„Only one thing is needful: to follow the rite, to speak the ritual language

and to believe in nothing else”1

M. Heller, Maszyna i śrubki (The machine and the screws)

THE ORAL HISTORY. ARMENIA

Armenia is a post-soviet country which has been struggling

since 1991 to reinstate its sovereign political existence lost

a long time ago. The Soviet era (1920-1991), being the time

of totalitarian regime, had a destructive impact on the

Armenian elites and society. Soviet Armenians lost their former

identity of several thousands of years and a new one was

imputed to them – the identity of a Soviet man (homo sovieticus).

The attempts of historical, religious or ethnographic research

taken up in Armenia came across a great number of difficulties,

the most significant of which is so-called soviet “ritualism”

instilled in Armenians for good. All the historical and

archival or press researches carried out by the academic

centres from the Unites States and Europe raised the problem

of Soviet Armenia extremely rarely. The reason for this is

mainly the lack of credible sources. The archives of former

security departments of The Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic

(Cheka – Extraordinary Commission, NKWD - Soviet Secret

Service, KGB -  Committee for State Security) are still not

fully accessible for the researchers. The archives1 M. Heller, Maszyna i śrubki. Jak hartował się człowiek sowiecki, Warszawa 1989, p. 63.

1

of The Armenian Apostolic Church were confiscated and in the

most part destroyed not later than in the 30s. of the 20th

century. In such research circumstances, undertaking the

attempt to register the collective memory of the Armenian

society seems to be most appropriate. Although taking into

account Soviet “rithualism” wheather oral history is the most

trustworthy source of information – in particular regards

historical studies? Is it rational to use oral history as

academic tool without relevant archival background.

During the out-going scholarship programme financed by the

Visegrad Fund was made a series of biographic recordings with

the elderly dwellers of Armenia and Armenians living in Georgia

using the oral history method.2 Carrying out biographic

interviews with aim of solidifying so-called universal,

collective memory is considered as a sociological method (the

qualitative research in sociology) - not as historical one. In

Poland this method is seldom used during the academic research,

however it is being widely employed by the Foundation of KARTA

Centre and the History Meeting House in Warsaw.3 Both the

institutions aim only at gathering the greatest possible number

of biographical recordings with so-called witnesses of the 20th

century in Poland and Eastern Europe.4 Nowadays, the collection

of audio-history consists of more than 3000 recordings. The2 I use terms oral history, narrative history interchangeably as a collective memoryof the nation.3 Fragments of the recordings are now being published and made availableover the Internet: www.karta.org.pl, www.dsh.waw.pl4 The KARTA Centre has been performing the project of the Senate of theRepublic of Poland called „Polacy na Wschodzie” (“Poles in the East”) foralmost two decades. The aim of the project is to gather the recollectionsof the oldest generation of Poles living in Kresy (the eastern provinces ofthe Second Republic of Poland) – present Lithuania, Latvia, Belarus andUkraine.

2

method is extremely popular amongst historians in the western

countries. The University of Essex, the University of Columbia

as well as other cultural institutions in the United States

such as the Holocaust Museum in New York or the Steven

Spielberg’s SHOAH Foundation are also in the possession of vast

audio collections.

Carrying out the biographical recordings is well-justified

when it is impossible to fall back on traditional historical

sources like: documents, diaries or press materials. However

intention of the researcher is to record emotional attitude of

interviewee – tracking real historical facts in this

biographical stories have secondary scientific value. Only

in the aforementioned search conditions and using this

perspective witnesses are the only credible source of

information .5

The preliminary aim of the project carried out for the

Visegard Fund was to create an independent historical image and

to perpetuate the Armenian nation’s memory of the times between

the 1915’s Armenian genocide and today.6 Thereby, it has been

attempted to record the individuated Armenian’s history, not

falsified by the Soviet propaganda or the present nationalist

ideology of the sovereign Republic of Armenia. Result of this

project has been published on the website: memoryofthenation.am

5 P. Thompson, The Voice of the Past. Oral History, Oxford 2000, p. 67-68.6 I use the term Armenian genocide in accordance with the UN Convention onPreventing and Punishing of the Crime of Genocide adopted on 9th December1948. Y. Ternon, Ormianie. Historia zapomnianego ludobójstwa (eng. Armenians. History offorgotten genocide), Kraków 2005, p. 299-314.

