Jump to content


Photo

Fact Sheet: Nagorno-karabagh (Artsakh)


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
21 replies to this topic

#1 MosJan

MosJan

    Էլի ԼաՎա

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,166 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:My Little Armenia

Posted 03 March 2006 - 03:37 PM

FACT SHEET: NAGORNO-KARABAGH
ARMENIAN RESEARCH CENTER
The University of Michigan-Dearborn
Dearborn, MI 48128


The Autonomous Region of Mountainous Karabagh (also known in America as Nagorno-Karabagh) recently declared independence from Azerbaijan because of continued persecution, oppression, and human and civil rights violations by the Azeri Turks. It was attached to Azerbaijan as an Autonomous Region by Joseph Stalin in 1921 and has suffered under Azeri rule from that time onward.

Mountainous Karabagh had a pre-war population of approximately 200,000 people, 77% of whom were Christian Armenians. The remaining 23% were mainly Muslim Azeri Turks. Nagorno-Karabagh's capital is Stepanakert. It has an area of about 1,700 square miles, slightly smaller than the state of Delaware.

* On December 10, 1991, Nagorno-Karabagh held an independence referendum in which 82% of all voters participated, and 99% voted for independence.

* On January 6, 1992, the leaders of Nagorno-Karabagh declared independence as the Republic of Mountainous Karabagh (RMK).

* On January 8, 1992, Artur Mkrtchian was elected President and Oleg Yessaian as Prime Minister of Karabagh by Karabagh's Parliament. Note that this Presidency is not an independent office such as in the United States.

* On January 24, 1992, Karabagh's Parliament elected Georgi Petrosian to the office of Vice President.

* On April 14, Artur Mkrtchian died in an accidental weapons misfire. Georgi Petrosian became acting President.

* On May 8, the Karabagh Defense Forces took Shushi, a city in Karabagh overlooking Stepanakert, from which the Azeris had been shelling Stepanakert.

* On May 18, the Karabagh Defense Forces took Lachin and connected Karabagh to Armenia, thus breaking the Azeri economic blockade on Karabagh (however, Armenia's situation was not much better since it too was—and still is—under Azeri blockade).

* On June 12, following the June 7 election of Abulfez Elchibey as President of Azerbaijan, the Azeris launched a massive offensive that seized almost half of Karabagh by September. Beginning in late fall, the Karabagh Defense Forces retook nearly all of these territories and restored the political integrity of Karabagh by late March 1993.

* On March 27, 1993, the Karabagh Defense Forces, to forestall an Azeri spring offensive, launched attacks at two strategic Azeri cities, Kelbajar and Fizuli. They took Kelbajar on April 3, but were unable to take Fizuli. The capture of Kelbajar gave Karabagh a new connection to Armenia.

* On June 14, acting President Georgi Petrosian resigned as Armenian President Levon Ter Petrosian travels to Stepanakert to persuade the Presidium of Karabagh's Parliament to accept a new CSCE peace plan, which it does by a vote of 6 to 5. Garen Baburian became the new acting President.

* June through August 1993 was a time of confusion in Azerbaijan as Surat Huseinov led a revolt against Elchibey; Haidar Aliyev became the new President of Azerbaijan; and a short-lived Mughan-Talish Republic was declared in Lenkoran, a port city near the Iranian border.

* July 23 to September 4 1993, Karabagh Defense Forces take Agdam, Fizuli, Jebrail, and Horadiz (although Horadiz keeps changing hands), thus taking the war to the rest of Azerbaijan.

* From December 22, 1993, to November 1994, the re-formed Azeri army, stiffened by Turkish and MegaOil (renegade Americans) training; Ukrainian, Turkish, and Chinese weaponry; and Afghan mujaheddin, launched new unsuccessful attacks on Karabagh.

* In May of 1994 a tenuous cease-fire went into effect, which is still holding today.

* December 28, 1994, The Karabagh Parliament created an independent Presidency such as in the United States and elected Robert Kocharian to fill it the next day.

Historical Background:

Historically Armenian, Nagorno-Karabagh was connected to Armenia in ancient times, a connection that was lost after the division of the Armenian Kingdom in 387 AD. With the rise of Islam in the seventh century, Karabagh fell under Arab rule, where it stayed for 300 years.

In the eleventh century, Karabagh came under the rule of the Bagratid Kings of Georgia, relatives of the Armenian Bagratids, who held it until the Mongol invasion. After 100 years of Mongol rule, Karabagh fell into Turkish hands, where it stayed until the Persians took power in the early 1600s.

In 1603, Shah Abbas the Great of Persia allowed local Armenian rule in Karabagh under five meliks (kings). These five kinglets, later joined—but not supplanted—by a Muslim khanate, survived until the Russian conquest of Karabagh in 1828.

Under Russian rule, a deliberate effort was made to link Karabagh economically with the "Baku Province," later to be named Azerbaijan. With the withdrawal of Russian power following the Russian democratic revolution in February/March of 1917, Karabagh reemerged as a state, governed by the Assembly of Karabagh Armenians.

The Azerbaijanis, who were trying to organize their own state, contested the Armenians' right to rule Karabagh, even though it was overwhelmingly Armenian. The Azeris first turned for help to the British occupation force led by General Dunsterville, then to the Ottoman army under Nuri *****, and finally to the Russian Bolsheviks. With foreign aid, they won out.

Soviet Period:

At first the Soviets returned Nagorno-Karabagh to Armenia; but after a brief period, Joseph Stalin gave it to Azerbaijan as an "autonomous region," and altered the boundaries so that Karabagh was cut off from Armenia and was smaller in size.

The next 70-plus years witnessed Azeri persecution of Armenians in an attempt to drive them out and replace them with Azeris, as was done in the Armenian territory of Nakhichevan.

In the Gorbachev era of glasnost, the Armenians brought the persecution of their brethren to the world's attention through massive peaceful demonstrations in Yerevan, the capital city of Armenia, in February 1988.

By openly and bravely protesting Soviet ethnic injustice for the first time, the reform movement in Nagorno-Karabagh ignited the independence movements in the Soviet Bloc of Eastern Europe. The "Karabagh Movement" is thus the grandfather of freedom not only in Eastern Europe but in the former USSR itself.

At that time the Armenians wanted to attach Nagorno-Karabagh to Armenia, to ensure its survival, but now they respect the wishes of the Nargorno-Karabagh Armenians to be independent. The independence movement has been met with appalling violence from the Azeris. In February 1988 there was a pogrom (massacre) against Armenians in Sumgait, a suburb of Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan. In November of 1988, there was a pogrom against Armenians in Kirovabad (now Ganja), in the interior of Azerbaijan. In 1989-90, there are joint Soviet-Azerbaijani forced deportations of Armenians living in towns and villages of Azerbaijan bordering Nagorno- Karabagh. In January of 1990, there was pogrom against Armenians in Baku itself.

When the Azeris began an outright military assault on the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabagh itself, they took up arms to defend their homes, their land, and their ancient culture. The Armenians are fighting for self-preservation and for the right of self- determination, while the Azeris are fighting to expel an ancient people from their historic homeland and to preserve power over a foreign province.

Today, a tenous cease-fire is in place and has been holding for the past 16 months. However, the Azeris number eight million and have a wealth of oil resources to draw upon in the coming years, and the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabagh only 160,000 and scant resources. Very little would prevent the Azeris from reopening hostilities and starting a full-scale war once the oil money enters its coffers. A genocide similar to that of 1915 is threatened unless the world takes an interest in and protects the lives of the embattled Armenian minority.

Despite numerous acts of provocation on the part of Azerbaijan—including a six-year-old blockade of Armenia—the Armenian government has studiously avoided being drawn into the war between the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabagh and the Azeri leaders in Baku. In October 1992, the US Congress enacted legislation banning direct US assistance to the government of Azerbaijan until the blockade is lifted and the aggression ends.

The six-year-old war has taken the lives of more than 16,000 people, and over 1,000,000 have been displaced. Azerbaijan currently has 600,000-1,000,000 refugees, Armenia 400,000 refugees, and Nagorno-Karabagh 60,000 refugees.

Current Issues:

* The United States and the United Nations should recognize the independence of the Republic of Mountainous Karabagh.

* Azeri leaders and Turkish leaders should reduce belligerent talk and cease to incite their people to war.

* Azerbaijan should cease hiring mujaheddin and other foreign mercenaries.

* Turkey should no longer train and supply Azerbaijani troops and should cease threatening gestures towards Armenia.

* Azerbaijan and Turkey should cease their illegal blockades of Armenia and Karabagh, which have caused untold suffering and death for the civilian population of Armenia.

* A permanent truce must be agreed upon and enforced.

* United Nations troops should be sent in to monitor a self- determination plebiscite.

Current Situation
The current situation is one of "no peace, no war." Negotiations continue, but with Azerbaijan insisting on the principle of "territorial integrity" (despite the fact that Eritrea was recognized by the world community as independent from Ethiopia after a war), little progress has been made.

April 3, 1996

#2 Yervant1

Yervant1

    The True North!

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,575 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 January 2014 - 11:25 AM

17:42 20/01/2014 » SOCIETY

Head of KGB in Azerbaijan about pogroms of Armenians in Baku

In January 1990, in Baku, the capital city of Azerbaijan SSR, pogroms of Armenian were being carried out by the Azerbaijani nationalists for a week. Information about these events are mentioned in the book written by the former KGB of Azerbaijan SSR chairman Vagif Huseynov; excerpts of the book are published by the "Haqqin.az" portal.
Former Chairman of KGB of Azerbaijani SSR writes that during two weeks crowds of Azerbaijani nationalists who were led by Khalil Rza and Vekila Hajiyev were going to ministries and governmental agencies with lists of Armenians who were holding jobs.
Huseynov notes while describing the situation: "Pogroms of apartments of those who have Armenian nationality continue. In Baku airport the youth groups (40-50 people) beat Armenians, or rather to say, those whom among the passengers they consider to be Armenians. In Narimanov district of Baku the NFA demands the withdrawal of all military units. Otherwise, they promise to attack and seizure the weapons. "
The publication notes that on January 14, in 1990 Huseinov participated in a meeting with First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Azerbaijan SSR A. Vezirov. The meeting was also attended by Yevgeny Primakov, newly arrived member of Presidential Council of the USSR, the Secretary of the CCCP Andrei Girenko as well as Deputy Interior Minister USSR Liskauskas, commander of the Internal troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of USSR Y. V. Shatalin, deputy chairman of the KGB G.E. Ageev. All them criticized the law enforcement bodies for inaction.
Liskauskas immediately rejected the proposal of introducing a curfew in Baku. E. Primakov stated that there is an agreement with the senior administration on transfering the reserves and on their usage. Then he notices, "Yesterday, we once again pondered all the pros and cons and came to a decision to refrain from violent methods and to try to resolve the situation by political means again."
After the meeting Huseynov told Yevgeny Primakov, the chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, and Vezirov that it would be better to join the leaders of the Popular Front of Azerbaijan and the leadership of the Republic’s KGB to the negotiation processes. They had promised to think over the proposal. I did not receive invitation to participate in a meeting neither then, nor later.
"January 15. Pogroms in Baku continue. Police are trying to counteract in some special cases. At the rally many people are screaming for the formation of volunteer groups to enter the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region. Hundreds have signed, but no one moves to NKAR yet, though there are talks over this issue for two months already," Huseynov writes.
The material also provides a daily summary: there are 11 people killed in Baku, 19 cases of pogroms, 2 arsons. KGB and Interior Ministry received 239 phone calls for help in a day.
The next day, V. Huseynov received a call from Mikhail Gorbachev, the President of the Soviet Union; he noted in particular, "You have enough forces, to take the situation under control. Keep in mind that it is necessary to stop the pogroms in Baku by all means."
V.A. Kruchkov calls. I inform him about the situation, about the meeting of the Central Committee. "What decision did you make? To nothing substantive. We hope that we will be able to convince the top of the NFA at the evening."
In the records of the AzSSR KGB chief made on January 16 is also noted, "Baku - city of anarchy. The total number of corpses - 43, pogroms - 29, hundreds of signals for help. NFA started blocking military units. Near the building of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Azerbaijan crowd were gathered with slogans: "Down with the bloody perestroika!" Large group of demonstrators marched passes the KGB building. Nothing like this has happened before."
V. Husefnov writes that there were rumors in Baku that 80,000 fighters from Armenia had crossed the border of Azerbaijan. "January 17. It is reported that the forces of NFA are left for picketing the highways, military units. Buses, cranes, bulldozers are used, the main areas are barricaded," Huseynov writes. 

"The Center is well aware of the situation. Everyone was amazed by the rally held in front of the Central Committee, angered with the blocking of military units, and the gallows in front of Central Committee was a finishing blow to the leadership of the country," Huseynov quotes Vezirov, the head of the Central Committee of Azerbaijan.
 

Source: Panorama.am



#3 Yervant1

Yervant1

    The True North!

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,575 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 31 March 2014 - 10:02 AM

17:56 31/03/2014 » REGION

44 ‘‘civilian victims’’ of Khojalu are found in list of ‘‘martyrs’’ of Azerbaijani Ministry of Defense

The website Xocali.net published the findings of the study of “list of martyrs” circulated by Ministry of Defense (MOD) of Azerbaijan in early 2014. The list contains the names of 11 thousand people, who according to MOD are the Azerbaijanis who fought and died in the course of Nagorno Karabakh conflict.

Besides the fact that what the Ministry has published is not the complete list: the losses are underestimated, the list is full of numerous inaccuracies. The website Xocali.net conducted an audit of one of the episodes http://xocali.net/RU/again-list.html

As it is already known, the falsification with the list of Aghdam events of 1992 has been thoroughly exposed by Armenian side http://xocali.net/RU/spiski.html.

The study of the list has revealed that according to numerous Azerbaijani lists, by the way the lists contradict each other, in addition to falsifications and inaccuracies, the amount of the dead don’t match with the advocated number of 613 as well as age-sex ratio.

In January of 2014 the list of “Azerbaijani military servicemen who became martyrs in the course of military operations between Armenians and Azerbaijanis in Nagorno Karabakh and on the state border in 1991-1994,” was published. It is important to pay attention on two things: 1. the notion of “Karabakh war” is put into circulation 2. The list contains the names of military servicemen who fought and died from 1991 to 1994.

For example, the list contains the names of some people who died after 1994 as well as who died out of combat zone and who died from illness. However, this is a topic of separate research.

So, there are two official lists at the disposal of Armenian side: The list of people who died in Khojalu and the list of servicemen who died in the course of military operations during the war. These two lists were compared and it has been revealed that 44 people identified as “victims of genocide” in Khojalu are also on the list of military servicemen, who were mobilized for military service and took part in military operations, including those who died in completely different place and at different time.

