Skeletons of massacred found in Turkey

[bell-the-cat]

Archaeologists and forensic scientists agreed on the interpretation of the, albeit limited, but still convincing, material available early on.

There is now no evidence to make any interpretation on anything, and there never was any evidence available. And now the whole incident is now a non-event. I don't doubt we will see garbled accounts of it in Armenian sources in the coming years but that's it and nobody in the real world bothers about Armenian sources. Go down this cul-de-sac if you want but I've got better and more useful things to do.

[samarkeolog]

There was a lot of evidence and there still is some, although it is clearly no longer pristine; then again, the absence of evidence is, in this case, evidence in itself, as we can show how recently and actively that absence was created.

(That is to say, given we can *see* what evidence there used to be, in the photographs and given we can see how recently and how thoroughly that evidence was erased, we can still work out the basic information about the tomb.)

[bell-the-cat]

Look at this. about a recent visit by David Gaunt to the Turkish archives. The little snippets of historical information are interesting. But what most caught my eye was, quote, "he headed for Turkey for five days", and, quote "the list of eleven thousand documents he had prepared to consult was rejected by the staff working with the Ottoman Archives in Istanbul". All this is just more evidence questioning the academic abilities of Gaunt. No serious scholar would ever seek to examine 11,000 original documents in only 5 days (actually, it was probably only 3 days unless he was heading straight to the library from the airport, and straight from the library to the airport). Nor would any archive library anywhere in the world consent to supply a researcher with 11,000 of their documents in so short a time-period.

[samarkeolog]

I agree, it doesn't sound good.

Look at this about a recent visit by David Gaunt to the Turkish archives.... But what most caught my eye was, quote, "he headed for Turkey for five days", and, quote "the list of eleven thousand documents he had prepared to consult was rejected by the staff working with the Ottoman Archives in Istanbul"....

I agree that no-one can study 11,000 documents in half-a-week and I certainly agree - or at least hope - that,

Nor would any archive library anywhere in the world consent to supply a researcher with 11,000 of their documents in so short a time-period.

The full line was, however, that 'he headed for Turkey for five days, between February 6 and 10 to try to confirm the promises made by the Turkish minister'. That brief visit was a preparatory visit to find out whether it was worth Gaunt taking more (sufficient) time away from the University of Södertörn. The list of 11,000 documents sounds like his wish list, to find out which of those 11,000 are available (so, if all 11,000 were available, he would arrange a long stay, but if only 11 were, he would be in and out in a day).

The article said that, '[a]ccording to the regulations established around the use of the Ottoman Archives he was allowed to consult 25 documents per day. This made it possible for Prof. G[au]nt to return to Sweden with 79 pages of documents.' So, the Archives used "consult 25 documents per day" to mean "have access to 25 documents per day" and it looks like Gaunt was using that access to copy them, so that he had his own copies of the original documents to "consult" them in the way that you meant, to "read and study in-depth", back at his university in Sweden.

If your reading is correct, it is damning; but, if he was finding out how much material was accessible and how long he would need to take away from his current work to research that material, then using the reasonable, standard access policy to copy the material so that he could devote the time necessary to researching it at his place of work, where he has all of his existing materials, etc., it sounds like he was behaving in a responsible, scholarly manner.

[Gavur]

I agree, it doesn't sound good.


I agree that no-one can study 11,000 documents in half-a-week and I certainly agree - or at least hope - that,


The full line was, however, that 'he headed for Turkey for five days, between February 6 and 10 to try to confirm the promises made by the Turkish minister'. That brief visit was a preparatory visit to find out whether it was worth Gaunt taking more (sufficient) time away from the University of Södertörn. The list of 11,000 documents sounds like his wish list, to find out which of those 11,000 are available (so, if all 11,000 were available, he would arrange a long stay, but if only 11 were, he would be in and out in a day).

The article said that, '[a]ccording to the regulations established around the use of the Ottoman Archives he was allowed to consult 25 documents per day. This made it possible for Prof. G[au]nt to return to Sweden with 79 pages of documents.' So, the Archives used "consult 25 documents per day" to mean "have access to 25 documents per day" and it looks like Gaunt was using that access to copy them, so that he had his own copies of the original documents to "consult" them in the way that you meant, to "read and study in-depth", back at his university in Sweden.

