Introduction
I am aware that to explain the beginning of my idea of penning a book on goldsmithery with family heirloom has a subjective aspect. However, to embark on such comprehensive research and to bring it to completion without being undaunted by challenges would not have been possible without a deep and personal passion. I have briefly touched upon the book’s personal meaning and the basic axes of my approach (history, labor and aesthetics) to the subject. I mentioned these factors so as to be able to explain the general framework of the book as well as the essentials of my approach. It is however impossible to justify the material used, the historical and spatial classification with only these three factors. I therefore want to explain to the readers, just at the very beginning of the book, what kind of content and method they will come across and to present them with some sort of a guide. I believe such a guide will be useful when I consider the volume of the work and the length of the historical period it covers.
Since goldsmithery and jewelry have to include commercial and technical stages of various levels such as the discovery, trade and processing of precious metals and stones, we felt it necessary to focus on the history of these stages in the first part of the research. Although our book is based on goldsmithery in the Ottoman period and the contribution of Armenian goldsmiths, we thought it was imperative to briefly touch upon the periods preceding the Ottoman Empire, in order to be able to explain which commercial routes were used for bringing precious metals and stones to this region and which processing methods were applied to them here. When the vast geography the Ottoman Empire started controlling in a short time is taken into account, it is evident that what is basically mentioned is the trade between East and West, and the most important elements of this trade are spices, precious metals and stones and ornaments and jewels made of these, besides silk, which for a short time was considered a sign of wealth. Despite not being rich in terms of precious metals and stones, the Ottoman Empire was generally successful in benefiting from the domination of or the closeness to the main trading routes between China, India, Persia and Europe. In those times where long-distance maritime trade was not yet widespread, the main itineraries of the caravan trade between the East and the West (from Tabriz in the north to the Caucasus, or from Baghdad and Raqqa in the south to Antioch) were either within the Ottoman zone of influence or near it.
Not rich in precious metals, the Ottoman Empire was prompt in grasping the importance of the economic regulations which would allow it to become a beneficiary of this commercial mobility. Ottoman goldsmithery was directly influenced by this course, since important parts of the silk, spices and precious stones flowing from the East to the West, as well as of the gold and silver streaming from the West to the East were transiting through the Ottoman land. This mobility led those western merchants trading with India and Persia to have agents in the Ottoman Empire and to collaborate with local merchants and companies.
The ensuing two-way commodity trade enriched both Ottoman goldsmiths and jewelers in terms of materials and allowed them to become familiar with the eastern and western goldsmithery and jewelry styles.
1. Dédéyan, Gérard, Ermeni Halkının Tarihi (Histoire du Peuple Arménien), trans. Şule Çiltaş, Ayrıntı Publ., 2015, p. 310.
2. Braudel, Fernand (compiled), Akdeniz – Mekân, Tarih, İnsanlar ve Miras (La Méditerrannée-L’Espace, et l’Histoire-Les hommes et l’héritage), trans. Necati Erkurt – Aykut Derman, Metis, 2018 (fifth edition), p. 26.
7. Kürdian, Harutiun, “Koharneru Badmutyunı Hayots Mod” [The Jewelry History of Armenians], Hayrenik, issue: 3, May – June 1945, p. 79.
8. In many languages, including Persian, Turkish, Urdu – Hindi, Azerbaijani, Bengali, Kurdish, Gujarati, Malay, Punjabi, and Swahili, Adjem and Adjemi refer to Persia (Iran) and Persians (Iranians), respectively.
9. Ivanova, Svetlana, “The Empire’s ‘Own’ Foreigners: Armenians and Acem Tuccar in Rumeli in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries”, Oriente Moderno, v. 83, issue: 3, pp. 691-692.
There are records indicating the presence of Armenians among the artisans which Selim the Resolute (Selim I) brought from Tabriz which he conquered at the beginning of the 16th century. Despite the lack of precise records, it is possible that these artisans also included goldsmiths and jewelers. The fact that both Selim and his successor Suleiman the Magnificent (Suleiman I) were engaged in goldsmithery sustains this possibility. In fact, Suleiman would, with his campaign in Iraq, bring many Armenian craftsmen from Van and adjoining areas to Istanbul. “Khodja Mercan” who during the said period worked for the Ehl-i Hiref-i Hâssa (Community of Imperial Craftsmen), the Armenian goldsmith “Yonoz (?) bin Tanrıvirmiş” whose name appears in the Istanbul Cadi Registers (Kadı Sicilleri) under Suleiman I, the goldsmith Maksud Ali who presented holiday gifts to the same sultan, and people like Mirdjan and Murad point to the presence of Armenian goldsmiths in early Ottoman goldsmithery. Although not stating an exact date, Evliya Çelebi mentions the Armenian Bedros among the most valuable masters within the artisan goldsmiths and jewelers guild (Esnâf-ı Zergerân-ı Cevahirciyân), thus showing that this continued in the later periods.10
Practicing professions like goldsmithery and jewelry in an empire lacking sources of precious metals and stones could only be possible by the import of such metals. Apart from the gold and silver mined in the Balkans in Siderokausia (Sidrekapsi in Ottoman Turkish), Novo Brdo and Kratovo and the limited quantities obtained from the short-lived emerald mine in Sivrihisar and those in Egypt, as well as from the fields of Ergani and Gümüşhane, precious metals had to be imported into the Ottoman Empire. To ensure the continuity of the profession, a constant flow of precious metals and stones was necessary and the state had to take the required measures to guarantee this flow and to avoid bottlenecks in the supply of gold and silver. Starting with diamonds, rubies, chrysolite, sapphire and spinel, all precious and semi-precious stones had to be imported from Asia and Africa. Since the first century of the Empire’s existence, the supply of precious metals was one of the primary economic activities of the state, which was alone in holding the privilege of collecting large quantities of gold and silver and forced the artisans to pay high prices for the goods it seized and aimed to collect the existing gold for prices much lower than its market value, opening the way for a popular discontent reaching its climax with the dismissal of the Grand Vizier Melek Ahmed Pasha, thus giving on about the scarcity of precious metals. The framework of the strict state control on the commerce of precious metals and stones in the 16th and 17th centuries is addressed in Chapter II, whereas Chapter VII deals with the dimensions of the same problem and the measures deemed necessary between the 18th and 20th centuries.
Regarding the subject detailed in both parts, we need to indicate that the problem of precious metals was always present in the Ottoman Empire and that there was a rivalry in this respect between the Ottoman and the Safavid states until the 18th century. Both states were encouraging the import of precious metals and taking drastic measures to prevent their export from the country. Towards the end of the 17th century, the “Adjem Armenians” coming from Persia to Edirne (Adrianopolis) for commerce and trying to change their gold and silver ingots with gold Ashrafi or silver zolota (silver coin minted in the Kingdom of Poland and widely used in the Ottoman market as of the 17th century) coins and similar requests by Adjem groups in Izmir show the level of rivalry on this field.11 As a matter of fact, customs restrictions were inconclusive and the gold and silver contraband between the Ottoman and Persian states could not be prevented.
Despite being based on the politico-economic rivalry between the two states, this problem was rather the outcome of a more general feature of precious metals and stones. These items typically did not remain in the places where they were found, they were subject to continuous movement and flow. On the other hand, goldsmithery and jewelry as crafts require stability and permanence in terms of processes applied, working conditions and necessary tools. This is why Chapter III addresses the places, workshops and shops where this profession was exercised. If one place is to be mentioned for goldsmithery and jewelry in the Ottoman Empire, then it would undoubtedly have to be the Jewelry market (Bedesten), the Covered Market (Kapalıçarşı) or the one known as the Grand Bazaar (Çarşu-yı Kebir) by foreign visitors; a place which, despite all the earthquakes, fires and various disasters, retained its position as the center of these trades.
Notwithstanding the numerous goldsmith workshops in other parts of the city, the Grand Bazaar which according to the English traveler and writer Miss Julia Pardoe, “resembles a small commercial town under a single roof,” was the meeting place of both the craftsmen and the buyers. Such factors as the closeness of ateliers working for successive stages of production, its suitability for the transportation of its goods by land and by sea, its security conditions as required by the production and storage of crafted items and its closeness to the Mint made way for numerous workshops, large and small, to gather in or around the Grand Bazaar. There were also shops producing goods predominantly intended for non-Muslims near Pera and Galata, but these were mostly for the display and the sale of such goods.
