Afşars from the Eyalet of Maraş, whose pasture
locations were situated in the mahalles of Çörmüşek and Pınarbaşı in the district of
Zamantı, part of the sancak of Kayseri. These tribes consisting ofnearly 200 households
gradually became permanent inhabitants of the district of Zamantı. Dölek and Kazaklı
tribes, affiliated administratively to the eyalet of Adana, reached the pastures on the
mount Kozan in the vicinity of the district of Develi during summer. The Kuzugüdenli
tribes resided with more than 66 households in the district of Zamantı. A part of the
Rişvan tribes, after a nomadic lifestyle in the Eyalet of Konya, inhabited with the
Küçüklü tribes in the area between the sancak of Bozok and Kırşehir.130
The cases of brigandage, killing and seizure were not limited to settled tribes, but
inappropriate actions were also conducted by the tribes from neighboring eyalets,
coming to Kayseri for pasture in summer. On their arrival, in the month of April, the
tribes started feeding their animals in the local cultivated lands. At their departure in the
month of August before the harvest season, the tribes were usually seized by force local
peasants’ crops; they were involved in brigandage activities in the roads and in the
mountains, and they confiscated local’s animals. According to Hülagü’s study, these
activities constituted a sort of tradition while attacking undefended and poor local
people represented a sign of heroism for the tribes. Renegade members of the Rişvan
tribes in particular became one of the key reasons of jeopardy in the region. Moreover,
members of the tribe Kuzugündeli from Yine-il tribes, residing in the sancak of Kayseri
were involved in theft and banditry, including the robbery in the churches of village
Karacaviran in the sancak of Kayseri. The tribe members stole all sorts of religious
128 Der Matossian, p. 191.
129 M. Metin Hülagü, “Ondokuzuncu Asrın Ortalarında Kayseri’de Aşiret Olayları (1845-1865),” in
Geçmişte İzleriyle Kayseri, Mustafa Keskin and M. Metin Hülagü (Eds), (Kayseri: Erciyes University,
2007).
130 Hülagü, pp. 141-142.
42
belongings of the churches ranging from the candlesticks to the priests’ clothing,
pillaging the animals; committed abuses and rapes.131
The severe conditions created by the nomadic tribes in the region of Kayseri led
the population to take action through a series of complaints to the administrative
authorities in order to prevent future disorders asking to expel the tribes and resettle
them in other areas. In the cases when the local authorities failed to regulate the
disorders the local population of Kayseri began to address their complaints directly to
Istanbul. The Greek and Armenian communities directed their complaints to their
Patriarchates in Istanbul, which in turn represented their cases in front of the authorities.
For instance, in the case of the village Karacaviran in the sancak of Kayseri, a petition
submitted by the villagers summarizes some episodes involving tribes’ members,
mentioning the names of 200 members of the tribes who assaulted their village, a list of
properties taken, churches which have been destroyed, women who have been
kidnapped and brought to the mountains. They declared that their land and properties,
which they were forced to leave out of fear, had been used by others.132
In his study investigating the process of settlement of nomadic tribes in Kayseri
and surrounding villages during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Mustafa
Keskin too underlines the influence of nomadic tribes in compromising the balance of
the region and points out the important role they played in the process of Turkification
of the region by setting down the nomads.133
These waves of brigandage and assaults caused by the tribes seem to have led the
population to a really harsh situation combined with other natural disasters as
earthquakes, famine and cholera epidemics which caused to a temporary decline of the
population. In 1835 a strong earthquake affected Kayseri and the villages in its vicinity.
The epicenter was in Develi and touched the villages of Talas, Darsiyak, Efkere,
Germir, Tavlusun, Mancusun, and Gesi. The earthquake caused the destruction of the
covered bazaar and of many buildings, as the Yanıkoğlu and Kazancılar mosques in
131 Hülügü, p. 143.
132 Hülagü, p. 145.
133 Keskin, p. 62; Hülagü, p. 147.
43
Kayseri.134 Moreover, several Armenian and Greek churches were destroyed in the
villages.
In the early decades of the nineteenth century, periodic waves of plague and
cholera developed into pandemic in 1813-19 and the 1830’s.135 According to a British
report in 1847, 600 people died as a result of cholera in Kayseri.136 Moreover, several
waves of famine attacked the region in the years 1820-21, 1845, 1873-74 and 1886. A
letter of M. Farnsworth written in May 1874 to the Levant Herald in Costantinople
represents a testimony of this destructive famine in Kayseri and Talas:
The number of families which we are aiding in this city now amounts to
about 1000, nearly equally divided between Turks and Rayahs. As our
agents go among the poorer of the people, and search into the condition of
the worst parts of the city, they are astonished at the amount and the degree
of misery that exists. It is certain that people are actually dying of hunger…
Indeed, there is such an amount of poverty in this city of 40.000 people, that
our efforts can be limited only by the means at our disposal. We continue
our distribution in Talas and several neighboring towns and villages, but
now there comes to us a fearful cry from the starving in places more
remote.137
Another letter by Mr. Bartlett reports the situation in Kayseri and Talas and other
many villages in the vicinity:
We are glad to report that the Armenians have been distributing money to
the poor of their own community in Talas, and are preparing to do so in
Cesarea and the neighboring villages[…] We shall then be distributing with
our own hands to the suffering poor in Cesarea, Talas, Stephana, Zinjirdere,
Akja-Kaya, Endilik, Asarjik, Kuran-Ordoo, Erkelet and Germir.138
134 Tekinsoy Kemalettin, Kayseri’nin İmarı ve Mekansal Gelişimi, p. 258 available online:
http://www.kayseri.bel.tr/web2/uploads/eDergiler/kayseri_imar/index.html
135 Daniel Panzac, La peste dans l’Empire ottoman 1700-1850, (Louvain: Ed.Peeters, 1985) after Hülya
Canbakal and Alpay Filiztekin, Wealth and Inequality in Ottoman Lands in the Early Modern Period,
Draft preapred for AALIMS- Rice University Conference on the Political Economy of the Muslim World,
4-5 April 2013, p. 12.
136 Der Matossian, p. 191.
137 The Famine in Asia-Minor: Its history, compiled from the pages of the “Levent Herald”, (Istanbul: Isis
Press, 1989), p. 3.
138 Ibid, p. 5.
44
1.4. A Sketch of the End of the Armenian Presence in Kayseri
Whereas on one hand different causes, as nomadic tribes, epidemics and famine,
contributed to change the equilibrium in the region, on the other hand, more drastic
changes dramatically affected the Armenian population starting from 1890’s onwards.
In Kayseri and the villages in the area, as other regions of Anatolia, Armenian political
activity increased through the actions of the Armenian revolutionary parties from the
1880’s on. Although the support among the local peasant population was very limited,
Sultan Abdülhamid II felt the necessity to respond to this growing influence of the
parties by creating irregular militias from Kurdish tribes (Hamidiye) in 1890.139 The
Hamidiye regiments’ attacks led to counter-assaults by the activist Armenian
revolutionaries resulting in countrywide massacres of Armenians in 1895.140 The
massacres conducted under the rule of Abdulhamid II in the two years between 1894
and 1896 led to the killing of 100.000 Armenians, including 1.000 in Kayseri.141 As a
result of these massacres many Armenians, out of fear and because of the worsening
political and economic conditions, left Kayseri for moving to Istanbul, Europe and the
United States.142
The Young Turk revolution in 1908 and the reinstatement of the Constitution
instilled into the Armenians enthusiasm and optimism, which lasted for a very short
period of time, as in 1909 20.000 Armenians were killed in the Adana massacres.143
With the coup d’etat by the CUP in 1913, the state ideology of pan-Turkism legitimized
the hostility and mass violence towards the Armenian population. In Kayseri Armenian
shops, houses and workshops were subjected to violent attacks.144 The election of
Professor Garabed Tumayan of Kayseri, as deputy to the Ottoman parliament,
represented a reason of hope among the episodes of violence that interested the city of
139 Uğur Ümit Üngör and Mehmet Polatel, Confiscation and Destruction: The Young Turk Seizure of
Armenian Property, (London: Continuum, 2011), p. 21
140 Üngör and Polatel, p. 22.
141 Simon Payaslian, “The Fateful Years: Kesaria during the Genocide”, in Armenian Kesaria/Kayseri
and Cappadocia, Richard G. Hovannisian (Eds), UCLA Armenian History & Culture Series, (Costa
Mesa: Mazda Publisher, 2013), p. 285.
142 Payaslian, p. 285.
143 Payaslian, p. 288.
144 Alboyajiyan, p. 1440.
45
Kayseri. This election and the optimistic feelings shared among the Armenians of
Kayseri lasted for a very short period of time, as on the 28th of July 1914 the First World
War began.145
The persecutions, massacres and deportations of Armenians began in February
1915, and increased in the month of May, when in Kayseri and in the villages the
Armenians were subjected to house-to-house searches for weapons, which were
followed by pillage and plunder.146 In the meantime many Armenians were arrested and
several leading personalities of the Armenian community of Kayseri were executed and
members of the church were imprisoned. During the month of May nearly 200
Armenians were arrested with the accusation of possession of weapons and of
participation to revolutionary movements. Mass arrests and executions intensified in
June 1915, including episodes in Kayseri, as the execution of several Armenians in the
Komur Square, accused of affiliation with political organizations.147 Violence continued
to grow in July as the local court martial “condemned more than fifty Armenians to
death; eight prisoners brought from Everek were sent to gallows in Kesaria….this was
followed by the execution of fifteen community leaders on August 13.”148
The mass deportations from Kayseri started in June 1915 and a few weeks later
the entire Armenian population of Kayseri was ordered to leave.149 The first deportation
and appropriation of Armenian properties in Kayseri is described as follows by
Alboyajiyan:
On August the first caravan of Armenians from Kesaria began to move
toward Nighde, as dictated by the public notice of July 26. Among its
provisions, the notice ordered the local police to seal all Armenian shops,
prohibited the sale by the current occupants of furniture and movable goods,
required that any such sale be supervised by local authorities, and directed
the departing Armenians to prepare an inventory of the household goods
being left behind and to deposit their monies at a local bank or to transfer all
funds to a relative’s account.150
145 Kevorkian, p. 514.
146 Payaslian, p. 297.
147 Payaslian, p. 298.
148 Payaslian, p. 299.
149 Payaslian, p. 303.
150 Alboyajiyan, p. 1441.
46
The deportation of Armenians from the villages in the vicinity of Kayseri
continued in July with nearly 1,700 Armenians being deported from Çomaklı, followed
by the Armenians of Derevenk.151 On August 9, around 500 Apostolic Armenian men
were forced from their homes and murdered. From this moment onwards the
deportations and the killings increased dramatically. By the end of August 1915 the
Armenians of Kayseri almost entirely disappeared.152 The Armenian population of
Kayseri in the year 1914 was composed of 48,659 Apostolic Armenians and 1,515
Catholic Armenians; whereas in 1918 the Armenian population was reduced to 6,650.153
The reduction and disappearance of the Armenian population soon reflected in the
destruction and deteriorating condition of Armenian religious structures in the region.
(For a summary of the Ottoman Armenian population refer to Appendix 2)
151 Payaslian, p. 304.
152 Ibid, p. 307.
153 Taner Akçam, The Young Turks’ Crime Against Humanity: The Armenian Genocide and Ethnic
Cleansing in the Ottoman Empire, (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2012), pp. 260-
262.
47
2
ARMENIAN CHURCHES AND MONASTERIES IN KAYSERI AND
SURROUNDINGS
The history of Armenian architecture can be studied in four main phases: the
formative period, the medieval period, the flourishing of monasteries period and the
modern period. Starting with the conversion to Christianity and ending with the Arab
invasion and occupation of Armenia, between the fourth and seventh centuries, the
formative period constituted the golden age of the Armenian architecture. It was
followed by 200 years without any church or other monuments’ construction. The
medieval period, between ninth and eleventh centuries, was characterized by a revival
of architectural activity under the Bagratid kingdom of Ani and Kars, the Artsrunis of
Aghtmar and the area of Lake Van, and the rulers of Siunik. This period ended with the
loss of political autonomy and destruction of the Armenian kingdoms by the invasion of
Seljukids after the mid-eleventh century. Between the twelfth and fourteenth centuries
religious Armenian architecture experienced a flourishing construction of large
monastic complexes. This phase came to halt with Timur’s invasion of Greater Armenia
and the destruction of the Armenian kingdom of Cilicia by the Mamluks in 1375. For a
period of two centuries architectural activity stopped. It was only in the seventeenth
century that a limited number of new buildings, including the two churches part of the
Echmiadzin complex, were built under the rule of the Safavids.154
The modern phase with the emergence of Tanzimat Reforms in 1839 saw a
considerable change in the condition of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire,
including a new phase of construction of new churches and renovation of old ones.155 In
this period, many Orthodox Greek and Armenian churches were rebuilt in Kayseri.
Almost all the surrounding villages inhabited by non-Muslims had at least one church.
Currently it is difficult to provide an exact number of the Armenian churches once
154 Jean-Michel Thierry, Armenian Art, New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1989, pp.124-125.
155 Şeyda Güngör Açıkgöz, “Armenians and the Churches of Kayseri in the 19th Century” in Armenians in
the Ottoman Society, Erciyes University 1st International Social Symposium [EUSA-1] v. II, (Kayseri:
Erciyes University), No. 162 (2007), p. 408.
48
erected in the region, especially due to the lack of documentation. In this study, I refer
to Alboyajiyan’s list of churches and monasteries for the center of Kayseri and the
surrounding villages,156 as his study on the history of the Armenian Kayseri presents the
most detailed and precise information.
156 Arshag Alboyajian, Patmutiun Hay Kesario [The History of Armenian Kesaria], Vol.I, (Cairo: Kesario
ev Shrjakayits Hayrenaktsakan Miutiun, 1937).
49
2.1. Armenian churches in the center of Kayseri
The center of Kayseri had seven Gregorian churches, one Catholic and at least
two Protestant churches. Among these churches only four of them can be located
precisely on a map:
Map 4.157 The Armenian churches in the center of Kayseri, the Gregorian churches of Surp Sarkis, Surp
Asdvadzadzin and Surp Krikor Lusavorich and the Catholic church of Surp Khach.
It is possible to trace the whereabouts of the church of Surp Yeghya, although the
precise location cannot be designated.
According to a document dated 1723/1135, the church of Surp Yeghya was
partially destroyed by an earthquake in the quarter of Mermerli, which led the internal
and external walls in ruins with presence of rain water draining into the interior of the
church.158 In 1781, after applying to the court, permission for restoration was granted to
157 Şeyda Güngör Açıkgöz, Kayseri ve Çevresindeki 19.Yüzyıl Kiliseleri ve Korunmaları İçin Öneriler,
Unpablished PhD dissertation (Istanbul: İ.T.Ü University, 2007), p. 275.
158 Açikgöz, p. 140.
Surp Sarkis
Surp
Asdvadzadzin
Surp Khach
S. Krikor Lusavorich
50
architect Mustafa.159 In the shari’a court record a church with the same name appeared
to be in the quarter of Tutak with the name of the trustee Mıgırdiç in the year 1796.
According to the list of churches presented by the Armenian Patriarchate to the Ottoman
government (Bab-ı Ali) in a ferman for restoration of the year 1831 the church appeared
to be in the neighborhood of Selimpaşa, without any reference to the year of its
destruction.160 Alboyajian did not mention Surp Yeghya Church among the churches he
listed for the center of Kayseri, so most probably this church had been completely
destroyed before 1937, the date of publication of his work.
