Armenia

ARMENIA, a Socialist Soviet Republic created in 1918, and united with Azerbaijan and_ Georgia (Gruzia) in 1922 to form the Transcaucasian S.F.S. republic with unification of the transport and economic system. Area 30,948sq.km. Pop. (1926) 879,872, urban 133,658, rural 746,214. It is divided for administrative pur poses into nine districts, of which the most important are Leninakan (162,579), Erivan (175,816), Etchmiadzin (113,930) and Pambak-Loriisk (132,341) . Its boundaries are :—North, the Georgian S.S.R., west and south-west, Turkey, south-west, the Nakhichevan A.S.S.R., south, the Araxes river and east, the Azer baijan S.S.R. It thus in no sense coincides with the former Ar menia, much of which is now in Turkey, though Etchmiadzin, the ancient seat of the Armenian patriarchs, is included in it. It has no seaport and is therefore economically dependent on Georgia and Azerbaijan. It is mainly a plateau region (6,00o-8,000ft.), with short ridges and isolated volcanic mountains. Alagoz, 14,440 ft. was active in Tertiary times. Lake Gokcha (S4osq.m.) is en circled by volcanic mountains and the neighbourhood of Lenina kin is covered with volcanic debris. Leninakin and the sur rounding district suffered severely from the earthquake of Octo ber 1926. The climate varies with altitude and aspect, but every where the winters are severe and the climate extreme and dry. At Leninakin (alt. 5,078ft.) the average temperature is, January, 12°F., July, 65°F.; yearly rainfall, 16.2in. The Aras (Araxes), with its tributary the Zanga river drains the republic and on the latter the Rykov hydro-electric station was opened 1926. The Aras river is a rapid, muddy, dangerous stream when snows melt, but fordable at other times. In its valley cotton, mulberry (for silk), vine, apricots, fruits, rice and tobacco are grown. The vines must be buried during winter frosts. Irrigation is extending under the direction of the Erivan department of agriculture and schemes are being carried out at Leninakan and Etchmiadzin and a tinned fruit (especially peach) industry is springing up, but cotton is the chief product. Cattle-rearing and forestry are important in the hilly districts and Lori is developing a dairy industry. Camels are bred and leeches are exported from the swamps. The Katara cop per mines are productive and were reopened in 1925. Communica tions are poor, though a railway from Tiflis to Tabriz in Persia passes through Leninakan and Erivan, and from Leninakan there is a branch to Kars in Turkey. The chief towns are Erivan (q.v.) and Leninakan. The conditions of life are poor in many parts and mud huts are common in the hills. In spite of the destruction of school buildings during the World War, education is increasing, though the schools are mainly primary. New premises are being built and teachers are being trained. A university, a musical academy and trade technical schools have been established. The Armenian tongue is in use.

The people are Armenians, Russians and Turco-Tatars. The "Armenoid" type physically is tall, dark, broadheaded, with prom inent nose, high head and flattened occiput : but here it is much modified by intermixture. (X.) Modern research has very largely modified the ancient concep tions of the history and the political position of Armenia. The physical features of the country played some part in shaping the destinies of the people, for the isolation of the valleys especially in winter, encouraged a tendency to separation which showed itself in the middle ages in weakening the central power. The hillsides have always been the home of hardy mountaineers jealous of their independence, and have served as a sanctuary to the lowland people in times of foreign invasions. The country stands as an open doorway between the East and the West. Through its fertile valleys run the roads that connect the Iranian plateau with the harbours of Asia Minor and for its temporary pos session nations have contended from the remote past.

Ethnology.

There is evi dence to assume that about 1 500 B.C. Armenia was inhabited by a non-Aryan people, the type of which is called "Armenoid" by modern ethnologists. The Hittites were the representatives of this type. These original inhabitants of Armenia called themselves Khaldini or Khaldians from the name of their chief god Khaldi. At a period not yet ascertained, but presumed to be about 710 B.C., an Indo-European race, either Phrygians from the West or Cimmerians from the Cau casus mountains, invaded the highlands of Armenia and im posed their language on the na tives. Later, on the rise of Media and Persia, these formed the mili tary aristocracy of the land. These two races soon amalga mated, thus forming the main type of the modern Armenian, except where in isolated districts one or other ethnic element still predominates. The Armenian Arshakuni (Arsacid) kings (Igo B.C.-A.D. 428) brought also many Jewish and Greek artisans and colonists.

