by hagop » 16 Nov 2008, 09:59
Hello Princemishkin,
It is well known that the origins of Hamshen isn't well documented at all. That reality has opened the way to many unanswered questions. Dampur being a central element of the genesis of Hamshen, it naturally had its share of such questions.
Except from its name and the claim of its destruction, hardly anything else is known about it, including its location. As the story goes, it is supposed to be a city. Those who are familiar with Hemshin know well how difficult it is to build a village, let alone a city in the Kachkar mountains. And almost all the villages even in the lower areas are all made up of several separate quarters (mahalles) because of that difficulty. Of course, building a city is more difficult in the highlands of Hamshen where Dampur was probably established. Nobody has found any large scale ruins or any other evidence of a city. So, historians are naturally skeptical about the existence of a large settlement and think that there is at least some exaggeration involved here.
Since we know almost nothing about that settlement, we don't know who lived there and what happened to them. The historical source doesn't give us a lot of information and later sources don't have any information about that place or its people. There is indirect evidence that the highest parts of Hamshen were a hiding place of the Mamikonian princes who were opposed to the Arab invaders of the 8th century AD, before the arrival of Hamam Amatuni and his people. Ispir which is immediately south of Hamshen was a Mamikonian ruled area and when the Mamikonian struggles against the Arabs didn't succeed, they would escape to Hamshen. Mamikonians were also opposed to the Persians and during the Byzantine and Persian wars of the 7th century they might have again used the area. We also know that the Hamshen dialect is the closest dialect to the dialects spoken in Ispir area. I have little doubt that the populations of these two areas would not be genetically closely related. Thus, I believe that Hamam Amatuni and his Armenians represents only one part of the origins of inhabitants of Hamshen. There is other circumstantial evidence of Armenians from other places arriving at Hamshen. So, looking at the Amatuni episode as the sole determining factor either in the genesis of Hamshen or on the rest of the Hamshen history after that doesn't make sense to me.
As far as I know, there is no record of or even indirect evidence of any other ethnic group besides Armenians living in the area at that stage. This of course doesn't conclusively prove that but it there is no proof to the contrary. The non-Armenian place names are almost inexistent in the highland areas of Hamshen. They start from the middle altitude areas of Hamshen and continue on to the lower areas. That's just about all I can say about the early history of Hamshen.