ANTHROPOLOGY OF ETHNIC CONFLICT IN THE CONTEXT OF EVERYDAY LIFE

1216–9803/$ 20.00 © 2011 Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest

Acta Ethnographica Hungarica, 56 (2), pp. 429–447 (2011)DOI: 10.1556/AEthn.56.2011.2.10

ANTHROPOLOGY OF ETHNIC CONFLICTIN THE CONTEXT OF EVERYDAY LIFE1

(A Case of the Settlements Exchange during the Nagorno-Karabakh confl ict)

Arsen HAKOBYAN

Institute of Archaeology and EthnographyNational Academy of Sciences, Republic of Armenia

15 Charents Street, 0025, Yerevan, ArmeniaEmail: [email protected]

Abstract: The Karabakh confl ict, which started in 1988, was accompanied by massive socio-polit-ical activities, different manifestations of ethnic violence, and torrents of refugees. How was the confl ict manifested at the local level and in everyday life? What were the “people’s” mechanisms employed for confl ict resolution in the time of crisis? Against the general background of the confl ict, the case of the ex-change of the Armenian village of Kerkenj and Azerbaijani village of Kzl-Shafag occupies an important place as an example of people’s diplomacy and civic initiative.

The situation of confl ict during 1988−1989 brought about the idea of exchange, new mechanisms of community self-organization, transformations of formal and informal relations of the authority, actualiza-tion of collective memory resulting in behavioural changes, as well as application of people’s diplomacy in the time of crisis.

As a result of this, the populations of the Armenian village of Kerkenj in the Azerbaijani SSR and the Azerbaijani village of Kzl-Shafag (now Dzyunashogh) in the Armenian SSR exchanged their settlements on the basis of a mutual agreement. The agreement envisaged the exchange of houses, handing over of community property to each other, preservation of each other’s cemeteries and the possibility of recipro-cal visits. The agreement still stands, and the non-formal relations between the people of the two villages continue.

Keywords: Nagorno-Karabakh, ethnic confl ict, violence, people’s diplomacy, population exchange, Armenia, Azerbaijan, refugees, Kerkenj, Kzl-Shafag

Political, social, and economic crises both during the fi nal years of the Soviet Union and the post-Soviet period were accompanied by numerous ethnic confl icts. The phenom-enon of the “refugees” was an integral part of those confl icts.

The Karabakh confl ict that started in 1988 saw signifi cant waves of refugees too.

1 The article has been based on the materials of the research project of the German H. Boell Stiftung “The civic initiative in the South Caucasus in the process of separation of the Armenian and Azerbaijani populations: the case of the exchange between the villages of Kerkenj and Dzyunashogh”. As a result of the research a book has been published: С. Гусейнова, А. Акопян, С. Румянцев Кызыл -Шафаг и Керкендж: история обмена сёлами в ситуации Карабахского конфликта. Фонд им. Генриха Белля, Тбилиси, 2008.

09Hakobyan.indd 42909Hakobyan.indd 429 2011.11.18. 9:40:342011.11.18. 9:40:34

430 Arsen HAKOBYAN

Against the general background of violence and deportations, the history of collective exchange between the villages of Kerkenj and Kzl-Shafag occupies a unique place as an example of what can be achieved by people’s diplomacy and civic initiative at a time of confl ict.

Till 1988, the village of Kerkenj in the district of Shamakhi in Azerbaijan, was Armenian, with an entirely Armenian population. The emerging confl ict situation led the Armenians of Kerkenj to exchange their settlement with the Azerbaijani village of Kzl-Shafag in the district of Kalinino in the Armenian SSR (the village has been renamed Dzyunashogh, province of Lorri).

How was the ethnic confl ict manifested and perceived at the local level and in every-day life? How did the confl ict transform the everyday life of the people and the commu-nity? How did the idea of exchange come about? How was it implemented? What were the roles of the individuals, community and authorities in overcoming the confl ict at the local level? How were the horizontal links and relations manifested in the situation of confl ict?

1. SUMGAYIT: THE FIRST ALARM AND THE EMERGENCEOF THE IDEA OF EXCHANGE

The Armenian pogroms in Sumgayit2 in February 1988 became the turning point mark-ing the beginning of the modern history of the Armenians of Kerkenj, in other words, the stories of the narrators regarding the events of 1988−1989 commence from “Sumgayit”,3 and perceptions of the ethnic confl ict among the Kerkenj Armenians start precisely from the events in Sumgayit.

The acuteness of perceptions of the Sumgayit events among the Kerkenj Armenians was also preconditioned by the fact that one of the victims of the pogroms of Sumgayit was their fellow villager, Gabriel Trdatyan4, whose funeral took place in the village under the control of law-enforcement bodies. As G. Trdatyan had close and distant relatives in the village, his death affected the life of the villagers as well as their perceptions of the confl ict.5

The Sumgayit events produced anxiety among the Kerkenj Armenians over their fu-ture life and security in Azerbaijan. The anxiety was refl ected in their everyday life; as one of the informants told us during the interview: “There was always the feeling of danger after the Sumgayit events, the situation was already different… It could be seen from the people (Azerbaijanis); the people we used to know (Azerbaijanis) would turn their faces

2 In the period from 27 to 29 February 1988, pogroms against Armenians took place in the town of Sum-gayit in Azerbaijan.

3 The article is based on the materials of the mentioned fi eld work. In the following, all the fi eld materials in the text refer to that work and are not cited separately.

4 The name of G. Trdatyan is in fact mentioned in the offi cial list of victims of the Sumgayit events in the form of “Gabriel Trdatov” (1925). See: ЗОЛЯН–УЛУБАБЯН–АРШАКЯН [сост.] 1989.

