Armenians in Post-Socialist Europe 9783412502263, 9783412501556

Citation preview

Armenier im östlichen Europa Armenians in Eastern Europe Edited by Bálint Kovács and Stefan Troebst Together with Marina Dmitrieva and Christian Lübke Volume 3 Editorial Board: René Bekius, Amsterdam (NL) Gérard Dédéyan, Montpellier (FR) Waldemar Deluga, Warsaw (PL) Viktor I. Djatlov, Irkutsk (RU) Armenuhi Drost-Abgarjan, Halle/S. (DE) Irina Ja. Hajuk, L’viv (UA) Richard G. Hovannisian, Los Angeles (US) Andreas Kappeler, Vienna (AT) Armen Ju. Kazarjan, Moscow (RU) Kéram Kévonian, Paris (FR) Dickran Kouymjian, Fresno (US) Rudi Matthee, Newark (US) Evgenija Mitseva (†), Sofia (BG) Claire Mouradian, Paris (FR) Claude Mutafian, Paris (FR) Aleksandr L. Osipjan, Kramatorsk (UA) Judit Pál, Cluj-Napoca (RO) Irina N. Skvorcova, Minsk (BY) Anna Sirinian, Bologna (IT) Krzysztof Stopka, Cracow (PL) Šušanik Xačikjan, Yerevan (AM)

Armenians in Post-Socialist Europe Edited by Konrad Siekierski and Stefan Troebst

2016 BÖHL­AU VER­L AG KÖLN WEI­M AR WIEN

Gedruckt mit Unterstützung des / This publication was made possible by the generous funding of Geisteswissenschaftlichen Zentrums Geschichte und Kultur Ostmitteleuropas e.V. an der Universität Leipzig. Das dieser Publikation zugrunde liegende Vorhaben wurde mit Mitteln des Bundesministeriums für Bildung und Forschung unter dem Förderschwerpunkt „Geisteswissenschaftliche Zentren“ (Förderkennzeichen 01UG1410) gefördert. Die Verantwortung für den Inhalt dieser Veröffentlichung liegt bei den Autoren.

Deutsche Nationalbibliothek Cataloging-in-publication data: http://portal.dnb.de

Cover illustration: Front pages of Armenian journals: Aniv, 1 (10), 2007 (Belarus/Russia); Ararat, 17–18 (468–469), 2013 (Romania); Orer, 5–7 (68), 2013 (the Czech Republic). Used with permission of publishers. Cover design by Konrad Siekierski and Böhlau Verlag.

© 2016 by Böhlau Verlag GmbH & Cie, Köln Weimar Wien Ursulaplatz 1, D–50668 Köln, www.boehlau-verlag.com All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. Translations: Jakub Ozimek (chapters by David Davtyan and Andrzej Tichomirow) and Nikolina Panova (chapter by Siranush Papazian-Tanielian) Copy Editing: Patrick White, Leipzig Production: WBD Wissenschaftlicher Bücherdienst, Köln Printed on acid-free and chlorine-free bleached paper ISBN 978-3-412-50155-6

In memory of Dr. Tomasz Marciniak (1966–2015)

Contents Stefan Troebst Editorial to the Book Series Armenier im östlichen Europa – Armenians in Eastern Europe  .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

9

Note on Transliteration 

11

............................................................

Konrad Siekierski Studying Armenians in Post-Socialist Europe: Problems and Perspectives 

.. . . . . . . . . . 

13

Viktor Dyatlov Armenians of Contemporary Russia: Diasporic Strategies of Integration  .. . . . . . . . . . .  26 Ulrike Ziemer Unsettled Identity Negotiations: The Armenian Diaspora in Krasnodar Krai  Annett Fleischer Armenian Returnees from Russia: Struggles between Reintegration and Re-Emigration 

.......

39

...............................

54

Timothy K. Blauvelt & Christofer Berglund Armenians in the Making of Modern Georgia  .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  69 David Davtyan The Armenian Diaspora in Post-Socialist Ukraine 

..................................

86

.....................................

98

.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

107

Lidia Prisac & Ion Xenofontov The Armenians in the Republic of Moldova: Demographic, Cultural, and Religious Aspects  Andrzej Tichomirow Armenians in Belarus Today and in the Past 

Aghasi Tadevosyan & Alina Poghosyan Transculturation as a Fragmented Dialogue: Everyday Practices of an Armenian Migrant Family in Latvia  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  121

8

Contents

Brigitta Davidjants Identity Construction in Narratives: Activists of the Armenian Diaspora in Estonia  .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  129 Łukasz Łotocki The Post-Soviet Armenian Immigration to Poland  .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  143 Hakob Asatryan The Armenians in the Czech Republic: A Community in the Making 

..............

Hakob A. Matevosyan Incompatible Identities: The Armenian Diasporic Communities in Hungary  István Horváth & Ilka Veress The Armenians in Romania: Cultural Strategies and State Policies 

159

.......

170

.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

179

Siranush Papazian-Tanielian The Community Life of Armenians in Post-Socialist Bulgaria  .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  193 Konrad Siekierski Completing the Story: Armenians in Other Countries of Post-Socialist Europe  . . . . .  205

List of Contributors  .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  221 Index  

.............................................................................. 

224

Stefan Troebst

Editorial to the Book Series Armenier im östlichen Europa – Armenians in Eastern Europe While the formative presence of Jews and German in the medieval and the modern history of Eastern Europe is for a long time in the focus of research in the humanities and social sciences, the Armenian dimension is much less so. “I pass over the Armenians, whom I regard only as travelers in our continent”, wrote in 1791 Johann Gottfried Herder in his famous Ideas of a Philosophy of the History of Mankind  1 – a perception which more than two hundred years later still seems to prevail. Of course, in numbers the Armenians have here always been much less than Jews and Germans, and in the 19th century they have assimilated to a high degree to their respective host societies. But then there were the waves of flight and expulsion from the Ottoman Empire and ultimately from post-Soviet South Caucasus to the Balkans, to East-Central Europe and to Russia. Accordingly, in historical terms the Armenian presence here is a multi-layered one, and the segments of Armenian communities from today’s Bulgaria to Estonia and from the Czech Republic to the Russian Federation differ considerably in terms of culture, denomination, identity and even language. The book series Armenier im östlichen Europa – Armenians in Eastern Europe with Böhlau Publishers, inaugurated in 20142, is the offspring of a research project on “Armenians in the Economy and Culture of Eastern Europe (14th to 19th Centuries)” conducted by the Leipzig Centre for the History and Culture of East-Central Europe (GWZO) and financed by the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF) during the years 2008 – 2013. In the book series monographs, collective volumes and source editions as well as translations of recent and older texts from lesser accessible languages like Armenian, 1 Herder, Johann Gottfried: Outlines of a Philosophy of the History of Man. Translated by T. O. ­Churchill. London: Printed for J. Johnson by L. Hansard 1800 (Reprint New York: Bergman, 1966), p. 703. The German original reads: “Ich übergehe die Armenier, die ich in unserm Weltteil nur als Reisende betrachte“. See Herder, Johann Gottfried: Ideen zur Philosophie der Geschichte der Menschheit. Vierter Teil. Sechzehntes Buch: V. Fremde Völker in Europa. In Idem: Werke. Ed. by Wolfgang Pross. Vol. III/1. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 2002, p. 647. 2 The volume first published in the series is Die Kunst der Armenier im östlichen Europa edited by Marina Dmitrieva and Bálint Kovács (Köln, Weimar, Wien: Böhlau, 2014). This volume deals with architecture, art, and museum collections of Armenians in East-Central Europe. See also: http://www.boehlau-verlag.com/978-3-412-21107-3.html.

10

Stefan Troebst

Hungarian or Ukrainian will be published. The idea behind is to bring into a productive dialogue not only specialists in Armenian Studies with those in East European Studies, but also historians and art historians with anthropologists, sociologist and experts in migration and diaspora studies. As a result, this series will help to highlight the Armenian impact on the history and present of Eastern Europe and simultaneously to put Southeastern Europe, East-Central Europe and Eurasia on the global map of Armenian diasporas. Leipzig, October 2015

Note on Transliteration Preparing this volume, we faced the problem of having to romanise a number of alphabets, including Armenian and six national versions of Cyrillic. For the sake of consistency as well as the full reversibility, in bibliographic references we stuck to ISO standards: ISO 9985 (1996) for Armenian, and ISO 9 (1995) for Belarusian, Bulgarian, Macedonian, Serbian, Russian, and Ukrainian. Tables of romanisation in these standards are readily available online. However, recognising the fact that ISO standards introduce some rather counter-intuitive solutions, and sacrifice simplicity for the sake of unequivocalness, we used simplified romanisation styles (selected by each author him/herself ) in the main body of the texts, wherever terms from local languages, as well as personal, geographical and institutional names were introduced. One of the results of this solution is that in the Index the names of the authors writing in the languages listed above are presented according to ISO standards, or both in ISO and the simplified version (if a given name appears in the main text too). Other names are written in the Index only in a simplified style.

Konrad Siekierski

Studying Armenians in Post-Socialist Europe Problems and Perspectives

State of Research This volume is the first to address the modern Armenian presence in the countries of post-socialist Europe. The spatial focus of the fifteen following chapters is delineated by political and geographical borders, within which the countries of the former Central and Eastern European socialist camp, as well as the European part of the former Soviet Union, are located. While these borders are rather easy to trace on a map, they embrace a vast and enormously diverse territory in political, economic, linguistic, ethnic, and religious terms, divided into more than twenty states, but at the same time ‘united’ by a shared communist past. As this last caveat suggests, in its temporal aspect the volume focuses on the period that followed the socio-political changes of the late 1980s and early 1990s, which led to the fall of the Iron Curtain and the Soviet Union.1 The discussion of the modern Armenian diaspora in the region is, nevertheless, preceded in most chapters by an overview of the historical presence of Armenians in a given territory. One can speak about ‘residual’ (as in Albania or Romania), ‘emergent’ (as in the Baltic States) or ‘dominant’ (as in Russia) Armenian diasporic populations in the region (Tölölyan 2000: 112 – 113); those more ‘rooted’ and those more ‘en route’ (Clifford 1994). They differ according to the time and reasons of their settlement, their history and heritage, their current size, organisational structures, legal and social position, and other aspects. While in some countries the Armenian presence stretches back to the Middle Ages, in others it only goes back to the early 20th century or to Soviet times. Regarding population size, Serbia and Macedonia are each home to around 300 Armenians, while, in contrast, the number of Armenian citizens in Russia totals 1,200,000, most of them concentrated in its European part (the number of immigrants without citizenship is estimated to be at least equally high). In some countries (e. g. Hungary, Poland, and Romania) Armenians enjoy the status of a state-recognised national/ethnic minority, while in other countries this is not the case. Forms and the scale of state support for their associations also differ significantly – from securing a representation in Parliament and an annual allocation from the central budget in Romania, to a more or less developed system of non-governmental organisations and competition for grants in most other cases. 1 In general, papers in this volume cover the period until 2012-2014.

14

Konrad Siekierski

As observed by Anna Triandafyllidou: Migration movements within Central and Eastern Europe and the development of related migrant diasporas are to date relatively underresearched topics. Also, little attention has been paid to the process of identity negotiation that takes place between post–1989 migrants, their co-ethnic minorities native to the host state and the host state national majority (Triandafyllidou 2009: 226).

Similarly, the Armenian presence in the region is an underdeveloped field of study. A handful of scholars specialising in the topic are as dispersed as the people they study, and the scope and fine-grained level of published works is often insufficient. Admittedly, the situation differs from country to country. Whereas Armenians in Russia have gained attention from quite a number of scholars (e. g. Arutûnân 1991, 2001; Brednikova, Čikadze 1998; Cavoukian 2013; Firsov 2006; Firsov, Krivušina 2004; Galkina 2006; Korâkin 2006; Lur'e 1999; Mokin 2007; Oussatcheva 2001; Ter-Sarkisânc 1998; Ziemer 2009, 2010, 2011), and in Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, or Romania they also have ‘their’ researchers (e. g. Arzumanyan 2015; Kali 2007, 2012; Kokot 2009; Łotocki 2006, 2008; Marciniak 2000, 2005, 2008; Miceva 2001; Miceva, Papazân-Tanielân 2007; Pełczyński 1997; Siekierski 2010 – 2011, 2014; Veress 2009, 2010; Ziętek 2008), in many other countries they are basically ‘orphaned’. Regardless of these differences, anthropological/sociological contributions to Armenian Studies as a rule give way to other (mostly historical) research. At the same time, the current Armenian presence in the countries of the post-socialist Europe apparently ranks low among the specialists in migration, diaspora, and transnational studies. Two telling examples here are The Encyclopedia of Migration and Minorities in Europe: From the 17th Century to the Present (Bade et al. 2011) and The Encyclopedia of Diasporas: Immigrant and Refugee Cultures around the World (Ember et al. 2005). The former, an 860-page tome, contains two articles on Armenians: one devoted to 18th century Armenian merchants in Russia, another to Armenian refugees in France during and after World War One, with no mention at all of today’s Armenian diaspora in Central and Eastern Europe. The second book, a 1200-page compendium, contains only one entry on the Armenian diaspora (in comparison, other ‘classic’ diasporas – Chinese, Greek, and Jewish have nineteen, two, and thirteen entries, respectively). In his concise overview, Tölölyan recognises that “between 1356 and 1604 Poland’s was the largest and richest Armenian diaspora community” (Tölölyan 2005: 38), but later on he remains silent about the modern Armenian diaspora in any country of the region but Russia. Regarding the latter Tölölyan mentions briefly: In post-Soviet Russia, there are now at least 1.5 million Armenians, over half of whom are post–1991 migrants from Armenia. Their links to the homeland are strong but evolving. New organisations are emerging to claim leadership and to advertise their role as mediators of links between the governments of Russia and Armenia and the struggling new migrants. It is difficult to characterise, as yet, the nature and extent of their integration into the host society; currently, tensions are high (Tölölyan 2005: 44 – 45).

Studying Armenians in Post-Socialist Europe

15

In English-language academic literature, perhaps the only attempt to present an overview of the Armenian diaspora in selected countries of the region was offered by Krikor M ­ aksoudian (1997). His work, however, is of mostly historical character, and although published at the end of the 20th century reaches no further than the mid–1970s. Regarding case studies, a small number of articles and book chapters have been published in recent years both by the authors contributing to this volume (e. g. Siekierski 2010 – 2011, 2014; Ziemer 2009, 2010, 2011) and others (e. g. Arzumanyan 2015; Cavoukian 2013; Galkina 2006; Kali 2012; Kokot 2009; Marciniak 2000; Oussatcheva 2001). In the Russian language, the most recent general study on the Armenian diaspora is a volume authored by Viktor Dyatlov and Eduard Melkonyan (Dâtlov, Melkonân 2009). The modern Armenian presence in Central and Eastern Europe is barely mentioned in this book, however. The most work done in this field was by the authors contributing to the Moscow-based journal Diaspory, which over the last fifteen years has published studies entirely (Firsov, Krivušina 2004; Mokin 2007; Stepanân 2004; Titova 2004) or partially (­Kuznecov 2004; Ostapenko, Subbotina 2001; Popkov 2001; Rakačev, Rakačeva 2007; Šapiro et al. 2007) devoted to the topic of modern Armenian migration to and settlement in Russia. A number of other works, published elsewhere, are listed above. In the Armenian language, two guidebooks to the Armenian diaspora are Hay Spyurk Hanragitaran (The Encyclopaedia of the Armenian Diaspora) (Ayvazân 2003) and Haykakan Spyurk Taregirk (The Armenian Diaspora Yearbook) (Hakobean 2012). In addition to these, two publications by the Noravank Foundation, a Yerevan-based think tank, are worth mentioning. The first of them (Žamakočyan et al. 2010) covers the Armenian presence in countries of the former Soviet Union; the second (Žamakočyan et al. 2011) provides information on Armenians living in Central Europe. Both, although somewhat lacking in analytical strength, gather a significant amount of factual and statistical data, in addition to presenting an interesting overview of Armenian diaspora activity on the Internet – a key aspect in modern migratory and diasporic strategies, so far largely overlooked by other scholars.

About this Volume This volume gathers works by nineteen authors, including historians, sociologists, social/ cultural anthropologists, a journalist and a musicologist, all educated in different times and academic environments: Soviet, post-Soviet, and Western. Some of them are Armenians who do “at-home ethnography” (Alvesson 2009), writing about themselves and their fellow diaspora members (Asatryan, Davidjants, Davtyan, Papazian-Tanielian). Others are Hayastantsiner 2, studying Armenians living outside Armenia (Matevosyan,

2 I. e. Armenians from Armenia. In the Armenian language the term Hayastantsi can mean both a person who lives in the Republic of Armenia, or a person who migrated from there. Here I use it in the first sense.

16

Konrad Siekierski

Tadevosyan & Poghosyan). Some are scholars from ‘host societies’ who research the local Armenian minority (Dyatlov, Horváth & Veress, Łotocki, Prisac & Xenofontov, ­Tichomirow). Despite this diversity, three important, interrelated, topics recur in most of the contributions. These are: the organisational features and activities of Armenian associations; the internal cultural heterogeneity of the Armenian populations; and the social, political, and legal milieu of Armenian diasporic life. Firstly, most authors provide information on such initiatives by Armenian organisations as the publication of press and books; the operation of Saturday/Sunday schools, dance and song ensembles, and other cultural and educational projects; celebrations of Armenian national and religious feasts; the erection or renovation of churches and khachkars (cross-stones), the commemoration of the Armenian Genocide; and participation in various inter-ethnic cultural events and festivals. All these initiatives reflect and thus help to evaluate t­he development of diasporic institutions, their resourcefulness, mobilisation strategies, and social-political networks. Furthermore, the comparative analysis of these initiatives may allow to identify recurring features of current diasporic policies of identity reproduction. The editors’ assumption in this matter echoes Anthony P. Cohen’s (2007) observation about the importance of symbolic boundaries of the community, especially nowadays when such ‘objective’ characteristics as territorial concentration, knowledge of the mother tongue or ethnic/religious endogamy have lost a significant part of their previous importance.3 It is worth noting that in most countries of the region there exist only Saturday/Sunday Armenians schools, some of which actually suffer from a lack of students.4 In general, it can be said that Armenians are rather quick to drop their mother tongue, and among recent migrants its transmission even from the first to the second generation is often problematic. In turn, such symbolic acts as the erection of a new khachkar or a commemoration of the Armenian Genocide prove their potential for diaspora mobilisation. For instance, during the last decade eight Armenian memorial cross-stones have been erected throughout Poland (previously there had been none) (Łotocki: this volume), and April 24, the day of the Armenian Genocide commemoration, counts as one of the most important dates, even among those Armenians whose ancestors migrated to the region hundreds of years ago and were by no means affected by the atrocities. However, these observations should not be taken as universally applicable: as Brigitta Davidjants shows in her chapter devoted to the leaders of the Estonian Armenian diaspora, their initial motivation for establishing community structures was the preservation of the mother tongue, while the issue of the Armenian Genocide was not central in their reflections on important elements of Armenian identity. 3 For instance, Cohen writes: “the diminution of the geographical bases of community boundaries had led to their renewed assertion in symbol terms” (2001: 118). 4 For instance, in Bucharest classes offered by the Union of Armenians in Romania were attended in 2011 – 2012 (during the author’s fieldwork in Romania) by one to four students. In Skopje (Macedonia) Saturday school closed down due to the lack of students in 2012, after only two years of existence.

Studying Armenians in Post-Socialist Europe

17

Armenian organisations in Russia and Ukraine deserve special attention due to their highly developed structures and the important role they play in their countries. The first of them, the Union of Armenians in Russia, with its branches in more than 300 cities, strives not only to represent the largest Armenian diaspora worldwide, but also to play a leading role in pan-Armenian diasporic structures; a fact attested to by the creation of the Armenian World Congress, the inauguration of which was attended by the Presi­ dents of Armenia and Russia (Dyatlov: this volume). In Ukraine, a similarly named organisation (the Union of Armenians in Ukraine) is active at the national level, as well as internationally, gaining much public recognition (Davtyan: this volume). It is characteristic of these recently emerged but resourceful organisations that they are both led by businessmen, and are active not only in the socio-cultural but also the political and economic spheres. Characteristic for the discussed region is also a weak presence of pan-Armenian social and cultural, scouting and sport, as well as charitable organisations, such as the Armenian General Benevolent Union, the Armenian General Union of Body Culture (Homenetmen), and the Armenian Relief Society. The same goes for traditional Armenian political parties: Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaktsutiun), Armenian Democratic Liberal Party (Ramgavar), and Social Democrat Hnchakian Party (Hnchak), which have been prominent actors in Armenian diasporic life in such countries as France, Greece, Lebanon, and the US. In Central and Eastern Europe, Armenian diaspora structures were rather (re)created according to local patterns than ‘imported’ from major diasporic centres. As a result, despite two and a half decades that passed since the fall of the Iron Curtain, the only country of the region with strong presence of the aforementioned organisations (though not political parties) is Bulgaria (Nieczuja-Ostrowski 2013; Papazian-Tanielian: this volume), while Dashnaktsutiun exercises certain influence on Armenian activists in Georgia (Blauvelt & Berglund: this volume). Beside the discussion of organisational features and activities of Armenian associations, several chapters in this volume touch upon the heterogeneity of the various Armenian populations brought together by the fact of living within the borders of one state and thus often labeled under a single term, ‘the Armenian diaspora’ or ‘the Armenian community’ (in Bulgaria/Poland/Russia etc.). One of the consequences of a recent influx of Armenian migrants from Armenia and other South Caucasian states to Central and Eastern Europe has been the direct contact between different parts of the Armenian “imagined community” (Anderson 2006). More often than not this situation instigates internal hierarchies, tensions, and rifts among Armenian groupings and factions. Scholars comment on the outcomes of this situation differently. For example, Evgeny Firsov claims that “this is precisely the heterogeneity of local groups, which is of the utmost importance for the preservation of Armenian ethnicity” (Firsov 2006: 76). On the other hand, Hakob Matevosyan (this volume) shows how, despite being state-registered as a single Armenian minority, competing Armenian groups in Hungary claim to be “the Armenian diaspora” and deny the same status to other migration waves. Facing such a situation one may ask, along with Marina

18

Konrad Siekierski

Oussatcheva, “whether these […] communities still form one Armenian Diaspora, or are these […] different diasporas of Armenians […]?” (Oussatcheva 2001: 21). Importantly, the divisions outlined above are not only Armenians’ ‘own business’ but they may also be used (or abused) by local and/or state authorities. A clear example of this is the political discourse in Russia’s Krasnodar Region, described by Ulrike Ziemer (this volume), where tensions between Armenian newcomers and old-timers are publicised as a part of a regional anti-migratory policy. In turn, as István Horváth and Ilka Veress show (this volume), a particular design of Romania’s system for the protection of ethnic minorities influences current processes within the country’s Armenian minority, bringing about its institutional centralisation and partial ‘reconciliation’ between its Romanised and Magyarised elements. These issues bring us to another important focus of this volume, namely the position of the Armenian populations within their host societies. This situation has changed significantly with the end of communism: “dormant diasporas” (Sheffer 2003: 22) have been awakened and, more often than not, a silenced (or even stigmatised) ethno-cultural background has become “a resource for identity politics and asserting of claims” (Ohliger, Münz 2003: 3).5 This paradigmatic shift is captured in a number of contributions, which show how Armenian diaspora communities became a part of the new socio-political landscape in their respective countries and how their organisational structures were created or re-created (e. g. Blauvelt & Berglund, Davidjants, Davtyan, Horváth & Veress). Furthermore, this volume sheds light on the experiences of post-Soviet migrants, and it does so from different perspectives. For instance, in their case study Aghasi Tadevosyan and Alina Poghosyan focus on three members of one migrant family. The authors offer an important insight into how these family members interact with different parts of Latvia’s population, and how on an individual level a “segmented assimilation” (Portes, Rumbaut 2001: 53 – 54) takes place. At the same time, they also remind us about the heterogeneity of every society, various parts of which shall not be a priori reduced into a single ‘background’ against which groups (or individuals) under the study are examined. Combining qualitative and quantitative methods, Łukasz Łotocki offers a comprehensive analysis of Armenian migrants’ interaction with the host (Polish) state and society, particularly in the professional and educational spheres. Researching migrants returning from Russia to Armenia, Annett Fleischer identifies their concern about the negative influence of Russian social-cultural norms on the upbringing of their children as one of the most important reasons for coming back to the homeland. In turn, Dyatlov shows how uneasy relations between Armenian newcomers in Russia and the state administration and mainstream society drive the migrants to develop alternative forms of social organisation, which resemble clan structures and are based on patron-client relations.

5 Admittedly, this picture is complicated by a post-socialist nationalism, which, at least in some countries, has become a disturbing factor.

Studying Armenians in Post-Socialist Europe

19

The cases presented in this volume make it clear that attempts at generalising about adaptability skills and the degree of cultural and socio-economic integration of the Armenians in the countries under discussion should be undertaken with the utmost care. On the one hand, particularly regarding the ‘old’ diaspora, it can be repeated along with Denise Aghanian that “Armenians tend to be demographical ghosts” (Aghanian 2007: 4): people with high competency in local languages and cultures, lacking easily recognisable markers of ethno-cultural distinction, and dispersed in urban centres. However, the situation can get more complicated, mainly for recent migrants, when they are identified as part of a larger, and negatively perceived, group, for example as ‘Ruscy’ (colloquial word for Russians and other people from the former USSR used in Poland), or ‘lica Kavkazskoj nacional' nosti’ (‘people of Caucasian nationality’ – a collective term used in Russia for internal and external migrants from the North and South Caucasus, who are often associated with black market and criminal activity). Furthermore, as some authors (e. g. Fleischer, Tadevosyan & Poghosyan) remind us, there are always people (and their number is significant) whose migratory experience is temporal and ends up with voluntary or involuntary return. Another common case is that migrants need to change – some many times – their country of settlement in order to find ‘their place’. Finally, regarding both the internal diversity of the Armenian population and the minority policy of host states it is worth taking a closer look at one more issue that recurs throughout the volume: the discrepancy in official (census-based) and unofficial (based on estimates by diaspora organisations, NGOs, or scholars) numbers of Armenians residing in a given country; the latter usually much higher than the former. For example, state statistics give a number of 1,361 Armenians in Romania in 2011, while internal estimates speak about some 7,000 of them (Horváth & Veress: this volume, Siekierski 2014); the Polish census of the same year registered 3,623 Armenians (­Łotocki: this volume), while unofficial numbers reach as high as 20,000 – 50,000 (Belhadj et al. 2010: 118; Žamakočyan et al. 2011: 29); and in Ukraine statistics vary from 100,000 to almost half a million people (Davtyan: this volume). This problem with numbers stems not only from the unprecedented dynamics of current migratory flows but also from the fact that much depends on who counts and who is counted, or – in other words – on how the belonging to the group under question is imagined and defined. The existing spectrum of both external and internal strategies of inclusion and exclusion is broad: they vary from defining ethnic belonging as a matter of personal choice, to perceiving it as based on a community of descent and shared memory, to listing ‘objective’ criteria such as linguistic competency or religious affiliation. Thus, in fact, the existing statistics can often tell us more about “numero-politics” (Martin, Lynch 2009), designed and employed by different social actors and towards various ends, than the populations they supposedly count.

20

Konrad Siekierski

Concluding Remarks The studies presented in this volume advance scholarly knowledge on modern Armenian diaspora in post-socialist Europe and establish a basis for further comparative analysis both across the region and between the regions (for instance with Armenian diaspora in Middle Eastern or Western countries). They contribute, as well, to a general understanding of the dimensions and dynamics of modern migration movements, and address a number of urgent research questions, identified by Triandafyllidou (2009), quoted at the beginning of this Introduction. By doing all this, this volume may also provide guidelines for policy makers, in particular by bringing their attention to the importance of the internal heterogeneity of diasporas’ populations and by evaluating the impact of state regulations on ethnic minorities’ cultural strategies. Along with the advantages, some shortcomings of this volume can be also identified. A predominance of country-based studies (on Armenians in Belarus, Armenians in the Czech Republic, Armenians in Ukraine, etc.) means that by and large this volume follows the widespread tendency in the social sciences that has been identified and criticised as “methodological nationalism” (Wimmer, Glick-Schiller 2002). The consequences of methodological nationalism are that “the social sciences were captured by the apparent naturalness and givenness of a world divided into societies along the lines of nation-states” and that the “territorialization of social science imaginary and the reduction of the analy­ tical focus to the boundaries of the nation-state” (Wimmer, Glick-Schiller 2002: 304, 307) took place. Most chapters presented here would hardly stand a similar critique as they treat aggregations of Armenians and their forms of organisation within the social, political and legal boundaries of their host states. Alternative perspectives, for instance a transnational one, that could help to evaluate more thoroughly the directions, forms and intensity of formal and informal relations diaspora Armenians have with Armenia and with their compatriots living elsewhere, are rarely considered. This imbalance is somewhat troublesome if one takes into account the distinctively new situation brought about by the emergence of a new reference point for the diaspora – the Republic of Armenia, as well as by myriad of new possibilities for contacts between various ‘knots’ (be it on the family or community level) of the diasporic web, previously constrained by totalitarian regimes. Another point regarding the following works can be made in a similar vein to the remarks of Dyatlov (this volume), that by the fact of its recent expansion in academic (as well as non-academic) parlance, the term ‘diaspora’ is often applied as self-evident, even if, actually, its meaning is far from unequivocal. Likewise, a number of other scholars have commented on the proliferation, ‘migration’, and ‘diasporalisation’ of the concept of diaspora (e. g. Brubaker 2005; Dufoix 2008; Tölölyan 2003). This term occurs time and again throughout the following chapters, yet most contributors do not address explicitly the question of its definition and implementation in their studies. Nevertheless, in general the authors acknowledge that what is a sine qua non in speaking about diaspora is not only an aggregation of people of shared ethnic/national identity

Studying Armenians in Post-Socialist Europe

21

living outside the territory which they perceive or which is designated as their homeland, but also some sort of organisational structure(s) and the existence of collective claims, projects, practices and stances that elevate, at least periodically, a sense of belonging to a distinct ethnic-national entity over the affiliation with the society in which everyday life is lived. This recognition is confirmed by the fact that, with a few exceptions, most chapters focus rather on organisational features and activities of Armenian associations, than on the personal experience of migration and settling down away from one’s homeland. In this, they follow Tölölyan’s line of argumentation, presented in his seminal article “Elites and Institutions in Armenian Transnation”, where he emphasises “the role of the communal elites and the institutions they develop in the precarious conditions of diasporic existence” (Tölölyan 2000: 108). The acknowledgement of this approach to diaspora is also attested to by the general design of the volume, which offers accounts of the Armenian presence wherever it takes an organised (to various extents and in different ways) form, recognised both by the host nations (through the registration of Armenian associations, special juridical status as an ­ethnic/ national minority, coverage of activities by local media, etc.) and in Armenia. Regarding the latter, a good indicator of such acknowledgement is a list of countries with Armenian diasporic communities presented in the Hay Spyurk Hanragitaran (The Encyclopaedia of the Armenian Diaspora) (Ayvazân 2003) and Haykakan Spyurk Taregirk (The Armenian Diaspora Yearbook) (Hakobean 2012). Of all post-socialist Europe the only countries not included in the Yearbook, the Encyclopaedia, and in this collection of essays are Azerbaijan 6 and the successor states of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia: Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Hercegovina, and Montenegro.7 To conclude it is worth recalling Chris Hann’s and Hermann Goltz’s words about their pioneering volume Eastern Christians in Anthropological Perspective. The editors admit in the Introduction that “the coverage [of the book] is neither comprehensive nor systematic, and much more research is needed if this stream is to be adequately integrated into comparative agendas” (Hann, Goltz 2010: 4). These words describe the present work equally well. With its inevitably cursory treatment of many important issues, this volume may be seen as a report from the field, which unveils the current, rather unsatisfactory state of affairs in studies on the modern Armenian presence in the region. Nevertheless, it provides an

6 In the late 1980s, as a part of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, all but a few of the 250,000 Armenians living in Azerbaijan (excluding Karabakh) had to leave the country. Those who stayed (mainly due to mixed marriages) have not only no chance of maintaining any Armenian associations, but have to hide their ethnicity. More on this topic see: Gusejnova 2006. 7 In addition, the Armenian population living on the territory of the former German Democratic Republic, today a part of the Federal Republic of Germany, has not been addressed in this volume. To our best knowledge this topic has not been researched so far, with only a few recent studies dedicated to Armenians in modern Germany, which do not pay attention to the former East-West division of the German state (Arutûnân 2014; Chaloyan 2015).

22

Konrad Siekierski

important body of knowledge about how “the Armenian communities around the world have developed in significantly different ways within the constraints and opportunities found in varied host cultures and countries” (Pattie 2005: 13). If this volume can generate more interest in the subject, inspire further studies, and help formulate more advanced research questions, our goal will be achieved.

References Aghanian Denise (2007) The Armenian Diaspora: Cohesion and Fracture, Lanham: University Press of America. Alvesson Mats (2009) “At-home Ethnography: Struggling with Closeness and Closure”, S. Ybema, D. Yanov, H. Wels, F. H. Kamsteed (eds.), Organizational Ethnography: Studying the Complexity of Everyday Life, London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Publications, pp. 156 – 174. Anderson Benedict (2006) Imagined Communities, London, New York: Verso. Arutûnân Anna (2014) “Tureckie armâne v perehodnom prostranstve”, Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 127 (3), http://www.nlobooks.ru/node/5142 [25 November 2015]. Arutûnân Ûrik (1991) “Armâne-moskviči. Social' nyj portret po materialam ètnosociologičeskogo issledovaniâ”, Sovetskaâ ètnografiâ, 2, pp. 3 – 15. Arutûnân Ûrik (2001) “Armâne v Moskve (po rezul' tatam sravnitel' nogo issledovaniâ)”, Sociologičeskie issledovaniâ, 12, pp. 13 – 21. Arzumanyan Arsen (2015) “The Social and Cultural Relations between the Armenian Community of Romania and the Republic of Armenia in the Early 2000s”, A. Mkrtichyan (ed.), Armenians around the World: Migration and Transnationality, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Edition, pp. 187 – 201. Ayvazân A. (2003) Hay Sp’yow˙rk’ Hanragitaran, Erewan: Haykakan hanragitaran hratarakčowt’yown. Bade Klaus J., Emmer Pieter C., Lucassen Leo, Oltmer Jochen (eds.) (2011) The Encyclopedia of Migration and Minorities in Europe: From the 17th Century to the Present, New York: Cambridge University Press. Belhadj Marnia, Piçarra Nuno, Borges Francisco, Kicinger Anna (2010) Policies on Irregular Migrants: France, Portugal and Poland: Volume III – Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Brednikova Ol' ga, Čikadze Elena (1998) “Armâne Sankt-Peterburga: kar' ery ètničnosti”, V. Voronkov, I. Osval' d (eds.), Konstruirovanie ètničnosti. Ètničeskie obŝiny Sankt-Peterburga, Sankt-Peterburg: Centr nezavisimyh sociologičeskih issledovanij, pp. 227 – 259. Brubaker Rogers (2005) “The ‘Diaspora’ Diaspora”, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 28 (1), pp. 1 – 19. Cavoukian Kristin (2013) “‘Soviet mentality’? The role of shared political culture in relations between the Armenian state and Russia’s Armenian diaspora”, Nationalities Papers: The Journal of Nationalism and Ethnicity, 41 (5), pp. 709 – 729. Chaloyan Asthgik (2015) “Studying Transnational Lifestyles: Transnational Social Fields of Second Generation Armenians in Germany”, A. Mkrtichyan (ed.), Armenians around the World: Migration and Transnationality, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Edition, pp. 107 – 125. Clifford James (1994) “Diasporas”, Cultural Anthropology, 9 (3), pp. 302 – 338. Cohen Anthony P. (2001) The Symbolic Construction of Community, London, New York: Routledge. Dâtlov Viktor, Melkonân Èduard (2009) Armânskaâ diaspora: očerki sociokul'turnoj tipologii, Erewan: Institut Kawkaza. Dufoix Stéphane (2008) Diasporas, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press. Ember Melvin, Ember Carol R., Skoggard Ian (eds.) (2005) Encyclopedia of Diasporas. Immigrant and Refugee Cultures around The World. Volume I, Overviews and Topics, New York: Springer. Firsov Evgenij (2006) “Rossijskie armâne i ih issledovateli”, Ètnografičeskoe obozrenie, 1, pp. 72 – 91.

Studying Armenians in Post-Socialist Europe

23

Firsov Evgenij, Krivušina Vera (2004) “K izučeniû kommunikacionnoj sredy rossijskoj armânskoj diaspory”, Diaspory, 1, pp. 6 – 45. Galkina Tamara (2006) “Contemporary Migration and Traditional Diasporas in Russia: The Case of the Armenians in Moscow”, Migracijske i etničke teme, 22 (1 – 2), pp.  181 – 193. Gusejnova Sevil (2006) “Problematika ‘pripisyvaemoj’ identičnosti (Bakinskie armâne)”, Diaspory, 4, pp.  116 – 150. Hakobean Hranuš (ed.) (2012) Haykakan Spyow˙rk’ Taregirk’, Erevan: Hayastani Hanrapetut’ean Spyowr˙k’i Naxararut’yown, http://www.mindiaspora.am/res/Hratarakumner/2011/Տարեգիրք%202011%20 (դաս.-անգլ.).pdf [14 July 2014]. Hann Chris, Goltz Hermann (2010) “Introduction: The Other Christianity?”, Ch. Hann, H. Goltz (eds.), Eastern Christians in Anthropological Perspective, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, pp. 1 – 29. Kali Kinga (2007) “Vasárnapi örmények valami a pozicionális identitásról”, S. Őze, B. Kovács (eds.), Örmény diaszpóra a Kárpát-medencében II, Piliscsaba: Pázmány Péter Katolikus Egyetem, pp. 145 – 155. Kali Kinga (2012) “Soul Food: The Armenian Cemetery Movement in Hungary”, Eurozine, http:// www.eurozine.com/articles/2012-10-10-kali-en.html [19 October 2014]. Kokot Waltraud (2009) “Diaspora as a Resource? Managing Social Capital in the Armenian Community of Sofia, Bulgaria”, C. Greiner, W. Kokot (eds.), Networks, Resources and Economic Actions. Ethnographic Case Studies in Honor of Hartmut Lang, Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag, pp. 127 – 150. Korâkin Kirill (2006) “Problemy adaptacii i integracii armân-migrantov v Krasnodarskom krae”, Ètnografičeskoe obozrenie, 1, pp. 62 – 72. Kuznecov Igor' (2004) “Severo-Zapadnyj Kavkaz: čto proishodit s ètničeskimi men' šinstvami?”, Diaspory, 4, pp.  59 – 84. Lur' e Svetlana (1999) Armânskaâ obŝina v Sankt-Peterburge (1989 – 1993). Ètničeskaâ samoidentifikaciâ v usloviâh krizisa ‘materinskogo’ ètnosa, http://svlourie.narod.ru/armenian-myth/diaspora.htm [03 August 2014]. Łotocki Łukasz (2006) “Gli immigrati armeni nel panorama migratorio polacco”, K. Golemo, K. Kowalska-Angelelli, F. Pittau, A. Ricci (eds.), Polonia. Nuovo paese di frontiera. Da migranti a comunitari, Roma: Caritas Italiana, pp. 132 – 145. Łotocki Łukasz (2008) Między swojskością a obcością. Imigranci z Armenii w Polsce, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo ASPRA-JR. Maksoudian Krikor (1997) “Armenian Communities in Eastern Europe”, R. Hovannisian (ed.), The Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times, Vol. II: The Fifteenth Century to the Twentieth Century, New York: St. Martin Press, pp. 51 – 79. Marciniak Tomasz (2000) “Armenians in Poland after 1989”, I. E. F. Hamilton, K. Iglicka (eds.), From Homogeneity to Multiculturalism. Minorities Old and New in Poland, London, New York: London University Press, pp. 135 – 148. Marciniak Tomasz (2005) “Ormianie w Polsce na tle innych typów i modeli społeczności rozproszonych”, B. Cieślińska, E. Nowicka (eds.), Wędrowcy i migranci. Pomiędzy integracją a separacją, Kraków: Nomos, pp.  250 – 261. Marciniak Tomasz (2008) “Ormianie: polskie pokolenie 1,5”, M. Kempny, G. Woroniecka, P. Załęcki (eds.), Tożsamość i przynależność. O współczesnych przemianach identyfikacji kulturowych w Polsce i w Europie, Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UMK, pp.  41 – 49. Martin Aryn, Lynch Michael (2009) “Counting Things and People: The Practices and Politics of Counting”, Social Problems, 56 (2), pp. 243 – 266. Miceva Evgeniâ (2001) Armencite v B''lgariâ – kultura i identičnost, Sofiâ: Meždunaroden cent''r po problemite na malcinstvata i kulturnite vzaimodejstviâ. Miceva Evgeniâ, Papazân-Tanielân Siranuš (2007) Armencite raskazvat za sebe si…, Sofiâ: Akademično izdatelstvo Prof. Marin Drinov.

24

Konrad Siekierski

Mokin Konstantin (2007) “Diaspornaâ identičnost' v dinamike: konvergenciâ i èntropiâ (izučaâ armân Saratovskoj oblasti)”, Diaspory, 1, pp. 150 – 169. Nieczuja-Ostrowski Paweł (2013) “Obraz aktywności społeczno-politycznej diaspory ormiańskiej w krajach Unii Europejskiej”, E. Godlewska. M. Lesińska-Staszczuk (eds.), Mniejszości narodowe w państwach Unii Europejskiej. Stan prawny i faktyczny, Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, pp.  187 – 202. Ohliger Rainer, Münz Rainer (2003) “Diasporas and Ethnic Migrants in Twentieth-Century Europe: A Comparative Perspective”, R. Münz, R. Ohliger (eds.), Diasporas and Ethnic Migrants: Germany, Israel and Pos-Soviet Successor States in Comparative Perspective, London, Portland: Frank Cass, pp. 3 – 17. Ostapenko Lûbov' , Subbotina Irina (2001) “Problemy social' noèkonomičeskoj adaptacii vyhodcev iz ­Zakavkaz' â v Moskve”, Diaspory, 1, pp. 40 – 59. Oussatcheva Marina (2001) Institutions in Diaspora: The Case of Armenian Community in Russia, http:// www.transcomm.ox.ac.uk/working%20papers/WPTC-01-09%20Marina.doc.pdf [19 October 2014]. Pattie Susan (2005) “Armenia”, M. J. Gibney, R. Hansen (eds.), Immigration and Asylum: from 1900 to the Present, Vol. 1, Santa Barbara: ABC Clio, pp. 13 – 19. Pełczyński Grzegorz (1997) Ormianie polscy w XX wieku. Problem odrębności etnicznej, Warszawa: Koło Zainteresowań Kulturą Ormian. Popkov Vâčeslav (2001) “Kak živetsa kavkazcam v rossijskoj provincii? (na primere Kalugi)”, Diaspory, 1, pp.  92 – 106. Portes Alejandro, Rumbaut Rubén G. (2001) Legacies: The Story of the Immigrant Second Generation, Berkeley: University of California Press. Rakačêv Vadim, Rakačêva Âroslava (2007) “Obraz diaspor v presse Krasnodarskogo kraâ”, Diaspory, 1, pp.  6 – 37. Sheffer Gabriel (2003) “From Diasporas to Migrants – from Migrants to Diasporas”, R. Münz, R. Ohliger (eds.), Diasporas and Ethnic Migrants: Germany, Israel and Pos-Soviet Successor States in Comparative Perspective, London, Portland: Frank Cass, pp. 21 – 36. Siekierski Konrad (2014) “The Chronotopes of the Armenian Diaspora in Romania: Religious Feasts and Shrines in the Making of Community”, A. Agadjanian (ed.), Armenian Christianity Today: Identity Politics, Popular Practices and Social Functions, Ashgate: Farnham, pp. 197 – 213. Siekierski Konrad (2010 – 2011) “The Armenian Diaspora in Romania: Roots, Routes, Re-Creations”, New Europe College Yearbook, pp.  379 – 402. Stepanân Armen (2004) “Sociokul' turnye osobennosti armânskoj ètnoobŝiny Moskvy”, Diaspory, 1, pp.  46 – 64. Šapiro Vladimir, Gerasimova Mariâ, Nizovceva Irina, S' ânova Nataliâ (2007) “Azerbajdžanskie, armânskie, gruzinskie podrostki v Moskve: ètničeskaâ samoidentifikaciâ i vklûčennost v mežnacional' nye otnošeniâ”, Diaspory, 3, pp. 6 – 53. Ter-Sarkisânc Alla (1998) Armâne. Istoriâ i ètnokul' turnye tradicii, Moskva: Vostočnaâ literatura. Titova Tat' âna (2004) “Armâne v gorodah Tatarstana – sˆtrihi k portretu”, Diaspory, 1, pp. 64 – 82. Tölölyan Khachig (2000) “Elites and Institutions in Armenian Transnation”, Diaspora. A Journal of Transnational Studies, 9 (1), pp. 107 – 136. Tölölyan Khachig (2003) “The American Model of Diaspora Discourse”, R. Münz, R. Ohliger (eds.), Diasporas and Ethnic Migrants: Germany, Israel and Pos-Soviet Successor States in Comparative Perspective, London, Portland: Frank Cass, pp. 56 – 73. Tölölyan Khachig (2005) “Armenian Diaspora”, M. Ember, C. R. Ember, I. Skoggard (eds.), Encyclopedia of Diasporas. Immigrant and Refugee Cultures around The World. Volume I, Overviews and Topics, New York: Springer, pp. 35 – 46. Triandafyllidou Anna (2009) “Migrants and Ethnic Minorities in post-Communist Europe: Negotiating Diasporic Identity”, Ethnicities, 9 (2), pp. 226 – 245.

Studying Armenians in Post-Socialist Europe

25

Veress Ilka (2009) “A romániai örmény kisebbség kulturális reprodukciós stratégiái”, Pro Minoritate, ­Tavasz, pp.  123 – 138. Veress Ilka (2010) “Strategiile de reproducere culturală ale minorităţii armene din România”, Working Papers in Romanian Minority Studies, Vol. 33, Cluj-Napoca: The Romanian Institute for Research on National Minorities. Wimmer Andreas, Glick-Schiller Nina (2002) “Methodological Nationalism and Beyond: Nation-State Building, Migration and the Social Sciences”, Global Networks, 2 (4), pp. 301 – 334. Ziemer Ulrike (2009) “Narratives of Translocation, Dislocation and Location: Armenian Youth Cultural Identities in Southern Russia”, Europe-Asia Studies, 61 (3), pp. 409 – 433. Ziemer Ulrike (2010) “Tackling Tensions and Ambivalences: Armenian Girls’ Diasporic Identities in ­Russia”, Nationalities Papers, 38 (5), pp. 689 – 703. Ziemer Ulrike (2011) Ethnic Belonging, Gender and Cultural Practices: Youth Identities in Contemporary Russia, Stuttgart: Ibidem Verlag. Ziętek Dorota (2008) Tożsamość i religia. Ormianie w krakowskiej i lwowskiej diasporze, Kraków: Nomos. Žamakočyan Anna, Galstyan Diana, Manusyan Sona, Hovyan Vahram (2010) Hetxorhrdayin erkrneri haykakan hamaynk’neri ink’nut’yan xndirnerë ew teġekatvakan ˙resowrsnerë, Erewan: Noravank’. Žamakočyan Anna, Papyan Ara, Simavoryan Arestakes, Galstyan Diana, Badalyan Ēdvard, Martirosyan Samvel, Hovyan Vahram, Ġanalanyan Tigran (2011) Arewelyan Evropayi hay hamaynk’neri xndirnerë, Erewan: Noravank’.

Viktor Dyatlov

Armenians of Contemporary Russia Diasporic Strategies of Integration

Several centuries of migration and diffusion has resulted in the phenomenon frequently called the Armenian diaspora in Russia. The term ‘diaspora’ covers both the prevailing self-identification and self-definition of the migrants, as well as the most widely used designation by the host society. The analogous Armenian term – ‘spyurk’ – is rarely used in Russian language texts. This study aims to assess the social impact of the application in Russian language of the term ‘diaspora’ in reference to persons or their groupings who differ from each other in terms of legal, cultural, and social characteristics, as well as types of self-identification and modes of conduct. On the other hand, it is important to understand why the diasporic discourse have has gained such strong popularity in post-Soviet Russia. Why has the term taken on such urgency in government and society? Is this phenomenon tied to the changes in status and activities of Armenians in the country?

Diaspora: Expansion of the Term into Social Practice Since recently one can observe the strong expansion of the term ‘diaspora’ not only into academic language but also into social practice. Currently it is widely used in the mass-­ media and in everyday conversation. It finds its way into administrative practice and ­decision-making processes. The sizeable demand for this term reflects the essentially novel migratory situation in Russia. The gist of the problem lies in the unprecedented importance of migration in economic, ethno-cultural, social, political and possibly geopolitical spheres. Russia is becoming a state of migrants. Since the dissolution of the USSR, part of what formerly was internal migration has now become transnational. Yesterday’s fellow citizens have become ‘citizens of the near abroad’, with basically new status and a host of previously unknown problems (economic, cultural, and legal). Problems have intensified over their contacts with the country of origin (homeland), which although ‘near’ has now become ‘abroad’. The maintaining of these contacts requires significant, and often collective, efforts. The same may be said of the problem of legal status, the protection of economic rights, the preservation of language and culture, etc. Additionally, back in the homeland, dynamic processes of ‘national rebirth’ have taken place, and a new state order has often been established on ethnocentric foundations. Human

Armenians of Contemporary Russia

27

and material resources of migrant communities are considered key factors in this new order, as well as in the struggle over political power. For this reason, as a rule, the homeland’s authorities expend considerable effort towards the consolidation of its fellow countrymen in Russia on a national basis. The number of migrants from the ‘near abroad’ is rising sharply, and the understanding of what it means to be a migrant is changing, regarding motivations, lifestyle, adaptation potential and resources. Far greater, than during the Soviet era, is the migrant’s need for a support group and a network of kin, family, clan, and ethnic relationships. All these factors greatly expand the importance of ethnicity, ethnic identification and diasporic consciousness, and give a boost to the creation of diasporic structures. There is also an increasing awareness of the existence of these groups (precisely as groups) among their members and outsiders alike. Recent migrants, as well as those who settled in Russia generations ago and were assigned by Soviet authorities to one or another ethnic group, nowadays find a connection with each other, they start to behave as members of one group, and to form networks of contacts and relationships that have an ethnic basis. As a result, it is possible to speak of diaspora as a new factor in the social life of Russia. A great shift is taking place: from the simple presence of the members of ethnic minorities to their self-organisation, to the emergence of leadership and lobbying for (or in the name of ) collective interests. Simultaneously there is a rising tension between migrants and the host society, based on ethnocultural differences, the contrast between rural and urban culture, and contemporary (individualists, urban-industrial) and traditional (communal) models of social conduct and control. In many peoples’ understanding all this is merged and one factor flows from the other. Often the last two factors are understood through a prism of ethnic differences, since the primordial concept of ethnicity still predominates within society, making these differences appear insurmountable. Problems of mutual adaptation have become an urgent issue. Without such adaptation migrants cannot achieve their goals and the host society feels itself threatened. Adaptation of this kind may consist of the legalisation of migrants’ residency, their acculturation, and assimilation of the norms and values of the host society, the inclusion of migrants into the host society, and the establishment of cultural diversity as a norm. The experience of the last two decades shows that achieving success in adaptation through individual effort is hardly possible. What is indispensable is a system, which ensures migrants’ security and provides them with assistance and access to information. The most important tool for establishing such a system is a strategy of diasporalisation. Within its scope migrants create formal and informal communities and organisations which, in addition to their other functions, enable them to become acquainted with the Russian social milieu. This is a direct path towards the actualisation of the communal organisation of social life. Not surprisingly, the word ‘obshchina’ (community) is used in the literature on migration as often as ‘diaspora’ (Čikadze 2000; Firsov 2006; Firsov, Krivušina 2004; Mokin 2006;

28

Viktor Dyatlov

Popkov 2003; Stepanân 2006). As a rule, this word is treated as obvious and unequivocal and thus used without any explanation or discussion. However, what are actually very different phenomena are all labeled under the term ‘obshchina’: •• a territorially based aggregate of people who identify themselves or are identified by others with a given group (ethnic, religious, etc.); •• a social environment (milieu): a system of formal and informal networks, relationships, and hierarchies; •• an institution, for example a national-cultural organisation; and •• a mechanism of social organisation and control, operating through a system of institutions, norms, values, and sanctions. The age-old phenomenon of merchant minorities shows that the community is the most important resource for economic success (Dâtlov 1996). Economic prosperity itself indicates successful adaptation and, simultaneously, encourages future progress in this process. The community infrastructure, networks and mechanisms of mutual support can become tools, with the help of which the new migrant can find work and a place to live, he/she can tackle the difficult problems of registering and obtaining legal status and entering into contact with the ‘necessary people’. The system for fulfilling the initial adaptation needs of the migrants works on various levels. On the one hand, today this is done by human rights and charitable non-­governmental organisations whose activity is based, at least theoretically, on altruistic motives. On the other hand, in large Russian cities specialised commercial enterprises selling packets of intermediary services have begun to crop up. However, so far a network of informal clan institutions, whose basic payment for services is membership in the system of patron-­client obligations and dependency, has been dominant. The result is the formation of a community nucleus, not so much among people of the same language and culture, but rather as a type of social management, control, stratification and subjugation with its own laws and sanctions for non-compliance. Community solidarity can function both as a mean of mutual support and control and as a weapon in the competition for resources in the host society. It provides enormous mobilisation potential. It is also indispensable in the business world. The possibility of ‘solving problems’ with officials, police, and crime syndicates is essential not just for the success of a business, but for its very existence. In turn, the most important spatial centres of this system are the markets, which may be perceived not only as hubs of trade but also as specific social organisms. In the analysis of informal clan structures I agree with Tatiana Zhurzhenko that: post-Soviet clans, at least in the European parts of the former Soviet Union, have no commonality with pre-modern tribal structures, but are a product of post-Soviet modernisation and a mechanism for structuring relations and sustaining loyalty in the absence of effectively operational market institutions and liberal democracy […]. One can define clan as a hierarchical form of relationships based on personal commitment, discipline, and threat of violence, which at the same time ensures safety

Armenians of Contemporary Russia

29

and protection to ‘our own’ when danger lurks […]. The principle of clan organisation is not the universal principle of a political citizenship, and not a horizontal solidarity of ethnocultural nationalism, but a relationship of ‘patron and client’ founded on the unconditional recognition of authority of the elders in the hierarchy. The patron acts as a benefactor and ‘solves client’s problems’, whereas the client repays him with personal loyalty. The clan maintains a strict division into ‘us vs. them’, which, although often rooted in ethnic and racial characteristics and well known to everybody who served in the Soviet army as the principle of zemlyachestvo (fellow countrymen), is reinforced, first of all, by mutual economic interest (Žurženko 2007: 358 – 360).

The visible, legally established, and government-sanctioned parts of this system are national-cultural organisations (NCO). Although according to their statutes and mission statements, the NCOs’ main goal is maintaining and promoting national cultures, traditions and languages, in reality this part of their activity is often of secondary importance. Instead, their actual and highly praised activity concentrates on cooperation with state authorities, lobbying, and various forms of mediation on behalf of their fellow countrymen. Testimonials from NCO activists and leaders show that they are expected to provide help in solving problems with legal status, accommodation, and relations with local and state administration. Furthermore, in certain NCOs it is an accepted norm that in the case of sudden death of one of its members, or simply fellow countrymen, the organisation takes on the financial and organisational burden of dispatching the remains of the deceased to the homeland. Official and unofficial NCO leaders are influential people, often wealthy, with well established connections. The protection they offer to the newcomers is an enormous resource for the latter, and the NCO is an excellent platform to contact the former and ask for their support. What is the interest of powerful people which makes them expend resources and, what is even more valuable – time, to vie for leadership in these social organisations? There are many reasons for this, including satisfying leadership ambitions, winning prestige, and social acceptance. What is more, an NCO leadership position and providing assistance to rank and file members presents an opportunity to establish a patron-client relationship. This becomes a significant social and economic resource. An even greater resource is the high status in an urban milieu, an established position in its hierarchy and direct access to local and central authorities. Typically, the leaders and activists of national-cultural organisations lobby in the corridors of power on behalf of the groups and individuals they represent. They conduct PR campaigns and make political announcements in the local mass media. Leadership in the national-cultural organisations also provides the opportunity for direct contact with the state authority back in the homeland. The ruling elites of newly independent states seek control over the resources of the diaspora, both human and financial, in their battle for power in the name of nation building. Finally leaders who are already integrated into the local society are deeply interested in establishing control over new migrants in order to regulate their conduct. This is important due to the fact that, whether deliberate or not, the violation of the host society’s rules and norms by newcomers can damage the reputation of the entire ethnic group, including its permanent and well-established members.

30

Viktor Dyatlov

It should be noted, that the very nature of diaspora strategy for migrants’ adaptation is also a source of potential problems and conflict. As a result of diasporisation it is possible to construct a ‘cocoon’ that is impenetrable to outsiders, and which blocks migrants’ integration into the host society. A hypothesis arises that such a community may be separated from the host society, not only through its ethnic-cultural differences, but also by its substantially distinctive form of social relations, control and authority. The inevitable and far-reaching consequence of its formation in an otherwise atomised and individualistic society, is the constant interaction between two different and possibly incompatible types of social organisations, lifestyles, and value systems. After the fall of the Soviet Union, inter-ethnic relations took entirely new shape in Russia. With the end of the politics of official internationalism, ethnic issues ceased to be taboo, top-down bans were removed and grassroots discomfiture in their discussion ended. Processes of ‘national rebirth’ are rapidly occurring at the national level, the significance of ethnicity is increasing, and the national factor is forcibly entering the political sphere as an instrument of mobilisation and power struggle. Many social conflicts take on an ethnic hue. Formerly covert national convictions, presuppositions, prejudices, real or imagined slights, and disaffection are openly discussed and becoming factors in social relations. National and migrant problems have become the realm of state politics: a fact which means, among other things, the emergence of an entire layer of officials who are charged with administering this realm, and who are feverishly in search of translating complex social reality into the language of the bureaucracy. The term ‘diaspora’ occupies a seat of honour in this language. Usually, it is used without any explanation, as something that is generally understood and accepted. However, usage of the term without paying attention to its historical meanings and connotations leads to it becoming nothing more than a cliché. Now it is often used to denote, and thereby externalise and solidify, those who are considered representatives of national groups residing outside the borders of their respective homelands. It is implied that this is not merely an aggregate of people but some social organism to which, by reason of ethnicity, they belong. The latter is also considered to be an innate attribute of people. Thus, a person, by virtue of an inherited ethnicity, is assigned to a group which assumes collective responsibility for him or her. This group carries legally sanctioned rights and responsibilities towards the state. In turn, among the activists of national-cultural communities, projects which lend their organisations quasi governmental functions appear continuously. In order to support such projects, activists request from state authorities the right to act on behalf of ‘the whole diaspora’, and exercise power over its members. And thus, the single word ‘diaspora’ denotes an aggregation of people who relate on their own accord or are related by others to a particular ethnic group, as well as the potential relations and connections that arise among these people, including their formal associations and institutions. When a single word covers such divergent phenomena and, moreover, covers them all in the perception of one and the same person, it is legitimate to ask to what extent it helps in the study of the complex actual processes? A not less important

Armenians of Contemporary Russia

31

question is – does not such a situation pose additional complications for mutual relations between the ‘representatives of diaspora’ and the host society? I understand diaspora as a particular kind of interpersonal relations, as a specific system of formal and informal interconnections, peoples’ life strategies and practices. These relationships, strategies and practices are founded on a common experience of exodus from ‘a historical homeland’ (or are preserved in a historical memory and mythology of that exodus) and on the efforts to preserve the lifestyle of the dispersed peoples – living as a minority among a host society of a distinctly different ethnicity. ‘Diaspora’ is not an inherent trait, its existence (or non-existence), appearance or disappearance, may be a situational response to the demands of the time, place or circumstances. It follows from such an approach that the presence of people of a certain nationality who live beyond the borders of their homeland is not yet a diaspora but only a necessary condition of its emergence. In other words, one and the same people, their aggregate, may or may not be a diaspora.

The Armenian Diaspora: Unity in Diversity? Armenians have, in the words of Ernest Gellner, a “long tradition of [being a] dispersed people living as a national minority” (Gellner 1990:105). According to Eduard Melkonyan: A continuous and forced character of emigration from the homeland and more or less successful existence abroad caused Armenians to view emigration as a highly undesirable but inevitable phenomenon ordained from on high, an attribute of the existence of the Armenian nation (Melkonân 2000: 14 – 15).

One may argue of course whether emigration was always perceived by Armenians as a tragic or undesirable phenomenon, but that it was standard and ongoing is indisputable. At the beginning of the 21st century there exists a great diversity of people and their communities who, despite their differences, consider themselves Armenians and are referred to as such by others. Armenians live among very diverse nations and cultures, in countries with radically different political regimes and social structures. They, inevitably, adapt. The depth of this adaptation can differ from superficial knowledge of the dominant language and norms of conduct of the new environment, to assimilation. Much depends on the character of the relationship with the host society and the length of settlement in a given country. They can be an almost indigenous population (citizens with a long history of residence, and perfect cultural and linguistic skills), temporary labour migrants, or freshly arrived refugees. They can be people, who themselves have quit their homeland or who have found themselves abroad due to a shift of state borders. A list of distinguishing and differentiating lines is not exhausted by this most visible characteristic. One cannot forget that Armenians nowadays living outside their homeland, have come from both rural and urban milieus, have different social and professional

32

Viktor Dyatlov

statuses, are believers of different creeds, agnostics or atheists. Among them there are the people who speak and who do not speak Armenian. Those who keep close ties to Armenia and those for whom it is only a ‘virtual reality’, an abstract representation of a historic homeland. Finally, they are the people with different strategies for a national self-identification. There is an enormous difference between those who on the basis of their national identity build their relationships, enter and create social and professional networks, those for whom ‘Armenianness’ is an abstraction that does not influence their life, and those for whom it is an unwanted burden – hidden by the bearer but recognised by the environment.1 For illustrative purposes I will introduce two texts which express widely diverging positions on the issue of diasporic national identity. As one can read in the first of them – an article in the Krasnodar based newspaper Yerkramas, entitled “We Demonstrate our Belonging to Armenianness through Our Deeds”: We must preserve our national traditions like our own life and defend ourselves against assimilation. We have no right to forget the nation’s sacred trust that comes to us from our ancestors and we are obligated to pass on to future generations and not destroy it with our own hands. If today we do not tell our children about heroes of the Armenian nation, about our nation’s heroic battles and victories, then subsequent generations will acknowledge heroes of other nations. We should not concern ourselves whether all those around us like us but, first and foremost, we must love and respect ourselves. In saying ‘we’ I speak of our nation. Others constantly try to divide us, even we ourselves say: ‘You are a Yerevantsi’, [denizen of Yerevan], ‘You a Kirovabadtsi’, ‘You a Leninakantsi’, and so on. But, in fact, we are all Armenians. Our internal divisions are convenient for our enemies. Understanding all this, we should draw closer to one another, regardless of where we live or where we were born. Our children should have us as an example and live as Armenians and think as Armenians. Blood shed by our ancestors to win our right to life should not be held in vain. If I am an Armenian, I must live like an Armenian, live in an Armenian environment, and be useful to our nation financially, physically, and intellectually as best as I can… Simply by listening to Armenian music and eating Armenian food you will not become an Armenian, you must demonstrate your Armenianness through your deeds… By non-participation in the life of the Armenian community and distancing ourselves from all that is Armenian we dissolve among others and become aliens to both Armenians and to people among whom we live. Those who do not participate in Armenian initiatives only because they are Armenian denigrate the very notion of Armenianness, by thinking that they stand above it and not understanding that above the Armenianness there is only a sky of Armenia. But Nation is a sacred thing and not an object for trade. The honour of our nation is in our hands, we will depart this world but our nation will remain and will live as long as our planet Earth (Buranân 2007).

1 This last, dramatic, situation is examined by Sevil Guseynova in an article about Armenians in Azerbaijan’s capital Baku (Gusejnova 2006).

Armenians of Contemporary Russia

33

No less eloquent is the title published originally in the American-Armenian journal Ararat:2 “Well, My Father Was an Armenian, Yes…” (Čto značit 2000). The author is a second generation Armenian-American, a professor of American literature in Germany who tries to understand what his dual Armenian-American identity means to himself and to others. He resents others’ attempts to impose Armenianness on him due to his origins and distinctive surname. He rebels against a primordialist method of identifying a group by fact of birth, and insists on the right to independent self-identification. Without disavowing his Armenian roots, he wants to decide for himself what his ethnicity is (and if he has an ethnic identity at all). He denies that the Armenian language (which he does not know), Armenian historic and cultural traditions, religion and national customs are important for him: I cannot define what it means ‘to be Armenian’ for me. As a matter of fact, I do not completely understand what it means for me to be an American and I became an American by way of experience and not gens. Moreover, since I am a professor of American studies in a German university, to be American is part of my professional duties. And I am only beginning to discover for myself what it means to be John Hagopian… Naturally, the process of self-recognition, of finding one’s ‘I’ is inseparable from one’s specific life situation, experience, direct or indirect influence of particular individuals, general social milieu and various events in one’s life. A man should apply all his powers to recognise, understand and integrate all this experience so that his life is a complete one. Establishing some artificial framework and saying: ‘I consider myself Armenian (American, Baluba) and therefore I will admit into my world and value only Armenian (American, Baluba) people, things, states or cities, etc.’ means only maiming oneself (Čto značit 2000: 225).

I was unable to find similar texts by Armenians from Russia and suspect that there are none. And this, perhaps, attests not only to a domination of primordialist discourse in the realm of Russian intellectual thought, but also to the peculiarities of inter-ethnic relations in Russian society. It is not to be excluded that the constructivist reflection of the ­American-Armenian John Hagopian will any time soon be harmonised with the world view of the Russian Armenian.

Russian Armenians of the Soviet Era In the Soviet era, a crucial factor in promoting, preserving and institutionalising Armenian identity was the existence of the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic. Designated as an administrative-political entity and a centre of national culture, the Armenian SSR was, at the same time, perceived by Armenians in Russia not as ‘abroad’ but as part of a common

2 This article has been translated into Russian and published in the journal Diaspory; the following discussion, including quotations, is based on this version of the article.

