29 ноября 2021 г.
Мировые лидеры по запасам газа договариваются, чтобы диктовать свои правила - ВИДЕО
В ЭФИРЕ ЮТУБ-КАНАЛА PRIME TV С РИЗВАНОМ ГУСЕЙНОВЫМ
25 ноября 2021 г.
В Грозном прошел «Кавказский диалог–2021». Были армяно-азербайджанские дискуссии по истории
С 21 по 25 ноября в Грозном прошел «Кавказский диалог» – ежегодная научно-образовательная программа Фонда Горчакова для обмена мнениями по актуальным для Кавказского региона вопросам мировой политики и международных отношений. Партнером мероприятия выступает Чеченский государственный университет (ЧГУ). Участниками программы в этом году стали более 20 молодых специалистов из России, Азербайджана, Армении, Грузии, Казахстана и Узбекистана.
В рамках открытия мероприятия советник исполнительного директора Фонда Горчакова Юрий Жмурко отметил, что для Фонда «Кавказский диалог» является одной из самых давних программ: в следующем году мы будем отмечать его десятилетнюю историю. «По отзывам выпускников этой программы, она относится к наиболее сильным мероприятиям по данной проблематике, и в этом заслуга его участников и экспертов, которых мы задействуем для участия в Кавказском диалоге», – добавил Юрий Васильевич.
С приветственным словом к участникам обратился и.о. ректора, проректор по общим вопросам Чеченского государственного университета им. А.А. Кадырова Руслан Кутуев: «Кавказ многие сравнивают с Вавилонской башней в силу многообразия культур, проживающих в регионе. В этой палитре найти точки соприкосновения для молодежи всего Кавказского региона – амбициозная и значимая задача. Однако я убежден, что наше мероприятие приблизит нас к ее решению».
«Историческая память и символическая политика на Кавказе: взгляд изнутри и извне» – так звучит центральная тема мероприятия. Под символической политикой в современных международных отношениях понимается публичная деятельность, связанная с производством различных способов интерпретации социальной реальности и борьбой за их доминирование. Данные вопросы актуальны и для Кавказского региона. «Мероприятие недаром проходит в Чеченской Республике, где историческая память выражена в концентрированном виде», – отметил научный руководитель «Кавказского диалога–2021», старший научный сотрудник Центра евроазиатских исследований МГИМО МИД России Ахмет Ярлыкапов.
В рамках «Кавказского диалога–2021» прошли дискуссии по вопросам отношений треугольников стран Россия-Турция-Иран, Азербайджан-Армения-Грузия, перспективам экономического развития региона в постковидную эпоху, геополитическим изменениям на Кавказе и их влиянию на безопасность в регионе. Также для участников была предусмотрена обширная культурная программа по достопримечательностям Чеченской Республики.
В мероприятии принял участие и выступил директор Центра истории Кавказа, старший научный сотрудник Института права и прав человека НАНА, Ризван Гусейнов. Он выступил и ответил на вопросы в рамках первой панели "Символическая политика на Кавказе"
Эта панель была посвящена вопросам сохранения исторической памяти и символической политики на Кавказе. Под символической политикой в современных международных отношениях понимается публичная деятельность, связанная с производством различных способов интерпретации социальной реальности и борьбой за их доминирование, что зачастую выражается в искажении исторических событий и трактовки их значения.
«Народной мудрости, кавказского опыта соблюдения баланса интересов в полиэтничном регионе и неприятия действий, направленных на нарушение сложившегося пространства исторической памяти, часто не хватает тем, кто проводит сегодня символическую политику», – убежден Олег Матвеев, профессор кафедры истории России Кубанского государственного университета. О роли государства в сохранении исторической памяти рассказал участникам Супьян Магомадов, директор Института гуманитарных исследований Академии наук Чеченской Республики.
Оганес Саркисян, зав.кафедрой политологии Российско-Армянского (Славянского) университета, высказал мнение о том, что в Армении не была четко сформулирована символическая политика, где основным актором было бы государство. Более того, ее не было, потому что не было политики нациестроительства.
По мнению Ризвана Гусейнова, директора Центра истории Кавказа, старшего научного сотрудника Института права и прав человека НАНА, в 80-е годы XX века определенными кругами вне Кавказского региона была поставлена задача: задать каждому кавказскому народу такие нарративы, чтобы «как минимум ближайшие сто лет они не могли преодолеть проблему конфликта или уже постконфликта».
Р.Гусейнов рассказал о том, какие внешние силы и акторы стояли за формированием исторической памяти армянского народа и государства и каким проблемам и конфликтам это привело Армению в отношениях с соседними странами. По его мнению корни карабахского конфликта кроются именно в искаженном преподнесении армянскому народу своей истории и истории соседних народов.
Георгий Гобронидзе, профессор школы права, дипломатии и социальных наук Грузино-Американского университета, рассказал о процессах, связанных с сохранением исторической памяти в Грузии:
«Мы видим, как сегодня в Грузии конструируется новая память на месте той, которая существовала 70 лет на протяжении существования Советского Союза. Одна идеология, нанеся удары другой, пытается создать себе жизненное пространство. И в основном эта идеология конструировалась политическими элитами. Политические элиты пытаются создавать такие символы или бороться с ними, когда у них нет крепкой почвы под ногами. Это было свойственно многим постсоветским государствам».
Отдельной частью программы стала дискуссия о треугольнике акторов Россия-Турция-Иран в контексте происходящего на Кавказе. Значение региона в отношениях России и Турции рассмотрел Мустафа Танрыверди, преподаватель кафедры новейшей истории Стамбульского университета:
«Кавказ по своим физическим, геополитическим, историческим и демографическим характеристикам является особенным местом для изучения. Турция, Иран и Россия соперничали за владение Кавказом. За свою долгую историю Кавказ пережил немало трудных времен, оставивших после себя гордую память. Этот регион был очень важен и для России, и для Турции, с очень богатой исторической памятью. Россия и Турция – великие соседи, и я надеюсь, что отношения будут продолжаться в дружеском русле».
21 ноября 2021 г.
A Unique Military Operation to Liberate Dashalty and Shusha in November 2020
https://azerbaijantoday.az/
By Rizvan Huseynov,
Director of the Center for the History of the Caucasus, Senior Researcher at the Institute of Law and Human Rights of Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences, reserve captain
September 27 marked the first anniversary of the 44-day Karabakh war (September 27 – November 9, 2020), which ended in a disastrous defeat of the Armenian army and a brilliant military-political victory of Azerbaijan.
The military campaign was the result of Azerbaijan’s many years of comprehensive preparations to resolve the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. The unity of the people and the state has led to stunning results that even the most optimistic analysts never dreamed of.