3

The Oral History came into existence not before the 20th

century. It is appropriate to state that the method is as old

as the first tape recorder. The process of developing of

this method has accelerated since the invention of sound

registering devices. However the oral history as a method has

its own substantial dimension. Florian Znaniecki, a Polish

sociologist and philosopher, is considered in the West to be

one of this method’s pioneers.7 He began in the 20s.

the investigation into the situation of Polish labourers in the

United States. His compatriots were telling him their

biographic stories, emphasizing strongly the feeling of

nostalgia for the homeland. The recordings made by Znaniecki

were one of the first to be used for scientific purposes.

Likewise, in 1948 the American politician’s recollections were

used by the historian Allan Nevins to write a posthumous

biography of Groover Clevland, the president of the United

States.8 At that time it was the elite and the intelligence

rather than the vast masses of society that were being

recorded, still the method stirred off a great deal

of controversies. The idea of recording the average and

ordinary citizens was put into action in the 70s of the 20th

century.9 The biographic method became an egalitarian research

tool; it embraced all the people regardless of the origins,

education or race. Separate projects examining exclusively

women, started to be carried out. In this manner “writing”

history from the very beginning commenced. From that very

7 P. Schmidt, Biographieforschung und Geschichtswissenschaft, Karlsruhe 2006, p. 4.8 P. Thompson, op. cit., p. 65.9 It happened mainly due to the Library of Congress of the United States andthe Smithsonian Institute.

4

moment not only the elites were predestined to create nation’s

history. Thereby, the reality of the 20th century was described

from the perspective of the ethnic minorities, women

or aforementioned labourers. At the same time all the social

classes were allowed to speak, even the social margin which was

ignored right until now.10

The academics took effort to create the methodology

for these researches and they started to look for the tools for

interpreting the respondents’ utterances. They endeavoured to

make the oral history similar to the typical historical

materials. According to the applied historical method they

prepared personal questionnaires and the descriptions of the

interviews.11 All this was to make the oral history a fully

academic method and the biographic interview a valuable

material, not a complementary one.

According to one of the most often cited definitions, the

oral history is a self-aware, somewhat disciplined and

registered conversation between two people on the experienced

past and those aspects of it which are considered to be

historically crucial. Although it gets similar to a report,

this communication remains to be a dialogue (not memoirs),

because its form and content depend on the questions (which are

up to the contexts of the interviewer’s inquiry), on the belief

what is and what is not essential, on the interpreting capacity

and the contexts.12

10 T. Lummis, Listening to history, London 1987, p. 20.11 P. Thompson, op. cit., pp. 118-172.12 L. Shopes, Making sense of oral history, Pennsylvania 2002, pp. 2-3.

5

The audio report consists of two parts. The first is a

narrative, biographical one. The respondent tells the story of

his or her life freely, choosing the facts he/she considers

important. This is usually a micro history. The events are

described from the individual’s point of view, through the

individuated aspects of his/her life and emotional images. The

world depicted in this part of the recording is subjective. In

the process of recording only two people are present. The

presence of the third parties is unwished-for.

In the second part the respondent answers the questions

prepared earlier by the interviewer or asked because the

interviewer didn’t understand particular issues from the first

part. The questions are asked chronologically in order to

simplify playing the material afterwards and adding it to the

archives. The interview is partly transcribed (rewritten). Only

the most interesting and meaningful fragments are written down.

The transcription of the whole material is not practised.

The interview is not a thematic one. The biographical

method is the broadest form of research in within the oral

history. The respondent does not answer the questions prepared

earlier in the questionnaire, but decides on the course of

events/facts in his audio-autobiography himself. The biographic

attitude may be highly useful in the future for the researchers

of various scientific fields.

During the Visegard Fund Scholarship 40 biographic

interviews were made in the Republic of Armenia and the

Republic of Georgia. The interviews were carried out both in

cities (i.e. Yerevan, Gyumri, Akhaltskha) and in villages (i.e.