5 Perception of Sumgayit in terms of a turning point event is characteristic of Azerbaijani Armenians in general. See our fi eld materials of the research project “Violence against Armenians in Azerbaijan” (2006). In the meantime, in Armenia, the events in Sumgayit were compared to and perceived in terms of the 1915 Armenian Genocide. See for example: MARUTYAN 2009: 93−110.


Anthropology of Ethnic Confl ict in the Context of Everyday Life 431

and walk away when they saw us, they would not talk to us; if somebody attacked you, you could see that the police were not on your side any more…”

At that time, right after the Sumgayit events, in the spring of 1988, projects designed to overcome the situation were put forward within the community: collective migration to Russia or Armenia, foundation of a new village or exchange with an Azerbaijani village in Armenia.

However, these projects were not realized at that period as there was a certain amount of trust among the villagers toward the USSR as the guarantor of security and lawfulness; in the meantime, a decision to leave the village would be a hard one. People were saying: “How can we leave the graves of our ancestors and relatives…?”

However, Sumgayit gave rise to worries which, in their turn, produced the ideas and speculation about collective migration or exchange with an Azerbaijani village in Armenia.

2. THE COMMUNITY IN THE CONFLICT SITUATION:SELF-ORGANIZATION AND SELF-DEFENCE

In the autumn of 1988, the general atmosphere in Azerbaijan became extremely tense. Ethnic persecutions and violence against Armenians occurred throughout the republic; Armenians were deported by force.6

In November−December 1988, the population of Kerkenj too found itself in a quite dif-fi cult situation. In that period, the Armenians of all Shamakhi villages, except for Kerkenj and Madrasa, were made to leave their settlements; the expelled population as well as the Armenians from the town of Shamakhi found refuge in Kerkenj and Madrasa to be sent to Armenia shortly after.7 Under the circumstances of anxiety and real danger, the villages of Kerkenj and Madrasa resorted to self-defence. The attempts of the Azerbaijani authori-ties aimed at sending, to be more precise, deporting the Armenians of Kerkenj to Armenia failed; the Armenians of Kerkenj showed their opposition by standing up and facing the hard situation.8

The resistance to the authorities was an important event in terms of the community’s self-organization; it was the resistance that determined the subsequent developments. If it had not been for that circumstance, the subsequent exchange of the villages would not have happened as during the autumn and by December 1988 the entire rural Armenian popula-tion of Azerbaijan had been forcibly deported.9

As an answer to the intention of Azerbaijan’s authorities to forcibly deport the Armenians to Armenia and to the general anxiety and worries existing in Azerbaijan in

6 See for example: ЗОЛЯН–МИРЗОЯН [сост.] 1991.7 According to the informants, the Armenian population of those villages was transported to Kerkenj and

Madrasa by buses in a single night; the people left behind lost all their belongings and property. 8 For details see: ГУСЕЙНОВА–АКОПЯН–РУМЯНЦЕВ 2008: 28−36.9 Not only the rural population but also the Armenians living in the towns of Azerbaijan – Kirovabad

(now Gyanja), Shaki, Shamakhi and so on – were forcibly deported during that period. Armenians of Baku continued to live in the capital until January 1990, when the pogroms against Armenians were organized.


432 Arsen HAKOBYAN

November 1988, the Armenians of Kerkenj not only organized their self-defence but also started proposing and realizing plans in order to overcome the dire situation and to save their lives. (Fig. 1)

The self-defence continued even after the detachments of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs appeared in the village; the troops remained in the village until June 1989 when the villagers collectively migrated to Armenia. (Fig. 2)

The confl ict situation transformed the life of the community and brought about in-teresting mechanisms of self-organization. As the villagers of Kerkenj would say, “The Soviet Union was no more,” “There was no Gorbachev,” and they seemed to have become a separated isle.

The acuteness of the situation led to a high level of consolidation and unity among the Armenians of Kerkenj. In describing that situation, the informants usually emphasized the fact that everything was decided by the people or by “us”, and under such circumstances “everybody understood one another”.10 Under the psychological pressure, individuals emerged who assumed important and decisive roles in the life of the community. The insti-tute of authority or leadership was formed in the crisis situation.

As a matter of fact, during the months of November and December 1988, Kerkenj was deprived of any offi cial body of local government. The village neighbourhoods be-came decisive centres of self-organization. The self-defence was organized according to the neighbourhood division of the village and it was headed by neighbourhood leaders.11 The self-defence produced individual leaders characterized by certain traits.

In the meantime, “the village elders” played an important role in inter-community com-munications as well as in negotiations with the Azerbaijani communities and authorities.

The Kerkenjis still mention that the exchange of the villages was organized by the “village elders”. In general, this fact fi ts into the Caucasian logic of inter-group and inter-community communication as well as confl ict resolution, according to which the com-munity is represented by the “elders”.12 In the meantime, it should be borne in mind that though the factor of seniority was important under those circumstances, it was not decisive; and actually the “elders” who stood out were those who had already earned the right to represent a community or solve a community-related issue by their previous experience. At the same time, relatively younger leaders emerged and played important roles in those processes and in the life of the whole community. To all appearances, in a confl ictual situ-ation, the issue of leadership among the Kerkenj Armenians was settled by old/senior and new/young leaders.