Besides the material used, the date of the production, the producing company and the quantity produced were among that factors determined the value of the luxury consumer goods. These factors provide for the craft of goldsmithery and jewelry to encompass those old and valuable items which resist the wearing effects of time. The Grand Bazaar has always been an important center with regards to antiquity shops and has attracted the attention of foreign travelers. The Armenian Lutfik Tensufian (1805-1877) who hosted the French writer Théophile Gautier (1811-1872) visiting his shop in the mid-19th century and was known as the “Prince of the Grand Bazaar” was one of the most important antiques dealers of his time. Gautier describes the magical atmosphere of Tensufian’s shop very vividly: “Rembrandt would find here items to enrich his museum of antique works: old weapons, old fabrics, bizarre jewels, pottery and earthenware of unseen forms, tools of undetermined usage.”13
Other important antiquitarians were to continue working in the Grand Bazaar, after Lutfik Tensufian. Especially Zenope with his shop rich on porcelain, Antoine Brimo (1871-1919) from an Armenian family originating from Aleppo and trading in works of art, Edward S. Béghian (1872-1962), the Kalfayan-Ghazarian family which carried their antique business begun in the Ottoman Empire to Thessaloniki after emigrating there, the Indjidjian Brothers, Grigor Minassian who in 1894 sold cuneiform tablets to the British Museum and was an active supplier of the Victoria & Albert Museum were the most prominent of such antiques dealers. We nevertheless decided to allocate more detailed space to Garbis and Hagop Kalebdjian and Dikran Khan Kelekian who among the Armenian antiques dealers specialized in very distinct fields. The Kalebdjian Brothers (Kalebdjian Frères) who concentrated on ancient Mediterranean treasures had specialized in antiquities from Greece, Egypt and the Near East and were working with the famous Cartier company.
Dikran Garabed Kelekian (1868-1951) who successfully continued in France and the USA the profession his family started in the Ottoman Empire owed his career and achievements to the 1893 Columbian Universal Exposition he participated in at a young age. In the exposition, Kelekian represented works from Persia and became one of the people to encourage and strengthen the American interest in eastern works before opening a gallery called “Le Musée du Bosphore” in New York. Kelekian who closely followed the archeological excavations in Iraq, Persia and Egypt was granted the title “Khan” by Shah Mozaffar ad-Din (1896-1907) of Persia and appointed official consul in New York in 1902. Opening galleries in Cairo, Paris and New York, Dikran Khan Kelekian made important contributions to the formation of Eastern departments of American and European museums which lacked knowledge on works of the East. As such, he had gone beyond the role of an antiques dealer in the classical sense of the word to embrace the activities of an art dealer, educator and a type of curator. The Egyptian reliefs, Indian fabrics and Byzantine bowls he donated to the Metropolitan Museum, the Isfahan carpets and Persian ceramics he allowed to be displayed provide an idea about the extent of his areas of interest. The close and friendly relations he established with important museums and the collector families of the United States, with painters like Milton Avery, Jo Davidson, Walt Kuhn, Hans Moller and Elsa Schmid helped to spread his fame among large audiences.
People like Minassian, Kalebdjian and Kelekian are considered as intermediaries who conveyed luxury consumption goods once produced to buyers aware of their historical, aesthetical and undoubtedly commercial values after so many centuries. However, no luxury consumption goods made by using precious metals or stones could have been produced or traded in the absence of a group of buyers, a social elite desirous of such goods because of their aesthetic or commercial value. Jewelry articles were generally produced for those members of the society who were in possession of political, economic or military power. The fact that this privileged group was few in number was a factor enabling us to trace among whom many important works changed hands. Privileged groups do not necessarily have aristocratic roots but tend to attribute themselves a noble past because of the economic-political power they possess. In Chapter IV we deal with the amiras who are qualified as a sort of “nobles” within the Armenian society and who generally come forward with their economic power and their relations with Ottoman rulers. It seems possible to describe as a sort of commercial bourgeoisie the amiras who from time to time are compared to the privileged group of the Phanariot Rûm14 community. To avoid mistakes which might arise from such a comparison, one has to underline the fact that the statute of the amiras was based upon their commercial-financial power and their relationship to Ottoman administrators. Yet, Philliou indicates that with time the political achievements of the Phanariots would go beyond their commercial roots and even frequently cause them to be forgotten.15 In the case of the amiras, there is no question of commercial strength becoming political power.
The amiras who emerged towards the end of the 1600s and whose power and influence was apparent in the 18th century continued to be around for almost two hundred years. The families having possessing the amira title for two or three generations proves this continuity. Although amira is not a legal title, the amiras using it in their daily lives were enjoying privileges not granted to non-Muslims. A large part of the amiras whose fortunes basically stemmed from trade were sarrafs and their financial power came from providing the capital needed for solving the empire’s financial problems without becoming indebted to foreign countries. In this regard, they could be likened to the important capitalists of Europe like the Fugger or Welser families who had enough financial power to lend money even to the Habsburgs. The amiras whose first brilliant representatives were Serpos Amira and Yacoub Amira Hovhannessian were generally active in money-changing, while jewelry and the trade of precious stones played an important part in their fortunes. As such, amiras were an indispensable factor of the precious stone trade and although their activities were now centered on goldsmithery and jewelry rather than trading precious stones, some continued to work as goldsmiths even after they disappeared from the stage of history as a social group.
14. “Rûm”: In contemporary Turkish usage, often used to refer to the Anatolian Greek people or their culture.
15. Philliou, Christine M., Bir İmparatorluk Biyografisi, İhtilaller Çağında Osmanlı Yönetimi ve Fenerliler (Biography of an Empire: Governing Ottomans in an Age of Revolution), trans. Renan Akman, İş Kültür Publ., 2022, p. 6.
The amiras were organizing parties and gatherings to display their wealth and magnificent lives in their mansions and yalıs concentrated in coastal districts like Hasköy, Ortaköy, Kuruçeşme, Yeniköy, Tarabya, Üsküdar and were hosting the influential state administrators. The seventy-room yalı of Hagop Keutcheoglu in Bebek, the Yeniköy yalı of Mgrditch Djezayirlian, designed by the famous architect Hagop Melik and built by fifty-four workers brought from France, Apraham Pasha Yeramian’s yalı in Büyükdere, Maksud Amira Sarimian’s yalı called “Teardrop Palace” in memoriam of his children who died from typhus in 1853, the yalı of Petraki Çelebi in Tarabya with some part of its grounds later used for the Grand Tarabya Hotel,19 the mansions built by Grigor Amira Balian for the Balian family in Üsküdar Bülbülderesi, the Dadian mansion (it was so large that it was able to host more than 300 pilgrims returning from Mecca after their boat ran aground just in front)20 in Çengelköy were only a small part of these yalıs and kiosks.
Another sign of the wealth of sarrafs and amiras was their usage in their daily lives of luxury goods which ordinary people could not afford. Apart from products of jewelry, furs, mirrors, porcelain and tobacco pipes or chibouks, all considered as signs of wealth in the period are remarkable in this respect. Starting with the reign (1640-1648) of Sultan İbrahim, his passion for furs and especially for sable turned furs into an indication of wealth and reputation in the Ottoman society. Ottoman and Persian Armenians were playing an important role in the fur trade called “soft gold,” essentially traded from Russia to Europe until the mid-18th century. The portraits by European artists of Mikael Çelebi Duzian and of Bilezikdji Amira depicting them in fur-collared garments prove that furs were a commodity preferred by sarraf-amiras. The sarraf Petraki Çelebi’s estate is remarkable for the quantity of valuable furs like sable, ermine, lynx and fox it contained. The seized belongings of Mgrditch Amira Djezayirlian record numerous furs and 150 Indian shawls described in great detail. Estates and inheritance records are important documents for determining the luxury consumption goods owned by the sarraf-amiras. The prayer beads, chibouk sets, snuff boxes, rings, hand fans, pins, watches, buttons, cutlery, glasses and coffee cup holders ornamented with precious stones like diamonds, brilliants, emeralds, rubies in Hagop Keutcheoglu’s inheritance records are good examples. Among the objects confiscated from Djezayirlian, such items as chibouks and cigarette boxes ornamented with brilliants, a gold writing set, a gold cross in its case, a gold watch with its chain, a brocaded velvet belt with a silver buckle, a comb with a gilded silver handle, a gold watch adorned with pearls, an emerald ring with conical mount and collar, a free standing spyglass in its walnut case, a gold jacket clasp, an enameled gold box would give an idea about luxury goods which would seem to have a very extensive everyday usage.
With their knowledge on the purity and grade of precious metals, their important capital accumulation and their active role in the long-distance trade of goods and merchandise, sarrafs were an integral part of goldsmithery and jewelry trade. In Chapter V we touch upon the cooperation between sarrafs and goldsmiths, the manifestation of Westernization attempts on this cooperation and on the transformation of the working conditions of the sarrafs, the important role played by the Armenian sarrafs in this context, the professional relations of the sarrafs with the court and the Ottoman administrators, and we produce a list of sarrafs and silversmiths for the period of 1691-1872, compiled from archival data and various sources. The Westernization tends would intensify the Ottoman interest in European goods and albeit slower than everyday consumption goods, jewels and jewelry products would also benefit from this growing interest. The increase in the trade with Europe brought to the fore the Armenian merchants who had established an extensive commercial network and had more information on the goods and the workings of these markets.