There is no doubt that the strategist and politician – Supreme Commander-in-Chief, President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev, led the whole project. During the 44-day war, the world became aware of a new Ilham Aliyev, who embodied the synthesis of foreign policy experience, comprehensive knowledge, gigantic patience, trust in his people, and the ability to take military and political risks.
Following the 44-day military campaign, Azerbaijan has liberated about 80% of the territories previously occupied by Armenia. Slightly more than 20% of the territory in Nagorno-Karabakh, where Armenians live, came under temporary control of the Russian peacekeeping mission, which for five years will ensure security in the region and pave the way for the bloodless transfer of these lands under Azerbaijan’s control.
Azerbaijan has also regained control over the entire border with Iran and Armenia. Following the results of the Trilateral Statement of November 9, 2020, and the Agreement of January 11, in Moscow, the presidents of Russia, Azerbaijan, and the prime minister of Armenia agreed to completely unblock transport routes (the Zangezur corridor) via Armenia. Through the Zangezur corridor will run railways and highways connecting Russia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Turkey, Iran, and a number of other countries of Eurasia from China to Great Britain.
Some experts analyzed the results of the 2020 autumn war, especially the brilliant military operation of the Azerbaijani army to liberate the heart of Karabakh – the glorious fortress city of Shusha – attracted particular attention.
The Azerbaijani Special Forces and motorized rifles, armed with small arms and grenade launchers, practically without the support of artillery, aviation, and UAVs, were able to get tens of kilometers through the superior and well-equipped enemy forces for several days and climb the rocks with battles to liberate Shusha.
It shall be reminded that during the first Karabakh war, the city of Shusha was occupied by the Armenian armed forces in May 1992. The then loss by Azerbaijan of this strategically important city largely predetermined the fate of the further military campaign of the 1990s.
After 28 years, Azerbaijan has regained Shusha – one of the cradles of its culture and history. Unfortunately, there is still no extensive military expert analysis of the military operation to liberate Shusha in November 2020. In this article, an attempt will be made to take a brief look at the Shusha operation, drawing on proofs that are little known or completely unknown to the public. This is the first such analysis for the Russian-speaking public and for a Russian military publication.
An article on the Shusha operation, entitled “The battle of Shusha city and the missed lessons of the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war” was published in English in the American military-analytical edition in July 2021. The authors of the article are American military experts from the Modern War Institute, John Spencer and Harshana Ghoorhoo.
As specialists in urban combat, they gave an interesting analysis of the Shusha operation of the Azerbaijani units. American military experts conclude that the Azerbaijani Special Forces, artillery, motorized rifles, engineering troops, communications, and other units have shown a high level of interaction and a well-functioning command and control system. This was especially evident in the urban battles for Shusha, where lightly armed Azerbaijani detachments were able not only to take the city street by street but also to ensure the heroic defense of Shusha for several days before the arrival of the main forces of the Azerbaijani army.
Let the palm of victory in the analysis of the Shusha operation belong to an article in the American Institute of Modern Warfare, but it did not touch on some little-known details of the military operation. We will try to fill this gap by giving the chronicle and key moments of the Shusha operation from a perspective convenient for the Russian-speaking audience.
The strategic importance of Shusha as a citadel that rises above the region and gives the opportunity to control key roads connecting Karabakh, including neighboring states, was known to the Azerbaijani medieval rulers for a long time.
But the military-political, transit, economic and cultural star of Shusha shone especially brightly in the second half of the XVIII century, when the Karabakh ruler Panah Ali Khan, and then his son Ibrahim Khalil Khan, had a chain of fortresses built that controlled the roads between the plain and mountainous Karabakh, as well as the connection between Iran, Zangezur (Armenia) and other regions.
The political capital and the crown of all these citadels became the fortress city of Shusha, erected on a hard-to-access rocky plateau, dominating most of Karabakh. It should be mentioned that the system of fortresses and fortifications, erected by the Karabakh khans, does not lose its strategic importance today. The military talent of Panah Ali Khan, who participated in the conquest campaigns of the legendary Nader Shah Afshar up to India, later showed itself in Karabakh.
The erected city of Shusha is still a formidable fortress today. Steep cliffs drop off the edges of the city on three sides, and the only main road runs north-south along the western edge of the city. A few kilometers from Shusha, the Karabakh rulers built their summer residence Khankendi (a khan’s village), which, after the fall of the Karabakh khanate, and the annexation of its territory to tsarist Russia, became the center of the Armenian population settling there. In Soviet times, Khankendi was renamed Stepanakert and became a regional center. However, Shusha, located nearby on an elevated plateau, has always had a strategic advantage and dominance.
During the collapse of the USSR, when the Armenian nationalists took a course towards the annexation of the Azerbaijani lands, it became clear that control over Shusha plays a crucial role for the Armenian-populated Stepanakert (Khankendi). The location of Shusha then provided an ideal buffer zone for Stepanakert, the capital of the separatist formation called “Nagorno-Karabakh Republic”. Considering the indisputable cultural significance and key geographical advantage of Shusha, Armenia and Azerbaijan considered it paramount to have control over the city.
However, before moving on to a description of the military operation to liberate Shusha in November 2020, let us touch on some of the key battles of the entire 44-day war. The first week of the war that began on September 27 turned into fierce battles practically along the entire line of the Armenian-Azerbaijani front in Karabakh. A particularly difficult situation emerged on the southern front in Fuzuli and Jabrayil districts, where the Azerbaijani army in early October smashed a hole in the defenses considered previously impregnable Armenian defense system in depth – the so-called “Ohanyan line”.
It was named so in honor of the Armenian ex-Minister of Defense, Seyran Ohanyan, who argued that this line was impregnable. The Azerbaijani army broke through the defenses in the south of the “Ohanyan line” and began to rapidly advance to the West parallel to the Aras River on the Azerbaijani-Iranian border. An attempt by the Armenian army to encircle and crush the Azerbaijani grouping turned into a disaster for the Armenian side to “get caught in a pocket”. In this “pocket”, the Armenian army had lost over 800 soldiers only killed. After the failure of the Armenian plan, the Azerbaijani grouping swiftly moved from the southern flank to the northwest, liberating the strategically important city of Hadrut.
The loss of Hadrut predetermined the defeat of the Armenian army in the southern direction. Azerbaijan quickly liberated Jabrayil and Zangilan districts bordering Iran, reaching the state border with Armenia. A significant part of Fuzuli and Khojavend districts was also liberated. In the second half of October, the Azerbaijani Armed Forces moved to the northwest, liberating Qubadli and Lachin districts. The Azerbaijani Armed Forces fought in the direction of the Lachin corridor that connects Armenia with Nagorno-Karabakh. By October 22, a critical situation had emerged – the Azerbaijani army was literally 10 kilometers away from the Lachin corridor. The loss of this vital corridor would have deprived Armenia of the ability to support its army in Nagorno-Karabakh. Moreover, the Azerbaijani army took control of another similar road in the north in Kalbajar at the beginning of the war.