Safarov Shahverdi Bahluloglu died in Karintak Aliyev Bakir Shiraslanoglu - in Martakert , Abbasov Elkhan Kamranoglu - Shushi , Guliyev Farhad Safaroglu - in Shahumyan etc. Khudiyev Zahid Bahlul oglu - was mobilized in 1993 and died in Fizuli and Radjabov Jebrail Mehdioglu - died in Khojalu, but in 1991. Mehdiev Fikret Burzuoglu - 28.01.1992, the reason of death is indicated as follows: “died on Agdam -Shusha railroad" - it is noteworthy that there is no railroad there and what railroad they are speaking about is unclear.

Thus, the Armenian side once more has managed to confirm that both lists that are put into circulation by the Azerbaijani side are full of falsifications and inaccuracies, which carry stung propagandistic character and aim to mislead the public.

Source: Panorama.am



#4 Yervant1

Yervant1

    The True North!

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,575 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 August 2014 - 10:24 AM

19:02 04/08/2014 » SOCIETY

Guardian Liberty Voice: Nagorno Karabakh was a part of ancient Kingdom of Armenia

Conflict in Nagorno Karabakh, the disputed territory between Armenia and Azerbaijan, has seen tensions escalate with new fighting this week, reports the article in the American edition of Guardian Liberty Voice. Though the current conflict began in 1988 its roots date back to the beginning of the previous century.
“At the end of World War I, the British established a provisional government, and gave Azerbaijan control over Nagorno Karabakh, causing tensions to escalate in the disputed territory, especially among the ethnic Armenians who are a majority of the regional population. Armenians call the area, Artsakh, as it was the region’s name when it was an important province in the ancient Kingdom of Armenia,” reads the publication.
According to the article, one of the reasons for the conflict was the Soviet practice of creating separate republics by mixing ethnic populations, as this assured control by Moscow. The article also notes that Joseph Stalin initially promised that Armenia would retain control of the territory. However, the Bolsheviks were courting Turkey as an ally at the time, and Turkey had closer ties to Azerbaijan. The Soviet authorities formed the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast which became a part of the Azerbaijan Socialist Soviet Republic (AzSSR) in 1923.
The author notes that as a result of the conflict that started in 1988 the region came under Armenian control.
“Russia negotiated a truce between the factions in 1994, but the area has remained a hot spot, with tensions flaring periodically,” says the publication. Current efforts to broker a resolution are led by the OSCE Minsk Group, which is co-chaired by Russia, France and the United States. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova made a statement on that a further escalation is unacceptable. 

“Last Friday Azerbaijani forces began shelling Armenian defensive positions with rocket launchers,” writes the article.
The war between Armenia and Azerbaijan has proved costly to both sides. In recent days, Nagorno Karabakh residents have seen tensions escalate in this disputed territory, yet with no lasting resolution in sight, concludes the author.
 

Source: Panorama.am


Edited by Yervant1, 05 August 2014 - 10:25 AM.

  • MosJan and onjig like this

#5 Yervant1

Yervant1

    The True North!

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,575 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 October 2019 - 09:45 AM

       A Declassified Top Secret CIA Report
            On the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict
            By Harut Sassounian
            Publisher, The California Courier
            www.TheCaliforniaCourier.com

A 48-page Central Intelligence Agency Top Secret Report, prepared in
August 1988 and made public in 2012 with some deletions, is titled
“Unrest in the Caucasus and the Challenge of Nationalism.” Despite the
passage of time, the Report includes an interesting analysis of the
Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh) conflict from the perspective of U.S.
intelligence services.

The CIA analyst, in the introduction of his Report, traced the origins
of the Artsakh conflict: “Enmity between Armenian and Azeri factions
has existed for hundreds of years, and the 1920’s settlement
subordinating Nagorno-Karabagh—Armenia’s cultural and religious
center—to the Azerbaijan Republic has been a continual, albeit
long-muted, source of Armenian frustration and concern. Azeri
animosity toward the Armenians has been intensified by political,
economic, and demographic trends that have adversely affected the
political status of Azeris and increased the gap in living standards
between Azerbaijan and Armenia. In particular, the rapid expansion of
Azerbaijan’s young adult population has put enormous strain on the
Republic’s capacity to provide adequate jobs, housing, and education.
Azeri frustration has found an outlet in attacks on Armenians.”

The unnamed CIA analyst reported that a split within the Politburo on
how to handle the Artsakh crisis made the situation worse. Second
Secretary Ligachev and KGB Chief Chebrikov were the hardliners who
vehemently opposed the separation of Artsakh from Azerbaijan. They
disagreed with Gorbachev’s reforms and blamed foreign powers for
inciting unrest inside the Soviet Union.

When two prominent Armenian writers, Silva Kaputikyan and Zori
Balayan, met with Gorbachev in Moscow in February 1988, they reported
that he was well briefed and assured them that he wanted a “just
solution.” He acknowledged “the peaceful nature of the [Armenian]
demonstrations and emphasized his personal sympathy with the desire to
reunite Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenia….”

Upon the return of the Armenian envoys to Yerevan, in a radio
broadcast on February 27, 1988, Kaputikyan called for Armenians to
trust Gorbachev. “He knows about and understands our problem and wants
to resolve it personally…. We must do our utmost to ensure that no
harm” is done to him, Kaputikyan announced.

Regarding Soviet concerns about foreign, particularly
Armenian-American interference in domestic Soviet turmoil, the CIA
analyst reported: “The recent unrest appears to have made Soviet
officials more fearful about the role of foreign actors in the
Nagorno-Karabakh problem. Of the approximately 5.5 million people in
the world today who speak Armenian, about 60 percent live outside the
Soviet Armenian republic, about 1.4 million elsewhere in the USSR, and
2 million abroad. So far, Armenian emigres—most of whom see Turkey
much more than Russia as the historic oppressor of their nation—have
not been actively involved in pushing for change in the Soviet system
or in Soviet policies. Moscow worries that diaspora attitudes could
turn sharply critical of the USSR and that Armenians in the United
States, particularly, could grow into a powerful anti-Soviet pressure
group. Soviet officials are wary of the large concentration of
Armenians in California and New York, states with large electoral
votes that have been closely contested in previous presidential
elections.”

In a footnote at the end of the previous paragraph, the CIA analyst
specified that “the United States hosts at least 600,000 Armenians.
About 90 percent of America’s Soviet Armenian immigrants came to
California. Los Angeles—with 100,000—has the largest community of
Armenians outside Yerevan. The New York City region has about 70,000
Armenians, mostly from Lebanon and Iran.”

The CIA analyst added: “Moscow may be concerned that foreign Armenian
terrorist groups like the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of
Armenia (ASALA) could turn against Soviet targets—although we have no
evidence that this is the case. Hitherto, the USSR has figured very
little in ASALA’s blending of armed struggle with Marxist ideology;
the dominant faction of ASALA considers Soviet Armenia as liberated
territory and the group concentrates its attacks exclusively on
Turkish officials. In fact, ASALA eventually would like to see ‘the
Armenian provinces’ now located in Turkey and possibly Iraq [?]
reattach themselves to the Soviet Armenian core. Furthermore, ASALA is
now in a quiet phase, and its leader was assassinated on 28 April
[1988]. Nevertheless, ASALA in early April did send a moderately
worded appeal to Gorbachev supporting the reunification of Karabakh
with Armenia, while characteristically stressing that Armenia is an
integral part of the USSR and seeks only to rectify the border, not to
pursue claims against Moscow.”

Finally, the CIA analyst explained the position of Turkey on the
Karabakh conflict: “Although the Turkish Government has not explicitly
sided with Azerbaijan, Turkey’s fear of resurgent Armenian nationalism
makes Ankara sympathetic to Baku. When the crisis broke in February
[1988], Turkish Government spokesmen indicated publicly that
international agreements entitle Ankara to a voice in the crisis, an
apparent reference to the 1921 treaty between the USSR and Turkey that
led to the shift of Nagorno-Karabakh and Nakhichevan to Azerbaijan.
Turkey no doubt especially feared that transferring Nagorno-Karabakh
to Armenia would whet Armenian appetites and would lead to increased
pressure to change the status of Nakhichevan and to acquire former
Armenian regions in Turkey. Turkish officials probably also noted that
some Armenian expansionist demands for a ‘Greater Armenia’ were based
on historic claims rather than on the ethnic composition of the
affected territories. Thus, some Armenians have demanded the return of
Nakhichevan, even though Azeris now greatly outnumber Armenians in
this region. Using such historical criteria, could give Armenians a
claim even on some border parts of Turkey where only 50,000 Armenians
now live.”

The CIA analyst concluded his Report by outlining five options the
USSR had for the resolution of the Artsakh conflict:

1) “Sticking with the Status Quo”

2) “Making Further Economic Concessions” to Armenians

3) “Enhancing Autonomy of Nagorno-Karabakh Within Azerbaijan”

4) Expanding “Extraterritorial Native Cultural Institutions”

5) “Reconfiguration of Nagorno-Karabakh” by splitting it between
Armenia and Azerbaijan.


  • MosJan and onjig like this

#6 Yervant1

Yervant1

    The True North!

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,575 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 March 2020 - 08:28 AM

Asbarez.com
 
1920 Shushi Massacre Laid the Foundation for Azerbaijan-Karabakh Conflict
March 23, 2020
 
1280px-Armenian_boroughs_of_city_of_Shus

A ravaged Shushi after the Azerbaijani army destroyed the city on March 23, 1920. The Ghazantchetsots Cathedral is in the background

On March 23, 1920 troops of the newly-founded Republic of Azerbaijan, joined by Azerbaijani inhabitants of Shushi began a systematic massacre of Armenians living in what was then the capital of Nagorno-Karabakh.

For three days, the Armenian population was not spared and the city turned into an inferno as Azerbaijanis burned some 2,000 structures in an effort to level the city and rid it of its Armenian inhabitants.

On Monday, to mark the 100th anniversary of this brutal page in Armenian history, the Artsakh Foreign Ministry issued an announcement saying that the 1920 Sushi Massacre laid the foundation for the current Azerbaijan-Karabakh conflict, which saw a modern-day repeat of the 1920 events when Azerbaijani forces and citizens massacred Armenians in Sumgait, Kirovabad, Baku and Shahumyan, among other cities beginning in 1988.

Below is the Artsakh Foreign Ministry announcement.

One hundred years ago, on March 23, 1920, the authorities of the newly created Azerbaijani Democratic Republic massacred the Armenian population of Shushi, the then administrative and cultural center of Artsakh, the Foreign Ministry of the Artsakh Republic said in a statement.

As a result of this heinous crime, thousands of Armenians were killed, tens of thousands were forced to flee their homes and the Armenian part of the city was looted, burned and completely destroyed. The surviving Armenian residents of Shushi, who made up the majority of the city’s population, were completely expelled. Most of the once beautiful Armenian city was in ruins for many years. The enormous cultural heritage of Shushi was destroyed.

Ruins_of_the_Armenian_part_of_the_city_o

Ruins of Shushi after Azerbaijani army destroyed the city on March 23, 1920

The scale and cruelty of this crime struck the contemporaries who visited Shushi immediately after the massacre and noted that the wells were filled with the bodies of women and children. The tragedy left such a deep mark on the city and its atmosphere that even after 10 years it caused gloomy impressions and heavy feelings, which one of the prominent Russian writers of the twentieth century, Osip Mandelstam, reflected in his poem “Phaeton Driver.”

The Shushi massacre became the apotheosis of the two-year-long attempts of the Azerbaijani authorities to seize and subjugate Artsakh. These irrepressible and unreasonable territorial claims on Artsakh by Azerbaijan, which was created as a result of the Turkish invasion in the South Caucasus, laid the foundation for the Azerbaijan-Karabakh conflict in its modern sense. The Azerbaijani authorities tried to achieve their goal through the direct support by the Turkish troops. Subsequently, the Turkish officers and emissaries continued to assist the Azerbaijani armed forces, including in organizing the Shushi massacre of 1920, attempting to continue the Genocide of Armenians, now in Eastern Armenia.

The forcible inclusion of Artsakh in the structure of Soviet Azerbaijan, following the Sovietization of the Republics of the South Caucasus, did not solve the issue, as the policy of the Azerbaijani authorities toward the Armenian population of Artsakh changed only in form, but not in content.

Armenian_quarters_of_city_of_Shusha_dest

Shushi became an inferno on March 23, 1920 after Azerbaijani forces burned nearly 2,000 buildings

The beginning of the process of collapse of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s and early 1990s once again actualized the issue of physical security of the Armenian population of Artsakh. In response to the peaceful demands of the people of Artsakh for reunification with Armenia, a wave of mass killings and pogroms of Armenians swept throughout Azerbaijan. Thousands of Armenians were killed and maimed, hundreds of thousands were deported. The Armenian pogroms of the 1988-1990s were the continuation of the Shushi massacre of 1920 and clearly demonstrated that even after 70 years neither the goals nor the methods of the Azerbaijani authorities had changed.

Only thanks to the self-organization of the people of Artsakh, which created a capable state with all the necessary institutions, including an efficient army, as well as the support of the Armenians worldwide, it was possible to repel the armed aggression of Azerbaijan in 1991-1994 and to prevent the repeating of the Shushi scenario in Artsakh, but  on a larger scale.

Today, the authorities and people of Artsakh are exerting every effort to revive Shushi and to restore, the cultural heritage of the city destroyed by the Azerbaijani authorities.

 

 

http://asbarez.com/1...FFFrncjhd0of2Co


  • MosJan likes this

#7 Yervant1

Yervant1

    The True North!

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,575 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 June 2020 - 08:26 AM

Aysor, Armenia
June 11 2020
 
 
European parliament deplores construction of new highway between Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh
 

European Parliament members Marina Kaljurand, EP standing rapporteur on Armenia Traian Basescu and the EP standing rapporteur on Azerbaijan Zeljana Zovko issued a joint statement on the construction of a new highway between Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh.

“Announced last year, the construction of a third highway connecting Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh will kick off soon. This new road infrastructure will connect Kapan, in Armenia, with Hadrut, in Nagorno- Karabakh, passing through the districts of Qubadli and Jabrayil, which are also occupied,” they said in the statement.

The members of the European Parliament stressed that they support projects that foster regional cooperation, connectivity and people-to-people contacts in the Eastern Neighbourhood, adding though that the decision to build this highway has been taken without the consent of the competent authorities of Azerbaijan –in violation of international law.