Alboyajian mentions the Church of Surp Krikor founded in 1191, twelve years
after the establishment of the episcopate,161 as the first church of Kayseri and he argues
that the church of Surp Krikor Lusavoriç was built on its site.162 Moreover, he mentions
two other churches Surp Stepanos and Surp Mergerios, of which he gives some
indications related to religious documents mentioning the names of the two churches.
Surp Stepanos appeared in a document dated 1275 and was destroyed before the
nineteenth century.163 Surp Mergerios appeared in several religious documents of the
years 1206, 1552, 1610 and 1621, but the years of construction and destruction are
unknown. However, the church seemed to be used for religious feast celebrations until
the seventeenth century.164 Concerning the location of Surp Mergerios Church some
indications are given by Tiridat Bishop Balyan, who described the church as being
situated in the east after 30 minutes of walking from the center of Kayseri.165 Simeon of
Poland described it as being located outside the city walls facing the holy tomb of
Barsegh of Cesarea with Mount Erciyes standing at a distance of one mile to the south.
Surp Mergerious appeared to be already in ruins at the time Simeon traveled to Kayseri
(1618) and in his accounts it is described as:
The holy tomb of Barsegh of Caesarea is outside the city. There was a
large church facing it on the eastern side. It is now in ruins and Armenians
bury their dead there. Its stones have been removed for the construction of
159 Ibid, p.140.
160 Açıkgöz, p. 140.
161 Episcopate is the collective body of all the bishops of a church (Oxford dictionaries available online:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com).
162 Alboyajian, p. 892.
163 Ibid, p. 893.
164 Ibid, p. 893.
165 As cited in Alboyajian, p. 894.
51
the citadel. On the south side, beyond the wall, stands the large church of
the warrior Merkourios, whose tomb is located inside. It is also in ruins;
only a small dome remains. There is an altar over the holy tomb, where
every Monday the entire city visits with incense and candles.166
Another church in the center of Kayseri is Surp Sarkis, located in the quarter of
İçeri Hisar (İçeri Şar). Surp Sarkis Church appeared in the travel accounts by Simeon of
Poland, where it is described as located in dark places that are dug in the ground.167 The
church was rebuilt first in 1834 with the support of Sarkis Ağa Giumshian168 and
renovated in 1884 by Bedros Martarian to be restored once again in 1902 by an artisan
Gabriel Iplikcian.169 The three doors of the church respectively faced the marketplace,
the street leading to the church of Surp Asvadzadzin, and the street leading to the Greek
quarter. The second door was reported to be at a distance of 100 feet.170
Another church mentioned by Alboyajian is Surp Parsegh Hayrapet, described in
a religious document of the year 1621 as the most luxurious church in Kayseri. By the
time he visited Kayseri, in the 1930s, the church was already destroyed. Alboyajian
does not provide information about the date of construction, however he hesitatingly
identifies some of its ruins. The location of the remains in the south of Kayseri, outside
the inhabited neighborhoos, suggests that Surp Parsegh Hayrapet was probably a
monastery.171
In the center of Kayseri, except for Gregorian churches, there were also Protestant
and Catholic churches. Catholic and Protestant Armenians benefited from the conditions
stipulated in the Treaty of Adrianople concluding the Russo-Turkish War of 1828-1829
and the consequent Ottoman Tanzimat reform period starting in 1839. The first
Protestant Armenians were recorded in Kayseri in 1852. Starting with the year 1873
Protestant missionaries began to build several places of worship in the center of
Kayseri. A Protestant church in the street of Söğütçeşme starts appearing in tax registers
166 George A. Bournoutian, The Travel Accounts of Simeon of Poland, (Costa Mesa: Mazda Publishers,
2007), p. 273.
167 Bournoutian, p. 189.
168 Bedross Der Matossian, “Ottoman Armenian Kesaria/Kayseri in the Nineteenth Century” in Armenian
Kesaria/Kayseri and Cappadocia, Richard G. Hovannisian (Eds), UCLA Armenian History & Culture
Series, Mazda Publisher, 2013, p. 196.
169 Alboyajian, p. 898.
170 Alboyajian, p. 897.
171 Alboyajian, p. 899.
52
in the 1880s, including its property of three caravanserais and one house. In the
beginning of the twentieth century, Kayseri had two Protestant churches, one of them
was most probably situated in the quarter of Bahçebaşı and used both as a house and
place of worship.172
Moreover in the quarter of Bahçebaşı another church was present, the Surp Khach
church belonging to the Catholic Armenian community of Kayseri. By 1886, through
the efforts of Father Boghos Emanuelian the number of Armenian Catholic households
raised to forty “and by the end of his long tenure the Catholic community had grown
several folds, being served by three Armenian and three Jesuit priests.”173 The Catholic
church Surp Khach (Haç), which began to be constructed in 1871 and finished in 1889
(Map.1), most probably is the one described by Nauman as new and the most beautiful
church in town, during his visit to Kayseri in the year 1893.174
Not all the churches previously mentioned exist in Kayseri anymore. Only two
churches are still standing, Surp Asdvadzadzin and Surp Krikor Lusavorich, the former
utilized as a sport center (currently under restoration to be a cultural center) and the
latter still used as a church.
2.1.1. Surp Asdvadzadzin Church
Surp Asdvadzadzin Church (Fig.1) is situated in the quarter of Kiçikapı,175 known
as Emir Sultan neighborhood until the early twentieth century (Map 1, Map 2). Noting
the appearance of the name of this church in a manuscript dated 1277, Alboyajian traces
the construction back to around the year 200.176 However, Alboyajian seems to have
been mistaken since it was not until 301 that Armenians accepted Christianity and
started building churches. According to an Ottoman document of 1725, the church was
firstly destroyed by an earthquake and the government granted the reconstruction of a
smaller version of the church. However the church was rebuilt with the same scale as
172 Der Matossian, p. 197.
173 Der Matossian, p. 197.
174 Açıkgöz, p. 141.
175 Kiçikapı is name mentioned by Alboyajian and it is still known today and used to refer to that quarter.
176 Alboyajian, p. 894.
53
before the earthquake. A court record from 1781 refers to a request for permission for
restoration due to the risk of collapse; the permission was granted by a ferman by the
central government.177 Another ferman dated 1831 testified a successive restoration of
the church.178
In the western facade of the church under an oval window, an inscription revealed
the year 1835 as the year of reconstruction of Surp Asdvadzadzin church. Furthermore,
two inscriptions in Armenian can be still read, above the door between the narthex and
the naos, even though they are covered by a Turkish flag on the upper side and an
inscription in Turkish under it. The first inscription indicates 1838 as the year of
construction of the church with help by an ağa Garabet Zartaryan; whereas the second
one, on which sultan Mahmud is remembered to be the one granting the construction of
the church. According to Boghos Zekiyan, this inscription is dated 1841-1842.179
In the year 1895 the Armenians of Kayseri sought refuge in this church while
escaping from the attacks by the Turks and Kurds. The church of Surp Asdvadzadzin
was known among the people of Kayseri as “Büyük Jam” (Great Church).180 The church
continued to function until the First World War, whereafter it was used for different
purposes: as storage, exhibition hall, municipality building, police station. Finally in the
year 1961 it was assigned to the Provincial Directorship of Youth and Sports (Gençlik
ve Spor İl Müdürlüğü).181 It has been used as a sport center until recently and it is
currently under restoration to become a cultural center. (Fig.2).
177 Açıkgöz, p. 141.
178 Ibid, p. 141.
179 Ibid, p. 142.
180 Alboyajian, p. 897.
181 Açıkgöz, p. 143.
54
Map 5. A map of the center of Kayseri and the location of Surp Astvadzadzin Church182
Fig.1 Surp Sarkis Church in 1910183
182 Yıldıray Özbek and Celil Arslan. Kayseri Taşınmaz Kültür Varlıkları Envanteri, (Kayseri Büyükşehir
Belediye, 2006), p.799.
183 Osman Köker, 100 Yil Önce Türkiye'de Ermeniler, (Istanbul: Birzamanlar Yayıncılık, 2005), p. 164.
55
Fig.2 The building until recently used as a sport center is today under restoration.184
Fig.3 The main entrance of the church185
184 Kayseri Taşınmaz Kültür Varlıkları Envanteri, p. 801
185 Field visit to Kayseri on 13 November 2014
56
Fig.4 The western façade of Surp Asdvadzadzin church186
2.1.2. Surp Krikor Lusavorich Church
The Church of Surp Krikor Lusavorich (Fig.3) in the quarter Dışarı Şar/Dışarı
Hisar (today’s Caferbey Mahallesi) was rebuilt in 1859, following the establishment of
the Armenian school Karamercan in 1857.187 The church is dedicated to the patron saint
and first official head of the Armenian Apostolic Church who started his monastic life
in Cappadocia during the late third century and served as the Archbishop of Kesaria in
the fourth century.
An inscription in the church indicates that the building went through a significant
restoration between the years 1883-1885. In 1902-1903 the golden decorations inside
the church have been covered, the women section, the chorus place and the place
assigned to religious services have been enlarged.188 The church was under the same
administration of the Surp Sarkis Church, until 1878. Later it was attached to another
neighborhood together with the Armenian school Gümüşyan.189 Not in use during the
First World War, Surp Krikor Lusavorich church reopened in 1919 following a smallscale
restoration. Finally it was reutilized for worship only in 1999. Today, Surp
186 Field visit to Kayseri on 13 November 2014.
187 Acıkgöz, p. 148, and Alboyacıyan, p. 899.
188 Açıkgöz, p. 148.
189 Açıkgöz, p. 148.
57
Lusavorich Church is the only Armenian church functioning in the central Anatolia
(Fig.4).190 Currently the church opens its doors once a year during spring for Easter
celebrations. During my visit to Kayseri the church was closed. The comments of the
inhabitants of the neighborhood suggest that the opening of the church for one day a
year represents a kind of event for neighborhood in general. The church appeared in a
worse condition than expected; some of the external walls are partially collapsed and
repaired with rudimentary materials (Fig.5).191
Fig.5 Surp Krikor Lusavorich in 1930s.192
Fig.6 Surp Krikor Lusavorich Church in its current condition.
190 Ibid.
191 Field visit to Kayseri on 13 November 2014.
192 Alboyajian, p. 900.
58
Fig. 7 The entrance façade presents partially collapsed walls.193
193 Field visit to Kayseri on 13 November 2014.
59
2.2. Armenian Churches and Monasteries in the Surroundings of Kayseri
It is extremely challenging to indicate an exact number of churches and
monasteries for the villages in the Kayseri kaza and Develi kaza the center of Kayseri,
as for the center of Kayseri. The following map represents my attempt to locate the
churches and monasteries as described by Alboyajian:
Map 6. Churches and Monasteries in the kaza of Kayseri and in the kaza of Develi
60
2.2.1. Armenian Churches in the Villages around Kayseri
The following table lists the villages inhabited by Armenians and the
corresponding churches, including information on their year of reconstruction, current
use and current condition.
Village /
Town
Church
Year of
Reconstruction
Current Use
Current
Condition
Balagesi Surp Khach 1842 Not in use
Partially
standing
Çomaklı Surp Toros 1837 House+barn
Partially
standing
Surp Hagop 1860 Not in use ?
Surp Lusavorich 1890 Not in use ?
Cücün
Surp
Asdvadzadzin
? ? ?
Darsiyak Surp Andreas 1722/1728 Not in use
Completely
destroyed
Derevank Surp Toros ? ? ?
Surp
Asdvadzadzin
? ? ?
Efkere Surp Stepanos 1871/1886 Not in use
Partially
standing
Surp Sarkis 1720s ? ?
Surp Kevork 1720s ? ?
Surp Mergerios ? Not in use
Completely
destroyed
Erkilet Surp Kevork ? ? ?
Everek Surp Toros 1835 Mosque Preserved
Fenese Surp Toros 1835 Not in use
Completely
destroyed
Germir Surp Stepanos 1835 Not in use Ruined
Gesi Surp Stepanos 1720s Not in use
Partially
standing
Surp Kevork 1720s Not in use Ruined
Ilibe
Surp
Asdvadzadzin
? ? ?
61
Inceu Surp Toros 1835 Not in use Ruined
Kayeri
Surp Krikor
Lusavorich
Built in 1859/
restored in
1883-1885
Church Preserved
Surp
Asdvadzadzin
1835/1885
Sport
center/currently
under restoration
Preserved
Surp Sarkis 16th century Not in use
Completely
destroyed
Surp Khach 1889 Not in use
Completely
destroyed
Mancusun Surp Toros
Late 15th
century
Not in use ?
Surp
Asdvadzadzin
1836 Not in use Ruined
Surp Khach
Late 15th
century
Not in use ?
Muncusun
Surp
Asdvadzadzin
17th century Not in use ?
Nirze Surp Toros
Mid 17th
century
? ?
Sarımsaklı
Surp
Asdvadzadzin
1869 ? ?
Talas Surp Toros
Mid 17th
century
Not in use
Completely
destroyed
Surp
Asdvadzadzin
? Not in use Ruined
Tavlusun Surp Toros 1835 Not in use
Partially
standing
Tomarza
Surp Boghos
Bedros
1835 Storage
Partially
standing
Table 5. Armenian Churches of Kayseri and surrounding villages. In the table are listed the
churches present in Kayseri and surrounding villages and towns.194
194 As regards the year of reconstruction, I utilized the information reported by Alboyajian, whereas for
the use and the current conditions I utilized data reported by Açıkgöz and the inventory realized from the
municipality of Kayseri.
62
Among the reconstruction dates reported by Alboyajian and Açıkgöz the dates
1720s and 1835 appeare repeatedly. Tülay Artan explains the reconstruction activities in
1720’s with Grand Vezir Nevşehirli Damad İbrahim Paşa’s project of settlement and
rebuilding his hometown, namely Muşkara village, now Nevşehir, 70-80 kilometers to
the west of Kayseri.195At around this time many churches, Orthodox or Armenian, in
Cappadocia including Kayseri and its environs were rebuilt. On the other hand, the
numerous reconstructions in 1835 undoubtedly occurred after the major earthquake,
which in the same year caused significant damage to the buildings of Kayseri.
The following list presents descriptions of twelve churches, through collected
information and through the field visit in November 2014. These churches are Surp
Toros in Tavlusun, Surp Stepanos in Efkere, Surp Stepanos in Germir, Surp Boghos
Bedros in Tomarza, Surp Toros in Everek, Surp Toros in Fenese, Surp Asdvadzadzin in
Gesi, Surp Toros in Nirze, Surp Toros and Surp Asdvadzadzin in Talas, Surp Khach in
Balagesi, and Surp Toros in Derevank.