In order to divert the Azerbaijani forces from advancing towards the Lachin corridor, Armenia organized a counterattack and ambushed the rear of the advancing Azerbaijani Armed Forces in the densely wooded mountain areas in the Hadrut direction. In these battles, the Special Forces of the Armed Forces of Azerbaijan distinguished themselves.
On October 28-30, the Azerbaijani units were deployed to isolate Shusha and undermine the city’s defenses. In total, about four hundred soldiers marched through forests and ravines for five days, avoiding the well-guarded Lachin corridor and the surrounding Armenian villages and positions. They split into four groups to approach the city from different directions and surround from all sides.
That is, the leadership of the Azerbaijani army resorted to military cunning, which largely predetermined the further fate of the hostilities. By the end of October, the Azerbaijani Armed Forces and Special Forces were breaking through to the Lachin corridor. The Armenian military command was confident that this operation was a key for Azerbaijan since the control over the Lachin corridor would actually deprive the land connection between Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh.
However, against the backdrop of an offensive in the Lachin direction, the Azerbaijani Special Forces and motorized rifles in the last days of October received a new task and immediately moved back to the Hadrut direction. The Armenian intelligence decided that this was a deceptive maneuver to divert attention from the strategically important battle for the Lachin corridor. Moreover, the rugged mountainous and wooded area from Hadrut to Shusha was teeming with Armenian formations and ambushes. Common sense assumed that the Azerbaijani units would not delve into a deliberate trap above the Hadrut direction.
Moreover, the Azerbaijani Armed Forces could not provide the special material and technical assistance, and fire support to these units. Apparently, therefore, the Armenian General Staff considered the movement of a small column of Azerbaijani troops under the cover of Special Forces from Hadrut in the direction of Shusha, which began at the end of October in a wooded mountain strip, as madness. Yerevan strategists decided that this was a false diversionary maneuver, but at the same time, they gave the command to their Karabakh forces to “trap” and destroy the Azerbaijani military convoy and Special Forces.
For several days, literally under the cannonade of battles, a group of Azerbaijani military engineers, motorized rifles’ units, Special Forces, and other types of troops fought their way through the mountains, ravines, and dense forests. The road was hastily made with such a width that lorries with difficulty could advance in a row one after the other. This road was supposed to ensure the advancement of additional forces, following the Special Forces units that had already infiltrated Shusha.
On October 30, military clashes were reported just five kilometers east of Shusha. At this stage, the defending Armenian forces still had a tactical advantage as they controlled the mountains surrounding Shusha.
At dawn on November 1, a column of vehicles: trucks and 200 personnel under the command of Special Forces Colonel Tehran Mansimov moved deep into the enemy. The roar of truck engines in the forest gave the enemy movement. The enemy was on the right and left. As the motorized rifle column advanced, in front of it, reconnaissance and Special Forces were fighting the enemy, trying to divert their attention.
Around the difficult terrain, the enemy fiercely resisted, and therefore, among the reconnaissance and Special Forces, losses were growing. Whether or not a motorized rifle column broke through depended not only on the life of Azerbaijani special forces fighting deep behind enemy lines but also on the fate of further offensive combat operations in general. The column, moving towards Shusha, more than once fallen into Armenian ambushes in the so-called “hellish gorge” in the forests around the villages of Mets Taghlar (Boyuk Taghlar), Taghaverd, Chanakhchi, etc.
Here, in the “hellish gorge” of the Armenian side, on a narrow wooded mountain path, using the method of the Afghan mujahideen, they managed to put out of action the first and last trucks of the Azerbaijani convoy.
A fierce battle ensued, but the Azerbaijani detachment, caught in a trap, were not going to surrender: the main thing was to save and carry out pieces of military equipment. The column fell into a pre-arranged artillery ambush. The entire column came under fire from enemy rocket artillery and mortars. With the support of spotter drones, the Armenian artillery fired from the direction of Lachin, Shushakend, Khankendi, as well as from Qirmizi bazar. Mortars fired from the commanding heights. After 20-30 minutes of such intense fire, the personnel, and the entire column would have been crushed. Losses of personnel grew every minute.
Colonel Tehran Mansimov ordered the commander of the reconnaissance company of the brigade Number X, Captain Allahverdiyev Elmar with a group, to get ahead of the column and throw down into the ravine the burning “Ural” truck which has been put out of action and was at the head of the column, it was necessary to open the way for the rest of the column to move.
Under direct enemy fire, sustaining casualties, a group of reconnaissance officers coped with the task and cleared the path of the column’s advance. After some time, the convoy was again ambushed and hit the truck in the first line again was hit. The reconnaissance officers again, at the cost of their lives, cleared the road from burning equipment, and the column moved forward all the way to the village of Chanakhchi.
Here, the column came under targeted heap fire of Armenian artillery. The column managed to get through here with battles. Here Colonel Tehran Mansimov received a new command from the Supreme Command of the Azerbaijani Armed Forces – to move and take the village of Dashalty, which is the “gateway” of the city of Shusha!
After all, everyone in Azerbaijan remembers the unsuccessful Dashalty military operation of January 1992, when inexperience and the betrayal that took place led to the tragic consequences. Then an Azerbaijani detachment fell into an Armenian ambush, fought heroically, and was almost completely killed.
To carry out the task of capturing Dashalty and Shusha, a joint formation of detachments from different Special Forces brigades and motorized rifles were formed, which arrived in Sighnag, then rushed into a battle in order to capture important strategic heights. In order to start the operation to capture Dashalty and then Shusha, it was necessary to drive out the enemy and take control of the strategic heights around these settlements.
These detachments, infiltrating from the outskirts of Dashalty, should create conditions for the assault of Shusha. Units led by Colonel Tehran Mansimov were tasked with exposing to enemy fire, then detecting, and destroying enemy forces around Dashalty and Shusha. Another detachment must rise and block the Lachin-Shusha road to prevent the advance and raise of enemy forces to Dashalty and Shusha from there. That is, Tehran Mansimov’s units should take all the fire and distract the enemy so that other special forces’ units led by Colonel Kenan Seyidov could get through to Shusha on the left flank and cut off the road here in the Lachin direction.
Before dawn on November 4, an assault on the heights around Dashalty began, which turned into the bloodiest battles during the entire 44-day war. The enemy fought fiercely, realizing that the loss of Dashalty would then lead to the encirclement of Shusha.