“In addition, it could symbolically entrench the illegal occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh and of its surrounding districts. Therefore, we very much deplore this initiative as it does not help to create conditions conducive to trust, peace and reconciliation. We reiterate our unwavering support to the efforts of the Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group and their 2009 Basic Principles. For this mediation to have a chance of success, we call on the authorities of Armenia and Azerbaijan to step up their commitment, in good faith, to the negotiation on the peaceful resolution of the conflict within the internationally recognised borders of Azerbaijan,” the statement reads.

https://www.aysor.am...highway/1707297



#8 Yervant1

Yervant1

    The True North!

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,575 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 June 2020 - 07:15 AM

Armenpress.am
 

The three MEPs cause damage to peace process – comment of Artsakh MFA

 
 
Share
 
1018297.jpg 18:16, 12 June, 2020

YEREVAN, JUNE 12, ARMENPRESS. The press service of the Foreign Ministry of Artsakh has commented on the simultaneous statements made by the foreign ministry of Artsakh and 3 MEPs over the construction of a road linking Armenia and Artsakh. As ARMENPRESS was informed from the press service of the Foreign Ministry of Artsakh, the Ministry issued the following statement,

‘’In connection with the synchronous statements by the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry and three MEPs regarding the construction of the road connecting Artsakh with the Republic of Armenia, we consider it necessary to note the following:

 

First of all, it is important to emphasize that the construction of new roads and the implementation of other communication projects in the Republic of Artsakh, needed to ensure its safe development and to increase the freedom of movement of the citizens, is the sovereign right and obligation of the authorities of Artsakh. The calls to coordinate any projects of the Republic of Artsakh with neighboring Azerbaijan are devoid of any legal ground and logic.
 
The implementation of communication projects connecting Artsakh with the Republic of Armenia and the outside world is especially urgent against the background of Baku’s incessant attempts to isolate Artsakh by manipulating separate principles of international law. At the same time, the Azerbaijani authorities do not even hide that they consider the blockade, including the air one, as an integral part of their overall  strategy aimed at the physical annihilation of Artsakh and its inhabitants. One of the markers of Azerbaijan’s inhumane policy is the threat of the Azerbaijani authorities to shoot down civilian aircrafts.
 

It is noteworthy that the Azerbaijani authorities openly demonstrate their dismissive attitude to international law. The quintessence of Azerbaijan’s attitude to international law is the _expression_ of the Azerbaijani President that "international law does not work in the world today, and international treaties are just a piece of paper, having no value."
 
Secondly, this statement is the private opinion of separate MEPs, which does not comply with the documents previously adopted by the European Parliament, including the resolutions on the inadmissibility of the blockade of Artsakh. The fact that some of the authors of the statement were awarded with state awards of Azerbaijan largely explains why their position fully coincides with the position of official Baku. The bias and partiality of the statement by the MEPs is so obvious that it cannot contain any useful message and play a positive role “to create conditions conducive to peace, trust and reconciliation", allegedly cared about by the aforementioned parliamentarians.
 
Even more cynical is the attempt by the authors of the statement to cover up their bias by the concern for the peace process under the auspices of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairmanship. Using politically motivated language, which contradicts the terminology of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairmen and misleads the international community about the essence of the Azerbaijan-Karabakh conflict, the three MEPs, in fact, cause damage to the peace process.
 
We are convinced that the just settlement of the Azerbaijan-Karabakh conflict is possible only based on a human-centered approach. The attempts to isolate an entire nation, the threat of its physical annihilation, the obstruction of the realization of individual and collective rights of people are remnants of the past and cannot take place in today’s world’’.

 

 

https://armenpress.a...Saqg9xrom61EoxI



#9 Yervant1

Yervant1

    The True North!

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,575 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 August 2020 - 07:31 AM

The Blunt Post
Aug 1 2020
 
 
 
 
FAQ: ARTSAKH a.k.a. NAGORNO KARABAKH: Separating Facts From Fiction
 

By Vic Gerami

 

FAQ: ARTSAKH a.k.a. NAGORNO KARABAKH
Separating Facts From Fiction

 

map.jpgArtsakh, also known as Nagorno Karabakh, is an integral part of historic Armenia. During the Urartian era (9-6th cc. B.C.) Artsakh was known as Urtekhe-Urtekhini. As a part of Armenia Artsakh is mentioned in the works of Strabo, Pliny the Elder, Claudius Ptolemy, Plutarch, Dio Cassius, and other ancient authors. The evident testimony of it is the remained rich historic-cultural heritage.

Artsakh, one of the 15 provinces of historic Armenia, is in the eastern Armenian Plateau. Geographically, the Artsakh Republic defines itself within administrative borders of the former Soviet Union’s Region of Mountainous Karabakh, and the adjacent Shahumyan district.

WHEN DID THE CONFLICT BEGIN?

In 1921, Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, to consolidate his power, forcibly placed Artsakh under Soviet Azerbaijani rule. An arbitrary decision without precedent placed a millennia-old autonomous Christian territory into a largely hostile Muslim regional government entity. During the Soviet regime, Artsakh repeatedly appealed to the Central Government in Moscow to restore justice and reunite the region with Armenia. After years of tireless struggle, Moscow granted autonomous status to the region. The Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (Region) was created on a part of historical Artsakh. However, this new formation was deliberately separated from Armenia by a slim corridor.

Dadivank.jpgDadivank Monastery in the Shahumian Region of the Republic of Artsakh, built between the 9th and 13th centuries

Since  its  creation  in  1918,  Azerbaijan  has  been  implementing  an open campaign of national, ethnic, religious, cultural, and economic discrimination, aiming to eliminate the region’s Armenian heritage. Just as it succeeded in eliminating the Armenian population of Nakhichevan, which was 50 percent Armenian in 1920 down to zero by 1991, Azerbaijan aimed to achieve ethnic cleansing in Artsakh. Its policies had already shaved down the Armenian population from 95 percent to 75 percent when it resorted to more violent methods of eliminating the Armenians.

The formation of three ethnic republics of Transcaucasia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia, began in 1917, because of the collapse of the Russian Empire. The population of Nagorno-Karabakh, 95 percent of which were Armenians, convened its first congress, which proclaimed Nagorno-Karabakh an independent political unit, elected the National Council and the Government. In 1918-1920 Nagorno-Karabakh had all the trappings of statehood, including the army and the legitimate authority.

In response to the peace initiatives of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijani Democratic Republic launched a military action. From May 1918 to April 1920, Azerbaijan, and military units of Turkey, which supported Azerbaijan, used violence, and carried out massacres against the Armenian population (in March 1920 about 40,000 Armenians were killed and deported only in Shushi). But it was not possible to make the people of Nagorno-Karabakh obey Azerbaijan’s power in this way.

Nagorno-Karabakh-mountains.jpgMountains of Artsakh

In August 1919, to prevent military conflict, Karabakh and Azerbaijan signed a preliminary agreement by which they agreed to discuss the problem of the status of the region at the Paris Peace Conference.

The League of Nations rejected the request for Azerbaijan’s membership, citing the fact that it is difficult to define clear boundaries and territories under the sovereignty of this state. Among other contentious issues, there was the issue of the status of Nagorno-Karabakh. Because of the Sovietization of the region, the issue fell out of the agenda of international organizations.

Confronted by the genocidal forces of the Ottoman Empire, Armenia was fighting in 1918 for its very existence. Artsakh was mostly left to defend itself against Azerbaijani forces allied with the Ottoman Turks. When the Russian Communists took over the South Caucasus in 1920, instead of resolving the ethnic tensions that had inflamed the region, they perpetuated the divisions as a method of controlling the nominal republics of the Soviet Union.

Recognizing that 95 percent of the population was Armenian, the Soviet regime granted Nagorno Karabakh autonomy, but within Soviet Azerbaijan. During the last liberalizing phase of the Soviet era, per existing law, the population of Nagorno Karabakh declared its self-governing republic in 1991. Azerbaijan, with its Muslim majority population, responded by declaring war against the Christian Armenians. After a bloody and destructive conflict resulting in 30,000 deaths, a cease-fire agreement was signed in 1994. Year after year, however, serious, and deadly violations by Azerbaijan increased in frequency until the April 2016 escalation into a major confrontation involving large-scale attacks by Azeri forces along the entire border of Azerbaijan with Artsakh and Armenia.

82225.jpgGandzasar Monastery in Artsakh which Houses the Relics of Saint John the Baptist and Gregory the Illuminator, built between 1216 and 1238

WHEN DID THE CURRENT CONFLICT BEGIN?

The current phase of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict began in 1988 when in response to the self-determination claims of the NK population the Azeri authorities organized massacres and ethnic cleansing of the Armenian population on the entire territory of Azerbaijan, particularly in Sumgait, Baku, and Kirovabad.

On December 10, 1991 NK population declared the establishment of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic (NKR) by plebiscite, which fully complies with both international law norms and the letter and spirit of the USSR laws of that time. Thus, on the territory of the former Azerbaijani SSR, two equal state formations were created – the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and the Republic of Azerbaijan.

In Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding areas populated by Armenians, the policy pursued by Azerbaijani authorities turned into overt aggression and large-scale military actions against the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh, which resulted in tens of thousands deaths and caused considerable material damage.

Azerbaijan never heeded the international community appeals, particularly the United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Nagorno-Karabakh conflict calling to stop military actions and conduct peaceful negotiations.

Because of the war, Azerbaijan occupied the whole region of Shahumyan and the eastern parts of Martakert and Martuni regions of Nagorno-Karabakh. Neighboring districts went under the control of Nagorno-Karabakh armed forces, which played the role of a security buffer to block the further firing from the Azeri side towards Nagorno-Karabakh settlements.

Fortress.jpg‘We Are Our Mountains’ Monument in Stepanakert, Capital of Artsakh

In May 1994 Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia signed a ceasefire, which, despite violations, is still effective.

Conflict settlement negotiations are held in the framework of the OSCE Minsk Group (Russia, USA, France). In the last decade, several options for the settlement proposed by the co-chairs were rejected by Azerbaijan. The last was “Paris Principles” in 1991 which were summed up in the Key West document.

Currently, negotiations are held based on the Madrid proposals represented by co-chairs in November 2007.

Despite the negotiations held within the framework of the OSCE Minsk Group which is the only internationally mandated format on conflict settlement, and the agreement to carry out negotiations within the Minsk process, Azerbaijan, distorting the nature and main reasons of the consequences of the conflict, takes attempts to involve other international organizations in the settlement and initiates parallel processes hindering the negotiation process and having campaign objectives especially in the UN GA and the Council of Europe, too.

1.pngMamrot Kar Waterfalls

APRIL 2016 WAR

On April 2, 2016, Azerbaijan, with the support of Turkish military personnel and equipment, initiated a military offensive against Armenia and Artsakh. The offensive started with the killing of a 12-year-old boy on his way to school and continued with the gruesome mutilation of an elderly Armenian couple. Increasingly and without international condemnation, Azerbaijan has flaunted the signed 1994 cease-fire agreement, targeting civilians in violation of international law. Azerbaijan admitted to launching the offensive – which came hours after President Ilham Aliyev’s

meeting with Secretary of State John Kerry in Washington, D.C. The large-scale incursions along the Line of Contact resulted in the death of over 100 members of the Artsakh defense forces.

AZERBAIJAN’S  THREAT

Azerbaijan’s aggressive bellicose campaign also puts under question Azerbaijan’s desire, statements, assumed obligations, and their seriousness aimed at compromise settlement. Azerbaijan continues sending money from oil revenues to increase the military budget and to the acquisition of many offensive armaments, grossly violating several agreements and obligations in the sphere of security and political-military sphere. Azerbaijan fails all the economic, political, military, and humanitarian initiatives aimed at strengthening trust between the parties. Particularly, Azerbaijan rejects the offer of the Armenian side on regional cooperation and the offer of the Minsk Group to pull out snipers from the contact line. Azerbaijan’s rampant human rights violations are not well known. The Human Rights Watch reported on this in 2019.

Aliyev.jpgIlham Aliyev

WHO IS THE PRESIDENT OF AZERBAIJAN?

Azerbaijan’s dictator and corrupt president Ilham Aliyev and his family’s corruption extends throughout the globe and is well documented by countless investigative journalists. While Azerbaijanis live in oppression, Aliyev’s family has drained the country to amass wealth in the billions. Will FitzgibbonMiranda Patrucić, and Marcos Garcia Rey’s article, ‘How Family that Runs Azerbaijan Built an Empire of Hidden Wealth,’ for the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, is a thorough investigative piece outlining some of the most egregious lawlessness of the Aliyev family.

WHAT IS THE POSITION OF ARMENIA ON ARTSAKH?

Armenia believes that the improvement of the peace process efficiency is impossible without the full participation of the conflict party Artsakh in the negotiations. Armenia believes that conflict settlement should be based on the following principles:

Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlement must be based on recognition of the Nagorno-Karabakh people’s right to self-determination; Nagorno-Karabakh should have uninterrupted land communication with Armenia, under the jurisdiction of the Armenian side; the security of Nagorno-Karabakh should be internationally guaranteed. Adoption of these principles and contractual stipulations will enable achieving a comprehensive settlement of the problem.

Armenia attaches importance to the mediation of the OSCE Minsk Group in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlement process, as a viable format for the settlement which has enough potential to find ways of settlement.

Azerbaijan’s attempts to get unilateral concessions by the threat of use of force are not only doomed to failure from the beginning but also continue to be the main obstacle for the settlement through compromise.

Artsakh has no future as a part of Azerbaijan and whatever is the solution, it must emanate from the will of the Karabakh people. That is the essence of the right of peoples to self-determination. Azerbaijan has neither legal nor political or moral grounds to claim over Nagorno-Karabakh.

Nagorno-Karabakh-Gtichavank-Monastery.jpGtichavank Monastery, 1248

FACTS & FIGURES ABOUT ARTSAKH

Profile and Geographic Location Territory: 4,457 sq. miles (11,500 sq. km.)
Population: 146,600 (2012 est.)
Religion: Armenian Apostolic Christian
Language: Armenian
Capital: Stepanakert
Largest Cities: Shushi, Martuni, Martakert, Hadrut, Askeran

 

 


#10 Yervant1

Yervant1

    The True North!

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,575 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 September 2020 - 07:40 AM

News.am, Armenia
Sept 8 2020
 
 
 
 
Dedicated friend of Armenian people dies aged 66
09:13, 08.09.2020
                  
 
default.jpg
 

Dedicated friend of the Armenian people, Czech journalist Dana Mazalova has passed away at the age of 66.

Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh) President Arayik Haroutyunyan has tweeted a message of condolences on Mazalova's death. The message reads as follows:

“Saddened to learn of passing of Czech lawyer, journalist Dana Mazalová, who was on ground during Artsakh liberation war, reported on Azerbaijani-Karabakh conflict, provided objective, evidence-based information on diverse intl platforms on the events which occurred in Artsakh.

Dana Mazalová always stood out by what defines a professional journalist - principled stance & impartiality.

