Tigranakert and the society
Tigranakert and the cultural heritage of Artsakh
Years ago, in 2005-2006, when the research of Tigranakert had just started and was largely a personal initiative, we wrote programs to secure funding for excavations from various state or private institutions. The introduction typically included statements such as: “It is widely recognized that historical and cultural arguments play a significant role in resolving the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. The circumstances of Artsakh, being a native historical Armenian territory with an almost homogeneous ethnic population until the 18th century, have been extensively discussed in relation to the Karabakh problem at various levels and in the approaches to its resolution. Unfortunately, the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Artsakh has been going on, is going on, and will continue to be a historical conflict in the foreseeable future.
In this sense, one of the important tasks of modern Armenian studies in Armenia is the discovery, study, and presentation of monuments and historical realities of Artsakh with a marked ethno-cultural character to state bodies, society, and politicians.” Perhaps these programmatic statements, which are related to politics to a certain extent, should have been articulated at that time by a state body rather than by a specific researcher, whose sole objective should have been scientific research and related theoretical and methodological issues. However, that was the reality then. The expectation that the state itself would initiate the discovery process at Tigranakert was almost equal to zero.
Years later, in April 2011, an article with the ambiguous title “So that Stepanakert does not become Tigranakert” was published on one of the Internet sites. In this article, the author claims that the propaganda war against Azerbaijan has become a product for domestic consumption in Armenia. We have begun to prove to ourselves that Artsakh is Armenian.” In particular, let’s pay attention to the following thoughts: “The problem is that the Nagorno Karabakh conflict is not merely a historical or historiographical issue but a political, geopolitical one, and it should be resolved according to the rules of the current world order.” Yes, it is a geopolitical conflict, and it has a clear historical-cultural component. Policymakers should also keep this in mind.
Azerbaijani remarks
In the context of these developments, the examination of Azerbaijani anti-propaganda is very remarkable. It can be characterized as a process from frivolity to sobriety, from the dismissal of facts to their acknowledgement and interpretation. This examination helps to illuminate the factors contributing to the successes and failures of one’s own endeavors.
Firstly, it is worth noting their immediacy. Following the 2006 excavations, the Azerbaijani press and websites promptly reported about our excavations. This trend continued in subsequent years, covering everything from funding to the duration of the conclusions drawn by the expedition. However, the use of photographs depicting the overall appearance of the monument is obviously avoided. For instance, images of the defensive walls of Tigranakert, widely available on the Internet, are conspicuously absent on any Azerbaijani website. Initially, their response was characterized by jests and flattery, marking the initial phase. In the second phase, they attempted a more serious approach, seeking political implications for our initiatives. Even the Academy of Azerbaijan became involved, issuing a special decree concerning the Tigranakert excavations, which was prominently featured on the website of the National Security Institute of Azerbaijan. Interestingly, the same media emphasized the cautious attitude of the Armenian authorities and the National Academy of Sciences and interpreted it as a sign of the lack of seriousness of our undertaking. Thus, a reality was created where the expedition and its leader were solely responsible for Azerbaijan’s counter-propaganda. It remained for the expedition to respond with new excavations and facts and to quickly circulate them. Since 2008, the results of the most recent Tigranakert excavations have been extensively documented on websites, accompanied by dozens of notes and photos of materials and structures. It became increasingly challenging for Azerbaijani researchers to deny the existence of the city; asserting that it was not an antique city became impossible. Furthermore, they even wrote articles suggesting that while the city of Tigranakert did exist, it belonged to the Albanians or claimed it was located elsewhere, contrary to our findings. In other words, they accept that Armenian archaeologists have discovered a city built during the time of Tigranes, but it is not Tigranakert. We already know how to excavate, and we can find a city that they have not even seen after working there for tens of years. The only doubt is that it is not Tigranakert. This doubt was also adopted by a number of Armenian politicians and armenologists. The political attitude of Azerbaijan’s state institutions, academic circles, and media contributed to this. They appealed to international bodies to halt our excavations, attempted to isolate the expedition internationally, and compiled “blacklists” of foreigners visiting Artsakh, etc.