If your reading is correct, it is damning; but, if he was finding out how much material was accessible and how long he would need to take away from his current work to research that material, then using the reasonable, standard access policy to copy the material so that he could devote the time necessary to researching it at his place of work, where he has all of his existing materials, etc., it sounds like he was behaving in a responsible, scholarly manner.

I agree !

[bell-the-cat]

I agree, it doesn't sound good.


I agree that no-one can study 11,000 documents in half-a-week and I certainly agree - or at least hope - that,


The full line was, however, that 'he headed for Turkey for five days, between February 6 and 10 to try to confirm the promises made by the Turkish minister'. That brief visit was a preparatory visit to find out whether it was worth Gaunt taking more (sufficient) time away from the University of Södertörn. The list of 11,000 documents sounds like his wish list, to find out which of those 11,000 are available (so, if all 11,000 were available, he would arrange a long stay, but if only 11 were, he would be in and out in a day).

The article said that, '[a]ccording to the regulations established around the use of the Ottoman Archives he was allowed to consult 25 documents per day. This made it possible for Prof. G[au]nt to return to Sweden with 79 pages of documents.' So, the Archives used "consult 25 documents per day" to mean "have access to 25 documents per day" and it looks like Gaunt was using that access to copy them, so that he had his own copies of the original documents to "consult" them in the way that you meant, to "read and study in-depth", back at his university in Sweden.

If your reading is correct, it is damning; but, if he was finding out how much material was accessible and how long he would need to take away from his current work to research that material, then using the reasonable, standard access policy to copy the material so that he could devote the time necessary to researching it at his place of work, where he has all of his existing materials, etc., it sounds like he was behaving in a responsible, scholarly manner.

11,000 documents in obsolete Ottoman Turkish script would take years to study!

I think you'll agree that the article uses the information about Gaunt's rejected 11000 documents list as a reason to be critical of Turkey. However, the Turkish library actually seems to have been behaving perfectly reasonably. Allowing access to only 25 documents a day is a restriction, but not an uncommon one: most libraries don't allow open access to everything and have limits on what staff and services can be provide to one person at one time.

While Gaunt did not write the article, he must have had a reason to tell its author about the list of 11000 documents and that it was rejected. Your explanation does not address the question of why Gaunt would make such a list and then invite the article to use the list's rejection as a reason to attack Turkey. The article gives no indication that your interpretation - that it was just a list made to see which of the 11000 documents were available - is correct. If you are correct, why did Gaunt not explain the reason for the list's creation in a similar way?

A worst-case scenario is that Gaunt got the promise from Turkey that he could see whatever he wanted, and then, rather than use that promise constructively, he put together a list of materials he wants to see that was so long that it would be certain to be refused. And he did it so that he could later do some grandstanding and accuse Turkey of making false promises.

[Gavur]

Puting in a hold on materials is not uncommon There was no reason for the Turkish goverment to deny this privilege unless they had the need to carefully diciphire a document before deciding to release or not.
You witch hunt is starting to annoy me,because you're sounding more and more like a Turkish apologist!

[bell-the-cat]

Puting in a hold on materials is not uncommon There was no reason for the Turkish goverment to deny this privilege unless they had the need to carefully diciphire a document before deciding to release or not.
You witch hunt is starting to annoy me,because you're sounding more and more like a Turkish apologist!

The article says nothing about "puting a hold on materials", nor does it say there was anything in the archives he was told he could never see.

I know I'm on the right lines when Armenians start to accuse me of acting for Turks. (And it works the other way around too, of course. )

[Gavur]

The article says nothing about "puting a hold on materials", nor does it say there was anything in the archives he was told he could never see.