Extending my sincere condolences to the family & friends of the deceased and share their grief.”

 


#11 Yervant1

Yervant1

    The True North!

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,575 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 March 2021 - 10:17 AM

Hyperallergic
Feb 28 2021
 
 
Why Armenian Cultural Heritage Threatens Azerbaijan’s Claims to Nagorno-Karabakh
Azerbaijan continues to erase Armenian history in favor of a discredited theory that the region’s Christian sites were made by a now-extinct group called Caucasian Albanians.
pngaFV65qDGQz.png

Around 3am on September 27, my phone buzzed with messages that Azerbaijan had launched an aerial assault on Nagorno-Karabakh — the landlocked, mountainous enclave in the south Caucasus populated and controlled by 150,000 ethnic Armenians but claimed by neighboring Azerbaijan. Nagorno-Karabakh (historically called “Artsakh” in Armenian) is home to one of the world’s oldest surviving indigenous Christian populations, though their history predates Christianity by centuries. Its rugged and mountainous landscape served as a refuge for early Christians fleeing persecution in the second to fourth centuries CE and later as a buttress against Islamization, which swept through the Caucuses and converted most of the inhabitants in the low-lying plains to Karabakh’s east. Today, its cultural topography, dotted by fortresses overlooking gorges, intricately carved cross-stone monuments with ancient eternity symbols, and centuries-old monasteries with fortified walls, serves as a living witness to the enduring presence of the Armenians.

On that Sunday morning, both Nagorno-Karabakh’s people and its cultural heritage were under attack. While the semi-frozen conflict has seen numerous skirmishes and ceasefire violations over the last two decades, this time felt different. And, indeed, it was. My loved ones were immediately deployed, in their standing militias, to defend their villages, while their families hid in bunkers, makeshift bomb shelters, and dense forests. But, unlike the Nagorno-Karabakh War in the early 1990s that followed the breakup of the Soviet Union — which was preceded by the anti-Armenian pogroms in Baku, Azerbaijan that caused my family and me to become refugees — my fellow Armenians were defending themselves not only from Azerbaijani soldiers less familiar with the area’s mountainous terrain, but from Israeli and Turkish drones that easily reached them from overhead, as well as Islamist mercenaries from northern Syria, all with the logistical and tactical support of Azerbaijan’s ethnic and military ally Turkey. 

On October 7, I fell asleep flipping through my photos of Nagorno-Karabakh. That night, I imagined myself visiting the Holy Savior Cathedral (Ghazanchetsots Cathedral) in Shushi and once again stepping inside the small, circular room hidden behind the altar where you can pray and hear your voice 360 degrees around your body. I closed my eyes and traced a path from the cathedral to the Silk Road, which runs through Shushi and on which many of my great-great-grandfathers had traveled with their caravans to Iran and beyond. We were only one week into the war, but I was yearning for peace and already imagining how I could assist in Nagorno-Karabakh’s rebuilding.

Yelena1-GtichavankAltar.jpeg?resize=780%Gtichavank’s altar (2015), covered in matchboxes and thick layers of candle wax, indicated that local Armenian Christians continued to visit the cathedral for devotional purposes despite that it had not been maintained during the Soviet period.

Looking back now, these thoughts were a fantastical defense-mechanism. In reality, I was keenly aware that exactly 100 years ago, in 1920, Azerbaijanis (or rather, Caucasian Tatars as they were then still commonly called at the time) with the help of their ethnic allies the Ottoman Turks — fresh from their genocide of 1.5 million Armenians — killed every last Armenian in Shushi, burned 7,000 Armenian homes and businesses, and destroyed the city’s Armenian churches. At the time, Artsakh’s population was over 90% Armenian, but territorial control of the region was in flux. Due to the Caucasian Tatars’ claims on the Armenian homeland, including Artsakh, Zangezur, and Nakhichevan, the League of Nations rejected in December 1920 the recently formed Azerbaijan Democratic Republic’s request for statehood, finding that it was impossible to determine the exact limits of territory over which it exercised authority.

Indeed, in the Russian Revolution’s aftermath, several nation-states emerged in Transcaucasia and attempted to define their borders, often resulting in interethnic violence. Amidst the chaos of this bloody nation building, the British, Germans, and Turks each sought to control the resource-laden city of Baku (present-day Azerbaijan) and its oil reserves. (At that point, my family was already living in Baku and working in positions in the oil and natural gas industry, as were many other Armenians from Artsakh.) In 1920, the Bolsheviks solidified their grip on Baku, which was critical for the Soviet Union’s energy needs. With the help of certain ethnic Armenian factions, the Bolsheviks overthrew the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic and replaced it with the newly formed Azerbaijani Soviet Socialist Republic (“SSR”). Soon after, apparently under pressure from Turkey and to placate the Azerbaijan SSR, Joseph Stalin carved out Artsakh from its ancestral home in Armenia and plopped it within the borders of the recently created and oil-rich Azerbaijan SSR. As a half-hearted consolation to the Armenians and perhaps out of recognition that Artsakh had maintained a multiethnic but Armenian majority population for over two-thousand years, the territory became an autonomous, largely self-administered oblast (the Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Oblast), with Shushi as its administrative center.

Yelena2-ShushiGhazanchetsotsAltar.jpeg?rAfter reclaiming Ghazanchetsots Cathedral from Azerbaijani-occupation during the 1990s Nagorno-Karabakh War, the Armenians chose not to repair certain elements of the cathedral’s destruction to serve as a reminder for future generations — including this example whereby Jesus’s face and most of his body have been hammered off, presumably by Azerbaijani iconoclasts (2015).

After dreaming about my return to Shushi, the next day, October 8, I awoke to photos of a shelled Ghazanchetsots Cathedral. Azerbaijan had struck Shushi’s historic cathedral not once, but twice. The second strike, reportedly from a missile-laden drone, injured three foreign journalists who had come to the scene to document the first attack. Having been to Shushi several times, I understood that this strike could not have been an accident. The only structure near Ghazanchetsots Cathedral is a Soviet-era apartment building. There were no military targets. And we soon learned that mothers had been taking cover in the cathedral’s basement with their children, to hide from Azerbaijan’s aerial bombardment and drone attacks. Azerbaijan denied that it had targeted the cathedral and called such accusations both “fake news” and “black propaganda” — as is common for its autocratic, totalitarian regime when questioned about its numerous war crimes and human rights violations. Meanwhile, on October 9, 2020, I watched a Russian-Azerbaijani journalist on a Russian news program, Evening with Vladimir Soloviev, posture that the attack, if it did happen, was justified because Armenian soldiers were using Ghazanchetsots Cathedral for prayer and Azerbaijan must snuff out these Armenian “terrorists” in whatever “toilet” they can be found. While soldiers praying in a church does not justify converting a religious or cultural site into a military objective under the relevant international laws, it is a telling portrayal of how today’s despotic Azerbaijan teaches Azerbaijanis to view Armenians and Armenian cultural and religious heritage.

Yelena3-View-from-Ghazanchetsots.jpeg?reThe view from Ghazanchetsots Cathedral (2010) (photograph courtesy the author)

The war continued for over a month. Nearly each day, I received distressing news from my friends on the ground about Azerbaijani forces’ apparent use of cluster munitions in residential areas, beheadings and mutilations of prisoners of war and captured civilians, and incendiary munitions raining down on Nagorno-Karabakh’s dense forests outside of my maternal line’s village of Nngi, accompanied by video documentation on social media channels — only for most news outlets and numerous inter- and non-governmental organizations to call on “both sides” to end hostilities, or worse, repeat the Azerbaijani regime’s unsubstantiated and illogical accusations (supported and repeated by Turkish officials and media) that it was ethnic Armenians who were behind these crimes and “provocations.”

By November 10, 2020, Armenia and Azerbaijan agreed to a Russian-brokered ceasefire (the “Trilateral Agreement”), which ceded over two-thirds of Nagorno-Karabakh, including Shushi, to Azerbaijan and welcomed a revocable Russian peacekeeping presence into the region. The parallels between today’s conflict and what happened one hundred years ago could not be any more apparent. The single new dimension, however, was the power of social media, which is both how we received our information about what was happening on the ground and how Azerbaijan’s regime disseminated the disinformation it wanted the international community to believe.

Immediately after the ceasefire, Azerbaijani politicians took to Twitter (the social media platform of their choice) to declare victory in “liberating” Nagorno-Karabakh (never mind that Nagorno-Karabakh had never been ruled by a post-Soviet independent Azerbaijan) and to espouse the unsubstantiated theory that Nagorno-Karabakh’s centuries-old religious sites are not Armenian at all but rather Caucasian Albanian (a confederation of tribes dating from the second century BCE and later a kingdom in the Caucasus that they regard as proto-Azerbaijani and the original inhabitants of Nagorno-Karabakh, a claim unsupported by any serious scholarship). This revisionist Azerbaijani social media activity was met with a simultaneous plea to preserve Armenian cultural heritage, by institutions such as the Metropolitan Museum of Art, as well as an open letter from numerous scholars, and even a warning to Azerbaijan from President Vladimir Putin himself stating that Christian sites must be protected.

I had come across Azerbaijan’s Caucasian Albanian claim several years ago, when researching what protections, if any, existed under international law for Armenian cultural heritage in Nagorno-Karabakh under Azerbaijan’s control. This was particularly important given that the Armenian Republic of Artsakh in which the cultural heritage resided (until the recent Trilateral Agreement) is a republic unrecognized by any other country, which poses a problem for international protection of such cultural heritage as most intergovernmental organizations are built around the principle of sovereign equality of states instead of the rule of law. At the time, I believed that if the quarter century of negotiations under the auspices of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Minsk Group failed and war broke out anew, Azerbaijan would once again intentionally target Armenian cultural and religious sites as they did in the 1990s Nagorno-Karabakh War, with impunity. The Caucasian Albanian claim, however, is a threat to Armenian cultural heritage during peacetime — or rather, whenever Armenian cultural heritage finds itself inside the borders of Azerbaijan. And, unfortunately, there is no formal mechanism in international law that can protect these sites from Azerbaijan’s intentional destruction.

Yelena4-DamagetoGandzasar.jpeg?resize=41Remnants of the damage to Gandzasar’s exterior, from Azerbaijani aerial bombardment in the Nagorno-Karabakh War in the 1990s, are still visible to this day (2010).

As long as Azerbaijan lays claim to Nagorno-Karabakh, the region’s Armenian cultural heritage sites are at grave risk. Because these sites predate the concept of an Azerbaijani national identity by over a millennium (in some cases, two millennia), because many of them predate even Azerbaijan’s predominant religion (Islam) by several centuries, and because they predate the appearance of Azerbaijan’s ethnic forefathers (the Turkic tribes from Central Asia), their existence threatens and directly undermines Azerbaijan’s historical claims to this region.  

Azerbaijan employs its Caucasian Albanian argument to tie itself to a vanished Christian civilization in the South Caucasus, in order to remove a living one: the Armenians. Despite espousing the notion that Armenian cultural heritage is Caucasian Albanian and thus proto-Azerbaijani, as applied to other regions, such claims have not stopped Azerbaijan from the wholesale destruction of both movable and immovable Armenian cultural heritage that finds itself within Azerbaijan’s changing borders. (Azerbaijan’s recent destruction of 89 Armenian churches and thousands of medieval cross-stones, called khachkars, and Armenian tombstones in the exclave of Nakhichevan — as reported in Hyperallergic — is but one glaring example.) Moreover, although Azerbaijan claims Nagorno-Karabakh’s Christian religious sites are proto-Azerbaijani, Azerbaijan has not nominated any of the hundreds of churches and monuments in Nagorno-Karabakh to UNESCO’s World Heritage List. But it has nominated a fortress in Shushi. (Armenia is not able to nominate any sites because the United Nations regards Nagorno-Karabakh as a territory lying within the borders of Azerbaijan, contrary to Nagorno-Karabakh’s historical autonomy in the Soviet period and the population’s later referendums on self-determination during the breakup of the Soviet Union.)

The terms of the Trilateral Agreement require ethnic Armenians to leave several districts of Nagorno-Karabakh, including the Aghdam region which contains the partially excavated ruins of the second century BCE Armenian city of Tigranakert (also shelled by Azerbaijan during its recent aggression), the Lachin region (Kashatagh in Armenian) which contains the fifth century CE Armenian church and former monastery of Tzitzernabank, and the Kalbajar district (Karvachar in Armenian) which contains many treasures of Armenian religious heritage. In 2015, I secured a research grant from the US-based National Association for Armenian Studies and Research (NAASR) and set out to investigate the Caucasian Albanian claims as they applied to three churches that were founded or rebuilt in the 13th century — located within the Dadivank and Gandzasar monastic complexes in the Kalbajar district and Gitchavank in Hadrut. Under the Trilateral Agreement, most of these monasteries are now under Azerbaijani control and, for reasons I explain below, all three are vulnerable to Azerbaijan’s cultural erasure if not outright destruction.

Armenians have had an enduring presence in Nagorno-Karabakh for over two millennia. In 189 BCE, under the Armenian King Artashes, the region of Nagorno-Karabakh (then called “Artsakh”) became one of the 15 provinces of the Kingdom of Armenia. Two of the 12 apostles (Saints Thaddeus and Bartholomew) were the first evangelizers of the Armenians and were martyred, in the first century CE. Christianity, however, continued to spread throughout the region, from the efforts of St. Gregory the Illuminator — an Armenian-Parthian noble, raised in Cappadocia (present-day Turkey). By roughly 301 CE, King Trdat III made Christianity the official religion of the Kingdom of Armenia, which included Artsakh.

Yelena5-Map-of-Caucasian-Albania.jpeg?reMap of the Kingdom of Caucasian Albania, showing its relation to the Kingdom of Armenia in 387 CE before the Armenian provinces of Artsakh, Utik, and Syunik were combined to this region to create the province of “New Albania” under the Sassanids (via and courtesy Wikipedia)

In 387 CE, the Byzantine and Sassanid Empires partitioned the Kingdom of Armenia between themselves, resulting in Artsakh later becoming part of the Persian province of New Albania in 428 CE. This province combined the former Armenian regions of Artsakh, Utik, and Syunik to the region of Albania — which was inhabited by the Caucasian Albanians. Despite the Sassanid’s unsuccessful campaign of forced assimilation, New Albania’s local princes largely maintained their autonomy. During this period of autonomy, in the early fifth century, St. Mesrop Mashtots invented the Armenian alphabet and opened the first Armenian language school in New Albania, at the Amaras Monastery. (Mashtots also later created an alphabet for the Caucasian Albanians.)