In general, all the leaders were ordinary villagers who came to the fore under the pres-sure of the situation. The study of the relations between the community and the leaders allows us to assume that the latter were simply representing the former in those negotia-tions, making decisions on the issues of importance for the future of the community, but the leaders were never authorized to take a decision on whether or not the village had to migrate to the given settlement. As told by our respondents, this was a matter of decision

10 This situation was also characteristic of Karabakh Armenians during the war. See: ШАХНАЗАРЯН 2003: 57−58.

11 This was also characteristic of Karabakh Armenians during the confl ict. Ibid, 55−56.12 АНЧАБАДЗЕ 2003: 282.



by the “people”. This is to say, the leaders proposed the settlement options, and the com-munity had to choose. (Fig. 3)

Another form of manifestation of self-organization refers to the groups that from the end of 1988 were engaged in the process of seeking settlements for relocation to the terri-tory of Armenia.

Such mechanisms and manifestations of self-organization fi nally ensured the survival of the Armenians of Kerkenj in the confl ict and, subsequently, their relocation to Armenia through an exchange with the Azerbaijani village of Kzl-Shafag.

It should also be mentioned that in November 1988, the situation in the Armenian SSR became critical too, leading to certain manifestations of violence against the Azerbaijani population of the republic. This happened after nine months of peaceful democratic proc-esses, all taking place within the frames of legality.13 The general tension of the period at the end of 1988 manifested itself also among the Azerbaijanis in the village of Kzl-Shafag in the North of Armenia. For them, the starting point of the perception of the confl ict be-came the death of an old man in the neighbouring settlement of Kalinino.14 According to the accounts of Azerbaijani sources, during a rally organized by the Armenians in Kalinino, an old Azerbaijani man went out to the balcony and fi red his pistol (in air); then a stone thrown at him caused his death (23 November, 1988).15

3. MEMORY AND CONFLICT

Among the populations of both villages the alarming events of 1988 brought back memories from the year 1918, recollections about the invasion of the Transcaucasus by Turkish troops, the ethnic persecutions and mass slaughter that followed that invasion. Those memories manifested themselves not only in a passive form but also dictated a cer-tain type of behaviour at a time of confl ict.

According to the informants, when in November−December 1988 danger hung over the Armenian village of Kerkenj in the district of Shamakhi in Azerbaijan, people in both Kerkenj and neighbouring Azerbaijani village of Gyagalu remembered the events of 1918.

According to our informants, in 1918 15−20 people from the village of Gyagalu attacked Kerkenj and killed the Armenians who had not had time to leave the village. According to one of the informants, his grandfather was killed at that time. Subsequently, it is believed, none of the participants of the attack died in a natural way. The last attacker died at a quite advanced age; he was alone at home; no one knew about his death for 6−7 days, none of his relatives was alive by that time either.

According to our informants, in the tumultuous days of 1988 these stories were re-called in the village of Gyagalu too. As told by one of them, the local mullah called a meet-ing and told the gathered people that if anyone went to the Armenian village and brought

13 On the symmetry and asymmetry of the 1988 processes in Armenia and Azerbaijan see: ABRAHAMIAN 1996/1997: 263−278.

14 Kalinino – presently the town of Tashir in Armenia. 15 For details see ГУСЕЙНОВА–АКОПЯН–РУМЯНЦЕВ 2008: 21−28.


434 Arsen HAKOBYAN

something from there, “that person will regret it, as I will throw that person out of our vil-lage. You have seen well what has happened to that man. Now if you do such things again, you will destroy our village for a second time. No one from that village attacked ours.” As recalled by the people, in those tumultuous days even the mayor of Gyagalu visited Kerkenj offering basic essentials and other assistance.

Equally interesting is the analogous revival of the memory of the events of 1918 in the Azerbaijani village Kzl-Shafag in Armenia at the end of 1988.16

According to the stories told, in 1918 the Turkish troops drove out the detachment of Andranik,17 and the latter had to enter through the mountain pass of Gharakhach into the territory of the former district of Kalinino. The Turkish troops followed him and stopped by a village not far from the Armenian village of Shahnazar (now Metzavan) whose inhabit-ants feared that the Turkish troops would attack and massacre the villagers. For that reason, the representatives of the village of Shahnazar, the “aksakals”, went to Jujakyand (the former name of Kzl-Shafag) and asked the local aksakals to petition the Turkish troops and prevent them from attacking Shahnazar and killing the villagers. The aksakals of Jujakyand went to the Pasha and asked him not to attack the Shahnazar Armenians as the latter al-ways stood by Jujakyand at any time of need. The Pasha then received the delegates of Shahnazar and assured them that no soldier would enter their village as the Shahnazar Armenians were on good terms with their neighbouring village. According to the memo-ries, the Pasha kept his word.

As this story was being recalled at the end of 1988, three representatives from the village of Kzl-Shafag went to the Armenian village of Metzavan (formerly Shahnazar) and reminded the Armenians about the events of 1918, saying that it was the turn of the Armenians to help them. And that is exactly what happened. One day during the confl ict, a group of “bearded men“ came from the administrative centre (Kalinino) to the village of Metzavan with the intention of entering Kzl-Shafag. However, the villagers of Metzavan did not allow them to do that.

In another story, it is mentioned that Andranik, who came to this region, was killed in the village of Kyapnyanyais, district of Bolnisi, Georgia, and the Armenians killed the mur-derer of Andranik in the 1980s after one of the Armenians recognized him in a hospital.18

Undoubtedly, the image of Andranik and the stories woven around it contain mythical elements, being the product of the perception of Andranik in an Azerbaijani environment.