In the recesses of Mount Taurus the peasants are tall, hand some, agile and brave. In the valleys of Armenia and Asia Minor they are robust, thick-set and sometimes bearing the characteris tics of the proto-Armenians, as depicted on their monuments, with straight black hair and often hooked noses. They are good culti vators of the soil and cattle breeders. Some still live in semi-sub terranean houses as their ancestors did in the days of Xenophon. The townsmen have more regular features of the Aryan type. They are skilled artisans and merchants, remarkable for their industry, their quick intelligence, their aptitude for business and for their enterprising spirit, which led their ancestors to trade with Scythia, China and India. The upper classes are well-educated.

Ancient Kingdom.

The early history of Armenia, as record ed by the earliest historians of the country, is confirmed in many important aspects by the native and Assyrian inscriptions. It can now be stated that in the second millennium B.C. the Assyrian mon archs were trying hard to overcome the "Nairi" confederation, which consisted of the Armenians, the Kurds and other autoch thonous peoples. There is evidence that these Nairi kings were often in alliance with the Hittite empire at Boghaz-Keui. At about goo B.C., however, the Khaldian kingdom of Van acquired hege mony over all the Nairi lands. Called Ararat by the Bible, Urartu by the Assyrians and Alarodians ('AX a p6&ot) by Herodotus 94) these proto-Armenian kings became a formidable foe to Assyria, until the downfall of both. The last Khaldian king, Rusas III., fought against the Lydians on the Halys, in 585 B.c. as an ally of Cyaxares. Its history and the recent discoveries are dealt with under URARTU.

In the Behistun inscription of Darius Hystaspes (521 B.c.) first appears the name of Armeniya or Armina. This Persian mon arch represents Armenia as one of his satrapies, whereas his own records state that he had to send armies year after year to quell rebellions, and that five battles he mentions were fought in Media ; yet Armenia was an almost independent unit in the Persian mon archy, governed by native dynasties, as we see them in 401 B.c.

when Xenophon and the Ten Thousand passed through the coun try. These two dynasties, Tiribazus in the north and Erwant (Or ontes, 'ApoavSjs) in the south-west, governed the country owing nominal allegiance at first to Persia and then to Seleucids until 191 B.C. when Artashes (Artaxias) made himself sovereign king of Armenia Major with his capital at Artashat (Artaxata) on the Arax and Zareh (Zariades) a descendant of the Erwant dynasty of Armenia Minor.

The Arshakuni Kingdom.

This dynasty became essentially Armenian under Tigranes the Great (94-56 B.c.) who united the country and conquered seventy valleys from Parthia, Northern Syria and Cappadocia, all this territory having been held by the Khaldians. He built a new capital at Tigranocerta, now identified by Prof. Lehmann Haupt with the ancient city of Farkin. In defi ance of Rome he shielded Mithridates the Great, of Pontus, his father-in-law, who had fled to his court. This brought him into conflict with Lucullus, the Roman commander, who attacked Tig ranocerta.

There are no records from the Armenian side, but modern re search has greatly diminished the value of Roman boastings. (Kurt Eckhardt, "Die Armenischen Feldziige des Lucullus" in Klio ix.–x. [1909-10].) Ultimately the Romans held the Euphrates frontier claiming "sovereignty" over Armenia and Kurdistan. The ethnical and cultural affinities fostered by Persia and Parthia, coupled with the influence of Zoroastrianism, has so profoundly shaped the out look of all peoples living between the Caucasus and the Iranian plateau, that Hellenism scarcely penetrated beyond the Euphrates. The Romans considered Armenia as a "buffer State" but the Ar menian rulers only at moments of struggle against Persia sought the friendship of Rome, just as more powerful nations do so even to-day. Under the rule of its own Arshakuni kings the Armenian people kept its complete political entity within the frame of Iran until A.D. 303, when King Tirdat (Tiridates) converted by St. Gregory the Illuminator, established Christianity as the religion of the State and set an example followed later by Constantine. This spiritual break-off from Iran produced religious wars with Zoroas trian Persia which considerably weakened Armenia during the 4th and 5th centuries. Persia and the Eastern Empire "divided" Ar menia into zones of influence in 387, although both Pers-Armenia and further west Arshakuni kings and powerful princes (Nak harars) governed the country in their own way, bearing titles of Marzban (Margrave) and Curopalatii.