By the evening of November 4, the Azerbaijani detachments took almost all the dominant heights over Dashalty on the left and right. On November 5, a reconnaissance company entered Dashalty, but stepped on mines – it was decided to hide not in the village, but in the surrounding forests.
Let us touch upon these decisive battles near Dashalty in more detail, where the fate of the whole military campaign was decided. The enemy decided that the Azerbaijani Armed Forces would set up a headquarters there after the capture of Dashalty. However, the Azerbaijani side understood the enemy’s plans, so it was in no hurry to settle in the village, but took refuge with the wounded in the surrounding forests. The calculation was made correctly – the Armenian side began a large-scale bombing of Dashalty. Heavy artillery, “Smerch” multiple rocket launcher (MRL), “Grad” multiple rocket launcher (MRL), heavy mortars, cluster bombs were used – the village was razed to the ground. However, the enemy miscalculated thinking that the Azerbaijani detachment were stationed in the village.
Then, the so-called forces of the “army of Nagorno-Karabakh” to the tune of nearly 3,000 fighters launched a large-scale counter-offensive in order to drive out the Azerbaijani detachment from the vicinity of Dashalty. The Azerbaijani forces were almost ten times smaller than the Armenian ones. A large-scale Armenian offensive against Dashalty was carried out from Shushakend, Shusha, Khankendi, Qaybali Keybali, and Lachin. In this unequal six-hour-long battle, Azerbaijani detachments did not concede a single position and, at the cost of heavy losses, were able not only to defend themselves but also to launch a counterattack.
Without waiting for the approach of additional forces, detachments decided to ascend from the side of Dashalty to Shusha. It was very important to gain time and not slow down the pace of the offensive. On the orders of Colonel Tehran Mansimov, a small detachment commanded by senior lieutenant Ramazan Udulov broke through the ridge in order to take control of the road to Shusha from the side of the Lachin corridor. Udulov’s detachment of 25 fighters stepped on Armenian mines. However, despite this, Udulov moved forward with the remaining soldiers and managed to take control of the road to Shusha from the Lachin corridor before the arrival of Armenian reinforcements. This later helped a lot when the Azerbaijani Special Forces fought to the Shusha-Khankendi road junction to destroy the approaching enemy.
That is, late in the evening on November 5, Azerbaijani Special Forces entered the main road and managed to block the delivery of enemy reinforcements for the defense of Shusha. This, combined with the destruction of a key bridge across the Hakari River in the Qubadli direction, meant that almost no assistance would be provided to Shusha, as the city was almost surrounded by at least three main directions.
Against this background the detachments, led by Colonel Tehran Mansimov, assaulted Shusha. A heavy battle ensued, in which the enemy encircled Tehran Mansimov’s detachment, but heroically defending they broke through the blockade and fought up to the outskirts of Shusha and the main road.
Today, some Armenian and foreign experts claim that the Armenian army surrendered Dashalty, and then Shusha, practically without a fight. However, in reality, it was clearly not so. The Armenian Armed Forces were motivated and defended Shusha according to all the rules of military warfare. Armenia fought desperately but lost.
The Azerbaijani detachments by number was an order less the enemy – with teeth, nails and unprecedented motivation, had broken through the hard-to-reach mountains and forests to victory. Until now, Armenia cannot understand how the Azerbaijani detachments in the hard-to-reach mountains were able to bypass the enemy’s positions from behind and infiltrate everywhere. For example, Armenians had built a serious defense around Shusha – not only in Dashalty but also from the villages of Shushakend and Mukhtarkend. However, Azerbaijan’s mountain special forces quietly made their way over the rocks and trees from behind and climbed into the enemy’s defensive positions.
The commander of the Special Forces, Lieutenant General Hikmat Mirzayev, even before the start of the movement of the Azerbaijani Special Forces from Sighnag to Dashalty, ordered to bypass the Armenian positions and posts as much as possible, trying to avoid unnecessary battles in order to save manpower for the main task – the liberation of Shusha. Such tactics of movement and maneuvering allowed the Azerbaijani detachments to minimize combat losses and move at lightning speed to the target, preventing the enemy from concentrating.
On the same day after the capture of Dashalty, on November 6, Azerbaijani detachments were storming up the rocks to the outskirts of the city of Shusha. Bloody battles took place in the forests near the approaches to Shusha, where the Azerbaijani detachments discovered and destroyed enemy detachments seeking to encircle the units that entered Shusha. Armenian drones were circling in the sky, artillery and mortars were working.
The Azerbaijani units managed not only to keep the road from Lachin to Shusha but also to occupy the road from Khankendi to Shusha in order to prevent the enemy with heavy armored vehicles and artillery from moving to Shusha from Khankendi. Many have seen Armenian footage of this battle at the entrance to Shusha, where assaulting Azerbaijani Special Forces put out of action two Armenian tanks with lightning speed. A critical situation had arisen; the Special Forces were running out of ammunition, the grenade launchers were no longer there. The battalion of Gyunduz Safarli and the battalion of Saleh Hasanov were desperately fighting there. These two battalions of Special Forces were the first to fight in Shusha. There were desperate battles in the city itself for every building and street.
The Azerbaijani units fortified themselves on the left side of the road that ran from Khankendi, from which it was seen how the enemy re-grouped and was preparing for a counterattack on Shusha.
On November 7, a dense fog fell. This significantly limited the use of air surveillance and strike equipment by the Azerbaijani troops, which gave them an advantage throughout the war. Despite the enemy’s counterattacks, the Azerbaijani forces formed a defensive line in the Shusha forests, at the entrances to the city and after repelling three Armenian counterattacks, they returned to the offensive, seizing the Shusha executive power building and beginning to displace the Armenian forces, methodically clearing buildings and larger areas of the city. The battle for Shusha ultimately came down to hand-to-hand combat on the outskirts and in the city itself. The enemy hastily run towards Khankendi, taking with them a large number of their fighters with knife wounds.
On November 7, at about 7:00 p.m., when it got dark, the Armenian armed forces launched a counteroffensive. About 1,000 enemy manpower marched in a line and in groups. Then they re-grouped into two echelons and move towards Shusha, while Azerbaijani detachments were waiting for the attackers to come as close as possible. The enemy knew the area well and skillfully used the relief and forest.
Azerbaijani units and long-range artillery did almost impossible – they defeated and forced the enemy to flee. Then the Azerbaijani Special Forces destroyed the remnants of the advancing enemy forces right on the spot. After this counterattack of the enemy was repulsed, the Azerbaijani Special Forces and the personnel of the brigade Number X climbed to Shusha to the fortress, which stretches to the city prison. Taking the ancient citadel of Shusha, the Special Forces organized its defense.