34

Viktor Dyatlov

nation. This fact was largely responsible for the absence of the typical diasporic nostalgia for homeland; and the intra-USSR resettlement dictated by professional, educational or personal reasons was usually not viewed as emigration. Preservation of the Armenian identity was reinforced by its institutionalisation in the form of compulsory classification as ‘Armenian nationality’ which was stamped on passports and other documents. Alongside class distinction, Soviet authority treated ethnicity or, as it was called in the official lexicon, ‘natsionalnost’ (nationhood) as one of the foundations of the new society. A person was forced to declare his/her ethnic belonging during population censuses, for receiving passports and other documents, as well as by a system of preferences and limitations based on ethnicity. On the other hand, Soviet authority tried to abolish the very possibility of any autonomous, unauthorised self-organisation or self-activity, in particular of a national-cultural character. For this reason, the mode and conduct of life for Russian Armenians (especially where there were no old and large Armenian settlements, such as in the Krasnodar Region) was conditioned by the following factors: •• Russianness: schools, the army, the administration, the mass media, etc. were all grounded in the Russian language. Russian was mandatory in day-to-day communication and as a key tool of socialisation. •• Sovietness: its ideology, value system, rituals, practices and life style; in particular the concept of ‘proletarian internationalism’, and the official atheism/secularism. The latter meant depriving religion of its role as the fundamental basis of traditional life, a definer of value systems. Furthermore, it meant the elimination of religious communities as a form of self-organisation. •• The atomisation of society, which resulted from the destruction of traditional social structures and forms of independent communal life. The results of all these phenomena were highly contradictory. Processes of assimilation were impeded. However this did not lead to an organisation of ethnic-national life in the forms of institutions, formal and informal networks, relationships, or mechanisms for the transmission of cultural and historical traditions.

Armenian Diaspora of Contemporary Russia An entirely new situation developed after the collapse of Soviet rule and the dissolution of the

USSR. Armenia became an independent state. This was a difficult process, leading to an enor-

mous – given the size of the population of the country – stream of labour migrants abroad.3 In the opinion of the director of the Institute of Philosophy and Sociology of the National Academy of Sciences RA, Gevorg Poghosian, between 1997 and 2006 one million Armenians emigrated,

3 The population of Armenia is counted at around 3 million people.

Armenians of Contemporary Russia

35

of which 80% went to Russia (Odna 2006). According to other estimations, between 1998 and 2002 the number of ethnic Armenians in Russia grew from 532,400 to 1,130,500 (Višnevskij 2006: 72). The 2010 census puts the number at 1,182,400 (Vserossijskaâ n. d.). Including temporary migrants and those who did not participate in the census, experts estimate that around two million Armenians currently live in Russia (Arutûnân 2010: 58 – 65). The huge wave of new migrants, made Russia a leading centre of cultural, ethnic, economic and socio-political development of the Armenian diaspora. What is especially important here, is that this was not a purely quantitative growth but a radical shift in the complexity of this diaspora’s makeup. The newcomers and old-timers differ in their citizenship status and thus in their relations towards Armenia and Russia. They have different competences in the Armenian and Russian languages and cultures. Different interests prevail among them as well as daily life strategies and practices in Russian society. They also differ in the way they relate to their Armenianness. As a result, researchers have noted the emergence of mutual estrangement and animosities between these two poles of the Armenian population in Russia (Poloskova 2002). The last wave of immigration to Russia is of voluntary labour, and for the most part, does not have a definitive character. For these reasons, migrants are not much concerned with the issue of preserving their ethnic identity and do not possess an exalted relationship to Armenia. Instead, similar to other new immigrants to Russia, they concentrate on the issue of economic and social adaptation within the host society. As was noted, the most important instruments for achieving a desired economic status and social position are family, blood, clan and compatriot relations, based on mutual assistance and control. For old-timers, born and permanently resident in Russia, there are no problems of adaptation. Well-advanced processes of the atomisation of Russian society reached them as well. However, many among them strive to preserve their Armenian identity, language, and culture, as well as to create a network of relations with their historical homeland, which is today represented by the Republic of Armenia.4 And this is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve by only individual effort. Therefore, meeting the various needs of both newcomers and old-timers require collective efforts. This is one reason for developing a network of officially registered and government-endorsed national-cultural community associations. Another reason is that under current conditions in Russia ethnic mobilisation is prized by representatives of the business elite, who consider it as an important instrument for their economic and political influence. Established in 2000, the Union of Armenians in Russia (UAR, Soyuz armyan Rossii) maintains regional and local offices in 70 federal localities and more than 340 cities of the Russian Federation. As stated by its President, Ara Abramian: “the Union of Armenians in Russia is a voice of the representatives of two million Armenians in the country” (Prezident 2006: 9 – 15).

4 For many diaspora Armenians the Republic of Armenia is a kind of ‘official homeland’ while their ‘personal homeland’ is in one of the historical Armenian regions, located nowadays outside the borders of the Republic.

36

Viktor Dyatlov

Abramian believes that of all the Armenian communities scattered around the globe, the leading one is the Russian Armenian community. In his words, it is “the most important in many respects, including its size, intellectual potential, role and significance in such a large and influential country like Russia, and its economic resources” (­Neobhodimost' 2000). In 2003 the UAR initiated and organised the Constituent Assembly of the Armenian World Congress, attended by 350 delegates from 52 countries and the Presidents of Russia and Armenia. Abramian became the President of this new pan-Armenian organisation (Prezident 2006: 43 – 44). Judging from program documents and statements by the leader, the UAR holds ambitious goals of various character, including political (Prezident 2006: 13). On the eve of the establishment of this organisation Abramian announced: I believe that the Russia-wide organisation will adopt a new form of activity aimed at the political mobilisation of the Armenian community during Federal and local elections. For a community organisation in Russia, such activity is completely new, although it has quite effectively existed in Armenian communities in America, France and some other countries. Our organisation can play an important role in the political education of Armenian communities, enabling them to make better informed choices in supporting a political candidate or a party. It would be good to establish a set of mutual responsibilities between the political parties and the community as is the case in many countries where the former define their responsibilities towards the latter in exchange for votes (Neobhodimost' 2000: 5).

Within the framework of such defined objectives, during parliamentary elections in 2003, according to Abramian: “For the first time in the history of the Armenian diaspora in Russia we succeeded in conducting pre-election meetings with representatives of various parties and the mayoral candidate for Moscow city Y. M. Luzhkov” (Prezident 2006: 14). During the presidential elections of 2004, as Abramian stated, the UAR, mobilised the voting power of the diaspora in support of Vladimir Putin (Prezident 2006: 10 – 11). Besides, the UAR became engaged in softening the anti-Armenian rhetoric of the authorities of the K ­ rasnodar Region, and in easing ethnic tensions in there. This is all the more important, taking into account that the Armenian population of the region is estimated at between 600,000 and 800,000, comprising the second largest ethnic group in the region. Without a doubt, these are all manifestations of political activism, although this activism is not directed towards acting as an independent actor on the Russian political scene. This is more a lobbying activity based on a significant intermediary resource. The UAR cultivates this resource thanks to support from regional Armenian organisations. It is this resource, in fact, which makes the UAR a significant partner for official authorities in Moscow and Yerevan. The participation in the Constituent Assembly of the Armenian World Congress by both the Presi­ dents of Russia and Armenia attests to the fact that the UAR is seen as a potentially important link between the two countries and their political establishments. In turn, by supporting the UAR, ethnic activists that run the regional organisations, and who speak on behalf of the Armenians in their cities or regions, obtain (or at least may hope for it) additional financial, social or symbolic capital by, for instance, gaining ‘direct access’ to Moscow and Yerevan.

Armenians of Contemporary Russia

37

It should be admitted that so far, these intermediary capabilities constitute the only power the UAR has at its command, inasmuch as the prospect of greater political mobilisation of the diaspora by the Union of Armenians in Russia (or anyone else for that matter) is wholly problematic. It is not by coincidence that in his address Abramian admitted that “not all representatives of our diaspora participate in community and political action to the same extent” (Prezident 2006: 6). The level of politicisation and ethnic solidarity of the Armenian community’s representatives, the scale of actual, or even nominal, participation in ethnically focused socio-political organisations have not yet been measured. However, one can anticipate that the basic interests of labour migrants lie not in the political sphere, and thus the potential for their political mobilisation depends on the level of their involvement in clan structures. In turn, the level of voluntary engagement and activism of second or third generation Russian Armenians will depend on the organisation’s ability to meet their ethnocultural demands and interests.

Conclusion The aggregate of temporary and permanent residents in Russia who call themselves Armenians, and are so called by the host society, currently features not only an enormous variety of socio-cultural subgroups, but also different modes of relating to ethnic identity. For the most part, these modes are based on diasporic strategies and practices of self-organisation. The enormous influx of voluntary labour migrants from independent Armenia, both temporary and permanent, has resulted in a demand for a traditional, community based system of mutual support. This system is sufficient enough to answer the initial adaptation needs of the migrants. However, if developed into an extreme it may lead to a creation of a communal ‘cocoon’, the nucleus of which remains impenetrable to outsiders, established not only with its own ethnocultural lifestyle but also a peculiar structure of social and power relations. This situation can stem from both the rejection of the migrants by the host society, and the pull of the homeland, supported by modern communication technologies, which enable migrants, with relative ease, to live in two worlds. In turn, representatives of the old waves of migration, who are very well integrated into the host society, have no need for such self-organisation and find it burdensome. But even they have needs which drive them to seek solidarity on a national basis, including a desire to preserve their language, culture, and religion, all associated with the historical homeland. Thus, to satisfy these needs people create networks and institutions. However, at the core of these structures there is a personal and voluntary choice, rather than belonging to a group by reason of birth, or clan membership. The possibility of making such a choice may be the cornerstone of a new quality of the phenomenon that bears the name ‘the Armenian diaspora in Russia’. However, there is no guarantee that such a direction of diaspora development will prevail. Much depends here on the trajectory of Russia’s own development.

38

Viktor Dyatlov

References Armâne (2003) “Armâne vseh stran, soedinâjtes' ”, Izvestiâ, 7 oktâbrâ. Arutûnân Ûrik (2010) “Armâne – rossiâne skvoz' prizmu ètnosociologii”, Sociologičeskie issledovaniâ, 3, pp.  8 – 65. Buranân Karen (2007) “Prinadležnost' k armânstvu dokazyvaem delom”, Erkramas, 3. Čikadze Elena (2000) “Armâne Peterburga: ot obsˆestvennogo dviženiâ k obsˆinnym institutam”, Diaspory, 1 – 2, pp.  196 – 214. Čto značit (2000) “Čto značit byt' armâninom? Iz N' û-Jorskogo žurnala ‘Ararat’”, Diaspory, 1 – 2, pp.  216 – 225. Dâtlov Viktor (1996) Predprinimatel'skie menšinstva: torgaši, čužaki ili poslannye Bogom? Simbioz, konflikt, integraciâ v stranah Arabskogo Vostoka i Tropičeskoj Afriki, Moskva. Firsov Evgenij (2006) “Rossijskie armâne i ih issledovateli”, Ètnografičeskoe obozrenie, 1, pp. 72 – 91. Firsov Evgenij, Krivušina Vera (2004) “K izučeniû kommunikacionnoj sredy rossijskoj armânskoj diaspory (po materialam polevyh issledovanij lokalnyh grupp Vladimirskoj oblasti)”, Diaspory, 1, pp.  6 – 45. Gellner Ernest (1990) Nation and Nationalism, Oxford: Blackwell. Gusejnova Sevil (2006) “Problematika ‘pripisyvaemoj’ identičnosti (Bakinskie armâne)”, Diaspory, 4, pp.  116 – 150. Melkonân Èduard (2000) “Diaspora v sisteme ètničeskih menš' instv (na primere armânskogo rasseâniâ)”, Diaspory, 1 – 2, pp.  6 – 28. Mokin Konstantin (2006) “Diaspornaâ identičnost' v dinamike: konvergenciâ i èntropiâ (izučaâ armân Saratovskoj oblasti)”, Diaspory, 4, pp. 50 – 168. Neobhodimost' (2000) “Neobhodimost' konsolidacii predstavlâetsâ nasusˆnoj”, Nezavisimaâ gazeta, 16 iûnâ, p. 5. Odna (2006) “Odna iz pričin otsutstviâ v Armenii srednego klassa – èmigraciâ”, Noev kovčeg, 14, p. 2. Poloskova Tat' yana (2002) “Armânskaâ dâspora v Rossi”, armenia.ru, http://www.armenia.ru/community. php3?age=poloskova.2002 [25 January 2013]. Popkov Vâčeslav (2003) “Diaspornaâ obsˆina – model otnošenij ètničeskih migrantov s prinimaûsˆim obsˆestvom”, Diaspory, 3, pp. 126 – 152. Prezident (2006) Prezident Soûza armân Rossii Ara Abramân. Otčëtnyj doklad III s"ezda Soûza armân Rossii za period 2002 – 2006 gg. i osnovnye napravleniâ razvitiâ organizacii SAR, Moskva: SAR. Stepanân Armen (2004) “Sociokul' turnye osobennosti armânskoj ètnoobsˆiny Moskvy (èkskurs v prošloe i rezultaty polevogo obsledovaniâ 2003 g.)”, Diaspory, 1, pp. 46 – 63. Višnevskij Anatolij (ed.) (2006) Naselenie Rossii 2003 – 2004. Odinnadcatyj – dvenadsatyj ežegodnyj demografičeskij doklad, Moskva: Nauka. Vserossijskaya (n. d.) “Vserossijskaâ perepis' naseleniâ 2010r. Nacional' nyj sostav naseleniâ Rossijskoj ­Federacii”, Demoskop Weekly, http://demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/rus_nac_10.php [19 April 2014]. Žurženko Tat' âna (2007) “Meždu klanom, sem' ëj i naciej: postsoveckaâ maskulinnost' /feminnost' v cvetnyh revolûciâh”, Ab Imperio, 1, pp. 355 – 394.

Ulrike Ziemer

Unsettled Identity Negotiations The Armenian Diaspora in Krasnodar Krai

For centuries, Armenian history and culture has been characterised by various waves of migration, some forced, some voluntary. In particular, the expulsion of Armenians from their traditional homelands in eastern Turkey in 19151 resulted in large-scale dispersion and, consequently, the formation of the Armenian diaspora (spyurk) as a social category (Safran 1991), that differs from the previous notion of colony (gahtavayr) (Panossian 2006). A further distinction was made between Armenians belonging to internal and external diaspora – those from the ‘near abroad’ (blizhnee zarubezhe) i. e. Armenian communities in Russia and other former Soviet republics, and those from the ‘far away abroad’ (dalnee zarubezhe) i. e. Armenian communities in Europe, America and the Middle East (Shahnazarian 2013). In turn, the establishment of an independent Republic of Armenia in 1991 has underscored the division between those living there (Hayastanstiner) and those living abroad (­Spyurkahayer) (Darieva 2012). Thus, despite being formally united as a single nation, Armenians are internally diverse in terms of their culture and identity, exacerbated by the fact that of the approximately seven million Armenians in the world (Kurkchiyan, Herzig 2005: 2) at least one half are assumed to live outside the homeland (Pattie 2005: 126).2 Since Armenians started moving to Russia in the eighteenth century, they have struggled to renegotiate their identity and their relationship with Armenia, while at the same time establishing themselves in their new country of settlement. During Soviet times, most Armenians living outside the Armenian SSR 3 were able to preserve many elements of their distinctive culture, despite the state authorities’ attempts to eradicate national differences. Nevertheless, they became highly influenced by the concepts of ‘people’s friendship’ (­druzhba narodov) and the ‘Soviet people’ (sovetskiy narod) (Oussatcheva 2001). As a result, many Armenians found it hard to think of themselves as members of a diaspora, considering themselves citizens of a single homeland – the USSR (Libardian 1999). Such terms as the

1 Many Armenians were killed during this period although the exact number is strongly contested. The most commonly accepted number of Armenian fatalities is around 1.5 million people – roughly 60% of Turkey’s Armenian population at that time (Hoffman 2006: 71). The events of 1915 are often cited as the first state ‘genocide’ of the twentieth century. 2 Reliable, recent figures are difficult to obtain, so this data is based on estimates. 3 Despite the fact that many Armenians lived outside their ethnic republic, the Armenian SSR was the most ethnically homogenous republic in the USSR (Suny 2005).

40

Ulrike Ziemer

Russian language’s ‘diaspora’ or the Armenian ‘spyurk’ were hardly used in everyday parlance (Lur'e 1999). This, however, all changed when the Soviet Union collapsed. Armenia became an independent country, ethnic conflicts emerged in the South Caucasus, and a fresh wave of Armenian migrants came to Russia. This chapter explores the unifying and dividing processes within the contemporary Armenian community in Krasnodar Krai (Krasnodar Region), in southern Russia. It discusses the complex problems which arise when numerous waves of Armenian migrants, differentiated by the time and departure point of their migration, meet in one place. The aim of this chapter is to show that, despite attempts at unification by local Armenian voluntary associations and the Armenian Apostolic Church, there are major differences between the ‘new’ and ‘old’ Armenian diaspora. These differences are reinforced by the political discourse in Krasnodar Krai, which portrays migration as a problem for the region. This chapter draws on data gathered during on-going ethnographic fieldwork conducted in Krasnodar since 2006, including participant observation, in-depth interviews and press analysis.4 The chapter begins by providing an overview of local migration politics as well as Armenian migration to Krasnodar Krai, followed by a discussion of the concepts of diaspora, identity and cosmopolitanism. It then proceeds to examine the history and development of Armenian voluntary associations and the Armenian Apostolic Church as unifying institutions. The final part of this chapter discusses the dynamic ways in which identity politics are currently being negotiated within the local Armenian diaspora.

Armenian Migration and Identity Politics in Krasnodar Krai 5 As a result of large-scale migration flows, Krasnodar Krai, has become one of Russia’s most ethnically diverse regions. According to the 2002 population census, Krasnodar Krai has a population of around five million, with Russians constituting the majority (86.56% or 4,436,272 people) (Nacional' nyj 2005).6 Armenians have a long and established history in the region dating back to the eighteenth century and are currently one of the largest ethnic minorities in the region, officially comprising 5.36% (274,566) of its total population (Nacional' nyj 2005). Armenians arrived in Krasnodar Krai via several waves of migration. The two most significant being the wave that followed the Armenian Genocide between 1915 and 1920 with approximately 30,000 Armenians fleeing to the region (Ter-Sarkisânc

4 Part of the research was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (2006 – 2008) and by the Centre for East European Language Based Area Studies (CEELBAS), where the author conducted research as CEELBAS Postdoctoral Research Fellow on Migration and Diasporic Citizenship (2009 – 2011) at University College London. Modified versions of several parts of this chapter have been published previously (Ziemer 2009, 2010, 2011a, 2011b). 5 Parts of this section have been previously published in Ziemer (2011a). 6 Data from the most recent population census in 2011 was still inaccessible at the time of writing.

The Armenian Diaspora in Krasnodar Krai

41

1995) and the wave of Armenian migrants following the ethnic conflicts in the Caucasus in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The latter included Armenians fleeing Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh (1988 – 1994), refugees from the Georgian-Abkhazian conflict (1992 – 1994), and forced re-­settlers from Chechnya (1994 – 1996 and 1999 – 2001). When large numbers of migrants and refugees (not only Armenians) came to the region following these and other ethnic conflicts, Krasnodar Krai’s authorities faced major difficulties in developing an effective migration regime. As a political reaction to these waves of migrants, which generally were perceived as a security threat and a threat to a ‘healthy’ ethnic balance, the authorities turned to institutionalised discrimination against ethnic minorities. In this way, regardless of when a given group of Armenians settled in Krasnodar Krai, most find themselves affected by the issue of recent migration. On the other hand, coexisting with this negative approach to migration is an official discourse at the regional and federal levels which attempts to promote cultural diversity, and some ethnic voluntary organisations are financially supported by the public purse. For example, the regional budget sets aside two million roubles annually to support various projects for the Shapsughs – a sub-tribe of the Western Adyghs – and the federal authorities’ have provided support in various forms for other indigenous groupings in Russia (Osipov 2004: 14). Such an approach is universal in Russia, but it is particularly strong in the official politics of Krasnodar Krai.7 Noteworthy here is that the ethnic composition of Krasnodar Krai has not changed significantly since 1989. According to the 1989 and 2002 censuses the ethnic Russian population was, respectively, 86.71% and 86.56% of the total population (Nacional' nyj 2005). This contradicts Krasnodar Krai’s public discourse, with its emphasis on the decline of the ethnic Russian population. Instead, census data confirms that since 1989 the ethnic composition has only changed slightly, due in part to the arrival of Slavic re-settlers (pereselentsy) to the region from other parts of Russia (Sokolov-Mitrič 2007:10). For example, in 2001 approximately 90% of all newcomers were Russian citizens, and 82% were ethnic Russians (Popov 2005: 52 – 53). A similar opinion was expressed by Mikhail Zhurbin 8, that according to statistics on ‘ethnic’ migration, Russians predominate in migration numbers. This opinion is often contradicted by other scholars, for example Rakachev and Rakacheva, who claim that Armenian migrants comprise the largest group based on ethnicity (Rakačev, Rakačeva 2003), Following the official anti-migration discourse, experts in the field predominantly discuss migration in terms of illegal migration as a threat to the region’s stability and disturbing the region’s demographic balance, ignoring the fact that this is an internal migration of Russian citizens that prevails.

7 The discourse of cultural diversity has grown significantly in the past few years in order to create a positive image of the region in preparation for the Winter Olympics in Sochi. 8 Interview with Mikhail Zhurbin on 25 August 2005, conducted by Rita Kuznetsova, at the Centre for Pontic and Caucasian Studies (Krasnodar), as part of a research on migration conducted for the RIME Project 2004 – 2006, University of Warwick.

42

Ulrike Ziemer

The proportion of Armenians in Russia in general, and in Krasnodar Krai in particular, has nonetheless increased in recent years, and this is often portrayed negatively in the press. For example, “At present several million Armenians live in Russia, but only about 15,000 Russians live in Armenia…” (Beglecov 2004: 1 – 2). According to official Russian statistics every fourth Armenian in Russia lives in Krasnodar Krai, and as Alexandr Tkachyov, the local governor, claims, “There are approximately one million Armenians in the Krai”.9 In contrast to Tkachyov, Kuznetsov, an expert on Armenians in Krasnodar Krai, suggests that there are no more than 350,000. As stated earlier, however, according to the population census from 2002, only 274,566 Armenians are recorded as living in this part of Russia (Nacional' nyj 2005). These differences in opinion on the number of Armenians in Krasnodar Krai raise doubts about the reliability of the census data, which is viewed as capturing only a part of the actual population.10 Thus, there is the widespread assumption that there are many more (unregistered) Armenians than these figures suggest.

Diasporic Identities in Cosmopolitan Perspective Social science literature is rife with debate concerning what diaspora is and how it should be defined. The concept of diaspora has been used to write about displaced people, migrants, and transnational peoples. While some scholars, like King and Melvin (1999/2000: 10), define diaspora as an “ethnic community divided by states,” others, like Lavie and Swedenburg (1996: 14), describe diaspora in terms of a “doubled relationship or dual loyalty that migrants, exiles and refugees have – including their connections to the space they currently occupy and their continuing involvement with ‘back home.’” In addition to focusing on the home-host relationship, other scholars define diaspora as a type of social form (Wahlbeck 2002: 229), and emphasise the transnational character of diasporas and diasporic activities which transcend state boundaries (Kelly 2011: 445). Many scholars also understand diaspora as a category of analysis which questions individual and collective notions of home and homeland, and the impact these notions have on identity for those born and raised outside their ‘traditional’ homeland (Brah 1996). Some members of a diaspora recognise their homeland as “a mythic place of desire in the diasporic imagination, in the sense that it is the place of ‘origin’” (Brah 1996: 192). In contrast, for other members of diasporas, their home, the place where they actually live, can appear

9 Armiane Kubani documentary film by Artem Erkanian (2005). 10 The questionable accuracy of the 2002 population census can be explained by several shortcomings in the data. First, whereas previous Soviet censuses were carried out in a controlled state and compliance with the census was mandatory, the 2002 population census was conducted during unstable times, where the population’s distrust had increased, which led to difficulties in conducting the census (Heleniak 2003: 431). Second, there is the problem of ethnic self-identification, especially with regard to people from ethnically mixed origins (Oswald 2000),

The Armenian Diaspora in Krasnodar Krai

43

as “the lived experience of a locality” (Brah 1996, Ziemer 2009, 2011b). The dichotomy of the mythic place of origin and home as daily sensory experience is important not only for any migrant’s understanding of previous and current homes, but also for subsequent generations raised outside traditional ethnic homelands, for whom ‘home’ may continue to be multiply situated (Brah 1996: 197). This present study takes a processual view of diasporas in that it considers the ways in which a particular social and political reality is constructed. In this respect, diasporic identity is also understood as a form of practice. Such an approach incorporates the diverse processes of identification. It draws attention to the plurality of identity narratives of a diaspora and the processes through which they are selected, practiced, and embodied in everyday life. Taking diaspora as practice emphasises the cosmopolitan which tends to embrace the partial, syncretised and ever-changing aspects of identity (Breckenridge et al. 2002). A cosmopolitan perspective on diaspora also moves beyond local/national limitations. An individual can construct a self-identity through selective cosmopolitanism, moving between home cultures and ‘alien cultures’, thereby creating various definitions of home (Hannerz 1990: 240 – 248). While categorically defining cosmopolitanism may be “an uncosmopolitan thing to do” (Breckenridge et al. 2002: 1), cosmopolitanism can be described as “ways of living at home abroad or abroad at home – ways of inhabiting multiple places at once, of being different beings simultaneously” (Breckenridge et al. 2002: 11). In short, cosmopolitanism is understood as a means by which diasporic people draw selectively on a variety of discursive cultural meanings, and therefore are able to combine sameness and difference in their everyday lives, thus creating unity through diversity.

Unifying Institutions: Armenian Ethnic Voluntary Associations and the Armenian Apostolic Church The Armenian Apostolic Church and Armenian voluntary associations have played a major role in the formation of an Armenian diasporic community in Krasnodar Krai. Although many Armenians voluntarily migrated to this part of Russia before 1915, Armenians who came to the region immediately after 1915 were refugees and had survived traumatic experiences of loss and suffering. Thus, their desire to return home one day and keep the memory of the homeland alive was particularly strong. Not surprisingly, this group engaged in activities which concentrated on preserving, revitalising, and reproducing memories of the old original homeland to form a sense of community and belonging. Initially, this took place through the formation of religious and educational institutions. Armenian voluntary associations first appeared in southern Russia at the end of the nineteenth century. In 1889, for example, a branch of the Armenian Charitable Society in the Caucasus (Armyanskoe Blagotvoritelnoe Obshchestvo na Kavkaze), originally founded in 1881 in Tbilisi (Tiflis), was opened in the Krasnodar Region (Simonân 2003: 33). By 1882, members of the Society in Tbilisi had already established links to Armenians in Krasnodar

44

Ulrike Ziemer

Krai by making short visits to Armavir and Ekaterinodar to collect donations. Moreover, national parties, such as Hnchak or Dashnaktsutiun started to operate in the North-West Caucasus, leading to a political mobilisation of the local Armenian diaspora (Karapetân 2006). Noteworthy here is that during the initial period of Armenian migration to the Kuban region,11 the Russian government introduced laws which stimulated Armenian diasporic activities and the migration process itself (Hačaturân 2000). The settlers received many privileges, such as the right to organise self-government within their ethnic settlements (Simonân 2003: 162). Yet, when the number of Armenian migrants continued to increase beyond the control of the Russian government, and when Armenian national parties gained more political influence, the Russian government started to restrict earlier privileges which it had granted to Armenian migrants. Ultimately, this led to the closure of Armenian schools in the Caucasus in 1896, as well as Armenian voluntary associations in 1898. As the Armenian Apostolic Church often served as a ‘mediator’ for the Kuban Armenian diaspora with the Armenian diaspora in other regions and countries, as well as with Armenia itself, the Tsarist administration and later the Soviet government perceived this role negatively; since it was considered the main obstacle to the policy of Russification. The Soviet government thus introduced measures to also weaken the influence of the Church, such as removing the Armenian clergy from the education process in national schools and confiscating Church property in 1903. From 1907 onwards, however, various Armenian voluntary associations were re-opened or established anew in Krasnodar Krai, including the first two ethnic voluntary women’s associations, the Armenian Charitable Society for Women (Armyanskoe Zhenskoe B ­ lagotvoritelnoe Obshchestvo), in Maikop, and the Armenian Charitable Society for Ladies (Armyanskoe Damskoe Blagotvoritelnoe Obshchestvo) in Ekaterinodar (Simonân 2003:34). The activities of these voluntary associations were primarily educational, as well as helping orphans and children from poor families. Membership fees and cultural fundraising events paid for these activities. The Armenian voluntary associations not only focused on the Armenian community, but generally served the well-being of the whole region. After the 1917 Revolution and the subsequent establishment of the Soviet Union in December 1922, the Armenian Church was heavily repressed and Armenian political parties were banned. For thirty-two years, there was no Armenian church in Krasnodar Krai and only two Armenian churches were active in the whole of the North-West Caucasus. Furthermore, Soviet policies negatively affected all aspects of Armenian diasporic life, although Armenian newspapers and educational institutions functioned in some periods. The situation changed from the end of the 1980s onwards, when, as part of the process of a national-cultural renaissance in the late Soviet and early post-Soviet period, numerous Armenian voluntary associations were established anew. This process – an “unexpected outcome” of

11 Krasnodar Krai is also known as Kuban region named after the Kuban River.

The Armenian Diaspora in Krasnodar Krai

45

the political changes of this period (Burawoy, Verdery 1999) – was further strengthened in the Armenian case by the Karabakh war (Lur'e 1999). Yet this revival was also the outcome of the national and local political discourse in Krasnodar Krai to support ethnic voluntary associations, despite a negative approach to migration. Nowadays, there are many different Armenian associations throughout Krasnodar Krai. While some have only a few members, others have several hundred. Some are funded and supported by the local government, while others are privately financed.12 For example, the Armenian cultural magazine Khachkar is fully funded by Krasnodar-based Armenian businessman Andrej Amosov. In an interview with the author,13 Amosov identified the revival and maintenance of Armenian traditions as well as raising awareness of Armenian cultural values amongst young Armenians in Krasnodar as major aims of his cultural magazine. He complained that many second and third generation Armenians are often unable to speak Armenian and appreciate the Khachkar magazine in the same way as the older generations. Voluntary associations aim to meet the cultural, social and political needs of Armenians living in Krasnodar Krai. Some, like the Pashkovskyi Armenian Association 14 (APO, Armyanskaya Pashkovskaya Obshchina), offer opportunities in all three areas, while others, like the Mesrop Mashtots’s Association of Armenian Culture and Charity (Obshchestvo Armyanskoy Kultury i Miloserdiya im. M. Mashtotsa), are more focused on cultural and social activities and are state-funded. It is important to note that most state-funded ethnic associations are set up in order to promote the official government discourse of ethnic diversity in the region and to limit diasporic political activities. Many Armenian associations, whether privately or state-funded, are involved in organising concerts, lectures and other cultural events. For example, in 2006, the APO together with the Armenian Apostolic Church in Krasnodar organised a series of concerts in which famous artists from Armenia performed such as the popular duduk player Djivan Gasparyan. Staging traditional Armenian religious festivals at Christmas and Easter, national celebrations such as Armenia’s Day of Independence and the annual commemoration of the Armenian Genocide are also of central importance. In addition, on a daily basis, most of these organisations offer Armenian language, dance and singing classes. In the political sphere, many Armenian associations are actively engaged in supporting Armenia’s petitions for official recognition of the Armenian Genocide and in lobbying for migrants’ rights to vote in Armenia’s elections. Engaging with homeland politics is a top priority on their agenda. An example can be seen in the visit to Krasnodar made by the President of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, Bako Sahakyan, in February 2010. As part of his visit, Sahakyan not only met with the heads of Armenian voluntary associations, 12 It is noteworthy that in Russia as a whole, many well-known, wealthy and influential Armenian businessmen, such as Danil Khachaturov, Ruben Vardanyan, Samvel Karapetyan and Levon Harutyunyan engage in activities to foster Armenian culture in Russia, and to strengthen links with the homeland. 13 The interview was conducted in Krasnodar in July 2010. 14 Pashkovskyi rayon, where the main premises of the APO are located, is part of Krasnodar city.

46

Ulrike Ziemer

but he also visited an Armenian Sunday school on the premises of the Armenian Church where he socialised with teachers and students, before making a public speech to the greater Armenian community. By these and other activities Armenian voluntary associations not only contribute to creating stronger links between the diaspora and the homeland, but also try to bridge the gap between recent Armenian migrants and members of the older diaspora.

Internal Hierarchies and Divisions Armenian voluntary associations attempt to represent the interests of all Armenians, including recent Armenian migrants and local ‘old’ Armenian diaspora. However, complex cultural, generational, social and structural differences between migrant cohorts have resulted in a particular relationship of power among various Armenian sub-groups, based on symbolic articulations of cultural specificities mainly relating to country of origin and diverse migration experiences. Thus, despite the unifying attempts of Armenian organisations and the Armenian Apostolic Church, a noticeable feature of the local Armenian diaspora in ­Krasnodar Krai is a powerful set of boundaries within the local Armenian community. This internal diversity is also well-known to and emphasised by the regional authorities as a political tool to justify their discriminatory practices. On several occasions, Aleksandr Tkachyov, the regional governor, has relied on these internal divisions to rationalise his policies: Those who live legally here, Armenians, Georgians and other nationalities – these are our people, our fellow-countrymen (zemlyaki), these are Kuban people and we don’t make any distinctions. What I am talking about is illegal migrants, those who came to Kuban in the last two, three or five years, and I know that there are already tensions with those who came from Armenia.15

This line of argument is also held by Nikolaj Gromov, the ataman of the Kuban Cossacks 16: “When speaking about Armenians, we clearly distinguish between those who are our local Armenians – they are ‘ours’ – and those new ones, who have come in the last 10 to 15 years to the region and whom even local Armenians don’t accept” (Gromov 2005).17 15 Aleksandr Tkachyov cited in Armyane Kubani documentary. 16 In Tsarist Russia, Cossacks were a special militarised segment of society but they disappeared from public view in the Soviet period. In Krasnodar Krai, the Kubanskiy Kazachiy Klub was founded in 1989, and in 1990, the Cossack movement branch, Kubanskaya Rada was established (Boeck 1998: 633 – 657). Its members have managed to manoeuvre themselves into positions in the regional administration. The Cossack leaders often hold the position of vice-chairman in the administration at local government, city and regional levels. It is not clear how much real influence is attached to these positions, but it serves the symbolic function of forging a connection between the Cossacks and the Krasnodar territory (Toje 2006: 1069). 17 This quotation is taken from Armyane Kubani documentary.

The Armenian Diaspora in Krasnodar Krai

47

The above extracts highlight the ways in which local politicians reinforce divisions between ‘old’ and ‘new’ Armenians in public discourse. These divisions are also acknowledged and practiced within the Armenian diaspora itself. In this respect, it is useful to consider Barth’s (1969) argument that it is the process of inter-group contact that generates cultural meanings through a boundary dividing ‘us’ from ‘them’. Gupta and Ferguson (2002) link this approach to an understanding of power relations. For them, constructing difference is a means by which to establish a hierarchy of power. Unlike pre-perestroika Armenian migrants, who are well integrated into local society, many of those who have arrived from 1988 onwards face not only general challenges in the Russian host society; they also experience distrust and, sometimes, rejection from members of their own diasporic community. A substantial contributing factor to such a rejection can be found in the negative media portrayal of migrants in terms of illegality and crime (Roman 2002). Hence, some representatives of the old Armenian diaspora in Krasnodar Krai consider newcomers to be criminals whose activity negatively influences the attitudes of the Russian population and authorities towards everyone of South Caucasian or North Caucasian descent, as a 27 year-old female local Armenian tells us: Even though I belong to the ‘old’ Armenian diaspora, I don’t think that these newcomers are necessarily criminals. I wouldn’t even say the ‘old’ Armenians reject them – on the contrary, most of the ‘old’ ones try to help, like the obshchina [APO], for example. Even if they are rejected by officials, they can still find a decent job here without becoming a criminal. In my opinion, they just don’t want to adapt. The thing is you can’t do here what you used to do at home. They have to behave in the same way as we do in Krasnodar. What also doesn’t help is that both old and new are quite arrogant sometimes. The new ones think and pretend everything is better in Armenia or wherever they come from and the old ones just look down on them because of their clothes and so on.

Although this research participant maintains that she does not reject newcomers, she expresses a certain discontent caused by the way new migrants behave in the host society. One could argue that, with such views and stereotypes, local Armenians themselves reinforce the political discourse which portrays any new migrants as a disturbance to society in Krasnodar Krai. In a sense, such an understanding is deeply rooted in the recent history and economy of the host country. While the government tends to portray the arrival of new migrants as disturbing the ethnic balance in the region, another likely influencing factor is that most migrants heading to Russia from Armenia tend to be temporary, rural and unskilled migrants (Gevorkyan et al. 2006). Furthermore, because of the newcomers’ different behaviour, they are viewed as damaging the image and reputation of the long-established and well-integrated local Armenian community in the eyes of the host society. As the next female, a 27-year-old representative of the ‘old’ diaspora, describes:

48

Ulrike Ziemer

Those [Armenians] from Baku came to Krasnodar 20 years ago. They already have everything here […]. They have lived in Krasnodar for quite a long time now […], they have their circle of friends, and their status in society. Well, and when these new ones arrived, especially from Armenia in the 1990s, we could feel the impact immediately. We felt it, us ‘local’ Armenians, that they were from Yerevan. But for Russians, we all look the same. For Russians, it doesn’t matter where Armenians come from, they are still Armenians.

In addition to those boundaries created as a result of different arrival dates and different degrees of adaptation on the part of migrants, a major internal boundary between Armenians stems from a sense of community based on place of origin (zemlyachestvo). Such identity is particularly strong among newcomers and today one can discern several groups divided according to this principle. First, there are the Azerbaijani Armenians who came to the region in the late 1980s during the Karabakh conflict. This group may be subdivided into those Armenians who came from the capital city of Baku and its industrial satellite towns, such as Sumgait, and those who came from the city of Kirovabad (Ganja) and nearby villages of Shamkir, Dashkasan, former Shahumyan, and other districts. Second, there are the Karabakh (Artsakh) Armenians, and third, the Georgian Armenians from ­Tbilisi, J­ avakhk (Javakheti) and Abkhazia.18 The Abkhazian group, it should be noted, mostly consists of Hamshen Armenians (Simonân 2003: 145).19 Finally, there are those Armenians from Armenia who left the country after the earthquake in 1988 and as a result of worsening socio-­ economic conditions in the 1990s. In this context, it should be noted that much has been made of the basic cultural differences between ‘Eastern’ and ‘Western’ Armenians, including their different linguistic dialects (Shahnazarian 2013). While it is true that most post-Soviet Armenians speak Eastern Armenian and most established diasporic Armenians speak Western Armenian, Iranian Armenians, for example, who have never been part of the Soviet Union, still speak Eastern Armenian. In Krasnodar Krai the existence of this linguistic diversity and local dialects creates some barriers to integration. In interviews, research participants would often deny that these differences are important, yet on the everyday level they do have a certain influence, as the next extract from an interview with a 24-year-old local Armenian woman shows: No, it doesn’t matter to me whether the person is an Azerbaijani Armenian […]. Well, first of all, I can hardly understand their language [she means the different dialect]. Well, if it’s not your native language, then it’s hard to understand, especially those Baku Armenians, it’s really terrible. I just can’t understand anything they want. Well, in general, I have acquaintances and friends who are Baku Armenians and we get on. I can’t really say anything bad.

18 They came to Krasnodar Krai in the 1990s primarily due to the harsh socio-economic conditions in Georgia at that time. 19 Hamshen Armenians are a distinct ethno-religious group professing Islam.

The Armenian Diaspora in Krasnodar Krai

49

From this interview excerpt, one can see that as the interviewee emphasises the ‘cultural’ diversity between her and her friends, she is indirectly talking about the internal hierarchies of the Armenian diaspora, in the sense that she knows about internal divisions, while denying that she would act in a way to perpetuate them. In the context of her remarks, it should perhaps be acknowledged that what she is saying should not be separated from her ‘audience’ (Brown 1998). It illustrates that, for someone perceived to be an outsider (in this case, the interviewer) these internal cultural divisions are portrayed as only minor, having hardly any significance for the overall unity of the Armenian diaspora in Krasnodar Region. However, and as the subsequent discussion illustrates, there is evidence to suggest the contrary. Along with language differences, there are also other visible cultural differences, which create hierarchical distinctions. In this ‘cultural hierarchy’, Armenians who fled Baku and other Azerbaijani cities, or those who are from Nagorno-Karabakh, are ranked lowest and are often looked down upon by the old diaspora, but also by newcomers from Yerevan. This is partly due to the fact that they are thought to have lived far too close to a Muslim society during Soviet times, adopting some of their customs and traditions. Such stigmatising differentiations ignore the cosmopolitan nature of Baku in Soviet times (Grant 2010) and are largely made as a result of Armenia’s enduring resistance to Muslim conquest and the traumatic experience of the Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire in 1915. Both Baku and Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians are often perceived as ‘false ­Christians’, owing to secularising processes during Soviet times, as well as to their past, having lived in predominantly Muslim milieu. For example, in the summer of 2009, during an Armenian cultural gathering, the author overheard a priest from the Armenian Church in ­Krasnodar calling Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians ‘bezbozhniki’ (ateists) in a heated argument over church attendance. While Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians seem to be placed at the bottom of this internal hierarchy within the Armenian diaspora in the region, at the top of this hierarchy, there are Armenians from Yerevan. They perceive themselves as ‘proper’ Armenians, as they come from the ‘cultural centre’ of the Armenian nation. As a reaction, other Armenians often describe them as being arrogant and conceited. One 26-year old female local Armenian, for example, maintains that Armenians from Yerevan come to Krasnodar Krai and other parts of Russia thinking they have a ‘genuine’ Armenian culture. This research participant describes these cultural differences by referring to one Armenian from Yerevan: Well, and then there is E. [a priest] – he is such a Yerevan Armenian. Well, from head to toe he is a Yerevan Armenian, there’s nothing in this world better than him […]. You know his regal attitude: “We are Yerevan Armenians, we are the world’s proper Armenians”. Well, they refer to all other kinds of Armenians as if they are below them…

Another 23-year-old female research participant, whose parents originally came from Baku, also talks about these cultural differences and hierarchies amongst Armenians, using more than one example:

50

Ulrike Ziemer

There are Armenians from Yerevan, you know, Yerevantsi [uses her fingers to signal inverted commas]. I really can’t get on with them. I don’t understand them, and never will understand them. They think completely differently from me […]. Well, and then there is A. [interviewee’s friend], she is from ­Tbilisi. You know, in Georgia. Well, in Soviet times this didn’t matter and we were all the same, but now even she considers herself different from me. Do you understand how complicated this all is, where you are from? And people [Armenians] often judge you accordingly, as each of these Armenian groups has a particular image. Baku Armenians are considered to be very funny, easy-going and love to go out. They’re good-hearted people, and love talking and socialising. Yerevan Armenians are considered snobbish, very regal, even in comparison to Armenians from Leninakan [Gyumri], who kind of have a funny accent. You see, there are so many jokes about Yerevan Armenians and their snobbishness.

It is worth noting that this perceived ‘snobbish’ attitude of Yerevan Armenians could also be understood in terms of a feeling of inferiority. As indicated in the previous section, not only are the poverty levels very high in Armenia, but Armenians in Armenia (including those living in Yerevan), are also heavily dependent on diaspora remittances. Armenia receives approximately $2 billion in remittances every year from the Russian-Armenian diaspora, which is an average of 20 per cent of Armenia’s gross domestic product (Khachaturian 2008). Hence, presenting themselves to the Armenian diasporic world and the host society as ‘proper’ Armenians can be seen as a counterbalance against their economically disadvantaged position. Interestingly enough, these hierarchies and cultural distinctions are recognised both by the members of the ‘old’ Armenian diaspora, and by ‘new’ immigrants as well. As a 25-yearold male research participant, who moved from Armenia to Krasnodar in 2001 admitted: “There are differences – well, if you look at me, I am an Armenian from Armenia and I have that character. I was born in Armenia and grew up there. Well, everything is different there and we have different ways of thinking”. Finally, if we take into account visible features, such as differences in clothing, hairstyles and behaviour, the cultural distinctions between Armenian sub-groups become even more obvious and further impose internal divisions and hierarchies. In the next quotation, a female Baku Armenian talks about these differences, although she also implies that not all members of the Armenian diaspora have the cultural competence to recognise them: I’d like to say that I do have stereotypes and I do feel the differences. For instance, if you show me a Baku Armenian or an Armenian from Yerevan or some Armenian from another place […] I can tell [from where he/she is] straight away from his or her behaviour, from his or her talk and so on. Well, generally, this is quite difficult. You have to grow up with it. For example, my parents can easily distinguish and they taught me how to distinguish, but M. [interviewee’s friend] can’t tell the difference. I can, for example, even tell the difference by people’s clothes. A couple of years ago this was particularly noticeable. I remember that when Armenians came to Krasnodar from Azerbaijani towns like Kirovabad, they all loved to wear leather waistcoats [kozhanye zhiletki]. And this is where the stereotype comes from – you see, Armenians who like to wear leather waistcoats are Armenians from Kirovabad! Also, I can differentiate according to their hairstyles and tell what place an Armenian come from. That is

The Armenian Diaspora in Krasnodar Krai

51

very easy, especially regarding those from Yerevan. Generally, I can easily see when Armenians are from Armenia. Well, I can hear by their language where they are from, and by their behaviour, naturally.

Noteworthy about this quote is that this research participant told the author during the interview that she calls herself ‘Russified’ even though she was one of the Armenians who came from Azerbaijan to Krasnodar in late 1980s, when she was a baby. From the way she describes these differences, one can see she sets herself apart from these Armenians because she is well integrated in Krasnodar society and in fact would rather under-emphasise her Armenianness. This summarises well the above discussion as it highlights the conflicting, as well as hierarchising processes that are lived out by members of the Armenian diaspora.

Concluding Remarks In the case of the Armenians living in Krasnodar Krai, cosmopolitanism operates within the diaspora through the acknowledgement of diversity and unity. Unity is expressed by emphasising belonging to one diasporic community. Being a member of this diasporic community is characterised by sharing pan-Armenian narratives of migration which have formed the diaspora. In the context of Krasnodar Krai, these are the Armenian ethnic voluntary associations and the Armenian Apostolic Church which seek to create unity by celebrating a pan-Armenian culture to which every Armenian can belong. Yet, part of being Armenian in Krasnodar Krai is the experience of diversity within the Armenian diaspora. Diverse narratives of migration, different places of origin, and different dialects of the Armenian language have all contributed to a hierarchy of power within one diaspora in a specific location, where members of an older established diaspora are challenged by new migrants. In this way, one can argue that Armenians in Krasnodar Region combine strong ethnic affiliations with an attitude that recognises cultural diversity within one people in their everyday lives. At the same time, within this milieu members of the ‘old’ diaspora negotiate and at times reinforce these divisions in order to maintain their position in Russian society, despite efforts to build up a unified community.

References Barth Frederik (1969) “Introduction”, F. Barth (ed.), Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Cultural Difference, London: George Allen & Unwin, pp. 9 – 38. Beglecov Maksim (2004) “Kto kogo ugnetaet?”, Kuban Segodnâ, 4 marta, pp. 1 – 2. Boeck Brian J. (1998) “The Kuban Cossack Revival (1989 – 1993): The Beginnings of a Cossack National Movement in the North Caucasus Region”, Nationalities Papers, 26 (4), pp. 633 – 657. Brah Avtar (1996) Cartographies of Diaspora: Contesting Identities, London, New York: Routledge. Breckenridge Carol A., Pollock Sheldon, Bhabha Homi K., Chakrabarty Dipesh (2002) Cosmopolitanism, Durham, London: Duke.

52

Ulrike Ziemer

Brown Lyn M. (1998) “Voice and Ventriloquation in Girls’ Development”, K. Henwood, C. Griffin, A. Phoenix (eds.), Standpoints and Differences: Essays in the Practice of Feminist Psychology, London: Sage Publications, pp. 103 – 125. Burawoy Michael, Verdery Katherine (1999) Uncertain Transition: Ethnographies of Change in the Postsocialist World, Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Darieva Tsypylma (2012) “Between Long-Distance Nationalism and ‘Rooted’ Cosmopolitanism? Armenian-American Engagement with their Homeland”, U. Ziemer, S. P. Roberts (eds.), East European Diasporas, Migration and Cosmopolitanism, London: Routledge, pp. 25 – 40. Gevorkyan Aleksandr, Mashuryan Karina, Gevorkyan Arkady (2006) “Economics of Labour Migration from Armenia: A Conceptual Study”, Working Paper, 06/05, Armenian International Policy Research Group, http://edoc.bibliothek.uni-halle.de/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/HALCoRe_derivate_00003045/ Economics%20of%20Labor%20Migration%20from%20Armenia.pdf [03 August 2014]. Grant Bruce (2010) “Cosmopolitan Baku”, Ethnos, 75 (2), pp. 123 – 147. Gupta Akhil, Ferguson James (1992) “Beyond ‘Culture’: Space, Identity, and the Politics of Difference”, Cultural Anthropology, 7 (1), pp. 6 – 23. Hačaturân Vazgen (2000) “Stanovlenie armânskih kolonij v Rossii”, Diaspory, 1 – 2, pp.  78 – 97. Hannerz Ulf (1990) “Cosmopolitans and Locals in World Culture”, M. Featherstone (ed.), Global Culture, London: Sage Publications, pp. 237 – 252. Heleniak Timothy (2003) “The 2002 Census in Russia: Preliminary Results”, Eurasian Geography and Economics, 44 (6), pp. 430 – 442. Hoffman Bruce (2006) Inside Terrorism, Columbia: Columbia University Press. Karapetân Levon (2006) “Severnyj Kavkaz/Kuban' v 1900 – 1910-e gody: armânskaâ nacionalističeskaâ partiâ ‘Dašnakcutûn’”, Bulletin: Anthropology, Minorities, Multiculturalism, 1 (7), pp. 410 – 417. Kelly Melissa (2011) “Transnational Diasporic Identities: Unity and Diversity in Iranian-Focused Organizations in Sweden”, Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and Middle East, 31 (2), pp. 443 – 454. Khachaturian Haroutiun (2008) “Armenia: Experts Say Government’s Economic Crisis-Prevention Plan Lacks Specifics”, EurasiaNet, http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insightb/articles/eav112108a. shtml [03 August 2014]. King Charles J., Melvin Neil J. (1999/2000) “Diaspora Politics: Ethnic Linkages, Foreign Policy and Security in Eurasia”, International Security, 24 (3), pp. 108 – 138. Kurkchiyan Marina, Herzig Edmund (2005) “Introduction: Armenia and the Armenians”, E. Herzig, M. Kurkchiyan (eds.), The Armenians: Past and Present in the Making of National Identity, Abingdon: ­Routledge Curzon, pp. 1 – 22. Lavie Smadar, Swedenburg Ted (eds) (1996) Displacement, Diaspora, and Geographies of Identity, Durham, London: Duke University Press. Libardian Gerard (1999) The Challenge of Statehood. Armenian Political Thinking Since Independence, Watertown: Blue Crane Books. Lur'e Svetlana (1999) Armânskaâ obŝina v Sankt-Peterburge (1989 – 1993). Ètničeskaâ samoidentifikaciâ v usloviâh krizisa ‘materinskogo’ ètnosa, http://svlourie.narod.ru/armenian-myth/diaspora.htm [03 August 2014]. Nacional' nyj (2005) Nacional'nyj sostav i vladenie âzykami, graždanstvo. Itogi vserossijskoj perepisi naseleniâ 2002 goda po Krasnodarskomu Kraû, Tom 4, Krasnodar: Krasnodarskij Kraevoj Komitet ­Gosudarstvennoj ­Statistiki. Osipov Aleksandr (2004) “Krasnodarskij kraj kak vitrina Rossijskoj nacional'noj politiki”, Diaspory, 4, pp.  6 – 37. Oswald Ingrid (2000) Die Nachfahren des ‘homo sovieticus’: Ethnische Orientierung nach dem Zerfall der Sowjetunion, Berlin: Waxmann. Oussatcheva Marina (2001) Institutions in Diaspora: The Case of Armenian Community in Russia, http:// www.transcomm.ox.ac.uk/working%20papers/WPTC-01-09%20Marina.doc.pdf [12 August 2010].

The Armenian Diaspora in Krasnodar Krai

53

Panossian Razmik (2006) The Armenians: From Kings and Priests to Merchants and Commissars, New York: Columbia University Press. Pattie Susan P. (2005) “Armenians in Diaspora”, M. Kurkchiyan, E. Herzig (eds.), The Armenians: Past and Present in the Making of National Identity, London, New York: Routledge, pp. 126 – 146. Popov Anton (2002) “Položenie ètničeskih menšinstv i migracionnye processy v Krasnodarskom krae”, Centralnaâ Aziâ i Kavkaz: Žurnal social'no-političeskih issledovanij, 1 (19), pp. 194 – 204. Rakačev Vadim, Rakačeva Âroslava (2003) Krasnodarskij kraj: ètnosocialnye i ètnodemografičeskie processy (vtoraâ polovina 1980-h – načalo 2000-h gg), Krasnodar: Kubanskij gosudarstvennyj universitet. Roman Meredith L. (2002) “Making Caucasians Black: Moscow since the Fall of Communism and the Racialization of non-Russians”, Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, 18 (2), pp. 1 – 27. Safran William (1991) “Diasporas in Modern Societies: Myths of Homeland and Return”, Diaspora: A Journal of Transnational Studies, 1 (1), pp. 83 – 99. Shahnazarian Nona (2013) “Letters from the Soviet ‘Paradise’: The Image of Russia among the Western Armenian Diaspora”, Journal of Eurasian Studies, 4 (1), pp. 8 – 17. Simonân Mger (2003) Armânskaâ diaspora severo-zapadnogo Kavkaza: formirovanie, kul'turno-­konfessional'nyj oblik, vzaimootnošeniâ s vlast'û obŝestvennymi i religioznymi ob''edineniâmi, Krasnodar: Krasnodarskij gosudarstvennyj universitet kul' tury i iskusstv. Sokolov-Mitrič Daniil (2007) “Legko li byt' russkim v Adygee i adygom – v Rossii?”, Izvestiâ, 20 March 2007, p. 5. Suny Ronald (2005) “Soviet Armenia, 1921 – 1991”, M. Kurkchiyan, E. Herzig (eds.), The Armenians: Past and Present in the Making of National Identity, London, New York: Routledge, pp. 113 – 125. Ter-Sarkisânc Alla (1995) “Ètnokul' turnyj oblik armân severnogo Kavkaza: istoriâ i sovremennost' ”, A. Faktorovič, T. Gorbulič, I. Kuznecov (eds), Armâne severnogo Kavkaza, Krasnodar: Kubanskij gosudarstvennyj universitet. Toje Hege (2006) “Cossack Identity in the New Russia: Kuban Cossack Revival and Local Politics”, EuropeAsia Studies, 58 (7), pp. 1057 – 1077. Wahlbeck Östen (2002) “The Concept of Diaspora as an Analytical Tool in the Study of Refugee Communities”, Journal for Ethnic and Migration Studies, 28 (2), pp. 221 – 238. Ziemer Ulrike (2009) “Narratives of Translocation, Dislocation and Location: Armenian Youth Cultural Identities in Southern Russia”, Europe-Asia Studies, 61 (3), pp. 409 – 433. Ziemer Ulrike (2010) Tackling Tensions and Ambivalences: Armenian Girls’ Diasporic Identities in Russia, Nationalities Papers, 38 (5), pp. 689 – 703. Ziemer Ulrike (2011a) Ethnic Belonging, Gender and Cultural Practices: Youth Identities in Contemporary Russia, Stuttgart: Ibidem Verlag. Ziemer Ulrike (2011b) “Minority Youth, Everyday Racism and Public Spaces in Contemporary Russia”, European Journal of Cultural Studies, 14 (2), pp. 229 – 242.

Annett Fleischer

Armenian Returnees from Russia Struggles between Reintegration and Re-Emigration

Setting the Scene Armenian history has been characterised by major population movements. Some of these were caused by the desire to explore new regions and engage in commerce and trade; others were forced migration flows mainly as a result of wars and conflicts, discrimination on ethnic or religious grounds, or because of natural disasters. Today, it is estimated that at least twice as many ethnic Armenians live dispersed on six continents (around six million), as in the present-day Republic of Armenia (around three million). Recently, the country experienced enormous population movements, mainly caused by three historical events (Bachmann et al. 2004; Gevorkyan et al. 2006). First, the devastating Spitak earthquake in 1988 damaged many parts of northern Armenia, killed at least 25,000 people and resulted in the massive migration of Armenians to other Soviet Republics. Second, even before the regular war between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the Nagorno-­ Karabakh enclave started in 1991, more than 350,000 Armenians had been forced to leave the latter country and become refugees. The third and largest migration wave occurred in the years after Armenia’s independence in 1991. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the formation of the Republic of Armenia were accompanied by times of hardship, poverty, and economic decline. The severe economic crisis led to hyper-inflation, high rates of un­employment, dramatic salary cuts, and a rapid decrease in living standards. As a result of the difficult socio-economic situation, which partially continues up to today, around one million Armenians left their homeland, mainly as labour migrants, to the Russian Federation and other Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) countries,1 to the USA, as well as to France and other European countries (Genov, Savvidis 2011).2 Reliable and accurate statistics on emigration from Armenia are scarce. Furthermore, the few existing sources are inconsistent in their definition of terms such as (labour) ‘migrant’ (irregular/regular) or ‘migration’ (permanent/temporary/short-term). Nonetheless, a number 1 The Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) was created in December 1991 and includes nine official members (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan) and one associate member (Turkmenistan). 2 For a detailed discussion on the Armenian diaspora, see, for example, Gevorkyan, Grigorian (2003) and Tölölyan (2007).

Armenian Returnees from Russia

55

of studies conclude that emigration from Armenia continues nowadays, though at a slower pace than at the end of 1980s and in the 1990s (Genov, Savvidis 2011; Minasyan, Hancilova 2005). It is estimated that a total of 28% of the Armenian population has emigrated during last 25 years, which is the highest population loss in the CIS region (Migration 2011). Of all CIS states, Armenia also has the highest share of its workers abroad (Genov, Savvidis 2011). As various studies show, since the end of the 1990s the Russian Federation has become the most important destination for Armenian migration. A research by Advanced Social Technologies (AST) and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) for the period 2002 – 2005 found that almost 90% of labour migrants surveyed went to the Russian Federation (Minasyan, Hancilova 2005). In turn, an International Labour Organization (ILO) study on migration and development (Migration 2009a) stated that each year on average about 60,000 labour migrants go to seek jobs in Russia. Young men, mainly from rural areas, have been the first to escape the disastrous socio-economic conditions in the homeland; some of them were later joined by their spouses, children and parents. Armenian immigration to the Russian Federation, sustained primarily by considerable economic differences between the two countries, is also enhanced by a number of other factors: many Armenians speak the Russian language; and both countries are linked through historical, social, and cultural ties (Genov, Savvidis 2011; Zajončkovskaâ 2003).3 The Russian Federation is geographically relatively close and maintains a visa-free border entry regime with Armenia. In addition, a long-established and widespread social network of Armenians in Russia has been one of the major reasons for choosing this country as a destination. Hence, it is not surprising that the majority of Armenians who desire to leave their homeland are most likely to want to move there (Genov, Savvidis 2011). Within the Russian Federation, most Armenians settle in Moscow and other major urban centres, as well as in the southern regions of the country (Gevorkyan et al. 2006; Minasyan, Hancilova 2005). While statistics on emigration from Armenia are hard to come by, reliable and comprehensive data on return migration to the country are non-existent. Like many other emigration countries, Armenia does not systematically record return migration flows. Neither the National Statistical Office, nor the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or the Migration Agency for Armenia’s Ministry of Territorial Administration assesses accurate and consistent data on return flows to Armenia. The available statistical evidence focuses almost exclusively on the number of removed and readmitted Armenian nationals (Fleischer 2012). Existing studies on return migration to Armenia provide some information on the socio-demographic profile of returnees, as well as on their economic and social conditions after return (e. g. Bachmann et al. 2004; Genov, Savvidis 2011; Johansson 2008; Minasyan, Hancilova 2005). Yet, most of these studies lack a precise definition of a returnee; they focus largely on asylum seekers, refugees, and irregular migrants expelled from various

3 The World Bank estimated that Armenia’s and Russia’s Gross National Income per capita in 2010 was $3,031 and $10,440, respectively (GDP 2012).

56

Annett Fleischer

European countries to Armenia; they rely on quantitative methodology with only a small number of in-depth interviews; and/or they analyse return migration separated from emigration and the residence in the country of destination. In contrast, this study explores factors and conditions shaping returnees’ patterns of reintegration in Armenia by taking into account the situation before emigration, the experience in the main foreign country, the return, and post-return living conditions. By combining these stages of the migratory process, this holistic approach makes it possible to understand motives to emigrate, to explore the impact of the migratory experience on decisions and circumstances of return, and to examine patterns of reintegration in Armenia. This explorative study relies on 200 structured interviews with returnees in Armenia, out of which 146 return migrants came back from the Russian Federation. The remaining 54 migrants returned predominately from France, Germany and the USA. This large number of face-toface interviews with returnees allows an analysis of why and how human, social and financial capital has changed over time (and space), and enables to compare diachronically the various factors and conditions which influenced the situation before emigration, the experience in the Russian Federation, the process of return, and patterns of reintegration. This chapter presents results on the socio-demographic characteristics of returnees and the impact of the migratory experience on their economic, professional, and social reintegration in Armenia. Hence, the main focus is on drivers of reintegration, but also on incentives and conditions to re-emigrate.

Methodological Approach Data for this chapter come from an on-going field survey on return migration and reintegration in Armenia. This survey is part of the Cross-Regional Information System (CRIS) on the Reintegration of Migrants in their Countries of Origin.4 For the CRIS project, a return migrant is defined as: “any person returning to his/her country of origin, in the course of the last ten years, after having been an international migrant in another country. Return may be permanent or temporary. It may be independently decided by the migrant or forced by unexpected/adverse circumstances” (Cassarino 2008: 3). This definition, which partially draws on the one recommended by the United Nations, refers particularly to individuals who lived abroad continuously for at least one year before returning to Armenia and who, at the time of the interview, have been back for more than three months (Recommendations 1998). Furthermore, persons included in the survey had to return to Armenia in the course of the last ten years. Since the CRIS project is focused on the professional and economic reintegration of Armenian returnees, children (under the age of 15) and retired (above the age of 65) returnees were deliberately excluded from the sample.

4 For more information on the Cross-Regional Information System (CRIS) on the Reintegration of Migrants in their Countries of Origin, see: CRIS (n. d.).

Armenian Returnees from Russia

57

With the support of our Armenian partner-institution Advanced Social Technologies, a total of 200 Armenian return migrants were interviewed between March and April 2012 using a common structured questionnaire. These face-to-face interviews, which lasted on average one hour, were conducted in the Armenian language mainly in the private homes of the participants. Data from the paper versions of the questionnaires were entered in an online form using the Lime Survey hosting platform and subsequently transmitted to the CRIS team, located at the European University Institute. Field data were evaluated and then processed and analysed on a common template using STATA data analysis and statistical software.5 Out of a total of 200 interviews, 87 were conducted in Armenia’s capital Yerevan. The remaining 113 return migrants were interviewed in smaller towns and villages in various regions of the country, particularly in the Shirak and Ararat provinces. 146 respondents in the survey (73%) declared the Russian Federation as their main country of immigration and had returned from there.6 This corresponds to the findings of other studies, some of them mentioned above, which conclude that the majority of Armenians migrate to and return from Russia (e. g., Bachmann et al. 2004; Genov, Savvidis 2011; Minasyan, Hancilova 2005). Our sample includes 75 male and 71 female returnees from the Russian Federation. The mean age of the returnees at the time of the interview was 40. Since on average four years have passed since their return from the Russian Federation, their mean age at the time of return was 36 years. At the time of departure, migrants were on average 31 years old. The high migration activity of persons aged 25 to 54 has been confirmed in the Armenian case by other studies (Genov, Savvidis 2011; Minasyan, Hancilova 2005). For the majority of Armenian nationals who returned from Russia, their civil status did not change during their stay abroad or after return. Over half of the respondents were married before their emigration (53%), and 37% were single. The remaining 10% were either divorced or widowed. Only a few interviewees married or divorced during their stay in the Russian Federation or after their return to Armenia. Nearly half of the returnees had children before their departure. More women than men stated that they had dependent children before leaving Armenia. Regarding their stay in the Russian Federation and the period after return, only a few returnees declared having additional children. Around half of the interviewees left Armenia with their spouse, children aged under 18, and/or their parents. While the majority of men (62%) migrated alone, women largely moved with other family members (66%). The surveyed returnees had a relatively high level of education. The majority completed secondary education (58%), a large percentage (23%) had a Bachelor’s/Master’s degree, and

5 For a detailed description of the field survey and methodology, see: Methodology (n. d.). 6 In the CRIS project, the main country of immigration is defined as the country where the return migrant spent most of his/her time abroad.

58

Annett Fleischer

only 5% had either no education, only pre-school education, or primary/elementary education. Their educational status rarely changed between pre- and post-migration periods. The high emigration rate of skilled Armenians is confirmed by the World Bank, which found that 8.8% of all Armenian migrants have a tertiary education (Migration 2011).