Tavlusun Surp Toros Church
Surp Toros Church is located in the village of Tavlusun, northwest of the Greek
church of Agios Basileos in a sloping area (Map. 4).196 According to a ferman of
restoration of 1835 and a tapu tahrir register of 1872, Surp Toros Church appeared to be
collocated in Kilise Sokağı in Aşağı Ermeni quarter (Map 4).197 By 1907 both the
school and church were already closed; however the church was reopened to worship
and a pastor was permanently appointed.198 After 1915 the church was closed to
worship.199 Currently the building is partially intact, but most of the interior frescos
have been damaged. Furthermore the church was attacked and damaged by treasure
seekers.200
Several sections of the structure are collapsed: the gallery, a part of the staircase
from the courtyard to the gallery and the pavement in front of the entrance to gallery are
195 Personal communication on 15 June 2014.
196 Açıkgöz, p. 42.
197 Açıkgöz, p. 43.
198 Ibid, p. 760.
199 Ibid, p. 760.
200 Kayseri Taşınmaz Kültür Varlıkları Envanteri, p. 791.
63
demolished. Moreover on the roof, the bell tower on the southern edge is ruined and the
presbytery or probably the Mesrobian School is demolished.201 The church has been
subject to acts of vandalism: the stones on both sides of the door of the entrance façade
have been removed and the inscription has been scraped and made illegible; the window
irons of the apse have been partially disassembled and the ones which could not have
been removed were broken; the walls have been ruined with writings and wall paintings
have been partially destroyed.202 The half dome of the apse has been destroyed and the
acoustic cubes removed.203 Furthermore, the church was partially destroyed by treasure
seekers,204 including the pavement of the naos, although part of the disassembled stones
were left in place.205 The main cause determining the deterioration of the structure is
neglect. For instance, in the interior, the majority of plaster and most of the stucco
covering the vaults are detached, probably because of the presence of rainwater and
vegetation grown in the interior of the church.206 The exterior of the church is also
damaged, as parts of the roof are covered with vegetation and some stones from the
courtyard walls detached.207
Map 7. Location of Surp Toros Church in the village of Tavlusun.208
201 Acıkgöz, p. 46.
202 Açıkgöz, p. 47.
203 Ibid, p. 47.
204 Kayseri Taşınmaz Kültür Varlıkları Envanteri, p. 791.
205 Açıkgöz, p. 47.
206 Ibid, p. 47.
207 Ibid, p. 47.
208 Kayseri Taşınmaz Kültür Varlıkları Envanteri, p. 791.
64
Fig.8 Tavlusun Surp Toros Church current condition.209
Efkere Surp Stepanos Church
The Church of Surp Stepanos (Fig.6) is located on a sloping terrain in the eastern
part of Efkere. Although the inscription above the entrance has been removed, it is
possible to trace the origin of the church from other records. A possible date of
construction is reported on a stone in the north-western corner of the structure as
1600.210 According to the list of churches submitted from the patriarchate to the
Ottoman government, the date of construction seems to be 1858.211 According to
Alboyajian, the current structure of the church dates back to 1871,212 whereas an
approval for repair was granted by the Sultan Abdülhamid II in 1886, leading to the
final version of the church.213
The church presents several destroyed parts: the dome has been destroyed (Fig.8)
and only two rows of the bearing wall are still standing; the galleries and the bell tower
have been completely destroyed.214 As the majority of the churches in Anatolia, Surp
Stepanos church has also been subject to acts of vandalism by treasure seekers,
including the theft of the columns from the entrance and the apse as well as the
destruction of the motifs located above the door.215 As for Tavlusun Surp Toros Church,
the collapse of the dome has made the structure to remain unprotected against external
209 Açıkgöz, p. 290.
210 As other several churches, the original structure dates back to seventeenth century, but the current
structure resulted from a work of restoration during the mid-nineteenth century.
211 Açıkgöz, p. 61.
212 Alboyajian, p. 775.
213 Açıkgöz, p. 61.
214 Açıkgöz, p. 65
215 Açıkgöz, p. 65
65
influences, leading to the degradation of the internal decoration and the detachment of
the plaster from the walls. Moreover, exposure to weather conditions caused the damage
of the decorations on the pendants and the formation of cracks all over the walls.216
Fig.9 Efkere Surp Stepanos Church in 1913 the dome and the bell tower. 217
Fig.10 Efkere Surp Stepanos Church current condition with the complete destruction of its dome
and bell tower.218
216 Açıkgöz, p. 66
217 Açıkgöz, p. 306
218 Field visit to Efkere on 14 November 2014.
66
Fig.11 The absent dome of Surp Stepanos church219
Germir Surp Stepanos Church
The construction of Church of Surp Stepanos in the village of Germir started in
1858 on the site of an old church and was completed in 1860.220 Located in a plain area,
the complex included a courtyard with three cisterns, two gardens with 150 gravestones
and a school at the western side of the narthex (Map.5).221 A large part of the roof and
the side walls have not survived. Part of the building was transformed into a dwelling
through closing the narthex and the gallery. A garden bordered with walls, probably
created with the stones belonging originally to the church, was constructed in the center
of the nave.222
219 Field visit to Efkere on 14 November 2014.
220 Alboyajian, p. 763.
221 Açıkgöz, p. 104.
222 Açıkgöz, p. 104.
67
Map 8. Germir and the location of Surp Stepanos Church.223
Fig.12 Germir Surp Stepanos Church (early 1900s)224
223 Açıkgöz, p. 248.
224 Alboyajian, p. 764.
68
Fig.13 Germir Surp Toros Church current condition225
Fig. 14 A part of Germir Surp Toros Church utilized as habitation.226
Fig.15 The church courtyard currently part of the habitation227
225 From the online catalogue of the exhibition Churches of Historic Armenia: A Legacy to the World:
http://www.fresnostate.edu/artshum/armenianstudies/resources/churches/, date of access: 20/06/2014
226 Field visit to Germir on 14 November 2014.
69
Tomarza Surp Boghos Bedros Church228
As reported in an Ottoman document, the construction of Surp Boghos Bedros
Church was permitted by the Ottoman government in 1835.229 The church complex also
included a school, named Torkomian, built in 1837,230 which changed its name into
Sahakian in 1910.231 After 1915 the building started to be utilized for different purposes.
Used as a storehouse and later as a cinema. From 1978 up to now it has been used as a
storage belonging to the Municipality of Tomarza.232
A large part of the western wall, the narthex and the gallery have been destroyed;
the arches have been filled with rubble stones and the original door was replaced with
an iron gate; all the windows and gates have been closed with bricks and the pavement
was covered by concrete.233 The external walls of the northern and southern facades
have been destroyed together with the balconies of the pastoforium rooms.234 Compared
to the acts of vandalism involved in other churches in the region, Surp Boghos Bedros
Church was less damaged; however signs of illegal excavations are visible in its interior
and part of the iron door supports have been cut.235 The church is in a status of neglect
that affected the structure with the formation of cracks and fractures on the roof.
Moisture in the apse half-dome led to deterioration of the wall plaster and the stucco of
columns and walls in the lower part of the church.236
227 Field visit to Germir on 14 November 2014.
228 For the town and the church of Tomarza : virtualani.org/tomarza/index.htm; Gertrude Bell, Letter
dated 18 June 1909, http://www.gerty.ncl.ac.uk/letters/l899.htm; Charles Hardy, In Search of our Roots,
an Armenian Odyssey, http://www.bvahan.com/armenianpilgrimages/hardy3.asp; Steven Hill, The Early
Christian Church at Tomarza - A Study Based on Photographs Taken in 1909 by Gertrude Bell,
Dumbarton Oaks Papers 29, (1975), pp. 151-164; H. E. King, Through the Taurus Mountains and the
Armenian Cilician Kingdom, Asiatic Review, Vol. 33 (1937), p.797; V. L. Parsegian (project director),
Armenian Antiquities in the Tomarza Region in Armenian Architecture: A Documented Photo-Archival
Collection on Microfiche, Vol.5/microfiche 57; Hans Rott, Kleinasiatische Denkmaler aus Pisidien,
Pamphylien, Kappadokien, und Lykien, ( Leipzig, 1908), pp. 179-187.
229 Açıkgöz, p. 123.
230 Alboyajian, p. 858
231 Alboyajian, p. 859
232 Açıkgöz, p. 123
233 Açıkgöz, p. 126
234 Ibid, p. 127
235 Ibid, p. 127
236 Açıkgöz, p. 127
70
Fig.16 Tomarza Surp Boghos Bedros Church current condition.237
Everek Surp Toros Church
The church of Surp Toros in the town of Everek was constructed in 1757. It is
believed that the construction of the church served to meet the spiritual needs of a
growing community, in the place of a previous small chapel, which was not suitable to
accommodate all the Armenians of Everek.238 In an Ottoman document of 1835 a
ferman for the restoration of Surp Toros is found. The costs of materials and labor
required to restore the church were reported by the grand vizier to the sultan
Abdülhamid II in a document of 1895 239 Another permission for restoration was
granted 1904, while a document of 1913 reports the permission for the construction of a
male school in the courtyard and the ratification of a female section of the school
previously built without authorization.240 After 1915 the church remained closed to
service for many years until 1978, when it started to be used as a mosque (Fig.13).241
237From the online catalogue of the exhibition Churches of Historic Armenia: A Legacy to the World:
http://www.fresnostate.edu/artshum/armenianstudies/resources/churches/, date of access: 20/06/2014.
238 Alboyajian, p. 823.
239 Açıkgöz, p. 130.
240 Ibid, p. 130.
241 Ibid, p. 130.
71
Fig.17 Everek Surp Toros converted in Fatih Mosque.242
Fenese Surp Toros Church
The church of Surp Toros in Fenese was built in 1800 to enlarge the already
existing chapel of Surp Hagop. Similarly to case of Everek, the town of Fenese
experienced a growth in population in late seventeenth century and a bigger church of
Surp Toros was built to receive all the Armenian community.243 After 1915 the church
remained empty and was subjected to modification in the successive years, as the
closure with tones of the main door and the opening of another entrance on the opposite
side. The ruined section of the narthex wall have been covered with wooden planks and
closed with stones. The church is of the basilica type with three naves and three apses
with the central nave divided from the side aisles through four columns. The columns
forming the nave are connected with the adjacent half column through arches, which are
all destroyed, with the exception of the half columns adjacent to the apse. In the apse on
the right side of the main apse and the right nave there are three small niches. Moreover
there are cross-domed vaults in the central nave. Today the church is utilized as a barn
for cows and lost any reference of being a church. Because of the bad conditions the
internal fresco completely disappeared (Fig.14).244
242 Field visit to Develi on 15 November 2014.
243 Aleksan Krikorian, Evereg-Fenesse: Its Armenian History and Traditions, (Detroit: Evereg-Fenesse
Mesrobian-Roupinian Educational Society, 1990), p. 60.
244 As indicated in the reports of the Cultural and Natural Heritage Conservation Board of Kayseri (Kültür
ve Tabiat Varlıklarını Koruma Kurulu) dated June 2006.
72
Fig.18 Fenese Surp Toros Church245
Fig.19 One of the entrances of the church in its current condition246
245 Açıkgöz, p. 364.
246 Field visit to Develi on 15 November 2014.
73
Fig. 20 The interior of Surp Toros in Fenese currently used as barn247
Gesi Surp Asdvadzadzin Church
The Church is located in the village of Gesi, situated 19 kilometers north-east of
Kayseri. The church was built in the center of the village in a flat area on a slope. The
exact date of construction is unknown, but according to Alboyajian it was built in midnineteenth
century. The church together with the monastery of Surp Daniel was
destroyed some days after the deportation of the Armenians from the village in 1915.248
Part of the original structure was first used as a dwelling and then as a post office. In
2000, the church became the property of the Municipality which put it on sale.249
Nirze Surp Toros Church
The church is located in Nirze, 17 kilometers from Kayseri and it is situated on a
sloping terrain in the center of the village.250 According to Alboyajian the date of
construction is 1851.251 The original structure of the church was modified when it was
transformed partially into a house and storage. The section of the narthex is used as
dwelling, whereas the other sections of the church are employed as storage. The
structure is ruined; the northern nave, the section of the apse facing the naos and the
247 Photograph provided on 15 November 2014 at the Cultural and Natural Heritage Conservation Board
of Kayseri.
248 Alboyajian, p. 730.
249 Sağır, p. 141.
250 Sağır, p. 144.
251 Alboyajian, p. 735.
74
narthex are closed with walls. The roof is covered with grass and the roof tiles have
been damaged. The narthex was closed with additional material and when the building
was transformed into a house additional structures for different functions were added to
the original one.252
Talas Surp Toros and Surp Asdvadzadzin Churches
The village of Talas had two Armenian Churches, Surp Toros (Fig.16/Fig.18) and
Surp Asdvadzadzin. The former (Fig.15) was built in mid-seventeenth century253 and it
was the only Armenian church in the village until the early nineteenth century, when the
church of Surp Asdvadzadzin (Fig.17) was built in 1837.254 According to Alboyajian the
churches were in function until 1915, but when he went back to Talas in 1937 the
churches were destroyed. Today there are no traces left of these churches.255 Claiming
that Surp Asdvadzadzin church can be still identified today, Sağır locates it in Yukarı
Mahalle on a slope terrain close to Han Mosque. Although it was possible to find the
Han Mosque during the field visit to Talas in November 2014, any Armenian churches
in the vicinity could not be located. The Cultural and Natural Heritage Conservation
Board of Kayseri, on the other hand, points at a two-story structure resembling a house
from the outside. Although closed to visits, the Cultural and Natural Heritage
Conservation Board officials mention the presence of an interior dome, based on a
report dated 1998 (Fig 21).256
252 Sağır, p. 144.
253 Alboyajian, p. 734.
254 Alboyajian, p. 738.
255 Alboyajian, p. 738.
256 From a personal meeting at the Koruma Kurulu of Kayseri on 14 November 2014.
75
Fig.21Photograph of the building identified by Sağır and registered in the Koruma Kurulu archives as an Armenian
church.257
Fig.22 Talas Surp Toros Church258
Fig.23 Talas Surp Toros Church in early 1900s259
257 Photograph provided at Koruma Kurulu of Kayseri during the field visit in November 2014.
258 Alboyajian, p. 735
259 Açıkgöz, p. 350
76
Fig.24 Talas Surp Asdvadzadzin260
Fig.25 Talas Surp Asdvadzadzin Church261
Balagesi Surp Khach Church
Surp Khach Church is located on a sloping terrain in the southern part of Balagesi,
a village situated 19 kilometers northeast of Kayseri, which currently is part of the
municipality of Melikgazi. According to Alboyajian, Surp Khach Church was
constructed in 1842 on the site of a previously destroyed church, named Surp
Asdvadzadzin.262 In 1915 there was no priest and only the menservants were still
working in the church.263 The church is currently in ruins and used as a sheepfold. A
260 Açıkgöz, p. 351
261 Açıkgöz, p. 350.
262 Alboyajian, p. 769.
263 Sağır, p. 126.
77
portion of the west wall of the naos central nave and the northeast corner of the north
apse have been demolished. The windows on the north wall have been walled up.264
Derevank Surp Toros Church
Surp Toros Church is located in the village of Derevank, 3 kilometers north of
Talas. It is situated on a sloping terrain. A specific date of construction is not indicated,
but some sources described it as a church belonging to the nineteenth century. Currently
used as a sheepfold, the church is totally destroyed because of illegal excavations. The
naos and the reliefs are partly fragmented. The frontal door is halfway closed with
stones.265
264 Sağır, p. 125.
265 Sağır, p. 130.
78
2.2.2. Armenian monasteries in the villages and town around Kayseri
The following table lists the monasteries that existed in the region according to the
information reported by Alboyajiyan. Differently from the churches, the monasteries
were not located in the center of the villages, but in more peripheral areas. The sixteen
monasteries and the religious schools included in the complexes have been destroyed.
Area Name of the
monastery
Year of
construction
Current
Use
Current
Condition
Efkere Surp Garabed 13th century Not in use Ruined
Balagesi Surp Daniel ? Not in use Ruined
Surp Parsam ? Not in use ?
South of
Balagesi
Surb Aghotik ? Not in use ?
