Mkrtich Khrimian (1820-1907), long recognised as a foundational figure in Armenian nationalism, also held prominent, influential religious and political roles within the Ottoman Armenian community. In recent years, however, a growing and increasingly visible trend in historiography has emerged that reinterprets Khrimian as an Ottomanist mediator and a committed proponent of Tanzimat reforms. This reinterpretation, rooted largely in his institutional engagements and interactions with the Ottoman state, portrays him as a conciliatory and adaptive figure working deliberately within the imperial framework. This article critically engages with this significant historiographical shift, reassessing Khrimian’s rhetoric and activities through a close, careful reading of his sermons, writings, and political actions—most notably the widely referenced and symbolically charged “Iron Ladle Sermon”. It argues that Khrimian’s ideological orientation aligns more closely with Armenian nationalist aspirations and sentiments than with Ottomanist ideals or reformist agendas. Drawing on a wide range of primary sources, including Artsvi Vaspurakan (a periodical edited by Khrimian), archival documents, and recent scholarship, the article highlights the nationalist content embedded in Khrimian’s discourse and explores the broader historical implications of his legacy. By challenging the emerging narrative that casts Khrimian as an Ottomanist figure, this study offers a historically grounded and analytically reflective reappraisal of his ideological trajectory.

This paper questions the validity of the term “Perso-Islamic,” a label invented in scholarship on the history of the Middle East to coin the presumed cultural union between former ancient Persia and later Islamic culture. From the nineteenth century on, particularly the European historians with Indo-European philological background introduced an idiosyncratic discourse to studies on Islamic civilization. The phrase Perso-Islamic has been almost extemporaneously employed by them in places where institutions, culture and etiquette in central Islamic lands hint at elements of preIslamic kingship. As a result, the elements of culture in Central Asia, Iran and Anatolia that are considered as “civilized” are habitually linked to ancient Persia, and non-Iranian elements are marginalized under that holistic term, Perso-Islamic. As a chief expression of a long fostered orientalist paradigm, “Perso-Islamic” then became one of the key concepts of the grand narrative on Islamic art and architecture. The objective of this paper is first to reveal what “Perso-Islamic” refers to in historical studies, then to illustrate virtually impetuous use of the term in recent scholarship on Seljuk art and architecture.