The creation of the Armenian alphabet in the early fifth century helped to homogenize Armenian culture, because it finally allowed churches to conduct their liturgies in Armenian, rather than in Greek or Syriac as they had been doing. Having an alphabet also allowed the Armenians to differentiate themselves from the surrounding peoples and to preserve their culture and identity, despite numerous later attempts by empires and invaders to subsume and assimilate them. The Armenian Apostolic Church’s split from Byzantium, following its rejection of the Council of Chalcedon, also played strongly into the Armenian conception of its inherent uniqueness.

The next several centuries saw multiple waves of migration through Artsakh, including the Arabs, Seljuk Turks, and Mongols. The Arabs arrived in the seventh century, usurped the Sassanid presence in the region, and ruled there until the 10th century. Although the Arabs converted many of the inhabitants of Transcaucasia to Islam, they were unsuccessful in changing the religious character of most ethnic Armenians. In The History of the Albanians, Movsēs Dasxuranci, writing in the 10th century, explains how the Armenian and Caucasian Albanian noble families allied with one another in the seventh century, often through intermarriage, to fight the Arabs. By the end of the 10th century, there was no longer a distinction between the Armenian and Caucasian Albanian inhabitants of New Albania. Indeed, by the end of Dasxuranci’s chronicles, the Prince of Albania was referred to as “Abu Ali, the native Armenian,” the brother of the Armenian King Smbat.

In the 11th century, Turkic tribes invaded from central Asia and created the Seljuk Empire in 1071 CE. Many historians argue that the Seljuk Turks’ most important legacy was linguistic, because the Turkish language led to multiple semi-nomadic tribes in Transcaucasia identifying as Turks, despite their lack of Turkish ethnicity. By the end of the century, however, the Christians regained their independence, and the Armenian princes took control of the region. The 12th century ushered in a period of feudal states, which resulted in the construction of many monastic foundations.

When the Mongols invaded in 1235 CE, they destroyed much of Transcaucasia and settled semi-nomadic Turkish and Kurdish mercenaries in the area, resulting in the disappearance of several Armenian princely families who were either killed or exiled. The Turkish linguistic influences deepened with the arrival of the Oghuz Turks who founded the Ottoman Empire in 1299, and, after two successful wars with the Persians and Safavid Iran, consolidated their occupation of the region in the early 16th century. These gains, however, lasted little more than a century. Russia soon entered the sphere, resulting in a three-way struggle over the region between Ottoman Turkey, Imperial Russia, and Safavid Iran.

Yelena6-Amaras-St.-Grigoris-Crypt-3.jpegIn addition to being the first Armenian language school in the 5th century, Amaras Monastery contains the burial tomb of St. Grigoris, the grandson of St. Gregory the Illuminator, and the Catholicos of New Albania. Amaras was plundered in the 13th century by the Mongols, desecrated in 1387 by the campaigns of the “Sword of Islam” Tamerlane, and demolished once again in the 16th century only to be rebuilt in the 17th with fortified walls, then later abandoned, then used by Russian Imperial troops as a frontier fortress, then rebuilt and its church reconsecrated in 1858 with funds from the Armenians of the city of Shushi. This photograph was taken in 2015.


#12 Yervant1

Yervant1

    The True North!

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,575 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 March 2021 - 10:18 AM

In contrast to the largely homogenous Armenian self-identity, Azerbaijani identity developed more recently and looks externally. The first references to this Turkic-speaking population as “Azerbaijani” and “Azeri” appeared in the early 20th century, upon the formation of the short-lived Azerbaijan Democratic Republic in 1918. Prior to that, the population was referred to as the “Caucasian Tatars” or simply “Tatars.” Unlike Armenians who had a distinct language, alphabet, and religion, Azerbaijanis looked outward — identifying both with Turks, linguistically and ethnically, and with Iranians, religiously, due to their shared Shia’a Muslim faith. This split between the Turkic and Persian worlds may have made it difficult to develop a distinct Azerbaijani national or ethnic consciousness.

The Caucasian Tatars’ claims to Nagorno-Karabakh originate in the late 19th century, after the Russians created the Elisabethpol Governate in 1868, by carving out Karabakh and annexing it to the plains to the east, which were inhabited by various semi-nomadic herding populations (such as the Caucasian Tatars, Talysh, Tat, and Lezgin people). This territorial reorganization created competing claims to Nagorno-Karabakh between Armenia and Azerbaijan in the 20th century, which were further exacerbated by Joseph Stalin’s decision in the Soviet period to overrule the Caucasian Bureau of the Communist Party and place the Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Oblast within the newly created Azerbaijan SSR rather than in the Armenia SSR.

Yelena7-View-from-Shushi.jpeg?resize=520The view from Shushi in 2010

In the early 20th century, the concept of Pan-Turkism greatly influenced Azerbaijani self-identity. Pan-Turkism, which propagated during the decline of the Ottoman Empire, espoused the union of all Turkic peoples from the Balkans to western China — with Armenia being the only geographic obstacle dividing a unified Turkish world. Moreover, after the Ottomans’ “Islamic Army of the Caucasus” invaded Armenia towards the end of World War I to support Azerbaijani claims to Nagorno-Karabakh, the Armenians began to equate the Caucasian Tatars with the Ottoman and Young Turk perpetrators of the Armenian pogroms of 1895–1896 and the Armenian Genocide of 1915.

Of course, the presence of Armenian cultural sites — which predate the Caucasian Tatars’ presence in the region by several centuries — created a problem for Azerbaijan’s territorial claims, since they undermine any so-called historical rights that Azerbaijan has to Nagorno-Karabakh. Moreover, while no one would deny that numerous ethnic groups lived in Transcaucasia and contributed to its multifaceted cultural landscape, it is hard to believe that the Caucasian Tatars, whose identity was shaped by their adoption of Islam, can be the inheritors of Christian religious sites. As ethnic Armenians began to exercise their rights to self-determination and Nagorno-Karabakh’s majority Armenian population voiced their demands to secede from Azerbaijan SSR in accordance with the Soviet Constitution, Azerbaijan’s already tenuous ties to Nagorno-Karabakh required a stronger case.

Enter Caucasian Albanian historiography. Caucasian Albanian historiography, which claims a direct link between present-day Azerbaijanis and the vanished Caucasian Albanians, has its roots in 1947, when a group of Azerbaijani archaeologists discovered remnants of Caucasian Albanian writing in the Azerbaijan SSR. Linking Azerbaijanis to the extinct Caucasian Albanians was one permissible way in which to construct a national identity within the Soviet Union, which encouraged academics to engage in historiography to legitimize the creation of the Soviet republics and their borders but would have frowned on Azerbaijan’s Muslim, Turkish, and Iranian associations. In 1965, Ziya Bünyadov, the father of Azerbaijani historiography, published a book on the history of Caucasian Albania during the Arab period, titled Azerbaijan in the 7th to 9th Centuries. Among several dubious claims that underlie his construction of an Azerbaijani national identity, Bünyadov posited that Movsēs Dasxuranci’s 10th century History of the Albanians was originally written in Caucasian Albanian (not Armenian) and later translated into Armenian and destroyed, though no evidence for this claim exists and several scholars later showed that Bünyadov had falsified his translations, omitting reference to Dasxuranci’s Armenian heritage as well as that of many of the historical players who were clearly described as Armenian. Bünyadov also theorized that the Armenian princes of Nagorno-Karabakh, such as the Beglarians and Hasan Jalal — whose names you will see on the founding inscriptions adorning several Armenian cathedrals — were not ethnically Armenian but were instead Armenianized Albanians. 

In 1986, Bünyadov’s student, Farida D. Mamedova, argued that the geographic and political boundaries of Caucasian Albania were far more extensive than previously accepted. Mamedova portrayed the Caucasian Albanians as an integrated ethnic group and argued that medieval Nagorno-Karabakh was not Armenian and that St. Mesrop Mashtots (the creator of the Armenian alphabet) did not create the Armenian alphabet but instead reformed the Caucasian Albanian one. She further argued that the Caucasian Albanian Church was independent of the Armenian Apostolic Church for centuries and was only subsumed by the Armenian Apostolic Church after the Arab conquest. 

To be clear, Bünyadov and Mamedova’s purpose was to remove any mediation between the vanished Caucasian Albanians and the living Armenians, while claiming for Azerbaijanis an ancient, albeit Christian, indigenous identity. Although just about every non-Azerbaijani historian who has touched the subject has heavily criticized Bünyadov and Mamedova’s scholarship, their revisionist mythology succeeded in planting the notion in current Azerbaijani consciousness that it is not the Armenians but rather the Caucasian Tatars that are the descendants of the Christianized Caucasian Albanians and, by extension, the ancient and rightful owners of Nagorno-Karabakh. 

Though there was coexistence between Armenians and Caucasian Albanians in Artsakh, as evidenced by their deep religious exchange, Azerbaijani Caucasian Albanian historiography attempts to use every reference to New Albania, Albania, or “Aghvank” in Armenian as a reference to Caucasian Albania, to obfuscate the Armenian presence in the region. Similarly, the claim that many Armenian princes were not Armenian at all requires one to disbelieve everything that contemporaneous historians wrote about these princes. For example, one would have to believe that Hasan Jalal’s title as “Prince of Armenia” was in name only and somehow did not define his ethnicity. And while Armenian and Caucasian Albanian noble families allied with one another, often through intermarriage, to fight the Arabs, by the end of Dasxuranci’s 10th century chronicles, the Prince of Albania was “Abu Ali, the native Armenian,” the brother of the Armenian King Smbat — meaning that in Nagorno-Karabakh the Armenian and Albanian identities had blurred. 

More recent Azerbaijani historiography has gone even further to remove Armenians from their homeland, claiming that the Russians and Iranians introduced Armenians to certain parts of Armenia (such as its capital Yerevan) and Nagorno-Karabakh in the early 19th century. Azerbaijani academics prop up such claims with sloppy references to Russian population surveys and fashioning for themselves a cloak of credibility by citing respected academics such as George A. Bournoutian (perverting their work in the process), while Azerbaijani officials at the highest levels posit that large portions of Armenia, such as Yerevan, Sevan, and Zangezur are “historically” Azerbaijani territory.  

What does the Caucasian Albanian claim mean for Nagorno-Karabakh’s cultural heritage, and why do many scholars fear that these sites face “cultural erasure”? Well, for starters, it means that any elements of these sites that contain unique or distinctive Armenian characteristics (that cannot be passed off as Caucasian Albanian) will be destroyed. This includes the following:

(1) Cupola: Most of the Armenian cathedrals in the region, including those found in the Dadivank, Gandzasar, and Gtichavank monastic complexes, exhibit similar architectural features to those of the Etchmiadzin Cathedral in Armenia, which is the holy mother church of the Armenian Apostolic Church and one of the oldest churches in the world. These architectural features include a cruciform plan topped by a rounded and pointed dome (i.e., cupola). The cupola is one of the most recognized features of Armenian sacred spaces. Already, from Azerbaijani-controlled Shushi, we are seeing photos of Azerbaijan’s post-ceasefire destruction of the “Kanach Zham” (Green Chapel) Armenian Church of St. John the Baptist by the removal of its cupola. True to its revisionist tactics, Azerbaijan claims, without any basis, that the early 19th century Kanach Zham church is not Armenian but Russian Orthodox.

Yelena8-GtichavankRestoration.jpeg?resizGtichavank in Hadrut was undergoing extensive restoration before Azerbaijan’s recent military aggression (2015); this cathedral is now under Azerbaijani control.

(2) Founding Inscriptions and Donor Portraits: Two other distinctive elements of Armenian cultural heritage are inscriptions explaining the church’s founding and accompanying portraits of the church’s donors. Donor portraits are particularly unique to Armenian churches in the region, the most notable of which were created in the ninth and 10th centuries by the Bagratuni dynasty, and which typically depict a model of the church in the hands of its donor. As such, inscriptions and donor portraits are the most problematic elements for Azerbaijan’s claims that Armenian churches are Caucasian Albanian, because the inscriptions are engraved using the Armenian alphabet and the donor portraits document and depict the Armenian nobles that commissioned the cathedrals and gave land for the monastic sites. Azerbaijani revisionism posits, again with no basis, that these inscriptions were added by Armenians centuries later to hide the Caucasian Albanian provenance of these cathedrals. Accordingly, if given the opportunity, many people fear that Azerbaijan will erase Nagorno-Karabakh’s cathedrals of their Armenian inscriptions. Already, the Azerbaijani Ministry of Defense released a video from Dadivank, and in the footage Dadivank’s inscriptions (which are prevalent on both the interior and exterior walls of the cathedral) are tellingly absent.

Yelena9-Dadivank-Donor-Portrait.jpeg?resDadivank’s exterior donor portraits, and various carving on the facade engraved in Armenian characters.

At Dadivank, for example, the inscriptions explain in medieval Armenian that in 1214 CE Queen Arzou of Haterk funded the construction of the church in her sons’ memory and to fulfill their promise, as they had intended to build the church themselves but were unable to do so because of their untimely deaths:

I, Arzou-Khatoun, obedient servant of Christ … wife of King Vakhtang, ruler of Haterk and all Upper Khachen, with great hopes built this holy cathedral on the place where my husband and sons rest in peace. My first-born Hasan martyred for his Christian faith in the war against the Turks, and, three years later, my younger son Grigor also joined Christ. Completed in the year 663 [in the Armenian calendar].

On the cathedral’s southern façade, the two sons, Princes Hasan and Grigor, are depicted presenting a model of the church.

Yelena10-Gandzasar-Dome.jpeg?resize=321%Gandzasar’s donor portraits, depicting the Armenian prince Hasan-Jalal (2015)

At Gandzasar, which became the burial place of the Armenian princes of Khachen in 1216 CE, the donation inscriptions are engraved within the interior of the church, in its most sacred spaces. On the north wall, an inscription describes Prince Hasan Jalal Dawla’s wish to commission the Gandzasar Monastery, the construction of which began in 1216 and lasted until 1238. The donor portrait on the exterior of the church, on the dome, depicts Prince Hasan Jalal sitting cross-legged with a model of the church — a device meant to project power at the Seljuk court. Despite adopting an Arabic-influenced name as was fashionable at the time, Prince Hasan Jalal Dawla (Grand Prince of the Armenian dynasty of Khachen) was described by his contemporaries as Armenian: “Hasan, the great prince of Xach’ēn and Arts’ax region, whom they endearingly called Jalal, a pious religious man and a modest Armenian by nationality.” Azerbaijani revisionists such as Bünyadov and Mamedova, however, claim that Prince Hasan Jalal Dawla was not Armenian but Caucasian Albanian.