Derevank Surp Sarkis/Dere
Vank
Mid 18th
century
Not in use Ruined
Erkilet Surp Kevork ? Not in use ?
Ilibe Surp Asdvadzadzin ? Not in use ?
Tomarza Surp Asdvadzadzin 16th century Not in use Ruined
Surp Parsegh ? Not in use Completely
destroyed
East of
Kayseri
Surp Teodoros and
Mergerios
12th century Not in use Completely
destroyed
South of
Kayseri
Surp Parsegh 17th century Not in use Completely
destroyed
South of
Kayseri
Surp Asdvadzadzin ? ? ?
Talas Surp Parsegh
Hayrapet
? Not in use Completely
destroyed
Surp Minas ? ? ?
Darsiyak Surp Krikor
Naregatsi
? Not in use Completely
destroyed
Darsiyak
area
Surp Krikor Niusatsi ? Not in use Completely
destroyed
Table 8. List of monasteries in the surroundings of Kayseri
79
Surp Garabed Monastery in Efkere
The Monastery of Surp Garabed (Fig.19) was located 18 kilometers from Kayseri
toward the village of Efkere. It consisted of a large complex and was one of the most
important sites of pilgrimage for Armenians throughout the Ottoman Empire.266 The
first clear reference to the monastery appeared in an Armenian colophon of 1206267 A
description of the monastic complex was provided by Simeon of Poland, who visited the
region in 1617-1618:
“… we reached the large and magnificent dome-shaped monastery of
Surb Karabet, which was located on a high mountain, from where the entire
city was visible… The building of the monastery was amazing, for it was on
top of a cliff, while below all the way to the city, stretched caves, which
served as cells for many ascetics, like the ones on Mt. Toros in Konya or the
pech’er at Mank’erman.”268
The monastery constituted an important educational center with the
establishment of a seminary for the preparation of young clergymen and starting
with 1888 it served “as a teacher-training seminary for the entire region under the
name Zharangavorats varzharan.”269 The monastery was in function until 1915,270
whereafter it was subject to destruction and neglect, leading to its current status of
being almost entirely destroyed (Fig.20).271
266 www.efkere.com
267 Alboyajian, p. 960
268 George A. Bournoutian, The Travel Accounts of Simeon of Poland, (Costa Mesa: Mazda Publishers,
2007), p. 203
269 Herve Georgelin, “Armenians in Late Ottoman Rural Kesaria/Kayseri”, in Armenian Kesaria/Kayseri
and Cappadocia, Richard G. Hovannisian (Eds), UCLA Armenian History & Culture Series, (Costa
Mesa: Mazda Publisher, 2013), p. 243
270 Alboyajian, p. 961
271 Field visit to Efkere on 14 November 2014
80
Fig.26 Efkere Surp Garabed Monastery272
Other important Armenian monasteries in the sancak of Kayseri, which have been
almost completely destroyed, are Tomarza Surp Asdvadzadzin (Fig.21), Derevank Surp
Sarkis (Fig.23) and Balagesi Surp Daniel (Fig.24).
Fig. 27 Tomarza Surp Asdvadzadzin monastery273
272 Osman Köker, p. 166
273 Alboyajian, p. 1008
81
Fig.28 Tomarza Surp Asdvadzadzin’s ruins274
Fig.29 Derevank Surp Sarkis monastery today275
The monastery of Surp Daniel in Balagesi was constructed in the mid-eleventh
century and demolished a few days after all the Armenian inhabitants were deported in
1915.276
Fig. 30 Balagesi Surp Daniel Monastery with Surp Asdvadzadzin church277
274 Açıkgöz, p. 359.
275 From the online catalogue of the exhibition Churches of Historic Armenia: A Legacy to the World:
http://www.fresnostate.edu/artshum/armenianstudies/resources/churches/
276 Alboyajian, p. 993.
277 Alboyajian, p. 993.
82
3
ARMENIAN RELIGIOUS ARCHITECTURE OF KAYSERI AS
TARGET OF SPATIAL AND CULTURAL CLEANSING
Focusing on Kayseri and surroundings, this chapter argues that religious
Armenian architecture has been one of the main targets in the attempts to remove
Armenian presence in Anatolia after 1915. The destruction, neglect and transformation
of the Armenian architecture constituted a strategy to remove the visible marks and
traces left on the ground, in addition to the physical annihilation of the Ottoman
Armenians.
Referring to architecture as the main aspect within Ottoman Armenian material
culture, this chapter analyzes the main strategies of destruction of Armenian churches
and monasteries in Kayseri and in the surrounding villages, while giving a picture of the
current condition. As Armenian religious architecture in Kayseri and villages occupied
and by some means still occupies a specific space, which itself has endured many
changes during the twentieh century, I introduce the concept of spatial nationalism and
its results for the study case of Kayseri. Since I perceive the destruction of the Ottoman
Armenian architecture both as a part of the genocidal process and as a post-genocidal
act (in some cases it can be considered as an ongoing process) aimed to utterly remove
their presence, this chapter investigates the issue within the framework of spatial
cleansing, cultural cleansing and destruction of material culture.
83
3.1. Spatial Nationalism
The concept of spatial nationalism involves different strategies aimed to change
space and landscapes by excluding, displacing and dispossessing “the externalized
‘other’. The concept of spatial nationalism also includes strategies of re-construction
and re-production for the sovereign and hegemonic ‘self’ of the nation.”278 The Turkish
case of late nineteenth and twentieth century represents “almost ideal-typical model of
the discursive imagination and the material practice of nationalism and its geographical
strategies, aimed at the creation of an ethnically homogenous ‘homeland’.”279
The plan of homogenization of Anatolia by the CUP aimed to reshape “the
region’s demographic character on the basis of its Muslim Turkish population.”280 The
plan was largely based on two main points: the cleansing of Anatolia’s non-Muslim
population and the assimilation/turkification of all of Anatolia’s non-Turkish Muslim
communities.281The homogenization of Anatolia was basically a population and
resettlement policy, which was adopted after the losses in the Balkan Wars in 1912-
1913.282 The policy took the form of demographic engineering.283 This also had a role in
the Armenian deportations as, according to Taner Akçam, “the population ratios where
Armenians were deported and where they remained were decisive, and the deportations
were carried accordingly.”284 Akçam argues that demographic engineering took the
form of genocide in the Armenian case and that “the 5 to 10 percent rule”285 of
resettlement was decisive in the annihilation process.286 In these terms the Armenian
Genocide was not only carried out as demographic engineering, but also through
278 Kerem Öktem, Creating the Turk’s Homeland: Modernization, Nationalism and Geography in
Southeast Turkey in the late 19th and 20th Centuries, Paper for the Socrates Kokkalis Graduate
Workshop 2003, “The City: Urban Culture, Architecture and Society”, p. 1.
279 Ibid, p.1
280 Akçam, p. 29
281 Akçam, p. 29
282 Akçam, p. 30.
283 Öktem, “The Nation’s Imprint: Demographic Engineering and the Change of Toponymes in
Republican Turkey”, in European Journal of Turkish Studies, no. 7, 2008, p. 12.
284 Taner Akçam, The Young Turks’ Crime against Humanity: The Armenian Genocide and Ethnic
Cleansing in the Ottoman Empire, (Princeton: University Press, 2013), p. 227.
285 “The government’s population and settlement policy was to ensure that the number of people of any
group being resettled in a given area not exceed 5 to 10 percent of the total population.” (Akçam, p.48)
286 Akçam, pp. 227-228.
84
mathematical accuracy, as the “the number of Armenians deported to Syria, and those
who remained behind, would not exceed 5 to 10 percent of the population of the places
in which they were found.”287 According to Akçam “such a result could be achieved
only through annihilation.”288
For the case of Kayseri the provincial district governor reported on 18 September
1915:
It is submitted that in the center and environs there are 46,463 Armenians
[of the Armenian Church], 1,515 Catholics [Armenians], and 1,957
Protestants [Armenians], so that in all the Armenian population is registered
as 49,947, of whom 44,271 have been deported to the provinces of Aleppo,
Damascus, and Mosul, and 765 people while having also earlier set out, in
view of their fleeing, returning and hiding, were again seized and were in
the course of deportation; and the 4,911 [members] of soldier’s families
remaining in the provincial district, with the insignificant number of
Protestant and Catholic remnants, were distributed to the villages in a 5
percent proportion.”289
Along with demographic engineering, the appropriation of space developed
through another strategy, such as ‘toponymical engineering” that utterly changed the
physical settings of Anatolia. The strategy in question involved a process of
Turkification of names of places, which according to Öktem presents four main waves
of name change: the first from 1915 to 1922, the second from 1922 to 1950, the third
from 1950 to 1980 and the fourth in the 1980’s.290
The first wave is related to the deportation law declared by the CUP on 27 May
1915 and consequent exile of Armenians, Assyrians, and some Kurdish communities.
Immediately the government started a process of name transformation of the evacuated
villages.291 The second phase coincided with the outset of the Republic and a series of
directories entitled ‘Names of our villages according to the new territorial division’
(Yeni teşkilat-i mülkiyede köylerimizin adları).292 This process also included the revision
287 Akçam, p. 242.
288 Ibid, p. 242.
289 Akçam, pp. 245-246.
290 Kerem Öktem, “The Nation’s Imprint: Demographic Engineering and the Change of Toponymes in
Republican Turkey”, in European Journal of Turkish Studies, no. 7 (2008).
291 Ibid, p. 19.
292 Ibid, p. 27.
85
of existing maps, as the publication in 1929 of the General Map of Turkey in Latin
script, by the Office of General Staff. A successive Map of Turkey in 1934 was be
accompanied by a directory of place names edited by the Turkish Geography
Association.293 During this first phase “the reference to historical regions such as
Armenia, Kurdistan or Lazistan was forbidden and a ban imposed on the importation of
maps containing these terms.”294
Despite the publication of numerous maps during those years this strategy proved
to be only partially successful, because of continued usage of original geographical
names by the local population. Thus, in the third phase, the General Directorate for
Provincial Administration initiated an ‘Expert Commission for name change’ (Ad
Değistirme İhtisas Kurulu) in 1957.295 In 1968 a new edition of ‘Our villages’
(Köylerimiz) was presented and by that year around 36% of all villages names in Turkey
were changed.296 The final phase of toponymical engineering in the 1980s proved to be
particularly remarkable with the organization of a ‘Symposium on Turkish Toponymes’,
by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, aimed to stipulate even more scrupulous rules
in creating new place-names.297
Regarding the region of Kayseri, most of the names of the villages inhabited by
Greeks and Armenians were subjected to a process of toponymical engineering and
some of the villages included in this thesis have been changed as follows:
Original name New name
Darsiyak Kayabağ
Derevank Derevenk
Efkere Bahçeli
Everek-Fenesse Develi
Germir Konaklar
Mancusun Yeşilyurt
293 Ibid, p. 28.
294 Ibid, p. 31.
295 Öktem, p. 34.
296 Öktem, p. 44.
297 Öktem, pp. 50-53.
86
Muncusun Güneşli
Tavlusun Aydınlar
3.2. Spatial Cleansing
The implemented policies that altered the demographic and topographic settings
can be interpreted as part of “spatial cleansing” defined by anthropologist Michael
Herzfeld as “the conceptual and physical clarification of boundaries, with a concomitant
definition of former residents as intruders.”298 Herzfeld argues that spatial cleansing
“incorporates an intentional allusion to the notion of ethnic cleansing, since, although
the latter is usually far more physical in its violence, both entail the disruption of
fundamental security, and especially of ontological security, for entire groups of
people.”299 This argumentation appears particularly adequate for the Ottoman
Armenians, who experienced ethnic cleansing correlated to a process of spatial
cleansing.
Herzfeld discusses the concept of spatial cleansing related to practices of
gentrification in Rome and Bangkok. In the former “the local people have been treated,
as they see it, as an ‘Indian reservation’ awaiting removal at the pleasure of the rich, in a
classic pattern of the most destructive kind of gentrification.”300 Whereas in the latter
spatial cleansing consists in the removal of a significant portion of the local population
in the area of Pom Mahakam to build expensive western-style shops and export
displays.301
Similarly, in the early Republic period, Kayseri, as many Anatolian cities,
experienced a process of development and modernization that changed the urban setting
and landscape through several urban plans (imar planları). The process of
298Michael Herzfeld, “Spatial Cleansing: Monumental Vacuity and the Idea of the West”, in Journal of
Material Culture, Vol. 11(1/2): 127-149, London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi: SAGE
Publications, p. 142.
299 Herzfeld, p. 142.
300 Herzfeld, p. 136.
301 Herzfeld, p. 136.
87
modernization of Kayseri started between 1932 and 1936. The expansion of the city
borders, the establishment of a plane factory in 1926, the construction of Ankara-
Kayseri railway line in 1927, the establishment of rail connection between Kayseri and
Ulukışla in 1932, and the construction of Sümerbank Cloth Factory in 1935 are all
examples of the modernization process that took place in Kayseri.302 The first urban
plan of the city by an urban engineer Burhanettin Çaylak in the year 1933, which was
approved by the Ministry of the Interior on 22 April 1936.303 The second city plan for
Kayseri was prepared by the German architect-urban planner Gustav Oelsner and the
Turkish architect-urban planner Kemal Ahmet Aru, and was approved in 1945.304 All
these transformations aiming to modernize the town led to the destruction of the
architecture of the old city of Kayseri.
Herzfeld (1991) in his study on spatial cleansing also introduces the case of Crete
and the area of the old market, which was transformed to a tourist attraction. Herzfeld
argues that “the Muslim presence was reduced to a symbolic historic shadow and
subjected to a respatialization that framed the mosque as cultural upgraded (it is now a
music conservatory!) and as a monument to the liberal tolerance of the West.”305 The
architectural heritage of the Ottoman past became a “dangerous cultural
embarrassment” and “an attraction for the orientalist gaze of the tourist” for the
Greeks.306
Another interesting example of spatial cleansing, which represented a source of
comparison in this study, is the work by anthropologist Roxane Caftanzoglou, namely
the quarter of Anafiotika, located in the area beneath the Acropolis of Athens. This
quarter is a really small settlement, composed by almost fifty houses, built in the 1860’s
by immigrant workers from the Cyclades. The inhabitants were mostly involved in
302 Suat Çabuk, “Kayseri’nin Cumhuriyet Dönemindeki İlk Kent Düzenlemesi: 1933 Çaylak Planı,” in
Middle East Technical University Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, METU JFA, No. 2 (2012), p.64.
See also Suat Çabuk, Kemal Demir, “Urban planning experience in Kayseri in the 1940s: 1945 Oelsner-
Aru City Plan”, ITU A/Z, Vol.10,/No.1 (2013), pp.96-116
See also: Seda Çalışır Hovardaoğlu, “Kayseri Oelsner - Aru Planı ve Plan Uygulama Sürecinde Yerel
Yönetimlerin Rolü (1930-1965)”, Çağdaş Yerel Yönetimler, Vol.23/No.1 (January 2014), pp.39-55; H.
Çağatay Keskinok, “Urban Planning Experience of Turkey in the 1930s”, METU JFA, No.1 (2010),
pp.173-188.
303 Çabuk, p. 64.