On November 7, the city was completely taken, fighters from the “Yashma” Special Forces – the personnel of the battalion under the command of Gyunduz Safarli removed the enemy flag from the building of the Shusha city administration and raised the Azerbaijani flag, on which names of the martyrs were spelled out. The fighters performed the anthem of Azerbaijan and recited adhan (call for prayer).
On the afternoon of November 8, President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev announced the liberation of the city of Shusha and congratulated the Azerbaijani people on this victory. On the night of November 9-10, the war ended – the Trilateral Statement, signed by Ilham Aliyev, Vladimir Putin, and Nikol Pashinyan, was adopted.
However, for several more days, Armenians made unsuccessful attempts to return to the city of Shusha. The outskirts of the city and Shusha itself were strewn with enemy corpses. In just a few days on the way of the advance of the Azerbaijani units with the battles around Dashalty, they counted about 300 corpses and about 550 corpses around Shusha. That is, during the assault on Dashalty and Shusha, over 850 enemy corpses remained on the battlefield, not counting those they managed to take with themselves when retreated. The numbers of casualties are still growing since dead bodies of the enemy are still being discovered in Shusha and around.
Summing up, we can state that the Azerbaijani Armed Forces have brilliantly coped with the task of liberating Karabakh. It is impossible to belittle or forget anyone’s merits. This common historic victory is one for all! The victory of Azerbaijan and its friends! Undoubtedly, the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev plays a key role in this triumphant victory.
He personally took full responsibility despite the considerable risk, unprecedented international pressure, and the unpredictability of the situation. President Ilham Aliyev demonstrated iron will from the start to the end of the war to bring Operation “Iron Fist” to its logical end, the military operation that broke the backbone of the enemy, both in the military-political and diplomatic fields.
ЧИТАТЬ ПОЛНОСТЬЮ19 ноября 2021 г.
Зангезурский коридор, Эрдоган и карта тюркского мира. Почему России не следует опасаться проекта «Великий Туран»
Комментарий директора Центра истории Кавказа, Ризвана Гусейнова
Читать по ссылке:
18 ноября 2021 г.
Карабах Статус-кво после боя - ВИДЕО
Новости Кавказа GSAC
Видео записано утром 16 ноября
Гость программы Откровенный разговор - Карабах Статус-кво после боя, директор Центра истории Кавказа Ризван Гусейнов
00:00 конфликт год спустя - что изменилось
15:00 кого устраивает статус-кво
27:00 аллея славы российских военных
38:00 нужна ли жесткая линия разграничения
44:40 про Лачинский коридор
49:00 Китай и Тюркский Совет
17 ноября 2021 г.
Rizvan HUSEYNOV. "Christian heritage of Karabakh as ‘apple of discord’: overview of conflict history"
Rizvan HUSEYNOV,
Director of the Center for the History of the Caucasus,
Senior researcher at the Institute of Law and Human Rights of Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences (ANAS)
A new era started in the history of the South Caucasus after Azerbaijan liberated its territories from Armenian occupation as a result of the 44-day war in fall 2020. A significant chance emerged for resolving the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, which has been flaring up incessantly for over a century. Thousands of destroyed cities and villages, cemeteries, mosques, churches and other historical and architectural monuments remained in the liberated territories. Restoration of this heritage, including primarily religious and historical sites, is currently in full swing.
Meanwhile, some foreign commentators expressed concern over the future fate of the Christian monuments in Karabakh, erroneously regarding all of them as part of the Armenian spiritual and architectural heritage. Azerbaijan reasonably reminds the international community that the overwhelming majority of these sites pertain to the Christian heritage of the ancient Albanian autocephalous church, the period of the ancient Caucasian Albania, and in particular, the Udi people, who have preserved their Albanian faith to date and cherish their memorable history.
The process of revitalizing the Albanian Autocephalous Apostolic Church on the basis of local Albanian-Udi communities is underway in Azerbaijan. Registration of the Albanian Udi Christian community in the Azerbaijan Republic in 2003 was the first step taken in this direction. In 2010, the Christian Udi community of the town of Oguz was registered (1). These communities, which include thousands of Christians, own several churches. Following the liberation of the occupied territories, Albanian Christian shrines will be restored and some of them transferred to the Christian communities of Azerbaijan.
In this regard, it would be appropriate to provide a brief description of the history of Caucasian Albania, the Albanian autocephalous church and the subsequent “Armenianizing” of this abundant legacy. The ancient Caucasian Albania (endonym-Aran) existed as various state entities (in the 4th century BCE-8th century CE), for more than 1,000 years and further for another millennium in the form of small semi-independent formations up until the 18th century. The ancient Albanian state, which was located approximately within the same boundaries from the ancient time period to the early Middle Ages, spanning from the Araz river in the south to the spurs of the Greater Caucasus mountain range in the north, played an important role in the history of the Caucasus peoples. In some periods of history, the borders of Albania stretched along the Kura river or split between several state entities. The Aranshahs, Aran Atabays and other rulers governed these states in the Middle Ages.
The Azerbaijani people are among primary heirs of the historical and cultural heritage of Albania, whose territory essentially coincides with the present-day borders of the Azerbaijan Republic. Currently, the title “Albania”, derived from ancient Greek sources (Αλβανία) (2), is widespread in the historical science, while “Aran” (ar-Ran or Ran) remains the original geographic name of this area The Anabasis of Alexander, a piece of work written by ancient author Arrian, contains initial accounts regarding the population of Caucasian Albania. Arrian refers to the involvement of Albanians in the Achaemenid army fighting the troops of Alexander the Great during the Battle of Gaugamela in 331 BCE. Therefore, as early as in the 4th century BCE, Albans (Agvans) were famed for their military deeds. According to Strabo, the Albanian nation emerged on the basis of 26 tribes and each of these once spoke its own language and had its own czar; they were later united and ruled by a single czar (3).
The Albanian written language, which was instrumental in spreading and asserting Christianity in the region, facilitated the translation of the Bible and other theological literature from the Syrian and Greek languages from the middle of the 4th century. This is proven by an Albanian rescript (M/8t-13, M/5sh-50) found in 1996 by Academician Z. N. Aleksidze, an associate member of Georgia’s Academy of Sciences, in St. Catherine’s Monastery at the foot of Mount Sinai. Aleksidze noted that the discovery of a complete lectionary created in the Albanian script and language in Sinai directly indicates that advanced Christian writing was applied in Albania. Aleksidze wrote that the information in various sources about available translations of the books of prophets, Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles into the Albanian language was fully confirmed by the Sinai discovery.
Only a nation that possesses a full text of the Bible in its mother tongue may have a lectionary. “The fact that some of the readings discovered in the Albanian lectionary are not encountered in the most ancient Armenian and Georgian lectionaries is worthy of attention as well. This is proof of the fact that the Albanian Lectionary is not a translation from any of these languages, but was compiled independently on the basis of the currently missing Greek Lectionary,” Aleksidze said (4).