The establishment of a national Church in 303, followed later by the discontinuance of the Greek language in the Armenian Holy offices and a separation from the Council of Chalcedon ; the inven tion of a national alphabet by St. Mesrop resulting in the transla tion of the Bible and the development of literature; and finally a "Holy war" led by Prince Vardan Mamionian against Persia in A.D. 451 which provided martyrs—these three events combined, in the course of a century and a half, stamped such an indelible national individuality on the Armenian people that it has stood the test of centuries of trials. The downfall of the Persian Sassanian Empire in 642 opened the way to the Arabs, who for the following two centuries organized occasional marauding expeditions from the Kurdish foothills up to the Caspian Sea.

The Bagratuni Kingdom.

The Armenians constantly har assed the few Arab garrisons posted on some of the main roads. In 702 alone the Armenian catholicos (supreme head of the Church) intervened to make peace between the Armenian princes and the Arab Caliph. Armenian governors (Ostikans) were nominated by the Caliph. Under the leadership of the great Bagratuni (Bag ratid) princes the country prospered so greatly that Ashot I. assumed the title of "Prince of Princes" and was recognized both by Basilius I. and the Caliph in 886, who made a treaty of friend ship with King Ashot. The country developed and agriculture at tained unusual prosperity. The magnificent cathedral of Ani, their capital on the Arpa-Chai, innumerable churches, monuments and irrigation works were built all over the country, the ruins of which stand out until to-day as a token of their constructive genius. A little later Prince Kagig Artsruni, another great Armenian family, crowned himself King of Vaspurakan (the province of Van). If Armenia failed under these Bagratuni and Artsruni kings to con solidate itself and become one of the powers of the region it is partly due to the constant Byzantine efforts to convert the Armen ian church to orthodoxy, and partly to the Seljuk hordes which, after sweeping before them dozens of Arab and Persian Emiriates, appeared on the frontiers of Armenia. From 1020 onwards for about 4o years the Armenian kings fought and drove back wave after wave of Seljuk horsemen. But the Eastern Empire seized the opportunity to attack Ani and detain at Constantinople King Kagig I., who had gone there to discuss matters. Soon the empire paid the price of its treachery. The Seljuks overran the whole country and advanced into Greek Asia Minor. They established a united Government for Armenia and Kurdistan at Aklat. This Government, however, soon passed into the hands of Kurdish Shah-i-Armens (kings of Armenia) the first of whom was a cousin of the great Salaheddin, the Kurd. From 124o onwards the Mon gols occupied almost the whole of western Asia.

During these stormy times many Armenian families left their homes and went to Poland, Galicia and Byzantine lands; other families crossed the Taurus and established an independent king dom in 108o at Cilicia under Prince Rupen, a scion of the Bagra tunis of Ani. This kingdom of Lesser Armenia had many dealings with the crusaders and made an alliance with the Mongols as against the Mamelukes of Egypt. It lasted until 1375 and the last King Leon VI. died in Paris and was buried at St. Denis. With the break-up of the rule of the Mongol Ilkhans in 1351, a large number of Armenian and Turkoman independent princi palities arose all over the country, and the feudal lords of the valleys (Derebeys) reigned supreme over their small areas.

Turkish Occupation.

After the death of Timur in 1405, the Turkoman Ak-koyunlus established their rule at Diarbekir until they were overthrown by the Safavi Shah Ismail of Persia in 1502. This regeneration of Iran was however soon challenged by the Ottoman Turks, who in 1514-16 defeated Persia and within the next 4o years gradually established their rule over Armenia. In 1514, Sultan Selim I. entrusted Idris, a Kurdish Mollah "to re organize" Armenia under the Turkish rule. Idris found the coun try bristling with castles of independent Derebeys of Kurdish and Armenian origin. Idris induced many Kurdish tribes south of Taurus to settle on Armenian lands in the north, and the Sultan gave them honours and administrative posts so as to use them against Persia. In spite of this organization of the country the sympathy of the people always remained with Persia.