6

Bjni, Panik, Arevik, Artik, Lanjic, Sepasar, Tskhaltbila). All

the respondents were of Armenia descent aged 80-95. Some of

them had double citizenship.13 An interview took usually about

an hour. Some of the interviews lasted merely 20 minutes and

some as much as a few hours. The interviewees for the most part

agreed gladly to the conversation, especially that they could

use their native language – most of the interviews was carried

out in Armenian. In this group 12 of speakers were Catholics.

The respondents, as it was mentioned, could select the

topics at will, nevertheless one can distinguish several

characteristic themes or contexts for the social history of

Armenia (in the group of 40 people):

I. The origins of the ancestors

II. The Genocide of the 1915

III. The Soviet era (work, everyday life, war, the collapse of

the USSR)

The fragments presented in this paper were adjusted to the

contexts of the dialogues. The transcription was made in

accordance with the pre-edition of the texts. Translating

occurred to be the linguistic problem. The syntactic logic of

Armenian language is different from English Polish, thus it was

necessary to translate the fragments of the interviewees’

utterances in a way that would not distort or reduce their

meaning, but that would make them easier to understand for the

reader. Some of the interviews were carried out in difficult

13 The interviews could be made thanks to the help of leading researcher of Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, National Academy of Sciences of Armenia, Dr. Harutyun Marutyan in particular.

7

sound conditions or with the respondents speaking only the

Western Armenian or the Shirak dialect. Hence, in the process

of working on the interviews I had to resort to the help of

local native Armenians or to consult my translations with the

linguists (prof. Andrzej Pisowicz,

Dr. Harutyun Marutyan, Sophia Baghumian). That means that the

third parties interfered with the translations.

I. The origins of the ancestors:

The interviewees often mentioned their origins at the very

beginning. It happened many times that the respondent could

without any hesitation recall the names of all his male

ancestors up till the third or even the fourth generation. The

respondent’s native region or city was also mentioned quite

often during the conversation.

The memory of the family origins was a crucial identity

element, often brought up by the respondents. They were proud

that they had come from Ottoman Empire, Persia or Georgia

as it distinguished the respondent from the rest of the village

or region inhabitants. The recorded person could often

precisely define in which Ottoman vilayet or in surroundings of

which Persian city his great-grandparent was born or what he

did for living. Armenian dialects have been preserved till the

present, so proves that respondents were truly the descendants

of Turkish Armenians from the “(Y)erkir”.14

14 Armenians were systematically resettled or they emigrated from Persia andTurkey to Russia between 1828 and 1878. As a result of the wars which Russians led with Turks and Persians they could freely settle in particularparts of present Armenia and northern Georgia. Look: A. Хачикян, История

8

“My uncle was buried here under this church. He was a

priest. The Soviets killed him in 1920. They pulled him

with horses all over the village until he died. It was Ter

Grigor, the son of Ter Hakop and grandson of Ter Hovanes”.

(Bjni, Armenia 2012).

„My grandmother came from Tbilisi, and my grandfather from

Turkey. They met here. And their graves are in our

village. My grandfather spoke only Turkish,

and my grandmother – Turkish and Armenian. My grandfather

was Catholic and his children were also Catholics. The

grandfather, when he came to Tskhaltbila, engaged into the

church activities. He was singing in the choir. Then, when

the Soviets came and started to close the church, the

people from the village put together all the holy books

and the icon and gave it to us. All the people knew that

our family would keep it. After that they came to us,

thanked the grandfather and my dad and prayed together.”

(Tskhaltbila, Georgia, 2012)

“Do you know Persian? My family comes from Tebriz. My

grandfather and grandmother were born here. We came to

Armenia in the 19th century. My father was a craftsman.

There were lots of Armenians in Persia. Nothing was here

when we came. A few houses abandoned by the Muslims. At

first one house was put up by my grandparents, then a

Армении, Ереван, 2009, pp. 111-112 and 119-126 and P. Poghosyan, A. Asryan,Ch. Stepanian, E. Hovhanisyan, Hayots patmutyun, Yerevan, 2009, pp. 138-154, M.Zakrzewska-Dubasowa, op. cit., s. 167 oraz S. Payaslian, The history of Armenia,New York, 2007, p. 111.