As for the fact of the presence of Andranik and Turkish troops in this region, in 1918 the detachments of Andranik retreated under the pressure of the Turkish troops in the direc-tion of Kars-Alexandrapol (now Gyumri) – Vorontsovka (now Tashir, formerly Kalinino) and took up positions in Jalaloghlu (now Stepanavan), with the aim of blocking the Turkish attack in the direction of Yerevan, while the Turkish troops, after having entered the region, captured Vorontsovka.19

16 ГУСЕЙНОВА–АКОПЯН–РУМЯНЦЕВ 2008: 92−93.17 Andranik Ozanyan, activist of the Armenian national liberation movement whose struggle was directed

against the Ottoman Empire. As a Major General of the Tsarist army, he also ensured the safe migration of the Armenian refugees from Turkey to Eastern Armenia during the First World War.

18 HAKOBYAN 2007: 129.19 KARAPETYAN 1996: 36−37. KHUDAVERDYAN (ed.) 1996: 292.



The story about the death of Andranik is a clear indicator of the mythical percep-tions of the image of Andranik in an Azerbaijani environment; it is a well-known fact that Andranik died in 1927 in the USA.20

It is interesting that the image of Andranik in the given case becomes a symbol of con-fl ict already in the context of the 1988 events (compare with the slogan “Andranik, save the Armenians!” which was popular during Yerevan rallies in 1988), however the confl ict is manifested in the sphere of mythology, while in reality the memory dictates a behaviour aimed at surmounting the confl ict.

To all appearances, the stories recorded among the Armenians and Azerbaijanis dem-onstrate that during the tumultuous period of 1988 both communities recalled the memo-ries of 1918. Though those memories in both cases contain tragic moments, they were not turned into instruments of confl ict; instead, they served as means for confl ict resolution. In this case, it is also important to take into account the fact that, according to the recorded materials, in Kerkenj and Gyagalu on the one hand and in Kzl-Shafag and Metzavan on the other, there were commonalities of memory accepted by both sides, in other words, the memories did not confl ict with each other, they were not mutually exclusive, but, rath-er, they were in a dialogue. It was unambiguous for the Armenians of Kerkenj and the Azerbaijanis of Gyagalu that in 1918 there was an attack on Kerkenj from Gyagalu, that cases of murder and looting occurred. In the case of Kzl-Shafag and Metzavan, a similar story was recalled about the Turkish threat to the Armenians and the assistance given by the population of Kzl-Shafag; it was these convergent memories that became functional during the 1988 events. As for the image of Andranik, though being a confl ictual moment in the memory, it persists and functions at the mythological level.

Thus, memory becomes an important factor not only for actualization of the confl icts but also for starting a dialogue and fi nding a resolution.

4. SEARCHING FOR A WAY OUT

As we have already mentioned, after the Sumgayit pogroms, ideas on the possible collective migration to Armenia or Russia, or a settlement exchange started to emerge in Kerkenj. However at fi rst these ideas did not fi nd popular support. At the end of 1988, when the situation was becoming critical, it was clear that ways out of the situation should be sought.

Already in December 1988, the Kerkenjis started to look for suitable Azerbaijani vil-lages in Armenia for exchange. Expedition groups were organized for this purpose and sent to Armenia. The Kerkenjis, who had resettled in Armenia long before 1988, joined the ac-tivities to fi nd the optimal places of exchange. For example, according to an informant, one of the fellow villagers living in Armenia at that time travelled throughout Armenia looking for a suitable place. At that time he even offered temporary settlement in the Ararat valley, in one of the Azerbaijani villages, with the prospect that in the event they did not fi nd a bet-ter option, they could stay there. However the Armenians of Kerkenj did not like the area

20 KARAPETYAN 1996: 36−37.


436 Arsen HAKOBYAN

and the natural conditions. Hence, the Kerkenjis turned down the option of resettling in the Ararat valley temporarily or permanently.

It cannot be said that there was a clear “order” from the village to the villagers living in Armenia or that, on the contrary, the idea of resettlement emerged among the Kerkenjis living in Armenia. Simply, at that time the idea was so “natural” and “nationwide” that it was put into practice, also activating those people who lived in Armenia. The latter had relatives in Kerkenj and they could not be indifferent to them, to the village, to the com-munity. The fact that people still say “it was we who exchanged the village” attests to how “natural” and “nation-wide” the collective choice and exchange were.

As one of the informants told us during the interview, “It was we who exchanged it; it was we who wanted to exchange. You know why? We decided to exchange our village with another one in order to save the village from falling apart and to make the resettlement easy…”

It is obvious that collective decisions and approaches in such complex and critical situ-ations, in the opinion of the Armenians of Kerkenj, had to ensure an “easy” way out of the situation with minimal “losses”. “Collectivism” was not only the main mechanism of sur-vival in unconventional situations (self-defence, self-organization), it also preconditioned the decisions and objectives regarding the collective future (“where to live”). Solidarity and unity were thought to guarantee self-preservation, overcoming of the hardships, as well as the future life. That this notion was clearly understood among the villagers could be seen from the words of one of the informants: “We were in the process of exchange; we said that we will be together, we will go together, we will live together.”

The situation described above also dictated some of the demarcations in the individual sphere, especially concerning the community interests or the idea of “the exchange of the villages.” This is the comment of one of our informants in this regard: “We decided that it is the villages that should be exchanged. Several times Azerbaijanis came to buy houses but we did not allow them to do that… For example, people from the area of Idjevan, Kadjaran, Agarak, and Amasia (districts and settlements in Armenia – A. A.) came to our village to buy houses, but we would not allow that to happen...”