In 1605 Shah Abbas transferred thousands of Armenians to New Julf a, near Isfahan, where they formed a prosperous colony in Central Persia, whence Armenian colonies expanded to India and the Far East, long before any European was allowed to trade. The periodic renewal of wars between Persia and Turkey in 1602 and under Nadir Shah partly devastated the frontier regions; but after the political troubles of the last centuries, the Ottoman rule accorded the country at least a certain measure of stability. The people suffered from a chronic anarchy; but after the capture of Constantinople 1453, Mohammed II. organized the Christian Communities of the Empire under their own ecclesias tical chiefs to whom he gave absolute authority in civil and relig ious matters and in criminal offences that did not come under the Muslim religious law. Under this system the Armenian Bishop Hovakim was appointed Patriarch of Constantinople by the Sultan and became practically not only the ecclesiastical but also the political leader of the Armenian nation (Ermeni Milleti) and a recognized officer of the Imperial Government. He was assisted by a council of clergy and was represented in each province by a bishop and his council. This practical self-government secured to the Armenians a recognized position before the law, the free en joyment of their religion and national traditions, and the right to educate their children and manage their national and municipal affairs. It also encouraged the growth of a community life which eventually gave birth to a longing for national life. The leadership of the clergy, however, was bound to degrade the clergy itself, who often used unwarrantable methods for promotion to the detriment of their spiritual functions. After the issue, 1839, of the Hatti-i Sherif of Gulhaneh, the artisans and tradesmen asserted their rights to take part in the management of national affairs. The con stitution approved by the Sultan in 1863 gave the Armenians in Turkey the status of a self-governing nation in a political sense under the sovereignty of Turkey. All real power passed into the hands of lay and clerical councils elected by the people. The na tional assembly at Constantinople consisted of 14o members repre senting about 21- million Armenians in Turkey. The education of the people received a fresh impetus at the hands of the representa tive councils. Early in the 18th century the Armenian Mekhitarist Fathers had already established printing presses in Venice and Vienna, and had revived the Armenian and Greco-Roman classics. The more the reforming movement progressed in Turkey, the more the Armenians benefited by it.

Russia and the Armenians.

The Russians appeared in Transcaucasia and occupied Georgia in 18o1. They gradually oc cupied also the Khanates of Shirvan and Sheki and by the war of 1828 against Persia they brought under their rule the whole plain of Erivan, including Echmiadzin, the seat of the Armenian cath olicos. They assisted the Armenian Church to reorganize itself and as a modern State opened up great possibilities of economic and national progress. During 182g-77 the Armenians under the Rus sian rule increased and prospered considerably and played an im portant part in the economic development of Transcaucasia. Russia did not recognize an Armenian or any other question. She conquered territories, established order, and opened them up for enterprise.

"The Armenian Question..

When Abd-ul-Hamid came to the throne of Turkey in 1876 the conditions of Armenians both in Turkey and Russia were much better than they had been for cen turies. But with the close of the Russo-Turkish war of 1878 came the "Armenian question" in consequence of British intervention. Russia occupied another slice of Georgia and Armenia including Batum, Kars, Ardahan, Erzerum and the upper Euphrates valley; but on the threat of war Great Britain demanded the evacuation of Erzerum, alleging that the safety of roads leading to India and commercial interests were being endangered. (See British Govern ment Memo of April 1, 1878; Hertslet's Map of Europe by Trea ties, vol. iv. p. 2,704.) Russia evacuated Erzerum and the upper Euphrates valley and as an alternative Turkey engaged to Russia by the Treaty of San Stephano to carry out reforms in the prov inces "inhabited by the Armenians and to guarantee their security against the Kurds and the Circassians." Russia's aim was to attach permanently to her own interests some element in the population of the territory which she had been forced to evacuate ; but it was a dubious piece of diplomacy to embroil the Armenians and the Kurds who had lived and defended themselves together from time immemorial when there were no European Powers.