9

couple of others and the next people started to arrive. We

built the church ourselves in 1850”.15

(Panik, Armenia, 2010)

„My family and me come from Western Armenia. We arrived at

this village in 1840. At that time the village was called

Musluchli, today it is Lanjhik. I speak Western Armenian16

and so do all the people in the village. My father and

mother, my grandfather too. The grandfather was a

goldsmith. This is where our surname Voskanyan stems

from”.

(Lanjik, Armenia 2012)

The origins of the ancestry are significant in forming the

nation’s identity and ethnic differences in Caucasus.17 The

history of the house and the family also plays an important

role in the Armenian society.18 Throughout centuries the

Armenian nation lived not only in his homeland – Armenian

Highland, but also in dispersion, scattered all over Anatolia

and the Near East and did not identified itself directly15 The church in the village of Panik was built from the parishioners’donations in 1846 – Look: Oracojc ei Patker Tonic, Tyflis 1920, p. 81.16 Contemporary Armenian language (ashkharhabar) exists in two versions:Eastern Armenian – the administrative language of the Republic of Armeniaand Western Armenian, used by the people of former Western Armenia,Anatolia, as well as in Istanbul – nowadays it is a dialect used mainly byso-called Armenian diaspora. More on Armenian language in: A. Pisowicz,Gramatyka ormiańska. Grabar. Aszcharabar, Kraków 2001, p. 19.17 In terms of that Caucasus is a specific research area. The memory of maleancestors is of great importance in many cultures in this region. TheOssetians are the record-holders here, as they are able to list as many asten Ossetian ancestors, giving at the same time the evidence for theirnational purity. M. Darchieva, Organization of game and dancing space in Ossetian epictexts, Материалы Международного Конгресса, Tbilisi 2013, s. 167-168.18 More about the role of the history and the memory of ancestors in:Armenian. Folk, Arts, Culture and Identity, ed. L. Abrahamian, N. Sweezy, BloomingtonIndianapolis 2001, pp. 25-33.

10

with the land, but with the religion, language, rural and urban

culture.

In the 19th century the Russian Tsar’s administration

imposed on Armenians personal propiska (identity cards-passports

and surnames)19. That imperative turned out to be crucial for

the present Armenian state. In the Caucasus region it brought

about forming family national clans. Before that only the names

and the places of birth were used to establish a person’s

origins. Due to the new documents, de iure “new” Armenian

nationality appeared in the tsarist register (before that the

Armenian nation did exist, but it was difficult to estimate

their number in Caucasus, because there was no clear-cut

criterion).20 The genealogy of the surnames is quite obvious.

Most often they were derived from the jobs, the ancestors’

names or the places of birth. Just before collapse of Tsarist

Russia also new question marks occurred regarding Armenian

identity: Was it possible for instance to have Georgian

surname, be a catholic and Armenian in the same time?

II. The Genocide of the 1915

The Armenian genocide is a leading issue, often put

forward by the media and the society as well as by the

19 Literally it means an inscription, alluding to the inscription in a stateinternal passport permitting a person to reside in a given place. For a state or third-party owned property, propiska meant a person was included in the rental contract associated with a dwelling20 The first all-Russian census in Tsarist Russia in 1897 confirmed thatwithin the borders of the Caucasus region circa 1 million people. In theterms of national identity, Armenians were characterized as nation speakingArmenian and reliogoius society affiliated with Armenian Apostolic Church. Ch. King, Widmo wolności. Historia Kaukazu, Kraków 2010, pp. 126-127.

11

academics of Armenia.21 The crimes committed by the Young Turks

regime on the Armenian population in Western Armenia, as well

as in Anatolia and Constantinople between 1915 and 1923 are

historical factors which constitute Armenian Identity the most.

But wheater this facts are part of Soviet “rithualism” or

significant issue in collective memory of present Armenians?