At that time the individual “I” became interwoven with the collective “we.” The in-dividual way out of the situation passed through the “we”, in other words, the collective decision also supposed a resolution at the individual level. However, the “community” or “we” did not suppress individuality; there was just a clear demarcation between the col-lective and the individual at the time of “upheaval”. It was precisely the priority of collec-tive decisions that ensured the most optimal resolution to the problem. That was clearly understood, and people took informed decisions. Another thing to be pointed out is that under such circumstances the different resolution models and the role of the leaders are usually legitimized, with the leaders seeking for and proposing “collective” resolutions or “projects” instead of individual ones.

It was not only the Armenians of Kerkenj who were looking for a suitable village for exchange in Armenia, the Azerbaijanis in Armenia were doing the same to fi nd a suitable village in Azerbaijan.

In search of a village for exchange, yet another delegation of Kerkenj Armenians vis-ited Armenia in February 1989. After the return of the expedition, it became known that the representatives of the Azerbaijani village Kzl-Shafag in ASSR were waiting for them in



the town of Shamakhi, and that the purpose of their visit too was to fi nd a suitable village in Azerbaijan for resettlement.

The Azerbaijani delegation included the director of the sovkhoz, chairman of the vil-lage council, chief engineer, and a driver. Supported by other evidence, this fact demon-strates that in the Azerbaijani community the institute of leadership in a confl ict situation had been formed according to a different model, namely, around the bodies of local offi cial political and economic authority. In the process of the exchange, during the negotiations and other forms of communication, it was mainly the head of the sovkhoz who acted as the leader and representative of the Azerbaijani community.21

5. THE EXCHANGE AGREEMENT

The village of Kzl-Shafag, as it has already been mentioned, is situated in the District of Kalinino in the Armenian SSR. After the meetings in Kerkenj, the delegation of the Kerkenjis, accompanied by one of the Azerbaijanis from Kzl-Shafag, left for Armenia to go to the district of Kalinino and see the village of Kzl-Shafag. (Fig. 4)

The delegation of the Kerkenj Armenians consisted of 4 persons. They were the vil-lage elders but they were also ordinary workers in the village. Negotiations of the repre-sentatives of the two communities took place on the premises of the village council of Kzl-Shafag.

What were the questions discussed during those negotiations? One of our informants (who was involved in the process of negotiations) told the Azerbaijanis the following: “our (Kerkenji – A. A.) houses are older than yours (Kzl-Shafagi houses – A. A.), besides, the number of houses in ‘your’ village is more than that in ours.” However, these circum-stances did not become an obstacle in the process of negotiations.

Specifi c mechanisms of resettlement and decision-making were discussed as well. During the meeting of the leaders, after a fundamental agreement had been reached be-tween the parties, there was a need for “the people” to approve it too. It was in this con-text that the specifi c approaches and mechanisms were discussed and employed. Once the agreement with the leaders of Kzl-Shafag had been concluded, the same informant (involved in the process of negotiations) emphasized that the fi nal decision would be made by the “people”; therefore the Kerkenjis themselves had to study the site.

The account of another informant is a case in point: “When we [representatives of Kerkenj] came here [Kzl-Shafag], we talked to the director, chairman; we told them we would come to exchange, but we told them to make sure to organize the people and send them in a way... that ‘one people’ could exchange houses with ‘the other people’, so that people could see the houses and come to terms with one another... ”

Before the start of the real process of “exchange,” 5−6 meetings of the community leaders took place. After having made a concrete decision on the matter of the “exchange,”

21 The head of the Sovkhoz of Kzl-Shafag is still in charge of the community, now, however, in Azerbai-jan and in the capacity of chairman of the village administration. See ГУСЕЙНОВА–АКОПЯН–РУМЯНЦЕВ 2008: 21−28, 76−85.


438 Arsen HAKOBYAN

the issue of preservation of the cemeteries was discussed. According to the recollections of one of the informants, they discussed the issues concerning the exchange one after the other; and then the issue of the cemeteries was raised. The parties agreed on preserving the cemeteries, i.e. the Armenian cemetery had to be preserved in Kerkenj and the Azerbaijani one, in Kzl-Shafag. The Azerbaijanis liked this proposal and agreed to it. “We did not know it would be like it is today, we thought we would be able to freely visit our cemeteries later,” said our informant. (Fig. 5–6)

According to the general agreement, the state property attached to each village had to be given to the parties without any loss. Eventually, the exchange was made exactly ac-cording to the agreement, and everything was formalized in line with the law.

The number of inhabitants and houses in Kzl-Shafag was higher than that in Kerkenj, however this did not become an obstacle for the “exchange”. The agreement about the exchange and other conditions was verbal; however the process was accompanied by some symbolic components. According to our informant, once the deal was reached the Kerkenjis also gave the new owners of Kerkenj the map of the village: “We kept the map of our vil-lage, and we gave it to them... They took our lands within our borders [of Kerkenj]”.

When talking about the exchange agreement between the communities, it should be taken into account that it was not a one-off action, when people sit around the table and decide everything at one go; instead, this was a process during which the agreement was gradually crystallized (for example, the clauses of handing over the map or the requirement of preserving the cemeteries) and concrete mechanisms of implementation were used. The parties also agreed on avoiding confl ictual situations in the period of relocation when the Armenians and Azerbaijanis were temporarily living next to each other.

In general, the situation fi ts into the Caucasian context in the sense that the region has been characterized by the tradition of reaching inter-group and inter-community agree-ments in a time of confl ict, when the community represents a self-suffi cient society acting as an autonomous unit with respect to the outer world. It is the “elders” who perform as the main actors in such situations.22 In our case the perceptions of “elders” are manifested too, however, as it has already been mentioned, that was not the only criterion of leadership. In any event, apart from the traditional characteristics, new forms of self-organization and inter-group dialogue and contacts come about.