Migration Experience in the Russian Federation There is bilateral agreement between Armenia and the Russian Federation which allows Armenians to enter the territory of the latter country without a visa. When crossing the border, Armenian nationals receive an immigration card which permits them to stay for 90-days. This permit does not authorise migrants to work. There is the opportunity to receive a ‘temporary residence permit’ which is granted on a quota basis, annually determined by the government (Petrosyan 2012). However, many Armenian migrants do not apply for it, meaning that they work unofficially and thus do not have access to health care, insurance and other social benefits. It means, in addition, that they need to exit the Russian Federation before their 90-day permit expires, and then re-enter with a new immigration card. Indeed, although many Armenians enter and stay legally in the Russian Federation, the majority work without official documents in the shadow economy and live in precarious conditions (Genov, Savvidis 2011). Interestingly, the majority of respondents (56%) were not unemployed before they left Armenia. Hence, their main motivation to emigrate was not to find a job abroad, but, as they declared in the survey, “to look for a better salary” or “to search for better employment opportunities”. While many migrants pointed out economic and professional improvements as decisive for their departure, others simply “saw no future in Armenia” or indicated a “lack of perspectives in the country of origin” as their main motives for emigration. Only a few interviewees mentioned educational purposes as key emigration drivers. Remarkably, however, when asked about their reasons to choose Russia as their country of immigration, the majority of interlocutors stated that they had decided to settle in this country because “family members and/or friends were already there”. Others indicated “existing contacts/networks” as decisive for their choice. Nearly 90% of the sample joined family members and friends abroad. Women largely followed their husbands, while men often joined other relatives. This type of migration, where one or several family members follow relatives already living in the destination country, forms what is often referred to in the literature as ‘chain migration’ (Faist 2000; Ritchey 1976). The importance of cross-border social networks for the direction of emigration has been confirmed by other studies. The ArGeMi survey, for example, brings to light that the widespread network of compatriots is particularly important for the decision of Armenian migrants to go to Moscow (Genov, Savvidis 2011). Similarly, Bachmann et al. (2004) explain that for Armenian return migrants existing family linkages in the southern parts of the Russian Federation were decisive for their destination choice. Hence, the distant location of family members encourages and directs migration.

Armenian Returnees from Russia

59

Furthermore, the family plays a central role in financing and preparing the migration project. Nearly half of the respondents indicated that they received financial support from their family and kin to pay travel and other costs. The assistance was provided by family members living in Armenia, but also by relatives already residing abroad and sending remittances. The field survey highlights that family members were particularly helpful in finding employment (36%) and housing (16%), or to obtain a residence permit (21%). In addition, 34% of the newcomers were provided with financial assistance from their relatives. Only 8% did not receive any support upon arrival. These findings clearly demonstrate that cross-border family networks constitute an important form of social capital for migrants and provide them with tangible and intangible resources (Cassarino 2004).

Return Migration from the Russian Federation The distinction between migrants who decided on their own initiative to return, and those whose return was due to adverse circumstances, provides a key explanation for returnees’ prospects and opportunities of reintegration in the country of origin.7 By using the expression in the survey “My return was decided on my own initiative” among possible answers to the question of the reasons of return, the opportunity to emphasise the free will of return as a decisive factor was given to the respondents. In contrast, return can also be the outcome of unfavourable and unexpected circumstances, forcing the individual to return home. This latter situation occurs, in particular, as a result of host state restrictive and selective immigration and mobility policies and regulations.8 In our sample, the vast majority of interviewees stated that their return “was decided on their own initiative” (94%); only 6% declared that their “return was due to adverse circumstances”.9 One explanation for the large number of respondents who stated that they had opted to return is that Armenian migrants in Russia found ways to solve their documentation problems, either by obtaining residency which includes a work permit or by bribing police officers and immigration officials.10

7 The distinction between a decided return and a return which was due to adverse circumstances avoids using terms such as voluntary and forced return. As Cassarino (2008) explains, the term ‘voluntary return’ has been increasingly applied for return migrants who actually did not decide on their own initiative to return to their country of origin. 8 For a list of definitions of terms used in the CRIS project, see: RDP (n. d.). 9 Of all destination countries the Russian Federation deported the most Armenian citizens: between 2004 and 2009 a total of 2,731 (Migration 2009b). However, considering the large number of Armenian immigrants in the Russian Federation, the share of expelled Armenian nationals is relatively small, compared with other countries, for example, France and Germany (Fleischer 2012). 10 According to Minasyan, Hancilova (2005: 41), “in recent years, migrants have tended to prefer the latter option”.

60

Annett Fleischer

Those who chose to leave Russia, either temporarily or permanently, pointed out personal factors as the main cause of their return to Armenia. Only a few mentioned economic reasons, such as “to continue to run my business” or “to create a new business”. The most popular answer given by the respondents was “to take care of the family”. Several studies illustrate the major role of the family for Armenians living abroad (Ishkanian 2002; Pattie 1999). Migrants are expected to support their relatives and take care of them, for example by sending remittances, keeping long-distance contacts, travelling back for visits home, or by returning and providing direct assistance (Bachmann et al. 2004). The New Economics of Labour Migration (NELM) considers the importance of the family and the household as the “relevant decision-making unit” for emigration (Massey et al. 2005: 53). Family and migrant enter a mutually beneficial “contractual arrangement” (Stark, Lucas 1988: 466), whereby the migrant receives initial support from relatives to realise his/her emigration plans: in compensation, the family expects regular remittances and the return of the migrant after a successful migration experience (Fleischer 2007). In this regard, it is worth mentioning that nearly 50% of the respondents in our survey stated that during the last year of their stay in the Russian Federation, they sent remittances once a month or once every three months. Around 30% declared to have remitted over 1,000€ per year in order to support the family and pay back debts.11 The second principal reason to return is strongly connected to the aforementioned family-related motives. A large number of interviewees declared “homesickness and nostalgia” as decisive for their return. These results have been confirmed by a survey, conducted jointly by the Armenian Ministry of Labour and Social Issues and the National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia in 2008, which stated that up to 55% of all surveyed returnees indicated that their return to Armenia had been caused by “nostalgia or missing family and relatives” and by “family circumstances” (Report 2008: 45). Similar, Bachmann et al. (2004: 108) assess that “the feeling of homesickness is a major reason to return”. Armenians living abroad miss their families, friends and their social life in Armenia. They long to be back in their familiar surroundings, often, at least initially, irrespective of material considerations. The third reason that motivated the return of many respondents is also linked to the family. A number of interviewees declared education and upbringing of their children as an important factor that brought them back to Armenia.12 Two other studies (Bachmann et al. 2004; Minasyan, Hancilova 2005) also mention that Armenian migrants were concerned

11 According to the World Bank, Armenia is among the top remittances receiving countries worldwide with 9% of the GDP consisting of remittances (Migration 2011). A study of the International Monetary Fund (Floerkemeier et al. 2006) showed that over 70% of all remittances to Armenia are sent from the Russian Federation. 12 The education and upbringing of children as main reasons to return to Armenia were not specifically listed in our questionnaire, but an open space was provided for additional comments on return motives.

Armenian Returnees from Russia

61

about the way in which their children would be brought up abroad, and “were anxious that their offspring would lose their Armenian identity and values” (Bachmann et al. 2004: 114).

Patterns of Reintegration While a number of studies have examined emigration motives as well as reasons for return migration, few scholars have explored patterns of reintegration by taking into account preand post-migration conditions. Furthermore, the focus of existing studies has been almost exclusively on reintegration prospects of expelled migrants and those who participated in an Assisted Voluntary Return (AVR) programme 13. In contrast, this study emphasises the patterns of reintegration of migrants who decided on their own initiative to return. In doing so, it deals with the experience of international migration, the factors and circumstances motivating return, as well as the economic and social context at home. In the following paragraphs, I analyse firstly economic and professional, and secondly, social patterns of reintegration of Armenian migrants who returned from Russia. A comparison of the financial situation before departure, during the stay in Russia, and after return to Armenia, reveals an interesting finding with regard to the returnees’ economic reintegration. The majority of respondents stated that their financial situation before emigration was average (43%), while only slightly less claimed it was either not good or very bad (40%). During the returnees’ stay in the Russian Federation, this situation had either improved significantly or slightly improved for over 80% of them. Only two out of 146 respondents claimed that their financial standing during their migratory project had worsened or considerably worsened. Compared to the situation in Russia, the majority of the sample group (60%) declared that their financial conditions at the time of the survey had worsened or worsened significantly.14 Migration did not have a positive impact on the professional advancement of returnees (see Table 1). In contrast, the majority of interviewees were working before emigration (56%), most of them employed on a permanent contract, but during their stay in Russia, a large percentage were only employed on a temporary basis. After their return, only 36% were either employed on a permanent contract or temporarily. At the same time, the percentage of unregistered unemployed increased between pre- and post-migration periods, reaching 19% at the time of the survey.

13 The Council of the European Union defines an Assisted Voluntary Return (AVR) programme as “the assisted departure to the country of origin, transit or another third country based on the will of the returnee” (Council 2002). 14 According to our survey, the respondents had on average 592€ per month at their own disposal during their migratory stay in the Russian Federation, which is significantly more than the average salary of 200€ in Armenia in 2008 (Genov, Savvidis 2011).

62

Annett Fleischer

Table 1: Progression of Armenian returnees’ occupational status, N=146 Occupation status (%)

Before emigration

Before returning to Armenia

At the time of the survey

Employed on a permanent contract

32.4

23.9

24.6

Temporarily employed

14.8

34.9

11.7

2.2

1.4

2.7

Part-time employed Entrepreneur, manager

1.4

2.1

1.4

Self-employed in the formal sector

2.8

2.7

3.4

Self-employed in the informal sector

4.9

2.1

4.1

Registered unemployed

3.5

0.7

3.4

14.1

3.4

18.6

Unregistered unemployed Pupil/student Housewife Retired Total

9.1

7.5

6.1

12.0

18.6

14.4

2.8

2.7

9.6

100

100

100

The high percentage of unemployed returnees corresponds to the high unemployment rate in Armenia. According to the European Training Foundation (Bardak 2011), the total unemployment rate in Armenia was 28% in 2007, which is the highest level for the Caucasus region. In addition, more than 20% of people with tertiary education were jobless in 2007 (Bardak 2011). The high unemployment rate in this group was also confirmed by our survey. Of those respondents who were working after their return, most were employed in the construction and building industry, in trade and repair, or in manufacturing. Many did not change their professional sector before, during, or after migration.15 The majority assessed their earnings as too low (88%), while only 6% described themselves as content with their salary. The entrepreneurial behaviour of returnees is an important indicator of their economic and professional reintegration into the country of origin. Interestingly, an overwhelming percentage of return migrants (95%) did not undertake any investment after their return to Armenia. The remaining share were invariably men, and either employed on a permanent contract or self-employed. All of them stated that they had at their own disposal more financial means than the average salary of 200€ per month (as for 2008). All their projects were self-financed small businesses concentrated in the retail trade sector and the hotel/

15 In Russia, the majority of male interviewees worked in the construction sector, a smaller group of them were occupied in trade and manufacturing industries. For similar results, see: Genov, Savvidis (2011) and Minasyan, Hancilova (2005).

Armenian Returnees from Russia

63

catering industry. Over 50% of the returnees who did not invest explained that they were “lacking sufficient capital”. 36% of the sample indicated they were either not interested in or had not considered the possibility of setting up a business. They saw the main challenges of undertaking an investment in Armenia to be difficulties with the tax authorities and the absence of a business friendly environment. Indeed, many return migrants were dissatisfied with “the way things are done at home” (e. g., lack of efficiency and punctuality). Moreover, the sample highlighted returnees’ problems with “bribery, corruption and nepotism” as well as “an inefficient public administration”.16 Despite the aforementioned economic and professional difficulties such as lack of employment opportunities and an unsatisfactory salary level, returnees declared that they encountered few obstacles in their reintegration into social life in Armenia. Few respondents faced difficulties in re-connecting with their family and friends soon after their return. Those who did indicated “envy and suspicion from family, friends and neighbours”, or explained that they “no longer share the same interests with relatives and former friends”, and that their “lifestyle has changed while abroad and is not fully accepted”. In most cases, however, these challenges were no longer relevant at the time of the survey. Another major obstacle was high expectations from family members and/or the local community, especially regarding financial support, for which almost 70% of respondents were asked. Only a few interviewees were urged “to be the same person as before leaving”, and even fewer felt pressure to “renounce/abandon attitudes/customs acquired abroad”. In general, the survey highlights that most respondents experienced a smooth social reintegration. This could be explained by the fact that the majority of the interviewees remained in close contact with their family and friends throughout their stay in Russia. Over 65% stated that they had at least weekly contact with relatives, while only 9% did not maintain any contact. In addition, 87% declared that their family was the main source of information necessary to organise the return. Furthermore, more than half of the sample received family support after returning: relatives provided the returnees with information about the current situation in Armenia and with essential contacts and networks. As shown, family and kin are not only important for migrants before and during their stay abroad, but also for their return, as they constitute a form of social capital which increases return migrants’ prospects of social reintegration (Cassarino 2004). At the same time, social networks are always reciprocal in nature: they involve support and assistance throughout the migration process, but also include duties and responsibilities.

16 The Transparency International Corruption Index ranks Armenia 129th out of 183 surveyed countries for the year 2011 (Corruption 2011). This indicates that the perceived level of public-sector corruption in Armenia continues to be very high.

64

Annett Fleischer

Intentions to Re-Emigrate When asked about their intention to leave Armenia again, many returnees clearly stated that they plan to re-emigrate (36%). Another 44% were not sure whether they would leave again, and only 20% stated that they do not intend to re-emigrate (see Table 2). Table 2: Returnees’ intention to re-emigrate As it stands today, do you intend to re-emigrate?

Frequency

Percentage

Yes, definitely

53

35.9

Maybe

29

20.0

Not now

14

9.6

Never

29

20.0

21

14.9

146

100

I do not know Total

Respondents who intend to re-emigrate are likely to be male, young and well-educated. The time since their return also influences the intention to re-emigrate: interviewees who returned before 2008 and thus spent more time in Armenia were less likely to consider leaving Armenia again than those who returned later. However, the duration of the migratory experience in the Russian Federation had no significant influence on the respondents’ intention to re-emigrate. As expected, the majority of those return migrants who were unemployed at the time of the interview expressed their desire to re-emigrate, while those who were employed were less likely to consider leaving Armenia again. Similarly, those who relied on remittances from family members abroad as their main source of income at the time of the survey were more likely to consider re-emigration than those who earned their own money. As Table 3 clearly demonstrates, those returnees who saw a deterioration in their standard of living compared with what they had experienced in Russia were more likely to consider re-­emigration than those who saw no such deterioration.

65

Armenian Returnees from Russia

Table 3: Correlation of intention to re-emigrate and evolution of standard of living As it stands today, How do you evaluate your current standard of living compared with what do you intend to you experienced when you were abroad? re-emigrate? I live better in Armenia 4

Nothing has changed 9

The situation is a bit worse 16

Maybe

4

4

9

11

1

29

Not now

3

5

2

3

1

14

Never

5

14

6

4

0

29

I do not know

4

9

5

3

0

21

20

41

38

45

2

146

Yes, definitely

Total

The situation is I do not much worse know 24 0

Total 53

Most returnees who intend to re-emigrate were planning to do so in the next six months (41%). Others declared that they were not sure about the timing of their re-departure. The majority of respondents who would consider leaving Armenia again would return to ­Russia (70%). Most interviewees identified “no future in their country of origin” and “lack of employment opportunities”, as the main reasons for their intended re-emigration. Likewise, a large number of returnees stated that they “know the Russian Federation through their migratory experience and wish to stay there”. It was not surveyed whether they would like to make their next stay in Russia temporary or move there for good. We know, however, that the majority of interviewees had previously only single migratory experience, which had been from the very beginning planned as temporary. The example of Armenian returnees from Russia shows that return is not viewed as the end of the migration cycle, but rather as an important stage between two stays abroad. This points to a form of human mobility which is often referred to as ‘circular migration’. In the relevant literature, circular migration is defined as the repeated movement of migrants between their homelands and foreign places of work (Kosic, Triandafyllidou 2003; Vertovec 2007; ­Wickramasekara 2011). Although patterns of Armenian-Russian circular mobility are rather unregulated and in most cases based on the independent decisions of migrants to emigrate, return, and re-emigrate, they are also shaped by state policies and regulations both in the country of origin and destination. As our survey clearly demonstrates, obstacles to economic and professional reintegration strongly impact returnees’ desire to re-emigrate. In fact, because both the economic and professional situation of the majority of interviewees had worsened after their return to Armenia, many return migrants expressed the wish to leave again. These results support the studies of Johansson (2008) and Minasyan, Hancilova (2005) who asserted that the majority of returnees would prefer to stay in Armenia if they could find employment which enabled them to meet at least the basic needs of the family.

66

Annett Fleischer

Conclusion Using the results of 146 structured interviews with returnees from the Russian Federation to Armenia, this study has attempted to analyse socio-demographic characteristics of returnees, drivers of reintegration, and incentives for re-emigration. The conducted research has shown that the reasons for leaving Armenia had been mainly economic: respondents were in search for higher salaries and better employment opportunities. However, cross-border family networks were decisive for the choice of the country and specific place of immigration. These networks of social relationships reduced the costs and risks of moving, provided newcomers with essential information and resources, and also offered emotional, psychological and financial support. Meanwhile, many respondents stated that they had remained in close contact with non-migrant family members in Armenia while living abroad. The majority of returnees sent regular remittances, mainly to support their family’s needs. Reasons to return tended to be motivated mainly by family factors, including the duty to support the family and nostalgia for the home country and people. These family-related incentives of return could offer an explanation for the comparatively few problems returnees encountered in re-integrating into Armenian society. Family members provide returnees with pre-return information, help to (re)establish contacts, and function as a support network for emotional and in some cases material needs. Similarly, after returning to Armenia, links with relatives in Russia were kept alive. In doing so, returnees received, for example, financial support from family members still residing abroad. These transnational contacts could also be useful for those returnees who regard re-emigration as an option. In contrast to the few obstacles to social reintegration, returnees were confronted with a number of economic and professional reintegration impediments, including insufficient employment opportunities and unsatisfactory salary levels. The lack of professional advancement after return, combined with a significant deterioration of the financial situation, constitutes an explanatory variable for the paucity of investment projects by returnees. In general, economic and professional reintegration among Armenian returnees from Russia was low. Many return migrants were either unemployed or unsatisfied with their income, which leads to economic uncertainty, and, in effect, a desire to leave the country again. Further research is needed to explore in more detail the complex relationships and mutual agreements between returnees and their families, to analyse the decision-making process of re-emigration and to understand the role of networks for the entire migration process including departure, arrival, return, reintegration and re-emigration.

Armenian Returnees from Russia

67

References Bachmann Carine, Dahinden Janine, Kamm Martina, Neubauer Anna, Perrin Aurelie (eds.) (2004) Photo Stories of Armenian Migrants. Emigration and Return, Geneva: Cimera Publications. Bardak Ummuhan (2011) Labour Markets and Employability. Trends and Challenges in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Republic of Moldova and Ukraine, European Training Foundation, http:// www.etf.europa.eu/webatt.nsf/0/A8F0A151161AC48BC125789C004AB409/$file/16%20Six%20 Eastern%20Partners_SHORT%20-%20FINAL%20UPDATED%20-%20250511.pdf [26 July 2014]. Cassarino Jean-Pierre (2004) “Theorising Return Migration: A Revisited Conceptual Approach to Return Migrants”, RSCAS Working Paper, 2004/2, San Domenico di Fiesole: European University Institute, http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/id/1906/04_02.pdf/ [26 July 2014]. Cassarino Jean-Pierre (ed.) (2008) Return Migrants to the Maghreb Countries: Reintegration and Development Challenges, San Domenico di Fiesole: European University Institute, http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/ handle/1814/9050/MIREM%20_General_Report_2008.pdf?sequence=1 [26 July 2014]. Corruption (2011) “Corruption Perception Index 2011”, Transparency International, http://www.transparency. org/cpi2011/results [26 July 2014]. Council (2002) Council of the European Union, 14673/02, http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/ funding/2004_2007/docs/return_action_programme.pdf [26 July 2014]. CRIS (n. d.) “CRIS: Cross-Regional Information System (CRIS) on the Reintegration of Migrants in their Countries of Origin”, Return Migration and Development Platform, http://rsc.eui.eu/RDP/researchprojects/cris/ [26 July 2014]. Faist Thomas (2000) The Volume and Dynamics of International Migration and Transnational Social Spaces, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fleischer Annett (2007) “Family, Obligations, and Migration: The Role of Kinship in Cameroon”, Demographic Research, 16 (13), pp. 413 – 440. Fleischer Annett (2012) “A Statistical Overview on Return Migration to the Republic of Armenia”, CRIS Analytical Note, 2012/01, San Domenico di Fiesole: European University Institute, http://cadmus.eui. eu/bitstream/handle/1814/21297/RDP_CRIS_2012_01_AN_Fleischer.pdf?sequence=1 [26 July 2013]. Floerkemeier Holger, Oomes Nienke, Hauner David, Atoyan Ruben (2006) “Republic of Armenia: Selected Issues”, IMF Country Report, 06/434, Washington: International Monetary Fund, www.imf. org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2006/cr06434.pdf [26 July 2014]. GDP (2012) “GDP Per Capita (Current US$)”, The World Bank, http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ NY.GDP.PCAP.CD [26 July 2014]. Genov Nikolai, Savvidis Tessa (eds.) (2011) Transboundary Migration in the Post-Soviet Space. Three Comparative Case Studies, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Gevorkyan Aleksandr V., Grigorian David A. (2003) “Armenia and its Diaspora: Is There a Scope for a Stronger Economic Link?”, Working Paper, 03/10, Armenian International Policy Research Group, http://www.aiprg.net/UserFiles/File/wp/jan2003/10.pdf [26 July 2012]. Gevorkyan Aleksandr V., Mashuryan Karina, Gevorkyan Arkady (2006) Economics of Labor Migration from Armenia: a Conceptual Study, Armenian International Policy Research Group, http://pdc.ceu.hu/ archive/00003150/01/economics_of_labor_migration_from_Armenia.pdf [16 May 2012]. Ishkanian Armine (2002) “Mobile Motherhood: Armenian Women’s Labor Migration in the post-Soviet Period”, Diaspora: A Journal of Transnational Studies, 11 (3), pp. 383 – 415. Johansson Alice (2008) Return Migration to Armenia. Monitoring the Embeddedness of Returnees, Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam, Raboud University Nijmegen, http://www.ru.nl/publish/pages/533483/ reportarmeniafinal.pdf [26 July 2014].

68

Annett Fleischer

Kosic Ankica,Triandafyllidou Anna (2004) “Albanian and Polish Migration to Italy: The Micro-Processes of Policy, Implementation and Immigrant Survival Strategies”, International Migration Review, 38 (4), pp.  1413 – 1446. Massey Douglas S., Arango Joaquin, Hugo Graeme, Kouaouci Ali, Pellegrino Adela, Taylor Edward J. (2005) Worlds in Motion: Understanding International Migration at the End of the Millennium, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Methodology (n. d.) “Methodology”, Return Migration and Development Platform, http://rsc.eui.eu/RDP/ research-projects/cris/survey-on-return-migrants/methodology/ [26 July 2014]. Migration (2009a) Migration and Development, Armenia Country Study, Yerevan: International Labour Organization, www.ilo.org/public/english/region/eurpro/moscow/info/publ/migr_dev_study_en.pdf [26 July 2014]. Migration (2009b) Migration and Human Development: Opportunities and Challenges, UNDP Armenia, http://europeandcis.undp.org/home/show/87B390CE-F203-1EE9-B95DF29A79F6080C [26 July 2014]. Migration (2011) Migration and Remittances Factbook 2011, Washington: World Bank Publications, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTLAC/Resources/Factbook2011–Ebook.pdf [26 July 2014]. Minasyan Anna, Hancilova Blanka (2005) Labor Migration from Armenia in 2002 – 2005. A Sociological Survey of Households, Yerevan: OSCE, Advanced Social Technologies, www.osce.org/yerevan/18225?download=true [16 May 2012]. Pattie Susan (1999) “Longing and Belonging: Issues of Homeland in the Armenian Diaspora”, Political and Legal Anthropology Review (PoLAR), 22 (2), pp. 80 – 92. Petrosyan Margarita (2012) “The System of Immigration Related Legislation in the Russian Federation”, CARIM-East Explanatory Note, 12/18, www.carim-east.eu/media/legal%20module/exno/Explanatory%20 Notes%202012-18.pdf [26 July 2014]. RDP (n. d.) “RDP Glossary”, Return Migration and Development Platform, http://rsc.eui.eu/RDP/glossary–2/ [26 July 2014]. Recommendations (1998) “Recommendations on Statistics on International Migration, Revisions 1”, Statistical Papers, Series M, 58 (1), New York: United Nations, http://unstats.un.org/unsd/publication/ SeriesM/SeriesM_58rev1e.pdf [26 July 2014]. Report (2008) Report on Sample Survey on External and Internal Migration in the Republic of Armenia, Ministry of Labour and Social Issues of the Republic of Armenia, National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia, www.armstat.am/file/article/rep_migr_08e.pdf [26 July 2014]. Ritchey Neal P. (1976) ‘‘Explanations of Migration”, Annual Review of Sociology, 2, pp. 363 – 404. Stark Oded, Lucas Robert E. B. (1988) “Migration, Remittances, and the Family”, Economic Development and Cultural Change, 36 (3), pp. 465 – 481. Tölölyan Khachig (2007) “The Armenian Diaspora and the Karabagh Conflict”, H. Smith, P. B. Stares (eds.), Diasporas in Conflict: Peace-Makers or Peace-Wreckers?, Tokyo: United Nations University, pp. 106 – 128. Vertovec Steven (2007) “Circular Migration. The Way Forward in Global Policy?”, Working Papers, 4, International Migration Institute, http://www.imi.ox.ac.uk/pdfs/wp/wp4-circular-migration-policy. pdf [26 July 2014]. Wickramasekara Piyasiri (2011) “Circular Migration: a Triple Win or a Dead End?”, GURN Discussion Paper, 15, Geneva: International Labour Office, www.gurn.info/en/discussion-papers/no15-mar11–­ circular-migration-a-triple-win-or-a-dead-end [26 July 2014]. Zajončkovskaâ Žanna (ed.) (2003) Trudovaâ migraciâ v SNG: social'nye i èkonomičeskie èffekty, Moskva: Centr izučeniâ problem vynuždennoj migracii v SNG.

Timothy K. Blauvelt & Christofer Berglund

Armenians in the Making of Modern Georgia While sharing a common ethnic heritage and national legacy, and an ambiguous status in relation to the Georgian state and ethnic majority, the Armenians in Georgia comprise not one, but several distinct communities with divergent outlooks, concerns, and degrees of assimilation. There are the urbanised Armenians of the capital city, Tbilisi (earlier called Tiflis), as well as the more agricultural circle of Armenians residing in the Javakheti region in southwestern Georgia.1 Notwithstanding their differences, these communities have both helped shape modern Armenian political and cultural identity, and still represent an intrinsic part of the societal fabric in Georgia.

The Beginnings The ancient kingdoms of Greater Armenia encompassed parts of modern Georgia, and left an imprint on the area as far back as history has been recorded. Moreover, after the collapse of the independent Armenian kingdoms and principalities in the 4th century AD, some of their subjects migrated north to the Georgian kingdoms seeking save haven. Armenians and Georgians in the Caucasus existed in a boundary space between the Roman-­Byzantine and Iranian cultures and, while borrowing from both spheres, struggled to preserve their autonomy. The Georgian regal Bagratids shared common origins with the Armenian Bagratuni dynasty. And as part of his campaign to forge a unified Georgian kingdom in the late 11th and early 12th centuries, the Georgian King David the Builder encouraged Armenian merchants to settle in Georgian towns. They primarily settled in Tiflis, once it was conquered from the Arabs, and in the town of Gori, which had been established specifically for Armenian settlers (Lordkipanidze 1974: 37). While there is no detailed demographic data from this period, a significant number of Armenian peasants resided in villages in the Georgian countryside, at least in the southwest near the historically Armenian territories of eastern Anatolia, and Armenian merchants dominated the Georgian towns. Indeed, social roles in the Georgian kingdoms and principalities became differentiated along ethnic lines. Ethnic Georgians comprised the majority

1 Although there is also an Armenian presence in Batumi, along the Black Sea cost, and in the separatist statelet of Abkhazia in northwestern Georgia, this chapter focuses on the Armenian communities in Tbilisi and in Javakheti.

70

Timothy K. Blauvelt & Christofer Berglund

of the enserfed peasantry working for the rural estates of the landed Georgian nobility, but Armenian craftsmen and merchants became important in the towns. While in the Georgian kingdoms the townspeople were also unfree serfs, Armenian merchant elites often became royally appointed city managers and privileged residents – referred to as mokalakeebi (Suny 1993: 37 – 40; Kappeler 2001: 177).

Ethnic Relations under Tsarist Rule The annexation of the Georgian kingdoms and the rest of the Transcaucasus 2 by the Russian Empire in the early 19th century consolidated these social roles, and brought greater physical security to the Armenians. In this period the Tsarist authorities viewed the Christian Armenians as both allies in the southern periphery and also as a small vulnerable nation that they were obliged by faith to defend from Muslim oppressors. Despite facing increasing competition from Russian merchants, the urban Armenian merchants gained protection from abuse at the hands of Georgian nobles and access to wider markets in Russia, Europe and the Middle East. During the viceroyalty of Mikhail Vorontsov in mid-century the Armenian merchant elite were able to increase their status and position in society, becoming hereditary ‘honoured citizens’ of the empire and placed in control of Tiflis’ municipal government. In return for these opportunities the Armenian nascent middle class sought assimilation into Russian cultural life (Suny 1994: 94 – 5). Meanwhile, the Transcaucasus was divided up and administered in regional governorships (gubernia) that were not directly associated with the nationalities living in them. Thus, there were no formal geographic categories of ‘Georgia’ or ‘Armenia’ in the Russian Imperial administration. The lands of modern Georgia were covered by the Kutaisi governorship, Tiflis governorship, and Batumi province (oblast). The territory of present-day Armenia was split between the Elizabetpol and Erivan governorships. As the capital of ­Tsarist administration of the Caucasus Viceroyalty that covered North and South Caucasus, Tiflis became the centre of cultural life and of economic activity in the region. As roads, railways, and other modes of communication expanded, Tiflis found itself in the centre of infrastructure connecting the Caspian Sea to the Black Sea and points beyond. The city thus evolved as a cosmopolitan and multi-cultural hub of trade and exchange, a nexus of empires and cultures. Armenians were the most numerous ethnic group in the city and Armenian cultural and political life flourished here. Another Armenian community evolved to the southwest of Tiflis in the region of ­Javakheti (called Javakhk by Armenians) and in and around the neighbouring town of Akhaltsikhe. This area was included into the Russian Empire as a result of 1828 – 1829 Russo-Turkish war

2 The term ‘Transcaucasus’ is derived from the Russian ‘Zakavkaze’, which means ‘the area beyond the Caucasus Mountains’ – i. e. the South Caucasus as seen from Russia’s perspective.

Armenians in the Making of Modern Georgia

71

and subsequent peace treaties. While there long had been an Armenian presence in Javakheti, the Russo-Turkish conflict altered the demographic structure of the region. 7,300 Armenian families, approximately 58,000 people, resettled from Ottoman territories to Russian-controlled Javakheti and its surrounding areas, and many local Muslims in turn migrated to the Ottoman Empire. In 1874, Javakheti was given administrative status as the Akhalkalaki district (uezd) within the Tiflis governorship. According to the 1897 Russian Imperial census, Armenians made up the vast majority of the population of the district: 72.3% (Pervaya n. d.). The First World War and Armenian Genocide in 1915 prompted another wave of Armenians to seek refuge here. Despite the harsh climate of the far-flung region, sometimes called Georgia’s Siberia, local Armenians eked out a living through agriculture and small-scale trade (George 2009: 143).

The Rise of National Consciousness The cultural and socioeconomic features of the urbanised Armenian merchants separated them from, and created friction vis-à-vis, the Georgian nobility and their peasants (Suny 1994). The accounts of diarists, travellers and publicists of the 19th century are replete with stereotypes of Georgians as gracious and gregarious, yet lazy, impulsive and self-indulgent, while Armenians were depicted as hard-working and industrious, yet also greedy, manipulative and deceitful. These antagonisms increased in the context of the economic and demographic transformations of the mid- to late–19th century, as the traditional agrarian economy waned and aristocrats and peasants migrated from the villages and estates of the countryside to the towns and cities. These interactions, combined with the exposure of elites to European intellectual conceptions of nationalism, facilitated the rise of national consciousness among Georgians and Armenians alike. In Tiflis, “Georgians of various classes came face to face with a well-entrenched, financially secure, urban middle class whose members spoke a different language, went to a different church, and held very different values” (Suny 1994: 115). By the end of the 19th century, these differences in culture and social class had morphed into racial stereotypes. Urban Georgians began to question their position vis-à-vis the Armenians, and were encouraged to define their own sense of identity by the first generation of Georgian nationalist elites, known as the Tergdaleulebi (literally ‘those who drank from the waters of the Terek’) because their journey to the renowned universities in Russia and Europe had taken them across the river Terek. In the progressive context of the Great Reforms under Tsar Alexander II (1855 – 81), Armenian elites in Tiflis and in other towns of the Transcaucasus, including Baku and Batumi, began articulating their own sense of identity by means of newspapers, journals, and eventually through political organisations. Armenian intellectuals formulated an outlook and conception of national consciousness that was both essentially liberal and Russian-oriented. As Aleksandr Amfiteatrov observed, “Caucasia was Russified without Russification, and at

72

Timothy K. Blauvelt & Christofer Berglund

the forefront of this natural Russianizing were, once again, the Armenians” (cited in Suny 1993: 41). The Armenian mokalakeebi preserved their privileged positions in commerce and in municipal administration, and rose to high positions in the central government and its military. This pattern of elite integration, dubbed ‘most-favoured lord’ incorporation (Laitin 1998: 60), reached its apogee with the appointment of Mikhail Loris-Melikov, a Tiflis Armenian and decorated war hero, as Minister of Interior of the Russian Empire in 1880, charged with securing public order. However, the assassination of Tsar Alexander II by Russian radicals from the People’s Will (Narodnaya vol’ya) movement in 1881 signalled the end to the period of liberal tolerance and the onset of the so-called period of reaction. The subsequent years saw a renewed emphasis on Russian patriotism and efforts to assimilate national minorities. Russian attitudes towards the peoples of the Caucasus became more chauvinistic, and tapped into the negative stereotypes of the Armenian bourgeoisie. Rather than being seen as a small, reliable nation of industrious Christians on the periphery that Russia was obliged to protect, Armenians were viewed as shiftless, devious and potentially subversive towards imperial rule. And as depictions of Armenians in the Russian popular press became increasingly negative, the government began to close Armenian schools and cultural organisations, including charitable societies and libraries. Against the backdrop of the emerging Georgian national movement and this accelerating Russian chauvinism, Armenian nationalist organisations also began to take shape. The Social Democrat Hnchakian Party, or Hnchak (The Bell) was founded in 1887 in Geneva by a group of Armenian university students, including several from Tiflis, such as ­Avetis Nazarbekian, Mariam Vardanian and Gevorg Gharadjian, the Armenian equivalents of the Georgian Tergdaleulebi. Three years later the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaktsutiun) was founded in Tiflis. As was the case with many nationalist movements at the time, these organisations incorporated elements of socialism into their programs. At first, the Hnchaks and Dashnaks focused their concerns on the plight of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. However, due to the increasingly hostile policies of the Tsar, culminating in the seizure of the property of the Armenian Apostolic Church in 1903, they gradually turned against the Russian autocracy as well. By the turn of the century, the onslaught of Russian chauvinism had undermined the traditionally Russophile and liberal orientation of the urban Armenian intelligentsia, in Tiflis and in other regional cities, and turned perceptions of Armenians as seditious rebels into reality. After the eruption of violence between Armenians and Azerbaijanis in cities throughout the Transcaucasus during the events of the Revolution of 1905, the Viceroy Illarion Vorontsov-Dashkov restored the property of the Armenian Church and set about reviving the Russian-Armenian relationship. Though Georgia was spared from the grave ethnic clashes that occurred elsewhere in the region, Tiflis soon became the centre of political turmoil in the Transcaucasus. The incompatible goals of the Armenian national movement, the Georgian national movement, Russia’s Imperial authorities, and its Bolshevik challengers, resulted in a period of great disarray.

Armenians in the Making of Modern Georgia

73

Revolution and Conflict In the context of the collapse of the Russian Empire in February 1917 and the quagmire of the First World War, local nationalist movements, such as the Dashnaktsutiun, took on added salience. With the loss of an imperial government that, despite ups and downs, often had served as a patron and protector, Armenians found themselves in a difficult predicament: unlike most other ethnic groups in the region, they lacked a clearly defined and defensible territorial base at a time when modern states were about to be carved out of the ruins of the Tsarist Transcaucasus. While the centre of the former empire descended into chaos with the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II, the Bolshevik seizure of power in November 1917 and the Civil War from early 1918, the Georgian Mensheviks, the Armenian Dashnaks and the Azerbaijani Musavat party – all of them socialist and nationalist political organisations – sought to ensure stability by joining together to form the united Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic in February 1918. However, internal contractions among the constituent nationalities caused this attempt at unified statehood to collapse within a few months. The Ottoman Empire tried to take advantage of the collapse of the Russian army by sending troops to regions in present-day Georgia and Armenia. Georgians and Armenians resisted the Ottoman encroachment, but Muslims tended to support it. The Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic fell apart as Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan declared independence in May 1918. But this did little to solve the region’s conflicts. The Armenian state was led by the Dashnaks, and included several prominent Armenians born in Georgia, such as its first three Prime Ministers: Hovhannes Katchaznouni (Akhaltsikhe), Alexander Khatisian (Tiflis), and Hamo Ohanjanyan (Akhalkalaki). The First Armenian Republic mostly consisted of territory from the Erivan governorship, but made claims to areas in southern Georgia. Georgia, for its part, eyed some lands controlled by Armenians (Cornell 2001: 59; Yilmaz 2009). These competing territorial ambitions left the South Caucasian republics prone to infighting, and as the Ottoman forces retreated from the region in 1918, Georgia and Armenia stumbled into war over the borderlands of Javakheti, Lori, and Borchalo. These districts had earlier been part of the Tiflis governorship but were to a large extent inhabited by Armenians.3 In the course of this conflict, Georgian authorities for the first time came to view its Armenian population as potential enemies. Dashnak politicians in Tiflis were arrested, and newspapers linked with the party were closed down. The governor of Tiflis declared all Armenians as ‘prisoners of war’, many civilians were subjected to arrest and expropriation of property, and scores of Armenian civil servants in Tiflis were sacked (Hovannisian 3 Armenian officials felt that Armenians would be not safe under Georgian rule. During the preceding Ottoman invasion, Georgia had denied asylum to Armenians fleeing from Akhalkalaki and Akhal­ tsikhe and thus forced them to seek refuge in the barren Bakuriani highlands to the north, where 30,000 had perished (Hovannisian 1971: 68).

74

Timothy K. Blauvelt & Christofer Berglund

1971: 122). This situation marked a particular low point in Georgian-Armenian ethnic relations. Though the conflict between the two republics was resolved through British mediation in January 1919, the debacle caused the recently victorious allies to regard both states, if not the entire Transcaucasian region, as a headache in the important run-up to the Paris Peace Conference (Suny 1994: 203). The creation of the First Armenian Republic in 1918, though comprising a mere fragment of the historical Armenian-populated territories and mired in conflict, presented a stark choice for the urban Armenians in Tiflis and the rural Armenians in Javakheti and adjacent territories: Should they stay in their home towns and villages, where they had been rooted for decades or centuries, even though now they found themselves in what had essentially become somebody else’s country? Or should they relocate to unknown circumstances in Armenia and its capital city of Yerevan, and take part in the building of a country emerging under extremely dire conditions?

Ethnic Relations under Soviet Rule Armenians in Tiflis and Javakheti continued to grapple with these questions even after the Sovietisation of the Transcaucasus in 1920 – 21. For while the early Soviet nationalities policies offered many concessions and opportunities for minorities, ethnic groups residing outside the borders of their officially identified ‘homelands’ found themselves in an ambiguous situation. Armenians were considered an ‘advanced’ nation in the Soviet schema, and as ‘titulars’ in the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic had significant resources available to further their culture (Broers 2004: 113). On the other hand, Armenians within the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic were left in a more vulnerable situation. In line with the Soviet use of affirmative action policies in support of titular nationalities, Georgians were favoured for official posts in their republic, and migrated to the capital, which led to the nationalisation of the public sphere. To be sure, Georgia’s Armenians were shielded from assimilation through hereditary nationality markers in the Soviet passports,4 and enjoyed access to general education, as well as state-funded cultural institutions and newspapers in their native language (Hin 2003: 43). However, in addition to Russian, they now had to adapt to the use of Georgian in public life. Armenians in Tiflis learnt Georgian from their social surroundings, and preferred to attend Russian-language schools and university sectors, and therefore often lost, at least partially, their native language.

4 The nationality marker appeared on the fifth line of Soviet passports and was ascribed to new passport holders on the basis of their parental lineage. If the parents were of the same nationality, the child simply inherited theirs, but if the parents were of different nationalities, then the child had to chose between either nationality at the age of sixteen.

Armenians in the Making of Modern Georgia

75

Some Tiflis-Armenians migrated to their official ‘homeland’, the Armenian SSR, after the properties of the bourgeoisie were expropriated due to Soviet housing policies. Those who stayed in Tiflis (renamed Tbilisi in 1936) gradually moved from the central Golovin Avenue (now Rustaveli Avenue) and left the prestigious Sololaki district and the city’s old town, where the Armenian Bazaar street was renamed after General Konstantin Leselidze, a Georgian General during the Second World War. Indicative of their fading fortunes, the remaining Tbilisi-Armenians became concentrated in less esteemed areas, such as the Avlabari district. Several Armenian heritage sites were demolished in the city under Soviet rule, most notably the Khojivank Armenian cemetery complex with the St. Astvatsatsin Church that had existed in the Avlabari neighbourhood since the 17th century and where a range of famous Armenian writers and public figures had been buried. The church and much of its adjoining cemetery were destroyed in 1937, and many of the gravestones were used in the construction of official Soviet buildings in Tbilisi.5 Unlike Georgia’s ‘indigenous’ Abkhazian and Ossetian minorities, who presided over an Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic and an Autonomous Oblast, respectively, Armenians were considered ‘settlers’ in the Georgian republic and were denied special autonomous status for Javakheti. Yet, this region still developed very differently from the remainder of the Georgian SSR. Because of its location next to the international border with Turkey, the Soviet Union in 1923 established a special border regime covering areas up to 23 kilometres inland. After Turkey’s accession to NATO and the onset of the Cold War, this zone was extended further inland and Javakheti, together with neighbouring Samtskhe (Meskheti), became a restricted zone, heavily influenced by the Soviet army base in Akhalkalaki (Ramishvili 2007). Local residents had little contact with the rest of Georgia, and the Georgian language was seldom heard in Javakheti. Armenian and Russian were used for the purposes of education and administration, since locals through these languages could seek out opportunities in the Armenian SSR or elsewhere in the USSR, where Russian functioned as the lingua franca and as a gateway for career advancement.

Ethnic Relations and Societal Collapse in Post-Soviet Georgia In the context of the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the emergence of a sovereign state of Georgia, Armenians again had to reassess their relationship to, and role within, the state. Zviad Gamsakhurdia, who spearheaded the drive for independence and was elected president in 1991, gave voice to a zealous ethno-nationalism, encapsulated in the slogan ‘Georgia for Georgians’. He envisaged a historically enclosed Georgian nation, united around their 5 For a candid viewpoint on the privileged position of Georgians and the perceived unfair treatment of Armenians and other ethnic minorities in post-war Soviet Georgia, see the letter of the Tbilisi-born Armenian Red Army Major Sukiasov to Soviet Marshal Zhukov in April 1956 (Blauvelt, Smith 2015: 285 – 295).

76

Timothy K. Blauvelt & Christofer Berglund

language and through adherence to the Georgian Orthodox Church, which he perceived to be threatened by “other nationalities which were brought here by the Kremlin, by Russia, by the empire: Azeris, Armenians and even the Ossetians are newcomers here” (cited in Shane 1991). Gamsakhurdia’s pursuit of Georgian ownership over the republic, couched in messianic talk of the ‘Spiritual Mission of Georgia’, made it well-nigh impossible for minorities to belong. This virulent and exclusionary discourse alienated Georgia’s minorities – as well as a fair amount of Georgians. In late–1991, Gamsakhurdia was ousted after a brief shooting war on the streets of Tbilisi by a motley coalition of displaced communists, democratic intellectuals, and mafia-esque politicians. Over the following years the country descended into “a quasi-medieval condition, with separate fiefdoms ruled by different warlords” (Nodia 1995: 111). Despite the secession of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Eduard Shevardnadze, the former First Secretary of the Georgian Communist Party and Foreign Minister of the USSR, who had been invited by the ruling junta to serve as figurehead chairman of the government, managed to use his political acumen to balance the factions off against one another. By 1995, ­Shevardnadze had restored a semblance of order, but the state remained very weak, held together only by patron-client networks fuelled by rent-seeking and corruption. Public institutions were neither centralised, nor coordinated, and Shevardnadze’s authority had little reach beyond the capital of Tbilisi (Berglund 2013). For fear of upsetting this delicate stability, and unleashing another round of conflicts, Shevardnadze could not pursue policies too favourable either to Georgian ethno-nationalists or alienated minorities. He thus embarked upon what ­Broers (2004: 211) terms ‘the politics of omission’. Despite granting citizenship to all residents, removing Soviet-era ID markers from Georgian passports, and extolling multiculturalism and civic nationalism, Shevardnadze in fact treated minorities as passive objects to be ruled over rather than as active participants in the national political arena. Against the backdrop of aggressive nationalism under Gamsakhurdia and socio-­economic decline under Shevardnadze, Armenians contemplated their future in Georgia with trepidation. Many Armenians in Tbilisi opted to emigrate, often to the West, to Russia or the newly independent Republic of Armenia, in the early 1990s (Hin 2003: 56). They were under particular pressure since the capital was the centre stage of Georgian nationalist mobilisation. Moreover, hostilities against Armenians ran high due to the war in A ­ bkhazia, where most local Armenians had entered the conflict on the side of the separatists by organising themselves into the Bagramyan Battalion.6 Many Armenians who remained in Tbilisi therefore changed their surnames in order to make them sound more Georgian.7 Even though the remnants of the Armenian Pantheon of Tbilisi, most of which had been destroyed in 1937, was reopened in 2002, much of the territory of the Khojivank cemetery had at this stage been appropriated for the construction of the enormous Sameba Cathedral by the

6 Author’s interview with Abkhaz official and political analyst, Sukhumi, 2009. 7 Author’s interview with activist at the Armenian Union Sayat-Nova, Tbilisi, 2010.

Armenians in the Making of Modern Georgia

77

Georgian Orthodox Church. This drew ire from the Armenian community in Tbilisi, and from the Armenian diaspora, who felt that the Georgian state demonstrated little interest in protecting their churches and cultural artefacts. While the Georgian-speaking Armenians in Tbilisi were in danger of assimilation, the Javakheti-Armenians were less inclined to yield to the Georgian state’s nationalisation program. After Gamsakhurdia changed the name of Javakheti’s Bogdanovka district and town to the Georgian-sounding Ninotsminda, and tried to establish control by appointing prefects to rule over the region, local Armenians reacted with frustration. In Akhalkalaki, only 52% of voters said ‘yes’ in Georgia’s independence referendum,8 and afterwards locals prevented Gamsakhurdia’s prefects from taking up their posts (Guretski 1998; Cornell 2002: 163). In the meantime, a movement dubbed Javakhk organised an informal local election, which produced a Provisional Council of Representatives charged with governing the enclave. Its Armenian nominee was subsequently made prefect, and after Gamsakhurdia’s ouster the region fell under the de facto control of the Javakhk movement, which advocated regional self-determination, and even had a militia, Parvents, at its disposal to keep marauding Georgian warlords at bay. Until the mid–1990s, this organisation effectively supplanted the state by collecting taxes and administrating law and order throughout Georgia’s Armenian borderland (Demetriou 2002: 879). Georgian authorities were troubled by Javakhk’s quest for self-determination. Similar movements in South Ossetia and Abkhazia had ended in separatism, and arms and manpower flooded the region through local volunteers, who had fought in Nagorno-Karabakh, and through Russia’s military base in Akhalkalaki. Shevardnadze thus set about undermining the movement. In 1994, he divided Georgia into nine provinces and appointed governors to each of them. Javakheti, where 95% of the residents were Armenians, was merged with Georgian-dominated Samtskhe region into Samtskhe-Javakheti province, in which Armenians represented 54% of the population. As the competencies of the governors were ill-defined,9 Shevardnadze’s envoy to Samtskhe-Javakheti, Gigla Baramidze,10 proceeded to use his post to co-opt local elites into Tbilisi’s patron-client networks. Thus, despite the formation of local self-governance bodies across Georgia in 1998, Javakheti’s autonomous decision rights were in fact strongly curtailed. The Javakhk movement disintegrated as some of its leaders were offered lucrative posts in local state structures – enabling them to extract kickbacks in their role as district administrators, police officers, prosecutors, or tax inspectors – while other activists were marginalised.

8 The rather high amount of voters responding affirmatively should be seen in light of Gamsakhurdia’s threat to withdraw citizenship and property rights from those saying ‘no’ to independence. 9 Pending the “complete restoration of the jurisdiction of Georgia”, article two of the 1995 constitution had postponed the issue of Georgia’s territorial organisation, as well as the question of which competencies to devolve. 10 His tenure lasted from 1994 to 2002. Baramidze was also Georgia’s ambassador to Armenia from 1995 to 1998.

78

Timothy K. Blauvelt & Christofer Berglund

Even though Armenians occupied most official positions in Javakheti, they became beholden to Tbilisi rather than to locals. In exchange for their loyalty to S­ hevardnadze, the most powerful Armenian officials developed informal networks, or ‘clans’, which were held together by the distribution of spoils from control over trade in contraband or energy resources (Metreveli 2004). Although Javakheti’s elites were adept at funnelling votes to the ruling party during elections, local Armenians felt a “total alienation from the Georgian state” (Wheatley 2004: 33; George 2009). They also distrusted local officials, who served ­Tbilisi’s interests, rather than theirs, and who on several occasions were the target of beatings (Nodia 2002: 88). In 1997, a petition gathered 42,000 signatures demanding that Javakheti be made a separate province with an Armenian governor. These efforts were pushed by Javakhk-members who had not been co-opted, such as David Rstakyan, who later set up Virk, an unregistered party with a pro-Russian and anti-Turkish orientation, which had a fair amount of local sympathisers.11 Despite Tbilisi’s refusal to devolve autonomous decision rights, events in the late-1990s exposed its frail control. In August 1998, Armenian militias stopped, and almost clashed with, Georgian soldiers trying to enter Javakheti for planned exercises, which they had neglected to inform locals about. Georgian fears were further stoked by ties between local nationalists and the Dashnaktsutiun party, whose program called for the unification “of historic Armenian lands” (Georgia’s 2006: 19). Nonetheless, Armenian officials went to great lengths to calm the situation in Javakheti, in part due to landlocked Armenia’s reliance on transit trade through Georgia. Many Javakheti Armenians felt stuck in a no man’s land: going ‘to Armenia’ meant going to Yerevan, and travelling ‘to Georgia’ meant to Tbilisi.12 Despite the stability engineered by Shevardnadze, locals endured a dreadful recession. By 2000, Georgia’s GDP had contracted to less than a third of its 1990-levels, and Javakheti fared much worse than the national average (What 2002; Wheatley 2009: 9). Apart from rampant unemployment, locals also had to cope with decrepit infrastructure and erratic power supply. It took over six hours to drive the 200 km long road to Tbilisi, due to the disastrous road conditions, and on the way motorists often had to bribe corrupt policemen exacting kickbacks for supposed infractions. Thus, locals seldom ventured out into Georgian-speaking areas, and instead relied on Russia’s 62nd military base in Akhalkalaki, which was the region’s single largest employer, as well as the most important market for farmers selling produce. Thousands of households survived thanks to the generous salaries paid to its personnel, and since military vehicles were not checked at customs, they often served as a conduit for contraband trade (Antonenko 2001). Russian Rubles remained a more common tender than Georgian Laris, pupils studied using textbooks from Armenia, and locals argued that they did not need to speak Georgian since they hardly ever met one (Akopân 2010).

11 Author’s interview with leading activist in Virk, Akhalkalaki, 2010. 12 Author’s interview with Armenian political activist, Akhalkalaki, 2010.

Armenians in the Making of Modern Georgia

79

Nation-Building after the Rose Revolution The situation facing Georgia’s Armenians, especially in Javakheti, changed after the 2003 Rose Revolution, in which Shevardnadze was compelled to step down in favour of ­Mikheil Saakashvili and his United National Movement (UNM). Saakashvili launched a dramatic campaign in order to rid Georgia of corruption and crime, generate a coordinated and capable state apparatus, and stimulate the integration of minorities by ensuring equal opportunities for all Georgian-speakers. The authorities sought to reduce barriers to inclusion through the protection of minority cultures, and to foster knowledge of the Georgian language among minorities.13 Saakashvili revived inclusionary imagery from Georgia’s past, for instance by holding forth the tolerant policies of King David the Builder as a noble template (Maisuradze 2009). He also introduced new national symbols, changing Georgia’s flag, anthem and its state emblem, which prominently displayed the country’s new motto: ‘Strength in Unity’. In conjunction with these symbolic modifications, Saakashvili repeatedly underlined that all ethnic minorities were part and parcel of Georgian statehood, and equal by virtue of their citizenship. In 2005, the government ratified to the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. In order to translate its provisions into the domestic sphere, S­ aakashvili established a State Ministry for Reintegration Issues, a Civil Integration and Tolerance Council under the President’s Administration, and a Council for National Minorities under the Public Defender’s Tolerance Centre (Berglund 2014). These institutions were then put in charge of executing a National Concept and Action Plan for Tolerance and Civil Integration. As part of these efforts, Saakashvili strengthened legal provisions against discrimination, tried to reach out to minorities through radio- and television-programs in their native languages, and supported organisations advancing the culture of minorities, such as the Petros Adamyan State Armenian Drama Theatre and the Hayatun Cultural Centre in Tbilisi as well as local libraries in Javakheti (Second 2012; Assessment 2014). However, Saakashvili’s liberal nationalism was alien to some Georgians, who felt that the authorities were not paying sufficient heed to certain aspects of traditional Georgian culture, such as the Georgian Orthodox Church (GOC). This became increasingly problematic, since the approval rating of the GOC and its Patriarch Ilia II shot up from 38.6% in 2003 to 86.6% in 2008 (Nijaradze 2008: 3). Though officials were frustrated with its influence, they refrained from publicly criticising the GOC, and only occasionally went against its wishes (Georgia 2009). In 2011, for instance, the UNM pushed through reforms, despite conservative protests, enabling other denominations, such as the Armenian Apostolic Church, to register as Legal Entities of Public Law (Bill 2011).

13 Author’s interview with Georgia’s State Minister for Reintegration, Tbilisi, 2009; and with the Deputy State Minister for Reintegration serving as Coordinator of the Inter-Agency Commission, Tbilisi, 2010.

80

Timothy K. Blauvelt & Christofer Berglund

Nevertheless, from the perspective of Tbilisi’s Armenians, Saakashvili’s policies still left much to be desired. Despite the activities of the Diocese of the Armenian Apostolic Church in Georgia and the Hayatun Cultural Centre, and the celebration of the 100-yearold annual Vardaton rose laying ceremony at the grave of Sayat Nova, Armenian activists listed numerous concerns. Several Armenian churches, which had been appropriated by the state under Soviet rule, had still not been returned to the community, since officials did not dare to challenge the GOC, which claimed them as Georgian churches (Georgia 2011). Five of these disputed sites were situated in Tbilisi, including the old town’s Norashen Church, located on the former Armenian Bazaar Street, and many of these properties were falling into disrepair.14 Only two Armenian churches were functioning in Tbilisi, Echmiadzin from the 18th century and St. Gevorg from the 13th century, but the latter had to be closed after its dome collapsed in 2009. Activists also wondered why, if the criterion for inclusion under the official ‘civic’ nationalism was the knowledge of a state language, Tbilisi’s Georgian-speaking Armenians were heavily underrepresented in the city legislature.15 Was it not ‘their’ city too? Another source of concern was the dwindling number of Armenian schools in the capital, and the closure of Russian schools, which pushed future generations into Georgian-language schools.16 One respondent argued that, if youngsters did not receive better opportunities of learning Armenian at school, the consequence might be the ‘silent assimilation’ of Tbilisi’s Armenians. Meanwhile, Javakheti’s Armenians – in some ways – grew less estranged from the state. The region’s dreadful road network was rehabilitated through the US Millennium Challenge Corporation, and by 2011 locals could reach Tbilisi in less than three hours. Furthermore, due to Saakashvili’s anti-corruption reforms, locals could embark upon these roads without having to pay bribes to police officers. Border crossing points to Turkey and Armenia were rebuilt, and construction began of a railway linking Baku (Azerbaijan) to Kars (Turkey), with a station in Akhalkalaki. Gas lines were drawn to Javakheti’s biggest towns, making it easier to heat houses in this cold outpost, and the electricity supply became more reliable. Since taxes were now being collected, rather than stolen, by tax administrators, the state could afford to provide a modicum of public goods.17 Another critical step in reducing Javakheti’s isolation was taken in 2007, when Tbilisi pushed Russia to fulfil its promise to close the 62nd military base in Akhalkalaki. On top of this, the authorities began implementing several laws, which had gone ignored under Shevardnadze, demanding that local officials and civil servants be capable in the state language.

14 Author’s interview with official at the Council for Religious Minorities under the Public Defender’s Tolerance Center, Tbilisi, 2010; and with activist at the Armenian Community of Georgia, Tbilisi, 2010. 15 Author’s interview with activist at the European Armenian Federation for Justice and Democracy, Tbilisi, 2011. 16 Author’s interview with activist at the Armenian Union Sayat-Nova, Tbilisi, 2010. 17 Author’s interview with local government official, Akhalkalaki, 2010.

Armenians in the Making of Modern Georgia

81

These developments did not occur without a fair amount of drama. Even Saakashvili’s critics welcomed the rehabilitation of roads and efficient fight against corruption, but Armenians opposed the withdrawal of Russia’s military base, which functioned as the region’s economic motor, and was perceived as vital source of protection against Turkey. Georgia’s participation in infrastructure projects linking Azerbaijan and Turkey, and its (unfulfilled) obligation to repatriate Meskhetian Turks deported from the region in 1944, also worried Javakheti’s Armenians. In addition, the sudden application of dormant language laws was seen as a threat to the jobs and career prospects of civil servants, who had relied on Armenian or Russian during proceedings.18 However, since Saakashvili’s government upheld the practice of co-opting local patrons, Armenians lacked channels through which they could vent their concerns (Wheatley 2009: 19). The result was a series of protests in the years following the Rose Revolution, against the firing of Armenian civil servants, attempts at artificial demographic changes, and against ‘Georgianisation’ writ large, but in favour of maintaining the military base, making Armenian a regional language, and greater self-determination (Hakobyan 2005; Georgia’s 2006: 3). A younger generation of activists, centred on Vahagn Chakhalyan’s United Javakhk movement, became prominent in connection to the 2006 local elections. However, as the removal of the 62nd military base drew closer, and tensions between Russia and Georgia rose in the build-up to the war in August 2008, Tbilisi’s security agencies beefed up their presence in the region.19 In July 2008, after a blast near the house of Akhalkalaki’s police chief, Chakhalyan was arrested and his organisation withered away. Whether these events were part of a feud between local clans, a clash between national interests, or an attempt at Russian subversion remains mired in mystery.20 During his second presidential term, Saakashvili scaled back the implementation of laws demanding that local public servants conduct their proceedings in Georgian, and tried to help the next generation of Javakheti Armenians to learn the state language through education reforms.21 Though the 2005 Law on General Education upheld minorities’ right to tuition in their native language, their schooling was streamlined according to the national curriculum. Georgian textbooks were translated into Armenian, thus replacing old textbooks imported from Armenia. New textbooks were designed for pupils learning Georgian as a second language, and a School Partnership Program fostered contacts between students in Georgian and non-Georgian schools. Plans were drawn up for teaching social science subjects in Georgian in otherwise Armenian-language schools, and about a dozen of schools in Javakheti participated in an experimental multi-lingual education program, where several languages of instruction were used in parallel.22

18 Author’s interview with local activist, Akhalkalaki, 2010; and journalist, Akhalkalaki, 2010. 19 Author’s interview with senior intelligence official, Tbilisi, 2011. 20 Author’s interview with political analyst, Tbilisi, 2010; political analyst, Akhalkalaki, 2010; and with a close relative of Vahagn Chakhalyan, Akhalkalaki, 2010. 21 Author’s interview with member of the Civil Integration and Tolerance Council, Tbilisi, 2010. 22 Author’s interview with Director of Civil Integration Programs at the Ministry of Education and Science, Tbilisi, 2010; and activist at the Center for Civic Integration and Inter-Ethnic Relations, Tbilisi, 2011.

82

Timothy K. Blauvelt & Christofer Berglund

However, due to the lack of qualified teachers, these programs often ran into serious difficulties. Armenian pupils in Javakheti still graduated with limited Georgian language skills, and as a rule failed to pass the entrance exams governing admission to Georgia’s universities, whose diplomas had become ever more valued after the elimination of corruption in the higher education system (Fighting 2012: 75 – 82). Officials took numerous steps to help minorities gain access to higher education, culminating in the introduction of an affirmative action scheme in 2010 (Mekhuzla, Roche 2009). By the end of Saakashvili’s second presidential term, well over a hundred Armenians from Javakheti were admitted to Georgia’s universities every year.23 Before moving on to their regular university courses, which were taught in the state language, these students had to pass a yearlong, but statefunded, Georgian Language Training Program. The younger and more malleable generation of locals thus began preparing for a life in Georgia. Nonetheless, Saakashvili’s heavy-handed policies, coupled with the rise of a credible opposition, precipitated a drop in local support for his ruling party. Unlike the situation in 2008, when the UNM won through a 90% landslide, Saakashvili garnered about 78% of local votes in 2012, while the opposition Georgian Dream coalition made inroads into Javakheti’s voter base. However, after it became clear that the opposition had won a majority in parliament, some local strongmen, such as the MP from Ninotsminda district, defected from the ruling party and began currying favour with the new party of power – as he had done after the 2003 Rose Revolution too. Though Akhalkalaki’s MP remained loyal to the UNM , the traditional pattern of co-optation prevails, and testifies to the persistence of patron-client ties in the context of Javakheti’s politics.

Conclusion: Strangers in a Strange Land Armenians have been rooted in the towns and villages of Georgia for a long time, yet throughout modern history they have been under external rule – Tsarist, Soviet, or Georgian – rather than their own. They have been living in the midst of larger cultural spheres, and struggled to preserve their national characteristics, while at the same time adjusting to the shifting social milieus. The stability and tolerance offered by the Russian Empire enabled Armenians in Tiflis for much of the 19th century to prosper both culturally and economically, and laid the foundation for their Russophile outlook. But rising national sentiments amongst the Georgians, as well as intermittent Russian chauvinism, drove Georgia’s Armenians to demarcate their identity. After the ensuing clash of local nationalists movements, occurring against the backdrop of the crumbling Russian and Ottoman Empires, Armenian intellectuals raised in modern-day Georgia became prominent figures in the emergent Armenian republic and in the Armenian diaspora.

23 Personal communication with official at the National Examinations Centre, 2015.

Armenians in the Making of Modern Georgia

83

In the wake of Georgia’s Sovietisation, Armenians in Tiflis lost their positions of power. They were construed as ‘settlers’ in what had become a Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic, and many migrated to the Armenian SSR, their official homeland. Armenians in the isolated and militarised outposts of Samtskhe and Javakheti largely escaped these pressures. But in order to climb the social ladder in the USSR, many Armenians either continued the path of Russification, or melted into the dominating, Georgian, part of the republic’s population (Blauvelt 2013). Georgia’s independence brought new troubles. In the context of aggressive nationalising policies, a wave of Tbilisi-Armenians opted to emigrate or assimilate, while Javakheti’s Armenians defied the central government’s control. Only after the Rose Revolution did the latter group, reluctantly, start integrating and planning for a future in Georgia. But the perilous situation facing Armenians in the capital cast doubt over the possibilities of staking out a life in Georgia without assimilating. Tbilisi’s Armenians were losing facility in their mother tongue, denied ownership of their churches, and lacked representation in the city’s legislature despite speaking Georgian. As strangers in a strange land – one which they were not masters of but considered as their habitat – Georgia’s Armenians continued to ponder the issue of how to adjust to their surroundings and maximise their life chances without losing their traditions and culture.

References Akopân Vigen (2010) “Robert Tatoyan: Začem žitelû Džavahka gruzinskij âzyk, esli on vstrečaet gruzin raza dva v god?”, Regnum Informacionnoe Agenstvo, http://www.regnum.ru/news/polit/1302318.html [21 May 2015]. Antonenko Oksana (2001) “Assessment of the Potential Implications of Akhalkalaki Base Closure for the Stability in Southern Georgia”, CPN Briefing Study, Berlin: Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik. Assessment (2014) Assessment Document on the Implementation of the National Concept for Tolerance and Civic Integration and Action Plan for 2009 – 2014, Tbilisi: State Minister of Reintegration. Berglund Christofer (2013) “Georgia”, S. Berglund, J. Ekman, K. Deegan-Krause, T. Knutsen (eds.), The Handbook of Political Change in Eastern Europe, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Berglund Christofer (2014) “‘Forward to David the Builder!’ Armenians and Azerbaijanis under Georgia’s Civic Nationalism”, Association for the Study of Nationalities (ASN) World Convention, Panel K8, New York, Columbia University, 24 – 26 April 2014. Bill (2011) “Bill on Religious Minorities Legal Status Becomes Law”, Civil Georgia, http://www.civil.ge/ eng/article.php?id=23711 [21 May 2015]. Blauvelt Timothy (2013) “The Endurance of the Soviet Imperial Tongue: The Russian Language in Contemporary Georgia”, Central Asian Survey, 32 (2), pp. 189 – 209. Blauvelt Timothy, Smith Jeremy (eds.) (2015) Georgia after Stalin: Nationalism and Soviet Power, London: Routledge. Broers Laurence (2004) Containing the Nation, Building the State: Coping with Nationalism, Minorities and Conflict in Post-Soviet Georgia, PhD Dissertation, London: University of London (SOAS). Cornell Svante (2001) Small Nations and Great Powers: A Study of Ethno-political Conflict in the Caucasus, London: Routledge.

