This thesis examines the participation of Armenians in the shari'a courts of the Ottoman Empire from the 16th to the 18th centuries. Scholars have traditionally thought that Armenians in the Ottoman Empire resolved their disputes within their own communities' legal systems. However, new studies of Ottoman court records reveal that Armenians in the Ottoman Empire frequently used the shari'a courts to resolve a wide variety of disputes. There are several possible reasons to account for this frequent shari'a court use by a community that theoretically had its own courts. The first is that the Armenian millet's legal structures were perhaps exaggerated or misunderstood by previous scholars. The second is that Islamic law was not as unfavourable to dhimmis as presumed and that the shari'a courts were adequate for their needs. Finally, the way the courts applied Islamic law was sometimes advantageous to certain dhimmis.

No description available.

No description available.

This is a case study, based on fieldwork research carried out in 1980-1981 and 1986-1987 among the inhabitants of Haouch Moussa ('Anjar)--a Lebanese Armenian community in the Beka'a valley of Lebanon. The study itself constitutes a reconstruction of the practices and experiences (and their genesis) of the people in question, as Lebanese and Armenians (and therefore, of my own history as a Lebanese and an Armenian (and a woman)). The settlement itself was established in 1939 by Armenian refugees deported from their original habitat in Mount Moussa, the Sanjak of Iskandaroun (Turkey). When relocated in the Central Beka'a the inhabitants initiated a collectivisation experiment. However, it was brought to an end shortly after Lebanese Independence. During the following decades, while the socialist ideology has persisted the individual households have at first become petty commodity producers for a regional, national and international market, and later through the dynamics of petty commodity production, capitalism, and the effects of the civil war in Lebanon further transformations have occurred. This thesis examines these transformations and attempts to translate the dynamics of the reality of the inhabitants of 'Anjar into anthropological discourse.

No description available.

O Genocídio Armênio (1914-1916), reconhecido por alguns estudiosos como o protótipo do genocídio moderno, é negado até hoje pelo governo turco, apesar dos protestos da comunidade armênia dispersa em todo o mundo. Oficialmente, a Turquia reconhece que ocorreram muitas mortes, mas nega a intenção estatal do ato genocida. Na mesma época ou até mesmo um pouco antes, os gregos a outra grande minoria cristã do Império Otomano também sofreram massacres e perseguições, com um saldo de centenas de milhares de mortos, vivenciando situações semelhantes às sofridas pelos armênios. Sob este mesmo viés, movimentos nacionalistas e imperialistas europeus levaram à perda significativa de territórios do Império Otomano, forçando, em consequência, a mobilização de centenas de milhares de muçulmanos que, fugindo do domínio cristão, instalaram-se na Anatólia, fortalecendo as questões etno-religiosas. Hoje, essas histórias seguem sendo motivo de questionamento, ainda que esquecidas ou silenciadas por alguns grupos. O objetivo deste estudo é contribuir para a elucidação desta polêmica, reunindo um conjunto de informações que permita uma compreensão mais ampla do assunto. Com base na historiografia especializada no tema, procuramos inventariar e comparar as versões de diversos autores, cujos discursos são complementares ou mesmo antagônicos, bem como a posição oficial do governo turco, postada no site do Ministério das Relações Internacionais da Turquia. Somam-se aqui os testemunhos de sobreviventes e as declarações de diplomatas e missionários estrangeiros que presenciaram os acontecimentos. / The Armenian Genocide (1914-1916), recognized by some scholars as the prototipe of the modern genocide, is denied by the turkish government even today, despite the protests of the armenian community around the world. Officially, Turkey recognizes that many people died in the period, but denies the genocidal intent. At the same time or little before. The greeks the other major minority of the Ottoman Empire also suffered with massacres and persecutions, resulting in hundreds of thousands dead, experiencing similar situations as those suffered by the Armenians. In the same period, nationalist and imperialist movements led to great losses of territory of the Ottoman Empire, forcing, as a result, the mobilization of hundreds of thousands of muslims, escaping from the Christian rule, who settled at Anatólia, stressing the etno-religious conflicts. Today, those stories are still a reason to argue, even if forgotten or silenced by some groups. The intention of this work is help on the elucidation of the polemica, collecting a set of informations that may allow a wider understanding of the subject. Using the specialized historiography, we tried to catalogue and compare the many opinions of authors, whose speeches are complementary or even opposing, as well as the official version of the Turkish government, posted at the Ministery of Foreign Affairs website. Here is added the voices of the survivors and the statements of foreign missionaries and diplomats, who witnessed the events.