Armenian Catholicos Babgen I wrote back in the 6th century with regard to the Christian faith of the Caucasus states, “As we wrote to you earlier, we haven such a faith that is in accord with those of the Georgians and Albanians and each of these is in our own language” (5).
In the 8th-12th centuries, Albanian state entities and the church started to weaken, largely due to the Arab invasion and the fact that Arab rulers were seeking to subordinate the Albanian Church to the Armenian one, which advocated for the Caliphate’s interests in Asia Minor and the Caucasus in that period. It is noteworthy that Gandzasar was mentioned for the first time in the mid-10th century by Armenian Catholicos Ananias I in a message titled “On the Rebellion in the House of Aghvank”, which listed the Gandzasar ruler among senior Albanian clergymen that were independent of the Armenian Church (6). The existence of the Gandzasar Patriarchate was also mentioned in the commentary to the translation of the “Book of Stories” by 17th century author Arakel Davrijetsi. “Patriarchal thrones also existed in Jerusalem, Sis, Akhtamar and Gandzasar (the latter was abolished in the early 19th century),” Davrijetsi wrote (7).
The subsequent period, i.e. the 12th-13th centuries, saw a decline of the Arab Caliphate and its power began to be taken over by Turkic tribes. The spread of Turkic domination in Asia Minor and the Caucasus allowed numerous Christian communities and rulers to bolster their presence, since the Turkic rulers were known for their acceptance of non-Muslims and were often followers of the Christian faith themselves. This period of history was remembered by the flourishing of the Albanian Principality of Khachen and the Patriarchy based in Gandzasar, which housed the department of the Albanian Catholicoi. A great number of religious buildings were constructed in the area, which indicated the high level of architecture. Monastery facilities were becoming centers for the construction of religious worship sites. Many of these were built as ancestral tombs of large feudal families. Most of the remaining domed temples were built in the 13th century. These shrines are part of the monastery complexes of Gandzasar.
The grand appearance of the Gandzasar temple reflects the abundance and strength of the Principality of Khachen and an emerging hope that the Christian population of Albania bound for unification of divided principalities and revitalization of the Albanian state (8). It is particularly worth mentioning that the Khachen ruler called himself “atabay”, which indicates a Turkic trace and influence upon this partially independent principality. The role of Gandzasar bishops from the Hasan-Jalal dynasty increased from 1240. In the late 14th-early 15th century, Gandzasar Monastery served as the chair for the Albanian Catholicoi. From then onward, the Albanian Catholicate had been called Gandzasar. In 1634, the Gandzasar Patriarchate had to recognize the supremacy of the Etchmiadzin Catholicate, but it continued to surpass Armenian clergymen on matters related to the ordainment of Albanian Catholicoi.
Unfortunately, the Gandzasar monastery, just like many other shrines located in Azerbaijan’s Karabakh territory, sustained numerous changes, significant rebuilding or so-called “restoration” aimed at Armenianizing this sample of Albanian spiritual, cultural and historical heritage. Therefore, the original state and significance of Gandzasar may be perceived strictly based on ancient manuscripts, as well as old researches and books. A significant amount of factual data may be derived from the scientific research of Academician J. Orbeli (1887-1961) and the publications of Bishop Makar Barkhudaryants (1834-1906), which reference the condition of temples, inscriptions and tombstone epitaphs prior to their complete “Armenianization”, which started from the beginning or the middle of the 19th century and continues to this day.
Interesting excerpts on the history of Caucasian Albania and Albanians in particular are available in Orbeli’s book titled “Selected works” (Yerevan, 1963). The scholar noted that the Armenians had captured Albania, in particular, the present-day Nagorno-Karabakh and Khachen. Referring to “northern Armenia”, Orbeli explained that in fact, the term implied the land of Albania.
“The images of men armed with swords, bows, quivers, spears, battle axes and spades with little flags waving in the background, as well as warriors that come to the forefront when we research boilers and relief types and those that are very closely consistent with technically much less perfect ornaments of slightly rough cross stones in northern Armenia, more precisely, the southern regions of Albania seized by Armenian feudal lords, just like the current Nagorno-Karabakh and in particular, the region adjacent to Gandzasar, are particularly valuable for keeping chronicles about the everyday life of feudal noblemen of the Caucasus during that epoch (the 12th-13th centuries – R.H.),” Orbeli wrote (9).
Orbeli repeatedly said in his works that the names of Albanian patriarchs, princes and well-known people are mentioned on the gravestones and inscriptions encountered in Gandzasar. Orbeli also places an emphasis in his writing on the personality and tenure of Albanian ruler, Khachen Prince Hasan Jalal Davla. The Principality of Khachen emerged in the Albanian province of Artsakh in Karabakh in the 12th-13th centuries. According to Orbeli, “it was part of ancient Albania”. The principality’s center was based in the basins of Khachenchay and partially Tartarchay rivers. Hasan Jalal (1215-1261), a descendant of the Albanian Mihranids, became the ruler of this principality. Hasan Jalal was a suzerain prince of Khachen and Artsakh (partially).
According to Armenian, Georgian and Persian sources, as well as epigraphic inscriptions, Hasan Jalal had been granted such high titles as “the prince of princes”, “the king of Albania” and “the great borderland possessor of Albania”. Hasan Jalal, himself, was called the tsar and autocrat. His reign may be considered a period of economic, political and cultural revival of Albania.
The ancient Gandzasar Monastery existed long before Hasan Jalal’s tenure, serving as a family tomb of the Khachen rulers, i.e. Jalalids. Hasan Jalal, himself, was buried there. Hasan Jalal built the Gandzasar cathedral in 1216-1238 at the insistence of Albanian Patriarch Nerses. Hasan Jalal, himself, regarded it as “the Albanian patronal cathedral”. Nearly all of the Albanian Catholicoi or patriarchs of the latest period were buried in Gandzasar, which is evidenced by the epigraphy on gravestones dated until as late as 1828. According to Orbeli and other researchers, Prince Hasan Jalal Davla had two brothers, Zakaria Nasr Davla and Ivane Atabeg (10). Evidently, their names and an indication of their affiliation with Azerbaijani Atabays make it clear that this generation of princes has absolutely no bearing on Armenians. It is noteworthy that A. Saint-Martin, a well-known 19th century French scholar dealing with Caucasus studies, also wrote that Hasan Jalal’s brothers and entourage were part of the Eldeguzid dynasty, i.e. Atabays of Azerbaijan (11).