84

Timothy K. Blauvelt & Christofer Berglund

Cornell Svante (2002) Autonomy and Conflict: Ethnoterritoriality and Separatism in the South Caucasus – Cases in Georgia, PhD Dissertation, Uppsala: Department of Peace and Conflict. Demetriou Spyros (2002) “Rising From the Ashes? The Difficult (Re)Birth of the Georgian State”, Development and Change, 33 (5), pp. 859 – 883. Fighting (2012) “Fighting Corruption in Public Services: Chronicling Georgia’s Reforms”, Directions in Development, Public Sector Governance, Washington D. C.: The World Bank. George Julie (2009) “The Dangers of Reform: State Building and National Minorities in Georgia”, Central Asian Survey, 28 (2), pp. 135 – 154. Georgia (2011) “Georgia”, International Religious Freedom Report for 2011, U.S. Department of State, http:// www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/religiousfreedom/index.htm?dlid=192811 [25 November 2015]. Georgia (2009) “Georgia: Church and State, Maintaining a Delicate Balance”, Cable 09TBILISI2106, Wikileaks, http://www.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/12/09TBILISI2106.html [21 May 2015]. Georgia’s (2006) “Georgia’s Armenian and Azeri Minorities”, Europe Report, No. 178, Brussels: International Crisis Group. Guretski Voitsekh (1998) “The Question of Javakheti”, Caucasian Regional Studies, 3 (1), http://poli.vub. ac.be/publi/crs/eng/0301-05.htm [21 May 2015] Hakobyan Grigor (2005) “Demonstration in Javakheti Marks Increased Tensions in Armenian Populated Regions of Georgia”, Central Asia-Caucasus Institute Analyst, http://old.cacianalyst.org/?q=node/2937 [21 May 2015]. Hin Judith (2003) Ethnic and Civic Identity: Incompatible Loyalties? The Case of Armenians in Post-Soviet Georgia, PhD Dissertation, Amsterdam: Nederlandse Geografische Studies 315. Hovannisian Richard (1971) The Republic of Armenia, Volume I: The First Year, 1918 – 1919, Berkeley: University of California Press. Kappeler Andreas (2001) The Russian Empire: A Multiethnic History, Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. Laitin David (1998) Identity in Formation: The Russian-speaking Populations in the Near Abroad, Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Lordkipanidze Mariam (1974) Istoriia Gruzii XI-nachalo XIII veka, Tbilisi: Metsniereba. Maisuradze Giorgi (2009) “Time Turned Back: On the Use of History in Georgia”, Caucasus Analytical Digest, No. 8, Zürich: Centre for Security Studies. Mekhuzla Salome, Roche Aideen (2009) “National Minorities and Education Reform in Georgia”, ECMI Working Paper, No. 46, Flensburg: European Centre for Minority Issues. Metreveli Ekaterine (2004) The Dynamics of Frozen Tension: Case of Javakheti, Tbilisi: Georgian Foundation for Strategic and International Studies. Nijaradze Giorgi (2008) “Religion und Politik in Georgien: Eine Umfrage unter der Stadtbevölkerung”, Politischer Dialog Südkaukasus, Tbilisi: Konrad Adenauer Stiftung. Nodia Ghia (1995) “Georgia’s Identity Crisis”, Journal of Democracy, 6 (1), pp. 104 – 116. Nodia Ghia (2002) Ethnic-Confessional Groups and Challenges to Civic Integration in Georgia: Azeri, ­Javakheti Armenian and Muslim Meskhetian Communities, Tbilisi: Caucasus Institute for Peace, Democracy, and Development. Pervaâ (n. d.) “Pervaâ vseobsˆaâ perepis' naseleniâ Rossijskoj Imperii 1897 g. Raspredelenie naseleniâ po rodnomu yazyku, guberniâm i oblastâm”, Demoskop Weekly, http://demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/rus_lan_97. php [21 May 2015]. Ramishvili Vladimer (2007) “Javakheti or Javakhk? There is no Armenian-Georgian Consensus”, Caucasus & Globalization, 1 (5), http://www.ca-c.org/c-g/2007/journal_eng/c-g–4/02.shtml [21 May 2015], pp 13 – 21. Second (2012) “Second Report Submitted by Georgia Pursuant to Article 25, Paragraph 2 of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities”, ACFC/SR/II(2012)001, Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

Armenians in the Making of Modern Georgia

85

Shane Scott (1991) “Nationalist Leader in Soviet Georgia Turns Georgians Against Minorities”, The Baltimore Sun, http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1991-03-07/news/1991066043_1_zviad-gamsakhurdiageorgian-soviet-georgia [21 May 2015]. Suny Ronald Grigor (1993) Looking Toward Ararat: Armenia in Modern History, Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Suny Ronald Grigor (1994) The Making of the Georgian Nation, Bloomington: Indiana University Press. What (2002) “What Can Transition Economies Learn from the First 10 Years?”, Transition Newsletter, 13 (1), pp. 11 – 14. Wheatley Jonathan (2004) “Obstacles Impeding the Regional Integration of the Javakheti Region of Georgia”, ECMI Working Paper, No. 22, Flensburg: European Centre for Minority Issues. Wheatley Jonathan (2009) “The Integration of National Minorities in the Samtskhe-Javakheti and Kvemo Kartli provinces of Georgia”, ECMI Working Paper, No. 44, Flensburg: European Centre for ­Minority Issues. Yilmaz Harun (2009) “An Unexpected Peace: Azerbaijani-Georgian Relations 1918-20”, Revolutionary Russia, 22 (1), pp. 37 – 67.

David Davtyan

The Armenian Diaspora in Post-Socialist Ukraine Historical Background The Colonies of the 10th–18th Century The Armenian colonisation of today’s Ukraine spanned a number of historical periods from the 10th century onwards. The oldest and most populous self-governing Armenian colonies were established in: •• Crimea (10th–13th century), including: Feodosia (Caffa), Sudak, Staryi Krym (Solkhat), Bilohirsk (Karasubazar), and Yevpatoria (Kezlev). The size and importance of these colonies finds an apt illustration in the medieval name of the south-eastern part of the peninsula – Armenia Maritima. •• Bessarabia (12th–14th century), including: Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi (Akkerman), Izmail, and Kiliya. •• Podolia, Volhynia, and Galicia (12th–14th century), including: Kamyanets-Podilskyi, Lviv, and Lutsk. In the Polish Kingdom and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which merged in the 16th century to form the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Armenian colonies enjoyed the right of self-governance, which opened up possibilities for legal autonomy and basing the judiciary on medieval Armenian law (particularly the Mkhitar Gosh code). The same applied to Armenians in Crimea and Bessarabia, although the rights of the latter were considerably limited after the area was captured by the Ottoman Empire. The end of the 18th century saw the annexation by the Russian Empire of both the Ukrainian territories of the Commonwealth (a series of events known as the Partitions), as well as of Crimea and Bessarabia from the Ottoman Empire. The Russian authorities initiated relocations of the Armenian population, a process which led to the establishment of a number of new colonies. Though these were initially self-governing, their legal and commercial privileges were soon revoked.

The Armenian Diaspora in Post-Socialist Ukraine

87

Church Organisation In Europe, the oldest religious centres of the Armenian Apostolic Church 1 are situated in today’s Ukraine: the Holy Cross (Surb Khach) monastery in Crimea (built 1358), the Mother of God Cathedral in Lviv (1363), the Mother of God Church in Akkerman (14th–15th century), and the St. Nicholas Church in Kamyanets-Podilskyi (1398). Historically, the territory of contemporary Ukraine was included in the Armenian Apostolic dioceses of: Lviv, Kamyanets-Podilskyi, Crimea, Bessarabia, and New Nakhichevan. After the union with the Catholic Church was signed in 1630, Lviv became the bishopric centre for the Armenian Catholics of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The union, however, was not widely recognised in Crimea, Bessarabia, and Eastern Ukraine, with just several Armenian Catholic parishes, situated in Karasubazar, Simferopol, Sudak, Caffa, and Yevpatoria. In 1836, a special decree, the so-called Polozhenie o upravlenii delami Armyano-­Gregorianskoy tserkvi (Regulation Governing the Armenian-Gregorian Church), was issued, regulating the rights and duties of the Armenian Apostolic Church in the Russian Empire, including the erection of churches, the education of the Armenian minority, establishing charitable institutions, in addition to other aspects of the church’s internal organisation (Polnoe 1836: 201 – 202). The 1836 decree became of fundamental importance especially for Armenian education, which throughout the 19th century remained governed by the Church and thus autonomous from the state (Davtân 2013: 194).

Economic and Cultural Life The crucial role played by Armenian colonies in the development of medieval cities, crafts, and commerce has long been established. Armenian merchants and trade offices controlled such a massive portion of the eastern and internal trade that a group of goods came to be known as ‘Armenian’ (Podgradskaâ 1971). Apart from commerce, Armenians engaged in winemaking, milling, bread-making, husbandry, and agriculture. Armenian craftsmen traditionally weaved carpets, broadcloth, textiles, clothing, and blankets; others manufactured Russia leather, dyed leather, and furs, as well as shoes, saddles, and household items. Armenians were among owners of banks, trade offices, workshops and manufactories, inns and guesthouses, and a variety of shops and stores. Armenians established monasteries, religious and secular colleges, and typographies. The colonies were the birthplace of famous painters (Jan Rustem, Teodor Axentowicz, Ivan

1 One of the Oriental Orthodox Churches, which since the 4th century has been a dominant religious institution among the Armenian population and enjoys a status as the National Church in the Republic of Armenia.

88

David Davtyan

Aivazovsky); composers (Karol Mikuli, Alexander Spendiarov); architects (Julian Z ­ achariewicz, Alfred Zachariewicz); apothecaries, pharmacists and chemists (Ignacy ­Łukasiewicz, Teodor Torosiewicz); theologians and historians (Hovhannes Kamenatsi, Sadok Barącz, Gabriel Aivazovsky); writers (Kajetan Abgarowicz, Grzegorz Piramowicz); as well as military commanders, patrons of the arts, and statesmen (for example the social activist and Polish senator Samuel Manugiewicz or the Polish senator and member of parliament archbishop Józef Teodorowicz).

World War One During and immediately after World War One, the Ottoman Empire committed the first of the 20th-century genocides. 1.5 million Armenians were killed and over 600 thousand forced to flee, seeking refuge all over the world. Around 30 – 50 thousand of the refugees arrived in the territory of modern Ukraine, settling predominantly in Kharkiv, Odessa, and cities and towns of Crimea. Some of them were then evacuated to Soviet Armenia, or emigrated to other republics of the USSR and European countries.

The Communist Period In the pre-World War Two Ukrainian SSR, despite increasingly oppressive state policies, a number of Armenian schools, theatres, and other cultural establishments, as well as Armenian Apostolic Church parishes still operated in Odessa, Kharkiv, and Crimea, not yet subjected to nationalisation and subsequent destruction. War World Two cost many Ukrainian Armenians their lives, and saw 9,621 out of 9,919 Crimean Armenians suffer deportation to Central Asia and Kazakhstan (Bugaj 2006: 145). After the war, a ban was put on the activities on both the Armenian Apostolic Church and all Armenian minority organisations (Davtân 2004: 89). Likewise, after the seizure of today’s western Ukrainian territories from Poland and their annexation to the Ukrainian SSR in 1939, followed by the post-war sanctioning of the new state borders, Armenian community organisations in Lviv, Ivano-Frankivsk, Lutsk, Berezhany, Kuty, and other settlements were banned, the Armenian Catholic churches closed, and community, church and private property nationalised. With most of the local Armenian population having died in the war, been deported to Poland and Romania, or emigrated of their own accord, Armenian life in Ukraine went into decline.

The Armenian Diaspora in Post-Socialist Ukraine

89

The Establishment of the New Diaspora The Preconditions It was only in the late 1980s that a revival of ethnic and cultural minority organisations in the USSR became possible, when the collapsing Soviet empire initiated the policies of ‘openness and reconstruction’ (glasnost and perestroika). When examining this revival, it is worthwhile to bear in mind that in historiography from before the Russian Revolution, Armenian settlements were referred to as ‘colonies’. Throughout the 19th century, however, the system of self-governing and legally autonomous minority colonies was abandoned. The colonies gave way to ethnic-religious communities, based on the principle of linguistic, cultural and confessional unity, and concentrated around the Armenian Apostolic (or Catholic) Church. The Soviet rule brought down this system, which, together with other socio-political changes, caused the new, post-Soviet Armenian communities to emerge based on new principles. The preliminary stage of this process was the establishment of cultural and educational organisations, starting in Crimea (1989), and then Odessa (1990). It was these cultural initiatives, undertaken under a totalitarian regime with the goal of awaking national identity, that served as a foundation for future full-fledged communities, structured around two institutional pillars: the social organisations representing Armenian national interests and the Armenian Apostolic Church. The development and activities of both will be discussed below.2 It is also important to note that apart from the revival of minority communities in Ukraine and the entire USSR, which had to do predominantly with the liberalisation and democratisation of the state, the development of Armenian communities in Ukraine was influenced by a number of locally-specific factors, alternating significantly the course and phases of the new diaspora formation. These were: •• the 1988 – 1989 Sumgait and Baku pogroms of Armenians and the subsequent waves of Armenian refugees from Azerbaijan; •• the 1988 – 1990 Azerbaijani-Armenian tensions and the subsequent 1991 – 1994 war in the Armenian-populated region of Nagorno-Karabakh; •• the earthquake of 7 December 1988 in Armenia, which took the lives of more than 25 thousand people and left 514 thousand without shelter; •• centuries of Armenian cultural and historical heritage in Ukraine, serving as an important symbolic resource for the renascent diaspora. 2 The information about the size and structure of the Armenian diaspora in post-socialist Ukraine presented in this chapter concern the period preceding the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation in 2014 and the formation of two separatist republics – the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics – in the east of the country later the same year. Each of these regions was home to a considerable number of Armenians, whose migration/adaptation strategies in the face of the new political and economic situation require separate research.

90

David Davtyan

Demography, Linguistic Situation, and Migration Processes The size of Armenian population in Ukraine over the last 100 years has undergone a number of rapid fluctuations. The principal causes for these changes have been: state policies of the USSR and its successor states, the genocide of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, the two World Wars, the Stalinist deportations and repressions, the Nagorno-­Karabakh war, and the difficult societal and economic situation in post-communist Armenia. According to census data, the Armenian population in Ukraine (including Crimea) rose from 22,231 in 1926 to 34,558 in 1939 (Nacional'nyj n. d.). However, this sharp increase had to do, above all, with the shortages and incomplete nature of the 1926 census. The first postWorld War Two census, carried out in 1959, noted a decrease of the Armenian population, a fact caused by the deportation of Crimean Armenians and losses during the war. This was, in turn, followed by an immigration into Ukraine of Armenian workers, intellectuals, and students, which pushed the number of Armenians in Ukraine from 28,024 in 1959 to 33,439 in 1970 (Nacional' nyj n. d.). With this rise, the Armenian population practically matched its pre-war size. In 1979, the next census found an increase of the Armenian population to 38,646 (Nacional' nyj n. d.), owing mainly to labour migration created by the Soviet authorities’ policy of assigning citizens to work outside their home republics. The 1989 census showed a further substantial rise in the Armenian population, which reached 54,200 (Nacional' nyj n. d.). This time the intra-USSR migration was predominantly due to the 1988 pogroms of Armenians in Azerbaijan, the tensions in Nagorno-Karabakh, and the 1988 earthquake in Armenia, events which caused a number of Ukrainian cities (Donetsk, Dnipropetrovsk, Odessa, Kharkiv) to take in the resulting refugees. Today, it is fairly difficult to estimate the actual numbers of Armenian refugees who arrived in Ukraine in the late 1980s, as many of them were not included in the official statistics. According to the results of the last census to date, carried out in 2001 in now-­independent Ukraine, the Armenian population doubled, reaching 99,984 (Nacional' nyj n. d.). The newcomers responsible for this massive influx fall into three categories: refugees from the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone, refugees from other parts of Azerbaijan, and migrants from Armenia proper who left the country due to its dire societal and economic conditions. Out of the total number of Armenians in Ukraine, 15,734 were recorded in Donetsk Province, 11,157 in Kharkiv Province, 10,683 in Dnipropetrovsk Province, 10,088 in the Auto­ nomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol, 7,440 in Odessa Province, 7,276 in Kyiv and Kyiv Province, 6,587 in Luhansk Province, and 6,411 in Zaporizhzhya Province. In other provinces Armenian population did not exceed 5,000 people (Nacìonal' nij 2003). The picture of the ethnic composition of Ukraine as painted by the 2001 census data does not do justice to the actual size of the Armenian diaspora. In general, the census is considered to have been poorly organised and politically biased due to it taking place just before the 2002 election. What is more, the questions were formulated in a way that left room for speculation as to the respondent’s nationality and native language. Another considerable weakness was that the respondents feared for the safety of their personal data, the confidentiality of which

The Armenian Diaspora in Post-Socialist Ukraine

91

could not be guaranteed by the state. Combined, these problems profoundly influenced the results of the census, especially those concerning the nationality and native language of citizens. The census’s findings on language use among Armenians were surprising: only 50.4% reported Armenian as their native language, with 43.2% declaring Russian, 5.8% – Ukrainian, and 0.6% – another language (Movnij 2001). Out of the total of 99,984 Armenians, only 50,363 named Armenian as their native language (Nacìonal' nij 2003). These figures seem highly unlikely, given that between 1945 and 1989 the population of Ukrainian Armenians rose chiefly on account of immigrants from Soviet Armenia, a decisive majority of whom were native speakers of Armenian, a fact attested to by the last of Soviet-era censuses (Vsesoûznaâ 1989a). In 1989 – 2001, in turn, the diaspora grew by 45,694 people as a consequence of the influx of Armenians coming chiefly from the Soviet Republics of Azerbaijan and Armenia, as well as from post-Soviet Armenia. In practice, most newcomer Armenians whose native language was not Armenian could only come from the Azerbaijani SSR, where out of 390,505 Armenians 328,681 spoke Armenian as their mother tongue (Vsesoûznaâ 1989b), since in 1989 the number of ethnic Armenian native speakers of other languages in the Armenian SRR was just 9,596 (Vsesoûznaâ 1989a). In view of these data, it becomes self-evident that the percentage of Armenian native speakers in Ukraine was grossly underestimated. Findings on non-native language use among Ukrainian Armenians are similarly doubtful. The 2001 census had almost half of the country’s Armenians speaking Ukrainian, a claim impossible to reconcile with the actual linguistic situation in areas where Armenian communities reside. Only 5% of Armenians live in the western provinces of the country, a further 10% in central Ukraine, whereas a decisive majority is settled in urban areas of the south-eastern provinces, where to this day it is Russian that remains the language of inter-ethnic communication. At the turn of the 21st century, the necessity, practical usefulness – and thus knowledge – of Ukrainian in these parts of the country were very limited. It has only been in the last decade that fluency in Ukrainian has noticeably improved in these areas (and in Ukraine generally). Such ‘linguistic manipulation’ of the number of speakers of both Russian and Ukrainian was convenient for the regime. On the one hand, the census demonstrated nationwide knowledge of Ukrainian (while obscuring the mediocre command of the state language among significant parts of the country’s inhabitants). On the other hand, it showed large numbers of native Russian speakers in the south-east of the country in a time immediately preceding an attempt to introduce Russian as the second state language in Ukraine. The size of the Armenian population was underreported in a similar fashion. For instance, out of 99,894 declared Armenians, only 9,903 were listed as citizens of the Republic of Armenia, with another 11,321 described as “ethnic Armenian nationals of other citizenship or stateless persons” (Naselennâ 2004). These token figures suggest that the majority of Armenians living in Ukraine but lacking Ukrainian citizenship were not included in the census. Taking into account the complicated procedures of acquiring citizenship, one can safely assume the numbers of such people were considerable.

92

David Davtyan

A starkly different picture regarding the size and linguistic profile of the Armenian diaspora is painted by independent sources. According to internal estimates of the minority’s organisations, the number of Armenians in Ukraine in 2010 was ca. 450 thousand (­Armânskaâ 2010), more than 75% of whom speak Armenian, while the entire Armenian population is able to communicate in Russian (which to this day is Ukraine’s chief language of inter-ethnic communication). The percentage of Ukrainian-speaking Armenians has been rising in recent years and has reached ca. 70 – 75%. The language is understood by virtually all Armenians, excluding some of the elderly inhabitants of predominantly Russian-speaking areas. Such a rapid change has been brought about mainly by the young generation receiving its education in Ukrainian at all levels. This has been accompanied by Ukrainising policies of the state, so that generally speaking, Ukraine’s Armenian diaspora can be described as trilingual.

The Institutional Landscape of the Diaspora Institutionally, the Armenian diaspora is based on two pillars: the Armenian Apostolic Church and non-governmental social organisations. Each of the pillars is independent in terms of institutional structure but, wherever both are present, works in cooperation with the other. Their activities centre around establishing and operating minority schools and kindergartens, dance and music ensembles, special interests and sports clubs, and charitable organisations. Above all, this institutional model is a direct result of Ukrainian law, which does not regulate or grant any particular legal status to such entities as ‘ethnic minority associations’ or ‘national minorities’. Under such legal circumstances, the only way for a minority to safeguard its interests in relations with the host state is to register non-governmental organisations, serving as de facto legal representation of minority communities. In terms of their status, these NGOs do not differ in any respect from other voluntary associations of citizens. The task of protecting the rights of national minorities is addressed by Ukraine in its constitution. Article 11 of the act states: “The State promotes […] the development of the ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and religious identity of all indigenous peoples and national minorities of Ukraine” (Constitution 1996). The basic legal act concerning national minorities is, in turn, the 1992 Act on National Minorities in Ukraine (Zakon 1992). Unfortunately, this act remains a declarative statement rather than an effective mechanism, since: •• It offers no clear definition of either a ‘national minority’ or an ‘indigenous people’. •• It does not establish any clear-cut mechanisms to implement an ethnic group’s right to representation within local authorities in areas where its members form a compact community. •• There are no mechanisms of state patronage for minorities in the process of budgetary allocation.

The Armenian Diaspora in Post-Socialist Ukraine

93

Article 2 of the Ukrainian Act on the Ratification of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (Zakon 2003) and article 7 of the Act on the Principles of the State Language Policy (Zakon 2013) count Armenian among the country’s 17 minority languages. In practice, however, this status does not grant Armenians any mechanism for the preservation and development of their language, as according to these same two laws, state support is provided only when members of an ethnic group constitute more than 10% of the total population of an administrative unit. Despite the Ukrainian law’s incoherence and other shortcomings, on the whole, prejudice towards national minorities and ethnically motivated discrimination are largely absent in Ukraine. This is testified to by the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights in her special report On the State of Preservation and Protection of the Rights of National Minorities (Stan 2006). The document does not mention Armenians at all and the cases that are recounted have more to do with everyday socio-economic conflicts than with actual inter-ethnic hostility. Most of them are essentially cases of labour disputes, which is hardly surprising in view of the difficult economic conditions in Ukraine. Owing to this tolerance towards minorities on the part of both the authorities and society at large, the Armenian diaspora in post-communist Ukraine has been experiencing relatively intensive development. Three phases can be distinguished in this regard: 1) revival and formation (1988 – 2001); 2) stabilisation (2001 – 2010); and 3) consolidation and recognition (since 2011). The first period (1988 – 2001) saw the resurgence of Armenian communities as well as the formation and subsequent registration of community structures. The initial tasks at this stage had to do with merging the established Armenian population with new immigrants, and assisting the latter in their problems of everyday life, employment, and accommodation. At the same time, churches were built, along with the opening of minority schools and cultural establishments. Among the major achievements of this phase were the registration of community structures in all provinces of Ukraine, the construction of churches in Odessa (1995) and Makiyivka (1998), as well as the retrieval of the Lviv cathedral, the Staryi Krym monastery and churches in Feodosia, Yalta, and Kerch.3 The second phase (2001 – 2010) was one of stabilisation: in the absence of major new migration waves, the existing communities took on their final shape and composition. With the sizeable socio-economic problems of settlement and finding employment largely worked out, attention could now be devoted to launching new projects and resolving community issues. The beginning of this period is marked by the establishment of the Union of Armenians in Ukraine (Soyuz Armyan Ukrainy, or SAU), which unified all existing Armenian organisations into one minority body, thus taking Armenian community activities

3 The construction of churches is counted among the activities of secular communities, as it was namely they that initiated and carried out these projects; the Church institution does not take upon itself the erection of temples for its believers living in the diaspora.

94

David Davtyan

to a new level in terms of scale and scope. It was the SAU that launched projects and programmes directed at the entire Armenian population of Ukraine: the Armenian Youth Union, sports, music, dance and intellectual competitions, and beauty pageants. The organisation also paired with the state to renovate the Surb Khach monastery, and has been holding a series of scientific conferences entitled Armyanie v Ukrainie: vchera, segodnya, zavtra (The Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow of Armenians in Ukraine) funding grant programmes for researchers of the history and culture of Ukrainian Armenians, and publishing books. Another achievement of that period was the establishment of Armyanskiy Vestnik, the second nationally-published Armenian newspaper, after Aragats.4 While in 2009 – 2010, the economic crisis, combined with a certain exhaustion of the SAU ’s structural potential, admittedly put a noticeable limit on the organisation’s activities on the national level, this did not significantly impact the construction, educational, and cultural projects undertaken by local communities. The current, third phase of the diaspora’s organisational development is associated with Vilen Shatvoryan, a businessman elected president of the SAU in 2011. Under his leadership, the Union presented its new image to both the state and society. This was the result of a number of reforms: •• A new Charter of the Union was adopted. •• All active Armenian organisations were consolidated into one institutional body, thus improving the SAU’s standing as the single legitimate representation of the diaspora. •• The principle of collective decision-making within the SAU was confirmed and strengthened. •• A system was introduced of quarterly report conferences, held in different regions of Ukraine, hosting members of the local political elite (mayors, governors), and featuring prominently in the media; these are summed up annually at a conference in Kyiv, attended by representatives of central authorities and followed by a formal reception. •• The administrative structure of the SAU was reformed: regional offices were opened that serve purposes of both reception of the general public and official representation; a telephone hotline was launched; and thematic standing committees were set up for: international relations, historical and cultural heritage, public relations, media outreach, as well as sports and youth. It is thanks to these cardinal changes in structure and operation that the Union has a new image, nationwide recognition, and acknowledgement on the part of the country’s authorities as one of the most active non-governmental organisations in Ukraine. Since its refurbishment, the SAU has organised numerous concerts (by Serj Tankian and Djivan 4 Aragats, published since 1994 as a monthly supplement to the newspaper Golos Ukrainy, was co-founded by the State Nationalities and Migration Committee and is financed by the state. Besides, a number of local Armenian newspapers have at different times been published by Armenian organisations in various Ukrainian cities and regions, for instance Armyanskiy Chas in Kharkiv, Vernatun in Odessa, and Armyanskiy Vestnik and Golub Masisa in Crimea.

The Armenian Diaspora in Post-Socialist Ukraine

95

Gasparyan, among others), festivals (the Surb Khach Armenian Art Festival) as well as national and international sports, intellectual and musical tournaments (most notably, the Voice of Armenia). The SAU Freestyle Wrestling Cup is included in the calendar of United World Wrestling,5 where it boasts the biggest cash prize. One of the SAU’s priorities is also charity: assistance is offered to people seeking it regardless of their ethnic background, and the Union takes initiative to help hospitals and other medical establishments by donating necessary equipment and supplies. Another crucial sphere of activity is the preservation of Armenian heritage and the advancement of Armenian culture. As in previous phases of its existence, the SAU supports the opening of Armenian Sunday schools and kindergartens, and holds scientific conferences and roundtables. Recently it has also launched the book series Aktualni pitannya virmenoznavstva (Current Themes in Armenian Studies). Memorials are being erected and historic Armenian churches are being renovated in cooperation with the Armenian Apostolic Church. The work currently in progress in this last regard is a cathedral in Kyiv and a church in Donetsk. The final important direction of SAU activities is in the international sphere. The Union prides itself on being the first Ukrainian non-governmental organisation to be listed in the European Union’s Transparency Register; being accredited with the European Parliament, which allows it to participate in the proceedings of some of the parliamentary groups; and having the prospect of becoming a consulting member of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). Recent years have thus seen a breakthrough in the development of the Armenian diaspora in Ukraine, which, having consolidated all its organisations, has managed to gain widespread recognition not only nationally but also abroad, on the part of important international institutions.

The Armenian Apostolic Church The Armenian Apostolic Church began its revival in Ukraine in 1989 – 1990, when it resumed performing services. The church structure re-constituted in 1993 with the formal registration of the Ukrainian Eparchy with the Ministry of Justice. The process of registering Armenian Apostolic parishes as religious organisations, associated with the Eparchy but with a separate legal personality, began the same year. This strategy stemmed from regulations in Ukrainian law. The legal status of religious organisations allows parishes to single-handedly resolve issues regarding their functioning as well as the building and maintaining of temples. Today, the Eparchy, with its Episcopal See in Kyiv, consists of the Vicarage of Crimea, the Surb Khach monastery, and parishes with their own churches in Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi,

5 Formerly known as FILA, International Federation of Associated Wrestling Styles.

96

David Davtyan

Cherkasy, Chernivtsi, Dnipropetrovsk, Donetsk, Feodosia, Kamyanets-Podilskyi, Kharkiv, Kyiv, Lviv, Makiyivka, Mykolayiv, Odessa, Simferopol, Yalta, Yevpatoria and Zaporizhzhya. On the whole, the Church’s structure has developed according to the Armenian ecclesiastical tradition, with parish councils, charities, and Sunday schools. New churches are being built, while the historic ones are gradually reclaimed and renovated. Church property restitution in Ukraine is nevertheless wrought with obstacles. The law allows for the restitution of places of worship only, excluding other former property, like parish schools or maintenance buildings. Even in the case of churches, the process is complicated by a number of interrelated procedures involving various state offices as well as regional and city councils. When a property happens to be a historic monument, which Armenian churches as a rule are, the complexity of the procedure grows. The applying organisation is obliged to seek approval from a historic preservation office, and to commit itself to the renovation of the property (the state lacks funds for even the most basic and urgent conservatory works). Due to this extent of bureaucratisation, the restitution of a temple takes, on average, from one and a half to two years. These difficulties notwithstanding, the Armenian Church works hand in hand with the local Armenian communities to retrieve and restore their cultural heritage. The most recently reclaimed temple was the Mother of God Church in Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi (2013).

Integration of the Armenian Diaspora into Ukrainian Society Armenians are among Ukraine’s best integrated ethnic minority groups. A number of factors have contributed to this state of affairs: their Christianity, the historical and cultural heritage of a centuries-long Armenian presence in today’s Ukraine, lack of language barriers (universal knowledge of Russian and Ukrainian), and their strong representation in all spheres of economic, political and intellectual life of the country. Armenians are particularly active in all types of commerce and trade; arts and applied arts (film directors, opera singers, musicians, architects, designers and renovators); agricultural and industrial production; construction; hotel and restaurant industry; professional services, including medicine and law; research and education (scientists, school and university teachers); and civil service (state officials, including members of parliament and municipal councils). This impressive list of fields in which Armenians in Ukraine are active serves as the best proof of their integration into the society and demonstrates that the Armenian diaspora has become an inalienable part of Ukrainian life.

The Armenian Diaspora in Post-Socialist Ukraine

97

References Armânskaâ (2010) “Armânskaâ diaspora predstavila gimn Ukrainy na rodnom âzyke”, Armânskij vestnik, 45 – 46, p.  8. Bugaj Nikolaj (2006) Narody Ukrainy v “Osoboj papke Stalina”, Moskva: Nauka. Constitution (1996) Constitution of Ukraine as passed on 28 June 1996, http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/ Constitution_of_Ukraine,_1996 [1 October 2014] Davtân David (2004) Istoriâ hrama Sv. Grigoriâ Prosvetitelâ Armânskoj Apostol'skoj cerkvi v Odesse, Odessa: Negociant. Davtân David (2013) “Armânskie nacional' nye učebnye zavedeniâ Rossijskoj imperii (Novorossijskaâ i ­Bessarabskaâ guberniâ): istoriko-pravovoj aspekt”, S. Kazarov (ed.), Aktual'nì pitannâ vìrmenoznavstva, vol. 1, Kiïv: Ìnstitut agrarnoï ekonomìki, pp. 164 – 192. Movnij (2001) “Movnij sklad naselennâ Ukraïni. Pro kìl' kìst' ta sklad naselennâ Ukraïni za pìdsumkami Vseukraïns' kogo perepisu naselennâ 2001 roku”, Vseukraïns' ìj perepis naselennâ 2011, http://2001. ukrcensus.gov.ua/results/general/language/ [1 October 2014]. Nacìonal' nij (2003) Nacìonal'nij sklad naselennâ Ukraïni ta jogo movnì oznaki, za danimi vseukraïns'kogo perepisu naselennâ 2001, Kiïv: Deržavnij komìtet statistiki Ukraïni. Nacional' nyj (n. d.) “Nacional' nyj sostav Ukrainy v 1926 – 2001 godah”, Statistika naseleniâ Ukrainy, http://ukrmap.org.ua/Statistika_nasel.htm [22 August 2014]. Naselennâ (2004) Naselennâ Ukraïni za mìscem narodžennâ ta gromadânstvom za danimi vseukraïns'kogo perepisu naselennâ 2001, Kiïv: Deržavnij komìtet statistiki Ukraïni, p. 42, 45, 112. Podgradskaâ Elena (1971) “Ob armânskih poseleniâh v Moldavii i ih roli v razvitii torgovyh svâzej s zapadnoukrainskimi zemlâmi (XVI-XVII vv.)”, V. Voskonân (ed.), Istoričeskie svâzi i družba ukrainskogo i armânskogo narodov, vol. 3, Erevan: Akademia Nauk Armânskoj SSR, pp.  208 – 221. Polnoe (1836) Polnoe sobranie zakonov Rossijskoj imperii, coll. II, 11 (1), Sankt-Peterburg: II Otdelenie ­Sobstvennoj E. I. V. Kancelârii, http://www.nlr.ru/e-res/law_r/search.php?part=380®im=3 [1 October 2014]. Stan (2006) Stan dotrimannâ ta zahist prav nacìonal'nih menšin v Ukraïnì. Specìal'na dopovìd' Upovnovaženogo Verhovnoï Radi Ukraïni z prav lûdini, http://www.ombudsman.gov.ua/en/images/stories/07022011/S_ Dopovid_2_1.pdf [11 August 2014]. Vsesoûznaâ (1989a) “Vsesoûznaâ perepis' naseleniâ 1989 g. Raspredelenie naseleniâ Armânskoj SSR po naibolee mnogočislennym nacional' nostâm i âzyku”, Demoskop Weekly, http://demoscope.ru/weekly/ ssp/sng_nac_lan_89_ar.php [11 August 2014]. Vsesoûznaâ (1989b) “Vsesoûznaâ perepis' naseleniâ 1989 g. Raspredelenie naseleniâ Azerbajdžanskoj SSR po naibolee mnogočislennym nacional'nostâm i âzyku”, Demoskop Weekly, http://demoscope.ru/weekly/ ssp/sng_nac_lan_89_az.php [11 August 2014]. Zakon (1992) “Zakon Ukraïni pro nacìonal' nì menšini v Ukraïnì”, Vìdomostì Verhovnoï Radi, 36, http:// zakon4.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2494-12/print1413074056011773 [11 August 2014]. Zakon (2003) “Zakon Ukraïni pro ratifìkacìû Êvropejs' koï hartìï regìonal' nih mov abo mov menšin”, Vìdomostì Verhovnoï Radi, 30, p. 259, http://zakon2.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/802-15 [1 October 2014]. Zakon (2013) “Zakon Ukraïni pro zasadi deržavnoï movnoï polìtiki”, Vìdomostì Verhovnoï Radi, 23, p. 218, http://zakon2.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/5029-17 [1 October 2014].

Lidia Prisac & Ion Xenofontov

The Armenians in the Republic of Moldova Demographic, Cultural, and Religious Aspects

The Republic of Moldova is one of the European countries with a well-established tradition of coexistence among various ethnic and religious groups, one of them being Armenians.1 This chapter reflects on the evolution of the Armenian settlement in Bessarabia – the lands located between the Dniester and Prut rivers that form the territory of the modern Republic of Moldova – which has so far received very little scholarly attention. In particular, the demographic, cultural and religious aspects of the existence of the Armenian community in these lands will be discussed.

The History of the Armenian Settlement in Moldova The literature on the Armenian settlement in Moldova is scarce, and a few published works concentrate on the period of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Among them the most important are Gheorge Bezviconi’s general study on Armenians in Bessarabia (1934), and his research of local Armenian tombstones (1943); Jaurès Ananyan’s study of the Armenian colony in the town of Grigoriopol (Ananân 1969); and Arshavir Toramanyan’s work on Armenian architecture in the region (Toramanân 1991). The Armenians who lived in the historical territory of Moldova had already been mentioned in documents before the 14th century (Bezviconi 1962: 22; Stelian 1999: 34). The Armenians had migrated into the region because of political, religious and socio-­economic hardships in their homeland, as well as recurring wars and invasions by Persians, ­Tataro-Mongols, and Turks (Guajta 2002). Besides, Moldova was an attractive destination for Armenians because of its important trade routes that linked the Black Sea region with the Polish Kingdom and the German Empire. It is customarily counted that around 3 thousand Armenian families (about 15 thousand people), descending from the fallen Armenian capital of Ani (Haidarlȋ 1 According to the 2004 National Census in the Republic of Moldova (excluding Transnistria) a total population was estimated at 3,383,332 people, out of which there were 2,638,126 (78%) Moldovan/ Romanians, 282,406 (8.4%) Ukrainians, 201,219 (5.9%) Russians, 147,500 (4.4%) Gagauz, 65,652 (1.9%) Bulgarians, and others. Concerning religious composition of the population – 93.3% declared Orthodox faith, followed by the Old Rite Christians, Baptists, Adventists, Pentecostals and other (Cu privire: 2006; Prisac 2012: 338).

The Armenians in the Republic of Moldova

99

2008: 102), reached Moldova in the 14th century and settled down in such cities as Botoșani, Dorohoi, Galați, Hotin, Iași, and Vaslui (today in Romania and Ukraine). The rulers of Moldova were keenly interested in developing trade relations; therefore they encouraged the establishment of Armenian colonies by offering numerous privileges to Armenian merchants and craftsmen.2 As Nicolae Iorga summarised the outcome of this policy: “The Principality of Moldavia was created through trade and the traders collaborated to the creation of a state in Moldavia. In this way, the Armenians were, so to speak, founding fathers of Moldavia” (Pál 2005: 88). The majority of the Armenians were the followers of the Armenian Apostolic Church,3 and Armenian churches were built on the territory between Dniester and Prut as early as the 14th century. Some especially successful Armenian merchants, as well as those who held the highest posts in the court were granted boyar (nobleman) titles. Among them, the Pruncul, B ­ uiucliu, Solomon, and Simeon families became particularly influential (Zelenčuk 1978: 57 – 59). Furthermore, one of the rulers of 16th century Moldova – Ion Vodǎ cel ­Cumplit – was also known as Ion Armeanul (Ioan the Armenian). However, the next century witnessed a significant decline of the Moldovan Armenian communities affected by religious persecutions as well as the continuous conflict and turmoil in the country. The Russian-Austrian-Turkish war of 1787 – 1791 and the subsequent annexation of B ­ essarabia by the Russian Empire in 1812 brought a new wave of Armenian migrants to the region. In 1809, 320 Armenian families were registered in the territory between the Prut and Dniester (Popovici 1930: 296), while in 1817 the number of Armenians was 2,738 people, which was equal to 0.25% of the population of Bessarabia (Basarabia 1926: 71 – 72). By the end of the 19th century the number of Armenians decreased again due to assimilation by the native population and migration to Armenia (to the regions of Yerevan and Nakhichevan). In 1835 the Armenian population amounted to 0.3% of the total population of Bessarabia, while in 1897 it was only 0.1% (out of 1,935,412 persons, 2,080 were Armenians) (Pervaâ 1905: 2 – 3). In 1792 the Armenian colony of Grigoriopol was founded on the left bank of the ­Dniester by Iosif Argutian, the archbishop of the Armenians in Russia. The first communal action of the Grigoriopol Armenians was the erection of the church, consecrated on 25 July 1792.4 In the middle of the 19th century the town was an important trade and craft centre (Ananân 1966; Pisarevskij 1909: 188; Haidarlȋ 2008: 103). By the ukase (edict) of tsar Alexander I in 1809, a separate Armenian bishopric was established in the territory of Moldova and Muntenia (the eastern part of Wallachia). Since 1812 its jurisdiction included 400 parishes and 5 churches (Magola 2011: 702). In Chișinău, not far from the

2 For example, Alexandru cel Bun (1400 – 1432) offered the Armenians the right to trade and practice craftsmanship in seven cities of Moldova (Toramanân 1970: 223). 3 The Armenian Apostolic Church is an autocephalous ecclesiastic institution, belonging to ­Oriental Orthodoxy. 4 Grigoriopol was officially established by the edict of the empress Catharina II on 12 October 1794 (Tomuleț 1997: 248).

100

Lidia Prisac & Ion Xenofontov

Strada Armenească (the Armenian Street),5 where the Armenian community was concentrated, the spiritual-administrative centre of the new bishopric was erected in 1810 (Toramanân 1991: 66), including the church of Sfânta Maica Domnului (The Holy Mother of God) with an adjacent Armenian cemetery,6 the residence of the bishop, and the Armenian yard.7 The church, built from bricks and limestone, “combines Armenian and Moldovan shapes with classic architecture” (Nesterov 1997b: 79). The grave of Manuc Bei (Emmanuel Mârzayan), an Armenian merchant and diplomat, is located in the cemetery. In 1812 Manuc Bei, one of the most influential people in the region at the beginning of the 19th century, organised a resettlement of Armenians from western parts of Moldova to Bessarabia. It was also at his inn in Bucharest where the Ottoman Empire agreed to hand over its control over Bessarabia to the Russian Empire. In the first half of the 20th century the Armenian presence on the discussed territory gradually declined. In 1930 the popular census gave a number of 1,509 Armenians in Bessarabia, at that time already a part of the Romanian Kingdom (since 1918) (Solomon 2001: 168, 170). In 1940, as a result of the Soviet annexation of Bessarabia, a significant part of the Armenian community migrated to Romania.8 A small number of Armenians, who after the Second World War remained in Bessarabia (at that time the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic), were gradually assimilated, mostly to the Russian speaking part of the population. Armenian churches and schools were closed, and community life ceased to exist. In 1959 29.1% of Armenians spoke their own language, 65% used Russian, and the remainder spoke Romanian (Solomon 2001: 176). Most Armenians lived in urban settings – for example 86.3% in 1970 (Solomon 2001: 178). In the late Soviet period the number of Armenians in Moldova increased again, reaching 2,873 people in 1989. Of that number, 1,436 declared Armenian as their first language, 1,341 – Russian, and 96 – other languages (Totalurile 1990: 98 – 104). This influx resulted from the Soviet system of distributing specialists in different fields, who were offered occupations outside their home republics. For example, one of our interviewees reported: “My father, who was an Armenian, was sent to Moldova as an agriculture specialist; my mother, who was Russian, moved to Moldova when the war ended. They met in Moldova and got married. Then I was born.” Another interviewee came to the country in 1982 as a helicopter technician, married a Moldovan, and retired recently after 25 years of work. This Soviet migration was complemented in the 1990s by the influx of Armenians escaping extremely difficult economic conditions in post-Soviet Armenia.

5 The street had this name in the periods 1812 – 1918, 1940 – 1941, and from 1944 to present. 6 A part of the names of the Armenians buried there are distinctively Armenian (Arakelian, Zaharian etc.), another part are Armenian names with a Russian ending (Karapetov, Muratov, Nazarov etc.), while the rest of those buried had names of different origins, obtained mostly as a result of mixed marriages. 7 The bishop’s residence was destroyed by a fire in the second half of the 19th century (Nesterov 1997c: 444 – 445). 8 After their emigration to Romania, part of the Armenians participated in a repatriation campaign to Soviet Armenia in 1946 – 1948 (Cheramidoglu 1998 – 1999: 117 – 128), while many others gradually migrated to the United States and other western countries.

The Armenians in the Republic of Moldova

101

The Modern Situation of the Armenians in the Republic of Moldova According to some estimates, in the early 1990s there were as many as around 10 thousand Armenians living in the Republic of Moldova (Safonov 2011), the number which is still quoted by the leaders of the diaspora (V Kišineve 2009). However, the main part of this wave of economic migration was rather short term. In 2012, according to the data of the National Bureau of Statistics, 1,829 Armenians lived in the country.9 While the former number seems to be exaggerated, the latter is rather underestimated. Out of the number of Armenians registered by official statistics, 816 have stated that they speak Armenian as their first language, 797 Russian, 189 Romanian, and 27 other languages.10 The majority of the Armenians live in the capital city of Chișinău as well as in Anenii Noi, Bălți, Comrat, Hâncești, and Ungheni, as well as in Grigoriopol and Tighina (Bender), located in Transnistria. The Act on Citizenship of the Republic of Moldova, adopted on 4 July 1991, one of the most liberal in East-Central Europe, granted the citizenship to all Armenians who were living in the Republic at the time of its declaration of sovereignty (23 June 1990). Those who came to Moldova after this date can apply for various forms of temporary or permanent settlement permit, or for citizenship, providing that they stayed in the country legally for a prescribed number of years.11 In 2005 – 2010 Armenians were one of the most numerous groups of immigrants asking for asylum in Moldova: in 2005 they constituted 12.4%, out of a total number asylum seekers, in 2006 – 22.5%, in 2007 – 24%, in 2008 – 28.1%, in 2009 – 7.1%, and in 2010 – 25.6%. In the same period there were seven Armenians among 645 foreigners granted with Moldovan citizenship (Vremiş et al. 2013: 93 – 102). There are 86 public associations of national minorities registered by state Interethnic Relations Bureau, including four Armenian organisations. First (in order of registration) is the Community of Armenians in the Republic of Moldova (Comunitatea Armeană din Republica Moldova), founded in 1992, and led today by Serghei Osipean. It has some 200 active members, including Armenians from Transnistria. Next, the Armenian Women’s Association in Moldova – Tatevic (Asociația Femeilor Armene Tatevic din Republica Moldova), led by Venera Gasparean, was founded in 1998. Third, the organisation Armenian Diaspora in the Republic of Moldova – Mair Aiastan (Diaspora Armeană în Republica Moldova Mair Aiastan) the president of which is also Venera Gasparean, was established in 2000. Finally, the International Charity Association of Armenian Doctors and Lawyers from Moldova – Uratru (Asociația Internațională de Caritate a Medicilor și Juriștilor Armeni din Moldova Urartu), currently led by Felix Mihailean, has been operating since 2003 (Lista 9 Out of three and a half million people in total. This data does not include Transnistria, which seceded from the Republic of Moldova in 1990. Information provided to the authors by the National Bureau of Statistics of Moldova on May 4, 2012. 10 Information provided to the authors by the National Bureau of Statistics of Moldova in May 2012. 11 These issues are regulated by Law on Migration (№ 1024-XIV) adopted on 2 July 2000.

102

Lidia Prisac & Ion Xenofontov

n. d.). Furthermore, in Transnistria the organisation named the Armenian Community of Transnistria (Comunititatea armeană din Transnistria) (President Nicolai Sefereanţ) was founded in 2006, and has about 400 members (Ivanova 2012). It is worth mentioning that the existence of a number of separate Armenian ethno-cultural organisations is perceived by some Armenians not as a sign of the strength of the community, but rather as a harmful phenomenon. As one of the interviewees commented, “For a small community such as ours, a single organisation that would unite us all would be enough, but the plurality of organisations is dividing us instead”. Our observations show too that there exist certain tensions between various Armenian organisations and groupings, caused, first of all, by their competition over financial resources and the right to speak on behalf of the diaspora.12 The activities of the community are most visible during various feasts and cultural festivals, both specifically Armenian, as well as those organised by local authorities, with whom Armenian associations generally have good relations. Particularly, since 2000 Armenians have been taking part in the the First Republican Ethno-Folk Festival (Primul festival ­etnofolcloric republican) organised annually in Chișinău. During this event traditional food, national music and other elements of culture from different ethnic groups are presented. The customary date of the festival – the third Sunday of September – coincides roughly with the Moldovan Day of Ethnicity as well as with the Independence Day of the Republic of Armenia (both on 21 September), so that the Armenian minority has a double occasion for celebrating. Other popular feast among Armenians in Moldova is the Mother’s Day, which is usually marked with cultural events, including concerts in which both national and international artists participate. In 2011 one of the guests to such a concert was the Armenian singer Emmy, who in the same year represented Armenia at the Eurovision contest. Another form of consolidating the Armenian community in Moldova is through educational programs offered by Armenian organisations, particularly in the fields of Armenian language, history and arts. On 28 February 1998 in Chișinău the Armenian Sunday school was opened on the premises of the School of Russian Culture Nr. 13 (nowadays the High School Nr. 3). The school is maintained thanks to the financial help of the parishioners of Armenian Apostolic Church in Chișinău. Genadiy Babayan, the director of the school and the vice-president of the Community of Armenians in the Republic of Moldova, is a well-known figure in the country (Vladimirova 2005: 4). This Armenian Sunday school had functioned on the premises of the School Nr. 3 in Chișinău till September 2008, when it was relocated to the vicinity of the Armenian church. Most of the year the lessons take place in a building located in the back of the church, while during the summer they are carried out in the yard. Those attending are learning the Armenian language, history and culture, as well as singing and playing various instruments (Peretokina 2009: 92). In 2013 12 In Moldova, organisations representing ethnic minorities can apply to the Interethnic Relations Bureau for state funding for a realisation of cultural, educational and scientific projects. This system of state support is regulated by the Law on Social Organisations (№ 837) adopted in 1996 and the Law on Ethnic Minorities’ Rights and the Legal Status of their Organisations (№ 382) adopted in 2001.

The Armenians in the Republic of Moldova

103

the school was attended by approximately 15 children from the age of 13 – 16, to university level. Another Armenian Sunday school is located in Tighina (Bender). Students learn there the Armenian language, literature and history. According to responsible persons the school aims at “preserving the Armenian spirit in the region of Transnistria” (Ivanova 2012), and it serves as a specific Armenian space where those attending may “feel like true Armenians” (Hodorogea 2009). Finally, the Mesrop Mashtots Armenian Sunday School operates in Grigoriopol. As Venera Gasparean, one of the Armenian diaspora leaders, stated before the opening of the school in 2009: When the school will be opened […], the young Armenians and young people of other ethnicities will get the chance to come to the school once a week for a 2 hour lesson. During their first class they will learn about the Armenian language and literature, and during their second class about the Armenian history and geography. During their classes the students will be wearing traditional clothing […]. Children must be able to read and speak in their native language […] (Diaspora 2009).

Despite big expectations from these schools, and their unquestionable importance, an actual limited influence the Sunday schools can have on the education of the children (particularly regarding the language) has been recognised by the Armenian priest who, when he was serving in Chișinău, used to urge his parishioners to speak the Armenian language at home. As he concludes, “The best school is the family, so Armenian must be spoken within the family first”. In Grigoriopol Moldova’s largest collection of Armenian books is kept in the City Library, named after Marietta Shaginyan (1888 – 1982), a famous Soviet Armenian writer. Educational activities are carried out in Grigoriopol by the Cultural Centre – Armenia (Centrul Cultural Armenia) that was opened on 24 October 2009 (V Kišineve 2009). Before the opening of the centre Venera Gasparean stated that: [Here] the volunteers will get the chance to learn Armenian songs, dances, sculpture and theatre. These are the things that are lacking. At the beginning we will call on teachers from Armenia, but later we will carry on by ourselves. We want to make up a band with Armenian musical instruments” (Hodorogea 2009). Profound changes have taken place in Moldova in the religious sphere after the country proclaimed its independence on 27 August 1991. Today, Moldova’s religious plurality is reflected by the existence of 23 state-registered churches and more than 2,327 religious communities (Magola 2011: 701). The Armenian Apostolic Church was officially registered in 1995, and at that time it counted 110 members (Magola 2011: 702). In Chișinău, Sfânta Maica Domnului (the Holy Mother of God) church was re-consecrated in 1993, after being used for more than fifty years as a storehouse.13 The inauguration ceremony was officiated

13 Another Armenian temple in Chișinău, Învierea Mîntuitorului (the Resurrection of the Saviour), was built in 1916, and in 1964 was ceded to the Polish Roman-Catholic community (Nesterov 1997a: 81 – 82).

104

Lidia Prisac & Ion Xenofontov

by the head of the New Nakhichevan and Moscow bishopric under the jurisdiction of which the Armenian Church in Moldova returned after almost 200 hundred years. However, it took almost a decade after the re-opening of the temple before the first priest was appointed to permanently serve the Armenians in Moldova. In January 2012 an Armenian-born celibate priest, Father Nshan Petrosyan, started his service in Chișinău, however at the end of 2013 he was defrocked. The main religious holidays such as Christmas, Easter, the Feast of St. Sarkis, and the Feast of the Assumption of Mary represent core events that are consolidating the Armenian diaspora. For example, on 11 February 2011 on the Feast of St. Sarkis at the Sfânta Maica Domnului church, representatives of the Armenian community from all over the country attended the liturgy (Bezlošadnyj, Altaev 2011). In 2012, on the occasion of the Feast of the Assumption of Mary, a group of Armenians from Moldova participated in the pilgrimage to the Monastery of Hagigadar in Suceava (Romania), and took part in the celebrations devoted to the 500th anniversary of this miraculous shrine. The church in Chișinău is the place where local Armenians pay tribute to the victims of the Armenian Genocide of 1915 and the earthquake in Armenia in 1988. Every year, on 7 December at 11:41 Armenian local time (the earthquake took place at this very hour and day), people gather in the church, lighting candles to commemorate their lost compatriots (Peretokina 2009: 93). On 24 April – the day of the commemoration of the Armenian Genocide – requiem service is conducted, speeches are given by community leaders, and victims are honoured with a minute of silence. In the yard of the church there are two plaques in memory of the victims of 1915 and 1988 events, often lit by candles and adorned with flowers brought by the people. Outside Chișinău there is the Armenian church of Sf. Gheorghe (St. George) in the city of Bălți. It operated as an active place of worship until 1940, when it was confiscated by Soviet authorities and transformed into an exhibition gallery, and later to the boxing training hall. In the post-Soviet period the building was returned to the Armenian Apostolic Church, and re-opened for religious services on 21 August 1997. Since 2012 it has regularly been visited by the Armenian priest from the capital. Furthermore, in 2010 the founding stone of the new church of Sf. Gheorghe (St. George) in Grigoriopol was set, but the project is still awaiting realisation (Ivanova 2012)14. The fact that the Armenian Apostolic Church is an independent ecclesiastic institution of a national character is undoubtedly an important factor in the preservation and consolidation of the Armenian diaspora in Moldova. However, it also has to be mentioned that this factor does not play such a decisive role as in those countries with Armenian communities, where differences between the Armenian Christianity and the locally dominant religion are strongly expressed (as is the case most prominently in Muslim countries). The

14 Two old Armenian churches (the Holy Mother of God and St. George) in Grigoriopol were demolished in 1930s (Toramanăn 1991: 47).

The Armenians in the Republic of Moldova

105

proximity of the Armenian Church to Orthodox Christianity (the dominant religion in Moldova), is a factor that contributes to the assimilation of Armenians within the host society. In this respect it is worth mentioning that in Soviet times, and up until recently, it has been customary for Armenians to ask Orthodox priests to conduct ritual services such as baptism, a practice still present in more remote parts of the country. In Chișinău, before the instalment of the Armenian priest, Orthodox clergymen occasionally conducted liturgies for Armenians in Orthodox churches.

Conclusion As this chapter shows, although of a small number, Armenian people, who settled in the Prut-Dniester area (Bessarabia) for centuries, left a significant mark in the history of these lands. Today, the Republic of Moldova guarantees the rights of ethnic minorities by means of dedicated laws and state financial support. The Armenian diaspora life established in recent years by voluntary organisations and the Armenian Apostolic Church concentrates on preserving Armenian culture, mother language and religious affiliation. In these efforts today’s Armenians in Moldova draw not only on pan-Armenian symbols such as the Armenian Genocide or Armenian Apostolic Church, but also on the heritage of their ancestors’ settlement to the region, despite the fact that the continuity of the Armenian communal life was interrupted in Soviet times.

References Ananân Žores (1962) Armânskaâ kolonâ Grigoriopol', Erewan: Izdatel' stvo AN Armânskoj SSR. Basarabia (1926) Basarabia, Chişinău: Imprimeria Statului din Chișinău. Bezlošadnyj Stepan, Altaev Aleksandr (2011) “Armâne Moldovy otmetili Den svâtogo Sarkisa”, Panorama, http://pan.md/news/Armyane-Moldovi-otmetili-Deni-svyatogo-Sarkisa/8696 [11 May 2012]. Bezviconi Gheorghe (1934) “Armenii din Basarabia”, Din trecutul nostru, 3 – 4, pp.  51 – 54. Bezviconi Gheorghe (1943) Mormintele armenești dintre Prut și Nistru. Profiluri de ieriși de azi, Bucureşti: Editura I. Cărăbaș. Bezviconi Gheorghe (1962) Contribuţii la istoria relaţiilor româno-ruse, Bucureşti: Editura Academiei RPR. Cheramidoglu Constantin (1998 – 1999) “Emigrația prin portul Constanța (1935 – 1947)”, Europe, XXI (VII-VIII), pp.  117 – 128. Cu privire (2006) “Cu privire la totalurile Recensământului populației din 2004. Caracteristici demografice, naționale, lingvistice, culturale”, Biroul Naţional de Statisticǎ al Republici Moldova, http://www. statistica.md/newsview.php?l=ro&idc=168&id=2358 [30 July 2014]. Diaspora (2009) “Diaspora armenilor din Moldova inaugurează un centru cultural şi o şcoală duminicală”, ipn, http://www.info-prim.md/?a=10&x=&ay=26591 [20 October 2013]. Guajta Džovannij (2002) 1700 let vernosti. Istoriâ Armenii i eë Cerkvi, Moskva: FAM. Haidarlî Dan (2008) “Date istorice cu privire la populația armenească în spațiul pruto-nistrean (pânăla sfârşitul secolului al XIX-lea)”, Revista de Istorie a Moldovei, 3, pp. 102 – 106.

106

Lidia Prisac & Ion Xenofontov

Hodorogea Paul (2009) “Centrul cultural armenesc din Chișinău”, Radio Europa Liberă, http://www. europalibera.org/content/article/1859766.html [30 July 2014]. Ivanova Tat' âna (2012) “Pridnestrov'e v zerkale vremën”, Radio Pridnestrov'â, http://www.radiopmr.org/ programs/6145/ [30 July 2014]. Lista (n. d.) “Lista organizațiilor etnoculturale înregistrate la Biroul Relații Interentice din Moldova”, http:// www.bri.gov.md/files/files/Lista%20liderilor.pdf [14 March 2013]. Magola Alexandru (2011) “Biserici, confesiuni, culte”, Republica Moldova. Ediţie enciclopedică, Chişinău: Institutul de Studii Enciclopedice. Nesterov Tamara (1997a) “Biserica Învierea Domnului”, Chișinău. Enciclopedie, Chișinău: Editura Museum, pp.  81 – 82. Nesterov Tamara (1997b) “Biserica Apostolică Armenească Sf. Maica Domnului”, Chișinău. Enciclopedie, Chișinău: Editura Museum, pp. 78 – 80. Nesterov Tamara (1997c) “Strada Armenească”, Chișinău. Enciclopedie, Chișinău: Editura Museum, pp.  444 – 445. Pál Judit (2005) Armenians in Transylvania, Cluj-Napoca: Romanian Cultural Institute. Peretokina Elena (2009) ”Armenii din Moldova. Despre ce vorbesc istoricii și contemporanii”, Moldova turistică, 1 (7), p. 92. Pervaâ (1905) Pervaâ vseobŝaâ perepis' naseleniâ Rossijskoj imperii 1897 g., Sankt-Peterburg: Tipografiâ Obsˆestvennaâ pol' za. Pisarevskij Georgij (1909) Iz istorii inostrannoj kolonizacii v Rossii v XVIII v., Moskva: Moskovskij arheologičeskij institut. Popovici Ion (1930) “O satisfacţie a armenilor şi a populaţiei armene din Moldova, Valahia şi Basarabia”, Arhivele Basarabiei, 3, pp. 295 – 296. Prisac Lidia (2012) “Evoluția demografică a comunității armene în spațiul actual al Republicii Moldova”, Buletin științific al tinerilor istorici. Materialele conferinței științifice internaționale anuale a tinerilor cercetători, 1 (6), pp. 338 – 346. Safonov Igor' (2011) “Armânin i v Moldove armânin”, Panorama, http://pan.md/?r=news/show&id=11014 [30 July 2014]. Solomon Flavius (2001) Identitatea etnică și minoritățile în Republica Moldova. O bibliografie, Iași: Fundația Academică A. D. Xenopol. Stelian Sergiu (1999) Schiță istorică a comunității armene din România, București: Ararat. Tomuleț Valentin (1997) “Activitatea comercială a negustorilor armeni în Basarabia în prima treime a sec. XIX”, Tyragetia. Revista de arheologie, istorie și culturologie, IV-V, pp.  239 – 250. Toramanaˇn Aršavir (1991) Iz istorii stroitel'noj deâtel'nosti armân v Moldavii, Moskva: VTI. Totalurile (1990) Totalurile recensământului unional al populației din RSS Moldovenească din anul 1989. Culegere de date statistice, Chișinău: Comitetul de Stat pentru Statistică al RSS Moldova. V Kišineve (2009) “V Kišineve otkrylis' armânskij kul' turnyj centr i voskresnaâ škola”, Noyyan Tapan, http://www.nt.am/ru/news/23592///?hayworld [30 July 2014]. Vladimirova Alena (2005) “Nr. 13. Polnyj porâdok”, Kišinevske novosti, 23 dekabrâ, p. 4. Vremiş Maria, Craievschi-Toartă Viorica, Burdelnîi Eugeniu, Herm Anne, Poulain Michel (2013) Profilul migraţional extins al Republicii Moldova, http://www.iom.md/attachments/110_raportpmero.pdf [10 February 2014]. Zelenčuk Valentin (1978) “Social'noe i demografičeskoe razvitie armânskogo naseleniâ Moldavii v XIV-XIX vv.”, Izvestiâ AN MSSR. Seriâ obŝestvennyh nauk, 1, pp. 57 – 59.

Andrzej Tichomirow

Armenians in Belarus Today and in the Past National, ethnic, and religious minorities have become a major subject of interest for the human sciences in modern Belarus. In the Soviet period, this field of study underwent a series of transformations, ranging from a significant interest in the 1920s – fuelled by a policy of Belarusisation (and more generally, indigenisation (korenizatsiya))1 in the Belarusian SSR (Eastern Belarus) and the development of minority cultural and educational projects that stemmed from it – to the complete abandonment of education in national minorities’ languages towards the end of the 1940s. Along with the limiting of ethnic minority groups’ rights came a considerable halt on the studies of minority languages and traditional cultures, constricted at best to the most populous groups – Russians, Poles, Tatars or Jews. Starting from the mid–1980s, when Belarus saw a rapid rise in migration streams from other regions of the USSR as well as increasing interest in their ethnic culture on the part of Belarusians themselves, major ethnic minorities started to demand rights to education in their mother tongues, preservation of their cultures and access to the public sphere.2 The most active minority groups in this respect were Poles, Lithuanians, Tatars, and Jews (Puškin 2007: 10 – 28). After regaining its independence in 1991,3 Belarus introduced a number of laws (including the Constitution and the Ethnic Minority Act of 11 November 1992), granting all of the country’s ethnic groups formal rights to preserve their languages and cultures. The state itself never tires in emphasising its adherence to the ideas of tolerance, mutual respect, and protecting the rights of ethnic and religious minorities. Parallel to this there has been a significant upturn of interest on the part of scholars in studying various

1 These policies of the 1920s posited substantial support not only for Belarusian language and culture but also for national minorities. In the case of the latter, this included cultural and territorial autonomy. The Belarusian SSR had four national languages (Belarusian, Russian, Polish, and Yiddish), and featured ethnic districts (e. g. the Polish Dzerzhinsky District), rural administrative units (selsoviety), a comprehensive network of minority-language educational institutions as well as publications in those languages. This system was then gradually eliminated towards the end of the following decade. The last remaining Polish and Lithuanian schools were closed in the late 1940s. 2 To give just one example, first Polish ethnic associations were registered in 1987 – 1988. 3 The Belarusian People’s Republic proclaimed independence on 25 March 1918 and was recognised de iure by a number of states. The Council of the BPR has remained in exile and never transferred its symbolic authority to today’s Republic of Belarus. Belarusian SSR was proclaimed twice – in 1919 and again in 1920 – and, until it joined the newly-founded USSR in 1922, was a formally independent state and, as such, a signatory of a number of international documents, including the Peace Treaty of Riga with Poland in 1921. In 1945, the Belarusian SSR became a founding member of the United Nations.

108

Andrzej Tichomirow

aspects of the history and present day of ethnic minorities in Belarus, which resulted in numerous publications, seminars and conferences. This attention towards minorities is not limited to the biggest communities, studies concerning smaller groups have also appeared. Research on Belarusian Armenians is a comparatively new phenomenon, with first works published as late as the 1990s. As a rule, they have been minor articles in human sciences journals, cultural newspapers as well as collective volumes dealing with the history of ethnic minorities, demography, and language policies. Information on Armenians is very often included in research on the ethnic groups which arrived in Belarus from South and North Caucasus, whereby the authors usually compare different groups based on various statistical indicators, like size, sex and age structure, linguistic attitudes, level of education, and occupational structure (see Boguš 2010: 260 – 264; Puškin 2007: 111 – 115; Ragimov 2001: 178; 2006: 317; 2009: 5 – 9). The two notable exceptions are monographs by Yervand Khaleyan and by Kliment Arutyunyan and Aleksey Litvin, both describing the Armenian war effort in Belarus during the Second World War. Those, however, do concern directly not the Armenian diaspora but soldiers of the Red Army (Xaleyan 1975; Arutûnân, Litvin 2010). Historical information on Armenians in pre-20th-century Belarusian lands can be traced mostly in statistical sources and minor mentions in works devoted to Armenians in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and the Russian Empire. Such query is all the more difficult due to the fact that over the course of a few centuries the territory of present-day Belarus belonged to a number of states, and due to frequent changes of both administrative division and country boundaries (especially so in the first half of the 20th century). A vital methodological issue has to do with how to qualify the Armenian community in Belarus: whether we can call it a ‘traditional ethnic minority’, with historical roots in the country and whose links to it date back for a considerable period of time; or a ‘new diaspora’, owing its existence to the migration waves of the last years of the USSR and first years of independent Belarus. This is important not only when it comes to constructing identity on the part of the Armenian community itself (whereby the historical past serves as a source of legitimation) but also in view of the recent initiatives of some Belarusian experts to distinguish between ‘traditional’ and ‘new’ ethnic minorities for purposes of not just scholarly discussion but potentially also legislation (Kascian 2015). Works on Armenians in Belarus emphasise their presence as early as the Middle Ages, which also means that researching this ethnic group one has to take into account its historical background.