Firstly, the slaughters of Armenians are the part of

Western Armenians’ identity (arevmtahayer). These are

the people, who after 1915 ran away from Turkey to Middle East,

Europe and to the United States. Armenian’s exodus from the

Ottoman Empire had various direction (especially between 1915

and 1923).22 The people fled to Smyrna, the Near East,

Damascus, Lebanon and to Europe, namely Italy and France and

also to Russia and Armenia. In 1918, when the First Republic of

Armenia came into existence – the country gave asylum to

several dozens of thousands of refugees – mostly orphans. The

sovietization of the First Republic of Armenia in 1920

permanently held back Armenians’ exodus from Turkey to Armenia

- Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic23. Simultaneously, the

recollection of the genocide by survivors was censored. Several

thousands of people had tragic reminiscences, but the official

21 The investigation into the genocide and the collective memory from theperspective of the genocide is a topic frequently raised by academics. Cf.H. Kharatyan, L. Neyzi (ed.), Speaking to one another, Bonn 2010 and Ch.Haratyan, L. Neyzi, Prospects of Reconciliation, Bonn 2011.22 Some researchers are stating, that almost 600 000 of Armenians came to Russian Armenia after 1915 ։ F. Kazemzadeh, The struggle for Transcaucasia 1917-1921, London 2008, p. 211. R. Hovhaninnisian, 23 The massive “return” of Turkish Armenians stopped in 1922. Total number of Armenian refugees was: 15 000 in Georgia, 150 000 on North Caucasus, 10 000 in Persia, 5 000 in Turkiestan, in Mesopotamia 5 000 and, in Armenia110 tysięcy.Central Historical Archive of Georgia: 612/1/ 27, pp 1-6.

12

historical policy of the soviet state didn’t let them to speak

free about the past. The remembrances of the childhood and

homeland in Anatolia by Vahan Totovents and Zapel Yesayan came

out in print, nevertheless the word genocide was strictly

forbidden in the official media. In soviet press journalists

were using the expression medz yeghern or just a tragedy24. On the

other hand, purposeful misinformation took place and as a

result, one could read about the Assyrian genocide and Catholic

priests contribution to it.25 Moreover, due to the friendly

relationship between the Turkish working class and the USSR

(the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), some of the events

were effectively dissembled26. The Communist Party strongly

recommended that all those people, who were refugees coming

from Turkey or Persia and had nationalistic attitude or „did

not express their loyal position towards the Soviet authority”

should not enter USSR or to be isolated.27

During interviewing Armenians the genocide was mentioned

in each conversations as a motive of a biographical story.

Nevertheless, it was kind of post-memory and just few of the

interviewees was directly connected to it. Although the

majority of the respondents admitted that their grandparents

were from Turkey, they emphasised that they came to the present

Republic of Armenia or to Georgia already in the 19th century.24 H. Marutyan, Iconography of Armenian Identity. Volume 1: The Memory of Genocide and theKarabagh Movement, Yerevan, 2009, p. 38.25 Н. Козловский, Малоазиатские преступления миссионерства и ассирийская трагедия,Безбожник Грузии 9-10/1931, pp. 4-7.26 It has changed after the II World War when the government of USSR appealed to Turkey to return to USSR the territory of former Kars and Ardahan districts. Армения и советско-турецкие отношения в дипломатических документах 1945-1946 гг. ред. А. Киракосян, Ереван 2010, pp. 5-52.27 ANA 1/02/5 Протокл заседания президиума ЦК КП(Б ) Армении No. 1-56, p.13.

13

Hence, the events of 1915 was not their own tragedy – because

of the age but they still keep the memory of killed ancestors

or ancestors of the neighbour28. Armenians find the genocide an

event unifying Armenians all over the world and the most

pivotal in the history of the present nation. The respondents

stressed the popular fact that since that time (1915) Armenians

have lived in vast diasporas.

„Have you heard about the Armenian Genocide? A horrible

tragedy. Our nation has suffered so much. We are also from

Turkey. My family came from the region of Van, have you

heard of Aghtamar?

But we arrived earlier, in the 19th century, we were not

afflicted by this tragedy, but my father’s brother lost

his whole family in the genocide”.

(Lanjik, Armenia 2012)

Have you visited Tsitsernakaberd?29 A horrible tragedy,

wasn’t? They’re continuously showing some films on TV.