The epigraphic inscriptions of Gandzasar traced back to Hasan Jalal’s tenure cited his title as “the Atabay of Khachen”. Orbeli said in an article titled “Hasan Jalal, Prince of Khachen” that the Gandzasar monastery (built in 1216-1238) was sanctified in 1240 in the presence of Albanian Catholicos Nerses (12). Hasan Jalal’s complimentary note on a book of Gospel that he presented to the Albanian Patriarchy in Gandzasar is particularly worth mention ing. According to Orbeli, this Gospel is currently kept in the Etchmiadzin library. In that note, Hasan Jalal refers to his trip to Mongolia where he would meet Sartak, a son of Batu Khan.
“I (Hasan Jalal Davla) ...went to see the king of shooters in the East ... Thus, in the summer of 1261, I (brought) this holy Gospel, decorated in memory of the Godloving lady (Mamkan), to our bright and holy patronal (monastery) of Albania, the spiritual father Nerses ...” (13).
Mamkan, Hasan Jalal’s wife, built a magnificent architectural facility at the gate of the Gandzasar church. It was solemnly consecrated in 689 Hijri (1240 AD) in the presence of the Albanian Catholicos. A relevant inscription that remained to date reads, “This church was consecrated in 689 (1240) during the patriarchate of TerNerses, the Catholicos of Albania.”
Some inscriptions made on gravestones say “This herein is the grave of Gregory, the Catholicos of Albania, in 1102 (1653)”, “This is the grave of Yeremin, the Catholicos of Albania from the dynasty of Jalal Dola, in 1149 (1700)” and “This is the grave of Albanian Catholicos Yesayi...1177 (1728)”.
Local residents referred to Gandzasar as Albanian land even in the late 17th century. Having restored the roof of the monastery, Apav, a priest from the Talysh village, left an inscription there that says, “We built roofs and [rebuilt] the collapsed walls of churches in the holy throne of the Albanian Gandzasar at the expense of our righteous funds” (14).
The significance of the Gandzasar patriarchy started to diminish gradually from the 17th-18th centuries. Despite having lost their political secular power, representatives of the Hasan Jalal dynasty remained spiritual leaders. They continued to serve as patriarchs, i.e. the Catholicoi of the independent Albanian church until the early 19th century, a period of history that saw the beginning of northern Azerbaijan’s accession to the Russian Empire. First, the title of the Albanian Patriarch (Catholicos) was abolished by the Czar’s decree in 1815.
From then onward, the senior priest of the Albanian Church served as a metropolitan bishop. On March 11, 1836, Emperor of Russia Nicholas I signed special “Regulations” on the status of the Armenian Church consisting of 10 chapters and 111 clauses (15). According to this document (16), the Czar’s mandate abolished the Albanian Catholicate (Gandzasar Patriarchate) (17).
It was replaced by the two newly established dioceses (Artsakh-Shusha and Shamakhi) under the jurisdiction of the Armenian Catholicate (Etchmiadzin Patriarchate) and the vicariate of Ganja, created as part of the Tiflis consistory of the Armenian Church. In 1909-1910, the Russian Holy Synod authorized the Etchmiadzin Synod and the Erivan Armenian-Gregorian consistory to destroy the old archival files of the subordinate dioceses. Apparently, the Albanian Church archives that had remained available until then were among those documents.
Bishop Makar Barkhudaryants noted the deplorable condition of the Gandzasar monastery in the late 19th century when the shrine was already overseen by the Armenian Church. He wrote that “the wonderful monastery is crumbling morally and materially as stones are gradually falling out and breaking up”. He also said “a great number of precious manuscripts have been looted, while the remaining manuscripts, as we have seen, succumbed to dampness and negligence; services have not been performed in the monastery for months, because there are no literate people, schools, monks or just ordinary lectors” (18).
The information provided by Barkhudaryants also makes it clear that the Albanian Church had nine episcopacies in the mountainous part of Karabakh alone back in 1828. Its institutions were entirely “in a flourishing state” and “the monasteries were inhabited”. The monasteries were gradually abandoned, losing monk communities, after the abolition of the Albanian Catholicate.
Afterwards, the unattended shrines mostly started collapsing, according to available data (19). The 1836 order of Russian Emperor Nicholas I on the abolition of the Albanian autocephalous church and the handover of its property, books and churches to the jurisdiction of the Armenian Church had tragic consequences for the Albanian culture and people.
Following the loss of churches’ independence and amid ongoing mass settlement of Armenians in the Karabakh region (the territory of the former Caucasian Albania), the process of “Gregorianization” (Armenianization) of the local Christian population (descendants of Caucasian Albanians) was launched and Albans began to be considered Armenians. Later, this fact was admitted by Armenian scholars. A book by historian B. Ishkhanyan, published in Petrograd in 1916, notes that “the Armenians living in Nagorno-Karabakh are partly aborigines, descendants of ancient Albanians, and partly refugees from Turkey and Iran, for whom Azerbaijani land became a shelter from persecution” (20).
The mentioned “Armenianization”, which started long before Russia’s entry to the region, also affected the dynasty of Hasan Jalal and its members started to be called “the Jalalyans”. Albanian Catholicos Yesai, who held the patriarchal throne in 1702-1728, described the roots and origin of the Albans in “A Brief History of the Country of Albania” (21). He noted frequent Armenian attempts to appropriate Albanian culture and faith with the support of major powers. The Albanian Catholicos aired grievance over the fact that the Armenians were accomplishing their goal time and time again and said he was probably the last descendant of the Albanians who “ruled his land”.
The entire 18th century was marred by rivalry over domination between the Armenian Etchmiadzin church and the Albanian Church of Gandzasar and the latter was ultimately defeated. Following the arrival of tsarist Russia in the Caucasus in the early 19th century, the Albanian church lost its status and the Russian authorities relied on Etchmiadzin instead. Raffi (Hakob MelikHakobyan), a 19th century Armenian writer, said the following with regard to Gandzasar in “The Princedoms of Khamsa”, “It is known that the Catholicate of Aghvank existed for 15 centuries, i.e. from the times of Grigoris (a grandson of St. Gregory the Illuminator- R.H.) until 1828. Various monasteries of the country of Aghvank had been the residence for the Catholicoi. Recently, the Gandzasar monastery in the Khachen province of Karabakh served this purpose,” Raffi wrote (22).
“We should not forget that not only Karabakh, but also Gandzak, Shamakhi, Nukha, Derbent and other provinces were the dioceses of the Aghvank Catholicate,” he said (23).
Referring to Karabakh Christians, Raffi wrote that “these people are accustomed to being independent of Etchmiadzin and having their own special spiritual leadership, which was fulfilled by the Catholicate of Aghvank for many centuries” (24).