Armenians in Belarus Today and in the Past

109

A Historical Overview of the Distribution of Armenian Population in the Belarusian Lands The presence of Armenians in what is now Belarus is first attested to in documents associated with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.4 The first mention of the presence of Armenian families in Vilnius, the capital city of this state, dates from 1501 (Stopka 2000: 120). In 1578, Giovanni Andrea Caligari, papal nuncio for the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, wrote from Cracow to the papal secretary, cardinal Tolomeo Gallio: “Armenians live in four cities of this kingdom: in Lviv, Lutsk, Kamyanets in Rus’, and Vilnius in Lithuania” (Boratyński 1915: 93).5 The presence of sizeable Armenian colonies in Galicia and Podolia, combined with intensive trade within the Commonwealth, created favourable conditions for the appearance of Armenians in the Belarusian lands, albeit one can only speak about an organised Armenian community from the 20th century on. Until then, Armenian settlers were as a rule separate families or notable individuals, like Jan Madżarski, one of the founders of the famous textile manufactory in Slutsk. In 1758, he was invited from Stanisławów (present-day Ivano-Frankivsk in Ukraine) by the magnate Michał Kazimierz Radziwiłł, who decided to set up production of ‘Istanbul belts’. Madżarski’s products, which became known as ‘Slutsk sashes’, gained enormous popularity, becoming one of the symbols of the Commonwealth’s nobility. Jan Madżarski and his son, Leon were themselves made noblemen in 1790 (Stopka 2000: 51, 139), and the latter remained the manufactory’s leaseholder up until 1807 (Mihalčuk 2011: 14). All in all, most of those first, isolated Armenians settlers gradually adopted the Polish language and culture in the 16th–18th centuries, while retaining their Armenian identity and separate religious rite of Armenian Catholicism.6 In view of their remoteness from major Armenian communities, it is safe to assume that this process of assimilation in the Belarusian lands was more comprehensive than in Galicia and Podolia. The partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth at the end of the 18th century led to the splitting of Armenian communities between the Russian and Habsburg Empires. Another result was that the Commonwealth’s ‘Armenian laws’, which granted 4 In the medieval and early modern periods, the territory of Belarus formed a part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Vilnius (Vil’nia in Belarusian and Vilna in Russian before 1917), as the Duchy’s capital city, was also the political and cultural centre of these lands, which joined the Duchy by way of annexation of early-medieval principalities, most notably Polack, Turaŭ, Pinsk, and Smolensk, in the 12th-14th centuries. Slavonic culture was dominant in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the period in question is seen as an important stage of the formation of Belarusians as a nation – so much so that Belarusian historians often refer to the Duchy as the Lithuanian-Belarusian (or Belarusian-­Lithuanian) state. One of the first books printed in old Belarusian was published by Francysk Skaryna in Vilnius in 1522. Vilnius was also one of the centres of the Belarusian national revival movement in the early 20th century (1904 – 1939). 5 I would like to thank Aleksandr Osipyan for this reference. 6 The Armenian Catholic Church in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was established in the late 1620s-early 1630s, and gradually accepted by Armenians living in the country, who prior to that had been the followers of the Armenian Apostolic Church.

110

Andrzej Tichomirow

the communities autonomy, were no longer in place. The Belarusian lands became a part of the Russian state, which later conduced to immigration of small Armenian groups from both Transcaucasia and other regions of the empire. In the 19th century most of Armenians in the Belarusian lands confessed Armenian Catholicism and – except for a short ‘experiment’ of Armenian Catholic curacy in Mohyliv-Podilskiy (which possibly oversaw them formally) – were subordinated to local Roman Catholic hierarchs (Stopka 2000: 89 – 90). There is no reliable statistical information about Armenians on Belarusian territory dating back from before 1897 (when the first general census was held in the Russian Empire), a fact resulting most probably from the group’s extremely small size. The census of 1897 provides an overview of the distribution of Armenians in the North-Western Province (the official nomenclature term for Belarusian and Lithuanian territories). It is important to note that the census data which serve as main markers of identity are the declared mother tongue and religious denomination, since nationality (or ethnicity) was not accounted for. If we base our analysis on the number of believers of two Armenian denominations – Armenian-Gregorian Christianity 7 (i. e., the Armenian Apostolic Church) and Armenian Catholicism – the conclusion would be that the Vilnius (Vil’na in Belarusian 8), Vitebsk (Viciebsk), Grodno (Hrodna), Minsk and Mogilev (Mahilioŭ) Provinces were home to 258 Armenians, with majority (181 persons) professing Armenian Catholicism. Taking a linguistic approach, we find 106 inhabitants of the region declaring Armenian as either their mother tongue or main language of communication. One needs to bear in mind, however, that administrative boundaries of tsarist Russia do not coincide completely with contemporary borders of the Republic of Belarus. Some of the territories of the five provinces currently lie in neighbouring countries: Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, and Ukraine. Allowing for this, and adopting the denominational approach, there were 182 persons of Armenian descent living in today’s Belarus at the moment of the 1897 census. Most of them inhabited the Minsk Province (75 persons), then came the Provinces of Vilnius and Grodno (59 persons each), Vitebsk (43 people), and Mogilev (22 people) (Trojnickij 1901a; Trojnickij 1901b; Trojnickij 1903; Trojnickij 1904a; Trojnickij 1904b). In the Minsk Province, the majority of Armenian population inhabited rural areas. Only Armenian-Gregorian believers considered Armenian to be their mother tongue, whereas Catholics declared in this capacity Belarusian or Polish (Trojnickij 1904b: 78 – 81, 84 – 85).

7 The ‘Armenian-Gregorian denomination’ was a term officially used in the Russian Empire for legal, scientific, and journalistic purposes. It thus also featured in the 1897 census materials. According to Paul Werth, it was coined by Russian authorities and derived from the name of the 4th-century Saint Gregory the Illuminator, who converted Armenia to Christianity (Wert 2012: 252). 8 In this chapter (except for references and bibliography), Belarusian words are Romanised using the transliteration system introduced by the Resolution of the State Committee for Property of the Republic of Belarus (11 June 2007, No. 38). The transliteration table can be found in: Editorial (2011). In this context, it is worth noting that Belarusian has a long tradition of using the Roman script, including in most works published in Belarusian in the 19th to early 20th century.

Armenians in Belarus Today and in the Past

111

The Armenians of the Vilnius Province also lived primarily in rural areas. 12 people were Armenian-Gregorian Christians, 47 confessed Armenian Catholicism. Altogether 24 persons declared Armenian as their mother tongue. 22 of the province’s Armenians inhabited today’s Belarus, 24 (including all the Armenian-Gregorian Christians) lived in what is now Lithuania (Trojnickij 1901a: 68 – 69, 88 – 90). Most Armenians in the Grodno Province identified themselves as native speakers of either Belarusian or Polish, with Armenian being named practically exclusively by Armenian-Gregorian Christians. Taking into account current state borders, 42 Armenians lived on Belarusian, and 17 – on Polish territory (Trojnickij 1904a: 100 – 103, 106 – 107, 110 – 111). Armenians of the Vitebsk Province inhabited mostly towns. Out of 43 people (19 Armenian-Gregorian Christians and 24 Armenian Catholics), just 16 declared Armenian as their mother tongue. From the point view of present-day borders, 22 people inhabited ­Belarusian, the other 21 – Latvian territories (Trojnickij 1901b: 64 – 65, 88 – 92). Finally, the Mogilev Province had just 22 Armenians (16 Catholics and 6 Armenian-­ Gregorian Christians), most of whom considered Belarusian or Polish to be their mother tongue (Trojnickij 1903: 94, 98). The turmoil of World War One, the dissolution of the Russian Empire and subsequent rise to power of the Bolsheviks, as well as frequent changes of power in the Belarusian territories, were all circumstances that make it difficult to estimate the real size of any population. Under the 1921 Peace Treaty of Riga, the Belarusian lands were divided between Poland and Soviet Belarus (which became a part of the USSR in 1922). One of the key figures introducing Soviet power in Minsk and facilitating the advent of the Belarusian SSR was Aleksandr Myasnikov (Myasnikyan) – a Bolshevik of Armenian descent, head of the Communist Party of Belarus. Until this day, in Minsk there is Myasnikov Square, M ­ yasnikov Street, and the Myasnikov Railway Carriage Repair Workshop (Mihalčuk 2011: 14; Klimkovič 2011: 104). Another prominent Armenian was the Soviet military commander Gai (Hayk Bzhishkyan), who participated in the Soviet-Polish War of 1920 and then took over the head of military garrison in Minsk in 1924 – 1925 (G ˙ aj 1994: 450). In 1918 – 1919 an Armenian issues plenipotentiary of the People’s Commissariat of Nationalities of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic worked in Minsk (G ˙ arachavik, Čeban 2010: 210). The first reliable source of data concerning Armenian population size is the 1926 USSR census, according to which just 99 Armenians inhabited the Belarusian SSR (Vsesoûznaâ, 1928 – 29). The next census, held in 1939 (whose results were not published and remained a secret for decades), listed 1,814 Armenians in the Republic (Vsesoûznaâ, n. d.). Polish censuses in Western Belarusian lands (the Vilnius (Wilno), Nowogródek, P ­ olesie, and Białystok Voivodeships of the Second Polish Republic), carried out in 1921 and 1931, did not distinguish Armenian Catholics from Roman Catholics and Greek Catholics, which makes it impossible to estimate the number of Armenians inhabiting these territories (Buzek, Buławski 1927; Szturm de Sztrem 1936). During World War Two, many Armenians took part in the Red Army’s war effort in Belarus, including over 200 who fought in the defence of Brest Fortress in June 1941.

112

Andrzej Tichomirow

12 Armenians were named Heroes of the Soviet Union for the role they played in freeing Belarus from the Nazi in 1944 (Arutûnân, Litvin 2010: 5, 13 – 14). Among them were the commander of 1st Baltic and 3rd Belarusian Fronts, Marshal Ivan (Hovhannes) Baghramyan, Marshal Hamazasp Babadzhanyan, and General Sergey Sardarov (Klimkovič 2011: 105). One of the results of War World Two was a westward expansion of the Belarusian SRR, and the final shaping of its borders, later to become the borders of the Republic of Belarus. The first post-war Soviet census took place in 1959 and found 1,759 Armenians to inhabit Belarus. This number grew steadily in the next two censuses of 1970 and of 1979 (2,362 and 2,751, respectively, amounting to ca. 0.03% of the Belarusian SRR population) (Tichomirow 2004: 134).

Contemporary Armenian Diaspora: Its Demography and Activities The late 1980s marked the beginning of major changes, caused – on the one hand – by the process of gradual liberalisation in the USSR (the politics of perestroika) and the subsequent collapse of communist ideology, and – on the other – by increasing streams of migration, including Armenian refugees migrating to Belarus. The latter phenomenon, in its turn, had to do with a number of tragic events at the end of the 1980s. First, in February 1988, massacres were carried out against the Armenian population in the Azerbaijani town of Sumgait. Around 18,000 people were forced to flee their homes. Referred to as ‘the departed’ or ‘internal refugees’, they sought new domicile elsewhere in the USSR, including Belarus. The second wave came at the end of the same year, after a major earthquake hit north-western Armenia in December. A year later, in December 1989, mass turmoil in Baku forced a new portion of Armenians to seek shelter in other Soviet republics. In autumn 1990, tension heightened in Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region and Shahumian District of the Azerbaijani SSR, turning into refugees many of their Armenian inhabitants. The final wave of Armenian migrants arrived in Belarus from Abkhazia after a military conflict began in the region in August 1992, as well as from other parts of Georgia (like Tbilisi and Samtskhe-Javakheti), Chechnya, and Central Asia (predominantly Tajikistan) (Ragimov 2012: 618 – 619). In total, according to research conducted by Akif Ragimov, around three fourth of the Armenians who had come to Belarus in the late 1980s–early 1990s were refugees from Azerbaijan (Ragimov 2012: 618). It has been noted that the Armenian refugees’ experience of migration often involved a number of stages (Ragimov 2012: 618). In many cases (especially for those fleeing ­Azerbaijan), the way to Belarus led through Armenia, where after the dreadful events in Baku, Sumgait or other Azerbaijani towns, they hoped to meet with support from their compatriots and find favourable conditions to start a new life. However, having arrived in Armenia, they often failed to become accustomed to their new situation and for many of them the intra-ethnic cultural distance they were unexpectedly faced with proved unsurmountable. In addition to that, migration often meant a drastic change of environment, whereby city dwellers were settled in the strenuous and unfamiliar conditions of mountain villages

Armenians in Belarus Today and in the Past

113

(where the newcomers usually replaced Armenia’s Azerbaijanis who themselves had to abandon their homes). These factors, together with generally difficult socio-economic circumstances in Armenia at the time, triggered a wave of secondary migration of the refugees to other former Soviet republics, chiefly Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus. As a result, the data of the 1989 census revealed a noticeable rise in the number of Armenians in Belarus, who at 4,933 accounted for 0.04% of the Republic’s population. In the course of the 1990s this figure doubled: the 1999 census, the first one to be conducted in independent Belarus, registered 10,191 Armenians, who made up 0.1% of the country’s inhabitants. This growth was one of crucial reasons of the consolidation and ensuing gradual development of an organised Armenian diaspora (Tichomirow 2004: 129 – 130, 134). In the next decade the number of Armenians in Belarus dropped (as was the case with all ethnic minorities): the 2009 census counted 8,512 Armenians (still roughly 0.1% of the population), a fact which can be explained by a decrease in general population size as well as much smaller influx of new immigrants, by emigration abroad, and by processes of assimilation (Zinovsky 2011: 7, 55). The last ten years or so can to some extent be compared to the 1970s–1980s, when population movements of Armenians to Belarus comprised mainly of labour migration (seasonal or otherwise) and joining family or friends. The conflicts in the Transcaucasia (especially Nagorno-Karabakh) have in their turn been in a frozen state since the mid–1990s, no longer resulting in mass waves of migration. Researchers working on the Armenian diaspora in Belarus, in particular Akif Ragimov, have been focusing on the group’s structure, employment levels, geographical distribution as well as sex and age characteristics. The majority of Armenians (79.3%) choose towns and cities as their domicile but their numbers in smaller settlements have gradually been growing as well. From the point of view of regional divisions of the country, the biggest groups of Armenians live in the Minsk Region and Minsk proper (1,705 and 1,955 people, respectively, according to the 2009 census). The remaining regions of Belarus each have around a thousand Armenian inhabitants (1,149 in the Vitebsk Region, 949 in the Brest Region, 937 in the Mogilev Region, 915 in the Gomel (Homiel’) Region, and 905 in the Grodno Region) (Ragimov 2012: 617; Zinovsky 2011: 7). Prior to coming to Belarus, a decisive majority of Armenian settlers resided in ethnically mixed environments, predominantly in cities and regions of the USSR with large Armenian populations, like Baku, Ganja (Kirovabad), and Sumgait in Azerbaijan or Krasnodar Region (Ragimov 2012: 618). This has been beneficial for their integration into Belarusian society in a few ways. Firstly, a significant majority of Armenians are fluent in Russian (if only due to attending Russian schools), the de facto dominant language in Belarus, especially in the spheres of state administration, business, and everyday life (it also became the state’s second official language in 1995). Secondly, Armenians come to Belarus from countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States and thus, based on mutual interstate agreements, are granted permanent residency and citizenship according to a simplified procedure. Since the early 1990s, most Armenian inhabitants have taken up this opportunity and become citizens of the Republic of Belarus, while others remained stateless (the 1999 census quotes ca. 3,000 stateless Armenians) or had a refugee status.

114

Andrzej Tichomirow

Armenian migrants’ employment situation is relatively favourable. A major part, especially in small communities, instead of taking advantage of existing job offers, decided to become individual, small-scale entrepreneurs, usually specialising in the services sector. By far not all of these endeavours were successful, however, due mainly to juridical problems and lack of sufficient financial capital in their early stages. The choice of self-employment was indicative of the economic crisis at large in Belarus. It also meant that the majority of Armenians in Belarus (more than half of whom hold academic degrees) were forced to work outside their profession and below their qualifications. One of the first branches of business that Armenians engaged in was shoemaking. Another industry in which Armenians have been sought after has been construction. Despite the generally rather low attractiveness of life outside cities for migrants from the Caucasus region, compared to other ethnicities, Armenians were more eager to settle in rural communities. Nevertheless, most of them have gradually abandoned farming, reorienting to activities associated with the services market. Today, most city-dwelling Armenians are individual entrepreneurs, many of whom specialise in automobile repair and commerce (Ragimov 2012: 619 – 620). As for the sex and age structure of Armenian population in Belarus, the majority of migrants are male (58.8% in 2009 and as much as 62% in 1989) and belong to the 20 – 35 years of age cohort (Ragimov 2012: 620). Such a situation fosters numerous inter-ethnic marriages, usually involving Armenian bridegrooms and local brides. Armenian women, in their turn, are more reserved towards the very idea of inter-ethnic marriages, forming chiefly homogenous Armenian migrant families. It is worth noting that in such families their position is stronger in comparison to that in Armenia: apart from fulfilling traditional societal roles they also engage in professional life outside the household, often successfully, despite the fact that Armenian Belarusian families are usually large (Ragimov 2012: 626, 628). One of the most significant indicators of the dynamics of ethnic processes among Armenians in Belarus is their attitude towards different languages. Armenian is, on the one hand, a marker of ethnic self-consciousness, on a practical as well as symbolic level. On the other hand, geographical and historical circumstances have resulted in good knowledge and considerable importance of Russian among Belarusian Armenians. This, as has been noted, can lead to faster integration into Belarusian society and with time – to assimilation. This is fairly well demonstrated by the 1999 census data. Although 55.5% Belarusian Armenians named Armenian as their mother tongue, only 20.5% use it to communicate at home, while for 7.4% it is a fluently spoken but secondary language. By contrast, Russian is spoken at home by 74.8% of Armenian Belarusians, with 36.8% declaring it as their mother tongue, and another 18% having named it as a secondary language they are fluent in. For Belarusian the figures are: 4.6% for language of communication at home, 8.2% for a secondary language, and 7.4% for mother tongue (Tichomirow 2004: 136 – 137). The latter data can be seen as indicators of the diaspora’s gradual adoption of Belarusian culture, especially in case of the younger generation, who received education in Belarus. The 2009 census, compared to the previous one, shows that the

Armenians in Belarus Today and in the Past

115

number of Armenians considering Belarusian to be their mother tongue increased only slightly but at the same time that there were around 30% more Armenians fluent in Belarusian than 10 years before (1,353 persons in 2009 as opposed to 831 in 1999) (Tichomirow 2004: 138; Zinovsky 2011: 378 – 383). In a series of interviews published in 2011, young Belarusian Armenian activists demonstrated a keen interest in both Belarusian culture and language and a deep respect for the country they often call their ‘second homeland’ (Ġradzinar 2011:  118 – 123). Armenian is not taught in Belarusian schools, colleges or universities. The only two institutions teaching it on a regular, albeit limited, basis are Sunday schools in Minsk and Grodno, formed on the initiative of local Armenian communities. The Minsk school was founded in 1991. Apart from learning the language, its students become acquainted with Armenian history, tradition, customs, and music. In spite of these activities, Armenian is passed on to the new generation mostly within families and civil organisations. Considering the proliferation of inter-ethnic marriages and Russian’s dominating role as the language of communication at home, the very preservation of Armenian in Belarus poses major problems. Research shows that children from mixed marriages usually do not speak the native language of their fathers (Ragimov 2012: 624; Boguš 2010: 262). For them, Armenian remains a crucial marker of national identity, albeit on a symbolic level rather than as a language of actual daily communication. The Armenians who nowadays inhabit Belarus belong mostly to the Armenian Apostolic Church. A project is underway to build an Armenian church in Minsk. The Gregory the Illuminator religious association of AAC members was registered in 2004 but its attempts at erecting the temple have met with problems. Collecting funds for design and construction works has proven difficult (Važno! 2011). In 2013, when a site for the church was proposed, local residents protested against the construction and the issue has since been the object of a consultation process involving the authorities and local population (Armânskaâ 2013). Researchers emphasise the relatively low level of religiosity of Armenians in Belarus, especially the ones who came from Baku (Ragimov 2012: 629 – 630). Those Armenians who are religiously active often attend services in Orthodox churches. Traditional religious holidays, among which Easter and Christmas are the most important, are usually celebrated within the family. Other important festivities include the New Year, Armenian Independence Day (21 September), the Day of the First Republic (28 May), as well as the International Women’s Day (8 March) and the International Workers’ Day (1 May), which are widely celebrated throughout Belarus (Ragimov 2012: 629 – 631; ­Ġarachavik, Čèban 2010: 211). Since 1991, Minsk has had an Armenian memorial place. It is a khachkar (cross-stone), sculpted in Armenia and consecrated in Echmiadzin, the country’s spiritual centre, to commemorate the Spitak earthquake. The khachkar, situated next to the ­Alexander Nevsky Orthodox Church at the Military Cemetery, is a place of the diaspora’s activist meetings, held on days of remembrance, most notably 24 April (to honour the victims of the 1915 Armenian Genocide), and 7 December (the anniversary of the Spitak earthquake in 1988) (Mihalčuk 2011: 14 – 15).

116

Andrzej Tichomirow

Armenian Belarusian civil organisations have been established to serve the purpose of preserving national traditions, developing artistic creativity (especially in the field of music), and fostering ethnic self-identification. It should be noted that the close and friendly relations Armenia and Belarus have had on many different levels, including the political and economic ones, have been very beneficial in terms of Belarusian authorities’ engagement with the Armenian diaspora, whose activities are duly covered by official media and partly financed by the state. As of April 2014, there are four Armenian civil organisations registered in Belarus (Nacio­nal' nye n. d.). Many of their activists come from city-dwelling intelligentsia, mostly creative (or, less frequently, technical) professionals. However, one can easily assume that the organisations’ actual leaders are the businessmen who provide most of the funds for their activities. The country’s oldest organisation is the Minsk Municipal Armenian Cultural-Educational Association – Ayastan (Minskaje haradskoje armianskaje kul’turna-asvietnaje tavarystva Ajastan). Established in 1990 as a part of Cultural Fund of the Belarusian SRR, in 1992 it became an independent entity. Among the Association’s founders were: the dance ensemble head Mamikon Karakozov, the theatrologist Levon Yegayan, the artist Levon Darbinyan (the Association’s first chairman), the architect Armen Sardarov, the artist Grigoriy Danelyan, and the engineer Georgiy Egiazaryan (the Association’s chair as of April 2014). Ayastan has its own library as well as archives of films, photographs and documents. Its members are among the most active participants of the diaspora’s life, they are likewise the organisers of Armenian youth meetings and festivals (Klimkovič 2011: 105; Èg˙iâzaran 2010: 81 – 82). Up until 2011, the newspaper Miasin was also published in Minsk, devoted to the diaspora’s issues.9 A website concerning Belarusian Armenians (www.diaspora.by) was similarly active until 2011. Since 1988, Ayastan has run the Erebuni Dance Ensemble, which represents Armenian traditional culture both nationally and abroad. The ensemble’s director is Ruzanna Avanesyan, by profession and major field of the activity a university professor of philosophy and ethics (Sivec 2011: 114-115, 117). In 2007, the Children’s Dance Ensemble – Arevik was also established (G ˙ arachavik, Čèban 2010: 211). Minsk hosts the editorial office of Aniv, a Russia-registered, Russian-language Armenian cultural and social journal, whose paper version was published from 2005 to 2012.10 As the editors emphasise, We hope that the patriotic orientation of our journal is obvious. We picture our reader to be, first and foremost, a young person separated from their Homeland, often devoid of the very possibility to talk to other Armenians […]. He or she should learn […] about the nation that managed to survive and overcome everything there is to survive and overcome, about the outstanding artists, authors, and cultural phenomena, unknown to the world due only to insufficient economic as well as political resources (Agekân n. d.).

9 The newspaper has gone out of print but is still published electronically at www.miasin.by. 10 Since 2012, only electronic version is available at www.aniv.ru.

Armenians in Belarus Today and in the Past

117

In 2013, the Armenian Studies Research Centre – Aniv (Centr armenovedcheskich issledovanij Aniv) published a collection of essays summarising the conference Creative Culture of Armenian Colonies on the Territories of the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth. The event, which was held at the National Belarusian Art Museum in Minsk on 9 – 11 October 2012, hosted scholars from eight countries (Izdan 2013). The conference was accompanied by an exhibition of photographs by Armen Kazaryan, entitled Ani: A Blessed Image of an Armenian Capital (V Minske 2012). Other three registered Armenian civil organisations are located outside Minsk. Operating in Babrujsk is the International Armenian Civil Organisation – Urartu (Mižnarodnaja hramadskaja arhanizacyja armian Urartu), headed by Leva Agadzhanyan; in Mogilev – the Armenian Civil Association of the Mogilev Region – Masis (Mahilioŭskaje ablasnoje dabračynnaje armianskaje hramadskaje ab’jadnannie Masis), headed by Armen A ­ chatryan; and in Grodno – the Armenian Civil Association of the Grodno Region – Musaler (­Hrodzienskaje rehijanal’naje hramadskaje ab’jadnannie armian Musaler), headed by Grigor Adamyan (Ġarachavik, Čeban 2010: 211). In 2012, the latter opened an Armenian Sunday school in Grodno (Anikevič 2012: 9). An important event for Belarus’s Armenian diaspora is the Festival of Ethnic Cultures, organised every two years with a purpose of presenting, and thus helping preserve, the traditional cultures, customs and artistic production of all the country’s ethnic groups. The festival’s finale, held in Grodno since 1996, enjoys huge popularity. What singles out this event is that ethnic dancing and singing performances, cuisine tastings, and visual arts exhibitions all take place in courtyards throughout Grodno’s Old Town. Armenian diaspora has participated in the festival since 1996, presenting both amateur and professional artists. Among the amateur musicians are an Armenian vocal group from Dokšycy, as well as family ensembles from small settlements, including Liachavičy and Vietka. The diaspora also boasts famous professional performers, such as the drama actress Bella Masumyan and singers Iskuhi Abalyan and Stella. Egiazar Farashyan’s pop group 3+2 represented Belarus at the 2010 Eurovision Song Contest in Oslo (G ˙ radzinar 2011:  118 – 119). Another famous musician is the flute and saxophone player Pavel Arakelyan, an active participant in numerous Belarusian musical projects (like the recent Krambambulya), currently touring the country with a well-known Belarusian rock singer, Lyavon Volski. Arakelyan often emphasises that his music is under strong influence of Belarusian culture, especially the poetry of Anatol Sys (Budkin 2013).

Conclusion Over the course of the past 25 years, Armenians have secured themselves a prominent place among the Belarus’s ethnicities, becoming the sixth most populous ethnic group, after Belarusians, Russians, Poles, Ukrainians, and Jews. With increased numbers came organisational consolidation, which manifested itself in the formation of Armenian civil associations, and

118

Andrzej Tichomirow

recognition on the part of both society and the state. After Belarus gained independence, its Armenian population soared rapidly, then stabilised and has remained at this relatively high level ever since. Armenians are generally well integrated into Belarusian society. Currently, Belarusian Armenians are organised into several associations, with 16 artistic and music groups, and hold around 25 various cultural events a year, having thus become a vital part of the country’s cultural landscape. Armenians are the only Caucasian minority whose roots in Belarus date back to long before the 20th century and whose members have had a profound impact on the country’s history and culture. This heritage is consistently emphasised in the discourses of the diaspora, which seek to present Armenians as one of the ‘traditional’ minorities.11 At the same time, the origins of the contemporary Armenian diaspora, formed by Soviet- and post-Soviet-era migration processes in the mid–20th to early 21st century, leave no choice but to classify it as a ‘new minority’. Lack of military conflicts along with the openness of its society have made Belarus an attractive destination for the Armenians forced to look for a new home in the 1980s and 1990s. Since the beginning of the 21st century, when immigration slowed down considerably, the Armenian community has reached stabilisation and begun seeking to integrate into Belarusian society while preserving its identity. It seems probable that in the future Armenian self-consciousness will be based on the communality of origin and tradition rather than on the withering language.

References Agekân Karen (n. d.) “O žurnale”, Aniv, www.aniv.ru/about/ [4 April 2014]. Armânskaâ (2013) “Armânskaâ obsˆina planiruet stroit' cerkov v zelënoj zone na ulice Stoletova. Mestnye žiteli protiv”, Onliner, http://realt.onliner.by/2013/04/26/obshhina [4 April 2014]. Anikevič Irina (2012) “Armânskaâ gramota”, Ġrodzenskaâ praŭda, 61, 30 Maâ, p. 9. Arutûnân Kliment, Litvin Aleksej (2010) Armâne-geroi Sovetskogo Soûza v boâh za Belarus' (1941 – 1944 gg.), Minsk: Al'tiora – Živye kraski. Boguš Tat' âna (2010) “Sociokul' turnaâ adaptaciâ armânskoj diaspory na pogranič' e”, E. M. Babosov (ed.), Narody, kul'tury i social'nye processy na pogranič'e, Grodno: Grodnenskij gosudarstvennyj universitet, pp. 260-264. Boratyński Ludovicus (ed.) (1915) Monumenta Poloniae Vaticana. Tomus IV: I. A. Caligarii nuntii apostolici in Polonia epistolae et acta (1578 – 1581), Cracoviae. Budkin Sârg˙ej (2013) “Paval Arakelân: ‘Zakony ne pracuûc' ni u˘ èkanomicy, ni u˘ šou˘-biznèse’”, Hartyâ’97, http://charter97.org/be/news/2013/3/16/66693/ [4 April 2014].

11 For instance, emphasis is put not only on the significance of Jan Madżarski and his family or of ­Aleksandr Myasnikov but also on the 1882 visit to Minsk of the famous Armenian Russian seascape painter Ivan Aivazovsky, who donated one of his work to the Minsk Educational Relief Society (Mihalčuk 2011: 14; Klimkovič 2011: 104 – 107).

Armenians in Belarus Today and in the Past

119

Buzek Józef, Buławski Rajmund (eds) (1927) Pierwszy powszechny spis Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej z dnia 30 września 1921 roku. Mieszkania, ludność, stosunki zawodowe. Województwo Białostockie, Warszawa: Główny Urząd Statystyczny. Editorial (2011) “Editorial Language Policy and Transliteration Principles (English)”, The First International Congress of Belarusian Studies. Working Papers, Vol. 1., Kaunas: Vytautas Magnus University Press, pp. 363-366. Eg˙iâzaran Ġeorg˙ij (2010) “Aâstan”, T. U. Bâlova (ed.), Kul'tura Belarusi. Èncyklapedyâ. Tom 1, Minsk: Belaruskaâ encyklapedyâ, pp. 81 – 82. G ˙ aj (1994) “G ˙ aj, G ˙ aâ Dzmitryevič”, B. I. Sačanka (ed.), Èncyklapedyâ ġistoryi Belarusi, Tom 2, Minsk: Belaruskaâ èncyklapedyâ, pp. 450 – 451. G ˙ arachavik A. M., Čèban I. L. (2010) “Armâne”, T. U. Bâlova (ed.), Kul'tura Belarusi. Èncyklapedyâ. Tom 1, Minsk: Belaruskaâ encyklapedyâ, pp. 210 – 211. G ˙ radzinar Vol’ġa (2011) “Zakahanyâ u˘ Armeniû”, Maladosc', 7, pp. 118 – 123. Izdan (2013) “Izdan sbornik ‘Hudožestvennaâ kul' tura armânskih obsˆin na zemlâh Reči Pospolitoj’”, Lragir. am, http://www.lragir.am/index/rus/0/society/view/33624 [4 April 2014]. Kascian Kiryl (2015) “Definition of a ‘National Minority’ à la Belarus: Dynamism or Droop?”, ­Belarusian Review, Working Paper #3, January 2015, http://thepointjournal.com/fa/library/brwp-03.pdf [4 February 2015]. Klimkovič Iryna (2011) “Dzve radzimy”, Maladosc', 7, pp. 104 – 108. Mihalčuk Larysa (2011) Belarus' šmatnacyânal'naâ, Minsk: Ryf-tur. Nacional' nye (2007) “Nacional' nye kul' turnye ob" dineniâ v Belarusi. Armânskie”, Respublikanskij centr nacional'nyh kul'tur, http://centrkult.iatp.by/?m=2&a=1&asid=3&page=1&lang=RU [11 October 2014]. Puškin Ig˙ar (2007) Nacyânal'nyâ supol'nasci Belarusi: ˙gramadzka-palityčnaâ i kul'turna-asvetnickaâ dzejnasc' (1990 – 2005 gg.), Mag˙ilëu˘: Mag˙ilëu˘ski dzâržau˘ny universitèt. Ragimov Akif (2001) “Migracii i problemy adaptacii ètničeskih grupp narodov Kavkaza v Respublike Belarus' v 80-90 g. XX veka”, U. D. Rozenfeld (ed.), Ètnosocial'nye i konfessional'nye processy v transformiruûŝimsâ obŝestve. Čast' 1, Grodno: Grodnenskij gosudarstvennyj universitet, pp. 178-182. Ragimov Akif (2006) “Migracii i osobennosti ètnokul' turnoj adaptacii predstavitelej narodov Kavkaza v Respublike Belarus' (zapadnyj region)”, I. P. Kren' (ed.), Zahodni reġiën Belarusi vačyma ġistorykaŭ i krajaznaŭcaŭ, G ˙ rodna: G ˙ rodzenski dzâržau˘ny universitèt, pp. 315-320. Ragimov Akif (2009) Migracii i osobennosti adaptacii ètničeskih grupp narodov Kavkaza v Respublike Belarus' v konce XX – načale XXI veka. Avtoreferat dissertacii, Minsk. Ragimov Akif (2012) “Narody Kavkaza”, A. V. Gurko (ed.), Kto živët v Belarusi, Minsk: Belaruskaâ navuka, pp. 606-641. Sivec Taccâna (2011) “Èrèbuni – duša radzimy”, Maladosc', 7, pp. 114 – 117. Stopka Krzysztof (2000) Ormianie w Polsce dawnej i dzisiejszej, Kraków: Księgarnia Akademicka. Szturm de Sztrem Edward (ed.) (1936) Drugi powszechny spis ludności z dnia 9 grudnia 1931 roku. ­Mieszkania i gospodarstwa domowe, ludność, stosunki zawodowe. Województwo Wileńskie bez miasta Wilna, Warszawa: Główny Urząd Statystyczny. Tichomirow Andrzej (2004) “Ormianie, Azerowie i Gruzini na Białorusi (1988-2002)”, Obóz, 43, pp. 123138. Trojnickij Nikolaj (ed.) (1901a) Pervaâ vseobŝaâ perepis' naseleniâ Rossijskoj imperii. 1897 g., Tom IV, tetrad' 2. Vilenskaâ guberniâ, Sankt-Peterburg: Centralnyj statističeskij komitet. Trojnickij Nikolaj (ed.) (1901b) Pervaâ vseobŝaâ perepis' naseleniâ Rossijskoj imperii. 1897 g., Tom V, tetrad' 2, Vitebskaâ guberniâ, Sankt-Peterburg: Centralnyj statističeskij komitet. Trojnickij Nikolaj (ed.) (1903) Pervaâ vseobŝaâ perepis' naseleniâ Rossijskoj imperii. 1897 g., Tom XXIII, Mogilëvskaâ guberniâ, Sankt-Peterburg: Centralnyj statističeskij komitet.

120

Andrzej Tichomirow

Trojnickij Nikolaj (ed.) (1904a) Pervaâ vseobŝaâ perepis' naseleniâ Rossijskoj imperii. 1897 g., Tom XI. ­Grodnenskaâ guberniâ, Sankt-Peterburg: Centralnyj statističeskij komitet. Trojnickij Nikolaj (ed.) (1904b) Pervaâ vseobŝaâ perepis' naseleniâ Rossijskoj imperii. 1897 g., Tom XXII. ­Minskaâ guberniâ, Sankt-Peterburg: Centralnyj statističeskij komitet. Važno! (2011) “Važno! Armânskaâ cerkov v Minske”, Miasin, http://www.miasin.by/2011/06/24/ vazhno-armyanskaya-cerkov-v-minske/ [4 April 2014]. V Minske (2012) “V Minske prošla Meždunarodnaâ konferenciâ po armenovedeniû”, Kiïvs'ka Virmens'ka Gromada, http://www.kievao.com.ua/index.php?option=com_content&view=­article&id=565:201210-14-07-22-56&catid=1:2009-08-19-22-31-48&Itemid=28 [4 April 2014]. Vsesoûznaâ (1928-29) “Vsesoûznaâ perepis' naseleniâ SSSR 1926 goda. Nacional' nyj sostav naseleniâ po respublikam SSSR. Belorusskaâ SSR”, Demoskop Weekly, http://demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/ussr_nac_26. php?reg=3 [4 April 2014]. Vsesoûznaâ (n. d.) “Vsesoûznaâ perepis' naseleniâ SSSR 1939 goda. Nacional' nyj sostav naseleniâ po respublikam SSSR. Belorusskaâ SSR”, Demoskop Weekly, http://demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/sng_nac_39. php?reg=3 [4 April 2014]. Wert Pol (2012) “Glava cerkvi, poddanyj imperatora: armânskij katolikos na styke vnutrennej i vnešnej politiki imperii, 1828-1914”, P. Wert, Pravoslavie, inoslavie, inoverie: Očerki po istorii religioznogo raznoobraziâ Rossijskoj imperii, Moskva: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, pp. 176-204. Xaleyan Ervand (1975) Hay žog˙ovrdi zavakneri masnakc’owt’yownë Belaor˙owsiayi hamar mg˙vaç marterin (1941 – 1944 tt.), Erevan: Haykakan SSH GA hratarakčowt’yown. Zinovsky Vladimir (ed.) (2011) Population Census 2009, vol. III: Ethnic Composition of the Population of the Republic of Belarus, Minsk: National Statistical Committee of the Republic of Belarus.

Aghasi Tadevosyan & Alina Poghosyan

Transculturation as a Fragmented Dialogue Everyday Practices of an Armenian Migrant Family in Latvia

The main objective of this study is to answer the questions: How does a cultural dialogue happen between migrants and various segments of the host society? What is the involvement of migrants in the host society; how is their integration process shaped. What kind of transcultural phenomena appear as a part of the migratory experience? Our analysis is based on a case study of one Armenian family, whose members settled in Latvia in the 1990s. Each member of the family has his/her unique individual migration story and experience, the fact which gives us an opportunity to analyse the influence of individual strategies and everyday tactics on the process of integration. We do not aim to discuss the situation of the Armenian community and its interrelations with the Latvian cultural environment as a whole. Instead we are interested in studying the communication and cultural experience of individuals. For this reason, the focus is put not on the level of public discourse and collective/institutional mechanisms of transculturation and integration, but on the level of individual, everyday life practices. Such practices result not from planned collective actions, programs, or projects, but from individual tactics, which are frequently aimed at situational solutions (de Certeau 1984: 43 – 44). These tactics, related to the particularities of the migrant’s goals, system of values, lifestyle, and other aspects of the individual‘s everyday life, form paths of interrelations and integration, which are of a personal rather than of an ethno-national, collective, nature.

The Armenian Diaspora in Latvia The history of Armenian settlement in Latvia goes back to the 19th century. The number of Armenians living there increased, firstly, after the Second World War, and later in the 1990s, after the fall of the Soviet Union. Nowadays the Armenian population of Latvia officially reaches 3,000 people (according to internal estimations there may be as many as 4,500 of them). Most Latvian Armenians (some 2,500) live in Riga (Rīga), others in Liepāya, ­Jūrmala, Yelgava, Ventspils, Valmiera and Daugavpils (Musayelyan 2005; Arew 2011). Although the number of Armenians in Latvia is relatively small, they have established a number of cultural-educational and religious organisations in last twenty or so years. These institutions play an important role in preservation and representation of the Armenian cultural heritage and national identity.

122

Aghasi Tadevosyan & Alina Poghosyan

The main Armenian community organisation in the country are the Latvian Armenian Cultural Centre (Latvijas Armēņu kultūras centrs) established in 2008 on the basis of ­Latvian Armenian Society (Latvijas Armēņu biedrība), which had existed since 1988; and the Armenian Community in Riga (Rīgas Armēņu kopienu) founded in 2001. The Armenian Apostolic Church was registered in Latvia in 1996, and in 2009 the construction of the St. Gregory the Illuminator church in Riga was completed. The church is under the jurisdiction of the Diocese of New Nakhichevan and Russia. Besides its religious functions, the church plays a role of a central gathering point for the local community. Another important institution is Armenian Sunday school, which was founded in 1989. Since 2009 it is located within the premises of the St. Gregory the Illuminator church. Armenian language, literature and history classes are offered here. Finally, since 1991 an Armenian newspaper Ararat, established by Alexander Geronyan, is published in Riga, and distributed within the Baltic states. In 2013 Geronyan launched also the journal Krunk (Krunk 2013). Armenians from Latvia participate also in pan-Baltic states Armenian events. Most notably, in 2001 the Armenian khachkar (cross-stone) was erected on the famous Lithuanian pilgrimage place – the Mount of Crosses, which each year, at the end of May, serves as Armenian meeting point on the occasion of the Day of the First Armenian Republic. In 2008 the Congress of Baltic Armenians was established to coordinate initiatives of Armenian associations from Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (Krunk 2013).

Transculturation and Dialogue: A Theoretical Overview When two different cultures meet, they either stay isolated and self-contained, or a process of convergence starts. Such a process takes place both on the personal level, generating the transculturation of the embodied cultural capital (Bourdieu 1986: 48), and in the social space formed in the course of everyday life. Regardless of its progress and scale, it resembles a dialogue, during which each party tries to display its identity and culture, and to understand and interpret the identity and culture of the other. In this chapter we will frequently speak about the dialogue between the migrants and the host society, so our understanding of this concept needs to be explained. Our conceptualisation is mostly based on Greg Nielsen’s analysis of Mikhail Bakhtin’s concept of dialogism, and Jurgen Habermas’ notions of communicative action and discourse ethics (Nielsen 1995). Drawing on Nielsen’s work, we can say that several major conditions are necessary for the dialogue to take place. First, the mutual recognition of the two sides is crucial. For this, it is important how each of the parties presents itself. It is also necessary that this presentation be recognisable for the other party. Thus on the one hand the presentations should differ from each other (shall be in frames of their own subjectivities), but on the other hand they should be recognisable for the other party. Both Bakhtin and Habermas relate in their conceptualisations to the theories of George Herbert Mead. According to Mead, the individual sees himself/herself through others’ eyes, thus having the ability to

Everyday Practices of an Armenian Migrant Family in Latvia

123

present himself/herself in a way, which, in his/her opinion, should be apprehensible and recognisable for the other party (Mead 1934). This point once again stresses the necessity of mutual recognition, because only certain knowledge about the other person can allow one to look through that other person’s eyes. The sharing of certain universalities by parties of the dialogue – speaking the same/similar language, living in the same/similar lifeworld, etc. – is a necessary condition as well for the dialogue to take place. Finally, the parties should give importance to the formation of something new, and be ready for a ‘self-refusal’ – for a change. The inability to make change obstructs the dialogue, because the disinclination towards the transformation of one’s own subjectivity leads it to reinforce its borders and to be confronted with the subjectivity of the other party. In most cases the dialogue between the parties has episodic character, and takes place only in some specific situations and contexts. In such cases it has a fragmentary nature. We call such kind of dialogue a ‘fragmented dialogue’. The dialogue, understood in the way presented above, is a sine qua non for a transculturation of migrants. The transcultural approach to migration is based on the provision, that the migrant will not forget the old and adopt the new, but he/she will live parallel lives in more than one society and have ‘competency’ in more than one culture (­Brettell 2003; Vertovec 2009; Wimmer, Glick-Schiller 2002). The concept of transculturation questions the idea of a ‘pure culture’, taking as a baseline the idea that nowadays the everyday life of a person is lived in the crossroads of several cultural contexts. On a level of theoretical discussions this concept is often viewed in opposition to the idea of integration. However, in this article we argue that the transculturation is practically the only tool for integration.

The Subject Family and its Interrelations with the Host Society The family studied by us consists of a husband and wife, two children of high- and middle school age, and the sister of the husband. Initially, the man of the family – Sergey, who was not married at the time, left Armenia for Latvia in 1993. One year later, when he was able to settle down and arrange a life for himself, his sister Ani joined him. Around five years later Sergey married Lia and soon after their children were born. In our further analysis we will concentrate on the migratory experience of Sergey, Ani and Lea, all of whom moved to Latvia as adults already socialised in Armenian culture. The case of their children, born and raised in Latvia, will not be discussed. The period, when Sergey and Ani migrated to Latvia, is known in Armenia as the ‘dark and cold years’. This was the hardest time of the social-economic crisis in post-Soviet Armenia, deepened by the 1988 earthquake and 1988 – 1994 conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh. Due to mass unemployment and serious shortages of gas, electricity, water and most other goods, many Armenians of working age left Armenia in that period in order to find better living conditions abroad (Yeganyan 2009: 37).

124

Aghasi Tadevosyan & Alina Poghosyan

Sergey’s decision to go to Latvia was influenced by the fact that he had friends there from the Soviet times. They were living in Riga and assisted Sergey in finding temporary accommodation and a job, getting a work permit and residence status, as well as other necessities for settling down. Soon Sergey established his own business, and after several years he was also granted citizenship. As for Ani, Sergey’s sister, her reason for migrating was a longing for better living conditions, rather than just to earn money. Through the acquaintances of her brother in Riga she found a job in a private educational institution and worked as a teacher. However, as soon as living conditions improved in Armenia, she returned to Yerevan. She made this decision even though her migration to Latvia was successful at a formal level: initially she had residence and work permits, later she got citizenship, and never felt any discrimination either from Latvians or from other nationalities living in the country. She also enjoyed the public and political order in Latvia very much. However, at the same time, she could not get used to social relations typical for the locals, which she describes as too formal, prudent, cold and limited. She did not want to change her social habits and her perception of good friendship and personal relations, and thus was not able to establish a satisfactory private life, and she constantly missed her friends in Yerevan. These feelings were deepened by the fact that she also did not take part in the life of the Armenian community of Riga, feeling at odds in this environment. We can say that the ‘diaspora strategy’, often seen as a crucial part of dealing with the migration experience (Dâtlov, Melkonân 2009: 33) had not worked in the case of Ani. She returned to Armenia in 2007, after spending thirteen years in Latvia. Unlike Ani, Sergey has had no problems with establishing good relations in various social circles. He has friends of Russian and Jewish origin living in Latvia, whom he knows from back during Soviet times, and he organises his out-of-work everyday life mainly in this transnational environment. Furthermore, Sergey maintains certain ties with the local Armenian community. Together with his family he takes part in religious and non-religious celebrations (New Year, Christmas, Easter, Vardavar 1) and other ceremonies organised on the initiative of the Armenian Apostolic Church and Armenian voluntary organisations. Lia came to Latvia in 1998. The reason for this was her marriage to Sergey. She did not come directly from Armenia, but from Russia, and she had also lived in Georgia. Lia is involved with the trade business in Riga, considers herself well integrated into the Latvian society, and pictures her future life in that country. However, she does not keep close personal relations with Latvians, whom she considers to be educated and pleasant people, but completely inconsistent with her own temperament. Lia sees Latvians as cold and unemotional, which is in sharp contrast with her zealous and passionate personality. Her friends are mostly Russians and Armenians integrated into the Russian lifestyle, a part of them

1 Vardavar is an Armenian national feast, which is famous especially for the custom of drenching each other with water. The feast origins from pagan times, but now it is known as Christian tradition. Vardavar is celebrated on the 98th day after Easter – between 28th June and 1st August.

Everyday Practices of an Armenian Migrant Family in Latvia

125

being wives of her husband’s friends. Lia prefers to keep in touch with them, rather than with the ‘typical women’ from the Armenian community. As she describes it, the latter like to visit each others’ houses for coffee, discuss domestic issues, and gossip about their relatives and acquaintances. She, on the other hand, finds herself more interested in talking about fashion, films, concerts, and other similar topics. Besides, Lia thinks that she and her friends are more liberal in their views on family life and gender issues, comparably more independent from the opinions of their husbands, and are more relaxed in their behaviour. As a result, her communication with the Armenian community is either for business or in connection with her participation along with the family in the festive celebrations held by the Church or the Armenian voluntary organisation. Regarding Lia’s integration with ethnic Latvian part of the society, a key factor here are her school-age children for whom, as she said, Latvia has practically become a motherland, where they were born, raised, made friends and received education. This is one of the main reasons which lead Lia to think that she would stay in Latvia for good. As our three stories show, each migratory experience and transculturation process is uniquely shaped by various factors, including migrants’ reasons to leave, his/her expectations regarding the host country, social skills, worldview and lifestyle. In the next part of our analysis we will explore the further question of how the perception of the host society is formed as a part of this process.

The Host Society in the Eyes of Armenian Migrants The description provided above suggests that the Latvian society is perceived and understood by the interviewed migrants in a specific manner, namely that they divide the host society into three general parts: (1) Latvians, (2) Armenians, and (3) Russians and Jews. The latter segment, despite all the differences between the two included groups – Russians and Jews – is perceived by the interviewees as one entity. This three-part division creates reference points in the interviewed migrants’ interrelations with Latvian society. Generally speaking, the contact between each of the respondents and the delineated segments of the host society happens on the following levels: institutional and formal relationships, public everyday life, and private everyday life. The institutional and formal relationships mainly involve various forms of interrelations with public administration in economic, political, social and cultural spheres. Public everyday life relates to the sphere which is not under direct institutional control, and which is regulated by common know­ ledge about social norms and accepted behaviour in a shared, public space (in shops, places of entertainment, public transport, Armenian community centre, etc). Private everyday life relates to the personal life of an individual: preferences regarding the organisation of private space, ways of spending free time, type of personal relationships, etc. The most difficult cultural dialogue for Armenians is that with the Latvian segment of society. The relationships of the studied family members with Latvians take place mostly

126

Aghasi Tadevosyan & Alina Poghosyan

on an institutional level and are almost absent in private life. According to the respondents, this situation is conditioned by the significant differences in the Latvian and Armenian national characters. It is specifically related to contradictions between the emotionality and ‘hot-bloodedness’ of the Armenians, and the ‘coldness’ of the Latvians. When trying to describe the difference between the non-formality of the Armenians and the prudence of the Latvians, Sergey has mentioned as an example that in Latvia a bus driver can close the doors in front of a passenger, not allowing the latter to enter, if it is the scheduled leaving time. The respondent understands that this ensures the regularity of the city’s transportation, but does not consider this to be ‘humane’. In his opinion, the Armenians are very different in this matter, because the drivers can stop not only at the bus-stop, but wherever the passenger may request. “This is the other extreme, but too much prudence is not a good thing either” – says Sergey. Lia and Ani share his opinion. Thus, despite the fact that the respondents like Latvian order, they give preference to Armenian ‘humaneness’, as they define it. It is also important to note that the dialogue between migrant Armenians and the dominant (Latvian) group is asymmetric, and mostly limited to the recognition of the norms of this latter group and the one-sided adherence to them by the migrant. This explains why the dialogue between the migrants and the Latvian segment of the host society takes place almost exclusively in institutional and public spheres, and is absent at the level of private life. The Armenian migrants understand that they have to come to a one-sided agreement with the host society at the institutional and public levels, but can refrain from such an agreement in their private lives. One can say that at the levels of institutional and everyday public life the migrants understand cultural phenomena in the ‘Latvian way’, but the same is not true regarding Latvian cultural realities in the private sphere. The part of the society, with which informal relations are more vivid is the Russian and Jewish minority. As we have already mentioned, our respondents include Jews in the Russian entity, and refer to both with the latter name, the practice that we follow here. The interrelations of Sergey with the Russian part of society have both formal and informal components related, accordingly, to his business contacts and to his friendships. Similarly, Lia also enjoys a high level of integration with the Russian segment in both these spheres. As for Ani, she certainly differs from the other members of the family in this respect. Her relationships with Russians had mostly an institutional, formal nature related to her occupation. In her private life such contacts were limited to indirect relations mediated through Sergey and Lia. Nevertheless, in her case as well, relations with the Russian segment can be considered to have been more successful than those with the Latvian majority. For our respondents the third important segment of host society is the local Armenian community. The interrelations between the members of the studied family and other Latvian Armenians have taken various shapes. The spouses – Sergey and Lia – are to a certain extent involved in the life of the local Armenian community: they usually participate in celebrations of religious and national feasts, organised by the Church and Armenian voluntary organisations. As for Ani, her interrelations with the Armenian community were more distant. Feeling at odds in this environment, she avoided participation in the festive

Everyday Practices of an Armenian Migrant Family in Latvia

127

and cultural events organised by the community, as well as communication with Armenians in her private life. We can conclude that Sergey and Lia have interrelations with all three segments of Latvian society. Their interrelations with the Latvian segment take place at the level of institutional and everyday public life. The interrelations with the Russian segment are organised mainly in the realm of everyday private life, and with the Armenian segment mainly at a public level and sometimes also at a private level. That is, Sergey and Lia sustain interrelations with Latvian society at the institutional, public and private levels via a fragmented dialogue with different segments of the host society. As for Ani, her interrelations with Latvian and Russian segments were limited to the institutional and public levels, while her contacts with compatriots in Latvia remained largely underdeveloped at all levels. Ani’s case shows that if the transculturation process of the migrant does not include social contact on a private level, then it does not effectively lead to integration. Despite obvious achievements at a formal level – obtaining citizenship, a successful professional life, appreciation of the social and political order – the fact that her dialogue with the host society was barely sustained on a private level led to Ani’s dissatisfaction with the migratory experience and ultimately to her return to Armenia.

Conclusion As a final conclusion, we can say that the differences in interpretation codes used for dealing with the same phenomena by migrants and various segments of the host society constitute one of the main factors affecting the mutual recognition of the parties involved, and the quality and comprehensiveness of their dialogue. As a result, the dialogue of the migrant with the host society does not happen evenly at all levels of everyday life (formal, public and private), or with all segments of this society. In short, it has a fragmented nature. Thus our analysis stresses that in the process of transculturation migrants integrate with different segments of the host society in a selective way, rather than with the host society as a whole.

References Arew (2011) “Arew Paronyan: haykakan hamaynk’ë Latviayum čuni aynpisi xndirner inchpisin ˙usakanë”, r PanArmenian.Net, http://www.panarmenian.net/arm/news/84627 [12 June 2012]. Bourdieu Pierre (1986) “The Forms of Capital”, J. Richardson (ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, New York: Greenwood Press, pp. 46 – 58. Brettell Caroline (2003) Anthropology and Migration: Essays on Transnationalism, Ethnicity, and Identity, Walnut Creek, Lanham, New York, Oxford: AltaMira Press. Certeau Michel de (1984) The Practice of Everyday Life, Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press. Dâtlov Viktor, Melkonân Èduard (2009) Armânskaâ Diaspora: Očerki Sociokul'turnoj Tipologii, Erevan: Institut Kavkaza.

128

Aghasi Tadevosyan & Alina Poghosyan

Krunk (2013) “‘Krunk’ dlâ pribaltov”, Noev kovčeg, 14 (220), http://www.noev-kovcheg.ru/mag/201314/3991.html [02 May 2014]. Mead George Herbert (1934) Mind, Self and Society From the Standpoint of Social Behaviorist, (ed. Ch. W. Morris), Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Musayelyan Suren (2012) “Baltic ‘Yans’: A Visit to The Armenians of Latvia”, ArmeniaNow.com, http:// www.armenianow.com/hy/features/5785/baltic_yans_a_visit_with_the [12 June 2012]. Nielsen Greg (1995) “Bakhtin and Habermas: Toward a Transcultural Ethics”, Theory and Society, 24 (6), pp.  803 – 835. Vertovec Steven (2009) Transnationalism, London, New York: Routledge. Wimmer Andreas, Glick-Schiller Nina (2002) “Methodological Nationalism and Beyond: Nation-State Building, Migration and The Social Sciences”, Global Networks, 2 (4), pp. 301 – 334. Yeganyan Ruben (2009) “Migration Trends, Globalisation, and Human Development”, Migration and Human Development: Opportunities and Challenges, www.undp.org/content/dam/armenia/docs/ Migration_and_Human_development_eng.pdf (retrieved 02 May 2014), pp. 23 – 48.

Brigitta Davidjants

Identity Construction in Narratives Activists of the Armenian Diaspora in Estonia

Diaspora Identity In order to maintain its identity, a diaspora community requires an élite that is committed to maintain, evoke and actualise its distinct culture and ideology (Safran 2004: 18). The people, who are the subject of this chapter, represent such an élite, which in Tallinn, Estonia has remained generally the same as it was at the end of the 1980s, when the Armenian Cultural Society (Armeenia Kultuuriselts) was established. In this chapter I recall, first, a number of personal stories about the formation of the Armenian community in Tallinn. Second, I examine leaders’ motives for their engagement in the activities of the Society and their opinions about the current condition of the community. Finally, my research deals with the more intimate issue of the activists’ perception of their Armenianness. A widespread understanding of the word ‘diaspora’ is that of an ethno-cultural community whose members live outside the territory which is viewed as their homeland, and who retain a collective memory or vision about this distant place of origin, and continue to relate to it in one way or another (Huntington 2004: 257, 275; Safran 1991: 83 – 84; Smith 2010: 4). Next to Greeks and Jews, Armenians are considered a model case of a diaspora (Smith 2010: 3). The first mass Armenian dispersion took place as early as the 11th century (Tölölyan 2000), and today, there are approximately three million Armenians living in the Republic of Armenia, and 3.5 million living in the diaspora. Members of the Armenian diaspora can be found everywhere around the world, from the Middle East to Australia to America. During the last century, the size, geographical deployment and character of the Armenian diaspora has drastically changed. Robin Cohen posits a typology of victim, trade, labour, and colonial diasporas, with victim diaspora being a prototypical one (Kokot et al. 2004: 3). Armenians can be classified as such a diaspora, since these were the victims of the Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire in 1915, who formed the core of the modern Armenian diaspora in many countries. Furthermore, even in these Armenian communities which came into existence without the participation of genocide survivors, as is the case with Armenians in Estonia, the commemoration of this tragedy is one of the most important unifying elements of the community. According to Anthony Smith, national identity can be seen as a reproduction of the pattern of common heritage of shared myths, memories, symbols, and traditions, and an individual’s identification with that heritage (Smith 2010: 4). In this article, the relation of

130

Brigitta Davidjants

activists to their national identity and their understanding of the notion of Armenianness is traced: what it means to them, how it is preserved, what is the ‘proper’ way of being an Armenian, and how the activists position themselves between their fatherland and new homeland. Ani Yazedjian claims that the construction of identity and the resulting practices based on it reflect the cultural nuances of the specific community. She points out that while some commonalities do exist, for example, between the commemorations of the Armenian Genocide in the communities of Chicago and Cairo, there are also certain differences in the representation of Armenian identity depending on the place where such a commemoration is held (Yazedjian 2004: 47). This idea can be applied, in a ‘micro-scale’, to the variety of individual experiences of my Estonian Armenian interviewees. The differences and similarities between activists can be traced with reference to a number of variables, including generation, place of origin, gender, education and profession.

Research Methodology In the course of my fieldwork, eight Estonian Armenians were interviewed: six men and two women. Their ages varied from 55 to 75. Half of them – Artem, Garik, Ira, and Aragats – were married to Estonians; the other half – Karen, Rafael, Sofia, and Juri – to Armenians. Artem, Karen, Sofia and Rafael were born in Baku; Garik, Ira, and Aragats in Yerevan; all of them came to Estonia in the 1960 – 1970s. Juri was born in Estonia. He was the only one to be of mixed – Armenian-Russian – descent. All respondents lived in Tallinn, where the Armenian community is most numerous compared to other Estonian cities. They all had received higher education and at the time of my research worked in the public sector and education, ran their own business (including an art studio and a car service), or were retired. One of them – Garik – used to be an honorary consul of Armenia in Estonia from 1999 until 2004. At the end of the 1980s, all the interviewees formed the group of the first Armenian activists in Tallinn, and today they play leading roles in the Estonian Armenian National Society (Eesti Armeenia Rahvusühing). This organisation, established in 1998, continues the work of the Armenian Cultural Society, which existed formally in 1988 – 1994, and informally (without juridical status) up until 1997. All the interviews were conducted in person, in different places (at interviewee’s homes, in cafe, in working place, and even in a car), and their length varied from half an hour to two hours. The interviews were semi-structured, and most of my respondents agreed to have our conversation recorded. The first part of each interview dealt with how Armenians became organised starting in 1987, and the interviewees’ current level of contentment with the community affairs. During the second part, personal issues were discussed, such as individual understanding of Armenianness and feelings towards the homeland and host country. My own position as a researcher should be clarified. During my fieldwork, I tried to be aware about my “situated knowledge” (Haraway 1988: 575 – 599). Being half-Armenian and half-Estonian, I find myself neither torn between these two communities, nor dedicated to

Activists of the Armenian Diaspora in Estonia

131

only one of them, but rather in balance with both. On the one hand, I am a daughter of the key activist, Artem, and for the last ten years I have been doing voluntary work for the Estonian Armenian National Society. On the other hand, my mother tongue is Estonian and I have been studying and working at Estonian universities, mainly in the field of ethnomusicology. Thus I have approached my informants as a researcher, while at the same time I “flipped the research telescope” (Denskus 2007: 24) by working with people who live in the same place as me and whom I have known since my childhood. Such “at-home ethnography” (Alvesson 2009), with both its advantages (such as a deep knowledge of the socio-cultural context in which my fieldwork was set) and challenges (such as the risk of more pronounced prejudgements and biases) promises an interesting perspective that should add to an academic discussion on diaspora identity construction.

Armenians in Estonia Armenians first appeared in Estonia in the first half of the 19th century. Their arrival is usually related to the important Armenian writer and public figure Khachatur Abovian who came to study at Tartu (Dorpat) University, one of Europe’s leading centres of higher education. Other Armenian students also came to Tartu, mostly from Eastern Armenia, which was a part of the Russian Empire, as was Estonia. The peak period of this educational migration took place in 1848 – 1858, when Armenian students had an Armenian library and literary circle (Issakov 1977: 123 – 130). Another significant wave of Armenian students (around 200 in total) came to Tartu at the end of the 19th century and at the beginning of the 20th century. They had several student organisations, published their own newspaper and took active part in an emerging modern Armenian political life (Issakov 1977: 123 – 130). The Russian Revolution of 1917 brought this migration to an end, and there were almost no Armenians in Estonia until after the Second World War (Grigorjan 2000: 12 – 13). Estonia was not the first choice for the internal migration of Armenians within the Soviet Union. Nevertheless the number of Armenians in the republic started to grow gradually in the 1960s–1980s. Most of them were assigned by the Soviet labour system to work in various branches of industry; others came to study, or got married to Estonians or local Russians. During those years, there was no possibility to create an ethnicity-based organisation of migrants, but in the late 1980s – with the national awakening of Estonians – new opportunities arose, also for Armenians. The development into an organised diaspora began both in Tallinn and in Tartu, the biggest urban centres in Estonia. In Tallinn, the first step was taken in 1987 with a newspaper advertisement in Sovetskaya Estonia by Artem Davidjants, who was looking for Armenians interested in starting Armenian language courses for children. The first meeting took place in the Old Town Music Hall, as the director of the institution, Kersti Nigesen, supported Davidjants’s initiative. At first, few families responded to the advertisement. Later, as the information spread, roughly a hundred people attended the constituent assembly of the Armenian Cultural Society in April 1988. However, the

132

Brigitta Davidjants

question arose as to how to register such an association despite the lack of a legal basis for it. Eventually, in order to find a way around this problem, the Armenian Cultural Society became a collective member of the Estonian Heritage Society (Eesti Muinsuskaitse Selts).1 The end of the 1980s was a very active period for the Society, with many concerts and exhibitions given by Armenian artists. From 1988 to 1992, a newspaper Vahagn was published. Since 1992, the radio program Tsitsernak has been broadcast, lead by Gohar and Juri Vartanjan (Tsitsernak n. d.). From the mid–1990s until the early 2000s, the society became less active, as Estonia entered a period of economic hardship. Furthermore, many Armenians did not know Estonian; instead, they spoke Russian, and they were not well incorporated into Estonian society. After Estonian independence was established in 1991 this became an obstacle because of nation-building processes within the country, which included the marginalisation of Russian culture and language. At the beginning of the 1990s, not many Armenians emigrated to Estonia; instead some of them left the country, mostly to the United States. After Estonia gained independence, Armenians were differentiated by their new legal status: some of them received Estonian citizenship due to marriage, some because of supporting the grassroots Estonian Congress at the end of the 1980s, and some Armenians passed the citizenship exam. If in the 1990s there were more non-citizens among Estonian Armenians, by today the situation has changed and many of them have Estonian citizenship. Two important events in the life of the community which took place in the 1990s should be mentioned here. First, in 1993, by the blessing of Catholicos Vazgen I (the head of the Armenian Apostolic Church), and with the participation of Father Ezras – an Armenian priest who resided in Sankt Petersburg, but was in charge of the Armenian Apostolic Church in Estonia – the St. Gregory Estonian Congregation of the Armenian Apostolic Church (Armeenia Apostliku Kiriku Eesti Püha Gregoriuse Kogudus) was registered. The Estonian Council of Churches provided the community with a rent-free building – the Jaani-Seegi Church – in the centre of Tallinn, which the community uses to this day. From 2002 until 2008, there was an Armenian priest residing in Tallinn, with Estonian territorial jurisdiction. Since 2012, the priest serving all the Baltic States visits from Riga at least twice a month, and in Tallinn, during the holidays, around 200 – 300 Armenians visit the church. Since 1994, the Armenian Apostolic Church in Estonia has been an active member of the Estonian Council of Churches, which was founded in 1989 (Eesti, n. d.). Secondly, in 1998, the Estonian Armenian National Society (the successor of the Armenian Cultural Society) was registered as a non-profit organisation. Its statute declares that the main goals of the society are the integration of Armenians into Estonian milieu, the development and promotion of Armenian culture in Estonia, and the promotion of Estonian

1 The Estonian Heritage Society can be considered one of the first anti-Soviet organisations ‘in disguise’ in the Republic, as one of its aims was to achieve the independence of the country from the USSR; in public, the aim was preserving Estonian heritage, both material and intellectual (Seltsi n. d.).

