Recently, historical revisionist Rizvan Huseinov visited the occupied territory of Artsakh, where he filmed a series of videos at various monastic complexes, including Gandzasar, Dadivank, and Amaras (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UepIvPZPP10, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vq_FGVt-PC0). In these videos, Huseinov articulated the principal Azerbaijani propaganda thesis, alleging that Armenians have desecrated the historical integrity of these monasteries, engaged in Armenianization, and altered them.

This thesis is not novel; it has been propagated over the past four years and is frequently reiterated in most Azerbaijani media outlets. In September 2024, Huseinov focused his attention on the three most renowned monasteries of Artsakh, presenting the "damages caused by Armenians" as a central theme. Essentially, this propaganda thesis is manifested at the very sites of these monuments, with every detail being interpreted within its framework. The selection of the three most renowned monasteries in Artsakh is not coincidental. Following the complete occupation of Artsakh after the September 2023 war, these monasteries—particularly Gandzasar and Amaras—were specifically targeted by the Azerbaijani authorities. The aforementioned Rizvan Huseinov made special reference to these monuments (https://monumentwatch.org/en/alerts/expropriation-of-gandzasar-begins/).

An analysis of these videos indicates that the territories of the Gandzasar and Amaras monastery complexes are currently inaccessible to visitors; the entrances are sealed and locked. It is evident that the Azerbaijani authorities assign special significance to these monasteries in their propaganda efforts, yet they do not permit their citizens to visit them.

Now let's examine the specific assertions made by Huseinov regarding the Gandzasar and Dadivank monasteries. In his video about Gandzasar Monastery (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UepIvPZPP10), Huseinov alleges that the inscriptions on the church walls were added by Armenians within the last hundred years and are therefore falsifications. It is important to note that on the exterior facades of the Church of Surb Hovhannes-Mkrtich and its gavit, there are numerous donative inscriptions. These inscriptions provide extensive information about the political, spiritual, and economic realities of medieval Artsakh. Dismissing them as falsifications constitutes a direct affront to the authentic history of the region. Furthermore, when discussing the external walls of the church, Huseinov points out that certain facing stones adjacent to the red stones in the wall are new. He claims that these stones were brought from Armenia, particularly from Etchmiadzin, and interprets this as evidence of attempts to "Armenianize" the church. Huseinov asserts that the sole inscription remaining intact pertains to the church's construction. He claims to have deciphered this inscription, presenting a “fantastic” version. According to his interpretation, the monastery was constructed by Hasan-Jalal, whom he describes as the Turkic governor of Khachen, known for "accepting Armenian Monophysitism." He further reports that the inscription mentions Hasan-Jalal's wives, the people from Caucasian Albania, the leader of the church from Albania, and a certain Kochu Bey.

These propagandistic claims are notable for their lack of historical accuracy and logical coherence. Gandzasar Monastery is one of the most extensively researched monuments in Artsakh. There exists a substantial body of photographic documentation of the monastery, including images dating back to the nineteenth century, which demonstrate the intact state of the church's walls and inscriptions. It would be beneficial for Huseinov to be made aware of these facts. The inscriptions of Gandzasar Monastery have been published on numerous occasions, including during the Soviet era, when research in the area required official permission from Soviet Azerbaijan. A substantial corpus of foreign-language literature exists on the monastery, with numerous references in the works of international scholars. The inscription concerning the construction of the church remains accurately preserved; therefore, it is erroneous to claim that it has been published and modified multiple times. Such assertions are unfounded. It would be beneficial for Huseinov to ascertain the true identity of Hasan-Jalal and specify the language in which the construction inscription was documented. It is curious that, in one instance, the comprehensive Armenian inscription is regarded as historical, while the adjacent inscriptions are dismissed as falsifications. We also recommend that Huseinov gains a deeper understanding of the tenets of the Armenian Apostolic Church. Our team has published numerous articles on Gandzasar, which include links to a wealth of resources on the monastery. It would be beneficial for Huseinov to read this (The Monastery of Gandzasar: general information, https://monumentwatch.org/en/monument/the-monastery-of-gandzasar-general-information/, Surb Hovhannes Mkrtich church of Gandzasar, https://monumentwatch.org/en/monument/surb-hovhannes-mkrtich-church-of-gandzasar/, The dome and sculptural compositions of the Surb Hovhannes Mkrtich Church of Gandzasar, https://monumentwatch.org/en/monument/the-dome-and-sculptural-compositions-of-the-surb-hovhannes-mkrtich-church-of-gandzasar/, The gavit and secular buildings of Gandzasar, https://monumentwatch.org/en/monument/the-gavit-and-secular-buildings-of-gandzasar/, The khachkars and tombstones of Gandzasar, https://monumentwatch.org/en/monument/the-khachkars-and-tombstones-of-gandzasar/).

The next monument about which Huseinov displays "considerable erudition" is Dadivank (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vq_FGVt-PC0). Of particular interest is the Katoghike Church of Dadivank, constructed in 1214 by Arzukhatun, the wife of Prince Vakhtang of Haterk. This structure has become the target of his claims. Huseinov dismisses the extensive construction incription carved on the southern facade of the church, the prominent sculptures, and the multicolored composition—which, according to him, were made with stones brought from Echmiadzin in the last decade—as inauthentic.