6. THE EXCHANGE

The essence of the mechanism of exchange was as follows: the “global” issues were resolved by the leaders, while the concrete problems relating to the exchange of the houses were resolved at the individual level.

After the meetings between the leaders, it was the turn of ordinary Kerkenjis to come to Kzl-Shafag for “inspection.” By the same analogy the Azerbaijanis of Kzl-Shafag went to see Kerkenj. A “commission” from Kzl-Shafag arrived in Kerkenj and started the pre-liminary registration of the houses for exchange.

22 АНЧАБАДЗЕ 2003: 282.



However, decisions were taken by individual families according to mutual agree-ments, while the decisions of the “commission” were “recommendational”; there were numerous cases when, on seeing the recommended houses the parties would not agree to exchange, but chose other options by themselves, and made new agreements. There were also deals like monetary compensation in those cases where the houses did not correspond to certain criteria. However there were also cases when the exchange was made right by the “choice” of the commission, in presence of a mutual agreement between the parties. It should be mentioned that the exchange of the houses was formalized in the documents in line with Soviet law.

On seeing the house offered to him by the “commission” in Kzl-Shafag, our informant (born in 1951) did not agree to take it as the house was in the centre of the village, while he wanted to have a house further out; this, according to him, would make agricultural work and cattle-farming easier. In order to make a suitable choice, he stayed in Kzl-Shafag for two days in the house of his already resettled relatives (there were still Azerbaijanis in the village at that time). He succeeded in fi nding a suitable house and agreeing with the owners on the exchange and subsequent meeting in Kerkenj so that the Azerbaijani owner could see his house. According to the informant, the Azerbaijani owner had intended to hand the house over to “GOSSTRAKH” (soviet state insurance company) but the director of the state farm of Kzl-Shafag did not allow him to do that. Ten days later the Azerbaijani vil-lager came to Kerkenj in order to see the house of our informant. On seeing it, at fi rst he did not want to exchange but fi nally he agreed to, he also wanted to receive monetary “com-pensation” because, unlike the old house of our informant, his house was new. However, the informant said to the Azerbaijani villager that he did not have any money: “We are exchanging the houses as they are... you have fi ve children and I have fi ve children.” Then the informant told us: “He had four sons and one daughter and I had one son and four daughters... Then he agreed, we set the table and drank...”

The Azerbaijani man – like our informant during his visit to Kzl-Shafag – stayed for the night in the house of his resettled fellow villagers in Kerkenj. During this meeting the parties also agreed on the fi nal terms of the relocation. According to the informant, the Azerbaijani from Kzl-Shafag was supposed to move to Kerkenj on 15 June 1989; while the informant had to move from Kerkenj to Kzl-Shafag on 15 June by the same car. However, later the informant changed his mind and moved one day earlier: “We agreed on 15 June, so that he could come [to Kerkenj] by car and I could take the same car…” But then he thought that it was a bad idea: “It looks like the Turk comes and expels me from my house. And I said: ‘I will leave before he arrives’.”

As it is very hard to leave one’s home, the need for preservation of the most important symbols of memory about the house arises at the last moment. For our informant it was an old inscription with a cross on the façade of the house. The inscription was made by the in-formant’s grandfather back in the 19th century; it signifi ed the year of the foundation of the house. Our informant asked the new owner – in case the latter could not keep the inscrip-tion or would be altering the house – not to break the inscription, as it was a sin to break a stone with a cross on it; he just asked the new owner to “hide” it under the ground.

The Kerkenj Armenians decided to leave the village one after the other. This was actu-ally the time when the fi rst individual exchange agreements had been reached. (Fig. 7)


440 Arsen HAKOBYAN

There were no obstacles during the process of the exchange in the Armenian SSR regarding the issues of documentation, civic registration, etc. It should also be mentioned that back in November 1988, a commission was created in charge of the refugee issues in the Kalinino district of Armenia.23 The commission also assisted the process of exchange of fl ats and houses among people from the Armenian and Azerbaijani SSRs.24

The exchange was much more diffi cult in Azerbaijan. The obstacles appeared ex-actly at the time when everything had been agreed upon between the communities and the process was about to enter the realization phase. It was the authorities who created the obstacles. Our informant gave an account of how those diffi culties were created: “At the end their [referring to Kzl-Shafag Azerbaijanis] director and 3-4 more people, the director of the state farm, chairman of the village council, their engineer, and the ak-sakals came to us… We were told that they were not allowed [in Shamakhi] to exchange their houses with ours… The district committee, Shamakhi district executive committee, would not allow it to happen.” Then, according to the informant, both parties made “ef-forts” for the exchange to take place. The Azerbaijanis of Kzl-Shafag turned to the Rector of Azerbaijani Pedagogical Institute, Academician Asad Kurbanov, their fellow villager, “Asad Kurbanov called them [Shamakhi district authorities – А. А.] and said: ‘People have come to a common agreement, two villages are being exchanged between the two re-publics.’ Why don’t you allow this to happen? [address to the fi rst secretary of the district committee – А. А.]”.

Finally the efforts bore fruit, and the process of real exchange started. “It [the reset-tlement] started from May. We had a tradition to go to the cemetery... on 9 May, on Victory day. People used to visit the cemetery… It was a very hard thing, very hard... Then the resettlement started,” said our informant.