Activists of the Armenian Diaspora in Estonia

133

culture in Armenia. These objectives have mostly been realised through Armenian language courses, as well as various cultural programs, including exhibitions, film screenings and concerts, with both local Armenian musicians as well as artists from Armenia.2 In 2013, there were 913,262 Estonians (around 70% of the society), 333,929 Russians, 23,113 Ukrainians, 12,763 Belarusians, 7,838 Finns, and 18,040 people of another or unknown nationality living in Estonia (PO0222 2013). Two years earlier, there were 1,428 Armenians in Estonia, of whom 847 lived in Tallinn (RL0429 2011). Nevertheless, those numbers should be read carefully, as they do not necessarily show the people who are ethnically Armenians and might even be active in the community but, for some reason, have chosen not to declare it in the survey. Safran (2004: 13) distinguishes countries on the basis of their receptivity to immigrants. Following his distinction, Estonia can be classified as a culturally pluralistic country which admits immigrants and encourages them to become members of the political community, while permitting them to retain their cultural particularities. On an institutional level, the Integration and Migration Foundation – Our People (Integratsiooni ja Migratsiooni ­Sihtasutus Meie Inimesed), funded by state and European Union funds, focuses on integration of immigrants (Integratsiooni, n. d.). Furthermore, many organisations of national minorities receive financial support from the Ministry of Culture (Kultuuriline, n. d.).

Stories of Armenian Activists Getting Organised My informants credited their active participation in the creation of the Armenian Cultural Society to their need to contribute to the preservation of the Armenian identity. They all claimed that events in Armenia at the end of the 1980s had not been a leading force, as the community had come together a year before the Karabakh conflict between Armenians and Azerbaijanis started. At the same time, a solidarity with the host society was felt, as the attempts of Estonians to achieve independence resembled the Armenian experience of foreign domination and a cry for freedom. One informant also tied the initial motivation of four activists with their place of origin, Baku, which was remembered as a place with a flourishing Armenian community. Most of my informants remembered their first meeting in a similar way: they had read the newspaper advertisement by Artem. As he described it:

2 There is a considerable amount of Armenian musicians in Estonia: Andranik Kechek (pianist), Ara Yaralyan (double bass), Levon Jeremjan (violin), Margarit Voskanyan (shvi, sring, pku) the folk ensemble Atlas (led by Brigittta Davidjants), the vocal ensemble Dvin (led by Džanna Šahbazjan), etc.

134

Brigitta Davidjants

I published an advertisement in Sovetskaya Estonia, stating that the Armenian Sunday School was seeking Armenian participants. Some families responded […]. So, we discussed what we could do. They brought their children, who started to learn the language, as well as singing and dancing. This is how the process began.

Sofia, Karen and Rafael shared similar memories. Rafael said: “In 1987, I read from Vecherniy Tallinn [sic!] that Armenian and Georgian language courses were about to begin,3 and children were invited […]. We read it with Karen and Sofia in our kitchen and decided to go to see what it is all about”. Aragats is an exception here, as Artem had personally approached him. His comments suggest that personal sympathy was an important pull factor for him to get involved: “Once he came to my studio […]. He asked for my opinion. In a few minutes, we already liked each other very much. So, after a few days I went to this meeting”. The activists were motivated by their concern regarding the preservation and transmission of Armenian identity in their families. In particular, they concentrated on one issue – the language.4 As Artem expressed it: “We shared the feeling that we needed to do something in order not to forget our roots. The older generation was already starting to forget the language, and the children didn’t know it […]. So, we wanted to preserve it for future generations”. Rafael gave a personal, somewhat nostalgic perspective: We had small children, and indeed we wanted them to hear the language. So we went there, and this is when I saw Artem for the first time. He greeted us at the door […]. We started to attend those courses, and our children came with us. Officially, we became organised in 1988. Only then there become more than five of us […]. It was an interesting era. We were young and energetic. We had a lot of strength. The kids were small […]. It’s hard to say what motivated us. It came from the inside.

Similar tones could be heard in Sofia’s words, as she tied having an Armenian community in Estonia with homesickness: “One wants to preserve one’s traditions, history, culture. To join people who are one’s zemlyaki (fellow countrymen) and have a similar education. A home and community at the same time”. One should not speak about the Armenian diaspora in Soviet Estonia, but rather about the presence of a number of individuals who identified themselves, and were identified in their passports as Armenians. However, most of the interviewees reported 3 The initial idea was to co-operate with Georgian minority in Estonia and offer courses in both languages. However, this idea was not realised due to a small number of Georgians in Tallinn and, subsequently, lack of interest towards Georgian language course. 4 Religion, which is seen as one of the key factors of Armenian identity, also in contemporary Estonia, came into the focus of activists only in the 1990s, when, after the fall of the USSR, freedom of religious expression was restored.

Activists of the Armenian Diaspora in Estonia

135

that even then there was an awareness among them of the centuries-long Armenian diasporic tradition, which, to some extent, became a driving force for organising themselves. As Artem said: Every Armenian knows since childhood that there are strong Armenian diaspora centres engaged with culture, to some extent with politics, and with social life […]. Estonians had a limited knowledge about us, and it didn’t make our life comfortable. This gave us the idea to create an organisation that would unite us […]. Well, no one knew that the Soviet Union would fall apart. We just lived peacefully. We knew how Armenian societies were living in different countries— they had structures, they helped elders and kids – and we wanted something similar here.

The late 1980s was a time of dynamic and difficult changes for all the nations in the Soviet Union. In Armenia the Karabakh movement started, which resulted in pogroms of Armenians in Azerbaijan, and later turned into a full scale Armenian-Azerbaijani war. Furthermore, a devastating earthquake struck Armenia in 1988. All my informants stated that they had followed carefully what was happening in the homeland, and one of the first initiatives that cemented a newly established community was an organisation of humanitarian aid for the victims of the 1988 earthquake in Armenia. As recalled by Rafael: “The community helped us to share the pain, which in turn brought us closer. We collected money. Even children stood on the streets with boxes”. Nevertheless, it has to be noted that all respondents claimed that the birth of the local community was not tied to the events in Armenia, but rather to the increasing freedom in Estonia during perestroika, and that their motivations were not political. As Karen put it, “It wasn’t the politics but culture that was understandable to everybody”. In turn, Artem explained the nature of the organisation in the following words: Even if talking about politics wasn’t forbidden during perestroika, it also wasn’t approved. People were still scared of the repressions of the 1950s, so we thought it would be the best to hide behind the culture. We started to get organised a year before the Karabakh movement […]. We were among the first in Estonia who became organised for cultural aims […]. Life in Armenia had a certain impact on us, but it was not the driving force.

A Level of Contentment with the Community As Susan Pattie demonstrates, it is typical for the people living in a diaspora that each generation’s concern is that the next one will not find the right balance between preservation of its identity and accommodation to the host culture, and that the latter will overcome (Pattie 2005: 51 – 59). Keeping contact both with Armenia and the local community, and preserving Armenianness, regardless of how it is understood, is an important issue in Estonia, too. However, my interviewees did not seem to be preoccupied with a fear of the loss

136

Brigitta Davidjants

of national identity. There was also a belief that being an Armenian is something ‘in the blood’ that cannot be forgotten, even if one has married a non-Armenian or is of mixed origin. This last point is well illustrated by the marital choices of a number of interviewees and in their attitude towards this issue. Artem married an Estonian, and during the interview he stated that the idea that an Armenian should marry another Armenian does not correspond to Armenian traditions. As he said: “Look at Cher, Kardashian and many others. Armenians are open to the world”. Ira, also married to an Estonian, admitted that she used to dream about an Armenian spouse, but being well-integrated and keeping her social position was more important than being a blood-bound Armenian. What is more, she did not approve of young people traveling to Armenia and returning with a fiancé or groom: “I see how those Armenians go and bring brides. But where is love…? Maybe our culture of mixed families is already different. But the ‘real’ Armenians,5 they bring a spouse however they can, legally or illegally. You know, these are mostly people from the countryside”. Most interviewees evaluated positively the existing relation between integration to the host society and preserving Armenianness among active community members, which is expressed, for example, by Karen: “Seed grows when the land is good. For Armenians, here are wonderful opportunities for working and studying, for creating a family. You can pray to your God and make your own culture”. Although all respondents admitted that in the late 1980s-early 1990s the Armenian Cultural Society was more active, and talked about those days with a certain nostalgia, they also trusted that the young generation will keep the community alive. As Artem said: “Considering that there are less than 2.000 of us here, things are going well. Most of the people preserve their Armenian identity. For some it is culture, to others it means Armenian friends”. In turn, according to Aragats: Back then, we had more issues to discuss. Now it is all more quiet. Me, Artem, Garik, Hakop, we are already old. You are our future […]. Things have to go their natural course […]. 20 years ago there were so many children in our organisation, but many of them have left Estonia. And people had more time. After work, they had nowhere to go. Now they have their own businesses.

Nostalgic feelings can also be traced in Sofia’s words: “Back then our activities were more lively […]. Maybe we are just getting older”. Still, Sofia expressed content with the current situation, especially in relation to the younger generation: The upbringing of children is the most important and our children appreciate their cultural and historical values. For example, in 1993 we got the church. It was in horrible condition, but there was

5 Ira means Armenians with a more traditional background, and those who settled in Estonia more recently.

Activists of the Armenian Diaspora in Estonia

137

no money for renovation. Those teenagers did it all by themselves. They were all dirty and dusty, but they did it to save money. I hope they will not lose their roots.

In turn, as Karen put it: There is an active group. The new generation arises. At first with their parents’ help. Later the parents can retreat, but the circle will hold. The young people didn’t lose their identity. They didn’t say that ‘I’d better go to Harvard or Ireland’. They have Armenian parties with Armenian jokes and music. Even cakes they prepare look like our flag […]. Our youth lives in Estonia, in a European country, but doesn’t forget its roots.

The only critical voice was expressed by Garik, who was discontented regarding the work done by the organisation both in the sphere of internal integration of the community, and of integration to the host society: In our statute, it was clearly phrased that we’d work on the integration of the diaspora and on the Estonian language. Actually neither of those worked out. I’ve never favoured the idea that Armenian parents living here speak Armenian and teach their children Armenian in an Armenian school, instead of teaching them Estonian. Instead, they should all know Estonian and the Estonian law […]. We are all loyal to this country, but we should show it somehow. In fact, we were among the first minority organisations that started to celebrate Estonian Independence Day. But many Armenians are completely indifferent. They have their group with whom they gather, but they know nothing about Estonia. And if there is an Armenian evening, they go there gladly, they drink and eat, but still only two or three people have to organise and finance it all.

Christianity, Language, and Genocide Armenians in the homeland and in the diaspora worldwide share a common cultural history, with the help of which they define their identity and communicate with each other. There are certain symbolic events and phenomena which are ‘building blocks’ of this identity, including: being the first Christian country in the world, possessing a distinctive language and alphabet, sharing the experience of centuries-long dispersion, and remembering the Armenian Genocide (Panossian 2002: 125; Pattie 2005: 54 – 60; Yazedjian 2004: 43 – 46). In the following paragraphs I will describe how Armenian activists in Estonia have perceived some of those key symbols. As in many other Armenian communities, in Estonia, too, the Armenian Christianity is seen today as a key symbol of Armenian culture, and the formation of the church community in Estonia in the first half of the 1990s gave a new impulse for Armenians to keep together. Usually, the church is crowded during major religious feasts, which serve as an important occasion for the community’s members to come together. All the interviewees mentioned their

138

Brigitta Davidjants

attachment to the Armenian Apostolic Church as an important factor in their Armenian identity. On the other hand, many of them emphasised that they were not religious, so the ecclesiastic institution was mostly seen as a key part of Armenian cultural heritage, which, in turn, was important for all the informants. As Garik put it briefly, “An Armenian might be a believer or not, but the Church is important”. Karen explained the local outcome of this situation: All the time we’ve had simultaneously these two communities: the Armenian Church, and the Armenian Society. They go along with each other. For Juri, his radio program Tsitsernak is certainly more interesting than religious events. Artem is active everywhere […]. But we have the same goals. It’s just that one part of our diaspora concentrates more on cultural activities, while another on church life.

Regarding the relation to religion, Armenia’s centuries-long struggle against dominant Muslim forces was also mentioned by the interviewees. The widespread opinion in this matter was expressed by Karen in the following words: Armenia is surrounded by Muslims. There were always persecutions on religious grounds. Iran and Turkey are aggressive. Let’s not even talk about the Arabs and the Tatar-Mongol yoke. Until the latest events [the Armenian Genocide] there was an endless struggle. Here the role of our Church is stronger than for example in Russia. Muslims had already written 200 years ago about Great Turan. Armenia doesn’t let them accomplish this idea. Armenia is like a bone in the throat of the Muslim world.

For Armenians in the diaspora, the Armenian language and alphabet are symbols of their distinct and rich culture, even though they may not be fully mastered and used in everyday life (Yazedjian 2004: 45). As previously described, the first impulse for the creation of the Armenian association in Estonia was the need felt by Artem and other activists to organise courses in Armenian. Among my respondents, the importance of knowing the mother tongue and transmitting this knowledge to the next generation of Estonian Armenians was pointed out by Garik, Ira, Sofia, Artem, and Aragats. As the latter said: “I speak Armenian with my daughter. I needed someone next to me who knows Armenian”. Ira stated that it was her dream (which came true), that her children would speak the language. Sofia also named language as a primary identity factor; however she seemed to have an almost traumatic relationship with it, since as Bakintsi Hay (an Armenian from Baku) she does not know Armenian well 6: There is a proverb that a nation has to know its language. It is our sin that our children don’t know it. Ira is the example of how it should be. She has six grandchildren and all of them know Armenian. But she is from Armenia. Since our birth, we have heard only Russian. The children whose parents came from Armenia were lucky because their first language was Armenian; our children started with Russian, and it wasn’t good.

6 Baku was a very international city, thus, the level of Armenian language proficiency was low among Baku Armenians, as most of them used Russian as the language of everyday communication.

Activists of the Armenian Diaspora in Estonia

139

The Armenian Genocide of 1915 was almost not referred to by my respondents, which was highly surprising, as it is one of the key factors in the construction of identity for Armenians. Because of the genocide, Armenians see themselves as victims of history, which, as Yazedjian claims, is often compensated for by their striving for education and success in professional life (Yazedjian 2004: 39 – 43). To some extent, this can be noticed in Estonia, too, and all my informants emphasised that Armenians always survive, no matter if the case is genocide or the post-Soviet hangover. As Artem puts it: “Armenians survived the crisis and did everything to return children to their parents’ social status. Now their children belong to the intellectual élite”. However, a certain level of hostility was present while speaking about Armenia’s Muslim neighbours, which was the case especially with Karen, Garik, and Juri, but not so much among my female interviewees. For example, Ira did not mention it at all, and, in contrast to Karen, Sofia had no antagonism towards Muslims, as she spoke about the Karabakh war: “We lived together for years. I’m telling you, [different nationality and religion] didn’t influence our relations. I think everything was decided somewhere up there”. Yet, the Armenian Genocide is definitely important to Estonian Armenians, as it is commemorated every year on April 24; there is always a well-attended memorial service at the church, and often concerts and screenings also take place.

Defining Homeland There are three parallel visions of Armenia that dominate in the present-day Armenian diaspora. The first is the post-Soviet Republic of Armenia, where Armenians form 95% of the population, and Armenian culture is absolutely dominant. The second is historical ‘greater Armenia’ with its splendorous past tracing back to ancient times. The third is the hometown or village of the ancestors, often located in the territory where the Armenian Genocide was committed in the Ottoman Empire (Pattie 2005: 55 – 56). Scholars of diaspora studies claim that for dispersed people, the homeland becomes a utopian vision of paradise to long for (Pattie 2005: 57), and the diasporic experience is about not being there (Kokot et al. 2004: 5). However, most of my respondents did not seem to be tightly connected to any of the aforementioned visions of Armenia. Only Ira stated: Armenia is my home. I really miss it a lot. My fatherland is there, but my home is here, with my children. I couldn’t even think of leaving them, but I’m still very drawn to Armenia. I raised my children as best as I could. I taught them my language and customs, and they love what they learned.

In turn, Sofia expressed a strong longing towards Baku – the place where she was born and raised. As she said:

140

Brigitta Davidjants

There are two definitions of homeland: ethnic and based on birthplace. Though I’m an Armenian and I’ve lived in Yerevan for seven years, my home is Baku, though my house is not there anymore […]. If you’d ask what I want most, it would be to travel to Baku just for one day, at least to see the sea. I went to Armenia last year after 21 years. Indeed, it is incredibly beautiful. But I didn’t find that anything there was important to me.

Most diasporas are characterised not only by their members’ longing for their distant homelands but also, simultaneously, by a variously scaled attachment to the place of current settlement (Safran 2004: 23). Thus, diaspora people may belong to more than one collective group; i. e. have a dually rooted identity (Wodak 1999: 16). The persistence or weakening of one or another of these elements partly depends on and reflects the socio-cultural values, institutional structures and political regime in the host country (Safran 2004: 17). Estonia is a democratic country which supports its national minorities, and this positive milieu is appreciated by Armenian activists, who, along with being aware of their national cultural heritage, are also loyal and grateful to the country of their settlement. My informants expressed their close attachment to Estonia, and even called it their ‘homeland’. As Karen said: “I came here when I was 20. When we sit around the table, I say the first toast to Estonians […]. How many of our kids have graduated cum laude from the University of Tartu, though they’ve come from a Russian language environment!” In Garik’s words: “I feel that we owe a debt to Estonians. I remember the Spitak earthquake. I’ll never forget how people came with piles of money. They didn’t want any check or anything. Just take and do what’s necessary. Creating our organisation was our way of thanking the Estonians”. Taking the most extreme position among my respondents, Aragats expressed his attachment to Estonia solely. He described Estonia as a wonderful place to live and claimed that most of his friends were Estonians. In contrast, he expressed his discontent with modern Armenia: “We used to have a beautiful house there, with grape wines. Those communists demolished it all. Tourists have nowhere to go. Houses are tasteless, and children have nowhere to play…”

Conclusion In this paper, I have explored the identity construction among the leading activists of the Armenian community in Tallinn, Estonia. To that end, I analysed their stories about the formation and functioning of the Armenian diaspora since the late 1980s. The Armenian activists in Tallinn correspond largely to the picture of the élites of diasporic Armenians: as twenty-somethings years ago, up to today they are still committed to maintaining their culture and Armenianness, even if the meaning of Armenianness varies from person to person. Four interviewees named Armenia as their homeland, no matter where they were from, while one informant considered her birthplace, Baku, to be her home. In general, when compared to men, women seemed to be more attached – or in a more personal way – to

Activists of the Armenian Diaspora in Estonia

141

their birthplace. Regarding their lives in Estonia, one idea prevailed among my interviewees – it is good to be an Armenian here. This general contentment seemed to stem both from their financial stabilisation and a satisfaction they enjoyed due to their engagement in the life of the community. All the interviewees mentioned language as one of the most important pillars of Armenianness. Seven activists saw the Armenian Apostolic Church’s heritage as another crucial element of Armenian culture. Surprisingly, however, the Armenian Genocide was barely mentioned, although difficult historical relations with Armenia’s Muslims rulers and neighbours were raised. Finally, I should add that for myself it was very rewarding, both as a researcher and a person actively involved in the life of the Armenian community in Tallinn, to bring into the research level the phenomena I have observed over last 25 years, regarding how Armenians in Estonia became organised, how they set their goals as an Armenian diaspora in Estonian society, and how their leaders fought and made peace with each other, and still remained active in the local Armenian community.

References Alvesson Mats (2009) “At-home Ethnography: Struggling with Closeness and Closure”, S. Ybema, D. Yanov, H. Wels, F. H. Kamsteed (eds.), Organizational Ethnography: Studying the Complexity of Everyday Life, London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Publications, pp. 156 – 174. Denskus Tobias (2007) “Flipping the Telescope. Doing Development Ethnography ‘at Home’ – The Case of the German Peacebuilding Community”, Zeitschrift fuer Entwicklungsethnologie, 16 (2), pp. 23 – 35. Eesti (n. d.) “Eesti Kirikute Nõukogu asutamine”, Eesti Kirikute Nõukogu, http://www.ekn.ee/liikmed. php [17 March 2014]. Grigorjan Rafik (2000) Armeenia Diasporaa Eestis, Narva: Narva Trükk. Hall Stuart (1993) “The Question of Cultural Identity”, S. Hall, D. Held, T. McGrew (eds.), Modernity and its Futures, Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 273 – 316. Haraway Donna (1988) “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective”, Feminist Studies, 14 (3), pp. 575 – 599. Huntington Samuel (2004) Who are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity, New York: Simon & Schuster. Integratsiooni (n. d.) Integratsiooni ja Migratsiooni Sihtasutus Meie inimesed, www.meis.ee [17 March 2014]. Issakov Sergej (1977) Armânskie studenty v Tartu, Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli ajaloo küsimusi. Kokot Waltraud, Tölölyan Khachig, Alfonso Carolin (eds) (2004) Diaspora, Identity and Religion. New Directions in Theory and Research, London, New York: Routledge. Panossian Razmik (2001) “The Past as Nation: Three Dimensions of Armenian Identity”, Geopolitics, 7 (2), pp. 121 – 146. Kultuuriline (n. d.) “Kultuuriline mitmekesisus ja lõimumine”, Kultuuriministeerium, http://www.kul.ee/ index.php?path=0 × 2 × 1424 [17 March 2014]. Pattie Susan (2005) “New Homelands for an Old Diaspora”, A. Levy, A. Weingrod (eds.), Homelands and Diasporas: Holy Lands and Other Places, Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 49 – 67. PO 0222 (2013) PO 0222: Population by Sex, Ethnic Nationality and Country, 1 January, http:// pub.stat.ee/px-web.2001/Dialog/varval.asp?ma= PO 0222&ti= POPULATION + BY + S EX%2C+ETHNIC+NATIONALITY+AND+COUNTY%2C+1+JANUARY&path=.

142

Brigitta Davidjants

./I_Databas/Population/01Population_indicators_and_composition/04Population_figure_and_ composition/&lang=1 [15 July 2014]. RL0429 (2011) RL0429: Rahvastik rahvuse, soo, vanuserühma ja elukoha järgi, 31. Detsember, http://pub.stat. ee/px-web.2001/Dialog/varval.asp?ma=RL0429&ti=RAHVASTIK+RAHVUSE%2C+SOO%2C+VAN USER%DCHMA+JA+ELUKOHA+J%C4RGI%2C+31%2E+DETSEMBER+2011&path=../Database/ Rahvaloendus/REL2011/07Rahvastiku_demograafilised_ja_etno_kultuurilised_naitajad/08Rahvus_ Emakeel_ja_keelteoskus_Murded/&lang=2 [04 August 2014]. Safran William (1991) “Diasporas in Modern Societies: Myths of Homeland and Return”, Diaspora: A Journal of Transnational Studies, 1 (1), pp. 83 – 99. Seltsi (n. d.) “Seltsi ajalugu”, Eesti Muinsuskaitse Selts, http://www.muinsuskaitse.ee/index.php?page=1&id=25 [17 March 2014]. Smith Anthony D. (2010) “Diasporas and Homelands in History: The Case of the Classic Diasporas”, A. Gal, A. S. Leoussi, A. D. Smith (eds.), The Call of the Homeland: Diaspora Nationalisms, Past and Present, Leiden: Brill, pp. 3 – 26. Tölölyan Khachig (2001) Élites and Institutions in the Armenian Transnation, http://www.transcomm.ox.ac. uk/working%20papers/WPTC-01-21%20Tololyan.doc.pdf [16 March 2014]. Tsitsernak (n. d.) “Tsitsernak”, Raadio 4. http://r4.err.ee/vaatarhiiv?saade=&sub=123 [18 April 2014]. Wodak Ruth (1999) “The Discursive Construction of National Identity”, R. Wodak, R. D. Cillia, M. Reisigl, K. Liebhart (eds.), The Discursive Construction of National Identity, Edinburgh: EUP, pp.  7 – 48. Yazedjian Ani (2004) “Reconstructing the Armenian: The Genocide as a Cultural Marker in the Reification of Armenian Identity”, T. Turino, J. Lea (eds.), Identity and the Arts in Diaspora Communities, Warren: Harmonie Park Press, pp. 39 – 50.

Łukasz Łotocki

The Post-Soviet Armenian Immigration to Poland This article aims at a general characterisation of the so-called ‘new’ Armenian immigrants in Poland. Describing Armenians living in Poland, it is necessary to distinguish between two groups. The first group are the so-called Polish Armenians (otherwise referred to as ‘old’ diaspora, the Armenian ‘old’ national minority – officially approved as one of thirteen national and ethnic minorities in Poland). The origins of this group trace back to the 14th century (Okraska 1999). Throughout the centuries its representatives have been subject to wide-ranging assimilation, and today they often define their nationality as Polish, with an underlying Armenian ethnic origin (roots). The second group – so called ‘new’ immigrants from post-Soviet Armenia and other parts of former USSR, came to Poland mainly in the 1990s.1 In this article, I am going to focus on everyday contacts (at work, in school, and during free time) between Poles and ‘new’ Armenians staying in Poland. Furthermore, I will present an overview of Armenian non-governmental organisations established in Poland. The article is based mainly on official data and my qualitative empirical research conducted in 2003 – 2008, including 102 interviews with Armenian immigrants in Poland, 20 interviews with experts on migration issues and Armenian studies, 15 surveys and a focus group interview with pupils attending Armenian Saturday schools, 20 surveys with representatives of the old Armenian national minority in Poland, and 21 surveys among Polish market traders working close to Armenian immigrants.2 Additionally, two more interviews with representatives of Armenian organisations were carried out in 2013. According to Everett S. Lee, there are four kinds of factors that shape the process of migration (Lee 1966: 50): •• factors associated with the area of origin (push factors, for example war or poverty); •• factors associated with the area of destination (pull factors, for example territorial and cultural closeness, acquaintance with the given country, attractive prospects of life in a given country etc.);

1 The Polish Act of National and Ethnic Minorities states, that in order to grant a national minority status to a national group, the representatives of this group should have been living in Poland for at least 100 years. Due to the fact that Armenians have been living in Poland for centuries, new Armenian immigrants, who received Polish citizenship, may take advantage of the rights granted to the Armenian national minority and may act as its representatives, even though they settled in Poland no more than two to three decades ago. 2 The results of this study were first published in: Łotocki 2008.

144

Łukasz Łotocki

•• intervening obstacles (for example political, financial, physical obstacles); and •• personal factors (for example personal capacity and motivation to emigrate, personal level of mobility, etc). The main push factors for Armenians immigrating to Poland in the 1990s were the earthquake in Armenia in 1988, the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh (1988 – 1994), and a very difficult social and economic situation, which had arisen due to these events and the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. These push factors were accompanied by a number of pull factors: most Armenians knew the Russian language well and expected that its similarity to Polish would help them to communicate; many had also visited Poland as tourists in the 1970’s and 1980s, or had met Polish tourists in Armenia; Polish movies were well known and highly appreciated in the USSR. Equally important pull factors were social networks created by Armenians in Poland, which contributed to the emergence of the so called ‘chain migration’ (see below: Armenians in the Polish Labour Market). The main obstacle for emigration was the very difficult financial situation of Armenians at that time and problems with legalisation of stay in Poland. When it comes to personal factors, it is worth mentioning that the Armenians’ strong motivation to improve their lives stimulated their quick integration into Polish society.

Armenian Immigrants in Poland: General Information It is difficult to estimate the actual number of Armenian new immigrants in Poland. Most of them, after their visa expired in the early 1990s, have been staying in Poland illegally. Different estimates have suggested that anywhere from 20,000 up to 100,000 (in the peak period – in the mid 1990s) Armenians came to Poland. Based on estimates made by most of the interviewed representatives of Armenian organisations and scholars, as well as on data of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration (Społeczność 2009), the former number seems to be more accurate. In the last decade the number of Armenians has been decreasing due to labour market problems. In the National Census of 2011, 2,971 persons declared Armenian as their first nationality, including 2,031 declaring Armenian nationality as the one and only, while 652 persons declared Armenian nationality as a second one.3 In total, Armenian nationality was declared by 3,623 people (Ludność 2013). 1,847 people claimed to speak the Armenian language at home, including 228 – who claimed to speak Armenian as the one and only language at home. 2,115 people declared Armenian as their mother language. It is important to stress that this data cannot be treated as complete, due to the fact that it does not include those Armenians who do not have a legal status in Poland.

3 There was a possibility to declare one or two ethnic-national identities in the 2011 National Census.

The Post-Soviet Armenian Immigration to Poland

145

According to official data of the Office for Foreigners, there were 4,587 Armenian immigrants (Armenian citizens having official documents of stay except for a visa) at the end of 2012 in Poland. It was the fifth most numerous immigrant group staying legally in Poland (see Table 1). In previous years, this number had been a bit lower (3,964 in 2011, 3,858 in 2010, 3,649 in 2009, 3,258 in 2008, and 2,812 in 2007) (Zestawienia 2013). These numbers do not cover Armenians who do not have Armenian citizenship (for example those having Russian, Ukrainian, or Georgian citizenship). It is worth mentioning, that particularly in the 1990’s, many Armenians applied for refugee status, but their applications were refused due to primarily economic reasons of their migration. Most of these people, after their visas expired, had been in Poland illegally for years, and some were deported by the National Border Guard. In 2003, 2007, and 2012 the so called ‘abolicja dla cudzoziemców’ (abolition for foreigners) was undertaken. In the first and second abolition, foreigners, who had been staying in Poland permanently, but illegally, since at least 1 January 1997, could be granted a residence permit for one year.4 The most numerous groups that took advantage of this opportunity were Armenians and Vietnamese. During abolition in 2003, 1,626 Armenians applied and 1,245 were granted a residence permit (the total number of applications was 3,508, and 2,696 permits were granted). During abolition in 2007, 585 Armenians applied and 314 were granted a residence permit (the total number of applications was 2,033 and 1,346 permits were granted) (Statystyki 2013). In 2012 the third abolition, based on new, easier requirements, was implemented.5 Foreigner could get a residency and labour permit at once (which was an innovation in relation to previous abolitions) for two years. Between 1 January and 2 July 2012 (when applications were accepted), 9,555 people applied (more than in the two previous abolitions together), including 713 Armenians. Till 30 June 2013, 538 Armenians were granted a permit (compared to 4,593 applicants in total). 83 Armenians were denied, compared to 3,012 foreigners in total. Four Armenians got a positive decision after appealing in the second instance (Informacja 2013). The remaining decisions were still being processed at the time of writing this chapter.

4 Additionally, according to the Act of Foreigners of 2003 (Ustawa 2003), foreigners had to confirm, that he or she had a legal title to a place of accommodation, and had a commitment from an employer, who declared a willingness to employ him or her, or had a material status enabling him or her to live in Poland with no social assistance. 5 According to the Act of Legalisation of Residency of Selected Foreigners in Poland of 2011 (Usta­wa 2011), foreigners had to have stayed in Poland permanently since 20 December 2007 (or since 1 January 2010, if he or she obtained a final refusal regarding refugee status comprising a decision of expulsion before this time), and his or her status in Poland was illegal. It also regarded people for whom a refugee status decision was in process after consecutive applications, and it was still being processed on the 1 January 2010.

146

Łukasz Łotocki

Table 1: The most numerous immigrant groups staying legally in Poland (on the basis of official permits) on the 31 December 2012, data of the Office for Foreigners (Zestawienia 2013)

Citizenship

UKRAINE

Supplementary Protection

Settlement Permit

Residence Permit for a Long-Term Resident

Tolerated Stay

Refugee Status

Residence Permit for a Fixed Period

Total

2

16,329

1,940

51

1

15,980

34,303

2,216

4,713

367

180

581

4,306

12,363

VIETNAM

-

4,302

1,160

146

3

6,085

11,696

BELARUS

12

6,305

305

16

96

3,576

10,310

ARMENIA

RUSSIA

13

1,696

503

94

2

2,279

4,587

CHINA

6

520

144

5

0

3,814

4,489

TURKEY

9

516

230

2

10

1,715

2,482

INDIA

-

516

235

5

-

1,633

2,389

USA

-

795

87

-

-

1,404

2,286

SOUTH KOREA

-

52

81

-

-

1,603

1,736

KAZAKHSTAN OTHERS TOTAL

1

789

25

5

-

341

1,161

110

11,375

645

116

156

11,767

24,169

2,369

47,908

5,722

620

849

54,503

111,971

The number of Armenians deported from Poland,6 or those who were required to leave 6 According to the Act of Foreigners of 2003 (Ustawa 2003), the decision on deportation from Poland is issued if a foreigner: 1) stays on the territory of Poland without a valid visa, if it is required, or any other document which allows for entry and stay in that territory; 2) did not leave the territory of Poland after exhausting the allowed time of stay in the territory of the Schengen states for 3 months within 6 months from the date of first entry; 3) performed work without the required permit, or undertook business activities in violation of the laws in force in this field in Poland; 4) does not have the financial means necessary to cover the stay on Polish territory and cannot identify reliable sources of their acquisition; 5) his or her data are included in the list of foreigners whose residence in the territory of Poland is undesirable; 6) his or her data are in the Schengen Information System for the purposes of refusing entry, if the foreigner stays on Polish territory under a uniform residence visa or visa-free traffic; 7) his or her further stay would pose a threat to national defence or national security or the protection of public safety and order or violate the interests of the Republic of Poland; 8) contrary to the laws passed or attempted to cross the border; 9) did not voluntarily leave the Polish territory within the period specified in another decision; 10) does not comply with fiscal obligations to the Treasury; 11) completed serving a sentence of imprisonment; 12) has been sentenced in Poland in a final decision on imprisonment and there are reasons to transfer him abroad for enforcement purposes; 13) resides outside the border zone, in which, according to the permit for crossing the border under the local border traffic, he or she may reside; 14) stays in the territory of the Republic of

147

The Post-Soviet Armenian Immigration to Poland

Poland,7 has been strongly decreasing in recent years (see Table 2). This probably results from the fact that the scale of irregular immigration from Armenia to Poland is decreasing, and a significant number of Armenians who were unable to legalise their stay have already left Poland to other countries, or returned to Armenia (there are no statistics available regarding this process). Table 2: Deportations and requirements to leave Poland. Armenians in relation to foreigners in total, data of the Office for Foreigners (Zestawienia 2013) Requirements to leave Poland

Deportations

Year

Armenians

Total

%

Armenians

Total

% 2.30

2004

277

6,696

4.14

139

6,036

2005

343

4,898

7.00

206

6,345

3.25

2006

335

4,895

6.84

252

7,973

3.16

2007

222

2,833

7.84

167

7,572

2.21

2008

103

4,700

2.19

75

3,431

2.19

2009

103

2,191

4.70

67

6,336

1.06

2010

108

1,669

6.47

70

6,606

1.06

2011

58

1,134

5.11

40

6,302

0.63

2012

14

967

1.45

28

5,890

0.48

Social Contacts between Armenians and Poles According to public opinion polls, the attitude of Poles towards Armenians is – on average – rather indifferent. The first public opinion poll concerning attitudes to different nationalities, in which Armenians were included, was made in 2007. In that year, on a scale from -3 (maximum disapproval) to +3 (maximum acclaim), Armenians achieved -0.28 (Strzeszewski 2007: 3), but in 2008 it changed to +0.05 (Strzeszewski 2008: 5), in 2010 to +0.16 (Wądołowska 2010: 5), in 2011 to +0.18 (Wądołowska 2011: 5), and in 2012 to +0.22 (Omyła-Rudzka 2012: 5). In 2012 Armenians were ranked 27th among 38 nationalities included in the survey. Such data may be interpreted as mirroring a general stereotype concerning Armenians, rather than as the result of personal contacts with them. As my research shows, those Poles who know Armenians in person usually express more positive opinions.

Poland after the period of stay, to which he or she was entitled under a permit to cross the border under the local border traffic. On the 1 May 2014, a new Act of Foreigners came into force in Poland, amending the existing regulations. 7 A foreigner may be required to leave Poland under selected conditions, from those quoted above (1 – 4, 13 and 14), if the circumstances of the case show that he or she will voluntarily perform this obligation.

148

Łukasz Łotocki

Most Armenian interviewees claimed that the general stereotype of their nation in Polish society is rather negative. In their opinion, an average Pole does not know a lot about Armenia and Armenians and above all associates this group with the (black) market trade or ‘mafia’. As one respondent pointed out, “People always remember the bad things first”. Such associations are strengthened by media coverage: journalists usually search for sensational rather than substantial information, which results in the domination of negative stories concerning immigrants, and thus in negative stereotyping. According to respondents, it is not very common among Poles to associate Armenians with the first country which accepted Christianity as a state religion at the beginning of the 4th century: a fact that is crucial for Armenian self-perception and self-presentation. Armenian interviewees claimed that only some well educated Poles realise this fact. A number of respondents pointed out that many Poles label Armenians with the word ‘Ruscy’, derived from a colloquial Polish word for Russians, nowadays used also as a pejorative term indicating people from the former USSR. Some interviewees also complained that some Poles associate Armenians with Muslims, a particularly unpleasant connotation for them, given the strong affiliation Armenians feel with Christianity, as well as the difficult relations Armenians have had with their Muslim neighbours for centuries. As one respondent said, he decided to cope with such situations with a sense of humour. For example when an embarrassed waitress in a restaurant said to him that the meal he had ordered contained pork, he answered, “Ok, bring it please as fast as possible, as no one is looking at me, and I will eat it”. I also asked Armenians staying in Poland about their general associations with Poles. Among positive features, respondents pointed out that Poles are tolerant, helpful and communicative. Also, a respect for disabled people was mentioned. Some Armenians claimed that the Polish mentality is quite similar to the Armenian mentality, which helps them to accommodate to life in Poland. In turn, a number of respondents, who had experience of living in Western countries, for example in Germany or the USA, claimed that in those countries, where a large number of immigrants live, their social stigmatisation is more pronounced than in Poland. Among negative characteristics alcoholism, selfishness and jealousy were identified. Next, I asked interviewees to share with me some examples of their informal contact with Poles. Although they reported a sense of distance when meeting Poles for the first time, positive experiences dominated. Most respondents claimed that Poles are kind and friendly. For example a woman working in Poland as a cleaner and housemaid said that her Polish employers “respected her and were helpful if necessary”. If a negative experience was recalled, it had often resulted from problems with renting an apartment. Some respondents claimed that Poles try to avoid renting accommodation to immigrants from Eastern countries. For example, when a flat owner heard their accent during a phone call, he or she often claimed that the rental on offer was no longer available. The way to overcome this problem was asking a Polish friend to make a call. Almost all respondents spoke Polish fluently. Most of them admitted that they have more Polish than Armenian close friends and that their relations with Polish neighbours are very good. I also asked interviewees to estimate an average, ‘statistical’ ratio of good and bad

149

The Post-Soviet Armenian Immigration to Poland

attitudes of Poles towards them: the results were 8:2 in favour of a positive attitude. This data confirms that in direct contact, Poles have good relations with Armenian immigrants, despite the fact that a general stereotype of Armenians reported by surveys is at best neutral.

Armenians in the Polish Labour Market In 2012, 499 Armenians applied for a work permit in Poland, compared to 41,619 applications overall; of 39,144 permits granted, 457 went to Armenians (Cudzoziemcy 2013). The most numerous immigrant groups working in Poland in 2012 were Ukrainians, Chinese and Vietnamese. In previous years, the number of Armenian applicants was quite similar. Most of the permits were for qualified workers or managers. The dominant field of activity was trade. Table 3: Work permits granted for Armenians compared to work permits granted in total in Poland, 1994 – 2012, data of the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy (Cudzoziemcy 2013) Year

Armenians

Total

%

Year

Armenians

Total

%

1994

82

9,220

0.89

2004

268

12,381

2.16

1995

95

10,441

0.91

2005

293

10,304

2.84

1996

147

11,915

1.23

2006

277

10,754

2.58

1997

341

15,307

2.23

2007

304

12,153

2.50

1998

390

16,928

2.30

2008

441

18,022

2.45

1999

266

17,116

1.55

2009

619

29,340

2.11

2000

289

17,802

1.62

2010

452

37,121

1.22

2001

238

17,038

1.40

2011

457

40,808

1.12

2002

272

22,776

1.19

2012

457

39,144

1.17

2003

227

18,841

1.20

In my research I asked immigrants about such issues as their experience with obtaining a work permit, and managing their own economic activity in Poland, as well as establishing social relations in the work place and contact with labour offices. Difficulties encountered during the procedure of acquiring a work permit were a recurring complaint and point of criticism among interviewees. Most foreigners who have not been granted supplementary protection, a settlement permit, a residence permit for EC long-term residents, tolerated stay or refugee status can work in Poland only after an employer obtains a work permit to employ them in a specific post for a specific period.8 The permit is issued by the office of

8 For exceptions to this rule see: Conclusions.

150

Łukasz Łotocki

Voivode, the head of one of Poland’s sixteen territorial administrative units. The Armenian interviewees mentioned difficulties resulting from the fact that employers have to prove to the authorities that they cannot find a suitable employee with Polish citizenship for a given job before employing a foreigner. To find a way around this obstacle for employers is to offer such a low official salary for the work that no one would apply (and thereafter pay more to the employed foreigner). Another way is to formulate requirements concerning a candidate in such a way that in practice only a foreigner can meet them (for example good knowledge about Armenia in the tourist office, excellent skills in Armenian cuisine in a restaurant – etc.). However, most employers were not willing to do such ‘tricks’ and often refrained from employing foreigners. Respondents claimed that regulations concerning the work of foreigners in Poland are discouraging for immigrants, who prefer to work illegally until they obtain a settlement permit. Many Armenians started their work in Poland from markets, in particular at the so called ‘Stadion’ (Stadium), officially ‘Jarmark Europa’ (Bazaar Europe), situated, until 2007, in Warsaw at the old central sport stadium.9 Jarmark Europa was a specific laboratory of integration, because there were many different immigrant groups working there. Liquidation of the market was very problematic for many immigrants, as they lost their only source of income. However, the Stadion was also the place where various national criminal groups (including Armenian) did their business, collecting protection money, blackmailing, etc. The characteristic employment phenomenon for immigrant groups is that their members usually take jobs below their professional qualifications, in the so called ‘3D sector’ (Dirty, Dangerous, and Difficult) (Balicki, Stalker 2006: 91). This is also the case with Armenians in Poland: among my respondents there were musicians, engineers, teachers and even a Ph. D. in Political Science, engaged in the market trade. However, this occupation is no longer as profitable as it used to be, due to various economic factors, including the substantial growth of shopping centres and supermarket chains in Poland. As a result, a lot of Armenians gave up this type of occupation, and some of them left Poland, returning to Armenia or moving to other countries. On the other hand, it is worth mentioning that a number of Armenians including artists and teachers, were able to keep their professions and develop their careers after they settled down in Poland. For example, Suren Vardanian works successfully as book illustrator, and Gagik Parsamian, a painter and ceramic designer, has his own gallery Nairi in Gdańsk. In the same city Argishti Agajanian has been known for his various artistic projects, including scenography, design, sculpture, and body-painting (Murawski n. d.). In Warsaw, a mixed Polish-Armenian rock group ‘36.6’, established itself as a popular live band, and in 2013 it reached a semifinal of a Polish edition of ‘Become a Star’ TV show (The Band 2013).

9 For the occasion of the European Football Championship in 2012 the new National Stadium was built on this spot, and the market does not exist anymore.

The Post-Soviet Armenian Immigration to Poland

151

Respondents working at markets had mainly positive experiences in their contacts with Polish customers. Negative experiences, infrequently reported in interviews, were mostly caused by conflicts and competition with Polish traders. The main apprehension of Armenian immigrants working at markets regarded their illegal status and the every-day fear of detention by the Polish Border Guard. Another concern was related to the possibility of confiscation of fake goods (CDs, clothes, shoes, perfumes etc), offered by some Armenians. The Polish market traders, asked about their Armenian counterparts, claimed that usually they did not have contact with each other. Their attitude towards Armenians was rather indifferent or, sometimes, negative. Some Polish traders pointed out that Armenians are involved with smuggling (of cigarettes and alcohol) and selling fake goods. Furthermore, some claimed that Armenians do not pay taxes as the Polish traders do. At the same time, they indicated a higher level of solidarity among Armenian traders, than among themselves. Among my interviewees there were more Armenians working on their own (also with unregulated status) or even employing Polish citizens, than those who were employed by Poles. Even immigrants with unregulated status sometimes run their own businesses (for example a snack bar), formally registered as the activity of their Polish friends. When it comes to searching for a job, in most cases, immigrants used their personal contacts. In this context, it is worth mentioning the migration network theory. According to it, migration decisions are influenced by migrants’ social capital: their networks of contacts with their compatriots in a country of destination and country of origin (Palloni et al. 2001: 1263 – 64). The existence of such transnational networks leads to a phenomenon of migration chains, when a successful migratory experience stimulates others to undertake a similar step. In the case of Armenian migration to Poland, a positive experience of first immigrants who set up their activity in Poland in the early 1990s attracted, initially, their family and friends, and, later, other Armenians as well, hoping to find an occupation with the help of their compatriots. The experience of those of my respondents who were employed by Poles varied from positive to negative. One respondent said that all her employers had always appreciated her courage to leave her mother country with three children, no Polish language skills and no clear prospects for the future. On the other hand, another interviewee, who worked at the reception desk in a company, complained about her boss, who paid her a lower salary than his Polish employees. Some respondents claimed that occasionally their accent or darker skin can make finding a job more difficult. Some reported that immigrants usually have to have better skills than native Poles in order to get a similar job. However, in the opinion of the majority of respondents, these problems usually disappear after obtaining a legal status enabling them to work without a separate work-permit. All foreigners allowed to work in Poland may be supported by labour office services. However, respondents had very incidental contacts with such services. Usually they do not believe that it is possible to find a good job through a labour office; an attitude they share with many Poles. It is interesting that most respondents claimed that they had not experienced unemployment in Poland. One even stated, “When someone says that there is no work in Poland, it means that he or she does not want to work”.

152

Łukasz Łotocki

Armenians in the Polish Educational System Most Armenian immigrants interviewed in my research reported positive experience with educational institutions in Poland. I asked questions concerning contacts with schools to the following groups: adult Armenians, whose children were attending schools; Armenian pupils attending schools; and Armenians who had attended Polish schools in the past. It covered primary, secondary and higher levels of education. According to the Polish Constitution education in Poland is obligatory for everyone under the age of 18 (it does not matter whether one is a Polish citizen or not), so all Armenians of the relevant age (also those with unregulated status) have the opportunity to attend school. There were very few cases when a school director had refused to admit an immigrant child to school due to unregulated legal status, but usually it was possible to convince him or her to change a decision, or to find another school.10 The research shows that Armenian pupils integrate well with their Polish peers. They also usually achieve very high marks in school. In many schools respondents experienced positive interest in their origin. Some reported that sometimes a teacher asked them to give a presentation on Armenia and/or Armenian history. In one school, a special ‘Armenian day’ was organised, and children recited poems and sang Armenian songs. Despite generally positive experience with Polish schools, respondents also identified problems. In one case, a respondent heard from his teacher, “You do not speak Polish, so what are you doing here?”. In some other cases, the problem of verbal stigmatisation by schoolmates appeared. Armenian pupils were sometimes called ‘Ruski’, ‘Cygan’ (Gipsy),11 or ‘Rumun’ (Romanian).12 Respondents claimed that, usually after some time, this negative behaviour diminished and was even replaced by friendship. There were a few respondents who said that pupils who had been the most aggressive during the initial contact, went on to become their best friends after some time. From a group of fifteen Armenian pupils, who in addition to my general research, fulfilled a special survey, eleven answered that they had encountered some difficulties at schools, but they managed to cope with them. Two answered that there had been no difficulties at all, and two stated that the difficulties they experienced had been serious. Respondents also mentioned initiatives undertaken by teachers against mistreatment of Armenian pupils. For example when an Armenian child was called ‘Rumun’ by a Polish child, a teacher brought a map for the next lesson and showed the location of Romania and Armenia to the whole class. Another respondent told a story about her son. After the attack

10 The Border Guard do not search for illegal immigrants in schools, so such children could attend classes for many years without being detained. In cases when parents were detained (for example at the market place) and deported from Poland, their children were deported as well. 11 This term is used due to some general physical similarities between Roma people and Armenians (dark skin, eyes and hair), which differentiate them from native Poles. 12 A lot of Roma people came to Poland from Romania and thus, in popular perception, Roma are associated with this country and often not distinguished from Romanians.

The Post-Soviet Armenian Immigration to Poland

153

on the World Trade Center in New York in 2001, the boy was beaten by some pupils calling him Bin Laden’s son. His mother intervened in school, and a reaction came immediately. During the two following days, in every class discussions about different nationalities were organised instead of the regular lessons. Each class had a homework assignment to learn about one selected nationality and make a presentation for other pupils. Free higher education is possible only for individuals with regulated legal status. Foreigners who have not been granted supplementary protection, a settlement permit, a residence permit for EC long-term residents, tolerated stay or refugee status and do not have any other title to study in Poland (for example a Polish scholarship) must pay for such education. Actually, there is only a small number of Armenian students in Poland: 119 in 2008, for example (compared to 15,319 foreign students in total) (Żołędowski 2010: 208). Respondents who studied in Poland reported a special interest towards Armenia and Armenians among professors and students. For example one interviewee remembered a situation when a professor, after learning her name, asked her to make a presentation about Armenia during the lecture. Meanwhile some respondents mentioned formal obstacles concerning immigrants studying in Poland. For example one of them had to pay a quite high deposit in the library for a borrowed book, due to the fact that she did not have a regular Polish identity card. Data collected during my research suggests the existence of an interesting correlation between migration and education. It seems that migration, especially in the case of young people, may be a good incentive for education. First, an immigrant, who does not speak a given language fluently, must make much more of an effort in the educational process. In this way, he or she learns how to learn. Furthermore the immigration experience may influence the future interests of a child. For example, one Armenian interviewee did her degree in migration studies and was very interested in the history of her country of origin. Over a time her interest in Armenian history was followed by an interest in Polish history. As she reported, a history teacher once said to her with appreciation, “Oh my goodness, an Armenian student is better in Polish history than Polish students!”.

Armenian Organisations in Poland The Main Statistical Office counted 160 national and ethnic associations in Poland in 2011, including three Armenian organisations. These three organisations, with some 100 members in total, are: the Armenian Cultural Society (Ormiańskie Towarzystwo Kulturalne) established in 1990 in Cracow (Kraków), the Archbishop Józef Teodorowicz Union of Armenians in Poland (Związek Ormian w Polsce im. ks. Arcybiskupa Józefa Teodorowicza) established in 1995 in Gliwice, and the Armenian Foundation of the Circle for Interest in Armenian Culture (Fundacja Ormiańska Koła Zainteresowań Kulturą Ormian) established in 2007 in Warsaw (Warszawa) (Gudaszewski, Ciecieląg 2013: 190, 196, 226).

154

Łukasz Łotocki

However, the real number of Armenian associations in Poland is much higher.13 Other organisations are: the Circle of Interest in Armenians’ Culture (Koło Zainteresowań Kulturą Ormian) in Warsaw, Cracow, and Gdańsk, established in the 1980s, the Association of Armenians in Poland (Stowarzyszenie Ormian w Polsce) established in Elbląg in 1999, the Foundation of Culture and Heritage of Polish Armenians (Fundacja Kultury i Dziedzictwa Ormian Polskich) established in Warsaw in 2006, the Armenian-Polish Association – Ani (­Stowarzyszenie Ormiańsko-Polskie Ani) established in Warsaw in 2006, the Foundation Centre for Armenian Culture – Musa Ler (Fundacja Centrum Kultury Ormiańskiej Musa Ler) established in Warsaw in 2007, the Polish-Armenian Foundation (Fundacja Polsko-Ormiańska) established in Warsaw in 2007, the Armenian Association in Silesia (Stowarzyszenie Ormian na Śląsku) established in Zabrze in 2007, the Armenian Association in Poland (Stowarzyszenie Ormian w Polsce) established in Łódź in 2009, the Association of Polish Armenians (Towarzystwo Ormian Polskich) established in Wrocław in 2011, and the Armenian-Polish Social Committee (Ormiańsko-Polski Komitet Spo­ łecz­ny), established in Zabrze in 2012. The first Armenian organisations (such as the Circles of Interest in Armenians’ Culture or the Armenian Cultural Society) were established by representatives of the old Armenian minority. Their creation was related to a gradual “renaissance of the Polish Armenians” in 1980s (Pełczyński 1997: 85), who after the Second World War have become almost fully assimilated. Initially the activity of these organisations focused on lectures popularising knowledge about Armenian history and culture, the celebration of Armenian holidays, the arrangement of religious rituals for Armenians, the organisation of heritage tours, and the issuing of various publications about Armenians. In the 1990s these associations also started to provide help and support for new Armenian immigrants in Poland, and for their compatriots in Armenia. Thanks to the active assistance of the old minority, Saturday schools for Armenian immigrant children were established (for example in Warsaw and Cracow). These schools have aimed at maintaining the national identity of young new immigrants through Armenian language training and other activities. Organisations of the old minority also started to support new Armenian immigrants in legal, labour, and educational issues (for example in 2007 the legal assistance office for immigrants in Warsaw was established by the Armenian Foundation of the Circle for Interest in Armenians’ Culture). Regarding publishing activities, Biuletyn Ormiańskiego Towarzystwa Kulturalnego has been in print since 1993, and in 2009 the Foundation of Culture and Heritage of Polish Armenians launched the bilingual Polish-Armenian Awedis quarterly. The last decade has brought about a growing interest in the activities of the old Armenian minority among new immigrants. It could be seen, for example, on meetings or celebrations organised by the ‘old’ minority, which have been attended by a growing

13 The research of the Main Statistical Office is based on a survey in which organisations are asked to complete and send back a questionnaire; however many organisations do not respond to this request.

The Post-Soviet Armenian Immigration to Poland

155

number of newcomers. In turn, the presence of new immigrants stimulates the ‘rearmenisation’ of the old minority, which, as previously mentioned, has been heavily assimilated. Furthermore, since the late 1990s, there has been substantial growth in the number of NGO s established by new Armenian immigrants. For example, in 1999, the Association of Armenians in Elbląg was set up. In its mission statement, one can find such goals as: the reinforcement of ties between Armenians in Poland and their homeland, popularisation of knowledge about Armenia, and assistance for members of the association. As the situation of Armenians in Elbląg has deteriorated (which was related to conflicts with Polish market traders and local authorities), further activity of the association has focused on protecting the interests of Armenian sellers and assistance in the legalisation of residency in Poland (Nieczuja-Ostrowski 2004: 60). Another organisations of new immigrants is the Armenian-Polish Social Committee, which recently established the Armenian library in Zabrze and launched a Saturday school for Armenian children from Upper Silesia region (Ormiańska n. d. Ormiańsko-Polski n. d.). The religious life of Polish Armenians (the old minority) is concentrated around the Armenian Catholic Church, which currently has four priests and three parishes in the country: in Gdańsk, Gliwice and Warsaw. There are no structures of the Armenian Apostolic Church in Poland (despite it was registered by the Main Statistical Office twice – in 2006 and again in 2010 (Gudaszewski, Ciecieląg 2013: 29)). Since 2010, the Armenian Apostolic Church has been represented in Poland by the priest who combines his ministry with doctoral studies at one of the Catholic universities. New immigrants only occasionally attend services held by Armenian Catholic priests. Despite the scant interest new Armenians show towards church-based religious life (Marciniak 2000: 139), Armenian-Catholic priests are strongly engaged in support for newcomers. For example, Fr. Tadeusz Isakowicz-Zaleski helped numerous Armenian families avoid deportation, after they were detained by the Polish Border Guard. Finally, it should be mentioned, that an old Armenian tradition of erecting khachkars – memorial cross-stones – has been recently introduced in Poland. As a result, there are khachkars now in Cracow (since 2004), Elbląg (since 2005), Gdańsk (since 2009), Gliwice (since 2011), Klebark Wielki (since 2012), Wrocław (since 2012), Warsaw (since 2013), and Łódź (since 2013), erected through collective efforts of the old minority and new immigrants.

Conclusion Armenians constitute a very well integrated immigrant group in Poland. Usually, after a few years of stay they speak Polish fluently, and have good relations in their social milieu. Despite quite common formal problems, they manage to earn a living and their material status is good. They generally do not seek help from social assistance, and rather ask for the right to work. In this context, it is worth mentioning that since January 2014, due to the regulation of the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy, Armenians are allowed to be

156

Łukasz Łotocki

employed in Poland for 6 months during a 12 month-period on the basis of an employer’s declaration at the local Labour Office (and without a work permit).14 It is difficult to estimate the number of Armenian immigrants in Poland. All official statistics show only a small facet of reality. Based on them, we may conclude, however, that more and more Armenians are able to legalise their stay and work in Poland. On the other hand, experts claim that the growing number of Armenians with illegal status leave Poland for Western countries or go back to Armenia. The total number of Armenians in Poland (with regulated and unregulated status) seems to be in decline. In recent years there has been a growth in the number of Armenian non-governmental organisations in Poland, including associations established or supported by new immigrants. Furthermore, there is growing participation in these organisations of the so-called ‘generation 1,5’: i. e. young Armenians who came as small children to Poland or who were born in Poland right after their parents emigrated from Armenia (Marciniak 2008). A representative of the Armenian minority participates in the Joint Commission of the Government and Ethnic Minorities, which was established in 2005 by the Polish Government. There have been two people on this post so far – both from an old minority.15 At the time of writing this article, Armenians are about to elect their new representative. For the first time, out of two candidates one is an Armenian from the new immigration, the situation which caused strong tensions between different Armenian associations. All these facts point to growing mutual contacts (including cooperation but also conflicts) between the two Armenian subgroups in Poland (the ‘old’ and ‘new’ diaspora), and to a gradual strengthening of Armenian communal structures in Poland. Moreover, they seem to indicate the changing character of new Armenian immigration to Poland – from large-scale, but often illegal and short term flows in the 1990s, to a less numerous, but more permanent settlement during the last decade.

References Balicki Janusz, Stalker Peter (2006) Polityka imigracyjna i azylowa, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Kardynała Wyszyńskiego. The Band (2013) The Band 36.6. Muzyka na światowym poziomie, http://www.36i6.com/home.php [03 October 2013]. Cudzoziemcy (2013) “Cudzoziemcy pracujący w Polsce – statystyki”, Ministerstwo Pracy i Polityki Społecznej, http://www.mpips.gov.pl/analizy-i-raporty/cudzoziemcy-pracujacy-w-polsce-statystyki/ [26 July 2014].

14 In previous years such a privilege was granted to Ukrainians, Belarusians, Russians and Moldavians (in 2009), and Georgians (in 2010) (Ormianin 2013). 15 In 2005 – 2009 the position of the Armenian representative was held by Maciej Bohosiewicz, and in 2009 – 2014 by Fr. Tadeusz Isakowicz-Zaleski.

The Post-Soviet Armenian Immigration to Poland

157

Gudaszewski Grzegorz, Ciecieląg Paweł (2013) Wyznania religijne. Stowarzyszenia narodowościowe i etniczne w Polsce 2009 – 2011, Warszawa: Główny Urząd Statystyczny, http://stat.gov.pl/cps/rde/xbcr/gus/oz_ wyznania_religijne_stow_nar_i_etn_w_pol_2009-2011.pdf [26 July 2014]. Informacja (2013) Informacja o abolicji w okresie 01. 01. 2012 – 30. 06. 2013 r., http://www.udsc.gov.pl/files/ aktualnosci/rok%20po%20abolicji/Abolicja_2012_%20wnioski_i_decyzje_za%2001_01_2012_r_ do_31_06_2013_r.xls [3 October 2013]. Lee Everett S. (1966) “A Theory of Migration”, Demography, 3 (1), pp. 47 – 57 . Ludność (2013) “Ludność. Stan i struktura demograficzno-społeczna – NSP 2011”, Główny Urząd Statystyczny, http://stat.gov.pl/obszary-tematyczne/ludnosc/narodowy-spis-powszechny-ludnosci-i-mieszkan–2011/ ludnosc-stan-i-struktura-demograficzno-spoleczna-nsp–2011,14,1.html [26 July 2014]. Łotocki Łukasz (2006) “Gli immigrati armeni nel panorama migratorio polacco”, K. Golemo, K. ­Kowalska-Angelelli, F. Pittau, A. Ricci (eds.), Polonia. Nuovo paese di frontiera. Da migranti a comunitari, Roma: Caritas Italiana, pp. 132 – 145. Łotocki Łukasz (2008) Między swojskością a obcością. Imigranci z Armenii w Polsce, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo ASPRA-JR. Marciniak Tomasz (2000) “Armenians in Poland after 1989”, I. E. F. Hamilton, K. Iglicka (eds.), From Homogeneity to Multiculturalism. Minorities Old and New in Poland, London, New York: London University Press, pp. 135 – 148. Marciniak Tomasz (2008) “Ormianie: polskie pokolenie 1,5”, M. Kempny, G. Woroniecka, P. Załęcki (eds.), Tożsamość i przynależność. O współczesnych przemianach identyfikacji kulturowych w Polsce i w Europie, Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UMK, pp.  41 – 49. Murawski Krzysztof (n. d.) Gdańskie Miniatury – Ślady Ormiańskie i Tatarskie, http://www.ikm.gda.pl/ new/library/File/Gdanskie%20Miniatury_MAPY/slady_ormianskie_i_tatarskie.pdf [20 January 2014]. Nieczuja-Ostrowski Paweł (2004) “Ormianie w Elblągu”, Biuletyn OTK, 38/39, pp. 57 – 63. Okraska Remigiusz (1999) “Ormianie polscy”, Zakorzenienie, 6 (8), http://www.zakorzenienie.most.org. pl/za8/04.htm, [23 January 2014]. Omyła-Rudzka Małgorzata (2012) “Stosunek Polaków do innych narodów”, Komunikat z badań, BS/22/2012, Warszawa: Centrum Badania Opinii Społecznej, http://www.cbos.pl/SPISKOM.POL/2012/K_022_12. PDF [26 July 2014]. Ormianin (2013) “Ormianin uprzywilejowany jak Ukrainiec”, Biuletyn Migracyjny, 43, http:// biuletynmigracyjny.uw.edu.pl/43-sierpien–2013/ormianin-uprzywilejowany-jak-ukrainiec [26 July 2014]. Ormiańska (n. d.) “Ormiańska Biblioteka Narodowa powstaje w Zabrzu”, Oświata, http://www.oswiata. abc.com.pl/czytaj/-/artykul/ormianska-biblioteka-narodowa-powstaje-w-zabrzu [23 January 2014]. Ormiańsko-Polski (n. d.) Ormiańsko-Polski Komitet Społeczny, http://www.opks.pl, [10 November 2014]. Palloni Alberto, Massey Douglas S., Ceballos Miguel, Espinosa Kristin, Spittel Michael (2001) “Social Capital and International Migration: A Test Using Information on Family Networks”, American Journal of Sociology, 106 (5), pp. 1262 – 1298. Pełczyński Grzegorz (1997) Ormianie polscy w XX wieku. Problem odrębności etnicznej, Warszawa: Koło Zainteresowań Kulturą Ormian. Społeczność (2009) Społeczność ormiańska w Polsce. Polityka migracyjna Armenii. Raport, Warszawa: Ministerstwo Spraw Wewnętrznych i Administracji, https://emn.gov.pl/esm/publikacje/publikacjedepartament/8757,Spolecznosc-ormianska-w-Polsce-Polityka-migracyjna-Armenii.html [26 July 2014]. Statystyki (2013) “Statystyki abolicji”, Urząd Do Spraw Cudzoziemców, http://www.udsc.gov.pl/ Statystyki,abolicji,1967.html [03 October 2013]. Strzeszewski Michał (2007) “Sympatia i niechęć do innych narodów”, Komunikat z badań, BS/144/2007, Warszawa: Centrum Badania Opinii Społecznej, http://www.cbos.pl/SPISKOM.POL/2007/K_144_07. PDF [26 July 2014].

158

Łukasz Łotocki

Strzeszewski Michał (2008) “Stosunek Polaków do innych narodów”, Komunikat z badań, BS/193/2008, Warszawa: Centrum Badania Opinii Społecznej, http://www.cbos.pl/SPISKOM.POL/2008/K_193_08. PDF [26 July 2014]. Ustawa (2003) “Ustawa z dn. 13 czerwca 2003 r. o cudzoziemcach”, Dziennik Ustaw, 128 (1175), http:// dziennikustaw.gov.pl/DU/2003/s/128/1175/1 [26 July 2014]. Ustawa (2011) “Ustawa z dn. 28. 07. 2011 r. o zalegalizowaniu pobytu niektórych cudzoziemców na terytorium Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej oraz o zmianie ustawy o udzielaniu cudzoziemcom ochrony na terytorium Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej i ustawy o cudzoziemcach”, Dziennik Ustaw, 191 (1133), http://dziennikustaw. gov.pl/DU/2011/s/191/1133/1 [26 July 2014]. Wądołowska Katarzyna (2010) “Stosunek Polaków do innych narodów”, Komunikat z badań, BS/12/2010, Warszawa: Centrum Badania Opinii Społecznej, http://www.cbos.pl/SPISKOM.POL/2010/K_012_10. PDF [26 July 2014]. Wądołowska Katarzyna (2011) “Stosunek Polaków do innych narodów”, Komunikat z badań, BS/13/2011, Warszawa: Centrum Badania Opinii Społecznej, http://www.cbos.pl/SPISKOM.POL/2011/K_013_11. PDF [26 July 2014]. Zestawienia (2013) “Zestawienia roczne”, Urząd Do Spraw Cudzoziemców, http://www.udsc.gov.pl/ Zestawienia,roczne,233.html [3 October 2013]. Żołędowski Cezary (2010), Studenci zagraniczni w Polsce, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu ­Warszawskiego.