By the Treaty of Berlin of July 1878, and owing to British in sistence, a like engagement to the six signatory Powers was sub stituted for that of Russia. The same clause of "protection against the Kurds, etc." was again introduced. But before that Great Britain secretly concluded the convention of Cyprus with the Sul tan for the "protection of the Christians and other subjects of the Porte" in Asia Minor. As a reward to Great Britain for defending the Asiatic frontiers of Turkey against Russia, and on condition that she should maintain the integrity of Turkey in Asia thereafter the Sultan authorized Great Britain to occupy Cyprus so long as Kars, Ardahan and Batum remained in the hands of Russia. This British undertaking meant the prolongation of the oppressions of those peoples whom the Cyprus convention intended to protect, since Great Britain would not permit Russia to step in, and yet was not in a position to intervene effectively herself. It was gener ally admitted that this convention placed the Armenians under the special protection of Great Britain. But it seems that Lord Salis bury (Lady Gwendolen Cecil, Life of the Marquess of Salisbury, 1921, vol. ii. p. 321) did not then believe either in "reforms" or in any protection; the primary aim of British policy being to pre vent Russia from occupying the Armenian fortresses. During a tour of the European capitals in 1877 Lord Salisbury found that none of the Great Powers took the slightest interest in the extent of the territory in Armenia occupied by Russia; therefore, when in 188o-82 the British Government was urging the Concert of Europe to common action, the Powers paid no attention. Thus the Armenian leaders, unwillingly and helplessly caught in the coils of Anglo-Russian rivalry, did nothing which might be interpreted as a deviation from the traditional loyalty to Turkey. Among the Armenians the common saying was that Turkey was their father land, and distinguished bishops and laymen expressed their unre served mistrust of both Russia and Great Britain. But there were uninitiated Armenian teachers and poets who believed in the "Christendom and humanity" of Europe. The British and Rus sian ambassadors at Constantinople patronized Armenian charity balls and other social functions. British and Russian agents and press correspondents were interesting themselves greatly in the Ar menian people and their conditions. Such courses are natural enough in Western countries, but in Turkey under the psychologi cal conditions of those days, they struck an altogether different note.

Encouraged by these demonstrations, some Armenian teachers formed in 1885 a "revolutionary" society called Hunchak to edu cate and rouse the self-consciousness of the people. Another soci ety called Daschnak was formed in 1890 in Tiflis with a more act ive programme, which consisted of writing songs, drilling the peo ple in gymnastics and the use of arms. After the death of Patri arch Varjabedian who was involved in the Berlin Congress, the national assembly at Constantinople elected a new patriarch who declined to have any intercourse with foreign Powers. In Russia, Tsar Alexander II. was dead and the General Loris-Melikov, an Armenian nobleman who had conquered Kars and Erzerum in 1877, had lost his power. In accordance with her traditional pol icy, Russia after the war with Turkey concentrated her attention on Central Asia. Up to then Russia had been openly and unre servedly a friend to the Armenians, but concluding that the Arme nian people in Turkey had been transformed into an instrument of British anti-Russian policy, she became hostile to the Armenians. By stages the use of the Armenian language was prohibited in Ar menian schools in Transcaucasia ; then the schools and institutions were closed, and finally all church properties were confiscated in 1903. In 1890 Russian frontier guards arrested and exiled to Si beria some 3o Armenians who wished to go to Erzerum to rescue their threatened compatriots. In face of this Russian hostility to Armenia, Great Britain did nothing to fulfil her obligations as sumed by the Convention of Cyprus. After the occupation of Egypt in 1882 British interest towards the Armenians fluctuated, according as a political lever was required to bring pressure upon the Sultan. During 1887-88 Lord Salisbury both admitted and denied the British obligations regarding the Armenians. This am biguity and the British friendship towards Bulgaria in 1886 encouraged the Armenian secret societies to believe that the more noise they made the more attention they would call upon their cause. The Sultan who up to then had still considered the Arme nians as the "loyal nation," started persecutions and arbitrary imprisonments.

The Massacres.

