Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
bell-the-cat

Armenians About Architecture In Turkey

27 posts in this topic

In another section of this forum it was revealed that an Armenian tour guide taking a party of Armenians around eastern Turkey had been misinforming them that the Chitfte Minare Medresse in Erzurum had been an Armenian church, that the Erzurum citadel mosque had been an Armenian church, and that a former Greek church in Erzurum, now converted to a mosque, had been an Armenian church. It is unlikely that this tour guide invented this himself - he must have got it from some source. However, no mainstream Armenian academic would ever have written such nonsense, so, from what source did he get the claim from?

Another poster in that thread posted a scan of a page from a book in Russian which claimed that the Chitfte Minare Medresse was a "former Christian church". However, the poster did not identify the source of the scan. Moderators erased my question asking about the source four times, without explanation. I am again asking if someone can identify the book the scan came from.

post-16590-1273067167.jpg

I am interested that there exist Russian and Armenian propaganda books that do exactly what Turkish propaganda books do, but in reverse (claiming Turkish monuments are actually Armenian, just like the Turkish books that claim Armenian monuments are actually Turkish).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OFFTOPIC DELETED --- Kars

______________________________________________________________

Tseghakron, if you have feelings and opinions about Turks in general, you may find an apropriate topic or create a new one. It is my understanding that this thread is about one particular building in Karin.

And this is an architecture related topic, if you haven't noticed. :)

Kars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

......

Edited by Tseghakron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In another section of this forum it was revealed that an Armenian tour guide taking a party of Armenians around eastern Turkey had been misinforming them that the Chitfte Minare Medresse in Erzurum had been an Armenian church, that the Erzurum citadel mosque had been an Armenian church, and that a former Greek church in Erzurum, now converted to a mosque, had been an Armenian church. It is unlikely that this tour guide invented this himself - he must have got it from some source. However, no mainstream Armenian academic would ever have written such nonsense, so, from what source did he get the claim from?

Another poster in that thread posted a scan of a page from a book in Russian which claimed that the Chitfte Minare Medresse was a "former Christian church". However, the poster did not identify the source of the scan. Moderators erased my question asking about the source four times, without explanation. I am again asking if someone can identify the book the scan came from.

post-16590-1273067167.jpg

I am interested that there exist Russian and Armenian propaganda books that do exactly what Turkish propaganda books do, but in reverse (claiming Turkish monuments are actually Armenian, just like the Turkish books that claim Armenian monuments are actually Turkish).

Not cheat. Just ask long reply to the topic:

http://forum.hayastan.com/index.php?s=&amp...st&p=913594

Edited by Pandukht

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Вот еще одному представителю тюркского племени-рода, мы всем хором, как будто должны чего то доказывать. А не проще ли прокатить его по всем ссылкам,темам, материалам,или на детородном органе(пусть сам выбирает).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OFFTOPIC DELETED --- Kars

______________________________________________________________

Tseghakron, if you have feelings and opinions about Turks in general, you may find an apropriate topic or create a new one. It is my understanding that this thread is about one particular building in Karin.

And this is an architecture related topic, if you haven't noticed. :)

Kars

It is not only about those two buildings in Erzurum (the citadel mosgue and the medresse), it is about Armenians claiming that specific Islamic or Turkish buildings are actually Armenian ones converted later to other uses. This is more that just claiming that a specific feature, such as a conical roof, is Armenian in origin, or built by Armenian masons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not cheat. Just ask long reply to the topic:

http://forum.hayastan.com/index.php?s=&amp...st&p=913594

Two different posts that I made in that topic were deleted without any explanation, including my reply to Taronczy, In that deleted reply, I had asked Taronczy who had told him that the Chifte Minare Medresse and the castle mosque were former Armenian churches. I have yet to get that question answered (because my question was erased, that is not Taronczy's fault). In the same deleted post I also explained to Taronczy that he was misinterpreting his observation that the arches in the castle gateway and the castle mosque had been altered. The mortar has been repointed, but the stones and the shape of the arches are all original and are unaltered. I then asked him if it was his tour guide who had told him they had been altered, And if it was his tour guide who had told him that the church that is now used as a mosque was once an Armenian church rather than a Greek church? It was actually originally a Greek Orthodox church.

Basically, I am interested in knowing if this is just the work of one rogue tour guide, who is spreading misinformation. Or are many guides doing it because they are getting the false information from books? And if so, what books?