(3) Khachkars: The cross, which represents Jesus’s crucifixion and salvation through that crucifixion, is an important part of worship for Armenian Christians in their meditative and devotional practices. Armenians create what are known as khachkars — intricately carved Armenian cross-stones that contain a cross resting on the symbol of a sun or an eternity symbol. Khachkars are on UNESCO’s Representative List of the Intangible Heritage of Humanity. They dot both Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh’s landscape; you will find them along roads, at the top of mountains, and, of course, in churches and cemeteries — their bases often covered in melted wax from candles lit by praying Christians. Recent footage from Hadrut shows Azerbaijani military personnel destroying a khachkar in Hadrut, a region Azerbaijan claimed during its recent military advance.

Yelena12-Gtichavank-Monastic-Buildings.jA view of Gtichavank’s monastic buildings in 2015 with a large khachkar embedded into the facade

There are over 4,000 Armenian cultural sites in Nagorno-Karabakh, including 370 churches. Now that most of this cultural heritage is in Azerbaijan’s de facto control, even with the presence of Russian peacekeepers in certain regions, there is little hope that Azerbaijan will not destroy them. Most experts predict that Azerbaijan’s cultural genocide will occur slowly over many years, if not decades, starting with the more recent Armenian churches, dating to the 17th to 19th centuries (as with Ghazanchetsots and Kanach Zham in Shushi) before moving on to the older, lesser known sites (such as Okhte Drni in Hadrut and Yeghishe Arakyal near Madagiz, which contains the tomb of the king of the Caucasian Albanians, “Vachagan the Pious”), and finally to the crown jewels of Armenian cultural heritage (such as Dadivank).

In fact, Azerbaijan thwarts even preliminary efforts to safeguard this cultural heritage by continuing to deny entry to independent experts seeking to inventory and assess the status of Nagorno-Karabakh’s sites. (This, of course, makes it easier to destroy Armenian sites and later claim they never existed, as Azerbaijan did in its exclave of Nakhichevan.) On December 21, 2020, UNESCO issued a press release lamenting Azerbaijan’s lack of cooperation with UNESCO’s request to send an independent, technical mission of experts to Nagorno-Karabakh — a decision of UNESCO’s Second Protocol Committee that Azerbaijan reportedly had tried to prevent.

Yelena13-Gandzasar-Wall-Khachkars.jpeg?rKhachkars line the interior of Gandzasar’s monastic walls (2009)

Nagorno-Karabakh’s Christian religious sites unquestionably refer to a unique Armenian visual tradition. Nevertheless, trying to disentangle what Christian heritage is exclusively Armenian versus Caucasian Albanian is beside the point: Living Armenians use and venerate these sites and living Armenians are now excluded from these sites. Therefore, the calls to save Armenian cultural heritage are not pleas to preserve an extinct indigenous group’s millennia-old monuments for future tourist attractions; they are an urgent demand to stop an ongoing cultural genocide, which has seen hundreds of Armenian sites erased from present-day Turkey and the South Caucasus. For now, however, Nagorno-Karabakh’s sites still stand after hundreds of years of conquest and are a living witness to the region’s long Christian heritage. Nagorno-Karabakh’s cultural landscape thus poses a formidable challenge to modern, competing territorial claims. Any ethnic group laying claim to Nagorno-Karabakh must first explain its ties to these cultural monuments. Or, in Azerbaijan’s case, it must first explain them and then erase them.

 
 
 


#13 Yervant1

Yervant1

    The True North!

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,575 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 March 2021 - 10:20 AM

Hyperallergic
Feb 28 2021
 
 
 
 
Shushi’s Occupied Museums
Indigenous Armenian heritage in occupied Artsakh’s museums faces the threat of erasure and cultural cleansing.
by Mashinka Firunts Hakopian

On November 10, 2020, Azerbaijan seized ancestral Armenian lands in the democratic Republic of Artsakh following an unprovoked military offensive launched on September 27. Today, Azerbaijan controls the majority of the ethnically Armenian enclave, which has been populated by Indigenous Armenians since at least the 2nd century BCE, according to written records 

As many museums engage in a transnational discourse about foregrounding Indigenous voices in their exhibition practices, museums in occupied Artsakh face the threat of historical erasure and cultural cleansing. 

Occupied Artsakh encompasses the city of Shushi, the Republic’s cultural center. Shushi, known to Azerbaijanis as Shusha, is home to six small museums, several established by individual founders with a single private collection. They comprise the Shushi History Museum, the State Museum of Geology, the Shushi Carpet Museum, the State Museum of Fine Arts, Shushi Art Gallery, and the Shushi Armenian Numismatic Museum. 

The Shushi History Museum was founded as a pedagogical effort to shed light on the lifeworlds of Armenians in the city from the ancient period to the present. Its specimens ranged from local newspapers to exhibits devoted to the domestic interiors of notable Shushi residents like Tadevos Tamiryants. The State Museum of Geology was founded by Professor Grigor Gabrielyants in 2014, and houses over 500 stones and gems, many of which originated in Artsakh. The Shushi Carpet Museum opened in 2011, displaying roughly 300 examples of textiles from the private collection of Vardan Astsatryan that date to the 17th to the 20th centuries, with a particular focus on the local carpet-weaving heritage. Astsatryan described the Museum as an effort to save those traditions from Azerbaijani appropriation. Among its exhibits is a carpet woven by his grandmother. The State Museum of Fine Arts boasted a collection of roughly 800 works, including those by artists Martiros Saryan, Minas Avetisyan, and Hagop Hagopian, some of the most prominent names in Armenian modern art. 

Shushi’s museums were established after the Armenians of Artsakh won the right to self-governance through a liberation war fought against the backdrop of a dissolving Soviet Union from 1988 to 1994. Melanya Balayan, the director of the Artsakh State History Museum, said in an interview that Shushi’s museums were originally created as part of a broader post-Soviet cultural revitalization project. This project aimed to resurface the histories of Armenian cultural production in Artsakh that had been actively suppressed under the Soviet regime. Today, the collections of all but one of Shushi’s museums are under Azerbaijani control. After capturing the city through unfathomable violence, petro-oligarchic President Ilham Aliyev declared Shushi the “capital of Azerbaijani culture.” He has since also announced that with the aid of Turkey he will build a school in Shushi run by the Grey Wolves, a far-right ultra-nationalist Pan-Turkic organization that was recently banned in France after its members began to “hunt for Armenians” on the streets of Lyon during the Second Artsakh War. The groundbreaking of the school will be attended by Aliyev and Turkish President Rayyip Erdogan.

shushimuseums-1.jpg?resize=780%2C596&quapngZAcQWIc_z7.png
Installation views of the Shushi State Museum of Fine Arts (photograph courtesy Lusine Gasparyan)

Similar acts of epistemic violence and dazzling revisionism are oft-implemented by Azerbaijani state actors. When the world’s largest Armenian necropolis in the Azerbajanii-controlled exclave of Nakhchivan was demolished — including monuments dating to the 6th century CE — Azerbaijan continuously denied that the site had been destroyed “because it never existed in the first place.” Despite corroboration from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and a major forensic report released by Simon Maghakyan and Sarah Pickman in Hyperallergic, Azerbaijani representatives maintained that “the worst cultural genocide of the 21st century” had never taken place. Because, as they insisted, there had never been any Indigenous Armenian cultural heritage there to begin with. 

After 300-year-old Armenian carpets were evacuated to Yerevan from the Shushi Carpet Museum, Azerbaijan called it an act of “theft and misappropriation” by Armenians and urged UNESCO to intervene. Azerbaijani officials asserted that the carpets were looted and were, in fact, Azerbaijani carpets. Repudiating what the Smithsonian has called “the age-old tradition of Armenian carpet making,” which dates to the 5th century BCE, Azerbaijan argued that these carpets could not have been Armenian because “historically the Armenians were not engaged in carpet weaving.”

Denying archaeological records, the accounts of Ancient Greek historian Strabo, and an extensive body of international scholarship—all of which attest to the long presence of Armenians in Artsakh—Azerbaijan issues ethnoterritorial claims that hinge on a programmatic policy of Indigenous erasure. Narine Khachaturyan, Armenia’s former deputy minister of Education, Science, Culture and Sport, describes Azerbaijan’s policy to Hyperallergic as follows: “Whoever will tell the biggest lie will be the victor.”

Recognizing the imminent dangers facing the region’s museums, cultural workers in both Artsakh and Armenia organized disaster response measures immediately after the September 27 attacks. Lusine Gasparyan, director of Shushi Museums, told Hyperallergic she recalls waking up in Stepanakert that morning to the shelling of her building, one of the first hit in the early offensive. By 10am, she had arrived in Shushi to gather official museum documents. Under continuous bombardment, Gasparyan would regularly return to Shushi over the next month to package and transport museum collections to the basement of the State Museum of Fine Arts for safekeeping, with the aid of artist Armen Petrosyan. By the end of October, Gasparyan recounts, the city was almost exclusively populated by soldiers. The majority of civilians had either fled or were sheltering in their basements, and officers would cast puzzled glances at Gasparyan and Petrosyan as they carried packaged artworks through the street in between shelling. To avoid periods of extended artillery fire, Gasparyan sheltered in Shushi for several nights rather than risk the trip back to Stepanakert. With one exception, the museums’ collections were not evacuated from the city. It was unfathomable to its inhabitants that Shushi could fall. 

Today, it’s unclear what has become of the cultural objects that Gasparyan labored to preserve. The windows of the State Museum of Fine Arts were shattered by nearby shelling, but the edifice stands, according to Gasparyan. The status of the collections transported to its basement remains unknown. As Khachaturyan puts it, “No one knows anything for certain now…We know only that those works are not with us and that we are not allowed to go and see them.” 

In an interview, Ani Avagyan, the chair of the International Council of Museums (ICOM) Armenia, explained that “we learn news about what’s happening to Armenian cultural heritage in Artsakh only when Azerbajani soldiers post videos to social media platforms.” The content posted typically memorializes acts of cultural desecration.

Recently, the Artsakh Cultural Ministry appealed to Azerbaijani leadership and Russian peacekeeping forces to return 1,500 artworks held in occupied Artsakh, but to no avail. Azerbaijan has repeatedly rejected UNESCO’s proposal to send an independent delegation of experts to inventory cultural objects in Artsakh, and UNESCO has done little to intervene beyond issuing a 327-word press release. Gasparyan has submitted a letter to UNESCO requesting aid, which remains unanswered. (Not by happenstance, Azerbaijan has made fiscal contributions to UNESCO in the millions, as Nevdon Jamgochian explains in this edition.) With Avagyan at its helm, ICOM Armenia has campaigned for the inclusion of cultural heritage protections in negotiations, issuing a report that points to the likelihood of “cultural genocide or cultural cleansing.”

Amid thunderous silence on the part of global art communities, Armenia and Artsakh’s cultural workers remain uncertain about the future of museums and their collections in occupied Artsakh. Per Gasparyan, “We can’t envision what tomorrow in Artsakh will look like…With the fate of Armenian POWs [still held in Azerbaijan] uncertain, there can be little hope for the fate of our cultural heritage.”

If decolonizing the museum requires reckoning with settler colonial histories, how do we approach decolonization in a state where history itself is a principal target of erasure? 

As Melanya Balayan suggests, one crucial intervention lies in circulating counter-narratives to oppose the falsified histories distributed by Azerbaijan. With Vahram Balayan, she has been fundraising to translate their research on the history of Artsakh into English. For Balayan, educating non-Armenian speakers could constitute a meaningful step toward building transnational coalitions for heritage protections. 

“I call on the international community of museum professionals to raise their voice,” says Avagyan. “States will disappear. New states will be created. But cultural heritage will [safeguard] our memory. We are what we are because of the creations … of our ancestors.”

For Armenians in occupied Artsakh and beyond, both the creations of their ancestors and the status of our ancestral land have been rendered chillingly precarious. 

“Culture is our passport,” Narine Khachaturyan observes. “It’s the trace that attests to our being native to Artsakh, Indigenous to Artsakh. That is why it’s so important to Azerbaijan to destroy it.”

What happens when a museum designed to decolonize history is colonized again? Whose histories will it enshrine, and what are the futures to which they may lead?

https://hyperallergi...cupied-museums/



#14 Yervant1

Yervant1

    The True North!

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,575 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 March 2021 - 10:21 AM

Hyperallergic
Feb 28 2021
 
 
Artsakh: 1f3fa.pngCultural Heritage Under Threat1f6e1.png
This edition explores the realities facing the monuments, churches, and landmarks currently threatened in post-war Artsakh, while considering the complexities that are often overlooked.
 
pngkqALVkr9dq.png

Taken on November 18, 2020 by photographer Scout Tufankjian, this image captures the moment a family in Martakert, Artsakh, returned home after the war to find this canister, which explosive ordnance disposal experts described as a pressure bottle from a guided missile or drone, in their garden. (photography courtesy Scout Tufankjian) Credit: Scout Tufankjian

This Sunday Edition was a difficult one to compile, as it comes at a critical time for the cultural heritage of Artsakh, which is threatened by the autocratic state of Azerbaijan. The country has a history of cultural genocide against the Armenian heritage within its borders, which we reported about two years ago. The event may be the largest cultural genocide of the 21st century. Much of the research included in this issue was undertaken due to a dearth of information and facts freely available online and in English. The contributing reporters and scholars are some of the leaders in their fields, and they were kind enough to respond to our requests to write quickly, recognizing the urgency of the topic at hand. The threat faced by the art discussed here is not only real, but may have already begun.

For those of you without context for the threat to Artsakh’s cultural heritage, I will summarize the events. Last September, while the world was obsessed with the US election, Azerbaijan, aided by Syrian Islamist rebels and Turkish forces, attacked the Republic of Artsakh. The territory, which declared independence after the fall of the Soviet Union, has never been governed by an independent Azerbaijan and was unrecognized by governments around the world. The roughly 44-day war led to over 10,000 deaths and the conquest of most of the Armenian-majority region, as well as the turn over of territories that contain hundreds of Armenian religious and secular monuments that date back millennia. 

Growing up in an Armenian family, the term Artsakh — or Karabakh, which is the term used by the international community — wasn’t something we discussed. During the Cold War era, anything on the other side of the Iron Curtain felt inaccessible to those of us elsewhere, particularly since my family wasn’t from anywhere near the region. With the fall of the Soviet Union, all of that changed as the Armenian populated enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh, which was situated in the Soviet republic of Azerbaijan starting in the 1920s, launched a war of self determination after pogroms against Armenian inhabitants in the Azerbaijani cities of Sumgait and Baku droves hundreds of thousands from their homes. The resulting battle killed tens of thousands and allowed the indigenous Armenian populations of Artsakh to continue with their lives even if they (and the newly independent country of Armenia next door, which helped their compatriots in the war) were being strangled by a total blockade by Azerbaijan and Turkey, both Turkic allies that view themselves as “two states, one nation.” Both countries officially deny the Armenian genocide and annually fund multi-million dollar compaigns to oppress Armenians and deny the historical event and its long-term implications.

