Lundi 19 novembre 2018, 14h-16h, salle 604, 18 rue Chevreul 69007 Lyon
Intervention d’Emma HARUTYUNYAN, PhD, Associate professor, National University of Architecture and Construction of Armenia
Séminaire conjoint avec l’atelier 6
Contact : Suzanne Monnot, email@example.com
The Armenian Diaspora began to be formed from Middle Ages, but it has more increased after a Genocide. Stopping in the different countries, the builder Armenians have created the big and small colonies, were accepted to construction of the habitation, the centers of belief and education. But the true native land has remained in hearts of people, the homesickness which has increased in mass repatriation has appeared. The Soviet Armenia was considered as the sacred Native land of all Armenians.
Lausanne conference in 1922-1923 became solving in orientation to the Soviet Armenia after which,due to diligence of the western powers and Turkey, the Armenian Question appeared in impasse.
Working in Diaspora philanthropic and different other Unions, going towards to aspirations of compatriots and estimating it as a way of rescue of Armenians – emigrants, have in every possible way supported repatriation and have sent respective applications to the Government of the Soviet Armenia.
Within 1921-1973 approximately 200 thousand Armenians were repatriated to the Soviet Armenia.
The history allocates three stages of repatriation:
- 1921-1938 – the first repatriation (more than 60 thousand person)
- 1946-1948 – the second repatriation (about 100 thousand person)
- 1962-1973 – the third repatriation (more than 26 thousand person)
Direct result begun in 1920 year and mass repatriation proceeding in 1930 year, are works of planning and building up villages New-Arabkir (1925), New-Butania (1925), New-Yevdokia (1925), New-Malatia (1927), New-Sebastia (1928), New-Kharberd (1929), Nubarashen (1930), New-Tomarza (1931), New-Kghi (1931), New-Tigranakert (1934), New-Cesaria (1934), and after war, also New-Zeytun, Kamarak, New-Marash, New-Kilikia, New-Aresh and other settlements.
Later some from these settlements were renamed for the different reasons, and many till now have kept the initial names. Some settlements became sites of the big settlements (for example, New-Sebastia has included in the territory settlements of New-Kghi, New-Tigranakert, New-Cesaria), and the majority of settlements further have included in territory of Yerevan and steel its districts (New-Malatia, New-Arabkir and others).
All new settlements of immigrants thus have appeared, some of which further were part of Yerevan, having left urban-planning and architectural influence on city. Presence of these districts with the unique traditional and original environment, architecture and coloring, has transformed Yerevan in 1950-60 into an original breadboard model of Historical Armenia.
In a consequence, because of the chosen Urban Developing policy, above the mentioned districts start to lose the unique face and environment. And, if now will not be, even, that while was kept is investigated and appreciated, soon from these districts names will stay only.