Horrible! We came from Kirovabad. They say we had a family

in Turkey, but I didn’t know them. My father used to tell

us about them when he was still alive. But I don’t know

what happened to them. Maybe they live now somewhere in

America?

(Yerevan, Armenia 2011)

28 About not-direct memory on Genocide issue: H. Charraratian, Rodzinne opowieści, narodowa tragedia. Historia pamięci o ludobójstwie, Armenia. Kultura współczesna w ujęciu antropologicznym, ed. K. Siekierski, L. Abrahamian, Warszawa 2014, s. 81- 94.29 The Tsitsernakaberd Park in Yerevan – this is where the monumentcommemorating the Armenians killed in 1915 was put up.

14

„They murdered us. Have you heard about that? They

murdered us day and night. Women and children. A horrible

tragedy. – Did your family also suffer in the genocide? –

No. Not us, but the Armenians from Turkey, Anatolia,

Western Armenia.

(Yerevan, Armenia 2012)

III The Soviet era

Armenia became in 1920 a part of Soviet Russia (and then

the USSR).30 On 2nd December 1920 after a few days of

negotiations general Drastamat Kanayan signed a treaty with the

representative of the Soviet authorities in South Caucasus,

Boris Legran.31

The first thing the Soviet authorities focused on was the

persecution and confiscation of the agricultural property. They

intended particularly on eliminating former political elites –

so-called Dashnaks – as they proclaimed nationalist ideology.32

They took first steps to destroy the structure of the Armenian

Apostolic Church. Both the clergymen and the believers. The

process of the atheisation of Armenians ended de facto in April

30 Earlier in years 1828-1918 Eastern Armenia was a part of Tsarist Russiaand after that (1918-1920) the sovereign Republic of Armenia.31 The last official Armenian representative Simon Vratsyan refused signingthat treaty.S. Vratsyan, Hayastani Hanrapetutyun, Beirut 1953, p. 498 and Б. Улубабян,Беседы об армянской истории, Yerevan 2000, p. 498 and ANA 1/1/1 p. 7.„Ynkerner” (A propagandistic leaflet with the text of the treatyof 1st December 1920). S. Vratsyan, How Armenia was sovietised, Armenian Review1/1/1948, s. 74-75. R. Hovhannisian, The Republic of Armenia. Vol 4, Berkely, LosAngeles, London 1996, s. 387.32 ANA f1/1/44, p. 1 Выписка из заседания пленума Кавбюро, 3.07.1921.

15

1938, when the supreme patriarch of Armenian Church, the

Catholicos of all Armenians, died in unknown circumstances.33

Between 1922 and 1936 Soviet Armenia was the part of

Transcaucasian SFSR (Socialist Federal Soviet Republic), and

then from 1936 to 1991 – the administratively independent

Armenian SSR. In that period of time the Armenian economy and

society flourished. To state that, one can fall back not only

on the soviet press, which is not very much credible, but also

on the recollections of those Armenians who related the life in

a socialist system with nostalgia.34 The communist’s system

significantly contributed to the improvement of the living

conditions, the education increased, the universities started

functioning and the industrialisation of the country began. The

range of the enterprises and investments was huge in Armenia at

that time. Even today in the Republic of Armenia one can

easily notice enormous, but falling into ruin industry

complexes, factories, processing plants. Metsamor,

Charentsavan, Hrazdan, Armavir, Yerevan, Alaverdi, Vanadzor and

many more.

The respondents almost unanimously consider the socialist

period the best in their lives. The opportunity of studying,

working or living in the city was an equivalent of happiness

for an average Armenian and they repeat it all over again. The

collapse of the USSR and Mikhail Gorbachev’s role is depicted

33 The exact date of the catholicos Khoren I Muradbekyan’s death is unknown.An Armenian historian Stepan Stepanyan is still not certain who wasresponsible for this murder. Степан Степаняц, Черный апрель Католикоса ХоренаПервого, Новое Время 10.04.2012, p. 7.34 More about fast developing Armenia within the USSR wrote: T. Lankamer,Słoneczne Zakuakazie, Warszawa 1986, pp. 77-86, or J. Gregory, Land of Soviets,London 1946, pp. 173-174.

