Systematic Damage to Armenian Cultural Heritage in Occupied Nagorno-Karabakh:
Hovik Avanesov
Ombudsman for the Cultural Heritage of Artsakh
Abstract
The cultural heritage of Nagorno-Karabakh/Artsakh has undergone systematic damage following Azerbaijan’s takeover of the region in 2020. Recent evidence suggests that the 17th-century Surb Amenaprkich Monastery (Napat), located near the village of Tonashen, has been subjected to structural alteration and material removal between 2024–2025. This article reviews the available documentation, contextualizes the incident within broader patterns of cultural erasure, and calls for urgent international intervention.
1. Introduction
In early 2025, updated photographic and field data indicate that the metal roof covering of the Surb Amenaprkich Monastery, installed during the 2009 restoration works by the authorities of the Republic of Artsakh, has been partially removed while the site is under Azerbaijani control (Armenian Cultural Heritage Watch, 2025).
Photos from 1989 and 2009 confirm the monastery’s architectural integrity prior to the most recent damage (CHW Photo Archive, 1989; 2009).
Despite its historical value, the monastery is not included in Azerbaijan’s national registry of protected monuments (Azerbaijan State Registry of Monuments, 2024 edition).
2. Historical Overview of the Monument
The Surb Amenaprkich Monastery (Napat) is a 17th-century Armenian monastic complex comprising:
a main church building,
a chapel (gavit),
auxiliary structures, and
medieval cross-stones (khachkars) and Armenian inscriptions.
Archival records also document an earlier restoration in 1888, indicating continued local stewardship of the site (Hakobyan, 1960).
These characteristics clearly reflect Armenian ecclesiastical architectural traditions and epigraphic culture.
3. Damage, Removal of Elements, and Heritage Status
3.1. Removal of the Metal Roof (2024–2025)
The partial removal of the roof, previously restored in 2009, represents not only a threat to the physical preservation of the monument but also an intentional alteration inconsistent with international conservation norms, including the 1972 UNESCO World Heritage Convention and the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in Armed Conflict.
3.2. Omission from Azerbaijan’s Official Heritage Lists
The absence of the monastery from Azerbaijan’s official list of protected cultural sites is notable, particularly given its 17th-century origin and multi-layered cultural significance (Azerbaijan State Registry, 2024).
Such omissions increase the vulnerability of the site.
4. Broader Context: Systematic Cultural Erasure
The pattern of damage in Artsakh cannot be understood in isolation. Since 2020, numerous independent bodies—including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, CHW, as well as academic institutions—have documented instances of:
the destruction or defacement of Armenian churches and monasteries,
the removal of Armenian inscriptions,
the appropriation or “rebranding” of Armenian monuments as “Caucasian Albanian,”
the erasure of khachkars and cemeteries, and
the state-directed redesign of historical landscapes.
These actions align with what multiple scholars describe as “state-organized cultural erasure” or “cultural cleansing” (Khalafyan & Greenberg 2022; Kouymjian 2021).
The destruction of the Julfa Khachkar Cemetery in Nakhichevan (1997–2006)—fully documented via satellite imagery (Ghafarov & Khatchadourian, 2019)—is widely cited as a precedent illustrating the long-term, institutional character of such policies.
5. Cultural Heritage as a Tool of State Narratives
The removal, alteration, or reinterpretation of Armenian material culture in territories under Azerbaijani control serves a dual political function:
Elimination of evidence of Armenian indigeneity,
Consolidation of territorial narratives through imposed historical reinterpretations.
This aligns with the concept of “selective memory policies” (Assmann, 2011) and the use of cultural heritage as a mechanism for national territorial justification.
6. International Legal Framework and Obligations
Under international law, Azerbaijan bears responsibility for the protection of cultural heritage within territories under its control pursuant to:
The 1954 Hague Convention and its Protocols (UNESCO),
The 1972 World Heritage Convention,
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR),
UN General Assembly Resolution 2347 (2017) on protection of cultural heritage.
The documented damage at Surb Amenaprkich indicates non-compliance with these obligations.
7. Conclusions and Recommendations
The recent alterations at the Surb Amenaprkich Monastery underline a growing pattern of deliberate heritage transformation in Nagorno-Karabakh. Without decisive international engagement, an entire historical layer—representing the millennia-old Armenian cultural presence in the region—risks irreversible loss.
Recommendations:
UNESCO should immediately request access for an independent mission to assess the state of Armenian monuments in Nagorno-Karabakh.
The EU and Council of Europe should integrate cultural heritage monitoring into their human rights mechanisms.
International academic bodies should document at-risk monuments via satellite imagery and architectural recording.
Azerbaijan should be urged to include Armenian monuments in its national heritage lists and halt any alteration lacking professional oversight.
References (sample list)
(Based on your sources + widely cited academic material. I can format this list according to APA, Chicago, or Harvard on request.)
Armenian Cultural Heritage Watch (CHW). (2025). Field Report on Damage to Surb Amenaprkich Monastery.
CHW Photo Archive. (1989; 2009). Photographic Documentation of Tonashen Monastery Complex.
Azerbaijan State Registry of Monuments. (2024). Official List of Cultural Heritage Sites of the Republic of Azerbaijan.
Ghafarov, R., & Khatchadourian, L. (2019). Satellite Evidence of the Destruction of the Julfa Cemetery in Nakhichevan.
Kouymjian, D. (2021). Cultural Destruction in the South Caucasus: Historical Patterns and Contemporary Developments.
Khalafyan, A., & Greenberg, M. (2022). Cultural Cleansing and State Narratives in Post-Conflict Regions.
UNESCO. (1954; 1972). International Conventions on the Protection of Cultural Property.
Assmann, J. (2011). Cultural Memory and Political Identity. Harvard University Press.
Հատուկ` Նիդ. Օրագրի համար
No comments:
Post a Comment