Artsakh-karabakh-map-2500v3.jpg?resize=7pngHVJ54dxdsJ.png
A map of Artsakh/Karabakh illustrating the shifting borders from Soviet times until today. Please note the current Artsakh borders are estimations as the final borders are still being negotiated and determined through negotiations between Artsakh officials, Azerbaijani officials, and Russian peacekeepers. Djulfa in the exclave of Nakhichevan is listed as it was the site of the largest cultural genocide operation by the Azerbaijan government and is mentioned throughout this edition. (Hrag Vartanian/Hyperallergic)

The realities of Artsakh felt distant from my life, even if I occasionally met Armenian refugees from Baku and Sumgait in New York and elsewhere, and began learning more about the realities they face. Starting in 2011, things changed when a queer Armenian group I was a part of marched in the annual Pride parade in New York. Knowing it was important to show positive images of LGBTQ Armenians to the world when so much of our community lives in countries with repressive homophobic laws, we took images and shared them online. While the initial feedback was all positive, we eventually discovered they were also being used by Azerbaijanis as a way to smear Armenians as “gay,” which is a popular insult in the region. Our image, meant to showcase our joy and pride, continues to pop up in YouTube videos and articles and other online venues (particularly Telegram channels), with the latest surge being during the recent war, and I have to admit it is sometimes jarring to encounter.

In 2012, a friend showed me that an Azerbaijani “news” website had published an article accusing Hyperallergic’s publisher (and my spouse) Veken Gueyikian of organizing a gay pride parade in Baku in an effort to overthrow the government. At the time, Veken was president of New York’s Armenian LGBTQ organization; other members of the board are also named in the feature. The article, of course, is ridiculous — though the thought of a gay pride parade overthrowing a autocratic government is quite delicious — but it alerted me that the hate being churned out by the state of Azerbaijan against Armenians was never focused on Artsakh alone and involved smearing all Armenians, without cause or justification. The article was syndicated in at least one other publication that is currently still available online. That hatred is so intense that all Armenians, regardless of passport or politics, are banned from Azerbaijan. Most recently, Arsenal soccer player Henrikh Mkhitaryan felt unsafe to travel to Azerbaijan for the Europa League final, even if the government assured him they would make an exception. The evidence of hatred of Armenians is extensive and continues to be overlooked by international observers. As you’ll see in the extensive research in this issue, many art world figures ignore the ban on their fellow artists, curators, critics, and others, to partake in the caviar diplomacy Azerbaijan is so famous for. Is there any other modern nation that bans a whole group of people for no other reason than their identity regardless of passport or politics? While Israel also bans Palestinians from visiting their homeland it has a more porous system even if it is often just as effective at excluding large numbers of Palestinians.

The consequences of Azerbaijan’s propaganda have impacted my work on a number of occasions. Most notably, I visited Dubai during the Sharjah Biennial, and many of the journalists I was with were traveling to Baku for an opening at Yarat, an art center created and supported by the niece of the Azerbaijani dictator. Of course, I was not invited, but Anna Kats, then an editor at Artinfo, told me, “well, you guys shouldn’t have invaded Azerbaijan.” I think she was trying to be funny, but it simply sounded callous, and I avoided her the rest of the trip.

Another time, I was interviewing artist Oscar Murillo at the Palestinian Museum in the West Bank, when he told me about visiting Baku and the weird flight path (that completely avoids Armenia and Artsakh, I politely mentioned). He didn’t seem to understand what he was saying and how oblivious it sounded in the context of another land fighting for independence. I don’t want to ascribe nefarious motivations to the two, as I think it is mostly done out of ignorance or social awkwardness, but it is important to point out that these issues are not always as remote as some may assume. This Sunday Edition is partly designed to fill that hole in people’s knowledge and provide some knowledge and context for further conversations.

Here’s a summary:

I’m grateful for the research and work of each scholar who researched and shared these stories with the world. The use of Artsakh is the predominant term used throughout the edition, as it is the term used by the Indigenous inhabitants of the region, but the terms Karabakh and Nagorno-Karabakh are also used, though the latter is often used specifically to denote the Soviet oblast, which is outlined in the map above. This decision was made to reflect that many of these terms are often used interchangeably and reflect various cultural and political perspectives. The term Karabakh is used in the article about carpets as it is the most common term in the field.

This issue is designed to tell the stories of the Armenian heritage that is threatened. I hope you will spend time with the material and learn about this corner of the world where hate threatens thousands of years of art history. This isn’t in the past, this is about today.

Hrag Vartanian is editor-in-chief and co-founder of Hyperallergic. You can follow him at @hragv. More by Hrag Vartanian



#15 Yervant1

Yervant1

    The True North!

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,575 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 March 2021 - 10:22 AM

Reuters
Feb 28 2021



In Iraq, pope to visit Mosul churches desecrated by Islamic State

By Charlotte Bruneau



MOSUL, Iraq (Reuters) - In Mosul, adjacent to the Biblical city of Nineveh, four churches representing different denominations occupy a small square surrounded by low-rise houses, testament to the role Iraq’s once flourishing Christian community played.
 

 

pngSY0s7QoSVg.png

 

A view of the old city of Mosul and buildings destroyed during past fighting with Islamic State militants, in Mosul, Iraq February 22, 2021. Picture taken February 22, 2021. Picture taken with a drone. REUTERS/Abdullah Rashid

Today, all four churches are either damaged or destroyed after Islamic State militants occupied the city from 2014-2017, desecrated many of the buildings and used them to run its administration, including as a jail and a court.

Air strikes as Iraqi forces tried to dislodge the extremist group in fierce fighting did the rest. Those walls still standing are scarred with bullet and shrapnel holes.

“It used to be a bit like the Jerusalem of the Nineveh plains,” said Mosul and Akra’s Chaldean Archbishop Najeeb Michaeel of “Church Square”, the name given to the site that Pope Francis will visit on March 7 during his historic trip to Iraq.

Michaeel fondly recalled how, before the U.S. invasion in 2003, Iraqi Christians from different denominations would attend each other’s services on religious festivals.

Those days are gone. Today just one of Mosul’s surviving churches offers a weekly Sunday service to a Christian population that has dwindled to just a few dozen families from about 50,000 people.

Tolerated by former President Saddam Hussein but persecuted by al Qaeda and then Islamic State, Iraq’s Christians number around 300,000, one fifth of the total before 2003.

Some are trickling back after Islamic State’s defeat, but others still see little prospect in staying in Iraq and are looking to settle overseas.

MINES AND MEMORIES

A Syriac Catholic, Syriac Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox and Chaldean Catholic church are situated cheek-by-jowl in and around the dusty square. Now the area lies in ruins, as do other parts of the city.

The pope is due to hold prayers for the victims of war at Hosh al-Bieaa, known as Church Square in English, as part of a four-day trip starting on March 5, a visit Archbishop Michaeel described as highly symbolic and a message of hope.


“Where stones fell because of violence, there will always be life,” he said.

Workmen have been busy cleaning up the site before Pope Francis arrives.

Funded by the United Arab Emirates, the restoration of the Syriac Catholic church of Al-Tahera is being carried out by UNESCO in collaboration with local partners and began in 2020.

Holding pictures of the church before its destruction, assistant site coordinator for UNESCO in Iraq, Anas Zeyad, pointed to delicate Syriac carvings on pieces of greyish alabaster stone referred to locally as “Mosul marble”.

Damaged by Islamic State before its roof was shredded by air strikes, the church was used as a tribunal by the jihadist movement’s religious police, Zeyad said.

The adjacent Armenian Orthodox church, distinguishable by its dome, remains closed off to the public.

“It has not been de-mined yet,” Zeyad explained, pointing to the sealed door leading to the church that Islamic State commandeered as a prison.

“Nearly all churches in Mosul were used by Islamic State,” Archbishop Michaeel said.

Standing next to a damaged piece of sculpted alabaster representing the Virgin Mary, Ali Salem, from Iraq’s State Board of Antiquities and Heritage, said his team was reviewing many such artefacts to determine which could be repaired and used again.

“As a Muslim I am proud to help rebuild these churches,” Zeyad said, adding that he hoped “we see Christians come back to these places, so that we live together again as we have for centuries.”

Editing by Mike Collett-White



https://www.reuters....s-idUKKCN2AS059



#16 Yervant1

Yervant1

    The True North!

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,575 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 March 2021 - 10:26 AM

Hyperallergic
Feb 28 2021
 
 
Can Islamic Shrines’ Connection to Armenians Transform Azerbaijani Politics of Erasure?
An Islamic mausoleum built by an Armenian architect might offer a unique opportunity to embrace diversity.
pngQ6A3SiKpNx.png
Simon-M-100x100.jpeg
by Simon Maghakyan

pngjH5bOMn8Jo.png
The Khachen-Dorbatli mausoleum near Agdam, Azerbaijan. (photograph courtesy Research on Armenian Architecture)
Can Islamic Shrines’ Connection to Armenians Transform Azerbaijani Politics of Erasure?

Last fall’s war in the South Caucasus, during which Azerbaijan violently procured most of its Soviet-era territories, has left many wondering whether the continued erasure of the region’s Indigenous Armenian cultural monuments can be prevented. While the haughty Azerbaijani government’s rhetoric and record could hardly be less encouraging, a little-known group of regional monuments — medieval Islamic mausoleums built by local, Christian Armenian craftsmen — may offer a glimpse of hope for cultural preservation in and around the contested region of Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh).


Khachen-Dorbatli-line-door.jpg?resize=30pngp6gSgTApsR.png
A drawing of the door of the Khachen-Dorbatli mausoleum (image courtesy Research on Armenian Architecture)In late November, in accordance with a controversial peace agreement, the defeated Artsakh Republic ceded the Agdam district to Azerbaijan. The region encompasses a vast array of cultural heritage sites, including the archeological site of Tigranakert, a Hellenistic Armenian city. Until the excavations launched in 2006, Vankasar church was the only visible part of the major sacred Armenian site. Nearby, a later Islamic monument sacred to Azerbaijanis memorializes one of the region’s 14th-century Muslim lords. That monument also passed into Azerbaijan’s possession.

Situated in the village of Khachen-Dorbatli (Azerbaijani spelling Xaçındərbətli), the 14th-century mausoleum has long reminded researchers of Armenian architecture. “It represents a polygon with a sharp dome, built of processed yellowish limestone,” wrote the late Armenian researcher Samvel Karapetyan in 2001. “The style, execution technique, and artistic features of the heraldic scenes cut in low relief around the niches of interior walls (bulls, tigers, other animals) are similar to the reliefs of the western façade of Surb Astvatzatzin (the Holy Virgin) church in Yeghvard.”


Khachen-Dorbatli-mausoleum-courtesy-of-Rpngzlldt5vZQD.png
The interior of the Khachen-Dorbatli mausoleum (photographs courtesy of Research on Armenian Architecture)

Researchers before and after Karapetyan have also noted the similarities of the two structures. A Russian-language book titled The Art of Azerbaijan, published in Moscow in 1976 by well-known Soviet art historians Leonid Bretanitski and Boris Vejmarn, writes of the mausoleum:

The unique architecture and ornamentation of the mausoleum […] significantly expand ideas of the interconnections between the art of the “Muslim” and “Christian” regions of the Near East, Transcaucasia and Asia Minor […] It is framed by a thread of hefty, finely-outlined and skillfully-executed rosettes, reminiscent of the décor of the entrances of the Melik Ajar mausoleum and the temple-burial vault in Yeghvard.

[…] The mihrab and the contents of the inscription confirm that the “customer” was a Muslim. Nevertheless, there is no shortage of elements in the architecture of the mausoleum that speak of connections with the architecture of neighboring Christian regions: the décor of the entrance, the solutions of the columns, the character of stalactites. We especially note the images of living creatures, which are rarely found in the ornamentation of Azerbaijan’s monuments […]

The poignancy of the ­­­­­confident lines, the fleetness of the movements, the sudden angles … speak of the remarkable craftsmanship of the artist. With their motifs and manners of execution, they somewhat resemble the same “graffiti” of [the churches of] Geghard and Saghmosavank in Armenia.

The 1994 book, The Caucasian Knotalso notes the similarities between the Christian and Islamic structures. “The [Muslim] mausoleum at Khachen-Dorbatly (1314 [Mongol period]), not far from Aghdam, reveals a great similarity in sculpted décor to an Armenian funerary church of the same period, the chapel at Yeghvard,” write Levon Chorbajian, Patrick Donabédian, and Claude Mutafian. Built within several years of each other, the striking similarities of the Yeghvard chapel — situated just north of modern Armenia’s capital Yerevan — and the Khachen-Dorbatli mausoleum go beyond such obvious commonalities as their nearly identical depiction of wildlife or entry décor.

pngVcYG1mVEfj.png
Left, the Khachen-Dorbatli mausoleum, and, right, The Surb Astvatzatzin (the Holy Virgin) church in Yeghvard (photographs courtesy Research on Armenian Architecture)
Yeghvard-khachen-dorbatli-big-2.jpg?resi

According to Donabédian, the two structures exhibit mutual influences of Christian and Islamic art. “The chapel of Yeghvard was built in a small local principality, which was one of the rare areas in Armenia where artistic activity was able to continue during the tough period of Mongol domination,” he explained to Hyperallergic. “This chapel distinguishes itself by its elegance, the abundance and quality of its sculpted decoration, widely open to contacts with the Muslim world, and by the presence, under its cupola, of a row of Persian tiles dating from the end of the 13th century to early 14th centuries.”

In addition to their visual similarities, the Khachen-Dorbatli mausoleum and the Yeghvard chapel both have inscriptions identifying the architect. Naming an architect on a medieval structure is not a common feature of local architecture, Armenia-based researcher Raffi Kortoshian told Hyperallergic, and must be a result of the architect’s popularity. The Yeghvard chapel’s Armenian inscription identifies the architect as “VD SHAHIK,” with “VD” standing for “vardpet” or master in the Armenian language.



#17 Yervant1

Yervant1

    The True North!

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,575 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 March 2021 - 10:28 AM

pngOyuCZTlw07.png
VARDZQ-big.jpg?resize=780%2C913&quality=
Common architectural features of the Khachen-Dorbatli mausoleum (left) and the Yeghvard chapel, both built by architect Shahik, as presented in Raffi Kortoshian, “The Arabic inscription of the Khachen-Dorbatli Mausoleum,” Vardzk (in Armenian), Issue 14 (Fall 2020) (images courtesy Research on Armenian Architecture NGO)

The Khachen-Dor­­­batli mausoleum’s Arabic inscription also names the architect, but as Kortoshian points out, Soviet researchers misinterpreted it, without even publishing the inscription’s photograph or sketch, as either “Shahbenzer” or “Shakhenzi.” In 2017, writing in French, Donabédian and his co-author Yves Porter published the mausoleum’s Arabic inscription in full: “Hadha al-‘imârat al-marhum Qutlu Khwâdjah ibn Musâ al-muhtâj alâ rahmat-allah li-‘âlâ Fi târikh rabi’ al-âkhir sana arba’ ‘ashar sab’amia ‘amal ustâd shâhik (This is the building of the late Qutlu Khwâdjah [ibn Musâ] needing the mercy of God the Most High. On the date [of the month] Rabi’ al-âkhir of the year seven hundred and fourteen /15 July-13 August 1314. Work of master Shâhik).”