304 Ibid, p. 64.
305 Ibid, p. 134.
306 Ibid, p. 134.
88
construction and by the time that they immigrated to Athens, they were involved in the
reconstruction of the city as the new capital. Their involvement in this reconstruction
project explains the reason why they started to build their houses just under the
Acropolis, an area already considered as an archeological ground. From the beginning
of their settlement in the quarter, they were considered as illegal residents and were
threatened of demolition and relocation, which finally happened in the 1930’s and the
1970’s.307 In 2008, the Ministry of Culture has expropriated most of the houses and
nowadays the settlement is inhabited by forty-five people, consisting of middle-aged
and elderly retired manual workers, most of them are descendants and relatives of the
initial settlers.308
The location of the quarter of Anafiotika is important for undertanding one of the
reasons why this settlement was exposed to activities of relocation and expropriation.
The residents of Anafiotika began to settle in this location under the Acropolis in a
period when Greece was still developing its national cultural identity after its
independence of 1832. Athens was chosen as the site for the capital of the new nation
and “its (re)construction was planned along lines of Hellenic purity, the unsettling
evidence of Greece’s Ottoman heritage along with local vernacular forms had to be
confronted, all the more so when situated in the immediate vicinity of remains of
classical antiquity.”309 The quarter of Anafiotika is situated under the Acropolis, symbol
of the glorious past of ancient Greece. It was and it is still seen as an intruder and as “a
disorderly and polluting irruption of social time in the midst of the isolated and well
guarded ‘buffer zone’ designed to surround and isolate the Acropolis from the
disturbing presence of contemporary Greek society.”310
Scholarly texts and state decrees clearly indicate that the Anafiotika settlement
started to be considered ‘matter out of place’ already in the last two decades of the
nineteenth century.311 The settlement and its residents are considered responsible for the
307 Roxane Caftanzoglou, Roxane Caftanzoglou, “The Shadow of the Sacred Rock: Contrasting
Discourses of Place under the Acropolis”, in Contested Landscapes: Movement, Exile and Place, Barbara
Bender and Margot Winer (Eds), (Berg Publishers, 2001), p. 22.
308 Roxane Caftanzoglou, “The Sacred Rock and the Profane Settlement: Place, Memory and Identity
under the Acropolis”, in Oral History, No. 28 (2008), p. 44.
309 Caftanzoglou (2001), p. 23.
310 Ibid, p. 24.
311 Roxane Caftanzoglou (2008), p. 45.
89
degradation of “the sacredness of the monumental site.”312 The unwanted presence of
the Anafiotika residents has been dealt through different means: written texts by
nationalist scholars, visual material as maps and city guides and physical interventions
in the settlement. Regarding the written texts, Greek nationalist historians and writers
addressed petitions to the government for removal of the settlement from the area.313
Visual material about the city of Athens as maps and especially travel guides show “a
shadowed or colored strip extending below the Acropolis between the rock and the
neighborhood of the Plaka bearing a name: Anafiotika”314 relegating it to a non-place.315
The final step is demolition for archeological excavating as in the 1930’s and in 1970’s
expropriating mostly the entire population of the neighborhood.316 The spatial cleansing
examples studied by Herzfeld and Caftanzoglou represent an opportunity to
contextualize the Armenian case according to a different concept of spatial cleansing, as
none of the reasons explained by the two anthropologists apply to the Ottoman/Turkish
case.
The Ottoman Armenians have not been subjected to relocation from a particular
quarter to another for gentrification reasons (such as for the cases studied by Herzfeld)
or because they were degrading a historically important site (as the case of Anafiotika
settlers studied by Caftanzoglou). They were targeted by a wartime policy of total
destruction, which reached the final stage of the Armenian Genocide in 1915. The
survivors were deported in regions distant from their homeland, as the deserts of
present-day Syria and Iraq, where they were relocated according to a demographic
policy ensuring that they did not exceed ten percent of local Muslim population.317 This
process differentiates substantially from the policies of spatial cleansing studied by the
two anthropologists, as the Ottoman Armenians were physically annihilated and
dislocated through the genocidal policies mentioned above.
Along with the physical annihilation, the Armenian material culture was subjected
to destruction. Again, the main cause of destruction was not because of gentrification or
312 Ibid, p. 45.
313 Ibid, p. 45.
314 Ibid, p. 46.
315 Ibid, p. 46.
316 Ibid, p. 46.
317 Akçam, pp. 247-249.
90
modernization reasons. The urban plans of Kayseri in the 1930’s and 1940’s, influenced
by western urban developments, were intended to modernize the town (which was
criticized to have a Middle Age appearance)318 and not to attack directly the architecture
of the non-Muslim communities.
3.3. Cultural Cleansing
Lemkin’s description of acts of vandalism as “an attack targeting a collectivity
can also take the form of systematic and organized destruction of the art and cultural
heritage in which the unique genius and achievement of a collectivity are revealed in
fields of science, arts and literature,”319 appears particularly appropriate for the Ottoman
Armenian architecture.320 Together with outright destruction or gradual neglect,
vandalism directed to the Armenian churches of Kayseri and its surroundings also
represent the removal of the local Armenian material culture with all its symbols and
artistic creations.
In order to understand the magnitude of overall destruction that affected the
Ottoman Armenian architecture, it is necessary to remember the numbers of Armenian
churches, monasteries and schools functioning in the Ottoman Empire. Since there are
several sources reporting different numbers, I chose to refer to Dickran Kouymjian’s
information about the number of Armenian churches, monasteries and schools in the
years 1913-1914 and in 1919. Kouymjian relies on Raymond Kevorkian and Paul
Paboudjian (1992), who reported data based on the unpublished archives of the
Armenian Patriarchate of Istanbul (1913-1914), which list 2538 churches, 451
monasteries and 1996 schools before 1915. 321 Avetis Aharonian and Boghos Nubar
Paşa, heads of the Armenian delegation at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919,
318 Çabuk, p. 68.
319 As cited in Balakian, p. 59.
320 Raphael Lemkin was a Polish lawyer who coined the term “genocide” in the mid-nineteenth century
and used it for the first time to define the Armenian massacres of 1915.
321 Raymond H. Kévorkian and Paul B Paboudjian, Les Arméniens dans l’Empire ottoman à la veille du
Génocide, (Paris: Arhis, 1992), p.222.
91
reported322 1860 Armenian churches, 229 monasteries, 1430 schools, 29 high schools
and seminaries, and 42 orphanages.323 Today, excluding Istanbul, the Armenians have
six functioning churches, no monasteries and no schools in Turkey.324
In absence of a complete list of Armenian churches of Kayseri and villages, this
study is basically based on Alboyajian’s information.325 I was able to calculate an
approximate number of churches and monasteries for Kayseri and surroundings.
Regarding the center of Kayseri there were four churches in 1915 (three of them
Gregorian and one Catholic), whereas in the villages there were thirty churches, for a
total of thirty-four churches. The number of the monasteries located in the periphery of
Kayseri and the villages resulted to be sixteen (See Chapter 2- Table 1 and Table 2).
Assuming that almost all of the churches and monasteries included a school, it is
possible to affirm the existence of approximately thirty schools. Today in Kayseri and in
the vicinity there is only one church still in function, Surp Lusavorich. One church used
as a sport center and now under restoration, Surp Asdvadzadzin. One is a mosque,
namely Fatih mosque in Develi. Some of the others are utilized as barns or storages, and
the rest are either in ruins or completely destroyed.326 Monasteries and schools, on the
other hand, have not survived to the present day, except for vague ruins observed at
Surp Garabed in Efkere and Surp Sarkis in Derevank.
The numbers show enormous loss of Armenian cultural property, especially
churches, monasteries and schools. The destruction of architecture also represents the
eradication of the spiritual and cultural expression of the Ottoman Armenians. Churches
and schools incorporated a significant aspect of the Armenian identity as “the Armenian
ethnic distinctiveness was culturally and intellectually reinforced by their fourth-century
conversion to Christianity” and “a large part of Armenia’s historical continuity was
embedded in churches, monasteries, and schools […]”327
322 They presented a report at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 entitled Tableau approximatif des
Réparations et Indemnités pour les dommages subis par la Nation arménienne en Arménie de Turquie et
dans la Republique arménienne du Caucase.
323 Kouymjian, p. 310.
324 Kouymjian, p. 310.
325 The Armenian Patriarchate of Istanbul provide as source Alboyajian stating that there is no a complete
list of churches in the Patriarchate records.
326 Refer to the catalogue of Chapter 2 for a detailed list of churches in Kayseri and the villages.
327 Balakian, p. 64.
92
The Armenian churches and monasteries, beyond their obvious religious function,
had a significant role in the daily life of the Armenians. The churches “were not simply
one-day-a-week houses of worship: they were civic spaces where much of the life of the
community occurred; they were repositories of every sort of antiquity, including sacred
manuscripts, tapestries and rugs, icons and paintings, stonework, carvings in various
media, and (of course) vital records.”328
Moreover, the churches constituted important meeting places for the Armenian
community where the most important events, as baptismal ceremonies, weddings and
the religious functions, took place. The importance of the churches for the community is
clearly visible in several memoirs. As ceremonies were attended regularly, churches
presented also an opportunity to meet with the other members of the community:
The church was the center of our social life in Tomarza, especially for the
youngsters, who were spending most of their time there, their school was
inside the church and after the classes the students used to pass their time
playing in the church courtyard.329,
The Holy Mass on Sunday was also an occasion to meet young girls and
boys of our age.330
After the Holy Mass we were spending the afternoon in the church
courtyard discussing about different topics.331
The church represented the most important meeting point for our
community […] we dressed up to attend the religious functions, as it was
also an occasion of meeting other people of our age.332
The church was the place where we were used to meet; we were attending
the church not only for the religious celebrations but also to be active in the
community.333
The Armenians were attending regularly the religious ceremonies of the churches
as of instance the case of Tomarza, where “the Armenians had always been very
religious and tradition oriented since the community was formed, and the people would
328 Balakian, p. 65.
329Sargis Jivanian, Drvagner Tomarzahay Kyanken,[Episodes of Tomarza Armenian Life], (Paris, 1960),
p. 44.
330 Ibid, p. 45.
331 Haroutiun Barootian, Reminiscences from Tomarza’s Past, (London: Taderon Press, 2007), p. 34.
332 Jivanian, p. 35.
333 Jivanian, p. 46.
93
go to the church morning and evening.”334 Furthermore, the people of Tomarza “were
always anxious to attend the Holy Thursday, Good Friday, Holy Saturday and Easter
Sunday celebrations” and “to listen to the eloquent sermons they would rush to church
en masse.”335 Also in Nirze the Armenians attended regularly the religious ceremonies
and the Holy Mass of Sunday represented an important event: “we were going to the
Church every Sunday for the Holy Mass, the entire family was participating to the
Mass, for me and my brothers was the chance to wear our nice clothes.”336
Moreover, the churches, especially in the villages, represented a physical
landmark and this aspect appears clearly from the memoirs, in which usually the church
was used a marker to give instruction about the location of their houses or shops. As
presented in the following excerpts from different memoirs, the churches represented
physically the center of the community and the structure of the entire village seems to
be organized around this center:
Our house was 200 meters from the church on the right.337
Our family house was located very close to the church, about 300 meters
on the left.338
Our family house and my father’s shop were situated just behind the
church.339
We lived in the center of Tomarza, 300 meters from the church.340
My family had a shop in Nirze, it was located very centrally on the left
side of the church.341
The church also appeared to be a source of pride for the Armenians, the churches
and monasteries in many cases eulogized as beautiful and wealthy buildings. As stated
in the memoirs from Tomarza:
334 Barootian, p. 35.
335 Barootian, p. 35.
336 Senekerim Khterian, Hamarot Patmutiun Kesarioi Nirze Gyughi [Brief history of the village of
Kayseri Nirze], p. 57.
337 Khterian, p. 56.
338 Khoren H. Gelejian (editor), Albom-Hushamatian Everek-Fenesei [Album-Memory Book of
Everek/Develi-Fenesse], (Beirut: Altapress, Lebanese branch of Everek-Feneseh Mesropian-Rupinian
Compatriotic Society, 1984), p. 22.
339 Jivanian, p. 37.
340 Jivanian, p. 37.
341 Nirze, p. 10.
94
Our two religious institutions (the church Surp Boghos Bedros and the
monstery of Surp Asdvadzadzin), with both antiquities and as beautiful
structures, were superb… Each artisan tried to excel his predecessors and
have thus enriched the collections of antiquities belonging to the monastery
and the church.342
The monastery had been established on a rich and fertile piece of land,
surrounded with orchards and fruit-bearing trees. Its real estate was valued
at approximately 40.000 Ottoman Turkish gold liras. It had precious
parchment manuscripts, gold-plated pyxes and cross-stones. Which ones
should I single out? They had very beautiful oil paintings that filled the
shrines.343
The description of the Armenian churches eulogizing their richness and beauty are
present in other memoirs as in the following:
Our church in Everek was very beautiful and its interior was full of light and
very rich…344
The convent of Surp Daniel was on a scenic plateau and surrounded by
lovely gardens. This prosperous convent owned properties not only in the
vicinity but also in neighboring villages, receiving from them a steady
source of income.345
The church walls were adorned with precious porcelain. There was also
the tomb of the hermit, near the choir loft, which had a canopy made of
gold, and its marble tombstone a clearly legible inscription…346
The churches, moreover, had an important educational function as they included
schools of different levels, which were actually built adjacent to the churches or in the
same yard. In the center of Kayseri in the late nineteenth century there were thirteen
Armenian schools, six of them were part of the churches’ complexes, while the others
were present in different quarters of the town. The two churches integrated in the
complex of Surp Asdvadzadzin church were the high school Haykian founded in late
342 Barootian, p. 35.
343 Ibid, p. 35.
344 Aleksan Krikorian, Evereg-Fenesse: Its Armenian History and Traditions,8(Detroit: Evereg-Fenesse
Mesrobian-Roupinian Educational Society, 1990), p. 56.
345 Chomaklou, p. 70.
346 Ibid, p. 70.
95
eighteenth century with 120 students in 1872, 230 in 1891 and 230 in 190; and the
female high school Haykuhiyan, founded in 1858 as part of Surp Asdvadzadzin Church
with 170 students in 1886 and 300 in 1891.347In the complex church of Surp Sarkis
(today completely destroyed) were the high school Hakobian probably founded in 1886,
with 130 students in 1886, 170 in 1891348 and 200 in 1901;349 and the Margosian school,
founded in the 1860’s with 70-80 students in 1886.350 The school with the greatest
number of students resulted to be Sarkis Gyumshian founded in 1868 as part of Surp
Lusavorich Church, with 95 students in 1868, 450 students in 1891351 and 800 students
in 1901.352 The catholic school Surp Khach was part of the Catholic Surp Khach
Church, which had 55 male students enrolled in 1901.353
In the villages, the schools were regularly adjacent to the churches. In Tavlusun,
the school Mesrobian was connected to the church of Surp Toros. In 1873 the number of
students enrolled was 45 boys and 30 girls, in 1901 the school had a total of 45
students.354 In Darsiyak the school Nersessian was located adjacent to the church of
Surp Toros.355 In Efkere the first Armenian school of the village was built in the 1820’s
and it was named Haygian School in the 1870’s. Before the construction of this school
there was just the religious school at Surp Garabed Monastery. In 1914 a new school
was built immediately adjacent to the church of Surp Stepanos.356In Germir, the school
Sahak-Bartevian was established in 1823 and in 1901 there were 115 students
enrolled.357 In Tomarza, the Sahakian school was built in 1837 at the same time as the
church of Surp Boghos and Bedros and in 1901 it had 280 male students.358
347 Der Matossian, p. 214.
348 Ibid, p. 214.
349 Uygur Kocabaşoğlu and Murat Uluğtekin, Salnamelerde Kayseri: Osmanlı ve Cumhuriyet Döneminin
Eski Harfli Yıllıklarında Kayseri, (Kayseri: Kayseri Ticaret Odası, 1998), p. 224.