Finally carne the massacres. In the mountain ous region of Sasun, in the Taurus, hardy Armenian and Kurdish communities had lived and defended themselves together from the days of Assyria. As throughout Armenia they had quarrelled over local matters, often a joint party of both races attacking another similar party. There had never been any race feeling or hatred.

Some Armenian teachers had visited Sasun in the early '9os, but were not well received. In 1894 a party of Kurds attacked a party of Armenians and after a fight the quarrel seems to have been set tled, when Abd-ul-Hamid fearing "revolutionary" activity sent regular troops to quell the "rebellion." About 30o Armenians were murdered and a few villages burnt by Turkish troops. In Nov. 1894 a Turkish commission of inquiry was sent to Armenia and was accompanied by the consular delegates of Great Britain, Rus sia and France. The latter two Governments had made no secret of their indifference in the matter, and Russia in particular was openly hostile. The commission elicited the fact that there had been no revolt, but did not state that it was merely a family quar rel. During the winter of 1894 the British Government with the lukewarm support of Russia and France, pressed for administra tive "reforms" in the vilayets of Erzerum, Van, Bitlis, Diarbekir, Kharput, and Sivas. In May 1895 the three Powers presented to the Sultan an illusory scheme of "reforms" which was more calcu lated to broaden the breach between the Porte and its Armenian subjects than to achieve any results. Misguided young men, un aware of the political game of the contending Powers, renewed their activities in Constantinople in spite of the wise counsels of responsible Armenian leaders and clergy. Finally, the Sultan ac cepted the reform schemes in Oct. 1895, under British pressure. Simultaneously with the signing of the scheme the Sultan gave the signal for massacres. About 8o,000 Armenians perished in the provinces. The American missionaries, who for the past sixty years had done a great educational work among the Armenians, and the French and Persian Consuls everywhere behaved in a chivalrous manner. In Van and Urfa, the townsmen offered armed resistance to the Turkish rabble. In Zeitun, in particular, the mountaineers held out against a regular Turkish siege, until the Powers inter vened.

Exasperated at the massacres, some 20 Armenians attacked the Ottoman Bank in Constantinople in Aug. 1896. The European Ambassadors, however, instead of saving the innocent Armenians of the capital, secured the safety of those desperate "Nihilists" and sent them out of Turkey. In the following two days the organized Turkish mob murdered 6,000 people before the eyes of those Powers responsible for the protection of the Armenians.

In the same year the Armenians elected Mgr. Ormanian as pa triarch. With the help of high Armenian officials of the Porte, the new patriarch conciliated the Sultan, who immediately proclaimed a general amnesty for Armenian political prisoners and set up a court to try some of the notorious murderers. Throughout the Ottoman Empire the Armenian element slowly recovered within the next decade and the "Dashnak" party started cultivating the traditional friendship with the Kurds and other neighbours.

The proclamation of the Turkish Constitution in 1908 was genuinely hailed by the Armenians as a new era of friendship. Not withstanding the murders of Adana in 1909 the Young Turk ad ministration produced noticeable improvement in the conditions of the Armenian people. Political refugees returned home and re covered their properties. Agriculture and trade made unusual progress resulting in great prosperity. Military service in the army and deputies in the chamber gave the Armenians a new status in Turkey.

The Armenian people in Transcaucasia under the Russian rule were in a not less favourable condition. Assisted by the Entente Powers Russia prepared a scheme of "reforms" for the Armenian vilayets under the supervision of European inspectors. Just as in 1878, no Armenian demanded reforms from the foreign Powers because in 1914, when the scheme was imposed on Turkey, the people on both sides of the frontier had never been more united and prosperous.

Armenians in the World War.

When the Turks entered the war, the Armenian leaders assured them of their loyalty. Harsh Turkish requisitions and ill-treatment of Armenian troops in the Turkish army caused racial friction. Armenian peasants in the war areas were driven from their homes and murdered. The successful self-defence of the Armenians of Van in April 1915, and Allied declarations of war aims induced the Turks to murder the Arme nian people in Turkey. The scheme was carried out in June–July 1915, with unparalleled barbarity : men, women and Children were robbed and murdered indiscriminately and the remainder were deported to the desert to fend for themselves.