However, the Kerkenjis had the feeling that they had to leave their village under com-pulsion: “We did not leave the village just to leave it and fl ee…”, – said one of the inform-ants, underscoring their responsibility also to the village, to the native land. The individual person, community and village are interwoven in this expression, in other words, each per-son is responsible not only to himself/herself but, most of all, before the entire community of “we” as well as to the settlement. It was the dominance of such collective perceptions and approaches that ensured the ideological basis for group self-organization.

There were certain families in Kerkenj who did not want to exchange their houses, they wanted to receive compensation or sell their houses to Azerbaijanis. What was the fate of those who did not exchange their houses and chose to stay in Kerkenj?

According to an informant from Kerkenj, “In September [1989] some twenty people from us remained there. They wanted to sell their houses. Then the situation deteriorated. They fl ed through Derbend. They were saying: ‘Let us wait and gather the grape harvest…’ We had our own gardens. I said: ‘You stay and gather your harvest, I will not wait, I will leave. They left their houses. They scraped up money and gave it to the district police of-fi cer, the latter came... took them by car to Derbend and left them there. When there were only a few of them left, they were subjected to different sorts of harassments... stones were

23 Arevatsag 1 December 1988, № 145.24 Ibid., 8 December, № 148.



thrown at them. They fl ed by night and slept in a fi eld. But how long can you stay in the fi eld...? Then the Turks expelled them and seized their houses...”

From May 1989 the exchange proceeded intensively. Though the process was regulat-ed, as it can be seen from the materials, it took place mostly at the individual level, namely, people were making agreements regarding the terms and other conditions by themselves.

The transportation of people and their property is another interesting issue to look into. Informants recounted during the interviews that the same cars were bringing the Armenian families and taking Azerbaijani ones. An important criterion for choosing the cars was the drivers’ knowledge of the area, i.e. if an Armenian is hiring a car for resettlement, it becomes clear that the driver knows where Kerkenj is, and correspondingly takes the Azerbaijani family from Kzl-Shafag to Kerkenj. That is why, according to the informants, the drivers from Shamakhi “were making money.” “All documents (vouchers, etc.) were prepared to avoid ‘the torture’ on the roads as we were living in complicated times… I am talking about the months April, May, and June,” said our informant.

The fi rst Armenian families from Kerkenj appeared in Kzl-Shafag already in May 1989, by July all the Kerkenjis participating in the exchange process had resettled in Kzl-Shafag. Apart from the Kerkenjis, Armenian refugees from other parts of Azerbaijan, mainly from Baku, settled in Kzl-Shafag as well.

The Azerbaijanis of Kzl-Shafag left Armenia taking with them not only their belong-ings; they received monetary compensations from the state on the account of the earth-quake25 though their houses had not been damaged by it. In the meantime, the Azerbaijani families who did not want to exchange their houses with the Armenians of Kerkenj handed their houses over to the state and, again, received monetary compensations.26 In the course of the Karabakh confl ict other cases of exchange of villages were recorded too; there were also failed attempts to exchange.27

The exchange of the villages Kerkenj and Kzl-Shafag is unique in comparison with other cases as the process was characterized by certain features, namely, there was a pos-sibility to choose and make expeditionary trips, there was an inter-community agreement on the exchange, on the preservation of the cemeteries, etc. (Fig. 8)

7. 20 YEARS AFTER THE AGREEMENT AND THE EXCHANGE…

The agreement on the exchange between Kerkenj and Kzl-Shafag provided for a swap of houses, the mechanisms of resettlement and so on; and these terms were in fact carried out over the course of several months. One of the special conditions of the exchange was the preservation of the cemeteries. The two sides promised to preserve each other’s cemeter-ies. The Azerbaijani cemetery in what is now Dzyunashogh, formerly Kzl-Shafag, is still preserved. It is clear that the cemetery does not function, as if it has been turned, at least for the village, into a historical “monument.” However the cemetery has a different function

25 The destructive earthquake in Armenia occurred on December 7, 1988.26 ГУСЕЙНОВА–АКОПЯН–РУМЯНЦЕВ 2008: 61, 63−64.27 ARAKELYAN–KHARATYAN 1989.


442 Arsen HAKOBYAN

which adds it to the context of active processes. The Kerkenjis are well informed about the 18−19-year-old agreement. They know very well that the preservation of the Azerbaijani cemetery in Kzl-Shafag guarantees preservation of their cemetery in Kerkenj regardless of the fact that they have few chances to learn about the condition of their cemetery in Kerkenj unlike the Azerbaijanis of Kzl-Shafag for whom it is much easier to visit the border vil-lage of Dzyunashogh. That is why the Azerbaijani cemetery of Dzyunashogh seems to be reminding the Armenians of their cemetery in Kerkenj, of the history of the exchange, and of Kerkenj itself. Consequently, the cemetery is an active means of supporting the memory.

“The cemeteries” also link the Armenians of Kzl-Shafag and Kerkenj in terms of in-formal “visits” of the Kzl-Shafagis for “inspection” of the graves of their relatives. For the Kerkenjis, for understandable reasons,28 the main source of information about the village and the cemetery is the 11-year-old videotape,29 apart from the communications with the Kzl-Shafagis and Irganchayis30. In fact the agreement still functions, and the contacts at the personal level continue to take place. This is also accounted for by the fact that each indi-vidual has a perception of himself/herself as one part and participant of the agreement.