Edited by bell-the-cat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is not only about those two buildings in Erzurum (the citadel mosgue and the medresse), it is about Armenians claiming that specific Islamic or Turkish buildings are actually Armenian ones converted later to other uses. This is more that just claiming that a specific feature, such as a conical roof, is Armenian in origin, or built by Armenian masons.

What other specific buildings? :hm:

Go on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What other specific buildings? :hm:

Go on.

I am asking you that! See my above post. We have two specific examples that Taronczy had been (falsely) told were formerly Armenian churches, and an example of misinformation (or misinterpretation) connected to another (the arch of the gateway to the castle). Are there more examples? If there are, where is the misinformation coming from, and why?

Another (very old) example would be the Ani Minuchihr mosque being claimed to be originally an Armenian church, or a palace, or a library/treasury.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am asking you that!

NO. Your words:

Armenians claiming that specific Islamic or Turkish buildings are actually Armenian ones converted later to other uses.

It was a statement, not a question. Find a single question mark in your post addressed to me:

It is not only about those two buildings in Erzurum (the citadel mosgue and the medresse), it is about Armenians claiming that specific Islamic or Turkish buildings are actually Armenian ones converted later to other uses. This is more that just claiming that a specific feature, such as a conical roof, is Armenian in origin, or built by Armenian masons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderators erased my question asking about the source four times, without explanation.

Also:

If you have any questions or suggestions for the moderators, place them here:

http://forum.hayastan.com/index.php?showtopic=41809

It is a violation of Forum Rules to discuss the moderator's actions in general topics (see paragraph 3.3.6)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the same deleted post I also explained to Taronczy that he was misinterpreting his observation that the arches in the castle gateway and the castle mosque had been altered. The mortar has been repointed, but the stones and the shape of the arches are all original and are unaltered.

Ani Medieval Armenian City, 9th Century.

Ani Coat of arms, 10th century (photo 1910s). Ani coat of arms, Armenian cross removed under the plea of "reconstruction" in the late 1990s (photo 2000, S. Karapetian)

(1910 ые)(2000)И после этого он ещё что то тут смеет утверждать!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I then asked him if it was his tour guide who had told him they had been altered, And if it was his tour guide who had told him that the church that is now used as a mosque was once an Armenian church rather than a Greek church? It was actually originally a Greek Orthodox church.

Basically, I am interested in knowing if this is just the work of one rogue tour guide, who is spreading misinformation. Or are many guides doing it because they are getting the false information from books? And if so, what books?

Это отродье лжи и сатаны утверждает,что некая церковь то ли в Карине,то ли в Карсе была Греческой и никакого отношения к Армянам не имеет.Просто это лживое существо думает,что мы не знаем своей истории.Тут ничего удивительного нет,даже если некая церковь являлась халкедонитской.В 10-11 веке наш народ был разделён на две части,одна часть придерживалась ААЦ,другая ортодоксальной Константинопольской патриархии,т.е. официальной и государственной религии Византии.Это объясняет ту лёгкость,с какой Византия,к тому же с Армянской правящей династией на тот момент смогла поглотить Царство Багратуни,а армянский зодчий Трдат производил ответственную реставрацию купола самого главного православного храма Св.Софии,который треснул после землятресения.Если же речь идёт о церкви в Карсе,то вот что есть на самом деле:Type: Central planned domed tetraconch

Location: In the city of Kars, Turkey.

Date: X Century (943-967)

Evidence for date: Linked to the invasion of the Abasgians.

Important details: The church has no building inscriptions (unusual considering being built in the Bagratid period).

Condition: Used as a museum

Reconstruction: 1234 renovation, 1579 converted into a mosque, 1877 converted into a Russian Orthodox Church,1918 again converted into a mosque, 1919 converted back into an Armenian church, 1920 converted again to a mosque.

History & commentary:

St. Arak'eloc cathedral of Kars is situated at the base of the ancient citadel of the city of Kars.

According to the reliable testimony of the tenth century Armenian historian Step'anos Asolik, the Armenian Bagratid king Abas I (929-953) "built the holy cathedral of the city of Kars with blocks of stone, with sandstone blocks that were polished with steel: (the church) was surmounted by a circular dome whose ornamentation resembled the vault of heaven." Scholars assume that Abas transferred the capital to Kars as soon as he became king and the construction of the cathedral began soon thereafter. This is quite reasonable, since the early Bagratid kings did not have a permanent capital. They converted the center of their own realm or the town where they resided before their coronation into the capital of the country.