O Genocídio Armênio (1914-1916), reconhecido por alguns estudiosos como o protótipo do genocídio moderno, é negado até hoje pelo governo turco, apesar dos protestos da comunidade armênia dispersa em todo o mundo. Oficialmente, a Turquia reconhece que ocorreram muitas mortes, mas nega a intenção estatal do ato genocida. Na mesma época ou até mesmo um pouco antes, os gregos a outra grande minoria cristã do Império Otomano também sofreram massacres e perseguições, com um saldo de centenas de milhares de mortos, vivenciando situações semelhantes às sofridas pelos armênios. Sob este mesmo viés, movimentos nacionalistas e imperialistas europeus levaram à perda significativa de territórios do Império Otomano, forçando, em consequência, a mobilização de centenas de milhares de muçulmanos que, fugindo do domínio cristão, instalaram-se na Anatólia, fortalecendo as questões etno-religiosas. Hoje, essas histórias seguem sendo motivo de questionamento, ainda que esquecidas ou silenciadas por alguns grupos. O objetivo deste estudo é contribuir para a elucidação desta polêmica, reunindo um conjunto de informações que permita uma compreensão mais ampla do assunto. Com base na historiografia especializada no tema, procuramos inventariar e comparar as versões de diversos autores, cujos discursos são complementares ou mesmo antagônicos, bem como a posição oficial do governo turco, postada no site do Ministério das Relações Internacionais da Turquia. Somam-se aqui os testemunhos de sobreviventes e as declarações de diplomatas e missionários estrangeiros que presenciaram os acontecimentos. / The Armenian Genocide (1914-1916), recognized by some scholars as the prototipe of the modern genocide, is denied by the turkish government even today, despite the protests of the armenian community around the world. Officially, Turkey recognizes that many people died in the period, but denies the genocidal intent. At the same time or little before. The greeks the other major minority of the Ottoman Empire also suffered with massacres and persecutions, resulting in hundreds of thousands dead, experiencing similar situations as those suffered by the Armenians. In the same period, nationalist and imperialist movements led to great losses of territory of the Ottoman Empire, forcing, as a result, the mobilization of hundreds of thousands of muslims, escaping from the Christian rule, who settled at Anatólia, stressing the etno-religious conflicts. Today, those stories are still a reason to argue, even if forgotten or silenced by some groups. The intention of this work is help on the elucidation of the polemica, collecting a set of informations that may allow a wider understanding of the subject. Using the specialized historiography, we tried to catalogue and compare the many opinions of authors, whose speeches are complementary or even opposing, as well as the official version of the Turkish government, posted at the Ministery of Foreign Affairs website. Here is added the voices of the survivors and the statements of foreign missionaries and diplomats, who witnessed the events.

This thesis analyses the Armenian Question and the situation of Armenians between the years, 1914-1918, through basing on the news published in Takvim-i Vekayi during this period. These years when the dislocation of Armenians occured had been the turning point in the Armenian Question. Because the events occuring during the dislocation have been represented as genocide and today, this claim is one of the important question for Turkey. Takvim-i Vekayi, as being the first official newspaper of the Ottoman Empire, includes the significant news relating to the dislocation. So it is important to study the Armenian Question between 1914-1918 according to Takvim-i Vekayi. This thesis not only represents the news on laws, provisional laws and regulations about the dislocation but also gives information about the social, political, economic, legal and religious situations of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire during the years, 1914-1918.

This study will attempt to analyze the American Foreign Policy towards Turkey around three basic issues, namely the missionary activities, the Armenian question and the Near East Relief Society (NERS). Therefore, the focus of the study is the interaction of the politics and the religion in the United States case and the influence of this interaction on the American policy towards the Near East before and after the First World War.

The aim of this thesis is to analyze Armenian ethnic identity construction, the dynamics influencing this process, and varying boundaries of this identity in Yesilk&ouml / y, which is one of the regions of Istanbul where Armenians prefer to live. The primordial as well as constructed aspects of Armenian identity in Turkey and the influence of objective and subjective definitions of Armenian collective identity constitutes the main themes of this thesis. From that perspective, homeland, history, myths, collective remembering, religion, language, rituals, the sense of being a member of a minority group, and perception of citizenship play a crucial role. Besides, relationalism, interaction with others, daily life practices, and relations with the nation-state appear as the other crucial elements of this identity construction process. Armenian identity in Turkey is multi-layered, situational and fluid. Together with the elements which provide the rigidity of identity such as religion, there are other loyalties such as ethnicity, traditions and language which give rise to plural and flexible identities. Armenian communities outside the national boundaries also serve for the self- positioning of the Armenians in Turkey.