The role that the grandchildren of Serpos Amira played in the development of trade between the Ottoman Empire and Venice is well known. Jamgocyan claims that high priests belonging to important sarraf families were also active in this field and as an example, indicates that Sahak Sofialian, brother of the diamond merchant Apraham Sofialian, sarraf of Selim III’s mother Mihrişah Sultan, was the leader of the Catholic Armenians of Istanbul in 1784.21
It is known that the sarrafs’ role in the economic system was not only limited in money matters, that they played an important part in the commerce of precious stones, jewels and luxury consumption goods, that they even engaged in the trade of items needed by the palace and requiring high sums, and that this created, despite the variety of risks it implied, substantial profits for the sarrafs thus making it a profession with frequent disputes. A typical example is the petition dated 1861, complaining about the irregular acts by the assistant steward (yiğitbaşı) Toros. Sixty of the 65 signatory sarrafs (köşe sarrafı) were Armenian and they accused Toros of granting the same license to more than one applicant while the sarrafs’ steward (kethüda) was away. Although the investigation proved the claims to be baseless, it is clear that the selection of the sarrafs’ steward had generally been controversial. In 1871, 119 goldsmiths including 71 Armenians whose names were written in Armenian characters, requested that Sukias Ermenyan Effendi, who for a long time had been their steward, be reinstated and although someone else was named for the job, insisted in their claim.
The important profits of the sarrafs made it necessary to tightly control their relations both with the state and between themselves. The sarrafs would not only realize important profits through the relations established with the palace and the administrators, but also gain reputation and prestige. The volume and importance of their activities is clearly shown in their participation in the festivities organized for the wedding of Mihrimah Sultan, Mahmud II’s daughter in 1836 and the circumcision ceremonies of the shahzadehs (şehzâde) Abdülmecid and Abdülaziz. During the festivities where most artisan guilds were represented by their stewards or some guild dignitaries, the Armenian delegation was headed by the steward of the sarrafs Papazoğlu Djanig and comprised Pishmishian Mikayel, Uzun Artinoğlu Artin, Davidoğlu Osep, Papazoğlu Maksud, Tinghiroğlu Artin, Kasbaroğlu Baghdasar, Kurkdjikhanlian Bedros, Kaldjioğlu Grigor.
On the other hand, one should not think that the relations with the state were running smoothly or that it gave the sarrafs nothing more than an important income and influence. From a register recording the totality of the debts of the Imperial Harem (Harem-i Hümâyun) during the reign of Abdülmecid, we compiled a list of the sums owed especially to sarrafs and goldsmiths: The number of creditor sarrafs and the high amounts they lent to the Imperial Harem are rather striking in this respect.22 The example of Hagop Keutcheian (Keutcheoğlu) is highly interesting in the context of the difficulties encountered by the sarrafs while trying to collect debts. It is known that Murad V and his mother Şevkiefsar Valide Sultan were highly indebted to Keutcheian and that the Valide Sultan wrote him a letter not denying her debt. The palace would order jewels and luxury consumption goods from Keutcheian and pawn jewels with him for the substantial debts thus incurred. The reply Keutcheian sent Şevkiefsar Valide Sultan who had particularly significant debts states that the relations between the court and the sarrafs rested on mutual trust, that most of the time money transactions were done without any receipt and that both sides would have to make do with personal records or notes.
In areas necessitating substantial fortunes like producing or ordering jewelry items or supplying luxury consumption goods, even establishing a relation with the palace alone and gaining the trust of the sultanas and the sultan wives was a great advantage. Sarrafs and goldsmiths eager not to lose such a rich market would, like Hagop Keutcheoglu, not shy away from assuming important risks. We see Hagop Keutcheian whose volume of business grew considerably under Abdülmecid in the 1860s, trying to collect the debts amounting to millions made by Abdülmecid’s harem. A Turkish document written in Armenian characters and titled, “Remaining debts from The Imperial Harem of His Imperial Highness, the Late Sultan Abdülmecid Han,” shows the amounts the first, second, third, fourth and fifth wives of the sultan owed Keutcheoglu. The document’s value also stems from the fact that it shows Keutcheian acting as intermediary between the women of the palace on the one side and Kostani the gold seller and goldsmiths like Miridjan, Hovsep, Petro Vucino on the other.
Despite the problems he experienced in collecting the sums owed to him, it seems that Keutcheian managed to continue his relationship with the palace and the dynasty. It is known that he was the sarraf of Murad V until the latter’s accession to the throne and that he presented jewels to Augusta, the German emperor Wilhelm II’s wife, during their visit to Istanbul in 1898. Unable to collect the overdue debts remaining from the reign of Murad V, Keutcheian would suffer substantional losses during the auction of the dynastic jewels in Paris in 1911, after the Committee of Union and Progress (İttihat ve Terakki Partisi) toppled Abdülhamid II and decided on the sale of these. Because of the styles of some of the jewels as depicted in the catalogs prepared for this auction and, according to written sources, the probability of them being crafted by Armenian goldsmiths, we thought that it would be useful to translate the said catalog into Turkish.
There is no doubt that the Duzian family would lead the Armenian goldsmiths on whom Ottoman archives have the largest number of documents, the main reason being that the family generally referred to as “Düzoğulları” in Ottoman documents had, except for a short interruption, been active from the mid-18th century until the end of the 19th as goldsmiths and as administrators of the Imperial Mint, figured among the important traders of precious stones and played a remarkable role in the diplomatic gift-giving of the Ottoman state. Starting with Mikael Çelebi Duzian becoming the chief refiner of the Mint in 1762, the family occupied a place impossible to ignore both in Ottoman as well as Armenian goldsmithery. However, records showing that Hovhannes Düz was paid a daily wage by the Mint in 1730 implies that the family also worked for the Imperial Mint before the above date. Despite not being exactly documented, rumor has it that the family came to Istanbul from Divriği in the 17th century and was given the surname “Düzoğlu” by the sultan himself during the reign of Ahmed III (1703-1730), while making jewelry for the court.
To be crafting jewels for the court and managing the Imperial Mint for a long period of time would require both a certain skill in this field, as well as an ability to inspire confidence. Besides striking coins and managing the central mint of the empire commanded a certain power of mediation and control over goldsmithery and jewelry to be realized in the chambers of the Mint or in the market. All these links enable us to focus on a single family to address the subjects we touched upon up to Chapter VI, namely the palace-goldsmith links, the partnerships between sarrafs and goldsmiths, the privileges of the goldsmiths working for the court, as well as the risks they faced. In this respect, the careful study of the history of the Duzian family will also permit the concretization of all these processes, the theoretical and historical framework of which we established in the first five parts.
Since the Ottoman archives had an extremely large number of documents on the Duzians, we also see frequent mentions of the family in Turkish sources. However, because of the limitation in consulting Armenian sources, the place the Duzians occupy in the Ottoman financial history or the role they assumed in the modernization of the Mint has yet to be determined. As mentioned in the book, an important part of the interest directed towards the Duzian family stems from the tragic developments affecting them in 1819 caused by the conflicts involving such powerful figures as Halet Effendi, whose name was at the center of a corruption and protection network. The role of the Duzians with respect to the financial system, relations with goldsmiths or diplomatic gifts would require more comprehensive research and the inclusion of Armenian sources. We observe some clues on the roles of non-Muslims in these fields in the especially useful works of Haydar Kazgan and Şevket Pamuk on the Ottoman financial system and the role of sarrafs. Both writers indicate how critical the financial solutions devised by Kazaz Artin Amira Bezdjian were for the Ottoman economy which was facing serious problems during the wars with Russia, at the beginning of the 19th century. It should not be forgotten that this important philanthropist was someone who worked for the Duzians, who was supported by the family during the crucial stages of his career and who did not spare his help during their victimization.
It is also known that the Duzians exercised with perfection their family calling as goldsmiths and Mint administrators for a long time and that they supported numerous goldsmiths and sarrafs in their professions. Since goldsmithery was their family profession, it should be assumed that they specialized in various fields of this craft. As an example, Hagop Çelebi Duzian (1793-4/1847) was known to master enameling so as to personally mix the colors he would use and to apply the education he received in Europe to Ottoman goldsmithery (In his portrait by the French artist Antoine Ansiaux dated 1808, he appears as a real “Ottoman” with his turban, his caftan with fur-lined shoulders and cuffs and his curved sandals).