I know I'm on the right lines when Armenians start to accuse me of acting for Turks. (And it works the other way around too, of course. )

Hmmm,but it also say's nothing about after Turkish promises to accomadate and invite him Turks reaction of at least conferming the consulability of the said documents.A request of availabality conformation is definitly different then on demand presentation,which is another issue,This is not the first time the Turks try to play a shell game ,of course with confimation of 11,000 doc's that is impossible to do .And thats what I infer from this article like any non-biased person would with any knowledge at all with the situation at hand .

[samarkeolog]

Yes, 11,000 Ottoman documents would take years to study: how does that fail to suggest to you that finding out how many documents are available and what types of documents the available ones are (e.g. (more quickly-read) orders and notes or (more laborious) letters and accounts) would be a good idea? I would be more concerned about him - as a person as well as a scholar - if he didn't ask and prepare. indeed.

I think you'll agree that the article uses the information about Gaunt's rejected 11000 documents list as a reason to be critical of Turkey.

Yes, I do agree, but he can't absolutely control the tone of the journalist.

However, the Turkish library actually seems to have been behaving perfectly reasonably. Allowing access to only 25 documents a day is a restriction, but not an uncommon one: most libraries don't allow open access to everything and have limits on what staff and services can be provide to one person at one time.

I agree - that's why I called it a 'reasonable, standard access policy'.

While Gaunt did not write the article, he must have had a reason to tell its author about the list of 11000 documents and that it was rejected. Your explanation does not address the question of why Gaunt would make such a list and then invite the article to use the list's rejection as a reason to attack Turkey. The article gives no indication that your interpretation - that it was just a list made to see which of the 11000 documents were available - is correct. If you are correct, why did Gaunt not explain the reason for the list's creation in a similar way?

Perhaps he thought the reason for the list's creation was too painfully obvious to merit comment. He might have thought that explaining to people why he'd told the Archives which documents he wanted to see would insult their intelligence. He might have thought that if he didn't say which documents he wanted to see, the Archives would shrug their shoulders in bemusement as to how they were supposed to read his mind and people like you would also find that a reason to question his professionalism and scholarship.

The article said that '[t]he list of eleven thousand documents he had prepared to consult was rejected by the staff working with the Ottoman Archives in Istanbul'. He may not have said anything; he may have provided the journalist with a copy of the list. He may have told the journalist to help educate the public as to how much information there was to be accessed and studied - precisely to emphasise how much work and time was necessary. He may have told the journalist simply because he had no reason not to - to be open with his information.

The article gives no indication of your interpretation. In fact, we know that he was going to Turkey 'to try to confirm the promises [to provide him with 'everything he wants from us'] made by the Turkish minister'; we know that he was going to Turkey to find out how much material he could access, whether he would have an assistant as promised, etc.

Thus, he was going to work out how much time was needed to copy the available material at the Archives (whether he would be copying on his own or with an assistant halving the time, if there were an assistant, whether the assistant would continue the copying whilst he was away, or only be provided when he was present, etc.) and to study it once he had returned home. So, even if he did tell the journalist to give him something to criticise the Archives for, the fact that the Archives rejected the list is a reason to criticise them, isn't it?

A worst-case scenario is that Gaunt got the promise from Turkey that he could see whatever he wanted, and then, rather than use that promise constructively, he put together a list of materials he wants to see that was so long that it would be certain to be refused. And he did it so that he could later do some grandstanding and accuse Turkey of making false promises.

Neither the article nor the history of this case gives any indication of that or even a hint of that possibility. Now you seem to be offering hypothetical examples in the hope that the back-of-the-mind memory of them will remain and taint Gaunt and his work, despite them being groundless.

We all know that the Genocide happened and that there is yet more evidence to be accessed to reaffirm that knowledge. If Gaunt wanted either to grandstand or to make Turkey look bad, he would try to get that evidence and use it to reaffirm the falsehood and immorality of Turkey's genocide denial. Then again, as with everything else, you would also use that to condemn him for deciding that genocide was "cool" or accessing and publishing the material to promote himself.

I'm curious - if he chose to reduce his contribution to global warming by taking short-haul flights, would you condemn him for putting air stewardesses out of work?

I admire you playing the if-both-sides-criticise-me-I-must-be-right card, but just because both sides tell you you're wrong, doesn't mean you're right.