350 Der Matossian, p. 214.
351 Ibid, p. 214.
352 Kocabaşoğlu and Uluğtekin, p. 224.
353 Ibid, p. 224.
354 Alboyajian, p. 760.
355 Alboyajian, p. 801.
356 www.efkere.com
357 Alboyajian, p. 760.
358 Barootian, p. 48.
96
3.4. Destruction of Material Culture
Ottoman Armenian material culture has been subjected to different strategies,
conceived to create a homogeneous material culture, which excluded ethnical
differentiations. Firstly, strategies of destruction and neglect aimed to erase “the ‘other’
as a material and historical entity and to render its traces in space and time invisible”
were employed on Ottoman Armenian structures.359 Secondly, the creation of an
‘indigenous’ bourgeoisie was possible through the transfer of the wealth of non-Muslim
communities to local Muslim communities.360 The last and more recent strategy
addresses to “the material re-production of geography and the re-construction of urban
space”361 through the destruction of old cities in Turkey and the transformation of
former residential areas into business districts.362 The urban development plans (imar
planları) for the majority of Anatolian cities and towns, including Kayseri in the 1930’s
and in the 1940’s, contributed to the destruction of the old cities.363 Not only the
architectural monuments, but a whole world of material culture, paintings and books,
textiles and tiles, and ritual books disappeared altogether.364
359 Öktem (2003), p. 7.
360 Ibid, p. 8.
361 Ibid, p. 8.
362 Öktem, p.8.
363 Suat Çabuk, “Kayseri’nin Cumhuriyet Dönemindeki İlk Kent Düzenlemesi: 1933 Çaylak Planı,”
Middle East Technical University Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, METU JFA, No.2 (2012) p.64.
See also Suat Çabuk, Kemal Demir, “Urban planning experience in Kayseri in the 1940s: 1945 Oelsner-
Aru City Plan”, ITU A/Z, Vol.10/No.1 (2013), pp. 96-116;
See also: Seda Çalışır Hovardaoğlu, “Kayseri Oelsner - Aru Planı ve Plan Uygulama Sürecinde Yerel
Yönetimlerin Rolü (1930-1965)”, Çağdaş Yerel Yönetimler, Vol.23/No.1 (January 2014), pp.39-55; H.
Çağatay Keskinok, “Urban Planning Experience of Turkey in the 1930s”, METU JFA, Vol.27/No.2
(2010), pp. 173-188;
364 For the churches’ material culture: Ronald Marchese and Marlene Breu, Splendor and Pageantry:
Textile Treasures from the Armenian Orthodox Churches of Istanbul, (Istanbul:Citlembik Publications,
2011); Dickran Kouymjian, “The Year of the Armenian Book: The 500th Anniversary of Armenian
Printing”, Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies 22 (2013, published 2014), pp. 309-330; Dickran
Kouymjian, “The Role of Armenian Potters of Kutahia in the Ottoman Ceramic Industry”, in Armenian
Communities in Asia Minor, Richard Hovannisian, (ed.), Armenian History and Culture Series: Historic
Armenian Cities and Provinces, UCLA, Vol.13, (Costa Mesa: Mazda Publishers, 2014), pp. 107-130;
Dickran Kouymjian, “Preface”, Armenian Rugs and Textiles. An Overview of Examples from Four
Centuries, Exhibition catalogue, (Vienna: Armenian Rugs Society, 2014), pp. 5-8; Dickran Kouymjian,
“An Armenian Liturgical Curtain”, Cleveland Art, The Cleveland Museum of Art Members Magazine,
(September/October 2014), pp. 12-13; Dickran Kouymjian, “The Melitene Group of Armenian Miniature
Painting in the Eleventh Century”, Armenian Kesaria/Kayseri and Cappadocia, proceedings of the
97
3.4.1.The Case of Ottoman Armenian Architecture of Kayseri and the
Villages
In the pursuit of ethnic cleansing or genocide and the rewriting of history in the
interest of the victor, architecture acquires a symbolic meaning as it represents the
presence of a community marked for erasure.365 It becomes subjected to an active and
systematic destruction “in conflicts where the erasure of memories, history and identity
attached to architecture and place – enforced forgetting – is the goal itself. These
buildings are attacked not because they are in the path of a military objective: to their
destroyers they are the objective.”366As such, Armenian buildings became the main
target of destruction and elimination as they represented Armenian presence in both
social and cultural terms. The demolition and the intentional neglect of Armenian
architecture underline a sense of inconvenience that the state has with its past and its
minority groups. In these terms “the Armenian architecture represents one of the guilty
reminders that have to be eliminated.”367
The process of destruction that affected the Armenian churches in Kayseri and in
the surrounding villages is mostly determined by neglect, which is due not only because
of the absence of a local Armenian population, but especially consists in willful neglect,
which developed in different forms. The destruction of churches I present in my thesis
and that I was able to see during my visit to Kayseri in November 2014, can partly be
formulated through the eight ways of destruction summarized by Dickran Kouymjian
after he testified before the Permanent People’s Tribunal of April 1984.
conference, in the series Historic Armenian Cities and Provinces, UCLA, May 17, 2003, Richard
Hovannisian, (ed.), (Costa Mesa: Mazda, 2013), pp. 79-115; Dickran Kouymjian, "Notes on Armenian
Codicology. Part 1: Statistics Based on Surveys of Armenian Manuscripts", Comparative Oriental
Manuscript Studies Newsletter, no. 4 (July 2012), pp. 18-23.
365 Robert Bevan, The Destruction of Memory: Architecture at War, (London: Reaktion Books, 2007), p.
8.
366 Ibid, p. 8.
367 Ibid, p. 58.
98
1) Willful destruction by fire or explosives of churches, civil buildings, and homes
during the period of the massacres.
Kouymjian argues that during the years 1915-1923 around 1000 Armenian
churches and monasteries were leveled to the ground while almost 700 were halfdestroyed.
For instance the historic city of Van was destroyed in 1919 and only few
ruins of the Armenian church of the city are left today.368 As in the case of Kayseri,
some churches were destroyed during or immediately after 1915.
The monastery of Surp Daniel in Balagesi was destroyed immediately after the
deportation of the Armenians from the village in 1915.369 Today it appears impossible to
locate the original location of the monastery in Balagesi. From a photograph (Fig.31)
present in Alboyajian’s history of Kayseri, the monastery appeared to be immediately
adjacent to the church of Surp Asdvadzadzin. According to Güner Sağır the church was
property of the Municipality of Balagesi and it was for sale in 2000.370 During my visit
to Balagesi in November 2014, I was not able to recognize the church and the Cultural
and Natural Heritage Conservation Board of Kayseri was not capable to provide any
information neither about the monastery nor about the church.
Surp Garabed monastery in Efkere was almost completely destroyed. Although
there are no references to an activity of destruction by explosives or artillery, it appears
clearly from its current condition that the monastic complex was subjected to a planned
destruction.371 The absence of almost the entire structure strongly suggests that this is
unlikely to have been caused only by neglect or absence of maintenance. The monastery
and the school appear to be open and in function until 1915, when the last class of
students graduated.372 Today there are only some ruins of the building foundations,
walls and arches (Fig.31).
368 Dickran Kouymjian, from a lecture’s paper of March 11, 2003 entitled When Does Genocide End? The
Armenian Case, p. 8.
369 Kevorkian, p. 514.
370 Sağır, p. 140.
371 Field visit to Efkere on 14 November 2014.
372 www.efkere.com, date of access 13 May 2014.
99
Fig.31 Ruins of Surp Garabed monastery in Efkere373
2) Subsequent, but conscious, destruction of individual monuments by explosives
or artillery.
Even though, neglect and reutilization are the two most common reasons of
destruction there are several missing churches in Kayseri and in the villages. It is
currently impossible to determinate their original location. I was not able to identify the
means and the exact date of destruction of these churches and for this reason, the
churches that appeared to be lost or in a condition of almost complete destruction are
included in this second point presented by Kouymjian.
The monastery of Surp Sarkis in Derevank was subjected to a process of planned
destruction. The building stood in a valley eight kilometers outside the center of Talas
and today appears to be almost completely destroyed, with only some ruins left, on
which it is possible to identify some remains of the original frescos (Fig.32).
373 Field visit to Efkere on 14 November 2014.
100
Fig.32 Surp Sarkis in Derevank374
The church of Surp Sarkis of Kayseri, described in detail by Alboyajian was
rebuilt in 1834, then renovated in 1884 and again in 1902.375 The church completely
disappeared and no records were found. A photograph dated 1910 shows the church still
standing and in good conditions at the time (Fig.33). In the work on Kayseri quarters by
Kemal Demir and Suat Çabuk the church of Surp Sarkis is located on a map in the
quarter of Eslim Paşa (Fig.34).376
Fig.33 Surp Sarkis church of Kayseri in 1910, completely absent today377
374 Field visit to Talas-Derevenk on 14 November 2014.
375 Alboyajian, p. 897.
376 Kemal Demir, Suat Çabuk, Türk Dönemi Kayseri Kenti ve Mahalleleri, (Kayseri: Erciyes Üniversitesi
Yayınları No: 188, 2013), p. 138.
377 Osman Köker, 100 Yil Önce Türkiye'de Ermeniler, (Istanbul: Birzamanlar Yayıncılık, 2005), p. 164.
101
Fig.34 Map of Kayseri’s quarters at the end of nineteenth century and the beginning of the
twentieth centurywith reference to Surp Sarkis Church378
The Catholic church of Surp Khach of Kayseri today has totally disappeared;
there are no records available about its location and the year of destruction. The two
Armenian churches of Talas, Surp Toros and Surp Asdvadzadzin are completely
destroyed with no remains to be seen today.
3) Destruction by willful neglect and the encouragement of trespassing by
peasants
In several cases stones belonging to Armenian churches have been removed and
used as building material by the local population. Especially in Eastern Anatolia, as for
the church of Tekor in the region of Kars, and the church of Surp Asdvadzadzin at
Soradir, a monastic complex situated east of Lake Van, the stones taken from the
Armenian churches were utilized as construction material for private houses.379 In the
villages surrounding Kayseri there are clear signs of vandalism, neglect and villages,
and the churches appear to be completely available to trespassing by peasants, as there
is no control by the authorities.
378 Demir, Çabuk, p. 138.
379 Dickran Kouymjian, from a lecture’s paper of March 11, 2003 entitled When Does Genocide End? The
Armenian Case, p. 8.
102
The question of gold seeking by the peasants constituted another significant cause
of damage to the Armenian architecture. During the deportation of the Armenians
rumors had spread that they had buried their gold in their houses or gardens and their
empty houses were often ransacked and their gardens dug and damaged by their
neighbors.380 The same happened to the churches, greatly destroyed by gold seekers.
Many examples of Armenian churches in Kayseri and in the villages display the signs of
destruction of their interior pavement caused by excavations.
Fig.35 Sign posted on the door of the Greek Monastery of Taksiarhis in Darsiyak saying “It is
forbidden to dig inside the church”.381
The Church of Surp Toros in Tavlusun seems to have suffered from vandalism,
theft, pillaging, and neglect. The destruction of the inscription above the entrance door
and the presence of writings on the internal wall paintings echo conscious and
unconscious acts of vandalism suffered by several non-Muslim religious sites in Turkey.
The partial destruction of the naos pavement was caused by treasure seekers; remains of
the stones removed by the treasure seekers can still be seen at the site.382 The fact that
some stones appeared to have been detached from the courtyard, might be explained
380 Uğur Ümit Üngör and Mehmet Polatel, Confiscation and Destruction: The Young Turk Seizure of
Armenian Property, (London: Continuum, 2011), p. 71.
381 Field visit to Darsiyak (Karabağ) on 14 November 2014. The practice of excavations inside the
churches appear to be usual practice as there is the need for a sign to prohibit it.
103
with usual practice of utilizing stones from churches as construction material for private
buildings, as houses, storages and surrounding walls. The main cause of deterioration is
neglect, especially for the presence of rainwater and vegetation inside the church, which
caused the deterioration of the stucco in the interiors.383
Fig.36 Surp Toros church interior and holes caused by probable treasure seekers.384
Surp Stepanos Church in Efkere was subjected to acts of vandalism by treasure
seekers and episodes of stealing of the columns of the entrance and of the apse. As for
many other churches the collapse of the dome and the lack of repair appear to be an
intentional move which led to the deterioration of the church’s interiors. This church is
today part of a private property and for this reason locked, even if it does not seem to be
utilized.
Surp Khach Church in Balagesi was left in a state of neglect after 1915, which led
to the deterioration of the building and the remains were left to the usage by the local
people and today it appears to be used as sheepfold.385
Surp Toros Church in Derevank has been almost totally destroyed by acts of
vandalism and illegal excavations. What remains of the church is utilized as sheepfold,
presenting the frontal door partially closed with stones.386
Surp Stepanos Church in Germir completely lost any reference of being a church
as it has turned into a dwelling in bad shape. During my visit to Germir I was able to see
383 Açıkgöz, p. 43.
384 Field visit to Tavlasun on 14 November 2014.
385 Sağır, p.125.
386 Sağır, p.130.
104
only the exterior of what remains from the original structure and the courtyard (Fig.37,
Fig.38).
Fig.37 Surp Stepanos in Germir used today as private habitation387
Fig.38 The courtyard of Surp Stepanos in Germir as part of the habitation388
Surp Toros of Fenese389 is today used as a barn (Fig.41, Fig.42). Being part of a
private house it is not possible to visit the interior without the permission of the owner.
Its exterior lost any indication of being a church and resembles an external storage
adjacent to the house.390
387 Field visit to Germir on 14 November 2014.
388 Field visit to Germir on 14 November 2014.
389 Fenese along with Everek is part of Develi.
390 Field visit to Develi on 15 November 2014.
105
Fig.39 One of the exterior walls of the church of Surp Toros in Fenese391
Fig.40 The interior of the church currently used as a barn today392
Surp Boghos Bedros Church in Tomarza was utilized as storage after 1915, used
as a cinema in later years and finally it was transformed into a storage belonging to the
Municipality of Tomarza in 1978. Its interior was almost entirely destroyed and the
arches were filled with stones along with the windows closed with bricks (Fig.17)393
4) Conversion of Armenian churches into mosques, museums, prisons, sporting
centers, granaries, stables, and farms.
After 1915 many Armenian churches began to be used for different purposes, as
mosques, museums, cultural centers, sport centers, cinemas, barns, storages, and farms.
391 Personal visit in October 2014.
392 Ibid.
393 Açıkgöz, p. 123.
106
In Kayseri and in the villages many of the Armenian churches are today utilized for
different functions.
Surp Toros Church of Everek (Develi) remained unused and empty after 1915
until 1978 when it was restored and converted into a mosque (Fatih Camii) (Fig.18).394
Surp Asdvadzadzin Church in Kayseri has served as a storage, an exhibition hall
and a police station after 1915. Used as a sport center from 1961 onwards, the building
is currently under restoration to be utilized as a cultural center (Fig.2, Fig.3, Fig.4).395
5) Destruction by failure to provide minimal maintenance.