From the ninth century, the Fortress City of Kars served as the seat of the bother of the ruling king. If this tradition still prevailed at the beginning of the tenth century, Abas was probably the master of Kars, even before his coronation in 929, when his brother Asot II (914-929) was king, therefore he could have built the church at an earlier date. However, Step'anos Asolik and the later chroniclers are quite specific in associating the construction of the cathedral with Abas's coronation.

The exact date of the completion of the church is not given in the sources, but there are two specific events connected with the consecration of the edifice. The first is the invasion of the Abasgians, whose king Ber hoped to consecrate the newly constructed church according to the Chalcedonian rite. Unfortunately the date of this event is not known and the identity of Ber remains a mystery. The second event is the pontificate of Anania of Mokk as Catholics of Armenia. Step'anos Asolik mentions the construction of the church and the invasion of the Abasgians, and then adds that "at about this time Lord Anania was on the patriarchal throne…". The dates of Anania are 943-967. The first year of Anania may serve as a logical terminus as quem for the completion of the church. The dates 932 and 931 given in the twelfth and thirteenth century chronologies of Samuel of Ani and Mxit'ar of Ayrivank probably refer to the beginning of the construction of the church. The discrepancy of two or three years is due to different methods of calculation used by the above authors.

St. Arak'eloc's church has no building inscriptions, which is very unusual for a structure built during the Bagratid period. Modern scholars suspect that inscriptions did exist at one time but were removed by the Muslim occupants of the building.

The Armenian sources are absolutely silent about the subsequent history of this church. It isusually assumed that after the Seljuks conquered the city of Kars in 1065, the church was abandoned and that during the Middle Ages it was partially covered with earth. During the short Georgian occupation of the city, while the walls of the fortress were being renovated in 1234, the church was probably still abandoned. After the Ottoman occupation of western Armenia, Mustafa Pasha converted the church into a mosque in 1579. It is assumed that the Suleyman Efendi mosque mentioned by the seventeenth century traveler Evliya Celebi is none other than St. Arak'eloc church. After the Russian occupation of the city in 1877, St. Arak'eloc was converted into a Russian Orthodox Church. Porticos were built in front of the west, north and south portals, whose original structure was destroyed. A sacristy was erected on the east side which covered the entire façade, and inside an iconostasis was built. In 1918, the Turks reoccupied Kars and again converted the church into a mosque. In 1919, during the brief Armenian occupation of Kars, it was converted into an Armenian church. After the fall of the city to the Turks in 1920, the church was again converted into a mosque, but soon thereafter the Kemalist government put it up for sale. The municipality of Kars bought it and planned to demolish it to build a school on its site, but the plan was never carried out. In the 1950's the municipality used it for a depot for petroleum. At present it is a museum.

Step'anos Asolik, Samuel of Ani, and Mxit'ar of Ayrivank all knew this church as a kat'u'ike ("cathedral"). The name, St. Arak'eloc appears in the 19th century topographical works of Armenian scholars.

The cathedral of Kars is a centrally planned domed tetraconch, similar in plan to the 7th century church of Mastara. Its interior plan is reflected in the exterior volumes. Four apses radiate from a central square bay, over which rises a circular dome. Externally, the right angles of the square between the conchs protrude about three meters beyond the sides of the apses; inside they are represented by four dihedral angles each surmounted with a squinch. The conchs are externally pentagonal, but their sides have irregular and oblique dimensions. The outer sides are slightly convergent and are wider than those in the middle. Inside the church the conchs are semicircular and they open on the central square with a semicircular arch that is supported by engaged pillars and rests on imposts. The west conch is deeper than the one other three, its sides slightly extended. Two vaulted apsidal chapels that open into the central square by means of long narrow doors flank the east apse. Their backsides have been torn sown in order to make the Russian sacristy accessible to the church. As a result it is not known whether the east walls of the chapels were flat or concave. The east elevations of the apsidal chapels were the continuation of the wall of the east conch, which appears pentagonal only above the apsidal chapels.

The drum of the dome rests on eight semicircular arches, four of which belong to the conchs and four of which are the squinches over the dihedral angles. The drum is externally and internally circular. The hemispherical dome has a span of almost 11 meters. It is covered with a conical roof that is surbased. The monument is 20 meters high. The church has three portals, one on each on the north, south and west elevations. The interior of the church receives its light from twelve windows in the drum of the dome, four apsidal windows, single windows on either side of the north and south conchs, and four oculi, one each on either side of the east and west conchs. All the windows have the same long, narrow form. They end with a semicircular arch at the top, and have no interior splay. Externally decorative reliefs surround them.