This "evacuation" of the Armenians produced a change in the attitude of the Entente Powers. The Grand Duke Nicholas con quered Armenia early in 1916, and proclaimed "the liberation of Armenia from the Turkish yoke" ; but he tried to bar the surviving people from returning to their homes, because Russia had planned to colonize with Cossacks the fertile Armenian-Kurdish lands in the Arax and Euphrates valleys. In his Guildhall speech of 1916 the British Premier declared that his Government "was resolved to secure the liberation of this ancient (Armenian) people." Throughout the War many similar declarations and promises were made by British and partly also by French Premiers.

The Independence of Armenia.

Af ter the Russian Revolu tion of 1917 the Armenians of Transcaucasia proclaimed their in dependence (with their capital at Erivan) under the auspices of German military leaders then in the Caucasus, and with the help of the Turks. On his accession to power Lenin proclaimed the union and independence of Armenian lands. But under the Brest Litovsk Treaty of March 1918, Soviet Russia ceded the districts of Batum and Kars to the Turks, who advanced to capture them. armistice British and French authorities made some ef forts to make Cilicia the home of Armenians, but it was abandoned by France in 1921.

At the peace conference at Paris 1919 Boghos Nubar Pasha and M. Aharonian, the Armenian delegates, were induced to demand "a great Armenia" extending from sea to sea. President Wilson was being urged to accept a mandate which the American senate did not want. Meanwhile, the Armenian delegates concluded an agree ment with Kurdish delegates. In the conferences held in London and San Remo in the spring of 1920, the Armenian delegates pleaded their cause. But the Allied Powers were disingenuous towards Armenia as they had been before. In May 1920, Soviet Russia re-appeared in Transcaucasia. The Armenian delegates in Moscow were offered assistance if Armenia allowed transport of Russian troops over the Kars railway to go to the rescue of the Turks who were fighting the Greeks in Asia Minor. The Armenian Government rejected the Russian offer.

In August, 192o, the Armenian delegates signed the Treaty of Sevres which recognized the de jure independence of the Armenian republic. Three months later, however, the Turks attacked Arme nia and occupied Kars. After the Armenian Government had signed a treaty of peace with the Turks, Russia hurried troops to Erivan led by Armenian Communists and invited the Turks, by telegram, to stop any further advance.

S. S. Republic of Armenia.

A Soviet Armenian Government was established in Erivan in Dec. 192o. Since that time the Arme nian Communist party, about I,000 strong, has been governing the country. With the financial support of Soviet Russia, Georgia and Azerbaijan, the Armenian Government has established peace and a measure of prosperity. Barren lands and marshes have been re claimed by a scientific system of irrigation and considerable en couragement is given to cotton and tobacco growing. Copper mines are in process of exploitation and schemes of generating electric power are in progress.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.-J. A. St. Martin, Memoires Historiques et GeoBibliography.-J. A. St. Martin, Memoires Historiques et Geo- graphiques sur l'Armenie (i818) ; H. Abich, Geologie d. Armenischen Hochlandes (1882) ; Karakash, A Critical History of Armenia (Con stantinople, 1882) ; J. Lepsius, Armenia and Europe (1897) ; H. F. B. Lynch, Armenia, Bibl. (19o1) ; G. Khalatheants, Armeanski Arsakidi (1903) ; Hubschmann, Altarmenischen Ortsnamen, Bibl. Indo-German ische Forschungen (1904) ; C. F. Lehmann-Haupt, Armenien einst and jetzt, Bibl. (191o, etc.) ; A. P. Hacobian, Armenia and the War (1917) ; Mandelstam, Le sort de l'Empire Ottoman, pp. (1917) ; L'Angleterre et les Armenians (The Hague, i918) ; and La Societe des Nations et les . Puissances devant la probleme Armenien (1925) ; Armenian Delegation, Memorandum presented to the Peace Conference (1919) ; Leo, Erivan and other publications of the Armenian Gov ernment in Armenia (1g19-1q26) ; and Antsialits (1026) ; F. Von Luschan, Volker, Rassen, Sprachen (192 2) ; E. H. Bierstadt, The Great Betrayal (New York, 1924) ; A. J. Toynbee, Survey of International Affairs, pp. (1925). (A. S.)