Hadji Mustafa Effendi who worked for a long time as gold melter in the Imperial Mint states that in the 1890s, when he started working there, “ninety percent” of the officials were Armenian and that except for accounting, all records were kept in Armenian, thus indicating that the habit of keeping books in Armenian continued until the end of the 19th century.26 Although the Duzians were not managing the Mint anymore, the practice that began during their time had continued after them. Besides registers and records kept in Armenian, Imperial Mint-manufactured wedding coins with Armenian inscriptions or with pictures related to Christian teaching, as well as medallions for special days were all outstanding and prove that such items were produced in the Mint. Another point not to be overlooked while mentioning the Duzians is the important role they assumed in the production of gifts and orders awarded to foreign statesmen by the Ottomans. A pair of gold plated matchlocks, diamond-studded rapiers and swords presented to George III, King of Britain in 1795; the gifts given to Victoria, Queen of Britain and her husband, Prince Albert in 1856 (the diamond presented to Queen Victoria would be mounted on the royal crown of Queen Elizabeth in 1937); the bejeweled Mecidî Order ornamented with brilliants given to Franz Joseph, Emperor of Austria-Hungary in 1856 and the brilliant neckband for his wife (the details of these two gifts are recorded in the Imperial Mint books kept in Armenian) are only a few of the diplomatic presents crafted or overseen by the Duzians.
Handing over palace silverware to have coins minted also carried a symbolic function in that it encouraged the Muslim population. There is no doubt that the non-Muslims were forced to participate in such mass practices. In fact, during the reign of Abdülhamid I, a decree issued in 1789 requested the Armenians to donate 4,000 oka (5,131.70 kg) silver to the state, and, in order to cover the requested quantity all, the silver vessels of the Üsküdar Surp Khatch (Holy Cross) Church, including the rosewater sprinklers of the singers were delivered to the officials.28 This chapter also addresses the Armenian miners or precious stone merchants of this period marked by the scarcity of gold and hence the increasing importance of silver both in coin minting and in the production of valuable goods. Tercümanoğlu Cevahirci (Lapidary) Gevorg, who crafted jewelry products for the court, produced jewels for the palace and the dynasty and sold precious stones during the reigns of three sultans (Selim III, Mustafa IV and Mahmud II). He is known to have sent an aigrette costing thirty six purses, purchased brilliant diamonds worth 700 kuruş and produced amulets and belt plaques, using 839 stones, all for Abdülhamid I’s daughter Hibetullah Sultan.29 The purchase of precious stones during the first years of Mahmud II’s reign in addition to those sent by the palace in order to produce jewelry for Nakşidil Valide Sultan, and examples like the diamond cup holder worth 12,500 kuruş, ornamented with emeralds he made for Beyhan Sultan, daughter of Mustafa III, prove that Lapidary Gevorg was a skillful master and that as a precious stone merchant, he had always such stones in his possession. Kasbar the Jeweler, Apraham Sofialian, Harutiun Shamborekian, Mgrditch Zoraian, Bedros Keutcheoglu30 were the leading precious stone merchants of this period.
Starting with Chapter VIII the materials, techniques and style features of goldsmithery and jewelry are looked at more closely. This period has been named “late Ottoman goldsmithery” for easy classification purposes and, besides the traditional Ottoman art, the main features of the Western style of jewelry which by the end of the 18th century gradually made itself more felt have been addressed. The closeness of their relations with Europe and their familiarity with these jewelry products once again placed the Armenian goldsmiths at the fore front. A parallel development was the dominance of silver due to the increase in the price of gold and, as a consequence, the important breakthrough of Armenian silversmiths at the beginning of the 18th century.
There is no doubt that the transformation of the traditional Ottoman goldsmithery is not limited to material, technique and style alone. The volume and manner by which business was conducted were also affected by this transformation, so much so that the traditional artisans working in the Grand Bazaar and Galata were gradually replaced by goldsmiths with a higher workload, quicker to adapt the new tastes to their production. Although classical techniques like inlaying, setting, engraving, filigree and openwork were still in use, both the change in the market and the enrichment in the repertoire of patterns caused some techniques to be used less, while newer ones emerged. For instance, “engraving” applied by some masters was gradually replaced by the easier die stamping, while the development in silver working helped methods to make significant progress. As an example, inlaying applied on swords, yatagans and daggers endured until the beginning of the 19th century, while the contribution of Armenian masters helped reflect the various techniques in European enamel works to Ottoman art. Another important transformation in this period was that only hand craft was no longer enough and that goods based on a certain design and requiring a given degree of drawing technique and design skill were starting to be increasingly more popular. The aigrettes, bracelets, brooches, clasps, enameled watches, neckbands, daggers, pistols and guns reflect, in various degrees and forms, the features mentioned above. The existence of numerous simpler workshops on pictures from 19th century Grand Bazaar khans can be interpreted as the effect of this development in stressing the role of the simplers (sadekâr). “Simpler” is the name given to the masters manufacturing the gold, silver and more rarely the platinum, in other words, the “simple” parts of the jewel; the expression is still in use today.
A similar aspect can also be seen in the developments on the diamond cutting techniques; the Ottoman jewelry which aimed at minimum loss and little interference on the stone through cabochon-cuts started in the 19th century to adopt such widespread methods as the Peruzzi technique which increased the shine of the diamond by increasing the number of its facets. Instead of a quick and sharp turn, it would be better to interpret this development as a gradual transformation whereby the cabochon-cut was standing back and faceted cuts were progressively adopted. In fact, an aigrette registered in the Topkapı Palace Treasury collection (TSM, 2/313) and dated as 18th century proves, with its stones displaying different cut methods, that in the early 18th century both traditional and new cutting techniques were used on the same jewel. The Armenian diamond cutters were familiar with the developments in jewelry centers like Venice, Marseille, Amsterdam and Paris and their role in applying the new cutting techniques to Ottoman jewelry was especially important. The Armenian goldsmith Chamas who in the early 18th century, in 1712, was working on precious stones as a setter under the arches of the Palais Royal in Paris is important as a representative of the Armenian artisans who were familiar with the European techniques of goldsmithery and probably applied these to Ottoman jewelry.31 This view is supported by the approach of Hatipoğlu who is studying the Spoonmaker’s Diamond (Kaşıkçı Elması) which was introduced to the Topkapı Palace at the end of the 17th or the beginning of the 18th centuries, and who indicates that this diamond might have been processed in Istanbul, by an Armenian diamond cutter.32
Umberto Eco indicates that the clearest proof of the acceleration of the commerce of precious metals and stones after the 16th century can be observed in the substantial increase in the manufacture of goldsmithery and jewelry products and that despite the continuation in the creation of sacred objects, this increase was basically of a secular nature. The predominant part of this production was made up by goods of everyday usage (watches, snuff boxes, tobacco pipes, cup holders, mirrors etc. decorated with diamonds) or jewelry made with precious metals and stones. At the same time, the production of items for church liturgy or for clerics and accredited with some sort of sanctity would still continue, even in varying forms and quantities. Chapter IX will focus on the items the Armenian goldsmiths in the Ottoman Empire produced for Armenian churches and clerics. The valuable sacred goods production which is seen as the sign of the strength of the ties of the Armenians to their churches and of their faith has a long history.
Just like the Armenian people, the fact that the Armenian religious offices were scattered around various geographies opened the way for the valuable items presented to any religious office to carry the marks of the goldsmithery tradition of the area where they were crafted. We therefore considered that examining the valuable items produced for churches under the headings of the Catholicosate of Etchmiadzin, the Catholicosate of Cilicia, the Patriarchate of Jerusalem and the Patriarchate of Istanbul would fit in this chapter. We gathered the items crafted for or gifted to the various churches in Eastern Anatolia under a separate heading. The main jewelry items produced by Armenian goldsmiths for churches are valuable goods used in ceremonies and those utilized by the clergy. The most remarkable among these are Sacred Myron (Holy Chrism) vessels, reliquaries, gold and silver-plated Bibles, bishop crowns, altar ornaments, patriarch staffs, hand and altar crosses, oil lamps, communion cups, censers, chandeliers, candlesticks and gold-threaded fabrics for adorning the altar.
Despite losses incurred because of attacks, burglary, fire etc. experienced at times, such valuable items possessed by every patriarchate and church were recorded at frequent intervals and in detail. We owe our information on the numerous valuable items preserved by Armenian churches throughout the years to the testimonies of priests or travelers and writers mentioning the precious pieces they saw. Apraham H. Ayvazian provides a detailed list of such valuable items in the Catholicosate of Etchmiadzin in his book entitled Şar Hay Gensakrutyants (Armenian Biography Series) published in 1893 (three volumes, K. Baghdadlian Printing House). We shall content ourselves here with a few striking examples from the list: A bishop’s crown and staff belonging to Catholicos Bedros Kutur; a golden belt covered with precious stones belonging to Patriarch Hagop Nalian, an ivory staff inscribed with memoirs of Catholicos Apraham of Crete; a ring ornamented with precious stones belonging to Garabed, Bishop of Erzurum; another ring ornamented with precious stones and owned by Catholicos Yeprem and gifted by Tsaritsa Catherine of Russia; the order of Catholicos Matteos.
The Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia is in possession of rich items produced with the typical workmanship of Cilicia which enjoyed strong commercial relations with Venice and Genoa through the port of Aegeae (Ayas, today Yumurtalık). The most important item was an inlaid catholicosate throne ornamented with jewels and referred to as a goldsmithery wonder of the Surp (Saint) Sophia Mother Cathedral and the whereabouts of which are unfortunately unknown today. Among the forty staffs Ayvazian indicates having seen towards the end of the 19th century, the most remarkable is the golden staff of Catholicos Mikael. The Sacred Myron vessel presented to the Catholicosate by Grigor Çelebi Duzian, Sarkis Çelebi Duzian and Harutiun Amira Bezdjian at the beginning of the 19th century is still used today.
The sacred items owned by the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem also show characteristic features special to the area. The Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem was enjoying close relations with India which was extremely rich in silk, spices and precious stones and the Patriarchate had received gifts from Armenian merchants enriched through commerce with the area. On the other hand, religious representatives sent by the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem to India on mission had also brought precious stones to the Jerusalem Surp Hagop Monastery. A good example is the golden staff and the 12 rings brought back by the Bishop Garabed of Tokat who was acting as the Patriarchate’s India representative for a period exceeding ten years. The most remarkable examples include the “Crucifixion” scene made of coral which was extremely popular in India or the staff made of fish scales and brought by the India representative Priest Sahak. Such items as the solid staff made of diamond amber and used only three times a year, the staff with ivory top and the crown ornamented with pearls and rare stones, both sent by Hovhannes Golod, Patriarch of Istanbul or the communion bowl made in Istanbul in 1749 for Shiravantzee [known as Şığtayagir/Chainbearer], Patriarch of Jerusalem are some examples of the precious goods in possession of the Patriarchate.
The Armenian Patriarchate of Istanbul reaching its most powerful period in terms of politics, culture and religion in the 18th and 19th centuries coinciding with the rise of Armenian goldsmithery was good fortune. The gold and silver items Kazaz Artin Amira Bezdjian presented to numerous churches in Istanbul are important in this respect and almost all of these were crafted by Nargileci Yeghiazar Agha, one of the best-known goldsmiths of his time. The works of this artist who worked at the Mint for a long time have an authentic style, justifying to be called “Yeghiazar-work.” Kazaz Artin Amira Bezdjian, who commissioned silver work from Master (Usta) Yeghiazar, consigned the ornamentation of gold and silver objects to Inlayer (Kakmacı) Parsegh Agha and the pearl works to Polymath (Hezarfen) Sarkis Agha. He had commissioned a diamond-studded staff for the Istanbul patriarchs, a pair of bishop mitres with diamonds, priest cassocks and amices from Hezarfen Sarkis Agha. The portrayal depicting “The Burial of Jesus” Bezdjian ordered for the Ortaköy Church was qualified as a wonder of goldsmithery. Another important master of the period, Inlayer (Kakmacı) Gevorg Agha Bitchakdjian (Bıçakçıyan) had made for the Mother Church of Kumkapı, a staff topped with a snake head, two silver communion bowls, a pair of doves and crosses engraved with the Miracles of the Christ.
Valuable sacred objects were donated to Armenian churches in many Anatolian cities as well. Ayvazyan’s observations from his travels at the end of the 19th century on every church community in the cities he visited having their own Bible and embracing it with pride bears great importance in this respect. For instance, the city of Bitlis takes pride in its “Emerald Bible,” whereas the Charsandjak Monastery prides itself on the “Gold Bible.” The city of Van housing 120 goldsmith workshops in the second half of the 19th century was remarkable with both its jewelry style and its Association of Goldsmiths. A picture dating from 1908 shows the artisans of Van with their tools fastened on a panel. On the picture, evoking the libertarian mood of the day and referring to the “Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité” principles of the French Revolution, the goldsmiths hold a signboard with “Hürriyet, Müsâvat, Uhuvvet, Adalet” (Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood, Justice) written in Armenian.
31. Kasbarian-Bricout, B., “Les Arméniens en France: 20 Siècles de Présence”, AZAD, 2002/2, p. 29.
32. Hatipoğlu, Murat, Türkiye Hazinesinin Bilinen En Ünlü Elması ve Mücevheri-Kaşıkçı Elması-Türkiye II Elması [The Spoonmaker’s Diamond-the Most Famous known Diamond and Jewel of the Turkish Treasury-The Turkey II Diamond], Zeus Bookshop, 2013, pp. 33-34.
Chapter X addresses the distinct features and diversity of the 19th century Ottoman goldsmithery which started to be defined by the Western manners and style. Western style did not only dominate the capital of the Empire, but it also began to be influential in the provincial cities. This was the period when the goldsmiths of Istanbul started to use the jewelry catalogs they brought from Europe to make such valuable items as necklaces, rings, combs etc. for their customers. Art historian Armenag Sakisian writes that the jewelry products of the period were not pure in style and indicates that in its brightest period between the beginning and the middle of the 19th century, the Ottoman goldsmiths followed the French fashion and reflected the Louis XVI style.33 There is no doubt that the artisans of Istanbul continued to make objects in line with traditional tastes; however, the increasing inclination of the Ottoman dignitaries and elite towards the European style changed the supply and demand balance.
We see some of the important features of this period in the dowry prepared in 1854 for the wedding of Abdülmecid’s daughter Fatma Sultan. Although rumors circulating among the people had it that the dowry cost more than sixty million, items like basins, trays or scissors made of silver were indicative of the financial difficulties the state was experiencing. The presence of silver and tombac silver instead of gold in the trousseau of Abdülmecid’s daughter was directly related to the scarcity of gold. In fact, even gilding became expensive and silver items of objects made of copper called “poor man’s gold” were prevalent. The reason for bracelets called “wrung” (burma) made of twisted gold and silver instead of only gold becoming widespread is also related to this scarcity. Although a similar shortage was valid for silver as well, the increasing gold prices entailed the use of silver, despite its higher price. The high price of silver may also be seen in the widespread usage of gilt copper instead of silver, especially for domestic utensils or large objects. The gold or silver plating of copper objects as a consequence of diminishing purchasing power increased the importance of coppersmiths not readily accepted as goldsmiths and the group of artisans treating copper surfaces with gold and silver and called “stampers” (çakmacı) began to be seen as artists.
The prevalence of Western tastes and styles also caused important changes in the materials and techniques used in goldsmithery and jewelry. For instance, the use of colorful stones like rubies, sapphires, emeralds and spinels deemed as characteristic features of Ottoman jewelry style tended to diminish except for the court treasury possessing all along large quantities and were replaced by large diamonds, brilliants and pearls.
A similar feature of the same period is that Ottoman goldsmithery was using brilliants with increasing frequency and that it was especially important to indicate that the crafted precious objects or ornaments were containing brilliants. Although it was clear that brilliants were becoming widespread, one also observes that, undoubtedly in line with the tastes of the market and as distinct from Europe, Ottoman style was preferring colorless (white) brilliants instead of colorful and multi-faceted ones, thus affecting diamond cutting and processing. Istanbul was never seen as a very developed center for diamond cutting; however, there were some known and prominent Armenian diamond cutters, one of these being Master Osgiyan of Psamati (Samatya) whose distinct features caused his work to be known as “Osgiyan-work.” It has been claimed that the first Armenian to have learned diamond work in the West in the 1880s and to have transferred his knowledge to the Empire was Karnig Arsenian.35 Arsenian taught diamond work to some ten masters in his workshops in Istanbul and Bursa. The 1889 province inventory prepared by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Bursa has a record of a diamond workshop in the city. Later, the Minassian family established a large diamond atelier in Bursa. Mihran Ipekdjian, a diamond trader from Istanbul living in Antwerp would open a “factory” for the processing of diamonds in Istanbul with Vahram Gumushdjian (Gumushian) who operated a workshop in Çuhacı Khan. The workers of the diamond workshop opened in 1893 by Garabed Babayan who was the chief goldsmith of the court for a long period of time were awarded a Medal of Glory (İftihar Madalyası) by Abdülhamid II.36
The changes in the goldsmithery and jewelry methods of the time can be observed in many decorative techniques. Although it lost its impact towards the end of the 19th century, enameling reached its brightest era after the mid-18th century, producing its most important examples during this time, enriching many enameler jewelers and making them so famous as to work for the court. The enameled dagger “Clockmaker Agob” sold to Hafız Agha, Intendant of the Imperial Treasury is an example of the variety of luxury consumption goods made by using this technique. During this period, niello work gained considerable popularity thanks to the important contribution of Armenian silversmiths who came to Istanbul from Van. Together with the developments in the silver and niello techniques, new and authentic methods were starting to be sought after. The exact identity of the jeweler Aznavur, who gave his name “Aznavur-work” combining handiwork with machinery is unfortunately not known. Parallel to the diversity of materials in the 19th century, the method of inlaying, which until then was mostly applied to weapons like swords and yatagans in Ottoman goldsmithery, would find a much greater use. Harutiun Agha Mgrditchian of Balat, masters like Serope or Inlayer Gevorg Bitchakdjian working for the Mint, were the leading inlayers of their time. The filigree method started becoming popular in Istanbul in the 19th century, with the contributions of Armenian jewelers from cities like Diyarbakır, Van and Mardin.