16

unequivocally in the respondents’ recollections – as the

greatest tragedy in the history of the nation, apart from the

genocide. Right after the Fall of the Soviet Union Armenia went

through an economic crisis. As a result of the hyperinflation,

the citizens of Armenia lost they life savings overnight and

the gas and electricity supplies were cut off.35 On the one

hand, this is for Armenians the reason to be proud, but on the

other hand, they talk about this rarely and unwillingly.

„There was no gas and electricity for three years. We

burnt everything we could. The stoves needed to be warm

all the time, because we had small children. And those

winters were really severe. Nowadays there’s no winter at

all. There were such frosts then. The electricity was in

the Institute nearby. A neighbour plugged a wire

and then we heated with the electricity. But still we had

to pay something for it, although it was illegal. But if

we survived such a thing, then we will survive

everything.”

(Yerevan, Armenia 2011)

„I worked in a school in Nakhichevan. After I had

graduated from the university, they ordered me to work in

the Department of Education in the Republic

of Nakhichevan. But there I didn’t want to. It’s a desert

out there. There’s nothing out there. I ran away and

started teaching in my village in Yeghegnavan. Ararat

Valley this is. It used to be so beautiful there. We had

garden, apples, apricots. These were fine times. Soviets35 G. Avagyan, Hajastan ew hajers aszcharum, Yerewan 1994, p. 12.

17

plugged up water and we had it all the time. We picked up

fruits twice a year. But now everything’s falling into

ruin there. We gave it to our friends, but that’s not the

same. There is no orchard. There is no farmer.”

(Yehegnavan, Armenia 2010)

„I was a head teacher in the Soviet times. Then the

village had a couple of thousands people. Now everyone has

gone away. They go to Russia to work. Because there’s

no work here. There’s in Yerevan, but the salary is small.

So, these days 200 students went to school. My wife was an

Armenian teacher. It was a large village. And now 40, 50

go to school. There are no teachers either.”

(Lanjik, Armenia 2012)

„In 1989 we arrived to Yerevan from Baku. We are

considered the refugees. It was the politicians that

controlled this all. The politicians did what they wanted

to. This is all Gorbachev’s fault. He is to be blamed

for all this in Armenia. This is because of him that

everything began. The police and army started to protect

Armenians in Baku, not straightaway. He told that the army

would arrive in 3 hours and they turned up in three days.

Who to blamed for the Armenian slaughter? In Sumgait

it was truly a slaughter. Azerbaijanis killed Armenians

just like Turks did. In the USSR everything was all

right. There were no conflicts.”

18

(Yerevan, Armenia 2012)

In the oral history in Armenia, the collapse of USSR is

very often affiliated with the Karabakh conflict. President

Mikhail Gorbachev had already lost control in the USSR. The

giant was about to tumble down. The leader of USSR attempted to

censor and distort the news from Sumgait. During the Politburo

session ( M. Gorbachev, V. Vlasov, A. Yakovlev) it was worked

out that the criminals are responsible for the events in

Sumgait and that was the information the media were supposed to

transmit.36 The open military conflict set out in 1992 and

lasted with intervals until May 1994 when a ceasefire agreement

was signed up in Bishkek. The war has never de iure finished

though – the negotiations concerning the peace settlement

have been taking place till the present day.37 The Nagorno-

Karabakh war and the antagonisms between Armenians and

Azerbaijanians and between Armenians and Turks are cardinal

factors constituting Armenians’ national identity at present.

The nationalist policy of the Republic of Armenia deliberately

cherishes that conflict. Armenians consolidate socially up

against a common enemy such as a “Turk” or an Azerbaijani.38

„We lived here in Yerevan and Karabakh belonged to

Azerbaijan. The rumour started when they gave Karabakh to

36 ANA f1/88/11, Выписка из заседания пленума Политбюро, from 28.02.1988.37 The peace making process is supervised by OSCE Minsk Group (theOrganization for Security and Co-operation in Europe), headed by the Russian Federation, France andUnited States of America. 38 Armenians do not tell apart Turkish and Azerbaijani nations. In everydaylife they often call Turk a person from Azerbaijan.