Hakob Asatryan

The Armenians in the Czech Republic A Community in the Making

Following the fall of the Soviet Union and the formation of an independent Armenian state in 1991, the borders of Armenia opened and thousands of Armenians emigrated from their poverty-stricken homeland. The Armenian settlement in the modern Czech Republic is quite a special case though, as – in contrast to many other countries reached by this wave of migration – there had not been an Armenian diaspora established here in earlier times. The Armenian community that has emerged over the last twenty years in the Czech Republic has not developed the forms of traditional Armenian diaspora, with its active political parties, associated charitable organisations, and cultural or sports clubs, and it is still in search of its institutional shape. In contrast, on the individual level many Armenians have successfully integrated into Czech society, and a considerable number of them play an important role in the artistic, economic and sports life of the country.

The First Armenians in the Czech Lands The earliest information on Armenians in the Czech lands goes back to the 18th century, when Georg Deodatus from Damascus (Georgium Deodatum Damascenum) opened the very first coffee-house in Prague (Praha) in 1714. He is also known as the author of a number of theological works in several languages. His two coffee-houses, later transformed into restaurants, exist to the present day under their original names: At the Golden Snake (U zlatého hada) and At the Three Ostriches (U tří pštrosů). Other early traces of Armenian penetration into the Czech lands are various luxury goods brought here by Armenian merchants: Armenian embroideries, carpets, ornamental covers, carved furniture and coins may be found today in many Czech churches and museums (Baxčinean 2009a: 35 – 36). In the early 20th century a number of Armenian entrepreneurs established their businesses in Prague, including Artin Aslanian, the proprietor of a renowned carpet-weaving company. Others engaged in trade with olive oil, olives, oriental confectionery, and cheese production. It was also at this time that the distinguished Armenian violinst, Davit D ­ avityan studied in Prague. In the period 1918 – 1920, Armenia and Czechoslovakia endeavoured to establish commercial, economic and diplomatic links, but after the Sovietisation of the former, all these initiatives were halted. In this period around fifteen Armenians lived in Prague, all of

160

Hakob Asatryan

them merchants (Baxčinean 2009b: 52). This number grew only slightly due to the arrival of Armenians seeking refuge in the aftermath of the Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire (1915 – 1920), or fleeing Soviet terror. In the 1920s some 50 Armenian students came to Prague, thanks to arrangements made by the first Czechoslovak president, Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk. They created the short-living Armenian Union and the Association of Armenian Students of Agriculture. In addition, for just one year (in 1920) the Armenian General Benevolent Union operated in Prague (Baxčinean 2009c: 42) It was at about this time that a distinguished Armenian, Babik Galikian, moved to Prague. He served as secretary and later as supervisor of estates to Coudenhove-Kalergi noble family. Galikian’s son, the orientalist, linguist, and armenologist Nshan Mardirosian, was the founder of the Department of Armenian Studies at Charles University in Prague. He frequently contributed to the Armenian diaspora press printed in Lebanon and Egypt, using the pseudonym Prakatsi (Praguer), and made Czech translations of Armenian works, as well as Armenian translations of Czech authors. It was with Mardirosian’s collaboration that in 1923 Karel Hansa’s Horrors of the East (Hrůzy Výhodu), the first Czech testimony on the Armenian Genocide, was published. Furthermore, Hansa founded the Hansa Fund for Armenian Orphans, an organisation that worked alongside Czechoslovakia’s Red Cross. In the course of his activities he also visited the Armenian orphanages in Syria and Lebanon. In 2006 a facsimile reproduction of his work was published with a foreword by the author of this chapter (Asatryan 2006: 5). In socialist Czechoslovakia (1945 – 1989) the Martirosians were the most distinguished Armenian family in the country. Many famous personalities were guests to their home, including the leader of the Armenian Apostolic Church – Catholicos Vazgen I, the composer Aram Khachaturian, and the writer Marietta Shaginyan. Nshan Mardirosian’s son, Haig, lives in Prague to this day, working as a screenplay writer. In 1965 he won first place at the Marseille Film Festival.

The Post-Soviet Wave of Immigration In the early 1990s the number of Armenians living in Czechoslovakia (soon to break up, to form the Czech Republic and Slovakia) reached ten thousand. The majority came from Armenia or from other former Soviet republics. Some of the Armenians had established themselves on their own, whilst others had sought social assistance and for asylum in refugee camps. After a short time, most of them went on to other countries, leaving the Czech Republic due to their illegal status or because of financial hardship. From the very beginning many migrants from Armenia perceived the Czech Republic as a transitory place on their way to other European countries where they hoped to find a better living conditions. Many moved to neighbouring states such as Germany or Austria, whilst others went further afield – including France, Belgium, Holland, and Spain. This transitory character of the Armenian presence in the Czech Republic in the 1990s, and the preoccupation with day-to-day concerns, slowed down the

The Armenians in the Czech Republic

161

process of organising community life. Today, most Armenians, who settled down in the Czech Republic permanently, live in the cities of Prague, Brno, Ostrava, Mladá Boleslav, Ústí nad Labem, Jihlava, Plzeň, Karlovy Vary, and several other locations. According to the information provided by the Director of the Foreigners’ Police of the Czech Republic, Karel Freud: Until 30. 6. 1999, 230,000 foreigners were registered throughout the Czech Republic as holders of permanent or long-term permits; 1,234 of them (i. e. approximately 0.5%) were citizens of the Republic of Armenia. 717 of these had long-term residence permits, whilst 517 had permanent residence permits. The highest proportion – namely 37% – of the Armenian citizens were registered for permanent or long-term residence within the city of Prague. Until the aforementioned date, 102 Armenian citizens lived in the Czech Republic with refugee status – that is, approximately 7% of the total number. According to the Czech Foreigners‘ Police, Armenian citizens are not categorised as “dangerous”. They do not cross the borders illegally, are not subject to expulsion, and are not on registers of criminals (Hayerë 1999: 13).

Other data shows that in 1991 – 2003, just 149 out of a total of 3,093 Armenian asylum seekers were granted refugee status in the Czech Republic (Drbohlav, Ezzeddine-Lukšíková 2004: 48). As of 31 December 2005, 1,268 Armenians with no Czech citizenship had been granted with various forms of legal status. 906 of them had the right of permanent residence, 362 the right to long-term residence, 161 had work permits, and 337 possessed trade licenses (Horakova 2007). These data do not include Armenians who came to the Czech Republic from other states of the former Soviet Union besides Armenia, including Russia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan. Hence, according to unofficial figures, approximately 7,000 – 10,000 Armenians live nowadays in the Czech Republic.

An Organisation of a New Community In the 1990s the first attempts to organise Armenian community life were undertaken in the Czech Republic. As early as 1990, the painter Tigran Abramyan founded the Armenia Club (Arménie club) community organisation. It was through the efforts of the club that in the following years events were organised to commemorate the victims of the Armenian Genocide, including an international conference in 2006 held at the Czech Senate under the auspices of the former President Václav Havel, and directed by the senator Jaromir Štetina. Even earlier – in 1988 – 1989 – Abramyan was active in organising humanitarian aid from the Czech Republic for the victims of the Spitak earthquake that struck the the north-­ western part of Armenia. In 1996 the Armenian-Czech Society (Arménsko-česká společnost) was registered by the Czech Republic’s Ministry of the Interior. The first president of the society was Ararat

162

Hakob Asatryan

Nikoghosyan, and one of the first initiatives was to publish the newspaper Huys, edited by Vagharshag Shahinyan (only one issue of this title was published). Shahinyan also authored two booklets: History of Armenia from the Beginning to the Year 2000 (Dějiny Arménie od počátku až do roku 2000), published in 2001, and Czech-Armenian Phrasebook (Česko-arménská konverzace), published in 2002. The next newspaper published by the Armenian-Czech Society – Hayastan yev Menk – also saw one issue. The editor-in-chief of the Czech pages of Hayastan yev Menk was Caucasian Studies specialist, Prof. Václav Černý, and the journalist Arsen Kocharyan was editor-in-chief of the Armenian language pages. If the aim of the first newspaper was to contribute to the cohesion of the Armenian community, and to assist the Armenians living in Prague, the second publication was essentially dedicated to the topic of the Armenian Genocide and it was published in 1997 on the 24th April – the day of commemoration of Genocide’s victims. In the same year (1997), courses in Armenian studies were reinstated by the Faculty of Arts of Charles University, thanks to the efforts of Professor Bohumil Pálek. Until their suspension a decade later, several Czech students attended these courses, became engaged in translations of Armenian literature into the Czech language, and published a number of articles in Armenian studies. The Armenian-Czech Society was subsequently headed by the painter Gagik Tonian and the entrepreneur and building contractor Gagik Abgaryan. Over the course of several years special events were organised on the occasion of 24 April and 28 May (the day of the establishment of the first Armenian Republic in 1918), but the organisation was lacking in day-to day activities that would bind people together around it. The Czech Armenian community has been reinvigorated since 1999 by the Orer monthly, published by the NGO Caucasus – Eastern Europe Information Centre (Informační Centrum Kavkaz – Východní Evropa). The Centre was founded by Hakob A ­ satryan and Anna Karapetyan, with Asatryan serving as editor-in-chief of the monthly and director of the NGO. Orer rapidly became an important periodical, reaching Armenian communities far beyond the Czech Republic. In essence, the entire history of the Czech Armenian community has been recorded in the pages of this magazine. In the editorial of the first issue, the objective of not limiting the scope of the monthly to the Czech Republic, but rather endeavour to become a pan-European Armenian journal was stated. A year later, the editor-in-chief explained in an interview that the primary aim of the journal is to present the current life of the Armenian communities in Europe, as well as current affairs in Armenia, thereby securing the flow of information between the diaspora and the homeland (Erkxòsut’yun 2000: 4). The Caucasus – Eastern Europe Information Centre has also actively participated in integration programs, aimed at popularising knowledge of immigrant communities by Czech society. In particular, it has collaborated with the Multicultural Centre Praha and the representatives of the International Organisation of Migration in the Czech Republic, as well as with the municipality of Prague. In line with these activities Orer published new Czech laws on migration-related issues and provided a legal information service in its pages. The

The Armenians in the Czech Republic

163

Orer monthly has also propagated and supported various community cultural projects, including concerts by Armenian musicians, literary evenings, and book publications.1 Since 2012, a new official quadrilingual website of the journal was launched,2 with Anna Karapetyan as its editor-in-chief. Besides these organisations located in Prague, the Armenian-Czech Society – Urartu (Urartu arménsko-česká společnost), led by Alexander Sargsyan, operates since May 2005 in the city of Jihlava. The Society has been active in the organisation of cultural events, such as exhibitions of Armenian and Czech student painters, as well as concerts, including performances by the Komitas Quartet. It is worth noting that in one of Jihlava’s central parks, the Czech Republic’s first Armenian khachkar (carved cross-stone) was erected with the support of Sargsyan on 17 November 2006. In the northern part of the Czech Republic, in the city of Mladá Boleslav, the community organisation Armenian House (Arménský Dům) has operated since February 2002, directed by Eduard Sarkisian, From 2002 until 2008 it was publishing the bimonthly Nairi, edited by Marina Sarkisian, and today it is running a website.3 The organisation has also realised various social projects, assisted in the legal protection of immigrants, and worked together with the Czech international organisation People in Need. Despite the initiatives of the aforementioned organisations, in general the current structures of the Armenian diaspora in the Czech Republic are rather weak, and the community lacks an institutional leadership. This situation has been particularly well described by the former Director of the Armenian Service of Radio Liberty, Marto Soghomyan, in his interview for Orer: The Czech Armenian community has a problem with organising itself. One of the difficulties […] is that there are few experienced Armenians [here]. Organisations within the diaspora invariably realise their activities thanks to 40 – 50 [people], who have learnt to operate on a voluntary basis. This simply does not exist in the Czech Republic. The Armenians who have come to the Czech Republic from Armenia will come to gain that experience, learn, and organise. But during the last four years I have come to notice the lack of such experience amongst local Armenians. For them, national issues are not all that high on the agenda; their concerns are rather “Why we have come here, what are we to do, and how are we to function as individuals?” That is the reason why the level of collective organisation is low. The situation with Western Armenians who had survived the Genocide was different – they knew that there was no return (Marto 1999: 16).

1 Two such recent books were There is No Death for the Crucified by Shushan Ghazaryan (published in 2012), and Artsakh by Garik Avanesyan (published in 2008). 2 www.orer.eu 3 Official website of Armenian House is www.nairi.webnote.cz.

164

Hakob Asatryan

The former Armenian Ambassador to the Czech Republic, Ashot Hovakimian (who was also the Ambassador to Austria, Slovakia and Hungary (2006 – 2011)) commented on the Czech Armenian community in the following words: First, we cannot compare the Armenian communities of the Czech Republic or of Hungary with those [old and large] Armenian communities [in some other countries]. In recent years, many of our compatriots have come to Europe and endeavoured to solve the problem of their livelihood, and only now is an attempt being made to invigorate community life. There are communities that have neither school nor church, and financial means are only beginning to emerge. This is a longterm process, which may or may not come to fruition. I must note with satisfaction that nearly all the programs we planned last year have been realised. That also served to create a definite change in people’s mentality, and inspired them with the confidence that together we can achieve a lot (Hayastan 2009: 39).

Ambassador Hovakimian’s successor since 2011, Tigran Seyranyan (who serves in the Czech Republic and Slovakia), in the interview he gave the monthly Orer, stated that one important characteristic of the Armenian community in the Czech Republic is the fact that the vast majority of its members are legal migrants. Thus, in his opinion, though the Armenian community in Prague does not exist in an institutional sense (Armenians are not recognised as one of the country’s ethnic minorities), nonetheless many of its members are well established and have achieved considerable individual success (Tigran 2012: 6 – 7). The establishment of the Armenian Embassy in Prague in 2011, has had a positive effect on the life of the community. A number of events were organised in collaboration with the Embassy, and the Committee of April 24 was created to supervise preparatory work for the centennial anniversary of the Armenian Genocide commemorated in 2015. In addition, the active work has been started to counter the anti-Armenian propaganda led in the Czech Republic by Azerbaijani diplomats and diaspora organisations. Even if the Czech Republic has not officially recognised the Armenian Genocide, every year Czech media publish articles and broadcast TV programs about this event and cover the events and protests organised by the Armenian community. In this respect, it is all worth to note that in the course of the January 2014 visit of the Armenian President, Serzh Sargsyan, to the Czech Republic, Czech President Miloš Zeman used the term ‘Armenian Genocide’ in his official speech. This fact did not go unnoticed and was later discussed in Czech mass media. Armenian activists’ efforts culminated on 24 April 2015 in a mass protest in downtown Prague and a liturgy at the Cathedral of St. Vit at Prague Castle, with the participation of the Archbishop of Prague, His Eminence C ­ ardinal Dominik Duka.

The Armenians in the Czech Republic

165

The Armenian Apostolic Church Until recent times the Czech Republic was under the jurisdiction of the Holy ­Echmiadzin’s Pontifical Legate for Central Europe and Sweden of the Armenian Apostolic Church. ­Vienna-based clergymen have visited the country from time to time for baptisms, weddings, funerals and other occasions. It was not until 2004 when, by order of the Catholicos of All Armenians Garegin II, Archimandrite Barsegh Pilavchyan was appointed Spiritual Pastor to the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia. Archimandrite serves monthly the Divine Liturgy in each of those countries – in the Czech Republic the liturgy is celebrated in Prague (in the Church of the Holy Spirit, presented in 2015 to the Armenian community by the cardinal Dominik Duka, leader of the Catholic Church in the country) and in Brno (in a Hussite Church). Father Barsegh’s aim is to invigorate community and religious life, including regular participation in the liturgy, which until today remains a rather alien custom to a community made up of emigrants from post-Soviet Armenia. Indeed, there have been occasions when the Archimandrite celebrated the Divine Liturgy in the presence of only a few individuals. Father Barsegh expresses his opinion on the Armenian diaspora in the Czech Republic as follows: Having arrived here and seen the enormous challenge before me, I embarked upon the work of giving the community shape and form. It was especially difficult working with emigrants from Armenia. I myself being a citizen of Armenia, I know how difficult it is. Having lived under the conditions of the socialist system, people have no idea what a community is. It is very difficult to bring people who have grown very distant from the church to the life of community within the church (Vartivaryan 2009: 481).

In his efforts Father Barsegh is assisted by the Deacon and conductor Haig Utidjian. It is by his initiative that the Czech vocal ensemble Musica Poetica participates in the Armenian Divine Liturgy and performs sacred Armenian hymns under the direction of Prof. Evžen Kindler. In a recent interview to Orer, Fr. Barsegh noted that the Armenian Church has the potential to serve as a diaspora leader, given that for centuries the ecclesiastic institution has been the centre of Armenian community life. On 27 March 2013, the Armenian Church community was registered by the Ministry of Culture of the Czech Republic. On 3 August of the same year, the first meeting of the newly created seven-person Parochial Church Council was held and Tigran Abramyan was elected a chairman. With these acts, for a first time in their history, Armenians in the Czech Republic have established their own religious structures. For this occasion, and as a sign of the Czech-Armenian friendship, on 25 April 2014 Prague’s first Armenian cross-stone was erected and consecrated in the centre of the city. The cross-stone was presented by the Catholicos of All Armenians, Garegin II.

166

Hakob Asatryan

Schooling and Education In February 1996, an Armenian Saturday school was opened in Prague, with Armen Koloyan, a correspondent of the Armenian Service of Radio Liberty, as Headmaster. During the last twenty years, over 200 Armenian girls and boys have learned the Armenian language at the school. Besides the Armenian language and history, students also attend Armenian music and dance lessons. The existence of the school has greatly contributed to maintaining the Armenian identity among young generation Armenians, who were born and/or raised up in the Czech Republic; to create bonds between them; and to ensure the involvement of the youth in community events, including the participation in festivals of ethnic minorities. As Armen Koloyan states: We teach only Armenian language, literature and, in part, also history. There is a single aim – that our children do not lose the language – because for most of the day the children are in a non-Armenian environment, and their fellows do not speak Armenian. Our second role is to create a social atmosphere to enable Armenian children to have contact with each other, establish acquaintanceships and make friends (Hayerenn 2000: 39).

One of the teachers at the school, Larisa Grigoryan, wrote in the pages of Orer: Many parents recognise the importance of preserving the language, and expend efforts in that direction; but, alas, a foreign land and non-Armenian speaking environment do take their toll. Even regarding children who have come from Armenia, and whose mentality has already been formed through the Armenian language, upon their attending Czech or other schools, year by year their mother tongue gives way to foreign languages – let alone those children who were born here and went to kinder­ garten and school here (Grigoryan 2001: 38).

The majority of Armenians do not, however, send their children to Saturday school, nor undertake any other serious attempts to pass language skills on to a new generation. In the 2000s Armenian Saturday schools were in existence in the cities of Jihlava and Brno, but after a few years of operation they closed down, due to the lack of pupils.

Cultural Life Despite the weak institutional life of the Armenian diaspora in the Czech Republic, the cultural life and artistic achievements of local Armenians are impressive. Over the last twenty years many cultural events were organised, including concerts, exhibitions, film shows, and plays staged by pupils of the Armenian school. Armenian children have also been actively participating in multicultural festivals in Prague and in other Czech cities. In the sphere of music, the conductor Haig Utidjian has been untiring in his efforts. A professional orchestral and

The Armenians in the Czech Republic

167

opera conductor as well as chorus-master, he directs the Chorus and Orchestra of the Charles University in Prague, collaborates with the Liberec Opera and the City of Beroun Chorus, as well as gives lectures at the South Bohemian University. He has performed works by Armenian composers at concerts in the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Belgium. It is worth mentioning that when Benedict XVI visited Prague in 2009, Utidjian was invited to conduct a performance in Prague Castle for the Pope, in the presence of the President and Prime Minister of the Czech Republic. The program included works by Komitas, alongside compositions by Czech masters. Utidjian also introduced Armenian compositions into the repertories of a number of Czech choruses and orchestras. Furthermore, he is active as a scholar working in the field of theology, patristics, and musicology. As Utidjian said in an interview for Orer: We have lived in various countries without losing our own national identity, but have also been conscientious citizens of those countries in which we have lived and worked. We have succeeded in making our contribution to the culture, literature, architecture and music of those countries. I only regret the fact that, as for centuries we have not had an independent motherland, we have bequeathed to others what we have built (Hayk 2009: 32).

Many other musicians have distinguished themselves in the Czech Republic. The list includes the pianist Vazgen Vardanyan, who moved from Moscow to Prague several years ago, and made his début with a solo recital at the Rudolfínum Philharmonic House; the soprano Varine Mkrtchyan, who won the Czech Young Performers’ Competition; the pianist Kristine Ayvazyan, who won Grand Prix of the Amadeus Competitions in Brno and of the Virtuosi per Musica di Pianoforte in Ústí nad Labem; and the violinists Anna Hambardzumyan and Armen Sargsyan who continuously cooperate with the Czech National Symphonic Orchestra and the Czech Philharmonic Orchestra. Czech concert halls have also hosted numerous guests from Armenia, including the Armenian Philharmonic Orchestra, the pianists Marine Abrahamyan, Suren Babayan, Nareh Arghamanyan and Tigran Hamasyan, violoncellist Narek Hakhnazaryan, the violinist Sergey Khachatryan and conductor Sergey Smbatyan. In 2013 the Khachaturian Trio from Yerevan performed with a concert devoted to the 110th anniversary of the famous Armenian composer, Aram Khachaturian. Since Armenia became independent, more than twenty Armenian painters have moved to the Czech Republic and continue their careers here. Many have their own galleries and take part in various exhibitions and other events. Among them Tigran Abramyan, Gor Avetisyan, Eduard Edigaryan, Hrayr and Mariam Gharibyan, Gagik Manukyan, Muraz Martirosyan, Hovik Muradyan, Armen Karapetyan, Tigran Sukiasyan, Gagik Tonian and Ashot Arakelyan, have become the most recognised artists. Living and creating art in the Czech Republic, they have established themselves in the European artistic milieu, and their works have gained recognition in many European countries. An important contribution to the popular recognition of the Armenian presence in the Czech Republic is also being made by the founder and chief editor of the monthly Photoart, Garik Avanesyan, who moved to the Czech Republic in the late 1980s. In 2012 Avanesyan

168

Hakob Asatryan

was granted the title Master of the Art of Photography by the International Federation of Photographical Art (FIAP) in Luxembourg. He is the first Armenian to have been honoured with this distinction, the most prestigious in the world of photography. The jury particularly appreciated his series of photographs on the Armenian Apostolic Church. Avanesyan is also the president of the Federation of Czech Photographers. Over the last five years, he has been active in bringing Czech and other foreign photographers to Armenia and to Karabakh, in popularising their works to the Armenian audience, as well as in publishing photo albums.

Armenian Athletes A number of Armenians living in the Czech Republic have achieved significant success in sports, particularly in fighting. Among them, Anatoliy Hunanyan won the world and Czech championship in kickboxing. In the same discipline Vladimir and David Halabyan, David Hunanyan, Hayk Mkrtchyan, Gor Harutyunyan and David Muradyan all became Czech champions. Aramayis Tokhyan was Czech karate champion five times, whilst Araik Shahbazyan has been world and Czech champion in boxing. Regarding other disciplines, in the late 1990s, the number one chess player of the Czech Republic was Sergey ­Movsisyan, who then became a member of the Slovakian national team and, subsequently, of the Armenian national representation. Finally Monica Harutyunyan has won the silver medal in the European Youth championship in figure-skating.

Armenians in the World of Business A number of Armenian entrepreneurs living in the Czech Republic have established prosperous businesses. There are also many Armenians working with success in various Czech companies, within the banking system or in law offices. The owner of Marlenka confections, Gevorg ­Avetisyan, deserves particular attention: thanks to him Armenian honey-cakes have become famous throughout Europe. Among Armenians active in the hotel and restaurant business, the entrepreneurship of Aghasi Zavaryan is worth mentioning. The Hotel General he owns has been thematically designed so that each room bears the name of a famous military leader, and their large portraits adorn the hotel. One of the rooms is dedicated to the Soviet Armenian marshall, Hovhannes Baghramyan, one of the heroes of the Red Army during the Second World War. In 2013, the Hotel General was recognised by the Traveler’s Choice 2013 Competition as best boutique hotel in the Czech Republic, taking first place in Europe as well. The hotel was also recognised as 7th best in the world according to TripAdvisor. One of the most famous restaurants in Prague, Kolkovna, is also managed by Armenian businessman Armen Ananikyan. In the field of construction, another area in which Armenians are particularly active, a good example of a successful entrepreneurship is a factory established by Aramayis Mezhlumyan in the town of Velké Meziříčí, specialised in the production of roof tiles.

The Armenians in the Czech Republic

169

Conclusion The recent registration of the Armenian Apostolic Church in the Czech Republic has created new opportunities in bringing the organisation of the Armenian community to an institutional level. This still does not mean that Armenians are recognised as an official ethnic minority; however, as members of a registered religious community they are eligible to apply to the Ministry of Culture for state funding for various cultural and community-related projects. The Armenian community of the Czech Republic is mainly concentrated in Prague, where the Armenian Saturday School, the Armenian Apostolic Church, Orer Armenian journal, and Armenian associations contribute to the development of the community. An important role is also played by the Embassy of the Republic of Armenia in the Czech Republic, in cooperation with which various events dedicated to the Armenian national feasts, the Armenian Genocide, and the Karabakh issue have been organised in recent years. Most Armenian associations in the country took part in April 24 Committee which supervised the commemoration of the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. All these initiatives contribute to the rising visibility of the community in Czech public sphere. To sum up, even though the Armenian presence in the Czech Republic is a relatively new phenomenon, in last two decades Armenians, as individuals, have been able to establish themselves successfully in the Czech society, an achievement that is followed by a gradually more organised community life.

References Asatryan Hakob (2006) “Velký humanist”, K. Hansa, Hrůzy východu, Beroun: Jozef Sefla, pp. 5 – 7. Baxčinean Arçowi (2009a) “Hay-čexakan patmakan ar˙nčut’iownnerë”, Òrer, 2 (47), pp. 35 – 36. Baxčinean Arçowi (2009b) “Hay-čexakan patmakan ar˙nčut’iownnerë”, Òrer, 3 (48), p. 52. Baxčinean Arçowi (2009c) “Hay-čexakan patmakan ar˙nčut’iownnerë”, Òrer, 4 (49), p. 42. Drbohlav Dušan, Ezzeddine-Lukšíková Petra (2004) Vizkumná zpráva: Integrace cizinců v ĆR. Studie arménské, vietnamské a ukrajinské komunity v Praze, International Organisation of Migration. Erkxòsut’yun (2000) “Erkxòsut’yun apagayi mtahogowt’yamb”, Òrer, 9 – 10 (8), p. 4. Grigoryan Larisa (2001) “Ognek’ mer dproc’in”, Òrer, 1 – 4 (10), p.  38 – 39. Hayastan (2009) “Hayastan-Čexia šrǰadarj haraberowt’yownnerum”, Òrer, 1 (46), p. 38 – 40. Hayk (2009) “Hayk Wot’iǰyan: ‘Darerov mer kertaçë worišnerin enk’ žar˙angowt’yown t’og˙el’”, Òrer, 1 (46), pp. 29 – 32. Hayerë (1999) “‘Hayerë čen dasvum vtangavor otarerkrac’ineri šarkë’ – asum e Karel Froyndë”, Òrer, 1, p. 13. Hayerenn (2000) “Hayerenn ow Hayastanë: mer erexaneri ënkalumnerum”, Òrer, 1 (4), p. 20. Horakova Milada (2007) Employment and Working Conditions of Migrant Workers – Czech Republic, http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/ewco/studies/tn0701038s/cz0701039q.htm [18 March 2014]. Marto (1999) “Marto Sog˙omyan: ‘Šat arag khalvenk’ ow kverǰanank’, et’ē čkazmakerpvenk’’”, Òrer, 2, pp.  14 – 16. Tigran (2012) “Tigran Seyranyan: ‘Hay žog˙ovowrdë kisum ē Čexayum ëndunvaç aržehamakarg’”, Òrer, 3 – 4 (63), pp.  6 – 7. Vartivaryan Hagop (2009) Handipowmner 4, Gaġowt’nerë irenc’ hayut’amb, New Jersey: Tekeyan Cultural Union.

Hakob A. Matevosyan

Incompatible Identities The Armenian Diasporic Communities in Hungary

Go ahead, destroy this race. Let us say that it is again 1915. There is war in the world. Destroy Armenia. See if you can do it. Send them from their homes into the desert. Let them have neither bread nor water. Burn their houses and churches. See if they will not live again. See if they will not laugh again when two of them meet in a beer parlor, twenty years after and laugh, and speak in their tongue. Go ahead, and see if you can do anything about it. See if you can stop them from mocking the big ideas of the world, you sons of bitches, a couple of Armenians talking in the world, go ahead and try to destroy them 1 (Saroyan 1936: 318).

Armenian Identity in the Homeland and the Diaspora The question of national identity is often addressed from two vantage points. On the one hand it may be viewed as based exclusively on citizenship, while, on the other hand, ethnic and national belonging may be seen as inseparable. Unarguably, the second approach is more applicable for Armenians, who, similarly to other ethnic groups with an ancient history and culture, developed despite an ages-long lack of statehood, tend to equate the notions of nationality and ethnicity. There are plenty of examples that illustrate this phenomenon. For instance, in the report published by the Republic of Armenia’s Ministry of Sport and Youth one can read: “The Armenian is the one who is ethnically Armenian” (­Hayastani 2011: 12). Similarly, the official website of the President of the Republic of Armenia informs: “There are more than ten million Armenians living in Armenia, Artsakh 2 and the Armenian communities across the globe, that is, the Armenian Diaspora” (Armenian n. d.). Among these ten million people worldwide there are Armenians who either speak or do not speak any of the Armenian languages (Eastern Armenian and Western Armenian), who profess different faiths (Apostolic, Catholic, Protestant, and Muslim), hold different political ideologies and have mixed ancestry. Nevertheless, the ethnic paradigm of national 1 I am grateful to Prof. Dickran Kouymjian for sending me the original version of William Saroyan’s famous quote. 2 As a result of a referendum, following the armed reaction of Azerbaijan, the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh (Republic of Artsakh) was established in 1991, prior to the Republics of Armenia and Azerbaijan.

The Armenian Diasporic Communities in Hungary

171

belonging gathers them all under one single label. What is more, this discursive practice is often merely a first step in the policy of promoting the idea of national unity and cohesion, despite the obvious differences. For example, the authors of the previously quoted report by the Ministry of Sport and Youth claim: “The Armenians are an extremely closed society with clearly defined characteristics” (Hayastani 2011: 13). The research, conducted among Armenians living in the Republic of Armenia, on which this report is based, actually shows that one should meet very specific requirements in order to be called or perceived as Armenian. Among these requirements, the most important are linguistic skills (only Armenian is accepted), religious affiliation (one must belong to the Armenian Apostolic Church) and adherence to the ‘proper’ definition of homeland (the Republic of Armenia is the only homeland). Regarding this issue, I would like to argue that there is a need to differentiate between two general modes of Armenianness – the one which is applicable to Hayastantsiner (Armenians who live in Armenia or those who recently migrated from the country), and another for Spyurkahayer (Diaspora Armenians). Spyurkahayutyun – Diaspora Armenianness – has its own variations, for instance, American-Armenian, French-Armenian, Russian-Armenian, and Syrian-Armenian. These variations depend on certain differentiating variables, for example: the host country with its policies of integration, assimilation, or promotion of multiculturalism; the reasons of dispersion (voluntary or forced migration); the period of migration (before and after the Genocide of 1915, early 1990s etc.); the development of diaspora institutions (educational, political, religious); the number of generations 3; the proportion of mixed marriages; etc. The requirements for ‘true Armenianness’ listed in the previous paragraphs are certainly more adequate in the case of Hayastantsi. In turn, Diaspora Armenians have their own different sets of characteristics that – in addition to the aforementioned aspects – may also include other elements that vary from country to country (Pattie 1997). In the next section of this article, I will examine the characteristics on which two Armenian communities in Hungary base their Armenianness and their claims of superiority over each other.

The Armenians in Hungary Nowadays, there are two Armenian communities in Hungary which claim to be the Armenian diaspora. Each of these groups positions itself as the only ‘true Armenians’ and deny such status for the other group. The first group consists of the descendants of Armenians who migrated to Hungary from Armenian centres in Transylvania in the course of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

3 Here the term “generation” should be understood in the sense of “age cohort”.

172

Hakob A. Matevosyan

In Transylvania, Armenians established themselves in the 17th century, after they left Moldova (Pál 2013: 9), where they had lived for up to three centuries. Transylvanian Armenians claim a line of descent reaching back to the medieval Armenian capital of Ani, largely deserted by the 14th century. In Transylvania they have been gradually integrated into Hungarian society, primarily by linguistic assimilation, mixed marriages, and the abandonment of traditional occupations in trade and crafts. This process was also stimulated by accepting the religious union with Rome, although later the Uniate Armenian Catholic Church became one of the few markers that distinguish Transylvanian Armenians from the rest of Hungarian society. Bálint Kovács describes this process of assimilation in the following words: While the 18th century is relatively rich in Armenian language documents, from the 19th century onwards, Hungarian became the predominant language […]. At the beginning of the 20th century there were three types of treasures that allowed the Armenians to retain their Armenian identity in Transylvania: the Armenian churches, the language of the Armenian liturgy, and popular customs (Kovács 2011:  199 – 200).

The second Armenian group in Hungary was established as a result of two distinct waves of migration: the one that followed the Armenian Genocide in 1915, and the other caused by the economic and political difficulties in post-Soviet Armenia, particularly in the early 1990s 4. I propose to name the group as ‘unlabelled Armenians’, because of the lack of one common denominator, and its internal heterogeneity. Despite important differences, in this article these two waves will be discussed together, due to the fact that in Hungary recent immigrants from Armenia joined the ranks of the Armenian post-genocide diaspora, and even hold leading positions in ‘shared’ diasporic organisations. This unification has been further facilitated by certain common cultural elements, such us the shared memory of the Armenian Genocide, affiliation to the Armenian Apostolic Church, and knowledge (at least partial) of the Armenian language. In 1993, the Minorities Act 5 officially united all the Armenians in Hungary into a single ‘national minority’ by means of defining certain criteria for minority registration 6. Furthermore, the Act introduced the system of state financial support for the preservation of the cultural heritage of national minorities through self-governments, cultural associations and other communal institutions (Dobos 2007). The first obligatory criterion defined by the Act refers to the language of the minority, namely it says that a given minority should speak its own language. According to this criterion, the Transylvanian Armenians would 4 Majority of the Armenians who migrated in 1990s work in the markets of Budapest. This is the reason why the Armenians from another waves call them “Market Armenians”. 5 Act 77, On the Rights of National and Ethnic Minorities. 6 The latest amendments of the Act have been in force since 2014. Their later impact on the relations between the Armenian communities is a matter of another ongoing research.

The Armenian Diasporic Communities in Hungary

173

be denied the national minority status, as they do not speak Armenian anymore. Nevertheless they may enjoy this status due to the presence in the country of the post-genocide/ post-Soviet Armenian diaspora. The second requirement introduced by the Act stipulates that the minority must have lived in the territory of Hungary for at least 100 years. The Armenians who settled in Hungary after the Armenian Genocide and after the fall of the USSR do not meet this criterion, however their minority status was ‘saved’ by the Transylvanian Armenians. Thus, as the result of state regulations the two groups had to come together to be able to register as a minority. But this unification was too artificial to bring about any real rapprochement between them and lead to the homogenisation of the Armenian diaspora in Hungary. Furthermore, the struggle over state funding has made the situation even worse as it has become the core reason for tensions between Transylvanian Armenians and the rest. Since 1993, in order to be able to apply for such funding, local minority self-governments have had to be legally established. This establishment was possible if a mere five 7 people declared that they belong to a certain ethnic minority recognised by the State. The struggle over the funds included cases of Hungarians being listed as minority members, and soon Armenian groups in Hungary started to accuse each other of this kind of unfair ‘ethno-­ business’. Over time ‘ethno-business’ became a popular label for minority activities, used by Armenians and non-Armenians alike.

The Divided ‘We’ This part of the article discusses some key points of cultural differentiation between the two Armenian groups in Hungary, as they are illustrated by the journals they publish: the Erdélyi Örmény Gyökerek Füzetek,8 published by the Transylvanian Armenian Roots Cultural Association (Erdélyi Örmény Gyökerek Kulturális Egyesület) and the Armenia: Örmény Kulturális Közéleti Folyóirat,9 published by the Armenian Cultural Foundation (Örmény Kulturális Alapítvány).10 These points are presented in the following table which juxtaposes the attitude of the two Armenian groups towards each other and towards a number of crucial identity markers.

7 Later amendments of the Act increased the number from five to thirty in order to prevent unfair registration of minority self-governments. 8 All the issues of the Bulletin are available at http://www.magyarormeny.hu 9 This review was bilingual: Armenian and Hungarian, but is currently being published only in Armenian. Since 2013 another journal – Diaszpóra 21 Magazin – is being published in Hungarian, and available at http://www.ararat.hu/diaszpora-21–magazin/ 10 I would like to express my thankfulness to Eva Merenics for her support in analysing the content of these journals.

174

Hakob A. Matevosyan

Transylvanian Armenians

Unlabelled Armenians

Erdélyi Örmény Gyökerek Füzetek (Transylvanian Armenian Roots Bulletin)

Armenia: Örmény Kulturális Közéleti Folyóirat (Armenia: Armenian Cultural Public Journal)

Homeland and/or Center Transylvania is presented as the homeland.

Armenia is presented as the homeland.

The history of the Armenian settlements in Transylvania from the 17th to the 20th century.

The history of Armenia and the Armenian Genocide. Publications on Armenian diaspora worldwide.

History of influential Armenian families in Transylvania, with references to the 19th century Transylvanian Armenian authors.

Publications on Armenian history, with references to Armenian scholars.

Tangible heritage in Transylvania (churches, cemeteries, parishes, libraries, archives, ­museums).

Tangible and intangible heritage of Armenia and the Armenian diaspora worldwide (historical events and places, holidays, churches and other monuments, exhibitions).

Annexation of Transylvania to Romania. Tense Hungarian-Romanian relations over Transylvania and their socio-political and economic consequences.

Pogroms of Armenians in Azerbaijan, ArmenianAzerbaijani war over Nagorno-Karabakh and its socio-political and economic consequences. The 1988 earthquake in Armenia.

Fundraising for the preservation of Armenian historical sites in Transylvania.

Fundraising for development and educational projects in Armenia.

Hard evaluation of the activities of Azerbaijan regarding extradition of its army officer, Ramil Safarov, who stabbed to death the Armenian officer Gurgen Margaryan during an international NATO seminar in Budapest in 2004. Soft argumentations on the Hungarian government’s position on the issue.

Hard evaluation of the political activities of Azerbaijan in Hungary. Protests against 2004 assassination of the Armenian officer Gurgen ­Margaryan in Budapest by Azerbaijani officer Ramil Safarov, his subsequent extradition to Azerbaijan and his pardon. Hard argumentations on the Hungarian government’s position over the issue.

‘We-They’ Images Ties between Transylvanian Armenians and ­Hungarian nobility, Hungarian patriotism.

Ties and solidarity mainly with Hayastantsiner (Armenians in Armenia).

Preservation of such Armenian cultural ­elements Claims over the ‘rightfulness’ and superiority of as affiliation with Armenian Catholicism, special their way of being Armenian. cuisine, etc., that separate them from the other Armenian group. Preservation of group boundaries through rejecting new membership.

Development of various relations with other Armenian diasporas worldwide.

Acceptance of mixed descendance: ­Hungarian-Armenian.

Stressing Armenian descendance.

Casts doubt on the rights of the other group to claim minority status because of their having lived in Hungary for less than 100 years.

Casts doubt on the rights of the other group to claim a minority status because of their lack of knowledge of the Armenian language and attachment to Armenia.

The Armenian Diasporic Communities in Hungary

175

Church Publications on the history, traditions and feasts of the Armenian Catholic Church.

Publications on the history, traditions and feasts of the Armenian Apostolic Church.

Language The Armenian language is not critical for members of the group at a higher level beyond the most basic expressions (greetings, prayers).

Both Armenian and Hungarian languages are important, though the role of the latter is appreciated only as a tool for communicating with the host society.

Superiority and Inferiority Scholars in diaspora studies agree that to claim diasporic status for an aggregate of people of common ethnic/national identity who live outside the territory perceived as their homeland, more than simply their physical presence is needed (Tölölyan 1996). In order to exist, a diaspora also requires common actions, some forms of organisation, and peoples’ self-ascription as members. Accordingly, both Armenian communities in Hungary have to go beyond the fact of living or being born outside the homeland, and engage themselves in designing and developing their own diasporic policies and agendas. In other words they have to get involved in the processes of constructing their group boundaries and identities (Brubaker 2005) through defining the ‘Other’, in opposition to whom they may shape their distinct ‘We’. As a diaspora is a functional microsystem operating within a wider milieu, it is the host state and society, or a part of it, which naturally plays the role of the ‘Other’, because of its policies of assimilation or separation and marginalisation. Hungary as a host state is the ‘Other’ for unlabelled Armenians due to their refusal to assimilate and their certain self-separation from the host society, which is facilitated by their social and economic ties to Armenia. However, Transylvanian Armenians do not perceive the Hungarian state and society as the ‘Other’, not only because they are heavily assimilated, but also due to the fact that many of them are actually by descent partly Hungarian. Next, these are Transylvanian Armenians who are perceived by unlabelled Armenians as the ‘Other’ and vice versa. This attitude includes not only separation but also policies of stigmatisation of each other. Each group perceives the other as inferior, though there are no significant differences in terms of education, income, or occupation of their members. Rather this is the process of group self-labelling and self-positioning based on symbolic resources that leads to the establishment of these mutually exclusive hierarchies. In order to shed some light on the reasons for these conflicting policies, an analysis that takes into account longue durée processes is required.

176

Hakob A. Matevosyan

Transylvanian Armenians’ stance: origins and ‘oldness’ matter Transylvanian Armenians present themselves as the descendants of refugees from Ani: a fallen Armenian capital, conquered by Seljuk Turks in the 11th century, one of the most splendorous cities of the medieval world, and a symbol of Armenia’s past glory. By placing their ancestral roots in Ani, Transylvanian Armenians position themselves as belonging to a noble class, as being ‘true Armenians’, who are superior to their non-Ani compatriots, including even those in/from Armenia (Kovács 2011: 204 – 208). Such ethnic positioning makes the Transylvanian Armenians feel proud of their symbolic Armenianness (Bakalian 1993). In addition to this, Transylvanian Armenians also show a certain distrust and disrespect towards immigrants from post-Soviet Armenia, who, contrary to them, left their homeland of their own free will. ‘Oldness’ as a social characteristic is manifested in many social forms through the phenomena of pride and satisfaction (Elias, Scotson 1994). The term is not simply a refe­ rence to the greater number of years which have passed since a given group settled on ‘its’ land, adopted ‘its’ religion, achieved a given social status, etc., but also to a special value which is attached to the history and longevity of the group. As an analytical category, it refers to the social power of the group that is being transmitted, preserved and consolidated from generation to generation 11. In this regard the Transylvanian Armenians perceive their oldness as their greatest advantage. It makes them feel like the established community because they have lived in the area for several generations and centuries and over time they have developed very close intra-group social contacts. What follows is that according to them the unlabelled Armenians are outsiders because they do not have that ‘privilege of oldness’.

Unlabelled Armenians’ stance: ethnicity matters The unlabelled Armenians present themselves as a part of the Armenian people who are spread around the world mainly due to the Armenian Genocide, as well as the late-Soviet and post-Soviet Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict (including its disastrous impact on Armenia’s economy), which is often perceived in terms of the continuation of genocidal policies against the Armenian nation (Marutyan 2009). They claim that the central points of their diasporic agenda are the lobby for recognition of the Genocide in the host country and preservation of Armenianness, which is understood in primordial terms.12 It may be noticed 11 Here the term ‘generation’ should be understood in the sense of the Mannheimian tradition of ‘social generations’ (Mannheim 1952) 12 According to a primordial view, nationality is something intrinsic and inherent to individuals. It is based on blood and common descent, and is reinforced by a nation’s ‘genuine’ religion, language, and culture (Smith 1991). Thus primordialism offers a static, substantialist approach to identity.

The Armenian Diasporic Communities in Hungary

177

that by taking primordial ethnic Armenianness as granted, unlabelled Armenians leave no room for construction of a distinct Armenian-Hungarian diasporic identity. In the same vein, the unlabelled Armenians point out that the Transylvanian Armenians are extremely cut off from their Armenian roots, melted into the Hungarian milieu, and therefore became the ‘Other’. In the words of one interviewee: “They have nothing of being an Armenian, they do not speak Armenian, they have been converted into Catholics, and they are not interested in the future of Armenia… They are Hungarians…”

Conclusion As a rule, the Transylvanian Armenians prohibit unlabelled Armenians, especially those from the last wave of migration, to enter their group, perceiving it as a threat towards their unique identity and culture. The unlabelled Armenians are somewhat more open as a group and they allow membership from the opposite camp, especially if the ‘candidates’ meet at least some of the requirements for being a ‘proper Armenian’. Nevertheless, in general there are no close contacts between the two groups, and their activities are often, directly or indirectly, intended to negatively portray the other side. In short, the two Armenian groups in Hungary are following their competing agendas, the main task of which is to preserve and strengthen one’s own positions at the expense of the other. Thus, one can say that the Minority Act of 1993 was the starting point of a new history of the Armenian diasporic communities in Hungary. In this context, it is worth recalling the distinction between Hayastantsi and Spyurkahay modes of Armenianness, examined at the beginning of this chapter. As the subsequent paragraphs have demonstrated, the strategies of self-identification and self-representation of the unlabelled Armenians share much in common with this first mode, based on primordial assumptions. On the contrary, Transylvanian Armenians, despite their heavy assimilation into Hungarian society, gravitate towards the Spyurkahay mode in the way they construct their self-image and present themselves to the outer world. As this chapter demonstrates, in Hungary these two modes of identity are incompatible, resulting in rifts and fractures, which at the moment seem insurmountable for the local Armenian diaspora.

References Armenian (n. d.) “Armenian Diaspora”, President of Republic of Armenia, http://www.president.am/en/ diaspora/ [1 March 2014]. Bakalian Anny (1993) Armenian-Americans: From Being to Feeling Armenian, New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. Brubaker Rogers (2005) “The ‘Diaspora’ Diaspora”, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 28 (1), pp. 1 – 19. Dobos Balász (2007) “The Development and Functioning of Cultural Autonomy in Hungary”, Ethno­ politics, 6 (3), pp. 451 – 469.

178

Hakob A. Matevosyan

Elias Norbert, Scotson John L. (1994) The Established and the Outsiders, London: Sage Publications. Hayastani (2011) Hayastani eritasardowt’yan azgayin zekowyc’, Yerevan: Sporti ew eritasardowt’yan ­naxararowt’yown. Kovács Bálint (2011) “Armenians in Transylvania”, R. Bernád, B. Kovács (eds.), The Armenian Catholic Collective Archive in Armenopolis, Repertory, Budapest: Gyulafehérvár, Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag, pp.  199 – 234. Mannheim Karl (1952) “The Problem of Generation”, P. Kecskemeti (ed.), Essays on the Sociology of Know­ ledge by Karl Mannheim, London: RKP. Marutyan Harutyun (2009) Iconography of Armenian Identity: The Memory of Genocide and the Karabagh Movement, Yerevan: Gitutyun. Pál Judit (2013) “Armenians in Transylvania: From Settlement to Integration”, B. Kovács, E. Pál (eds.), Far Away from Mount Ararat. Armenian Culture in the Carpathian Basin. Exhibition Catalogue, Budapest, Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag, pp. 9 – 16. Pattie Susan (1997) Faith in History: Armenians Rebuilding Community, Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. Saroyan William (1936) Inhale and Exhale, New York: Modern Library. Smith Anthony D. (1991) The Ethnic Origins of Nations, New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell. Tölölyan Khachig (1996) “Rethinking Diaspora(s): Stateless Power in the Transnational Movement”, ­Diaspora: A Journal of Transnational Studies, 5 (1), pp. 3 – 36.

István Horváth & Ilka Veress

The Armenians in Romania Cultural Strategies and State Policies

This study discusses the history and contemporary circumstance of Armenians living in Romania. In particular, the cultural, religious, linguistic, and institutional transformations of various Armenian groups resulting in their local embeddedness, and their different integration patterns into Romanian and Hungarian host societies, are to be discussed. This process of differentiation continued until quite recently, reinforced by the communist regime’s minority policies which constrained trans-local communal activities and accelerated assimilation into dominant (Romanian and Hungarian) groups. However, the post-socialist order established after 1989 has triggered network-building processes based on a resource distribution system brought on by new state minority policies. These processes transcend intra-Armenian cultural differences, bring about the revitalisation of ethnic identity, and contribute to the institutional development of the Armenian minority in Romania.

The History of the Armenian Settlement in Romania In order to understand the present heterogeneity of the Armenians of Romania one needs to study the history of the various Armenian communities, in the context of the political and social history of the regions of present-day Romania. As a modern polity, Romania was created in 1859, when the regions of Wallachia and western Moldova were freed from Turkish domination and united into a single state (the Old Kingdom). After World War One Romania took control of Transylvania, Bucovina, and eastern Moldova (Bessarabia), and after World War Two lost control over Bessarabia and North Bucovina. Between the 13th and 14th centuries, the first wave of Armenian tradesmen and craftsmen settled in Moldovan towns, including Suceava, Botoşani, Roman, and Iaşi. In the 17th century some of them left Moldova and fled to Transylvania, escaping both religious persecutions and unfavourable economic and political conditions. This resettlement gave rise to a distinct, second, Armenian sub-group. Predominantly occupied by trade and crafts, Armenians who moved to Transylvania settled mostly in four towns: Dumbrăveni, (Erzsébetváros, Elizabetopolis), Frumoasa (Csíkszépvíz), Gheorgheni (Gyergyószentmiklós),

180

István Horváth & Ilka Veress

and Gherla (Szamosújvár, Armenopolis).1 In the mid 17th century Armenians in ­Transylvania accepted religious union with Rome, which led to the establishment of the Armenian Catholic Church (ACC). This step brought Armenians closer to the local dominant class of Hungarian Catholics, and accelerated the process of their Magyarisation (­Hungarisation). The third Armenian sub-group in Romania consists of these migrants, who over a half-­ millennium-long period, starting with the fall of Constantinople, moved to a number of Wallachian urban centres, including Brăila, Bucharest (Bucureşti), Constanţa, Galaţi and Piteşti. A mass influx of Armenians to these territories took place as a result of the Armenian Genocide of 1915, when thousands of refugees found shelter in southern Romania. We have only scant information on the number of Armenians before the mid 19th century, when the first censuses were carried out. At that time approximately 16,000 Armenians were recorded as living in the provinces of present day Romania. The 1850 Hungarian census registered 7,687 Armenians in Transylvania (mostly Catholics), representing 0.3% of the province’s population (Varga 1998: 80). In the Old Kingdom statistics from the 1860s mentioned eleven Armenian Apostolic Church (AAC) parishes and approximately 8,200 – 8,300 Armenians (Leustean 2007: 63). One of the major aspects of the political modernisation taking place in that period was the growing importance of the concept of citizenship. Its implementation brought to an end the pattern of internal integration of Armenians as members of a collective entity with a specifically defined legal status. Furthermore, the institution of citizenship opened up the path for individual integration with the wider society, as well as a differentiation of professional options. As a result, many Armenians gave up their traditional occupation in trade and crafts and turned to land ownership and the industrial sector, or became highly educated professionals. This process also led to a considerable territorial dispersion of the communities, the members of which had previously been living in local enclaves. This process of the diffusion of Armenians within social and geographic space was paralleled by vigorous nation-building both in Romania and Hungary (Transylvania being part of Hungary at the time). Thus, in the second half of the 19th century, a large-scale process of language shift and in many cases, identity shift to dominant/titular nationhood occurred. Consequently, people of Armenian origin became increasingly less visible in censuses.

The Evolution of the Armenian Population from the Mid-19th Century Compared with the first censuses, those from the late 19th century reflect a considerable decrease in the number of people declaring themselves as Armenians both in the Old Kingdom and in Transylvania. At the end of the century in the Old Kingdom 5,787 Armenians

1 The unique case of Gherla should be highlighted here: the town was built from scratch by Armenian settlers on land bought by them. It was based on a single architectural plan in baroque style.

181

The Armenians in Romania

were registered (Cioroiu 2009: 270). Meanwhile in the Hungarian census of 1869, when Catholic Armenians were counted separately instead of being included in general Catholic statistics, 4,401 persons from Transylvania declared that they belonged either to the Armenian Catholic or to the Armenian Apostolic Church. This data indicates a decrease by about 40 per cent in the number of Armenians, compared to the 1850 census (Nyárády 1987: 50). After World War One Transylvania became part of Romania. The Romanian census of 1930 defined the ethnic group as a community of descent. As a result, despite having different cultural trajectories (including linguistic and religious profiles), the Armenians from the different historical provinces were considered as a homogeneous ethnic category. Since Romanian census takers were consistent with the above-mentioned definition of ethnicity, for the last eight decades we have a rather clear picture of the demographic dynamics of this population, at least in terms of census identification. This last emphasis is necessary since there are ethnographic accounts of a sense of Armenian identification to be found in various private or even public contexts, but not necessarily in censuses (Kali 2007). Accordingly, internal estimations by Armenian organisations give much higher numbers than those presented in official statistics. For example, in 2011 the Union of Armenians in Romania (UAR, Uniunea Armenilor din România) declared that there are some 7,000 Armenians in the country (Third 2011: 23). Figure 1: Number of Armenians in Romanian censuses between 1930 – 2011 12175

6441

4716

3436 2342

2617

1517 1930

1956 Ethnicity

1966 Mother tongue

1977

1957

1780

918

721 2002

1992

1361 739 2011

182

István Horváth & Ilka Veress

As shown in Figure 1, the decline of the Armenian population has been a continuous process during last eighty years, caused both by assimilation and emigration. Even though in the interwar period the Romanian state allowed for the institutionalised reproduction of minority identities, the Romanian nation-building policies of that period fostered assimilation (Livezeanu 1995). Furthermore, the Armenians became increasingly more dispersed, were progressively losing their distinctive socio-economic characteristics, and the proportion of ethnically mixed marriages increased. However, it also should be noted that in the interwar period the Armenian diaspora experienced growth in number, although the influx of Armenians is not well reflected by official statistics. It is estimated that in 1915 – 1923 approximately 20,000 Armenian refugees from the Ottoman Empire found shelter in Romania (Nastasă 2008: 14). Eventually, many of them settled permanently in Bucharest, in southern Romania, and on the Black Sea coast, in urban localities where Armenian communities already existed. Today, the descendants of these refugees form the core of the Armenian community in the aforementioned regions. Under Communist rule, established in Romania after the World War Two, Armenians experienced the economic marginalisation and strict limitations imposed on various forms of community life. The most prominent organisation active in between 1946 – 1953, the Armenian Front (Frontul Armeniei), later transformed into the Democratic Committee of the Armenians Living in the People’s Republic of Romania (Comitetul Democrat al Populaţiei Armene din Republica România), was merely a facade organisation implementing the policy of the Romanian Communist regime (Nastasă 2008). The only institutions that enjoyed relative autonomy were the two Armenian Churches – Apostolic and Catholic. The latter, directly subordinated to the local Roman Catholic hierarchy, avoided the fate of the Romanian Greek Catholic Church, which had been banned by the Communists. Furthermore, the urban boom subsequent to communist industrialisation totally transformed the ethnic makeup and the general social milieu of the urban centres where Armenian communities lived. This led to marginalisation and social invisibility of these communities. As a result of all these changes, Armenianness became a rather private affair limited to extended family circles, or at best, to the informal networks these families were part of. Migration also contributed to the decrease in the number of Armenians. First, the end of World War One led to massive population relocations from Transylvania to Hungary. Confronted with the prospects of the change of state authority over this province, various strata of Transylvanian society decided to move to Hungary. Although we do not have exact figures on the number of Armenians who made this choice, it is certain that the ancestors of a significant portion of the Armenians living today in Hungary arrived from Transylvania in this period. Subsequently, many Armenian landowners decided to flee during the interwar period, especially after the introduction of land reforms by Romanian authorities, seen by many as a form of expropriation. After World War Two, as a part of a wider initiative of the Soviet authorities, aimed at attracting the Armenian diaspora from around the world, in 1946 – 1948 around three thousand Romanian Armenians emigrated to Soviet Armenia (Nastasă 2008: 30). Finally, many Armenians fled from communist Romania (particularly in 1950s–1970s) to Western countries, especially to the US.

The Armenians in Romania

183

Armenians within the Modern Romanian Ethnic Landscape According to the data of the last completely published census (2011), 11.08% of the population of Romania (which counts 20,121,641 people in total) declared non-Romanian nationality, and 9.08% a non-Romanian mother tongue. Hungarians and Roma dominate this group (88.40% in total). Within the remaining share, Ukrainian and German minorities exceed 50,000 ­people; Russians (Lipovans), Turks, Tatars, Serbians count between 10,000 and 50,000; and other communities, including Armenian, are comprised of less than 10,000 people. With regard to the character of settlement, Armenians (together with Romania’s Jewish and Albanian minority) belong to the category of non-territorial urban minorities. This means that there was no significant (higher than 20%2) Armenian presence in any of Romania’s administrative units, and the bulk of those declaring Armenian ethnic affiliation live in urban centres. Sociolinguistic literature shows that the typical fate of minority languages (especially of non-territorial ones) repeats the following patterns: development of a wide-reaching community bilingualism, dominance shift (expansion of the use of the adopted language, while the use and the importance of the community language being devalued), and, eventually, language shift, meaning that speakers favour the adopted language (Fishman 1972). The Armenian case serves as a good illustration of this pattern. According to the data provided by the 1956 census 73.2% of those declaring Armenian ethnic affiliation also identified the Armenian language as their mother tongue; however in 2002 this figure had dropped to 40.5%. As a result, when compared to other Romanian ethno-linguistic minorities, the Armenians have one of the lowest levels of language maintenance. Finally, the Armenian diaspora in Romania today has a very high level of intermarriage. In the 2002 census, out of the 504 married males declaring themselves of Armenian ethnicity, only 32.5% lived in an ethnically homogenous relationship, 60.5% of them having spouses of Romanian origin (Kiss, Veress: 2010: 18). This results, obviously, in a growing number of children with a mixed Armenian-Romanian ethnic background, for whom ethnic identity has increasingly become a matter of personal choice.

Political Representation and Social Prestige Armenians are one of the 20 ethnic minorities recognised in Romania. It should be mentioned, however, that this recognition is only implicit, since it is not formalised by any specific law on national minorities. There is only a status quo resulting from numerous other laws and from political will. For instance, since 1993 these 20 minorities have been given the opportunity to pursue their interests through the Council of National Minorities,

2 According to Romanian legislation, minorities can benefit from some linguistic rights if they have a share of 20% or more of the local population.

184

István Horváth & Ilka Veress

a consulting body functioning as part of the Romanian Government.3 In addition, the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, which has been in force in Romania since 2007, provides specific linguistic rights for these 20 minorities.4 From the point of view of Romania’s ethnic minorities, one of the major outcomes of the post–1989 democratisation of the country has been a new state approach to ethnic policies. Immediately after the breakdown of the communist regime it became customary to accept ethnic minority organisations as political participants and to support their representation in the Parliament. At the very dawn of post-communist Romanian democracy several people representing minorities were included into the Temporary National Council (a body of political representatives created immediately after the fall of the communist regime).5 Since then, the parliamentary representation of minorities has become one of the most decisive instruments of minority protection in Romania. It is regulated by election law that all recognised minorities enjoy a lower threshold of votes, which permits them to obtain a mandate. In principle, the law does not support any given minority organisation, but in practice the result is that the strongest organisation of each minority (the one which installs its representative in the Parliament) reaps all the benefits of this system (Horváth, Scacco 2001). With the exception of the Hungarian minority, which is strong enough to obtain mandates in the usual way (i. e. to pass 5% threshold), all other minorities have been the beneficiaries of this supporting instrument. For example, in 2012 there were 22 Hungarian deputies and 18 deputies of other national minorities;6 thus almost 12% of the Chamber of Deputies (the lower chamber of the Romanian Parliament) was made up of minority representatives (Székely 2008). In this context, the following three facts are important regarding the Armenian minority: •• The Union of Armenians in Romania has participated since 1990 in every parliamentary election, obtaining one seat in each of the six legislatures the Romanian Chamber of Deputies has had since then. •• In each of these elections, with the exception of 1990, the Union obtained more votes than could be predicted from the number of Armenian adults registered in the census (see Figure 2). •• Following each of the elections, ethnic minorities formed their own parliamentary faction,7 led by the deputy of the Union of Armenians in Romania.

3 These minorities are the following: Albanians, Armenians, Bulgarians, Croatians, Czechs, Germans, Greeks, Hungarians, Italians, Jews, Macedonians, Lipovans (Russians), Poles, the Roma (Gypsies), Ruthenians (Rusyns), Serbians, Slovaks, Tatars, Turks, and Ukrainians. 4 This issue is regulated by the Law 282/2007.IX.24 on the Ratification of the Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. 5 This body was not elected but appointed and, in principle, provided representation for the political organisations established until then. 6 Czech and Slovak minorities run together for one seat. 7 Except for the Hungarians, who form their own parliamentary faction.

185

The Armenians in Romania

This discrepancy between the number of voters and the number of ethnic Armenians registered by census substantiates the assumption that in Romania there is a considerably larger segment of people with Armenian identity that might respond positively to political mobilisation, without necessarily declaring Armenian ethnicity at the census or in other contexts, when ethnicity is administratively registered. Figure 2: The number of votes won by the Union of Armenians in Romania at each election beginning in 1990 (Székely 2009: 72) 21302

13829 11543

10691

9810 7145

399 1990

1990

1996

2000

2004

2008

2012

The fact that after each election the leader of the parliamentary faction of the minorities traditionally is the deputy of the Union of Armenians in Romania has an interesting popular explanation. It is generally held that the Romanian system of political representation of the smaller ethnic minorities was designed and proposed to the leaders of post-revolutionary interim power structures in 1990 by the leaders of the Union of Armenians in Romania. Thus, the fact that the seat of a leader of the parliamentary faction of Romanian minorities is reserved for a representative of this organisation is a form of recognition and gratitude for the contribution of the Armenians to the design of post–1989 Romanian minority policies. Another important structure in the Romanian system of minority protection is the Council of National Minorities, established in 1993. Since then it has played the role of a permanent consulting body to the Government. The Secretariat of the Council functioned between 1993 and 1996 within the Prime Minister’s Chancellery. In 1996 it was transformed into the Department for Minority Issues, led until 2000 by a minister without portfolio, and after that by an under-secretary. At present, the name of this office is the Department

186

István Horváth & Ilka Veress

for Interethnic Relations. This institution has a significant influence on the level of legislative and executive power: •• It can present draft decisions to the government. •• It exercises rights of endorsement and countersignature in case of draft decisions submitted by other governmental departments. •• It supervises the compliance of the government’s decisions with minority protection laws. •• Besides these prerogatives, a major area of activity of the Department is the administration over state funds assigned to Romania’s minority organisations. State-sponsorship of minorities takes two forms in Romania. First, the organisations representing ethnic minorities (those organisations that have managed to install their representatives in the Parliament) are financed with public money. This money is intended to cover both operational expenses (renting and maintaining office space, representational costs, salaries for administrative personnel etc.), as well as costs for all kinds of initiatives and activities aimed at the reinforcement and reproduction of minority culture (language classes, festivals, publications, etc.). The second form of financing is project-based and competition is open for any NGO active in the field of minority issues (Mohácsek 2009). With regard to the financing of operational costs of minority organisations, it should be mentioned that these funds are coming directly from the state budget, and are allocated on the basis of a collective decision by the Council of National Minorities. As each minority represented in this body has one vote, the share a given group receives does not necessarily reflects its size. Instead, it may be the lobbying capacity and/or the prestige of a given group that is decisive during such negotiations. If this is the case, the Armenian representatives must have considerable influence: according to the official result of the 2002 census Armenians represent only 0.78% of Romanian ethnic minorities, but the Union of Armenians is able to obtain a significantly higher share of funds. Figure 3: The budgetary allocations for the Union of Armenians in Romania. Absolute value and share of the overall budget allocated for the organisational structures of national minorities. The amount received is given in thousands of Romanian Lei and calculated at the relative value of the Romanian currency in 2008 (Mohácsek 2009:  16 – 17) Year

Amount received in RON

Share of the budget allocated to minorities %

1994

466

7.9

1995

513

6.8

1996

531

7.4

1997

426

7.7

The Armenians in Romania

187

Year

Amount received in RON

Share of the budget allocated to minorities %

1998

490

7.1

1999

781

6.3

2000

1019

6.1

2001

1052

5.9

2002

1199

5.8

2003

1284

4.8

2004

1337

4.4

2005

1329

4.3

2006

1713

4.3

2007

2227

4.3

2008

2800

4.3

17167

5.0

Total sum and the average of the share

It can be concluded that Armenians enjoy a strong position in the sphere of Romanian minority politics. Besides their position within the parliamentary faction of minorities, and their lobbying capacities within the Council of National Minorities, we should mention that the politicians coming from the Union of Armenians in Romania have been able to continue their political career outside the field of minority politics. Most notably, Varujan Vosganian, the representative of the Armenian minority in the Chamber of Deputies in 1990 – 1996, served in 2006 – 2007 as a Minister of Economy and Trade, in 2007 – 2008 as a Minister of Economy and Finance, and in 2012 – 2013 as a Minister of Economy.