The models made for the 25th anniversary of Abdülhamid II’s enthronement (1901) are important in terms of understanding the diversity and techniques of the period, the best-known examples being the Fountain of Ahmed III, crafted in silver by Istepan Tchiboukdjian and gifted by Zekiye Sultan; Nigoghos Tchizmedjian’s silver model of the Izmir Clock Tower; the model of the ship “Şükran” produced in Tateos Ekmekdjian’s workshop, with its ornaments and inscriptions adorned with precious stones by Kerovpe Tulumbadjian. The silver vase decorated with wheatears the Armenian merchant Apik Unciyan ordered with Nigoghos Tchizmedjian for the same ceremony, the base of which was ornamented, as if referring to Unciyan’s profession, with embossed windmills and various buildings is extremely remarkable. Unciyan’s name appearing on the vase was something not frequently seen on such gifts and was, most probably, related to his closeness to Abdülhamid II and his activities as sarraf and flour and bread supplier to the court (as a matter of fact, this relationship would lead to his assassination).
We tried to show the changes the Ottoman goldsmithery went through in the 19th century by matching documents, pictures of produced objects and various drawings with one another. All these complementing items display the transformation and variety of Ottoman goldsmithery, whereby traditional forms and patterns were replaced by the baroque, rococo and empire fashions of Europe with emphasized use of figures and raised lines. Rococo-style openwork, engraved patterns, metal inlays and decoration techniques done with small moving parts (various brooches in the form of flowers or leaves are outstanding in this respect) Ottomans call “trembling” (titrek) were quite common. During the same period, the Ottoman sultans appear to prefer crowns to diadems made of flowers or diamonds and called istefan, as shown by Refia Sultan wearing a crown for her wedding, Abdülhamid II’s sister Seniha Sultan for ceremonies or Saliha Sultan, daughter of Abdülaziz who chose a crown ornamented with brilliants for her engagement with the Prince İbrahim Hilmi, son of İsmail Pasha, the Khedive of Egypt. On the other hand, Eastern influences and especially Indian art started occupying a place, albeit limited, in Ottoman goldsmithery at the beginning of the 19th century.
During this period, one of the important objects of increasing popularity in Ottoman goldsmithery were watches ornamented with precious stones. Clocks made in Galata in particular in the 18th century and called Galatakâri (Galata-work) showed greater variety in terms of style and material a century later. Despite the prevalence of wall clocks, standing clocks, clocks with architectural forms and fireplace clocks, the 19th century saw the emergence of smaller watches or watches in forms rarely encountered in the Ottoman Empire, such as books, pistols, eyeglasses, snuffboxes, etc. Regardless of this diversity, goldsmithery and jewelry applications were most prevalent in table clocks and pocket watches referred to as “bosom watches” by the Ottomans. This was another field where Armenian goldsmiths played a distinct role. Among the limited examples, we should mention the watch ornamented with diamonds the goldsmith Mardiros purchased for Beyhan Sultan, the daughter of Mustafa III; the gold watch costing 254,400 kuruş among the objects Ekserdjian/Ekserdjioglu Hagop and his brother Simon bought in Europe for Abdülaziz and which, despite not being described in detail, was certainly adorned with precious stones or the clock ornamented with brilliants Keutcheoğlu Hagop purchased for the palace.
During the 19th century, the demand pushed the number of companies producing clocks and watches in Istanbul and including Armenian clockmakers to gradually increase. Clockmaker Hovhannes, owner of a shop in Çuhacı Khan who sold two gold clocks with lamp glasses to Esma Sultan; Hovhannes Hagopian who supplied watches to the court and to the members of the dynasty; Hovhannes Khandjian, Zenberekdjian (Zemberekdjian), Hovhannes Surenian, Grigor Kayiktchioglu, Rupen Gumushguerdan, Onnik Tosunian, Nasip Djezvedjian, Grigor Arabian who did work for the palace; K. E. Selvadjian who transferred his activities to Egypt; Gevorg Tchuhadjian, Mgrditch Kalfayan, J. Tolayan, Garabed Makulyan (K. Makoulian), Onnik Resten, Mikael of Eyüp and Levon Mazlumyan were among the most important clockmakers of the Ottoman era.
This chapter also deals with the goldsmithery work and adornments on Ottoman orders and weapons. Because the majority of orders and medals were prepared in the Imperial Mint (Darphâne-i Âmire), the role assumed by the Duzian family who were administrators of this institution for a long period is very well known. Besides the control of the Duzians over the production process of orders, Boghos Duzian had prepared, during his work between 1848 and 1851, a separate album with his own drawings for orders to be produced in the Imperial Mint for various military ranks and civil offices. Due to the changes in the production processes during the last years of the Empire, medals and orders were frequently commissioned to manufacturers outside the Imperial Mint. However, care was given to have such work done by trustworthy goldsmiths of the Grand Bazaar, while Armenian artisans seem to have had a certain preponderance in both the production and the purchasing processes of orders. The “Babayan and Kapamadjian Company” Garabed Babayan, a longtime chief goldsmith of the court formed with Mardiros Kapamadjian, or the bejeweled Mecidî, bejeweled Osmanî and Charity (Şefkat) Orders made by Yacoub Nishastadjian (Nişastaciyan) and Istefan Tchiboukdjian (Çubukciyan) are good examples thereof. Apart from important companies, more modest goldsmiths were also asked to make orders from time to time. During the reign of Abdülhamid II, Billuryan, a goldsmith whose name was little known, crafted 12 Orders of Charity and together with Artin Tchiradjian 15 large and small orders to be set on the braid of the Order of Distinction (İmtiyaz). An example of the orders for foreigners prepared by Armenian goldsmiths was the Order of Charity purchased from Mardiros of Gallipoli (Mardiros Kapamadjian) for the wife of the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, Alexandre Ribot.
An area where goldsmiths were most distinguished in their contribution to the manufacture and decoration of weapons was that of arms generally used for ceremonies or weapons like daggers, swords or pistols to be presented to foreigners. Already in the early periods of the Ottoman Empire, in the 15th and 16th centuries, goldsmiths were considering ornamenting objects like swords, scimitars, daggers, cutlasses, rapiers, maces, pistols and guns or items like armor, harnesses and tackle with precious metals or stones as part of their profession. This is clearly seen in the decorations on the hilts of swords or the butts and grips of pistols and guns. The important artisans working in the Community of Imperial Craftsmen (Ehl-i Hiref-i Hassa) in this field were shield-makers Toros and Simon and the goldsmith Raffi who made harnesses.
In the 18th century, the distinct contribution of Armenians to the decoration of weapons was largely affected by the Duzians doing goldsmithery work for the court and managing the Mint. Mikael Çelebi played an extremely important role in the production of numerous bejeweled daggers, knives of gold or ornamented with precious stones, as well as harnesses done for the court during the reign of Mustafa III (1754-1774). We witness the same role in the decoration of arms presented to foreign dignitaries: In this context the scimitar, the guns and bejeweled swords of different sorts sent to the ruler of Morocco as gifts of Abdülhamid I (1774-1789); the harnesses specially ornamented for the Spanish state; the sword made for the British Admiral Lord Kis (Kys) and adorned with 141 rose-cut diamonds and seven emeralds should be mentioned.37
The decoration process of the mentioned weapons would require a harmonious collaboration between the goldsmiths and the master artisans producing these arms, and this process brings forward not only the jewelry work to be applied, but also the skills of the master creating the weapon. Among the most brilliant examples of the gunsmith-goldsmith cooperation, we should mention the bejeweled dagger Tercümanoğlu Gevorg made for the mother of Mustafa IV; the red enameled dagger by Goldsmith Duzian for Mahmud II; the enameled gold dagger hilt adorned with rose-cut diamonds by Goldsmith Irem (Eram) for the palace; the bejeweled and enameled gold dagger by Goldsmith Baghdasar; the bejeweled and enameled dagger and chain made by Tercümanoğlu Gevorg Melkonian.