Russian documents (25) include a letter written by Israel, the latest Albanian patriarch, who indignantly noted gradual abolition of the Albanian Church and its re-subordination to the Ararat (Etchmiadzin) Catholicos, who previously had no bearing whatsoever on Albanians, whose patriarchy was located in Karabakh at the Amaras monastery (in Azerbaijan’s Khojavand district). The patriarch stressed that they were Armenians by faith (Monophysites/ Gregorians) and had never reported or belonged to the Ararat (Etchmiadzin) Patriarchate.
The mentioned document said it was “a letter of Aghvan Patriarch Israel to Count Gudovich, dated August 19, 1806”. “About 1,400 years have passed since Grigoris, a grandson of great Armenian Saint Gregory, was ordained as Patriarch,” the letter said. It reads further that “all Armenians living in Karabakh, Yelizavetpol, Shaki and Shirvan… i.e. the Aghvan province, was assigned to his diocese at his full disposal”. This right with regard to this monastery has been valid to date “and former Ararat patriarchs had no business and never dealt with it”, the cleric wrote, adding that decision-making depended entirely “on a single Amaras patriarch” (26).
Despite the Albanian patriarch’s request, the czarist autocracy reassigned the Albanian churches to Etchmiadzin. The Russian authorities neglected the fact that the congregations of the Armenian and Albanian churches included representatives of completely different peoples. This was followed by a riot led by Albanian Patriarch Israel (27). In the long run, the autocracy quelled the rebellion. The Albanian churches and worshippers were subsequently subordinated to the Etchmiadzin Catholicos, while the Albanian patriarch who spearheaded the riot was exiled and died shortly thereafter. Afterwards, the Etchmiadzin church started insistently asking the czarist autocracy to subordinate the churches and congregations in Karabakh and Ganja to it as well (28). Etchmiadzin’s request was fulfilled; the Armenian Church completely took over and destroyed the heritage, temples, culture and peoples of Caucasian Albania at the hands of the autocracy.
These developments occurred against the backdrop of mass settlement of Armenians from Turkey, Iran and the Middle East to the South Caucasus, in particular, Karabakh, Zangazur and Erivan, in the 19th and 20th centuries. Russian scholar N. Shavrov, who was closely involved in enforcing the measures on colonizing the Caucasus, said “more than 1 million out of 1.3 million Armenians living in Transcaucasia were not among indigenous residents and we settled them in the region” by the early 20th century.
The historian mentioned the “highland part of the Yelizavetpol governorate”, i.e. the present-day NagornoKarabakh, among the areas populated by Armenian settlers. Shavrov particularly stressed that “Armenians from among landless newcomers, having widely used perjury, seized vast state-owned land” (29).
The mass settlement of Armenians in the South Caucasus continued during the USSR period and after its collapse. It was marred by consistent expulsion of local Azerbaijani population in 1918-20, as well as in 1947-53 and 1988-1993. About a million Azerbaijanis were ousted from Armenia and Karabakh during the Karabakh conflict alone. However, this matter is a topic for another research project. This article briefly references the reasons for the conflicting views between Armenian and Azerbaijani people concerning historical, spiritual and architectural heritage. Our goal is to prevent any attempts to plant “an apple of discord” and trigger conflict between the two nations. In doing so, it is necessary to take stock of the historical developments and political pre-conditions that caused the conflict in order to avoid its reoccurrence in the future.
References :
1. «Удин - Аркадий Владимирович из Кировобада - вымысел армянского агитпропа», 25 мая 2012 года - https://www.turantoday.com/2012/05/blog-post_25.html)
2. арм. Աղռւաճղ, Алуанк; груз. რანი, Рани; парф. Ardan; сирийск. Аран; арабо-персид. Ар-Ран, Арран
3. Страбон. География: в 17-ти кн. (перевод Г.А.Стратановского). Л., М., 1964. кн. XI, гл.4.
4. Алексидзе З.Н. Предварительное сообщение об идентификации и дешифровки албанского текста, обнаруженного на Синайской горе // ThehistoryofCaucasus. The scientific-public Almanac. Issue No1, Baku, 21-24 of may 2001.
5. Православная энциклопедия. М., 2000. Т.I, с.458.
6. Архимандрит Хачатур Дадян. Записки об «Истории Страны Агванк» Св. Эчмиадзина. Эчмиадзин, Арарат, 1896).
7. Аракел Даврижеци. Книга историй. (пер. Л. А. Ханларян). М. 1973, Глава 24,
8. Мамедова Г.Г. Культовое зодчество Кавказской Албании (IV–XIV вв.). Баку: Элм, 1997, c. 97-99
9. Орбели И.А. Избранные труды, Ереван, 1963 г., статья «Албанские рельефы и бронзовые котлы», с.358.
10. Нефритовая кинжальная рукоять хранится в Кавказском Музее, (И.А.Орбели. Избранные труды, с. 149 // «Известиях Императорской Академии наук», 1909, VI серия, том III, No61, стр. 377-389
11. Saint-Martin M. «Mémories historiques et géografique sur l’Arménie», Vol. II, Paris, 1819, p 81
12. И.А.Орбели «Избранные труды», Ереван, 1963 г, стр. 150
13. Там же,с.155
14. Рашид Геюшев. Гандзасар, памятник Кавказской Албании. Баку, Элм, 1986 г.
15. Православная энциклопедия. Т.3. М., 2001. с. 349
16. Православная энциклопедия. Т.3. М., 2001. с. 338-339
17. ЦГИА, справка 1907 г., фонд 821, опись 139 (173) единица хранения 96
18. Бархударянц М. Арцах – НАИИАНА инв. No1622, ч.I, с.160
19. Там же, с. 5
20. Ишханян Б. Народности Кавказа. Петроград, 1916
21. Есаи Хасан-Джалалян. Краткая история страны Албанской (1702-1722 гг.) (перевод Т. И. ТерГригоряна). Баку: Элм. 1989
22. Раффи. Меликства Хамсы. Перевод с армянского Л.М.Казаряна. Ереван, «Наири», 1991, с. 38
23. Указ. соч., с. 50
24. Указ. соч., с. 74-75
25. Акты, собранные Кавказской археографической комиссией (АКАК), под редакцией А.П.Берже. Том III. Тип. Главного управления наместника Кавказского. Тифлис, 1869, с. 79-81
26. АКАК, с. 79
27. Предписанiе гр. Гудовича ген.-м. Небольсину, отъ 11-го ноября 1807 года, No 603. АКАК, том II, 151, с. 80
28. Записка Армянского apxieпископа Ioаннeca, поданная гр. Гудовичу. АКАК, том III, 152, с. 81
29. Издание русского собрания. Шавров Н.Н. «Новая угроза русскому делу в Закавказье», СПб., 1911, стр. 59-61).