This aspect appears to be common for majority of the churches, literally the
buildings that have not been reutilized for different purposes went through a process of
destruction due to the absence of minimal maintenance. The buildings which have not
been utilized for a specific function have turned into ruins. Lack of minimal
maintenance appears to be a serious cause of destruction. There are almost no activities
such as the removal of vegetation from the exterior and the interior of the churches,
cause of deterioration of the frescos, or a basic reconstruction of the missing churches’
domes that represent a significant cause of the internal deterioration because of the
exposition to atmospheric factors.
Fig.41 The absence of the dome and growing vegetation inside Surp Stepanos church of Efkere396
394 Açıkgöz, p. 130.
395 From a personal meeting at the Cultural and Natural Heritage Conservation Board of Kayseri (Kültür
ve Tabiat Varlıklarını Koruma Kurulu) on 14 November 2014.
107
The dome of Surp Stepanos church in Efkere is absent and no reparations have
been done in order to prevent the deterioration of the interiors caused by the absence of
the dome and by the exposure to different climatic conditions (Fig.41).
Fig.42 The absent dome of Surp Stepanos church in Efkere397
6) Demolition for the construction of roads, bridges, or other public works.
This practice is not prevalent in the case of Kayseri. Especially, in the villages
there have not been any specific public works involving the destruction of churches.
7) Neutralizing of a monument’s Armenian identity by effacing its Armenian
inscriptions.
The removal or destruction of churches’ inscriptions, in order to erase any
reference to the origins and identity of the building, is a practice utilized both if the
church is employed for other purposes and also if it has been left in ruins. Regarding the
churches of Kayseri analyzed in this thesis, almost all inscriptions, reporting the date of
construction and other important information, have been removed. This procedure
appears to be adopted “understandably” when the church has been transformed and used
for other purposes, but the inscriptions appear to have been removed or made illegible
even when the church has been left in a status of neglect. Among the Armenian
396 www.efkere.com
397 Field visit to Efkere on 14 November 2014.
108
churches of Kayseri and surrounding villages only one inscription is still intact and
legible, that is the one of Surp Lusavorich, which is the only church still in use (Fig.43).
Fig. 43 Inscription above the main entrance of Surp Lusavorich Church in Kayseri398
Surp Stepanos Church in Efkere is an example of neutralized identity through the
removal of inscriptions. The inscriptions on the main door of the church have been
covered with plaster rending them unreadable and thus non-existent (Fig.44).399
Fig.44 Covered inscription on the main door of Surp Stepanos church in Efkere400
The internal inscription of Surp Asdvadzadzin Church in the center of Kayseri,
now the sport center under restoration, results illegible because of an additional
inscription in Turkish applied on the original one in Armenian (Fig.46).401
398 Field visit to Kayseri on 13 November 2014.
399 Field visit to Efkere on 14 November 2014.
400 Field visit to Efkere on 14 November 2014.
401 During my visit to Kayseri I was not able to visit the interior of the church as today it is closed and
under restoration, for this reason I referred to the descripition provided by Şeyda Güngör Açıkgöz in her
unpablished PhD dissertation “Kayseri ve Çevresindeki 19.Yüzyıl Kiliseleri ve Korunmaları İçin Öneriler,
İ.T.Ü., İstanbul, 2007, p. 376.
109
Fig.45 Example of initiative to remove the Armenian inscription of the Church of Surp
Asdvadzadzin of Kayseri now used as a sport center.402
8) The intentional reattribution of buildings, especially of monuments of touristic
importance, to Turkish, usually medieval Seljuk architecture.403
The practice of reattribution of buildings to Turkish or Seljuk architecture appear
to be used particularly for the city of Ani, which is indicated in the touristic indications
as “Anı” (“memory” in Turkish) and no references to the Armenian past of the city are
mentioned.404 This practice is not used in the case of Kayseri and in the surrounding
villages. The villages are not touristic destination and there are no indications for
tourists. The functioning church in Kayseri is mostly visited by the Armenians attending
the celebrations once a year and it does not seem to be visited for touristic purposes.
Actually, the church is located in a residential area outside the city center, where the
main touristic attractions (Museum of Seljuk civilization, Seljuk medreses and tombs)
are concentrated.
The ways summarized by Kouymjian suggest a useful model to categorize the
destruction and neglect that took place in Kayseri and in the villages. Accordingly, it is
possible to categorize the churches analyzed in this study in four main groups:
402 Açıkgöz, p. 376.
403 Dickran Kouymjian, “Confiscation of Armenian Property and the Destruction of Armenian Historical
Monuments as a Manifestation of the Genocidal Process”, in Anatomy of Genocide: State-Sponsored
Mass-Killings in the Twentieth Century, Alexandre Kimenyi and Otis L. Scott (Eds), (New York: Edwin
Mellen Press, 2011), pp. 312-313.
404 Personal visit to Ani in September 2010.
110
1.Churches preserved in the original structure because of their employment for different
purposes (mosques, cultural center, storages): Surp Asdvadzadzin in Kayseri (utilized as
sport center and now under restoration), Surp Toros in Everek (today Fatih mosque of
Develi).
2.Churches neglected and trespassed by the local population: Surp Toros in Tavlasun, Surp
Stepanos in Efkere, Surp Khach in Balagesi, Surp Toros in Derevank.
3.Ruined churches which are now part of private property of local inhabitants: Surp
Stepanos in Efkere, Surp Stepanos in Germir, Surp Toros in Fenese, Surp Boghos
Bedros in Tomarza.
4.Destroyed churches: Surp Sarkis church of Kayseri, Surp Khach in Kayseri, Surp
Garabed monastery in Efkere, Surp Sarkis monastery in Derevank, Surp Asdvadzadzin
in Gesi, Surp Toros and Surp Asdvadzadzin in Talas.
Ten out of sixteen churches included in the catalogue (Chapter 2) were subjected
to willful neglect and appropriation by the local population leading to a complete
neutralization of the buildings, erasing any reference to their past as Armenian churches.
This aspect is considered as dangerous as the direct destruction of the building, as
private ownership contributes to the deterioration of the few examples of Armenian
churches remaining in the villages and prevents any possible conservation activity.
Among the churches investigated in this study, only three churches have
preserved their architectonic features, at least externally. One is Surp Krikor Lusavorich
in Kayseri, which still functions as a church and is open once a year for Easter
celebrations. Surp Toros church in Everek owes its architectural survival to its
conversion into a mosque in 1978, namely the Fatih mosque of Develi. The third
surviving structure, Surp Asdvadzadzin in Kayseri, was employed for various purposes
after losing her status as a church. Utilized as storage, exhibition hall, sport center the
building seems to have been relatively well-maintained.405 The rest of the analyzed
churches are either partially destroyed or seized by the local population. As the new
owners were allowed to use the building, they also could alter the original structure of
the churches.
405 Field visit to Kayseri on 13 November 2014.
111
3.4.2 Armenian Churches as Private or State Properties Today
The process of appropriation of the churches by the Municipalities or by private
persons is not clear. Neither the Municipality nor the employees of the Cultural and
Natural Heritage Conservation Board of Kayseri were able to provide any valid
documentation on how the process of selling and purchasing of Armenian churches
actually took place. According to the Cultural and Natural Heritage Conservation Board
of Kayseri, the Armenian churches in the villages were just given to the local population
in the 1930’s. The authorities explain that there are effective owners of the buildings,
thus restoration would be possible only after the purchase of the buildings from the
actual owners.406
It appears that the concession of Armenian churches from the state to the local
population, which was located approximately in 1930’s by the employees of the
Cultural and Natural Heritage Conservation Board of Kayseri, can be contextualized
within the framework of the confiscation of the Armenian properties in 1915.
After the deportation, on 10 June 1915, the Ottoman government adopted a secret
order for the local governments on how to administer the Armenian properties. This
secret order also included the formation of specific commissions to manage the
properties and lands belonging to Armenians. The amount and the value of the
properties along with the names of the owners were registered in detail. The movable
properties were to be preserved in the name of the owners, but in the case that the owner
was unknown the property was to be registered and preserved in the name of the village.
Perishable properties and livestock were to be sold at auction together with the crops
harvested from the abandoned lands. The proceeds would then be collected in the
finance office in the names of the owners.407 Moreover, “the goods, pictures, sacraments
and holy books kept at the churches would be preserved in stores after they were
registered and listed.”408
406 Personal meeting at the Cultural and Natural Heritage Conservation Board of Kayseri on 14 November
2014.
407Uğur Ümit Üngör and Mehmet Polatel, Confiscation and Destruction: The Young Turk Seizure of
Armenian Property, (London: Continuum, 2011), p. 44.
408 Üngör, Polatel, p. 44.
112
By September 1915, the confiscation of all buildings and land was implemented
by the Ministries of Interior, Justice and Finance. In November 1915, a new regulation
giving direct indications about the immovable properties of the Armenians and the
properties of churches was adopted. Although church properties were already registered
and preserved, this new regulation transferred the usage rights of the materials of the
schools to the Ministry of Education.409 In this process all the lands owned by the
Church were seized as well. During this confiscation and purchase process many
Armenian churches were used as storages and auction sites.410 I strongly believe that the
appropriation of the Armenian churches of Kayseri and the villages by the state and its
distribution to the local population is part of the plan of confiscation of Armenian
properties in 1915.
The process of confiscation of Armenian properties is studied by Uğur Üngör and
Mehmet Polatel, considering the expropriation of Armenians not as primarily moved by
economic interests, not even by an economic necessity to stabilize the state economy.
The authors explain that
the Young Turks made it clear, time and again, that the ‘Armenian question’
constituted a national question, not an economic one. Most of all, if the
Armenians’ ties to Anatolia comprised their ownership of property, then to
break those ties, the property needed to be appropriated. In other words, the
object of Young Turk policies was not the property, but the people.411
Since architecture was part of the immovable wealth of the Ottoman Armenians, a
similar question can be asked concerning Ottoman Armenian architecture: was the
destruction and appropriation of Armenian buildings motivated by economic reasons
and material gain? Considering the process of destruction, neglect and transformation as
part of a strategy aimed to break the Armenians’ ties with Anatolia, I argue that the
attacks on architecture were direct attacks at the people.
Paradoxically the illegal seizure of Armenian property by the Young Turk regime
developed as a legal act, through a series of laws and secret regulations decreed by the
409 Üngör and Polatel, p. 47.
410 Üngör and Polatel, p. 47.
411 Ibid, p. 166.
113
regime itself. Firstly, the Armenian properties were conceived by the Ottoman
legislation as “abandoned properties” (emval-ı metruke), differently from the other
communities the Armenians were referred as ‘deserters and missing people’ and the
laws on abandoned properties were applied only to them.412 Secondly, the CUP,
immediately after the adaptation of the deportation decision on 30 May 1915 included
specific articles on property, aimed at ‘protecting’ the properties “left behind or
returning the net value of these properties to the deported Armenians.”413
Consequently all the properties, including land of the evacuated villages and
towns, were distributed to the local Muslim population. The fate of ‘abandoned’
Armenian properties is quite clear, but what about the Armenian architecture of
Kayseri? Could it be reduced to those confiscated ‘abandoned’ properties? As
mentioned earlier architecture was mostly subjected to destruction and removal, but a
certain number of buildings, mostly churches were used for other purposes, an aspect
that appears as another instance of seizure of the Armenian property. Actually during
the expropriation process the Interior Ministry promulgated a decree for the conversion
of ‘abandoned’ Armenian buildings, with enough large enough dimensions, into
prisons, followed by an investigation of the adequate buildings in May 1916.414
Obviously for their dimensions, churches appeared to be the most suitable
buildings to be used as prisons, and thus, “every province reported the number of
buildings convenient for conversion into prisons; the numbers ranged from two to
eleven in different provinces and districts.”415 Another manner of appropriation of
Armenian churches by the State was conversion into police stations, as the case of
Izmit, where “at least three large Armenian community buildings were turned into
police stations.”416 Regarding the churches in Kayseri, there are three examples of
churches, which have been seized for state purposes. One is Surp Asdvadzadzin,
situated in the town center, which was used after 1915 as a warehouse of the
Municipality before being utilized as an exhibition salon and finally as a sport center.417
412 Ibid, p. 43.
413 Ibid, p. 44.
414 Üngör and Polatel, p. 82.
415 Ibid, p. 83.
416 Ibid, p. 83.
417 Açıkgöz, p. 123
114
Today the church is under restoration as a property of the Municipality of Kayseri and
will be used as cultural center. The second example is Everek Surp Toros Church,
which was used for a while as a Municipality’s building and as a police station418 and
was transformed into a mosque in 1978.419 The third example is the church of Surp
Boghos Bedros in Tomarza, which is being used as a storage by the local
Municipality.420
418 Açıkgöz, p. 130
419 Açıkgöz, p. 130
420 From a personal meeting at Cultural and Natural Heritage Conservation Board of Kayseri on 14
November 2014
115
CONCLUSION
The study has attempted to analyze the Armenian religious architectural heritage
of Kayseri and its surrounding villages, with a particular focus on the process of
destruction which has affected majority of the Armenian churches in the region. Among
all the examples of Ottoman Armenian architecture, churches proved to be the most
exemplificative study case which enabled me to demonstrate how they were subjected
to planned destruction and neglect. Kayseri proved to be an interesting example to
understand the magnitude of the devastation process, especially for the considerable
number of Armenian churches that were once there both in the city center and in the
surrounding villages. In fact, after a reconstruction phase developed around the year
1835, after a major earthquake which affected Kayseri and the villages, the region
presented around 34 Armenian churches and 16 medieval monasteries, of which almost
the entirety has been destroyed, left in total disrepair or used for other purposes.
Through the information collected I was able to catalog them, including their current
condition and approximately locate their position on a map.
After having identified the magnitude of destruction, I applied the eight strategies
of destruction summarized by Kouymjian to seventeenth churches and monasteries in
Kayseri and villages. The results of my analysis showed that currently:
· One single church still retains its function,
· Two structures have been preserved because they have been used for other purposes,
· Nine churches were neglected, were trespassed by the local population or have
became part of private property,
· And finally seven churches have been completely destroyed,
· No monasteries have survived, with the exception of some ruins.
Furthermore, the thesis aimed to contextualize the destruction of the religious
Armenian architecture of Kayseri in relation with the concepts of spatial and cultural
cleansing. A study on architecture has inevitably to deal with the concept of space,
which in this particular case was subjected to different policies as demographic and
116
toponymical engineering, and spatial cleansing. These three policies all interested the
Armenians of Kayseri and their villages, thus firstly the Ottoman Armenians were
physically annihilated, secondly the names of their villages were transformed and
finally their religious architecture was subjected to a gradual process of destruction,
neglect and transformation.
In addition, architecture is a cultural production and its destruction is a part of
process of cultural cleansing, which also includes specific artistic styles and
construction techniques proper of the Ottoman Armenian religious architecture. Both
residential and religious architecture are a product of a specific culture, with its symbols
and meanings, including a strong relation with identity. The Armenian religious
architecture of Kayseri represented the culture of the local Armenian community, thus,
its destruction caused the disappearance of that particular culture from the region. Along
with building, also all the material culture of the churches disappeared as no record of
paintings, textiles, and books can be located at the moment. Moreover, the churches
were the social and educational centers of the community. The network of schools was
an integral part of the churches and their destruction also represented the end of the
transmission and reproduction of the Armenian culture and deterioration of the
communal ethnos. The
The study presented two main difficulties. The first one revolves around the
impossibility of obtaining a complete list of churches from the Armenian Patriarchate of
Istanbul, which rendered the research particularly difficult and limiting, as I had to base
my investigation on Alboyajian’s works and available secondary literature. The second
difficulty concerns the reconstruction of the churches’ history, as it is extremely
difficult to find documentation and to understand what happened when and where.