The Ottoman documents and other sources make it clear that there were many Armenian masters extremely successful especially in making and decorating swords. For instance, the firearms made for Mahmud II were either crafted personally by Sword-maker Asadur or under his supervision and guns, pistols, cutlasses, carbines and knives were subject to jewelry works such as gilding or goldwork. A document dated 1851 and bearing the seal “Boğos Düz 1259”, requests the price of a pair of pistols made for Shahzadeh Abdülaziz Effendi decorated with gold. Armenian sword-makers continued working for the palace until the beginning of the 20th century, one being Chief Sword-maker Vartan Agha, who made numerous ceremonial swords for Abdülhamid II and for the palace. Vartan Agha would successfully complete the sword to be presented to the German Emperor Wilhelm II and purchase the jewelry needed for this sword from Chief Goldsmith Garabed Babayan.
After the retirement of Vartan Agha who was chief sword-maker for twenty-five years, there will be no one with that title. Atanik Agha, the nephew and disciple of Vartan Agha was an important sword-maker, known as “Sword-maker of the Imperial Treasury.” Another contemporary sword-maker whose work was appreciated and awarded the Medal of Glory (Iftihar) was Nshan Agha. Yet, since the documents in our possession show that there was no Armenian sword-maker with the title of “chief sword-maker” before, the first name to come to mind when mentioning Armenian sword-makers is undoubtedly Sarkis Adjemian, referred to as “Chief Sword-maker Adjemoglu Sarkis,” “Chief Sword-maker Serkiz,” “Chief Sword-maker Serkis” in Ottoman documents. Having explained in the Preface the details of how we found his tombstone in the Balıklı Armenian Cemetery, we shall confine ourselves with indicating that Sarkis Adjemian worked during the reigns of Abdülhamid I and Mahmud II, that 11 of the swords carrying his signature are displayed in Turkish and various foreign museums and that he therefore was the best-known Armenian sword-maker.
The eleventh and last part of the book analyzes the goldsmithery and jewelry profession the history, materials and technical factors of which as well as the dominating style features, its forms and conditions of execution were detailed in the earlier chapters and matching these with the life stories of the craftsmen and their work. Through these life stories, we pass on the experiences of the Armenian goldsmiths starting with the foundation of the Ottoman Empire and continuing for hundreds of years to essentially reach the 19th-20th centuries and even the first stages of the Republic. This chapter aims both to relay the recent era developments of Armenian goldsmithery and jewelry, while concretizing the traces left by the past on the present.
To do so, we had to make very frequent use of the personal archives of goldsmiths, jewelers and lapidaries, of the initial drafts or of pictures of their work, of memoirs dealing with the recent period and of oral history sessions, besides the Ottoman archival material we intensely used in the previous chapters. Thus, we once again ascertained that goldsmithery depended very much on tradition and that the master-apprentice relationship was of primary importance. An important majority of the people who continue to working in this field were members of goldsmith-lapidary families of at least a few generations, and studying their activities and their family archives frequently meant opening doors leading directly to the past, to encounter there the memoirs, photographs or drawings of a renowned goldsmith in his time. The sketches, goldsmith’s tools or workshop pictures we obtained from family archives were so rich as to allow us to visualize the initial stages of a craftsman’s work, the techniques he used and his working conditions.
Thanks to the documents reached through family archives confirming information received from Ottoman documents, we were able to amplify our knowledge on goldsmiths and lapidaries whose names we knew without having any details on their lives and work and to compile the biographies of many goldsmiths and jewelers whose names were forgotten. Private archives and oral history sessions enable one to look into the history of the craftmanship through the eyes of the goldsmiths and to see which methods they devised in the face of the dire conditions of the profession and the times. For instance, the address of the goldsmith’s workshop, the jobs he completed and their prices we generally find in archive documents, and these are particularly important details. On the other hand, private archives and oral history sessions make it easier to comprehend the difficulties a goldsmith encountered even during his apprenticeship, who his master was and how the master-apprentice relationship was the transformation of the tools and technical materials used in the workshop (like the tool chest and tools of engraver Hovhannes Muradian or Misak Oskanyan’s welding tool working with human breath), even the temperament of important master goldsmiths and their manner of approaching the job.
It will be seen that a substantial part of the biographies we share here are not limited to the life of one master goldsmith only and understood that as a natural outcome of the master-apprentice relationship as the trade’s significant feature, the number of families carrying on the profession for a few generations was more than expected. In such cases, we preferred to name these families by their surnames and to share the biographies of family members under this heading: for instance, Tchobanians, Shamborekians, Babayans, Kapamadjians, Bilezikdjians, Narghiledjians (Nargileciyan), Ekserdjians, Tchiradjians, Bitchakdjians, Tulumbadjians, Nishastadjian, Ekmekdjian, Tchiboukdjian, Aschdjian, the Zingilli (Zinguilli) Family. Under these headings, we took care to identify the family member who was mentioned first and then to bring the biographies of the later members until the present day.
On the other hand, Ottoman documents also contain many goldsmiths about whom only the names are known and whose family affiliations cannot be determined. We tried to find their families, but when this proved impossible, we collected those under titles composed of their names, like, “Goldsmiths named Khatchadur,” “Goldsmiths named Artin,” “Goldsmiths named Andon,” “Goldsmiths named Mikael,” “Goldsmiths named Ekna.” We had a similar case with goldsmiths whose surnames were known, but whose family affiliations could not be accurately determined. These were listed under surnames. For example, “Goldsmiths with the surname Reisyan.”
The number of goldsmiths whose names and family affiliations could not be determined and whose family relations could not be determined despite sharing the same surname, declined drastically towards the second half of the 19th century. Besides the greater number of archive records covering this period, family stories tend to include more accurate information as we approach the present day. Although being an exceedingly difficult task because of the very untidy, tangled and different sources in need of confirmation, we did not content ourselves with providing only the biographies of those goldsmiths and lapidaries whose details we shared and relayed archive documents and draft drawings on the jobs they had completed and interesting anecdotes related to their work. The oral history sessions enabled us to convey many details and stories about the daily lives of the master goldsmiths, otherwise impossible to find in official records. These stories and anecdotes provided us with information not contained in official sources and gave an insight into the practice of the trade, its workings and the relations between the artisans: This was how the details contained in the book were obtained, like Simon Cendereci being one of the thirteen talented goldsmiths invited to Paris in 1884 by the Rotschild family wanting to produce jewelry; diamond master Hovhannes Serviyan known for his oyster designs and journal of 200 pages which was notarized in 1926 as a handbook containing important information for Armenian goldsmiths used until 1946; the seven nielloed gold and silver horsewhips Misak Torosyan made in Aleppo for Djemal Pasha and six commanders; the diamond brooch Dikran Suci crafted for the influential Cemilpaşazade family of Diyarbakır; Bedros Tanışman (Peter Tanisman) who today produces watches in Switzerland and competes with world famous brands as Misak Oskanyan’s apprentice; Levon and Raffi Şadyan brothers making jewelry for Muammar Gaddafi, former ruler of Libya or for race car driver Michael Schumacher.
We took great care to list those goldsmiths whose biographies and visual materials were selected and not to sort them according to criteria such as whether they were working for the court, their capital or fame. Some were indeed the best-known figures of their time, having made objects for the palace or for foreign dignitaries. Harutiun Agha Shamborekian, Boghos Bilezikdjian, Hagop and Simon Ekserdjian brothers, Sarkis Tchiradjiyan, Garabed Babayan, Yacoub Nishastadjian, Mgrditch Kalfayan, Istepan Tchubukdjian, Gevorg Tüysüzian, Vartan- Zingilli (Zinguilli) (recorded as French in some sources), Hovsep Tolayan or Hovhannes Kapamadjian are examples of such goldsmiths with their capacity of work, their relations to the court and the titles they obtained.
When talking about goldsmithery and jewelry, the aesthetic criterion inevitably enters the scene to override such criteria as mentioned above. Independent from the size of their company or their capital, a large number of master goldsmiths distinguished themselves solely by their extraordinary talent. Here, we shall not try to classify goldsmiths and lapidaries according to their talent however, it is a known fact that archival documents and many other sources recorded a large number of masters with extraordinary talents. Osgiyan Kırtminian, who had legendary fame for his diamond work; Nargileci Yeghiazar Agha, Nargileci Simon Agha, Arabacıoğlu Yeghiazar, Mikael Kuryan (“Mikael the Tall”), Artin Topkupelian, Sarı Andon, Grigor and Nshan Reisyan, Şahinoğlu Mgrditch, Aznavur, Gevorg Bitchakdjian, Zareh Tahtadjian, Mgrditch Benderian, Husepik (“Osebik”) famous for the gold tea-set given as a present by the order of Abdülhamid, Zenop Karakashian whose gold tea-set for the Ottoman palace was on display in the Topkapı Palace until recently, Kerovpe Tulumbadjian, Haçik Tahtadjian and Levon Mazlumyan are leading examples.