It is notable that, in the context of allegations of "Armenianization" and "falsification" of numerous monuments in Artsakh, responsibility is often attributed to the broader "Armenian side" or "Armenians" in general. However, in the cases of Gandzasar, Dadivank, and Amaras, the Azerbaijani perspective directly holds the official Etchmiadzin—and consequently, the Armenian Apostolic Church—accountable, a factor less evident in discussions surrounding other monuments.

Huseinov lacks familiarity with the architectural style of the region, as demonstrated by his misunderstanding of the gavit, which was constructed using rough stones and intentionally left unclad, giving it a distinct appearance. Huseinov is unable to distinguish between a gavit and a church, as he mistakenly presents the gavit as a church. Furthermore, it is curious that the monastery's secular, economic, and auxiliary structures are presented as the oldest parts of the complex, despite the revisionist's apparent ignorance of this fact.

One of the most notable claims made by Rizvan Huseinov is the association of the monastery's construction with Prince Hasan-Jalal. Another intriguing notion is his interpretation of the frescoes in the Katoghike Church as examples of early medieval art, despite the church's actual date being placed by Huseinov in the 13th century. Additionally, in Dadivank, Huseinov presents the so-called Albanian church as a Dyophysitic structure.

When discussing the preservation of Dadivank, it would be pertinent to remind Huseinov that during the Soviet era, the monastery fell into a dilapidated and semi-ruined state as a result of policies implemented by Soviet Azerbaijan. This is evidenced by photographs of the monastery taken during that period. Furthermore, it is important to note that the inscriptions of the monastery were researched during the Soviet years—a process that could not have occurred without the permission of the Soviet authorities in Azerbaijan. This took place in the Karvachar region, which was depopulated and resettled by Kurds and Azerbaijanis who, with the authorization of central and regional authorities, destroyed a significant portion of the region's monuments and brought Dadivank to the brink of destruction.

We are posting our team's articles about Dadivank, where the monastery complex is discussed in detail. On this topic, see The monastic complex of Dadivank. General information, https://monumentwatch.org/en/monument/the-monastic-complex-of-dadivank-general-information/, About Saint Dadi and his grave, https://monumentwatch.org/en/monument/dadivank-about-saint-dadi-and-his-grave/, Katoghike (main) Church of Dadivank and related structures, https://monumentwatch.org/en/monument/katoghike-main-church-of-dadivank-and-related-structures/, Dadivank’s small domed church, bell tower, khachkars, and chapels, https://monumentwatch.org/en/monument/dadivanks-small-domed-church-bell-tower-khachkars-and-chapels/, The Secular Monument Group of Dadivank,https://monumentwatch.org/en/monument/the-secular-monument-group-of-dadivank/.

Our response

The Albanization of Armenian historical churches, such as Dadivank and Gandzasar, represents a denial of Armenian identity and constitutes a violation of the principle of authenticity as defined by UNESCO. This process of erasing history and identity is a cause for serious concern. The importance of preserving the authenticity of cultural heritage is emphasized in the 1994 UNESCO Nara Document on Authenticity, adopted in Japan (https://www.icomos.org/charters/nara-e.pdf).

It is pertinent to recall that the International Court of Justice in The Hague, in a ruling issued on 7 December 2021, prohibited acts of desecration against Armenian churches. The Court stated: "Azerbaijan is obliged to take all necessary measures to prevent and punish acts of vandalism and desecration that were carried out against Armenian cultural heritage..." (International Court of Justice, Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Armenia v. Azerbaijan), 7 December 2021, No. 2021/34).

By the International Court of Justice's orders and judgments, Azerbaijan is obligated to protect Armenian cultural values from destruction and desecration, as well as to fulfill other obligations under international law (IAGS Resolution on Nagorno-Karabakh, adopted by genocide scholars). For further details, please refer to the IAGS Resolution on Nagorno-Karabakh, available at the following link: https://www.genocidescholars.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/IAGS-Resolution-on-Nagorno-Karabakh.pdf?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR3jruxe_4TX6D8cRs4CEODxt4mQlPfTyk0PVYLQlyAWKCTN_TSSm0mPDpc_aem_7mqrXY0pJCklMbMcmSi8Jg.

According to Article 4 of the 1954 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and Article 9(c) of its Second Protocol of 1999, any transformation of cultural property, change in its use, or alteration intended to conceal or destroy cultural, historical, or scientific evidence is strictly prohibited.

Following PACE Resolution 2583, the claim that Armenian cultural values and their affiliation with the Albanian are falsifications has been acknowledged as an "Azerbaijani fiction" (Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Humanitarian Consequences of the Conflict Between Armenia and Azerbaijan/Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict, Resolution 2391 [2021], Article 18). Furthermore, the alteration of the function of churches contravenes the fundamental cultural right of the Armenian community to maintain and practice their religious beliefs and rituals in their authentic form, as enshrined in Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.