The roof of the conchs and those of the angles of the central square area gently slanted. Vegetation now covers the roof. The conical roof of the dome is covered with Roman tiles and is still in good condition. This suggests that the monument was recently restored or that its upkeep was carefully maintained.

Sculpture-Exterior

On the spandrels between the twelve arches on the drum there are twelve figural reliefs in standing position. These are executed in a very primitive style. According to J.M. Thierry, these figures represent the twelve apostles, whose cult was brought from Byzantium in the 10th-11th centuries. The windows in the drum of the dome are surrounded by blind arcades with arched bands carved with a palmette motif resting on imposts that in turn stand on robust half columns with ornamental reliefs. The cornice under the cover of the cupola consists of an interlace band with four triple strands. The lower cornice, encircling the central square and the exedrae is decorated with diamond shaped motifs connected like the loops of a chain. Inside each loop there are two rosettes with four petals. Its dripstone consists of a simple band hanging over the beveled edge. The arched bands over some of the church windows are also carved in relief. Above the northwest oculus there is the relief of a masculine figure with two serpents on either side of his face. According to J.M. Thierry, the figure is that of St.Gregory the illuminator. Set in the south elevation is a rectangular slab with the relief of a lion facing to the left with its head and right paw raised high. There are several khach'cars set into the walls of the church, of various form and shape.

Sculpture-Interior

At each angle of the central square bay, at the topmost extremity of the dihedral angle directly under the squinch, there is a half-conical stone set in the wall with two faces at right angles. These stones are carved with primitive releifs. The stones on the northeast and southeast corners represent human heads, while the one at the northwest resembles the head of a cow and that at the southwest an eagle. These are believed to be the symbols for the four evangelists.

The spandrel wall separating the eight arches of the octagon from the circular base of the drum is stepped in relief. The spandrels to the upper step are decorated with scallops of five grooves each. Underneath the scallops of the four western spandrels are the reliefs of two human heads, the head of a ram, and that of a cow.

The engaged pillars on which the interior arches rest have two-faced imposts which are also carved in relief.

Bibliography:

Bross 1849 vol.3

Alish 1890 79-80

Lynch 1901-1 407

Eprik 1903 336-352

Strzy 1918 80

Barth 1927 820-821

Toran 1948 55,133

Kirzi 1953 vol.1

Thier 1965 165

Thier 1966 73-74

Xalpa 1966 233

Costa 1968-2 115

Cuneo 1977 54

Thier 1978 930-943

Heyw 1978 696-699

Hasrat 1979-5 344

Cuneo 1988 686-687

И после этого,это лживое отродье сатаны смеет заявлять о дезинформации.Это наши стены,наши камни,они нас зовут,а мы слышим их,даже через вопли лжи и сатаны,мы слышим наши камни.

Edited by Ղազանչյան

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ani Medieval Armenian City, 9th Century.

Ani Coat of arms, 10th century (photo 1910s). Ani coat of arms, Armenian cross removed under the plea of "reconstruction" in the late 1990s (photo 2000, S. Karapetian)

(1910 ые)(2000)И после этого он ещё что то тут смеет утверждать!

You are so amusing! I supose I should be thankful that it was not my own photos that were stolen to provide you with the images for your posting (I am the creator of the website VirtualAni). And to correct your malicious misinformation, the "Armenian Cross" lozenge pattern had collapsed by the 1930s, it was not "removed under the plea of reconstruction in the late 1990s".

Edited by bell-the-cat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was a statement, not a question. Find a single question mark in your post addressed to me:

There were two question marks in the post addressed to you.

I'll ask you a third question. Do you believe that the Erzurum Chifte Minare Medresse and the Erzurum castle mosque are both former Armenian churches?

And a fourth question. If you do believe it, tell me the source of your information, and if you do not believe it, why are you so reluctant to correct the misinformation started by Taronczy? Please do not wriggle out by saying something like "but Armenians probably built it" or "the conical roof is Armenian in origin". Discussion about the possible origin of builders or the stylistic origin of individual features are entirely different from a hard claim that "building X was once an Armenian church".

Edited by bell-the-cat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll ask you a third question. Do you believe that the Erzurum Chifte Minare Medresse and the Erzurum castle mosque are both former Armenian churches?

I am not familiar with the prehistory of these two particular structures, so the answer is: I don’t know.