It has not been possible to mention all the Armenian craftsmen who contributed to the Ottoman art of goldsmithery. It should not be forgotten that the Armenian goldsmiths whose lives and works are compiled in this section were basically people who had ateliers and shops in Istanbul and most of whom were serving the Ottoman court and administrators. The lives and works of artisans who worked in various Anatolian cities and had their authentic styles deserve a more comprehensive survey. Nonetheless, here I would like to specially mention two goldsmiths working in Istanbul. One is the woman goldsmith Bercuhi Kupelian about whom we have very little information. It is clear that in a trade like goldsmithery in which woman’s ornaments and jewels take an important place, knowing and interpreting women’s tastes and inclinations is imperative. It is probable that women would work in the workshops during certain stages of the design and manufacture of the jewels; however, we have only come across the name of one woman goldsmith. It is conceivable that this trade which generally was passed down from father to son and was subject to a tightly controlled guild system, had somewhat relaxed its rules and regulations during the period from the 19th to the 20th centuries. The issue dated 11 June 1930 of the magazine called Hay Gin (Armenian Woman), published in Armenian mentions Bercuhi Kupelian as the first Armenian woman to manufacture elegant ornaments in the workshop she established in her home.38 Although we mention goldsmiths called Gomidas Kupelian and Harutiun Agha Kupelian in the book, we unfortunately have not been able to establish a relation between Bercuhi Kupelian and these masters.
The second person I want to mention here is a versatile goldsmith named Levon Mazlumyan (1869-1933). During the preparations of the book, I planned to place Mazlumyan and his work among the other masters of Chapter XI. However, as the book progressed and I became more familiar with his work, I decided that it would be more appropriate to address him under a separate heading and in more detail. One of the factors influencing my decision was that despite being characterized as simpler and smelter, he was a versatile craftsman, producing in various fields of goldsmithery. The fact that some Armenian sources name him among “court goldsmiths” indicated that despite not possessing such an official title, he was doing work for the palace. Mazlumyan had quite an extensive field of work, which could be classified as precious objects, jewelry and church objects. The majority of the jewels he crafted were bracelets, earrings, rings, chains and diadems and although in smaller quantities, he was also known to manufacture brooches. Among the items he manufactured most, one should mention vases in various forms, frames, candlesticks on pedestals or with feet, spoon-fork-knife handles, cup or goblet holders and trays. He also made sacrament tables, crosses with rays (cacanç), censers and amices used by ecclesiastics.
The fact that we consider Mazlumyan as an important representative of the transition stage from the Ottoman state to the Republic played an important role in our decision to dedicate a separate heading for him. Mazlumyan, known to have manufactured the Ottoman orders and medals at the beginning of the 20th century, was the head of the orders and medals workshop of the Imperial Mint at the beginning of the Great War. We see him again as manufacturing orders and medals for the state after the proclamation of the Republic. It is understood that he manufactured medals and rosettes in 1927, medals, the production details of which are unknown in 1929 and that in 1930 he engraved gold medals probably for the state.39 The most important object he crafted in the Republic era was the framed monumental plate made of solid gold and depicting Turkish characters which was presented to Mustafa Kemal Pasha on 22 May 1930. It is claimed that the work for this monumental plate with its remarkably high symbolic value was entrusted to Mazlumyan because of his successful workmanship on the cast gold pen presented a few years before to İsmet İnönü by Armenian goldsmiths.40 Mazlumyan had also made the silver inkstand ordered in 1908 by the Ottoman Catholic Armenian Patriarchate to be presented to Pope Pius X (1903-1914).
One of the reasons for our detailed analysis of Mazlumyan’s work is the part of Levon Mazlumyan’s estate in our collection which covers nine registers and the accounts are recorded in Turkish, but in Armenian characters. Although the records do not follow a chronological order, the fact that they contain the work done between 1893 and 1932, together with a portion of Mazlumyan’s drawings is extremely valuable to us.
It is known that Mazlumyan was also a goldsmith who distinguished himself with his knowledge and talent for drawing and that he worked as a specialist/teacher in the School of Fine Arts (Sanayi-i Nefise Mektebi); in fact, Garo Kürkman included Mazlumyan in his book called Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Ermeni Ressamlar (Armenian Painters in the Ottoman Empire).
In our collection the documents, account records, drawings, pictures and molds belonging to Mazlumyan give substantially detailed information on the objects he produced. His drawings should only not be interpreted as and indication of his talents in this field, but also be viewed as an example of a goldsmiths’ approach to give the customer a preview of the job to be done. His drawing talent makes it possible to show all the details of the objects and jewels he planned to produce, and these drawings prove that he made numerous table clocks which were very much in demand during those years. Indeed, his account records between 1899 and 1901 show that he manufactured many clock parts for İsmet Bey who was known as the “clockmaker of the court.” We are happy to share drawings and pictures of domed bracket clocks, trays with and without handles, candlesticks, coffee tables, table sets, vases with or without handles, enameled cup holders with panoramic pictures, watches, frames (he won an award for the arabesque frame he made for Shahzadeh Yusuf İzzeddin Effendi), mirrors and Ottoman coat of arms, pharmacy emblems from our collection which constitutes a part of the Mazlumyan estate. It should however not be forgotten that this collection is a portion of Mazlumyan’s inheritance and that the drawings and photographs represent only a part of the items he produced.
39. Levon Mazlumyan’s Estate – Arsen Yarman Collection, document dated “26 June [1]927”; Book: 4, p. 45, record dated “1929 July 17”; Book: 1, p. 18, record dated “1930 November 9”.
40. Kalpakçıyan, Ardaşes, “Hay Vosgeriçnerı: Arvesdı Ga, Arvesdavorı Çi Ga” [Armenian Goldsmiths: Art Yes, Artist No], Nor Lur, 29 May 1930.
The few lists we are sharing at the end of the book do not cover the totality of the Armenian goldsmiths and lapidaries and are mostly composed of Armenian craftsmen known to have worked in Istanbul. The extensive article Vahe Şadvoryan published in 1975 constitutes an important source for the goldsmithery and jewelry tradition transitioning from the Ottoman Empire to the Republic.41 The classification by Şadvoryan of goldsmiths and jewelers according to their specific areas of expertise such as “simplers”, “setters”, “diamond cutters”, “colored stones processors”, “polishers”, “engravers”, “gilders”, “coffee cup makers”, “silversmiths” multiplies the value of his work. His list is also extremely useful because it indicates the districts (for instance, those working in Pera) or the khans (for example, those with workshops in the Çuhacı and Varakçı Khans) where the goldsmiths were working. Another feature of the article is giving an idea on the continuity of the trade by indicating the names of the masters or apprentices of some goldsmiths and jewelers.
We find another listing of goldsmiths active in Istanbul through an article written by the journalist Yılmaz Çetiner on the goldsmiths of the Grand Bazaar and published in the newspaper Milliyet. The article which appeared on the 4th, 5th and 7th May 1976 indicates the names of the Grand Bazaar goldsmiths who paid taxes in 1975. We made a list of people whom we believed had Armenian names. It is interesting that this list corresponds more or less to the dates of Şadvoryan’s article; but it is limited since it only names Grand Bazaar artisans who paid taxes in 1975. The fact that Şadvoryan himself was a master goldsmith made it possible to give some clues as to the specialties of the goldsmiths-lapidaries in his list.
The last list we share comes from a notice which appeared on 19 May 2013 in the Armenian newspapers of Marmara, Jamanak and Agos. According to the notice, the Istanbul branch of Armenian Jewellery Association (AJA) published in these newspapers, a “hokehankist” (church ceremony held once in a year to commemorate the dead) was organized for the “souls of the goldsmiths and silversmiths who went to meet their Maker.” In the announcement, the “Polishers, simplers, setters, gilders, diamond cutters, engravers, smelters, coagulators, molders, experts, criers, wholesalers, retailers et. al.” are compiled under the two main headings of goldsmiths and silversmiths. The list, which lacks information on the way it was compiled, does not correspond to the one prepared by Şadvoryan, and even contains misspelled names and wrong professions, is made up of 341 goldsmiths and 54 silversmiths.
We believe that the study of these three lists and backing them up with archival records and other sources will make it easier to prepare a more comprehensive list of especially goldsmiths working in Istanbul. The list we included in our book and which we understand was published by the Istanbul Municipality sometime between 1891 and 1912 provides the list of goldsmiths in the First Municipal District (Birinci Belediye Dairesi) including the Grand Bazaar and its surroundings and the one taken from the records of the Armenian Patriarchate and showing those goldsmiths, gilders, engravers, setters, silver-thread makers, liners and simplers who paid taxes to the Patriarchate constitute examples of such archival sources. It will thus be possible to determine a large majority, if not all, of those Armenian jewelers, lapidaries and goldsmiths who contributed to the goldsmithery of the Ottoman and early Republic eras and to remember them through hokehankist prayers in the churches they devoted themselves to throughout history, or with the labor on goldsmith tables or in jewelry workshops. Even the smallest contribution of our book to the above will be a source of happiness for us all.