19

Azerbaijan, because of natural recourses. And it was

easier for them to sustain this region. Russians made it

up. Azerbaijanis are a good nation, we have always lived

amicably with them. The war was not with Azerbaijan. It

was all controlled by those at the top.”

(Yerevan 2010, Armenia)

The war ended in Armenia’s victory and separating the Republic

of Nagorno-Karabakh from Azerbaijan. As a result of the

military operations Azerbaijan lost around 14%

of its territory. Armenians are proud of defeating Azerbaijan,

however the prolonging political instability of this region and

increasing economic crisis in Armenia make the respondents look

into the future with sceptical optimism.39

„All my grandchildren fought with Turks in Karabakh. That

was just the time they enrolled in the army so I

encouraged them to go to Karabakh. Besides the service is

shorter there, because it is only few months, and one can

shoot a (ed. sic) Turk. All my family and my wife’s family

is from Karabakh. We ran away in the beginning of the 90s.

Now we live in Yerevan, but we visit our family and

friends twice a year. Karabakh is a part of Armenia and

it should remain so. I don’t understand why Karabakh

declared sovereignty, but the decisions are up to those at

the top.”

(Yerevan, Armenia 2010)

39 Armenia supports financially the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh from itsown state budget.

20

***

The question of the results of the analysis and the

conclusions from the project remain actual. The question is:

what is more important to the (social) history – the accurate

presentation of the reality and events by the respondent or

rather the senses and meanings given to those facts at the very

moment of reporting on them and in the perspective of the

(re)constructed autobiography? Those „given senses” are of

utmost significance in the Armenian history of the 20th

century. Additionally, on principal level of the biographical

stories re-formed results of soviet “rithualism” were present.

The respondents who spend most of their lives in the Soviet

country found a peculiar way of reducing the burden imposed on

them by the history and the totalitarian regime. Namely,

instead of trying to think over honestly the history of the

20th century – in full and in all the tragic aspects – instead

of a serious international discussion about the Soviet past, a

myth comes back to Armenia. A not much changed, Soviet,

imperial and patriotic myth of the native history as a

chronicle of famous heroic deeds. Furthermore, the historians

of the „Memorial’” Association are right to maintain that there

is no space for guilt or responsibility in this myth.40

The immoral Soviet regime was identified by the

respondents with the period of the economic growth,

industrialisation and the improving standards of living.

40 Przesłanie ”Memoriału”, Karta 54/2008, p. 133.21

Despite the persecutions from the Soviet security police41

experienced by many Armenians, the problem did not appear

frequently in the utterances of the recorded people.

The lack of discrepancies in interpreting the history show

people’s tremendous susceptibility to the official nationalist

propaganda. The pro-Soviet (and pro-Russian) sentimental past

and anti-Turkish hostility created in recent years have easily

gained their advocates.

However Soviet “rithualism” is not dominant force in

biographical stories being conducted in Armenia in the project.

In the most of the recordings one can easily gaze the religious

contents. The Armenian Catholics (12 interviews was taken from

them) and Armenians from the Armenian Apostolic Church joyfully

highlighted the fact, that they managed to keep their faith in

the times of the totalitarian regime. The Armenians of the

Apostolic Armenian Church were glad that some of the churches

evaded destruction. All of the respondents unanimously found

the persecution of the churchmen the greatest drawback of the

nationalist system.

Oral history has its own merits and disadvantages. Taking

into consideration results of the project is seems necessary to

underline, that conducting anthropological and historical

research only with the use of biographical method without

academic sources is a false methodological conception. As one

can presume, it was not possible to live and work for 70 years41 Nowadays nobody is carrying out the research into the victims of the Soviet repressions in Armenia, although there are materials for that sort of studies in the State Archives in Yerevan. (ANA f1/13/4, s. 101 Ardzanagrutyan Kaghvatsk 36-30.04.1933). Only individually published recollections come out: A. Алексанян, Сибирский дневник 1949-1954 гг., Ереван 2007.

22

in totalitarian reign (propaganda, language, historiography)

and to keep independent mentality. The Soviet “ritualism” in

personal recordings as reflexion of official soviet propaganda

needs further elaboration, but it is obvious on this stage of

this research, that de-sovietisation in Armenia is still

ongoing process.

23