While Kortoshian, who has studied the inscription closely, agrees that the Arabic text translates as “master Shahik,” he told Hyperallergic that Donabédian-Porter “have erred in reading” the architect’s title as “ustad.” Instead, he insists, the architect’s name and title is spelled in the Arabic inscription as “Shahikvd,” in which “vd” stands not for “ustad” but for its Armenian equivalent, “vardpet.” Kortoshian acknowledged, nevertheless, that further epigraphic studies of this and similar inscriptions are needed due to some non-standard punctuations “to better understand the use of Arabic in 14th-century Armenia under Mongol-Turkic dominations.” 

pngJuyEDEfzRV.png
The Arabic inscription of the Khachen Dorbatli mausoleum. (photograph by Ch. and J.-Cl. Hotellier, originally published in Donabédian P., Porter Y., « Eghvard (Arménie, début XIVe siècle), La chapelle de l’alliance », Hortus Artium Medievalium, 23/2, p. 837-8)



#18 Yervant1

Yervant1

    The True North!

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,575 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 March 2021 - 10:29 AM

Additional confirmation that the Khachen-Dorbatli mausoleum and the Yeghvard chapel share an architect in Shahik Vardpet arrives via a more recent discovery. In 2001, a 14th-century Islamic mausoleum was found in the basement of a disco club in downtown Yerevan, the capital of Armenia. Kortoshian says that the Arabic inscription of the Yerevan mausoleum names a possible relative, perhaps the father, of the man buried at Khachen-Dorbatli. The inscription also indicates it was built six years before the mausoleum at Khachen-Dorbatli. Kortoshian says the Yerevan mausoleum bears visual similarities to the structures in both Khachen-Dorbatli and Yeghvard. Furthermore, it features bilingual inscriptions, in Armenian and Arabic — a rare occurrence among Islamic tombs built by Armenian craftsmen. While the Arabic version omits the name of the architect, Kortoshian notes that the Armenian inscription acknowledges him as “SHAH[I]K VD.” Incidentally, all of these three structures built by Shahik Vardpet not only name their architect but also identify the year of the construction’s completion: the early 1300s.

pngWKr6_Y9yi3.png
An interior view of the Yeghvard chapel (photograph by Hrair Hawk Khatcherian, originally published in Donabédian P., Porter Y., « Eghvard (Arménie, début XIVe siècle), La chapelle de l’alliance », Hortus Artium Medievalium, 23/2, p. 837-8)
Eghvart-Abside-niveau-intermediaire.jpg?

The toponym Khachen Dorbatli itself memorializes the village’s hybrid history, points out Ankara-based Azerbaijani researcher and linguist Cavid Aga. He told Hyperallergic that the place name incorporates the wider region’s medieval Armenian name, “Khachen,” with either the Islamic term “türbə” (mausoleum) or the Mongols’ Dörbet tribe. Aga finds the latter connection more probable because “The Yuan Empire’s representative to the Mongolian Ilkhanate, Bolad Chingsang, was from the Dörbet tribe and had an estate in Karabakh, where he died in 1313,” and also because “Dorbatli” has been incorporated into other place names of the region. According to Aga, many toponyms across this part of the world often memorialize demographic changes, “like Baghanis-Ayrum, in which Baghanis is the original Armenian name while Ayrum is the Turkic tribe that settled there.”

It’s worth noting that in 2006, when Armenia brought up the issue of the erasure of the Armenian Djulfa cemetery in the Azerbaijani exclave of Nakhichevan, the Azerbaijan authorities responded with what is known as mirror propaganda, baselessly alleging the “total destruction” of various monuments including the “Gutlu Musa oglu tomb,” which is how Azerbaijani authorities often refer to the  ’ Khachen-Dorbatli  mausoleum.

Khachen-Dorbatli-draw-big.jpg?resize=780png8Nbcn7yfYJ.png
Elevation drawings of the exterior and interior of the Khachen-Dorbatli mausoleum by Shahik Vardpet (images courtesy Research on Armenian Architecture)

The Khachen-Dorbatli is not the only Islamic monument connected with Armenian architecture in the wider region of Artsakh or Karabakh, according to a 2010 publication of the nonprofit organization Research on Armenian Architecture. The Islamic Monuments of the Armenian Architecture of Artsakh states that “during the foreign domination of Armenia, outstanding Armenian masons were often forced into carrying out different tasks within the construction activity of this or that ruler.” The vast architectural knowledge acquired in constructing Armenian churches was often used by foreign conquerors in the building of new secular and religious sites. “All of these structures reveal the influence of Armenian architecture,” notes the publication, “and bear […] the apparent imprint of its traditional features.” According to the same text:

[…] special mention should be made of the mausoleums (14th to 15th centuries) that were erected in the Eastern regions of Historical Armenia, and particularly in Artsakh, in the times of the Turkmen Kara Koyunlu nomadic tribes. These mausoleums, which were built over the graves of the chieftains of these tribes and are reminiscent of church domes, were designed by Armenian architects and built by Armenian masters.

Armenian-built Islamic mausoleums are no surprise to researchers like Stephennie Mulder, author of the book The Shrines of the Alids in Medieval Syria: Sunnis, Shi’is and the Architecture of Coexistence. Armenian influences upon Islamic architecture are not limited to monuments constructed in historical Armenia. “There is a tremendous amount of influence from Armenian stonemasonry on Islamic architecture from about the 11th to14th centuries all throughout Islamic lands,” she notes. “The walls of Cairo, for example, were built by an Armenian army general, Badr al-Jamali, who became vizier to the Fatimid Caliph.”

The Armenian influence is so pronounced that Mulder even begins her class at the University of Texas, Austin on circa 12th-century Islamic architecture with a discussion on Armenian Church architecture. “It was perfectly usual for Christians to work for Muslim patrons, and the Mongols took that up even one more notch,” explains Mulder, in part because “antagonizing the enormous variety of religious communities over which Muslim rulers found themselves presiding was often antithetical to the goal of imperial stability.” Instead, she states, medieval Islamic rulers frequently preferred a strategy of “pragmatic accommodation” over conflict that stimulated shared architectural traditions. 

Azerbaijani scholar Elchin Aliyev, who has advocated for historical preservation, told Hyperallergic that Armenian-Azerbaijani cultural commonalities in architecture and beyond, including in cuisine and music, can help to pursue the “renewal of good-neighborly relations.” He plans to visit the Khachen-Dorbatli mausoleum this summer for the first time and acknowledges, by invoking Leonid Bretanitski’s research, “the influence of Armenian architecture and antiquity in the architecture of the mausoleum.” He also hopes to visit Yerevan one day to study the Soviet-revitalized city’s “Stalinist” architecture, despite accusing the Armenian government of “denying the existence of a vast cultural heritage of Azerbaijanis in Armenia.” Aliyev is hopeful that “the existence of Armenian architectural heritage in Azerbaijan” can become “one of the bridges for cultural communication” in the region. 

pngpblbI_Et0n.png
The 14th-century Islamic mausoleum in downtown Yerevan (photograph courtesy Miqayel Badalyan)
Islamic-mausoleum-Yerevan-1.jpg?resize=3

Despite overwhelming scholarly evidence to the contrary, the government of Azerbaijan may struggle with acknowledging the Khachen-Dorbatli mausoleum’s Armenian architect. Government-linked Azerbaijani scholars officially argue that Armenians did not even appear in the territory of modern Azerbaijan until the 19th century, despite the presence of thousands of sacred Christian and pagan Armenian sites. Azerbaijani politicians have relabeled the latter, which consist of mostly churches and cross-stones, as “Caucasian Albanian,” in reference to a now extinct nation that is known predominantly through Armenian history texts.

Starting in the 1950s, after the death of Stalin and the onset of the Cold War thaw under Nikita Khrushchev, then-Soviet Azerbaijan’s nationalist historiography claimed association with the long gone Caucasian Albanians. The aim was to compete with Armenian and Georgian cultural rebirth and pride in antiquity, a trend that, in the Armenian context, commenced with Anastas Mikoyan’s March 1954 speech in Yerevan, calling for a more liberal line toward national _expression_. Unfortunately, such pseudo-scientific approaches to regional history became even more pronounced after the Soviet dissolution in 1991 and continue to persist to this day.

What may be seen by outsiders as inconsequential nationalistic historiography turned into a violent campaign of cultural erasure in 1997. During that same year, Azerbaijan embarked on a decade-long campaign to eradicate every trace of Armenian history on the territory of a formerly disputed region, Nakhichevan (known in Azerbaijani as Naxçıvan). My exposé, co-authored with Yale historian Sarah Pickman, revealed that between 1997 and 2006, the government of Azerbaijan covertly eradicated every trace of Nakhichevan’s Armenian past. The victims of this brazen campaign of complete cultural erasure included 89 medieval churches, 5,840 ornate cross-stones or khachkars and over 22,000 historical tombstones. It is noteworthy that, even though the vast Christian heritage of Nakhichevan had also been relabeled as “Caucasian Albanian,” Azerbaijan’s historical revisionism still failed to secure their preservation. In a potentially ominous foreshadowing, on February 26, 2021, in a nationalistic speech rich with anti-Armenian demagoguery, Azerbaijan’s authoritarian president repeated the lie that Armenians “moved to [Nagorno-Karabakh] in the 19th-century.”

Nor is Azerbaijan’s “Albanization” campaign limited to Armenian monuments. The Georgian monastery complex of Davit Gareja, which has been subject to a heated border dispute between Azerbaijanis and Georgians, has also been classified by Azerbaijani scholars as “Albanian,” despite its Georgian inscriptions. Meanwhile, as Azerbaijani officials continue to engage in “Albanizing” the region’s past, they may have unknowingly acknowledged Armenian influence over at least some Islamic mausoleums built in what is now Azerbaijan — by at least not censoring relevant scholarship on the matter. For instance, the 1976 Bretanitski-Vejmarn work referenced earlier is considered so important in Azerbaijan that it is actually available through Azerbaijan’s virtual presidential library, which features regime-approved books for free, including polemic and xenophobic titles like “Armenian Terror” and “Armenian Mythomania.”

Having won the recent war over Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan may either choose to repeat the genocidal erasure in Nakhichevan or use cultural diplomacy to pursue peace. Prospects for the latter are not looking great: While Azerbaijan complains about Armenian desecration of some Islamic monuments, it is itself engaged in the ongoing and large-scale destruction of Armenian memorials that have come under its control. Kortoshian, nevertheless, hopes that the Azerbaijani authorities will not erase the name of Shahik from the Khachen-Dorbatli mausoleum’s Arabic inscription, though the fear remains.

pngyzy58V4_lT.png
A 2006 Azerbaijani stamp featuring the Khachen-Dorbatli mausoleum, which was under the control of the Republic of Artsakh at the time. (image courtesy RAA)
Azerbaijani-stamp-issued-in-2006-featuri

It is at once both unconscionable and plausible to imagine that Azerbaijan, which in 2006 issued a stamp to celebrate the Khachen-Dorbatli mausoleum, would desecrate and revise the history of the exact Islamic monuments that it considers sacred in order to continue its writing-out of Armenian history. Destruction and preservation are political choices. In Shahik Vardpet’s interfaith architectural appeals for coexistence, Azerbaijan has a unique opportunity to transform its politics of erasure into an embrace of cultural diversity.

This article was supported by a grant from the Armenian General Benevolent Union (AGBU).

https://hyperallergi...ics-of-erasure/

#19 Yervant1

Yervant1

    The True North!

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,575 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 March 2021 - 08:06 AM

Public Radio of Armenia
March 23 2021
 
 
 
Montserrat Caballé’s album “The island of Christianity: Armenia and Artsakh” presented in Madrid
 
 

Madrid today hosted the presentation of an unpublished album by Montserrat Caballé titled “The island of Christianity: Armenia and Artsakh,” a work that the artist recorded in 2013 during her visit to Armenia and Artsaj (Nagorno Karabakh).

The event highlighted the art of the great soprano and the Christian heritage that she valued and admired so much during her visit to Armenia and Artsakh.

The presentation of this record was organized by the Starmus Festival, since its director, the astrophysicist Garik Israelian, is also the executive producer of the record.

Ambassador Vladimir Karmirshalyan, Director of the Starmus Festival and producer of the work, Dr. Garik Israelian, as well as the singer’s daughter, soprano Montserrat Martí, delivered speeches.

“My mother was a very believer, with a deep faith, and this is for me not only an artistic treasure, but also on a personal level,” said Montserrat Martí. The event was attended by the great friend of the Armenian people, Miguel Ángel Nieto, who spoke on the theme of the album.

https://en.armradio....nted-in-madrid/



#20 Yervant1

Yervant1

    The True North!

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,575 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 April 2021 - 07:41 AM

Public Radio of Armenia
April 1 2021
 
 
 
Slovak Parliament adopts resolution on Nagorno Karabakh, calls for release of POWs
 
 

During the 25th plenary session the National Council of Slovakia unanimously adopted by 120 votes in favor the resolution “On Nagorno Karabakh” submitted by Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee Marián Kéry, (SMER-SD/Social Democrats).

The resolution strongly condemns the killings of civilians, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, monuments of cultural and religious heritage, expresses concern over the military involvement of third countries in the conflict and their destabilizing role, and emphasizes that the process of determining the future legal status of Nagorno-Karabakh should be carried out under the auspices of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs, expresses deep concern that prisoners of war and other detainees, including civilians, have not been released in accordance with the provisions of international humanitarian law, in particular the 1949 Geneva Convention.

The resolution calls on the Government of the Slovak Republic, the European Union and international organizations to ensure that all allegations of war crimes, including the use of cluster munitions, are properly investigated, that all prisoners of war and civilians are released immediately, and that international humanitarian organizations enter Nagorno-Karabakh without restrictions.

This is the second resolution on the last 44-day war unleashed by Azerbaijan against Nagorno-Karabakh adopted by the Slovak National Council. The first resolution on the ongoing conflict in Nagorno Karabakh was adopted by the National Council of the Slovak Republic on October 22, 2020.

https://en.armradio....-armenian-pows/






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users