I can do some research, if or when I find time for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I will not be surprised if it turns out that these two structures are indeed former Armenian churches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are so amusing!
<deleted>
I supose I should be thankful that it was not my own photos that were stolen to provide you with the images for your posting (I am the creator of the website VirtualAni).
<deleted> You stole the Armenian land and destroyed the Armenian civilization.Do you have a habit of turning the Christian churches into mosques. If the Holy Sophia soiled, you can stain the Armenian churches in Western Armenia, you are damned and unlawful occupation?
And to correct your malicious misinformation, the "Armenian Cross" lozenge pattern had collapsed by the 1930s, it was not "removed under the plea of reconstruction in the late 1990s".

After these words, that we ourselves are to blame (even say that in 1915, the Armenians themselves killed), you have no right to do what we say:

"bell-the-cat Apr 7 2006, 20:38 Сообщение #13

The Aghtamar so-called "restoration" is a politically inspired "restoration". It is all to do with propaganda and has nothing at all to do with preserving the structure.

For years, Armenian organisations, especially those in America, were complaining and complaining about the Turks letting Aghtamar "fall into ruins". That was also propaganda - Aghtamar was in no danger of falling into ruin. But the Turks called their bluff, decided to spend a huge sum of money on a "restoration", have done a lot of irrepairable damage to the church, and have got lots of praise from the EU for doing it!

So it is not Turkey that you should blame. It is your fellow Armenians. They set up the circumstances. They, for generation after generation, have failed completely to make any positive action to preserve Armenian monuments in Turkey. All they can do is repeat the same, tired, old propaganda of blaming Turkey for everything.

And do you really think "Armenian experts" could make a better restoration. Have you seen the damage that these so-called "experts" has been doing to Armenian monuments in Armenia?"

In Erzurum were two earthquakes, the turks carried out "restoration." How the turks are doing "restoration" Akhtamar showed. You are all you can expect. Your website is designed to hide the hypocrisy and deception of the turkish "restoration" through false care of Armenian architecture. The turks are hoping that all traces of Armenian worn them before, nobody will remember. We all remember.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can do some research, if or when I find time for it.

But I will not be surprised if it turns out that these two structures are indeed former Armenian churches.

The correct way: first find some evidence and only then devise a correct theory based on the available evidence.

The Armenian way: first hold a bigoted and laughable opinion (and shout about that opinion loudly), then, sometimes, belatedly try to find evidence to back up the stupid opinion.

As for you "doing some research", I will not hold my breath waiting for that to happen!

Your hypocracy is breathtaking. You claim that other people's cultural creations are yours, fabricate a fake "Armenian" identity for them, yet still have the audacity to complain when Turks do the same to Armenian buildings.

Edited by bell-the-cat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The correct way: first find some evidence and only then devise a correct theory based on the available evidence.

The Armenian way: first hold a bigoted and laughable opinion (and shout about that opinion loudly), then, sometimes, belatedly try to find evidence to back up the stupid opinion.

As for you "doing some research", I will not hold my breath waiting for that to happen!

Your hypocracy is breathtaking. You claim that other people's cultural creations are yours, fabricate a fake "Armenian" identity for them, yet still have the audacity to complain when Turks do the same to Armenian buildings.

You hereby receive verbal warning.

Violation of article 3.3.3 of Forum Rules.

Keep your hostile generalizations of Armenians inside yourself.

__________________________________________________________________

I will not respond to the rest of your message, because it lacks elementary logic and common sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You hereby receive verbal warning.

Violation of article 3.3.3 of Forum Rules.

Keep your hostile generalizations of Armenians inside yourself.

__________________________________________________________________

I will not respond to the rest of your message, because it lacks elementary logic and common sense.

You have no comprehension of logic and common sense. I have complete contempt for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have complete contempt for you.

:)

Join the crowd! :welcome:

__________________________________________

Now, back to the topic. What were you saying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, based on your previous pronouncement in which you stated that you would not be surprised to learn that the medresse and mosque in Erzurum were converted Armenian churches, I am inclined to believe that [etc.]

Are you seriously suggesting that I (or anyone else, for that matter) should be actually surprised to learn that an Armenian or a Greek church was converted into a mosque, in Turkey? :lol3:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you seriously suggesting that I (or anyone else, for that matter) should be actually surprised to learn that an Armenian or a Greek church was converted into a mosque, in Turkey? :lol3:

I would only be surprised if I found an Armenian who actually knows about Armenian architecture. And I would be even more surprised (it would be like witnessing a miracle) to find one who both knows and cares in an appropriate way. The current condition of Armenian churches in Turkey is entirely due to the fault of Armenians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0