The field work in Kayseri was particularly useful to understand the current
condition of the churches and to realize the existence of intricate questions as the
churches’ ownership by the local population and by the municipality. Unfortunately, I
was not able to reconstruct the process through which Armenian churches became part
of a private property or how the municipally was able to purchase the churches and
utilize them for different purposes. I believe this is the most significant missing element
117
in this thesis and needs further investigation to reconstruct a complete history of the
churches.
Despite limited time and sources, some deductions of the present study would be
relevant for future research in the Ottoman Armenian cultural heritage. A detailed
research might be conducted by using Armenian and Ottoman archival sources and
photographs collected in different Armenian institutions. The numerous memoirs
written by the Genocide survivors from Kayseri and the villages represent a rich source
and should be investigated further, as they reveal several significant aspects of the
churches and their role in the Armenian community. Moreover, the local newspapers
could be used for further investigation as they can reveal some clues about the
ownership of the churches and can provide information regarding usage of these
churches by local municipalities. A further research should be conducted on the master
plans (imar planları) that interested Kayseri in the 1930s and in the 1940s to investigate
any possible relation to the destruction of some of the churches analyzed in this thesis.
118
APPENDIX 1: CHRONOLOGY
1835- Major earthquake in Kayseri
1839- Tanzimat reforms
1843- Kayseri Poll tax registers (Kayseri Cizye defteri)
1845- Settlement of Nomadic tribes in Kayseri and surrounding villages
1847- Wave of cholera in Kayseri
1856-57 - The sancak of Kayseri was transferred from the Karaman Eyalet to the Bozok
Eyalet
1863- Armenian constitution
1867- The sancak of Kayseri was connected to the vilayet of Ankara.
1874- Famine in Kayseri and villages
1894-1896- Hamidian massacres
1915- Armenian genocide
1915-1918- Legalization of Pillage of Armenian properties
1916- Turkification of place names
1920s- Economic Turkification
1930s and 1940s- Urban development plans (imar planları) of Kayseri
119
APPENDIX 2: The Ottoman Armenian population in 1914421
Administrative
Area
Armenians
Armenian
Catholics
Edirne 19,725 48
Erzurum 125,657 8,720
Istanbul 72,962 9,918
Adana 50,139 2,511
Ankara 44,507 7,069
Aydın 19,395 892
Bitlis 114,704 2,788
Beirut 1,188 277
Aleppo 35,104 5,739
Bursa 58,921 1,278
Diyarbekir 55,890 9,960
Syria 413 247
Sivas 143,406 3,693
Trabzon 37,549 1,350
Kastamonu 8,959 0
Konya 12,971 0
Elazığ 76,070 3,751
Van 67,792 0
Eskişehir 8,276 316
Antalya 630 0
Urfa 15,161 1,557
Içel 341 0
Izmit 55,403 449
Bolu 2,961 9
Samsun 27,058 261
Çatalca 842 0
Zor 67 215
Jerusalem 1,310 0
Afyon 7,437 2
Balıkesir 8,544 109
Çanakkale 2,474 0
Kayseri 48,659 1,515
421 Summary of the Ottoman Population, 1914 in Taner Akçam, The Young Turks’ Crime Against
Humanity: The Armenian Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing in the Ottoman Empire, Princeton University
Press, Princeton and Oxford, 2012, p. 262
120
Kütahya 3,910 638
Maraş 27,842 4,480
Menteşe 12 0
Niğde 4,890 0
Total 1,161,169 67,838
121
Bibliography
Açıkgöz Güngör, Şeyda. “Armenians and the Churches of Kayseri in the 19th Century”
in Armenians in the Ottoman Society Erciyes University 1st International Social
Symposium [EUSA-1] v. II, Kayseri: Erciyes University Printing House, n. 162, 2007,
(pp. 399-415)
Açıkgöz Güngör, Şeyda, and Zeynep Ahunba. “19.yüzyıl Kayseri kiliseleri için koruma
önerileri,” İtü dergisi/a mimarlık, planlama, tasarım 7/:2, 26-37, September 2008
Alboyajian, Arshag. Patmutiun Hay Kesario, Cairo: Kesario ev Shrjakayits
Hayrenaktsakan Miutiun, Vols. I-II, 1937
Akçam, Taner. The Young Turks’ Crime against Humanity: The Armenian Genocide
and Ethnic Cleansing in the Ottoman Empire, Princeton University Press, 2013.
Balakian, Peter. “Raphael Lemkin, Cultural Destruction, and the Armenian Genocide,”
in Holocaust and Genocide Studies, vol.27, no.1, Oxford University Press, (Spring
2013), pp.57-89
Bevan, Robert. The Destruction of Memory: Architecture at War, London: Reaktion
Books, 2007
Büyükmıhçı, Gonca. Bilimsel Eleştiri Hakkının Yanlış Kullanıldığı Bir Örnek Üzerine,
"METU, JFA", Vol.23, No.1, (2006), pp. 171-179
Büyükmıhçı, Gonca. Kayseri'de yaşam ve konut kültürü, Kayseri: Erciyes Üniversitesi,
2005
Caftanzoglou, Roxane. “The Shadow of the Sacred Rock: Contrasting Discourses of
Place under the Acropolis”, in Contested Landscapes: Movement, Exile and Place,
Barbara Bender and Margot Winer (eds), Oxford: Berg Publishers, 2001
Cömert, Hüseyin. 19. Yüzyılda Kayseri, Kayseri: Mazaka Yayıncılık, 2007
Cömert, Hüseyin. Gesi Vadisi: Gesi, Efkere, Darsiyak, Nize, Balagesi, Mancusun, Gesi
Vakfı Kültür, 2011
Çabuk, Suat and Demir, Kemal. “Urban planning experience in Kayseri in the 1940s:
1945 Oelsner-Aru City Plan”, ITU A/Z, Vol.10, No.1, (2013), pp. 96-11
Çabuk, Suat and Demir, Kemal. Türk Dönemi Kayseri Kenti ve Mahalleri, Erciyes
Üniversitesi Yayınları No. 188, Kayseri, 2013
122
Gabriel, Albert. Monuments Turcs D’Anatolie: Kayseri-Nigde, Paris: E. de Boccard,
1931
Herzfeld, Michael. “Spatial Cleansing: Monumental Vacuity and the Idea of the West”,
in Journal of Material Culture, Vol.11, No.2, London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New
Delhi: SAGE Publications, (2006), pp.127-149
Hovannisian, Richard G. (ed). Armenian Kesaria/Kayseri and Cappadocia, UCLA
Armenian History & Culture Series, Costa Mesa: Mazda Publisher, 2013
Hülagü, M. Metin. “Ondokuzuncu Asrın Ortalarında Kayseri’de Aşiret Olayları (1845-
1865)” in Geçmişte İzleriyle Kayseri, Mustafa Keskin and M. Metin Hülagü (eds),
Kayseri: Erciyes Üniversitesi, 2007
Ilter, Fügen. Kayseri’de XIX. yüzyıldan iki kilise: Darsiyak ve Evkere, Anadolu XXII,
(1981), pp. 353-370
Ilter, Fügen. XIX. Yüzyıl Osmanlı Dönemi Mimarlığında, Kayseri Yöresi Hıristiyan
Yapıları: Germir ve Endülük Kiliseleri, Belleten, Vol. I, No.II, (December 1988),
pp.1663-1682.
Imamoğlu, Vacit. Geleneksel Kayseri Evleri, Ankara: LAGA Basim-Yayin, 1992
Imamoğlu, Vacit. Gesi Evleri, Kayseri: Kayseri Büyükşehir Belediyesi, 2010
Imamoğlu, Vacit. Kayseri Bağ Evleri, Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2001
Imamoğlu, Vacit. "Kayseri'de Yaşam ve Konut Kültürü" Kitabı Üzerine, "METU, JFA",
Vol.23, No.1, (2006), pp.83-92.
Jennings, C. Ronald. “Urban Population in Anatolia in the Sixteenth Century: a Study of
Kayseri, Karaman, Amasya, Trabzon, and Erzurum,” International Journal Middle East
Studies, No.7, (1976), pp. 21-57
Jennings, C. Ronald. Studies on the Ottoman Social History in the Sixteenth and
Seventeenth Centuries: Women, Zimmis and Sharia Courts in Kayseri, Cyprus and
Trabzon, Istanbul: Isis Press, 1999
Keskin, Mustafa. “Kayseri Yöresindeki Aşiretlerin İskanı Hakkında”, in Geçmişte
İzleriyle Kayseri, Mustafa Keskin and M. Metin Hülagü (eds), Kayseri: Erciyes
Üniversitesi, 2007
Kevorkian, H. Raymond and Paboudjian, B. Paul. Les Armeniens dans l'Empire
Ottoman a la veille du genocide, Paris: Editions d'art et d'histoire, 1992
123
Kocabaşoğlu, Uygur and Uluğtekin, Murat. Salnamelerde Kayseri: Osmanlı ve
Cumhuriyet Döneminin Eski Harfli Yıllıklarında Kayseri, Kayseri: Kayseri Ticaret
Odası, Kayseri, 1998
Köker, Osman, 100 Yil Önce Türkiye'de Ermeniler, Istanbul: Birzamanlar Yayıncılık,
2005
Kouymjian, Dickran. “Confiscation of Armenian Property and the Destruction of
Armenian Historical Monuments as a Manifestation of the Genocidal Process,”
Anatomy of Genocide: State-Sponsored Mass-Killings in the Twentieth Century,
Lewiston, Alexandre Kimenyi and Otis L. Scott (eds), New York: Edwin Mellen Press,
2011
Kouymjian, Dickran. “The Crime Against Cultural Heritage and Historical Memory:
The Question of Abandoned Property,” The Crime of Genocide: Prevention,
Condemnation and Elimination of Consequences, Aram Harutyunyan (ed), Erevan:
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2011
Kouymjian, Dickran. “The Destruction of Armenian Historical Monuments as a
Continuation of the Turkish Policy of Genocide,” A Crime of Silence: The Armenian
Genocide, London: Zed Books, 1985
Kouymjian, Dickran. “When Does Genocide End? The Armenian Case”, lecture of 11
March2003,online:http://armenianstudies.csufresno.edu/faculty/kouymjian/speechs/200
3_kouymjian_when_does_genocide_end.pdf
Öktem, Kerem. “Creating the Turk’s Homeland: Modernization, Nationalism and
Geography in Southeast Turkey in the late 19th and 20th Centuries,” Paper for the
Socrates Kokkalis Graduate Workshop: The City:Urban Culture, Arcitecture and
Society, 2003
Öktem, Kerem. “The Nation’s Imprint: Demographic Engineering and the Change of
Toponymes in Republican Turkey”, in European Journal of Turkish Studies, no. 7, 2008
Özbek, Yıldıray and Arslan, Celil. Kayseri Taşınmaz Kültür Varlıkları Envanteri,
Kayseri Büyükşehir Belediye, 2006
Sağır, Güner. “Kayseri'de Osmanli Döneminde İnşa Edilmiş Bir Grup Ermeni Kilisesi
I”, Türk Arkeoloji ve Etnografya Dergisi 4, Ankara, (2004), pp.61-63
Sağır, Güner. “Kayseri’de Osmanlı Dönemi’nde İnşa Edilmiş Bir Grup Ermeni Kilisesi
II”,http://turkleronline.net/diger/ermeniler/ermenikiliseleri/kayseride_ermenikiliseleri_a
nasayfa.htm
Thierry, Jean-Michel. Armenian Art, New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1989
124
Üngör, U. Ümit and Polatel, Mehmet. Confiscation and Destruction: The Young Turk
Seizure of Armenian Property, New York: Continuum, 2011
Yörük, Doğan. “H. 1259/ M. 1843 Tarihli Cizye Defterlerine göre Kayseri’de Rum ve
Ermeniler”, Turkish Studies, International Periodical For The Languages, Literature
and History of the Turkish or Turkic, Vol. 8, No.11, (Fall 2013), pp.
The Famine in Asia-Minor: Its history, compiled from the pages of the “Levent
Herald,” Istanbul: Isis Press, 1989
Memoirs and concise histories:
Barootian, Haroutiun. Reminiscences from Tomarza’s Past, Taderon Press, London,
2007
Gelejian, H. Khoren (ed).Ալպոմ- յուշամատեան Էվերէկ-Ֆենեսէի [Album-Memory
Book of Everek/Develi-Fenesse], Beirut: Altapress, Lebanese branch of Everek-Feneseh
Mesropian-Rupinian Compatriotic Society, 1984
Հին եւ նոր Կեսարիա, յուշամատեան [Old and New Kesaria/Kayseri, Memory
Book], Azet Press, published by Paris branch of Kesaria and Environs Compatriotic
Union, Paris, 1989
Kalfaian, Aris. Chomaklou: The History of an Armenian Village, Translated by Krikor
Asadourian, Chomaklou Compatriotic Society, New York, 1982
Khetrian, Senekerim. Համառօտ պատմութիւն Կեսարիոյ Նիրզէ գիւղի [Concise
History of Kesaria/Kayseri’s Nirze/Güzelköy Village], Watertown, 1918
Krikorian, Aleksan. Evereg-Fenesse: Its Armenian History and Traditions. Detroit, MI:
Evereg-Fenesse Mesrobian-Roupinian Educational Society, 1990
Jivanian, Sargis. Դրուագներ թոմարզահայ կեանքէն [Episodes of Tomarza
Armenian Life], Paris, 1960
Unpublished MA and PhD Theses:
Açıkgöz, Güngör Şeyda. Kayseri ve Çevresindeki 19.Yüzyıl Kiliseleri ve Korunmaları
İçin Öneriler, (İ.T.Ü. , unpublished PhD dissertation), Istanbul, 2007
125
Çölteli, G. Methiye. 19. Yüzyıl Anadolu Şehirsel Ağı ve Hinterland İlişkileri, Kayseri
Örneği, (Yıldız Teknık Üniversitesi, unpublished Phd dissertation), Istanbul, 2011
Kaygısız, Ayşe Arık. I Numaralı Develi Şer’iyye Sicili (H. 1311/M. 1893-H. 1313/M.
1895) Transkripsiyon ve Değerlendirilmesi, (Erciyes Üniversitesi, unpublished MA
thesis), Kayseri, 2006
Ova, Mustafa. H. 1324-1325/ M. 1906-1907 Tarihli Develi Sicili Metin Çevirisi ve
Değerlendirme, (Nevşehir Üniversitesi, unpublished MA thesis), Nevşehir, 2013
Sağır, Güner. İl Merkezinde Surp Krikor Lusavoriç ve Surp Asdvadzadzin Ermeni
Kiliseleri, (Hacettepe Üniversitesi, unpublished MA thesis), Ankara, 2000
Salep, Mustafa. 9/1 Numaralı Develi Şer’iyye Sicili (H. 1317-1318/ M. 1899-1901)
Transkripsiyon ve Değerlendirilmesi, (Erciyes Üniversitesi, unpublished MA thesis),
Kayseri, 2008
Subaşı, Emine. 52 Numaralı Develi Şer’iyye Sicili (H. 1320-1/M. 1902-3)
Transkripsiyon ve Değerlendirilmesi, (Erciyes Üniversitesi, unpublished MA thesis),
Kayseri, 2006
Consulted websites:
www.efkere.com
www.evereg-fenesse.org
www.fresnostate.edu/artshum/armenianstudies/resources/churches
www.houshamadyan.org
www.virtualani.org