Armenian remarks
Along with the obvious successes, the popularization process of Tigranakert brought to light many problems related to the myriad issues within the Armenian scientific and intellectual community. These include instances of amateurism and arrogance in scientific research, as well as political considerations regarding cultural heritage and the management of science and culture. For example, as the excavations of Tigranakert progressed, discussions about Tigranakert of Artsakh were reignited among the Armenian scientific intelligentsia, both in Artsakh and in Armenia. While this resurgence was welcomed, it was notable that these discussions initially unfolded not within scientific periodicals but in newspapers, on television, and even in the films dedicated to Tigranakert. Surprisingly, they were not aimed at bringing new facts in favor of that discovery, but on the contrary, they tended to question the archaeological facts.
Let’s take just three examples.
The first concerns the evasive attitude of the RA National Academy presidency towards our work. In response to one of our press conferences in 2009, academician Vladimir Barkhudaryan, who was the scientific secretary of the Academy at the time, explained the indifferent attitude of the Academy by stating that it is “serious.” This implies that while the excavation by the academic institute had been ongoing for four years, the serious academy had adopted a passive stance.
The second example involves the attribution of Tigranakert’s foundation. Contrary to the widely accepted belief that it was established by Tigranes the Great (95-55 BC), Babken Harutyunyan, a Corresponding Member of the Academy, posited that it was founded by Tigran Yervandyan, who reigned in the middle of the 6th century BC. This perspective was expressed by Harutyunyan in a film dedicated to Tigranakert, which was under our excavation. It should be noted that the excavations revealed a city built in the 1st century BC. Therefore, to assert its foundation several hundred years earlier without substantial scientific evidence, particularly in a film dedicated to Tigranakert of Artsakh, seemed unfounded. This meant simply questioning Tigranakert of Artsakh.
The third example is more of a joke. Slava Sargsyan, an employee of the Artsakh Tourism Department, wrote a lengthy article in the “Azat Artsakh” (“Free Artsakh”) newspaper. In it, he argues that the local name of Tigranakert, Tkrakert, traditionally considered a local pronunciation of Tigranakert by researchers starting with Sargis Jalalyants, is closer to the Persian Taranyurt. According to the author of the article, Taranyurt has no connection to Tigranakert but refers to the remains of a city built by the Mongols in Darandasht during the mid-13th century, known as “Daranyurt.” In Sargsyan’s narrative, there is no Tigranakert; instead, the Mongols constructed a city named Daranyurt on the site. The Persians modified its pronunciation to Tarnayurt, and the Armenians further altered it to Trkrakert. And this is when Tigranakert ceased to exist after the Mongol invasion.
The attitude of our team
In recent decades, there has been a fundamental shift in cultural policy concepts and perceptions worldwide. The recognition of the right to cultural expression and the promotion of cultural democracy as a human-centric policy have become widespread. From this perspective, the most significant outcome of the discovery and research of Tigranakert was the extensive publicity garnered by this invention and monument. Thousands of people, including both international and domestic politicians, visited the site, often without considering the event’s official status, the seriousness with which native scholars presented it, or the doubts they expressed.
However, UNESCO, the most influential international organization tasked with safeguarding human cultural rights and heritage, not only showed indifference to these developments but also appeared to protect Azerbaijan. UNESCO rejected our team’s proposals twice for creating a neutral, purely professional internet portal encompassing all monuments in the conflict zone, particularly those around Tigranakert, including Muslim monuments. Their rationale? Cultural programs related to these areas are not accepted for consideration.
Yes, Artsakh was an internationally unrecognized political entity. However, this should not deprive the people of Artsakh of their cultural rights-the right to cultivate and strengthen their own identity through cultural heritage. In Artsakh, we endeavored to establish culture as an inalienable right of humanity, serving as both the creator and guardian of their identity.
At first, the discovery of Tigranakert for our team was simply an initiative to counter the statement of the President of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, who claimed that Armenians had only appeared in Artsakh in the nineteenth century. However, as we witnessed the profound love and pride of thousands of people towards the monument, we concluded that it is one of the driving forces behind Artsakh’s cultural progress and that its exploration should be continued.
