Photography complements written sources, sometimes dispelling doubts found in texts — Yvette Tajarian

– Ms. Tajarian, you have studied photography as both a research tool in Armenian studies and as documentary evidence for historical reconstruction. What are the main advantages and limitations of photography compared with written sources? 

– Photography was invented and, so to speak, received its official academic recognition in 1839. Unfortunately, however, this field was not properly valued or studied in Armenia for a long time. When I defended my PhD dissertation on photography at the National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia in 2006, it turned out to be the first dissertation on the subject in our academic environment. This is rather regrettable, as by that time photographic museums and exhibitions already existed worldwide, whereas we still do not have a dedicated space where we can take students to introduce them to our rich photographic heritage.

– What condition are Armenia’s photographic archives in today? Are museums prepared to properly preserve old photographs? What is the situation at the Matenadaran? 

– There is a special procedure for accessing archives, and the photographs stored there are not available even to researchers without following that procedure.

Photography is an extremely fragile medium. It exists on paper and can deteriorate rapidly if stored under improper conditions. In archival materials dated 1997–1998, I saw photographs that I later re-photographed. When I returned years later to examine the originals, I found that exposure to light had significantly faded the images and nearly erased the colors.

Unfortunately, photographs in our archives are often stored together with documents or other materials, which reflects an unprofessional approach. Every type of material requires its own storage temperature.

Until four or five years ago, photographs at the Matenadaran were not treated with a sufficiently specialized approach. If a donor submitted photographs together with manuscripts, the photographs were neither classified nor catalogued. In the course of my work, while searching for exhibition materials in private collections, I discovered a vast number of photographs that had never been seriously studied. Following a major exhibition we organized three years ago, people learned that the Matenadaran also accepts photographs, and new donations began to arrive.   

– Why is the study of 19th-century Armenian photography particularly important? 

– In the 19th century, when photography was still a novelty and viewed just as a technical practice, Armenians were already working as highly skilled professionals in royal courts across various countries. Among them were the Abdullah Brothers in the Ottoman Empire and Antoine Khan Sevruguin in Iran, who served as the personal photographer of Naser al-Din Shah Qajar and received the title of Khan from the Shah. Later, Yousuf Karsh (Hovsep Karshian) gained international recognition in Europe and America, while Ara Güler, known as "the eye of Istanbul," became renowned in Turkey, among others. 

– When did photography begin to develop in Armenia?

– Photography took hold in Armenia somewhat later, at the end of the 19th century. While the rest of the world was already transitioning to artistic photography, in Armenia it remained primarily documentary in nature. 

Returning to your question about advantages and limitations of photography compared with written sources, I would note that photography complements written sources, sometimes dispelling doubts found in texts. Take, for example, the Armenian Genocide. We do not, of course, question that historical fact, but without foreign photographers, missionaries, and soldiers, we would not have this documentary record. Armenians on the deportation routes were psychologically incapable of stopping to photograph the catastrophe unfolding around them.

Today, at conferences of genocide scholars, these photographic records are presented as irrefutable evidence because they were captured through the eyes of outsiders.

Photography is a primary source for ethnographers, archaeologists, genocide scholars, art historians, and cultural researchers. There is virtually no field of study in which photography is not indispensable. 

– Who were some of the well-known Armenian photographers of the 19th century?

– Photographs from the 19th century are extremely important sources for Armenian studies. At that time, photography was not yet widespread, and only a small number of Armenians mastered the techniques. The archival collections of late 19th-century Armenian documentary photographers, including Ara and Aram Vruyr, Kyurkchyan, Mateos Papazian, and Karapet Hovhannisyan, are of exceptional value. They mastered the technology and, with limited resources, traveled across Western Armenia, photographing Armenian architectural monuments at a critical historical juncture—structures that, years later, were likely either destroyed or significantly altered. Today, restoration architects and archaeologists compare the present with the past and, through these visual documents, are able to reconstruct sculptures and walls in their original form.   

– Who invited these photographers to join expeditions?

– They were invited by prominent scholars and architects such as Nikolai Marr, Josef Strzygowski, and Toros Toramanian. These researchers conducted measurements and studies of monuments and brought along the best photographers. Today, everything is easily accessible, but that was not the case at the time. It was also a matter of prestige and professional status—for example, for Toramanian to have a skilled photographer who would capture sculptures and inscriptions from multiple angles, which were later incorporated into written texts. 

The same applies to photojournalism. The construction of monumental structures or, for example, the dismantling of Lenin's statue were documented by masters such as Ruben Mangasaryan, Gagik Harutyunyan, and others.

– It may surprise many that the Matenadaran, traditionally associated with ancient manuscripts, also holds a photographic archive. 

– Indeed, we preserve a vast heritage that includes not only photographs but also glass negatives. I have recently published several studies on these negatives, whose content is closely connected to the history of the Armenian Genocide. The negatives depict Armenian refugees photographed in the courtyard of the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin, dressed in national costumes. The photographs are dated approximately to 1912–1918, possibly even 1912–1915, as research suggests these refugees may have arrived from Western Armenia before 1915. This is an exceptional source for studying the clothing and ethnography of women, men, and children from Vaspurakan, Mush, and other regions.

– Is it possible to produce images from these glass negatives today?

– Yes, and we have done so. Unfortunately, specialized digitization equipment in Armenia is limited. With the help of the History Museum of Armenia, we digitized these negatives. Part of the collection is now exhibited at the Matenadaran, where the original glass negatives are displayed alongside their digital reproductions.

Interestingly, prominent artists such as Vardges Surenyants and Arshak Fetvadjian used these photographs as a basis for their paintings. Since early 20th-century photographs were black and white, they transformed them into color works, thereby documenting our identity. As part of our exhibition, we borrowed works by Surenyants and Fetvadjian from the National Gallery and the Sardarapat Museum, which were created in the early 20th century based precisely on these glass negatives and photographs from the Matenadaran.

– In the 20th century, was it possible to determine whether a photograph was authentic or forged? Is the forgery of old photographs widespread today? 

– Although there were very few art historians and conservators working with photographs in Armenia, certain methods did exist. Today, the forgery and sale of historical photographs has become a profitable business, much like the trade in paintings. If a photograph bears the signature of, for example, Antoine Sevruguin, the Abdullah Brothers, or the renowned Russian photographer Dmitri Ermakov, it can be sold at extremely high prices at international auctions. Forgers reprint such images and artificially age the paper using chemical methods; however, an experienced specialist can distinguish originals, since in the 19th and 20th centuries specific photographic papers and production techniques were used.

– Given all this, is there a need for a dedicated photography museum with galleries for different historical periods? 

– It is absolutely essential. A photography museum, together with a conservation and restoration center, would be a major step forward for scholars studying the Caucasus and the wider region. Researchers approach me almost daily requesting historical photographs of specific monuments or traditional costumes from Mush. There is a vast amount of endangered material in private collections. People often invite me to their homes to examine old photographs and I see how they deteriorate under improper conditions—stored in unsuitable materials and boxes, undergoing chemical degradation. I always urge them to at least entrust such materials to the state for safekeeping so they can be preserved and restored. 

Photographs courtesy of Matenadaran