Summing up, it can be said that the history of exchange between Kerkenj and Kzl-Shafag represents a set of concrete mechanisms (individual, communal) for overcoming confl icts as well as for self-organization in special ways. It is an excellent example of how even in a situation of confl ict people can come to terms with each other and overcome or mitigate, as far as possible, the confl ict at the community and individual levels. Peaceful communication, exchange of houses, preservation of the monuments of the “alien” com-munity are manifestations of these mechanisms. All this demonstrates the effectiveness of horizontal links and contacts at a time of confl ict.

LITERATURE

ABRAHAMIAN, Levon 1996/1997: Typology of Aggressiveness and National Violence in the Former USSR. International Journal on

Minority and Group Rights, 1996/97, Vol. 4, N. 3/4. 263−278.АНЧАБАДЗЕ, Юрий 2003: Миротворческий понтециал институтов традиционно-бытовой культуры, Материалы

конференции “Традиция разрешения конфликтов на Кавказе и методы институтов гражданского общества”, Цахкадзор, 2001. Ереван: Кавказский форум неправительственных организаций

ARAKELYAN, Hranush–KHARATYAN, Zaven 1989: Hayatsk’ paghstakanut’yan problemin [A Look at the Problem of Refugees]. Khorhdayin Hayastan,

Organ HKK komkusi kentkomi, Haykakan KhSH Geraguyn Khorhrdi yev Ministrneri khordi, Septem-ber 19, № 220, 1989. 4.

28 Dzyunashogh is located not far from the Armenian-Georgian border, while Kerkenj is far into the in-terior of Azerbaijan. Besides, Armenian authorities do not react negatively to the “visits” of the Azerbaijanis.

29 At the request of the Kerkenjis, Azerbaijanis fi lmed the village and the Armenian cemetery and sent the tape to the Kerkenjis.

30 The Azerbaijani village of Irganchay is in Georgia, next to Dzyunashogh, formerly Kzl-Shafag. Many relatives and acquaintances of the Kzl-Shafagis live in Irganchay, and as the Armenians of Dzyunashogh fre-quently communicate with Irganchayis as neighbours, it is not diffi cult to maintain personal relations with the Kzl-Shafagis. In this way, the village of Irganchay is a link between Kerkenj and Dzyunashogh.



Arevatsag 1988: Arevatsag, HKK Kalininoyi shrjanayin komiteyi yev deputatneri shrjanayin khorhrdi T’ert, 1988, 1

December, № 145; 8 December, № 148.ГУСЕЙНОВА, Севиль–АКОПЯН, Арсен–РУМЯНЦЕВ, Сергей 2008: Кызыл -Шафаг и Керкендж: история обмена сёлами в ситуации Карабахского конфликта. Фонд

им. Генриха Белля, ТбилисиHAKOBYAN, Arsen 2007: 1918 t’vakani iradardzutyunneri hishoghutyunner 1988 t’vakani hay-adrbejanakan haraberut’yunneri

hamatek’stum [The memories of the events of 1918 in the context of Armenian–Azerbaijanian rela-tions in 1988], in: Harutyunyan, S.–Hobosyan, S (eds): Yerevan. Hay Zhoghovrdakan Mshakuyt’ XIV. 126−131.

KARAPETYAN, H. 1996: Andranik, in: Khudaverdyan K (ed.) Haykakan Harts’. Hanragitaran [Armenian Question, An Ency-

clopedia]. Yeravan, 36−37.KHUDAVERDYAN, Konstandin (ed.) 1996: Gharakilisayi tchakatamart [Battle of Gharakilisa], in: Khudaverdyan K (ed.) Haykakan Harts’. Han-

ragitaran [Armenian Question, An Encyclopedia]. Yeravan, 291−292.MARUTYAN, Harutyun 2009: Iconography of Armenian Identity, volume I, The Memory of Genocide and the Karabakh Movement.

Yerevan: GitutyunШАХНАЗАРЯН, Нона 2003: “Наши горы прокормят нас!” Структуры повседневной выживания в постсоветском Карабахе.

Bulletin of anthropоlogy, minorities, multiculturalism, new series V. 1(7), No 1−3, 2003. 53−66.ЗОЛЯН, Сурен.–УЛУБАБЯН Грайр–АРШАКЯН, Агаси (сост.) 1989: Сумгаит, геноцид, гласность? Общество “Знание” Армянской ССР, ЕреванЗОЛЯН, Сурен–МИРЗОЯН Грачик (сост.) 1991: Нагорный Карабах и вокруг него… глазами независимых наблюдателей. Сборник документов:

Луйс. Ереван


444 Arsen HAKOBYAN

Fig. 1. Armenian defenders of Kerkenj in the village. End of 1988 – beginning of 1989. Photo taken by Soviet solders in confl ict situation.

Fig. 2. Soviet solders in Kerkenj: End of 1988 – beginning of 1989. Photo taken by Soviet solders in confl ict situation.



Fig. 3 One of the leaders and organizers of the exchange: Rafi k Martirosyan (Photo by Arsen Hakobyan, 2006)

Fig. 4. Village of Dzyunashogh (Photo by Arsen Hakobyan, 2006)


446 Arsen HAKOBYAN

Fig. 5–6. Azerbaidjani cemetery in Dzyunashogh (Photo by Arsen Hakobyan, 2006)



Fig. 7. An exchanged house in Dzyunashogh (Photo by Arsen Hakobyan, 2006)

Fig. 8. A Kerkenji family in Dzyunashogh (Photo by Arsen Hakobyan 2006)


ANTHROPOLOGY OF ETHNIC CONFLICT IN THE CONTEXT OF EVERYDAY LIFE

Documents

Transcript of ANTHROPOLOGY OF ETHNIC CONFLICT IN THE CONTEXT OF EVERYDAY LIFE