Institutional Network The institutional life of Armenian minority in post-communist Romania has two main axes: the ecclesiastic institutions and the organisations of interest representation. Regarding the former, the Armenian Apostolic Church is present in the territory of Romania since the 14th century. Currently, its largest parishes are in Bucharest and Constanţa, and the two famous historical monasteries – Hagigadar and Zamca – are located in Suceava, where the first bishopric of the AAC was founded at the beginning of the 15th century. The Armenian Catholic Church is the religious institution of the Transylvanian, Hungarian-speaking Armenians, established at the end of the 17th century. Today its official name is the Ordinariate for Catholics of Armenian Rite in Romania, and its headquarters are located in Gherla.

188

István Horváth & Ilka Veress

For various reasons the current number of adherents of the AAC and ACC is hard to estimate. On the one hand, the religious categories in the National Census are ambiguous (for example in the 2011 census only one option could be chosen by members of the AAC and ACC, called ‘Armenian religion’). On the other hand, the parochial statistics are based on families and in the case of mixed marriages the non-Armenian spouse is counted as a church member as well. In the census of 2011, only 393 people declared themselves as professing ‘Armenian religion’, however internal estimates shows much higher numbers with 5,000 – 7,000 adherents in total, out of whom some 400 families belong to the ACC. The adherence to one of the Armenian confessions is a cornerstone of the Armenian identity, and certain religious feasts celebrated by the AAC and ACC are the most important occasions for the meetings of various Armenian groups. For example, the feast of the Assumption of Mary celebrated in Hagigadar (Suceava) gathers Armenians from Eastern and Southern parts of the country, as well as from Armenia and Armenian diaspora in other countries.8 The feast of the Nativity of Mary celebrated in Gheorgheni gathers Hungarian Armenians from Transylvania and Hungary, while excludes Romanian Armenians. Most notably, the Feast of St. Gregory the Illuminator in Gherla, a town which is a symbolic centre of Armenianness in Romania, brings together Armenians from around the country, as well as from Hungary, regardless of their religious affiliation and ­Hungarian/ Romanian division. Regarding Armenian social-cultural institutions, the Union of Armenians in Romania is the most important organisation. With its headquarters in Bucharest, it aspires to the role of a statewide Armenian association, and is active in political, cultural and educational spheres. The Union was established in 1990 (it continues the tradition of the pre-­ communist organisation of the same name) with the objective to preserve and promote Armenian culture and identity. It can best be defined as an intermediary organisation, acting between the state apparatus and the target group of its supporters, that is, the people identifying themselves as Armenians. At present the Union runs an Armenian Sunday School, the publishing house Ararat, and two journals: the Romanian-language Ararat and the Armenian-language Nor Ghiank. The former can be categorised as a cultural magazine, aimed at local Armenian readers. It was established after the political regime change, taking the name of a journal that had existed before the communist period. In contrast, Nor ­Ghiank has been published since 1950 without interruption, its target audience being mainly the Armenian diaspora in other countries, as well as Armenia itself.9 The Union of Armenians in Romania has branch offices in most places where Armenian communities exist, including Brăila, Cluj-Napoca, Constanţa, Dumbrăveni, Focşani, Galaţi, Gherla, Iaşi, Piteşti, and Suceava. 8 For example, in 2012 for the occasion of the 500 anniversary of Hagigadar, the head of the AAC – Catholicos Garegin II – visited Romania; groups of Armenians from Bulgaria, France, Republic of Moldova and the US were also present. 9 It is distributed to approximately 30 countries.

The Armenians in Romania

189

The activity of these branch offices stands in organising cultural events (book presentations, exhibitions, commemorations etc.) and representing their local communities at interethnic festivals. These local branches serve also as agents of socialisation for youth, giving them a hand in gathering cultural skills by dance and language courses, gatherings on the occasion of main religious and national feasts, etc. It is worth mentioning that since 2011 the Union, in cooperation with Romanian bishopric of the Armenian Apostolic Church, organises summer schools in Suceava, in which a few dozen Armenian youths from around the country (regardless their religious affiliation) participates each year. Besides the Union of Armenians, a number of other Armenian associations and foundations exist in Transylvania, especially in its Hungarian dominated part (Székely Land): in Gheorgheni, Frumoasa, Odorheiu Secuiesc, and Tîrgu Mureş, but also in those towns, where UAR has its branches: in Cluj Napoca, Gherla and Dumbrăveni. These organisations have distinctively local character, in some places they are affiliated with ­Armenian Catholic parishes, and for different reasons – related mainly to R ­ omanian-Hungarian animosities – they avoid contact with the Union of Armenians. As they distance themselves from the UAR, their activities are not supported by the state budget. Instead, a supportive role is played by Armenians from Hungary, particularly by the Transylvanian Armenian Roots Cultural Association (Erdélyi Örmény Gyökerek Kulturális Egyesület), established and run by people of Armenian origins, who moved from Transylvania to Hungary in late 19th – early 20th century. Since 2013 most of these organisations have been unified by the Association of Transylvanian Armenian-­Hungarians (Erdélyi Magyarörmények Szövetsége). This new form of organisation and legal status was reasoned by easier fundraising and the need to represent better the particular interests of this Armenian subgroup.10 The table below summarises the most important aspects of the functioning of the Armenian organisations in Romania. It offers a comparison between the UAR and other associations with regard to such questions as what type of organisation are they, what type of activity they have, what type of financial resources do they use, which target-group are they working for, what is their primary language and finally, with what other organisations they do collaborate. The answers are based on a survey on the institutional system of Romanian minorities.11 The database established as a result of this survey includes 8 branches of the UAR and 9 Armenian organisations not associated with the UAR. However, it should be noted that at least 10 other Armenian organisations have been formed during the last two decades, which were inactive or inaccessible at the time of conducting the survey.12

10 According to internal estimates of the Association it represents some 1500 Hungarians of the Armenian descent. 11 The survey was conducted by the Romanian Institute for Research on National Minorities. Its first stage took place in 2008, the second – in 2011. It includes 265 minority organisations, representing all but Hungarian and Roma minorities. 12 Furthermore, due to methodological reasons, ecclesiastic organisations were not included into the database.

190

István Horváth & Ilka Veress

Figure 4: The characteristics of the Armenian organisations in Romania The most important financial source

Other financial The target-­ sources group of the activity

The language of the organi­ sation

Collaboration

UAR

Budgetary ­allocations for the organisational structures of ethnic ­mino­rities

Project-based competitions

National, local

Armenian, Romanian

Armenian organisations associated with the UAR, Mother-country, Armenian diaspora in other countries, Romanian and ­foreign media

Other

MemberDonations ­ ship fees, from abroad Project-based (mainly from competitions Hungarian-­ Armenian orga­ nisations or individuals)

Local, regional

Hungarian

Hungarian-Armenian organisations in Romania, Armenian organisations in Hungary, local and ­Hungarian media

The protection of Armenian culture and tradition is the primary activity of the organisations under the question, while some of them concentrate particularly on education and on protection of Armenian tangible heritage. The important difference in obtaining funds through project-based competitions is that Hungarian-Armenian organisations are applying for funds from the allocations of the Hungarian minority,13 while the UAR do it on behalf of the Armenian minority. This is one of the reasons why the ­Romanian-speaking communities have a higher national visibility, while the activity of other Armenian o­ rganisations are delimited on the level of local and regional programs. Hungarian-Armenian associations organise common programs within Transylvania and have a permanent relationship with the Transylvanian Armenian Roots Cultural Association from Hungary. In contrast, the UAR is present in various regions of the country, and maintain contacts both with Armenia and with Armenian diasporic organisations in other countries.

13 The state support for the Hungarian minority is administrated and put out to competition by the Communitas Foundation. A review of the winning applications shows that project by ­Hungarian-Armenian organisation regularly obtain funds from the foundation (mainly for publishing and cultural programs).

The Armenians in Romania

191

Conclusion Armenians in Romania have a multifarious set of historic backgrounds and cultural capitals, which results in a vast internal diversity among this diaspora. However, the legal regulations and financial resources provided by the post-socialist Romanian state for the cultural reproduction of ethnic minorities clearly influence this situation. On the one hand, the minority policies discussed in this chapter have led to the development of an institutional network of administration and distribution of resources, concentrated on the Union of Armenians in Romania. This network has started to transcend historically developed differences related mostly to the degree and the direction of Armenians’ assimilation (to Romanian and Hungarian host societies). As a result, a certain framework is emerging within which a process of rapprochement can be observed. On the other hand, some Armenian groups do not participate in this process, or even try to counterbalance it by creating their own networks and affiliations. Taking this into account, one may ask about the efficiency of state policy on ethnic minorities which promotes the existence of a singular, centralised representation of a given minority, and which effectively excludes parts of this minority from access to public financing. This is an even more important question when one takes into account that the Armenian case is not unique in this respect. As various research show,14 the struggle over the right to represent a given minority and use state financial allocations is one of the main factors that shape the current structures of ethnic minorities in Romania and drive their politics of representation, inclusion and exclusion.

References Cioroiu Ion (2009) “Geodemographical Aspects of the Armenian Population in Moldavia in the 19th Century”, Revue Roumaine de Géographie/Romanian Journal of Geography, 53 (2), pp. 267 – 271. Fishman Joshua A. (1972) Language in Sociocultural Change, Stanford: Stanford University Press. Guentcheva Rossitza (2001) “Debating Language: the Bulgarian Communities in Romania after 1989”, C. C. O’Reilly (ed.), Language, Ethnicity and State, Volume 2: Minority Languages in Eastern Europe Post–1989, Basingstoke, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 44 – 65.

14 For example, Rossitza Guentcheva describes the institutional practices of the Bulgarians of Romania. Similar to Armenian case, the Bulgarians forms a heterogeneous ethnic group living in different historical regions of Romania, with different religious and linguistic particularities. This situation generates internal struggles between the Bulgarian organisations based on the questions like “Who is the true Bulgarian?” or “Which organisation represents better the authentic Bulgarian culture?”. The author makes similar conclusions, to those presented in this chapter, that this type of internal conflict of interest and the struggle for power are consequences of the Romanian system of minority protection (Guentcheva 2001: 61).

192

István Horváth & Ilka Veress

Horváth István, Scacco Alexandra (2001) “From the Unitary to the Pluralistic: Fine-tuning Minority Policy in Romania”, A. Bíró, P. Kovács (eds.), Diversity in Action. Local Public Management of Multi-Ethnic Communities in Central and Eastern Europe, Budapest: Open Society Institute, pp. 241 – 272. Kali Kinga (2007) “Vasárnapi örmények valami a pozicionális identitásról”, S. Őze, B. Kovács (eds.), Örmény diaszpóra a Kárpát-medencében II, Piliscsaba: Pázmány Péter Katolikus Egyetem, pp. 145 – 155. Kiss Tamás, Veress Ilka (2010) “Minorităţi din România: dinamici demografice şi identitare”, Studii de atelier. Cercetarea minorităţilor naţionale din România, Vol. 30, Cluj-Napoca: Institutul pentru Stu­ dierea Problemelor Minorităţilor Naţionale. Leustean Lucian (2007) “The Political Control of Orthodoxy in the Construction of the Romanian State, 1859 – 1918”, European History Quarterly, 37 (1), pp. 61 – 80. Livezeanu, Irina (1995) Cultural Politics in Greater Romania: Regionalism, Nation Building & Ethnic Struggle, 1918 – 1930, Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Mohácsek Magdolna (2009) “Analiza finanţărilor alocate organizaţiilor minorităţilor naţionale”, Studii de atelier. Cercetarea minorităţilor naţionale din România, Vol. 16, Cluj-Napoca: Institutul pentru Studierea Problemelor Minorităţilor Naţionale. Nastasă Lucian (2008) “Studiu introductiv”, L. Nastasă (ed.), Armenii din Nord-Vestul Transilvaniei în anii instaurării comunismului, Cluj-Napoca: Fundaţia CRDE, pp.  7 – 22. Nyárády Károly R. (1987) Erdély népességének etnikai és vallási tagolódása a magyar államalapítástól a dualizmus koráig, Budapest: Központi Statisztikai Hivatal Népességtudományi Kutató Intézet. Recensamântul (2005) Recensamântul populatiei si al locuintelor 18 – 27 martie 2002. Structura etnică si confesională, Vol. IV, Bucuresti: Institutul National de Statistică. Székely István Gergő (2008) “Solutii institutionale speciale pentru reprezentarea parlamentara a minoritatilor nationale”, Studii de atelier. Cercetarea minorităţilor naţionale din România, Vol. 5, Cluj-Napoca: Institutul pentru Studierea Problemelor Minorităţilor Naţionale. Székely István Gergő (2009) “Reprezentarea politică a minorităţilor naţionale în România”, Studii de atelier. Cercetarea minorităţilor naţionale din România, Vol. 20, Cluj-Napoca: Institutul pentru Studierea Problemelor Minorităţilor Naţionale. Third (2011) Third Report Submitted by Romania Pursuant to Article 25, Paragraph 2 of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/minorities/3_ FCNMdocs/PDF_3rd_SR_Romania_en.pdf [21 March 2014]. Varga Árpád (1998) “Az 1857. évi erdélyi népszámlálás román nyelven”, Erdélyi Múzeum, LX (3/4), pp.  74 – 84.

Siranush Papazian-Tanielian

The Community Life of Armenians in Post-Socialist Bulgaria

Community institutions are an exceptionally important form of organisation for ethnic minorities and diasporas. Churches, schools, and voluntary associations contribute greatly to the preservation and transmission of the key elements of group identity: religion, language, cultural memory, customs and rituals, social norms, etc. All such institutions exist within the Armenian diaspora in Bulgaria. In this chapter I will discuss their historical development and current activities, presenting it in the broader context of the changing socio-political situation in Bulgaria. This chapter is based on my joint work with Evgeniya Mitseva, a renowned Bulgarian folklorist who passed away in 2006, as well as on my own research.1 The results of our collaborative studies were previously presented in two books (Miceva 2001; Miceva, Papazân-­ Tanielân 2007) on which I will draw extensively here. Another important reference source is a historical sketch of the Armenian community in Sofia, authored by Mihran Bohosian (Bohosân 1999). In addition, I base my analysis on press materials published in Bulgarian Armenian periodicals, particularly in the Yerevan weekly, which offers an exhaustive chronicle of current developments in the Bulgarian Armenian community.2

The History of Armenian Settlement in Bulgaria The Armenian presence in Bulgaria has a long history, featuring a number of migration waves. The earliest reliable evidence of Armenian settlement in what is today Bulgaria, and in adjacent lands, dates back to the 5th century AD. The initial wave of migration consisted mainly of Armenian soldiers and their families that had been stationed in Macedonia, Thrace, in the environs of Plovdiv and along the Danube River, in order to guard the frontiers of the Byzantine Empire from intrusions of Avars and other tribes. Subsequent waves were formed in the 7th–10th centuries, mostly by Armenian followers of the Paulicianism – a socio-religious movement that enjoyed great popularity in the eastern provinces of the Empire, and which was put down as a heresy. Paulicians settled mostly

1 It covers the period up until 2012. 2 Two Armenian weekly magazines are published in Bulgaria: Yerevan, in the capital Sofia, and Vahan in Plovdiv. In addition, the Parekordzagani Tsain monthly journal is published in Plovdiv.

194

Siranush Papazian-Tanielian

in Thrace, establishing communities which continued to exist for almost a millennium. Medieval sources demonstrate that the followers of the Armenian Apostolic Church (AAC) and Chalcedonian Armenians also settled in the region. Later, in a period of the Ottoman domination, new Armenian colonies were established (mostly in the 16th–17th centuries) in such urban centres as Dobrich, Plovdiv, Ruse, Shumen, Silistra, Sofia, and Varna. Finally, in the period of 1894 – 1922 thousands of Armenian refugees found shelter in Bulgaria, while fleeing the terror of extermination, implemented by Turkish authorities in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. By 1926 the number of Armenians permanently settled in Bulgaria exceeded 27,000 (Garabedân 2001: 231 – 272). This last wave of migration provided a powerful impetus to the overall development of Armenian political, social and cultural life in Bulgaria. Initially, an active political life emerged in the 1890s, organised around three parties: the Social Democrat Hnchakian Party (Hnchak), the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaktsutiun), and the Armenian Democratic Liberal Party (Ramgavar). These parties did not take part in Bulgaria’s political life; instead each of them was a part of a corresponding Armenian diasporic political network.3 Secondly, since the 1920s Armenians in Bulgaria had engaged in a wide range of cultural activities. Many social clubs and libraries were opened, and numerous theatre, music and dance ensembles created. On various occasions celebrations, balls and parties were organised, often connected with fund raising for charity. An impressive body of literature was published, and by the 1940’s the number of Armenian periodicals in circulation reached seventy (Miceva, Papazân-Tanielân 2007: 436, 490). Finally, regarding the social sphere, various compatriot unions came into being, and numerous charitable unions took care of widows, orphans, and poor. It is important to note that all these activities were financed in the inter-war period exclusively by Armenians themselves, without any material support from the Bulgarian state. Initially, the Armenian refugees from Turkey, having neither Bulgarian citizenship nor a sufficient knowledge of the Bulgarian language, made their living mostly as petty craftsmen and merchants. After a time a group of well-to-do Armenian tradesmen, industrialists, and financiers emerged. They occupied leading positions in a number of sectors of the country’s economic life: according to 1936 data of the Bulgarian Economic Directorate, Armenians ranked first in participation in industry and crafts, and second in trade (after the Jews). In addition there were also a number of state officials, high educated specialists (physicians, engineers, etc.), and scholars (Garabedân 2001: 231 – 274).

3 Key figures of the Armenian national liberation movement and of the First Armenian Republic (1918 – 1920), like Garegin Njdeh, Andranik Ozanian, Hovhannes Devedjian, and Simon Vratsian, among others, stayed either temporarily or permanently in Bulgaria. Jointly with activists of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organisation (IMARO), Kristapor Mikaelian, one of the founders of the Dashnaktsutiun Party, plotted in Sofia the assassination of Sultan Abdul Hamid II, and died on a nearby Mount Vitosha from the accidental explosion of a bomb he was preparing for the assault (Bohosân 1999:  44 – 45).

The Community Life of Armenians in Post-Socialist Bulgaria

195

After the Communist Party gained power in Bulgaria, profound changes took place in the country’s socio-political and cultural life. Right after the coup d’état of 9 September 1944, all independent socio-cultural associations were banned and the entire community life of the Armenians was organised around the newly established Progressive Organisation – Yerevan. The organisation was under the direct control of the Bulgarian Communist Party, and worked on implementing the Communist ideological line through the activities of its numerous sections aimed at different age and interest groups. After less than a decade this organisation was replaced by the Union of Armenian Cultural and Educational Organisations – Yerevan (UACEO), with a much more limited scope of activities and prerogatives regarding intra-­ communal life. This change was justified by the state authorities’ claim that the Armenians (like other minorities) should not live ‘isolated lives’, but integrate and fuse with Bulgarian society. Notwithstanding the restrictions imposed in socialist times, the Armenian community managed to remain active in Bulgaria. Within the institutional framework permitted by the authorities, various cultural and educational activities, as well as celebrations of feasts and anniversaries, were organised. In almost all cities with an Armenian population, there were choirs, theatre groups and music ensembles of high artistic standards, which took part in festivals of amateur art, song and dance. Among the most acclaimed were the Yerevan Choir in Sofia, the Aram Khachaturian Choir in Plovdiv, the Erebuni Vocal and Instrumental Ensemble in Plovdiv, the Gomidas Choir in Ruse, and the Armenian Song and Dance Ensemble in Shumen. Until the change of political regime came about in 1989, all Armenian amateur art ensembles had been receiving subsidies from the state, which enabled them to hire professional conductors, choreographers and art directors. Despite numerous cultural initiatives, the process of assimilation into Bulgarian society accelerated in the socialist period, especially among well educated Armenians. Major factors contributing to this process were the growing number of mixed marriages, dispersal in the big cities, less frequent contacts with the community’s institutions, diminishing knowledge of the Armenian language, and the limited scope and deteriorating quality of education provided on behalf of community organisations (Bohosân 1999: 119).

The Armenian Apostolic Church and the Religious Life The Armenian Apostolic Church is often perceived and presented as a cornerstone for maintenance of the Armenian identity and integration of Armenian communities. As one can read in the Bulgarian Armenian Yerevan weekly: We are in duty bound to safeguard the prestige of the church institution – the strongest mainstay of the Armenian spirit and nationality. Our Christian faith and the institution symbolising it – the Church – have always been the powerful mainstay, giving strength to our people to overcome the pressure of those trying to uproot us, to deprive us of identity (Topakbašân 2002a: 31).

196

Siranush Papazian-Tanielian

The AAC has a long and rich history in the territories constituting today’s Bulgaria, an examination of which is beyond the scope of this article. We shall turn directly to modern times, the critical point of which was the creation of a separate Bulgarian Bishopric in 1924, subordinated to the Echmiadzin Catholicosate. In principle, the Bishopric was supposed to be led by the Council and a bishop elected for a three year tenure by the Synod, also elected. However, by the end of the 1930’s, and particularly on the eve of the Second World War, the self-administration of the church gradually started to be restricted by the government (Bohosân 1999: 26 – 30). When the communists came to power, the Bulgarian Bishopric had under its jurisdiction thirteen parish communities. Soon, however, its situation worsened and its status diminished. In 1960 the bishopric was merged with the Romanian Bishopric of the Armenian Apostolic Church. Its leader became bishop Dirair Mardigian (1960 – 2010), his seat located in Romania’s capital city of Bucharest. In the same period, in the towns of Pazardjik, Sliven, and Stara Zagora the Armenian churches were torn down due to the implementation of socialist urbanisation plans, and the parishioners were left with no houses of prayer. In a number of other towns – Shumen, Dobrich (renamed by communists as Tolbukhin), and Silistra – where the Armenian communities had continuously practiced their religion for several centuries, the parishes no longer had priests and no religious services were provided (Bohosân 1999: 70 – 76). In general, the Armenian Church administrative prerogatives were greatly restricted as local state administration took charge over matters regarding civil status: registration of births, marriages, deaths, etc. Furthermore, religious training at school was banned, and activities of charitable societies attached to the AAC were discontinued in accordance with the new policy of separation of state and ecclesiastic organisations. As a result of the change of the political order in 1989, the Armenian Apostolic Church has regained its independence and once again has possibilities for development. With the implementation of restitution legislation in 1993 – 1994, it has repossessed real estate which had been confiscated by the communists. The revenue from renting out these properties, together with donations, ensures the functioning of the ecclesiastic institution and its various cultural and educational activities. This source of income is of vital importance, since the AAC no longer receives state subsidies which had been provided during the socialist period. Today the Armenian Apostolic Church in Bulgaria has eleven historical churches and four chapels. Furthermore, the first decade of the 21st century has been marked by extensive construction work on new places of worship. The one which has already been completed is the church in Pazardjik, consecrated in November 2011. Built with the effort of a small community (120 – 150 people) supported by Armenians from around the country, by the Armenian diaspora from other countries, as well as by local Bulgarians, it replaced the church which was destroyed in 1969. It was designed free of charge by a Bulgarian architect as a sign of respect for the Armenians in the town (Širinân 2004: 3; Topakbašân 2002b, 2011: 25). Two other churches are currently under construction. Firstly, in Sofia, where the

The Community Life of Armenians in Post-Socialist Bulgaria

197

Armenian cathedral had been destroyed in 1934,4 the plans for its restoration have been discussed since the mid 1990’s and in 2006 Archbishop Dirair Mardigian inaugurated the construction work. On December 6 of the same year, in the presence of representatives of all the Armenian parishes in the country and a great number of other guests, the archbishop performed the ritual of blessing the sixteen cornerstones. The cathedral was designed in the traditional Armenian style by Agop Karakashian, a Bulgarian Armenian (Topakbašân 2006: 17). The second church under construction is located in Yambol. This will be the first Armenian church in this town with an Armenian community comparable in size to that in Pazardjik. Regarding religious life, the AAC nowadays invests a lot of effort in splendid celebrations of main church feasts and temple holidays. For example, four of the Armenian churches in Bulgaria – in Ruse, Shumen, Silistra, and Sofia – which have as their patron the Holy Mother of God, celebrate their holidays on the day of the Assumption of Mary. After the liturgy, the ceremony of madagh is conducted: in the church yard lambs are ritually slaughtered, the meat is boiled and handed over to those gathered along with the grapes which on that day (the Sunday closest to August 15) are traditionally eaten by Armenians for the first time in the year. In Burgas, Plovdiv, and Varna madagh is handed out every year on the occasion of the patron saint feast of the local church. It is worth noting that some religious customs and rituals of Bulgarian Armenians have been influenced by and mixed with the elements of Bulgarian religious culture. For example, in Varna, when a child of a mixed marriage is baptised in the Armenian rite, the traditional Bulgarian round loaf of bread is brought to the ceremony. Also noteworthy are the examples of local cooperation between the Armenian Apostolic Church and Bulgarian Orthodox Church, especially in those towns where the Armenian community has no place of worship. Some years ago in the town of Pazardjik Armenians celebrated Christmas in the Bulgarian Cathedral Church of the Holy Virgin, where the liturgy was officiated by an Armenian priest and in Armenian (Širinân 1999: 7). Materials collected in the mid 1990’s also reveal the case of a marriage ceremony performed for a mixed Armenian-Bulgarian couple in the Armenian church, but jointly by an Armenian priest, a Bulgarian priest and a Bulgarian Orthodox Church choir (Miceva, Papazân-Tanielân 2007). On the other hand, the Orthodox clergy often refuse marriage to couples of mixed faith, and do not accept Armenians as godparents for Bulgarian children. While these refusals are usually justified by canonical/dogmatic differences between the two churches, in practice the decision depends on the convictions of the given priest. 4 From the mid-1930s to our day church services in Sofia have been held in a prayer hall in the building of the Armenian House. It was built on a plot, given to the Armenian community by the city hall in exchange for the estate of the Armenian Church existing at that time, which had been expropriated for town planning purposes. The initial idea of the church trustees concerning the newly built structure was that it should serve as a school and a new church should be built next to it, but for a number of reasons this idea was not realised during the next several decades.

198

Siranush Papazian-Tanielian

Since the beginning of the 21st century a number of noteworthy events have taken place in the life of the Armenian Apostolic Church in Bulgaria. In 2001 the 1700th anniversary of the adoption of Christianity as the official state religion in Armenia was celebrated. During the jubilee year, on the Feast of the Presentation in the Temple (Dyarnuntarach) Archbishop Dirair Mardigian carried the ritually lit ‘new fire’ from Khor Virap monastery in Armenia 5, which was, subsequently, delivered to all Armenian churches in the country. On the occasion of the anniversary, the exhibition ‘Armenians in Bulgaria’ was displayed in the Ethnographic Museum in Sofia, presenting Armenian history, family and occupational traditions, crafts, and art. The exhibition, the first of its kind in Bulgaria, was supported by the AAC with vestments, liturgical objects, historical photos and other artefacts. Two other major events that took place in the following years were the visit to Bulgaria of the Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of All Armenians Garegin II, and the reconstitution of an independent Bishopric of the Armenian Apostolic Church in Bulgaria in 2011. Furthermore, several churches marked their jubilee anniversaries with great celebrations: the 170th in Plovdiv in 1998, the 170th in Shumen in 2005, the 390th in Silistra in 2010, and the 160th in Varna in 2004.

School, Education, and the Armenian Language The existence of Armenian schools in Bulgaria has passed through various stages, determined not only by the needs of the community but also by official state policy. Generally, three periods can be outlined: from the inception of the Bulgarian state to the end of the Second World War (1878 – 1944), the socialist period (1944 – 1989), and the post-socialist period (1989-present) (Sačkova 2002). During the first period, Armenian schools were private, sustained by tuition fees and private donations. Primary schools with four years of training were established in every Armenian community. All the subjects normally studied in Bulgarian schools were taught, according to a curriculum approved by the Ministry of Education of the Kingdom of Bulgaria. In bigger cities with more children (Burgas, Plovdiv, Ruse, Sofia, Varna), teaching in Armenian schools was prolonged up to the seventh grade. Beside the lessons of the Armenian language, courses in history and geography were also taught in Armenian. In 1922 Kevork Mesrob, an outstanding teacher, historian and public figure, opened the Mesrobyan School in Plovdiv, which was very soon moved to Sofia. It provided a secondary education and was equipped with a boarding house for students from outside the capital. In 1928 the Mekhitarist school was opened in Plovdiv. Teachers were Armenian monks from the

5 Khor Virap is the place where Saint Gregory the Illuminator is said to have been imprisoned for thirteen years before christianising the Armenian kingdom.

The Community Life of Armenians in Post-Socialist Bulgaria

199

Catholic Mekhitarist Order (Mkhitaryan miabanutyun).6 It had about 120 – 150 students, classes were given in Armenian and French, and the curriculum was secular, despite the fact that the school belonged to a religious order. The post-war socialist period brought profound changes to the established educational system. In the period of 1944 – 1961 the Armenian schools continued to exist, though they became state-owned.7 Municipal administrations were in charge of covering all school expenses, including teachers’ salaries, building maintenance, textbooks and meals for pupils. In 1946 the language of Armenian lessons was changed from Western Armenian (spoken by Armenians in Bulgaria) to Eastern Armenian (the official language of the Armenian SSR), a decision that had a very negative impact on teaching. New textbooks from Armenia were introduced, but were not well received by teachers, pupils or their parents. Meanwhile, the old textbooks were banned as ‘bourgeois’ and ‘ideologically unsound’. In this period the number of students in Armenian schools decreased, on average, by half. In 1961 all the Armenian schools were closed and Armenian language lessons were moved to one of the Bulgarian schools in a given town.8 In the following years there was still a sufficient number of children to hold regular Armenian classes of approximately 20 in Sofia, and in other towns with larger communities. However, gradually the number of pupils decreased and the study of the Armenian language became an elective subject, outside the regular school curriculum. Because of the small number of pupils, teachers started gathering children of various grades and taught them the Armenian language together. The result was a further deterioration of teaching standards and the number of pupils involved. Since the 1990s, alongside the democratic reforms in Bulgaria, establishing minorities’ educational facilities and teaching in their mother tongues has become possible again. However, after decades of restrictions imposed on the studying of Armenian, the resumption of the teaching process has proven exceptionally difficult. Nowadays, the best situation is in Plovdiv, where the same building of the Armenian school is used today as prior to 1976, and specialists in Armenian language are hired. Obligatory subjects are studied in this school in the Bulgarian language and four additional hours are assigned to the study of the Armenian language. In addition, in Sofia the primary school, named after William Saroyan, was established thanks to the efforts of local Armenians. In most other towns the situation is more difficult: during the last decade of the 20th 6 The Armenian Catholic Mekhitarist Order was founded in 1717 on the Island of Saint Lazar near Venice. The members of the Order devoted themselves to scholarly and educational work among the Armenians, running a number of schools worldwide. The school in Plovdiv was established by the Viennese branch of the Order. 7 The only exception was the Mekhitarist school, which was closed down immediately after the Communist Party established its rule in Bulgaria. 8 The Armenian primary school in Plovdiv was the only one which managed to survive until 1976, when it was closed down as well. This decision gave rise to strong opposition among the local Armenian community, who organised a live chain around the school; some participants of the protest were arrested.

200

Siranush Papazian-Tanielian

century Armenian children would get together in one of the primary schools in their respective towns. However, these study groups have been gradually closed down and lessons have been held only as Saturday or Sunday courses on premises provided by the local Armenian associations. After 1989, it also became possible for Armenian children from Bulgaria to study in the Melkonian Educational Institute (Melgonean krtakan hastatutiun) in Nicosia, Cyprus, and some 60 – 70 children took advantage of this opportunity.9 Notably, not a single Bulgarian Armenian student who has graduated from the institute is a teacher today, notwithstanding the adequate Armenian language training, and almost no one uses the Armenian language in their professional activities (Miceva, Papazân-Tanielân 2007: 392 – 397). In the early 1990’s the Western Armenian language was restored in the schools and in Armenian language courses. For that purpose the Bulgarian Ministry of Education has distributed textbooks brought from Lebanon and Canada. Occasionally, meetings and seminars have been held for teachers of the Armenian language, with the aim of discussing teaching methods and their compliance with ministerial guidelines (Bohosân 1999: 104 – 105). In this context, it is worth noticing that, with the aim of enticing Armenian children and youth to study Armenian, the methodology of teaching has been revised and focused on communicative language skills (H˝nkanosân 2002: 28). Regarding higher education, the most important achievement was the establishment of the specialisation in Armenian and Caucasus Studies at the Faculty of Philology of Sofia University St. Kliment Ohridski in 1995. Currently a four-year course is offered, with a curriculum devoted mostly to Armenian language and literature.10 Up to 2010 some 30 students received a Bachelor’s degree in Armenian Studies. However, only a small part of them were Armenians, and the community in general presents a rather indifferent attitude towards the specialisation, the only one of this kind in Southeastern Europe.

Armenian Voluntary Organisations In the post-socialist period a number of Armenian voluntary organisations that were operating before 1944 and then disbanded, have resumed their activities.

9 The Melkonian Educational Institute, founded in 1926 by the two benefactor brothers Garabed and Krikor Melkonian, and managed by the Armenian General Benevolent Union (AGBU), was a prestigious Armenian educational institution. It ceased to exist in 2005. 10 Current inter-governmental agreements in the sphere of education promote scientific and educational contacts between Sofia University and Yerevan State University. Students in Armenian Studies at the Sofia University have an opportunity to continue their education in Yerevan, and students from Armenia who specialise in the Bulgarian language may improve their linguistic skills in Bulgaria.

The Community Life of Armenians in Post-Socialist Bulgaria

201

Starting from 1991 the Armenian General Union of Body Culture (Homenetmen; Hay marmnakrtakan enthanur miutyun) began operating again in Burgas, Dobrich, Plovdiv, Ruse, Shumen, Sofia, and Varna. The Union, set up in Istanbul in 1918, had its regional centre for Bulgaria from 1924 to 1944, with various sport teams and scouting groups. Today its activities in Bulgaria are limited mostly to scouting and patriotic education. Every year Armenian children from around the country gather at scouting camps. In 2003 Homenetmen organised the First All Armenian Republican Sports Games to celebrate its 85th anniversary. The two most popular charitable unions among the Bulgarian Armenians: the Armenian Relief Society (ARS, Haigagan oknutyan miutyun), and the Armenian General Benevolent Union (AGBU, Haygagan parekordzagan enthanur miutyun) – resumed their activities in 1991 and 1992, respectively. The ARS is a women’s charitable union, set up in 1910 in Boston, USA. In Bulgaria it has operated since 1919, being actively involved in receiving and accommodating Armenian Genocide refugees. In post-socialist Bulgaria its main objective became supporting socially underprivileged and sick people. Besides, the ARS runs Saturday (or Sunday) kindergartens, where children (most of them born in mixed Armenian-Bulgarian marriages) are looked after using exclusively the Armenian language. Every year on the occasion of Christmas and other holidays women of the ARS organise charitable culinary events and sales, offering specialties of Armenian cuisine. The AGBU was set up in 1906 in Cairo, Egypt; today its headquarters are located in New York, USA. In Bulgaria the organisation has several branches operating in the educational and cultural sphere. For example, since 2007 it has been financing the professional chamber orchestra in Sofia, led by an Armenian conductor. The orchestra performs a classical music repertoire, including works by Armenian composers. In turn, the AGBU in Plovdiv has primarily directed its efforts at publishing book translations and works authored by Bulgarian Armenians. The Union is also active in promoting sports and physical education: in 2002 the 11th European Armenian Sports Games of the AGBU were held in Sofia, and two years later the 17th World Armenian Sports Games of the AGBU took place in Albena – a Bulgarian resort at the Black Sea. Beside the above mentioned associations, the Union of Armenian Cultural and Educational Organisations – Yerevan (UACEO) established in socialist times, also continues its work today. It is the only Armenian organisation in Bulgaria with no central office outside the country, and its relationships with the Armenian diaspora worldwide are weak. Despite financial problems, branches of the UACEO manage to prevent the disintegration of some of its amateur ensembles, and continue its rich traditions in the performing arts. In 2005 the UACEO celebrated its 60th anniversary with a grand concert performed by its choirs and music, dance, and theatre ensembles. In 2006 Sofia’s branch of the organisation, together with the Sundukian Armenian Amateur Theatre Company, celebrated the 80th anniversary of the latter. To maintain its amateur artistic activities, the organisation also staged several choral, theatrical, and dance festivals. In 2003 a festival of amateur theatres took place, and in 2004 and 2006 festivals of Armenian dancing were held in Stara Zagora

202

Siranush Papazian-Tanielian

with the financial support of the Ministry of Culture. Finally, a general Review and Festival of Armenian Amateur Art took place in 2008 in Plovdiv, bringing together choirs, theatre groups, dance ensembles, singers and musicians from all over the country. Despite the diverse profiles of the Armenian associations, they have established various inter-organisational bodies, with the purpose of coordinating community activities during particularly important events, such as the annual commemoration of the Armenian Genocide. In the early 1990s protest actions were organised in support of the Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh and their struggle for independence. In 1992 a great celebration was held jointly with the Mother Bulgaria Nationwide Association, dedicated to the Bulgarian Armenians and their contribution to Bulgaria’s culture, science, and economy. The 80th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide was marked with an impressive ceremony in 1995, coordinated by a Nationwide Committee specially set up for this purpose. In 1997 the same Nationwide Committee, under the patronage of Todor Kavaldjiev, then Bulgaria’s Vice President, commemorated the 75th anniversary of giving asylum to the Armenian refugees in Bulgaria in 1922, and the 85th anniversary of the Armenian volunteers’ participation in the First Balkan War in 1912 (Bohosân 1999: 106 – 111). Various local Armenian initiative committees and associations have also organised a number of noteworthy cultural events. Among them, the Festival of Armenian Choral Songs took place three times between 2003 and 2007 in Haskovo, the Days of Armenian Culture and Art were organised in 2001 in Plovdiv, and the Armenian Traditions and Culture Festival was held in 2010 and 2011 in Burgas. Furthermore, Armenian ensembles regularly take part in national cultural events, festivals of ethnic diversity, and amateur artists’ reviews, held under the auspices of Bulgarian state institutions and non-­ governmental organisations.

Concluding Remarks: Current Trends in the Armenian Diaspora in Bulgaria Despite all the initiatives, activities, and developments described above, the Armenian diaspora in Bulgaria faces difficulties nowadays, and what the future holds for it remains uncertain. According to the latest census, taken in 2011, the number of Armenians in Bulgaria has dropped to approximately 6,500, compared to 13,000 in 1991 and 11,000 in 2001. There is a widespread view in the community that these data should not be taken as fact, because many Armenians who came into the country since late 1980s have not been granted with citizenship and thus are not included into the census.11 Furthermore, among

11 According to internal estimations of Armenian organisations, there may be as many as 50.000 Armenians in Bulgaria, including some 35.000 ‘new’ (post-Soviet) immigrants (Hovyan 2011).

The Community Life of Armenians in Post-Socialist Bulgaria

203

the ‘old’ diaspora there are the people with dual Armenian-Bulgarian identity which is also not reflected by the official data. These statistics, however, should not be ignored as they actually reflect, even if imprecisely, current trends regarding both outflow of Armenians from the country and assimilation trends. Regarding religious life, a progressive decline of attendance at Sunday liturgies can be observed. Particularly, the young and middle-aged generations of Armenians participate in liturgies only on major holidays. As reported by Yerevan weekly: The generation of ‘our grandmothers’ is no longer here – loyal and dedicated to attending church every Sunday, on every holiday… The people entrusted with church affairs in the past had been guardians of those values, which had served as a starting point for the Armenians’ many centuries’ long battle for survival and for upholding their legitimate rights. But they are no more (Topakbašân 2002a: 31).

The Armenian press also raises alarm about the diminishing prestige of the clergy, the lack of close relations between priests and parishioners, and “the inertness, lack of interest, unwillingness to take responsibility for church affairs” of the latter (Topakbašân 2002a: 31). Expectations regarding reversing this trend were triggered when the separate bishopric of the Armenian Apostolic Church in Bulgaria was reestablished in 2011. However, within a short time these expectations were quashed. Young and ambitious, extremely critical of the current situation in the Church and community, the new bishop engaged himself in enforcing the church’s control over all spheres of community life. As a result, instead of unification, his actions have provoked controversies and divisions (Hačikân 2012: 22; Otkrito 2012: 29; Topakbašân 2012a: 25; 2012b: 22). There are serious problems and shortages in the sphere of education as well. They derive from the fact that due to a progressive linguistic assimilation, the Armenian language is losing its communicative role, and opportunities for its use are decreasing. Here again the fact that “the generation of ‘our grandmothers’ is no longer here” (Topakbašân 2002a: 31), together with a lack of proper schooling during socialist times, are decisive factors, and the current educational system is not able to counter this process. The estrangement from the Armenian Apostolic Church and from the language are received by many with resignation as an inevitable result of the natural and irreversible process of assimilation into the host society. One sphere which still remains vital nowadays, despite limited financial and human resources, is the cultural life of the community, as represented by its numerous and high-quality choirs, music and dance ensembles, theatre groups and independent artists. The question remains, will it be enough, in the long term, to preserve the rich Armenian heritage in Bulgaria, and continue the long history of the Armenian community there.

204

Siranush Papazian-Tanielian

References Bohosân Mihran (1999) Armencite v Sofiâ. Istoričeski očerk, Sofiâ: Nastoâtelstvo na armenskata c˝rkva Surp Astvadzadzin. Garabedân Agop (2001) “Formirane na armenskata obsˆnost i nejnata rolâ v razvitieto na b˝lgarskata d˝ržava”, G. Hajrabedân (ed.), B˝lgari i armenci zaedno prez vekovete, Sofiâ: Tangra TaNakPa IK, pp.  231 – 272. Hačikân Manušag (2012) “Obratnata strana na monetata”, Vahan, 20, p. 7. Hovyan Vahram (2011) “Armenian Community in Bulgaria”, Noravank Foundation, http://www.noravank. am/eng/articles/detail.php?ELEMENT_ID=6105 [30 March 2014]. H˝nkanosân Kohar (2002) “Osˆe edna kračka k˝m po-dobro b˝desˆe na obučenieto po majčin ezik”, ­Erevan, 28 – 29, p.  6. Miceva Evgeniâ (2001) Armencite v B˝lgariâ – kultura i identičnost, Sofiâ: Meždunaroden cent˝r po problemite na malcinstvata i kulturnite vzaimodejstviâ. Miceva Evgeniâ, Papazân-Tanielân Siranuš (2007) Armencite raskazvat za sebe si…, Sofiâ: Akademično izdatelstvo Prof. Marin Drinov. Otkrito (2012) “Otkrito pismo”, Vahan, 21, p. 2. Sačkova Elena (2002) “Obrazovanieto na armencite v B˝lgariâ 1878 – 1999”, Godišnik na Sofijskiâ universitet Sv. Kliment Ohridski, 92, pp. 143 – 183. Širinân Nerses (1999) “S˝s Sveta liturgiâ i madah otbelâzahte Surp Stepanos”, Erevan, 1, p. 2. Širinân Nerses (2004) “Gotov e arhitekturniât proekt na armenskiâ duhovno-kulturen dom ‘Surp ­Stepanos – Ovanes S˝vadžân’”, Erevan, 35, p. 3. Topakbašân Vartanuš (2002a) “Dl˝žni sme da pazim avtoriteta na c˝rkovnata instituciâ”, Erevan, 12, p. 3. Topakbašân Vartanuš (2002b) “Agop Karakašân: ‘Vseki arhitekt mečtae da izdigne kultova sgrada’”, ­Yerevan, 35, p. 2. Topakbašân Vartanuš (2006) “Započna gradež˝t na armenskiâ katedralen hram”, Erevan, 47, p. 2. Topakbašân Vartanuš (2011) “Armenskata c˝rkva ‘Surp Stepanos’ v Pazardžik otvori vrati za p˝rvata si Sveta liturgiâ”, Erevan, 46, p. 3. Topakbašân Vartanuš (2012a) “Arhimandrit Abgar Ovagimân: ‘Za men interesite na c˝rkvata sa naj-važni i vinagi sˆe b˝de taka’”, Erevan, 12, p. 2. Topakbašân Vartanuš (2012b) “S˝branie za izbor na C˝rkovno nastoâtelstvo k˝m katedralen hram Surp Astvadzadzin v Sofiâ”, Erevan, 16, p. 3.

Konrad Siekierski

Completing the Story Armenians in Other Countries of Post-Socialist Europe

This chapter provides a brief overview of the modern Armenian presence in five countries: Albania, Lithuania, Macedonia, Serbia, and Slovakia, which is not covered by separate contributions to this volume, but where Armenian diasporic structures exist. It offers basic information on the host states, recapitulates the history of Armenian settlement there, and describes the shape and activities of local Armenian diaspora in the post-socialist period. This chapter is not designed as a complete research paper, but has rather a cursory descriptive character, which often reflects a deficiency of existing sources. The countries discussed here show some general similarities in their demographic and socio-political characteristics. For instance, except for Albania, they all (re)appeared on maps as separate states as a result of the dissolution of communist regimes in East-­Central Europe: Lithuania was previously a part of the USSR, Slovakia part of Czechoslovakia, while Serbia and Macedonia were parts of Yugoslavia.1 Lithuania and Slovakia joined the European Union in 2004, while Albania, Macedonia and Serbia are candidates for membership. In terms of their territory and population, the five countries are of small to middle size. Regarding Albania, the figures are: 28,748 sq. km and 2,800,000 people (Population 2012: 71); Lithuania: 65,300 sq. km and 3,043,000 people (Results 2011: 155); Macedonia: 25,713 sq. km and 2,023,000 people (Statistical 2014: 67); Serbia: 88,361 sq. km (or 77,453 sq. km without the partially recognised, de facto independent, Republic of Kosovo) and 7,187,000 people (Ethnicity 2012: 14); and Slovakia: 49,035 sq. km and 5,397,000 people (Population by Nationality n. d.). Since the fall of the communist regimes, these countries have experienced a decline, or at best stagnation, in terms of population size, a trend caused mainly by mass labour emigration. This decline has reached the highest rate in Lithuania, where the population diminished in the period 1989 – 2011 by one fifth, followed by Albania, the population of which shrank in the same period by more than one tenth. The countries considered here have a significant share of ethnic/national minorities, which in Lithuania account for 16% (Results 2011:155), in Serbia for 17% (Ethnicity 2012: 15),2 in Slovakia for almost 20% (Population n. d.), and in Macedonia for 35% of the total number of inhabitants 1 However, their road to freedom differed significantly: from the ‘velvet divorce’ of the Czech and ­Slovak Republics, through mass demonstrations and Soviet troops intervention in Lithuania, to war in former Yugoslavia. 2 This data excludes the population of Kosovo.

206

Konrad Siekierski

(Statistical 2014: 67). Only Albania, at least in official statistics 3, is an ethnically homogenous country, with 2% of the population belonging to minorities (Population 2012: 71). During the last twenty five years all five countries have experienced some tensions between the dominant/titular nations and the most numerous of the minorities. These tensions range from disputes over linguistic rights and certain social marginalisation issues of Poles and Russians in Lithuania, to problems with the Hungarian minority as well as hate speech and attempts at ghettoisation directed towards Roma in Slovakia, to Greek and Macedonian complaints about violations of their rights in Albania, and to armed conflicts of various intensity in Macedonia and Serbia. The tiny Armenian populations in these countries, while obviously exposed to the general socio-economic hardships their host societies have experienced in the transitional, post-socialist period, and met in some cases with unwelcoming immigration regulations, in general have not faced discriminatory policies aimed directly against them. Many recent Armenian migrants, who tried to make their living there, did not stay long due to the aforementioned difficulties (some of those who lived there under communism also left after the change of regime). Most of those who stayed, however, are well integrated into their host societies. The last 25 years have also seen Armenian diasporic structures (re)established in all five countries, reaching various levels of internal consolidation and public recognition.

Armenians in Albania In Albania, the modern history of the Armenian settlement started in the second to third decades of the 20th century (Albania 2003; Baxčinean 2010: 604; Vickers, Pettifer 1997: 206). It has been suggested, however, that the medieval Saint Nicholas church in the village of Armen (in the vicinity of Vlorë) was built according to the canons of Armenian architecture, which points to much earlier Armenian-Albanian contacts (Dita n.d). Two soldiers, Hayk Balǰyan and Levon Bodikyan, who deserted from the Turkish army during the Balkan Wars (1912 – 1913), are usually the first Armenian settlers in Albania to have been mentioned by name (Albania 2003). In the 1920s the Albanian government declared its willingness to invite some twenty families of Armenian refugees from the Ottoman Empire. In the next decade there were around 120 Armenians in the country, including six families in Tiranë (Tirana), five in Vlorë, five in Durrës, two in Shkodër, and individuals or single families in Korchë, ­Gjirokastër, and Lushnjë (Baxčinean 2010: 605 – 606). In that period, no Armenian community organisation, church, or school operated in Albania, however a number of individuals did manage to achieve considerable professional success and high positions in society (Baxčinean 2010: 606).

3 The provisions and results of Albania’s last population census were highly contested by ethnic minorities in the country (Krasniqi 2012), and as much as 14% of Albania’s population did not declare their “ethnic and cultural affiliation” in the census (Population 2012: 71).

Armenians in Other Countries of Post-Socialist Europe

207

Armenians were particularly renowned as physicians and dentists: in the 1940s five out of fifteen of Albania’s dentists were Armenians (Albania 2003) and King Zog’s personal doctor was Mokin Poturljan (Vickers, Pettifer 1997: 206). Local Armenians participated in the wider diasporic network, in particular by studying in Armenian educational centres in Venice, Vienna, and Greek cities (Baxčinean 2010: 606; Dita n. d.). Within Albania, they integrated mostly into the Orthodox part of society (Vickers, Pettifer 1997: 206)4. Armenians are said to have supported local communist partisans during the Second World War, and later some of them were close to the new regime, including Manvel A ­ sdurian who served as a personal dentist to the country’s dictator Enver Hoxha. Supposedly, it eased the Armenians’ situation when forced Albanisation was implemented: for example they were allowed to keep their surnames unchanged. However it did not save them from a ban on community organisation and confiscation of Armenian literature by secret police (­Baxčinean 2010: 607; Vickers, Pettifer 1997: 206). From 1968 onwards, as a result of Hoxha’s isolationist politics, Albanian Armenians lost all possibilities to maintain ties with Soviet Armenia and Armenians in other countries. The situation changed in the early 1990s with the fall of the communist regime. In 1990 a liturgy dedicated to the memory of the Armenian Genocide victims was officiated in the Catholic church in Tirana, and in 1991 the Armenian Cultural Association was created in the capital by Emil Asdurian (Albania 2003). Later, in 1997, the Armenian Association of Albania was registered. In the early 1990s, links were reestablished with the Armenian community in Thessaloniki (Greece), from where the first Armenian educational materials were sent to Albania. In 1993 the community was visited by the archbishop Gyut Naggashian, the head of the Armenian Apostolic Church’s Diocese of Paris, which was the first event of this kind in the history of Armenian settlement to the country (Baxčinean 2010: 609). Armenians in Albania enjoy neither the status of a national minority nor of a linguistic minority – two categories created by Albanian legislation. According to various estimates, at the turn of the century there were 400 – 800 Armenians in the country, mostly the descendants of early 20th century immigrants (many of mixed origin resulting from a high degree of interethnic marriage), some from the post-Soviet exodus from Armenia (Albania 2003; Baxčinean 2010: 609; Vickers, Pettifer 1997: 206). Most likely this number has diminished significantly in recent years due to a high rate of emigration. Unfortunately, officially published results of Albania’s Census of 2011 include no data on Armenians (Population 2012). Among the most distinguished contemporary Armenians born and/or working in Albania are composer Hajg Zaharian, particularly known for his film scores; doctor, actress, and screenwriter Anisa Markarian who gained recognition with her role in the movie Vajzat me kordele të kuqe; doctor Emil Asdurian; and professor of chemistry Xovasar Çakmakxhian (Albania 2003; Dita n. d.; Baxčinean 2010: 609 – 610; Vickers, Pettifer 1997: 206).

4 Albania is a religiously diverse country, with 56% of the population currently declaring themselves Sunni Muslims, 10% Catholics, 7% Orthodox and 2% Bektashi (Population 2012: 71).

208

Konrad Siekierski

Armenians in Lithuania In Lithuania, the pre-modern Armenian settlement shall be perceived as a part of the history of Armenian colonies in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Polish-­Lithuanian Commonwealth, which at the time of its highest territorial expansion in the 15th century spread from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea. In the 18th century, within the borders of the Commonwealth, Armenian colonies were located in 22 towns and counted around 6,000 people in total (Zahar­kevič 2013: 21). Armenians were a well-established minority granted with special legal status and played an important role in the country’s trade, crafts, manufacturing, and state administration (particularly as advisors and translators). Although the historical Armenian presence in the territory of modern Lithuania (northern part of the Duchy) never reached the scale and importance of the Armenian colonies in such towns as Lviv or Kamyanets-Podilskyi (located in the territory of modern Ukraine), the Armenian settlement in Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania, was acknowledged in written sources as early as the 16th century, and may stretch back even further. The Armenian population in Vilnius and surrounding territories is also documented in 19th century Russian censuses (Tichomirow this volume). In the same century important figures of Armenian descent lived and worked in Vilnius, including publisher and archaeologist Jan Honory Krikor, and painter and University of Vilna professor Jan Rustem.5 A new wave of Armenian migration to Lithuania (at the time the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic) started after the Second World War, reaching its peak in the late 1980s/ early 1990s. The USSR population census of 1959 registered 471 Armenians in the Republic; in 1970 this number was 508; in 1979 it increased to 955; and the 1989 census gives a number of 1,655 (Ambrozaitienė et al. 2013: 155). Similarly to other Baltic states, in Lithuania Armenians functioned in Soviet times as a part of the Russian-speaking minority and had limited contact with the respective titular nations; a situation which has gradually been changing in recent years (Davidjants this volume, Tadevosyan & Poghosyan this volume). In the early 1990s a new wave of Armenians escaping from the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict and disastrous economic situation in their homeland reached Lithuania. Nonetheless official statistics of independent Lithuania show a gradual decrease of the Armenian population, a trend that corresponds with the general demographic crisis in the country. According to the data of the 2001 and 2011 Population Censuses, 1,477 and 1,233 Armenians, respectively, were living in Lithuania (Ambrozaitienė et al. 2013: 155). Other sources agree that in the first decade of the 21st century there were around 1,400 – 2,500 Armenians (Žamakočyan et al. 2010: 129, 236); the latter number also includes people who for various reasons did not disclose their Armenian origins during the census, particularly those of mixed ethnicity.6 Nevertheless, Lithuania is quite a unique case among the countries 5 In various sources Rustem is also referred to as being of Greek or Turkish origin. 6 It is estimated that the number of mixed Armenian – Lithuanian/Russian marriages reaches 50% or even exceeds it (based on the author’s personal communication with an activist of the Lithuanian Armenian diaspora, 2014).

Armenians in Other Countries of Post-Socialist Europe

209

covered in this volume, as the discrepancies between official statistics and other estimates, including those by local Armenian organisations, are significantly lower than anywhere else. Thanks to meticulous analysis prepared by Statistics Lithuania, we have a detailed picture of the Armenian, Armenia-born, and Armenian-by-citizenship population of Lithuania. The table below summarises the findings of the 2011 population census. Table 1: Armenian population in Lithuania (Ambrozaitienė et al. 2013: 111 – 114, 121 – 124, 157 – 159). Data of 2011 population census

Armenians in Lithuania

Armenia-born people in Lithuania

Citizens of Armenia in Lithuania

Total

1233

661

241

Male

747

428

137

Female

486

233

104

Under 20-years-old

236

53

39

20 – 39-years-old

286

175

68

40 – 59-years-old

499

320

107

Older than 59

212

113

27

1070

553

194

163

108

47

Urban population Rural population

The most numerous clusters of the Armenian population in Lithuania are located in the cities of Vilnius (435 people in 2011), Klaipėda (166), Kaunas (110) and Visaginas (67) (Ambrozaitienė et al. 2013: 160 – 163). 575 participants of the 2011 census declared Armenian as their mother tongue (Ambrozaitienė et al. 2013: 164). As for the issue of legal status, in 1991 the right to receive Lithuanian citizenship was granted to all residents of the country, and currently 99% of them enjoy this status (Ambrozaitienė et al. 2013: 120). Some Armenians, who came later to Lithuania, have lived there for years obtaining only work permits or temporary residency, before they were able to receive permanent legal status (Zenian 2001). Regarding minority rights in Lithuania, the basic feature of the country’s policy is that No legal or official difference between national minorities and other minorities is made […]. ­Lithuania was the first country in central and eastern Europe to pass a Law on National Minorities (1989). The law secures the right of minorities to receive support for activities for participation in cultural life, access to information and the establishment of cultural organisations (Laaksonen 2010: 99).

In 1995 the Council of National Communities was created in Lithuania. It serves as advisory board to the governmental Department of National Minorities and Lithuanians ­Living

210

Konrad Siekierski

Abroad, which, among other functions, distributes state funds to minorities through the allocation of project-based grants. Besides, the Council publishes the journal Tautinių bendrijų naujienos, which covers various activities of Lithuania’s minorities. The Armenian diaspora takes part in the Council’s work and since 2000 its Chairman and Vice-chairman has been Ruslan Arutiunian (Harutyunyan). There are a number of Armenian organisations registered in Lithuania: the Armenian Community in Lithuania – Garun (Garun Lietuvos Armėnų Bendrija) established in 1988, the Armenian Union in Lithuania (Lietuvos Armėnų Sąjunga) established in 1994, the Vilnius Region Armenian Community (Vilniaus Apskrities Armėnų Bendruomenė), the Kaunas Armenian Community (Kauno Armėnų Bendrija) established in 1994, the Kaunas Region Armenian Community (Kauno Apskrities Armėnų Bendrija), the Klaipėda Armenian Community – Van (Klaipėdos Armėnų Bendruomenė Van), the Visaginas Armenian Community (Visagino Armėnų Bendrija) established in 2002, and the Šiaulių Region Armenian Community (Šiaulių Apskrities Armėnų Bendruomenė) established in 2001 (Armânie 2011; Kauno n. d.; Žamakočyan et al. 2010: 130 – 131; Rekvizitai n. d.). Armenian Sunday schools operate or used to operate in Vilnius, Kaunas, Klaipeda, and Visaginas (Žamakočyan et al. 2010: 132; personal contact with Armenian diaspora activist, 2014). In Kaunas, at the initiative of school members, the Kaunas Armenian Ensemble – Hayrenik (Kauno Armėnų Ansamblis Hayrenik) was created in 1999, which since then has participated in many local and international folk festivals (Kauno n. d.). In 2009 the Congress of Baltic Armenians was established, with Ara Tunyan, a leader of the Armenian Union in Lithuania, as its President. Legal regulations regarding religious denominations implemented in Lithuania differ from those for ethnic/national minorities. Lithuania has a four-tier system of recognition, based on the Law on Religious Communities and Associations, adopted in 1995. In this system, the highest status is reserved for ‘traditional’ religious communities, followed by those which are ‘state-recognised’, ‘state-registered’ and ‘state-unregistered’, with two first groups granted with a range of privileges and exemptions (Corley 2001). The Armenian Apostolic Church belongs to the third group. It has two parishes registered – in Vilnius (since 1994) and Kaunas. In the 2011 census, 138 individuals in Lithuania indicated their affiliation to the Armenian Apostolic Church (in 2001 only 30 people chose this option) (Ambrozaitienė et al. 2013: 167). Since 2006 the church has been open in Vilnius in the adapted 18th century former cemetery chapel, transferred to the Armenian community in 2001 and renovated with private funds in 2005 – 2006. The church is occasionally served by the Armenian Apostolic priest from Riga, Latvia. In the vicinity, a space for community gatherings and leisure has been created (Suren 2011). In recent years two khachkars (cross-stones) were erected in Lithuania: one in 2001 on the Hill of Crosses, the country’s famous pilgrimage place; another – in 2004 in Kaunas. Next to the former, each year on the last Sunday of May a pan-Baltic Armenian gathering takes place on the occasion of the Independence Day of the First Armenian Republic (28 May). The Armenian diaspora in Lithuania is also active in addressing pan-Armenian issues, such as the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict (for example, in 2012 protests were organised

Armenians in Other Countries of Post-Socialist Europe

211

against the Azerbaijani officer Ramil Safarov’s release from a Hungarian prison) and the Armenian Genocide (its official recognition at state level took place in Lithuania in 2005). Among Armenians living today in Lithuania there are a number of artists, scientists and sportsmen. Hay Spyurk Hanragitaran (The Encyclopedia of the Armenian Diaspora) lists Armen Babayan, Mikayel Saghoyan, Rafik Baghdasaryan, Ara Tunyan, Aghasi Hayrapetyan, and Maksim Grigoryan, among others (Harowt’yownyan, Harowt’yownyan 2003: 330). From the young generation, Marat Sargsyan is a recognised film director and former TV host. From the world of sport, a renowned figure in motor sports was Sergey Simoyan (died in 1997), and in weightlifting the achievements of Suren and Eduard Mkrtumyan are worth mentioning (Harowt’yownyan, Harowt’yownyan 2003: 330).

Armenians in Macedonia According to information provided by the Ministry of Diaspora of the Republic of Armenia, “The first Armenians in Macedonia were the Balabanov (Balabanyan) brothers from Van who settled in Štip in the 17th century” (Makedoniayi 2013). Members of this family became important figures, including Manyoil Balabayan – Štip’s mayor, Aleksandar ­Balabanov – philologist and literary critic, Kosta ˯ Balabanov – historian, screenwriter, and honorary consul of Japan in Macedonia, and Jasminka Balabanova Namičeva – architect and Armenian community activist. Another renowned Macedonian Armenian family are the Tavitǰans – popular contemporary musicians. Garabet Tavitǰan has gained fame as a drummer of the ‘Leb i Sol’ rock band, and his sons Diran (piano) and Garo (drums) are among the country’s most acclaimed jazz players. A considerable number of Armenians are also recognised in Macedonia as highly qualified doctors (Asatryan 2009; Ermenci n. d.). In the 19th century, Armenians educated in Vienna, Venice, and other academic centres belonged to the emerging local intelligentsia. In the early 20th century Armenian refugees from the Ottoman Empire reached the territory of today’s Macedonia (since 1918 part of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, later Yugoslavia). As a result, only in Skopje their number was 438 in 1929 and 443 in 1935, while others settled in Tetovo, Štip, Prilep, Kočani and elsewhere (Ermenci n. d.). Nowadays the estimated number of Armenians in Macedonia is 60 families or 300 individuals, mostly concentrated in Skopje, with a few families residing in Prilep (Makedoniayi 2013)7. They are neither recognised as one of the country’s national or linguistic minorities 8, nor separately mentioned in the results of Population Censuses held in 7 In addition to written sources, the information provided in this section is based on the author’s personal communication with a Macedonian Armenian diaspora activist, 2014. 8 The Macedonian Constitution speaks about “the Macedonian people, as well as citizens living within its borders who are part of the Albanian people, the Turkish people, the Vlach people, the Serbian people, the Roma people, the Bosniak people and others” (Constitution n. d.: 10).

212

Konrad Siekierski

1953 – 2002, despite the fact that even such tiny populations as Ruthenians (24 people in 2002) or Austrians (35 people in 2002) are presented by the State Statistical Office with their own records (Statistical 2014: 67). There are two Armenian organisations in the country: the Armenian-Macedonian Friendship Club (Društvo na˯makedonsko-ermensko priǰatelstvo i sorabotka), created in 2004 and headed since then by Jan Vrteski and Armine Piloyan Vrteska, and the Armenian Union in the Republic of Macedonia (Ermenska zaednica vo Republika Makedoniǰa), established ˯ in 2006 and led by Jasminka Balabanova Namičeva. In 2010, at the initiative of the former organisation, an Armenian Saturday school was opened in Skopje. It existed for two years during which 27 children, youth, and adults learned the basics of the Armenia language. In 2011 ten Macedonian Armenian children (half of them pupils of the Saturday school) participated in the Ministry of Diaspora of RA painting contest Motherland: This is How I See You. Furthermore, Internet sources dating from 2008 – 2009 informed about plans to erect a khachkar (cross-stone) in Skopje, organise an Armenian-Macedonian Business Forum, as well as celebrate with a series of cultural events the 100-year anniversary of writer William Saroyan’s birthday (Asatryan 2009, Gradonačalnikot 2008). All these initiatives, announced by the Armenian Union, remained unrealised, however. In general, recent years have witnessed a decline in Macedonian Armenian community activities. One of a few initiatives which still gather together a few dozen Armenians is an annual commemoration of the Armenian Genocide held in Skopje in the church of St. Clement of Ohrid – a central temple of the Macedonian Orthodox Church (Ermenci n. d.). It is quite telling for Macedonian Armenian diaspora demographics that among children participating in the aforementioned painting contest only one was of Armenian origin, and nine of mixed Armenian-Macedonian origin (among whom seven had an Armenian mother and Macedonian father) (Hayrenik’ 2011). In general, except for a few newcomers from Armenia and Syria, the Armenians in Macedonia are the descendants of Genocide refugees or even earlier migrants, most of them are members of mixed Armenian-Macedonian families, and only a small number still know the Armenian language (in its Western version).

Armenians in Serbia The history of the Armenian settlement in Serbia stretches back to the 13th century. It is usually acknowledged that the first written source confirming this fact is the inscription on the walls of the Vitovnica monastery, dated 1218. The inscription says: “In the name of the Father and Son and the Holy Spirit, me – Blato the son of Babug built this church in the name of the holy father Akop and Saint Apostle Peter for the memory of myself and my parents. The church was blessed in the Armenian year 667”. The next Armenian trace in Serbia is a part of the Serbian national myth of the Kosovo battle in 1389. According to local tradition, five thousand Armenian troops refused to fight against Christian Serbs and deserted from the Ottoman army. They found refuge in the mountains near the town

Armenians in Other Countries of Post-Socialist Europe

213

of Sokobanja, where they built a monastery dedicated to Archangels Gabriel and Michael, popularly known as Jermenčić. The monastery was destroyed and rebuilt time and again throughout the centuries and it serves as a place of worship to the present day (Simonân 2006). The Armenian colony in Belgrade (Beograd) formed in the 16th–17th centuries. In 1521, members of the Bagratuni Armenian royal dynasty settled there, and soon were joined by Armenians from Crimea, Erzurum (Karin) and the Nakhichevan region. The Armenian cemetery was established in Belgrade in the late 16th century and no later than in the middle of the next century the Armenian church was built. Today, nothing is left of these structures, and only a few Armenian tombstones from this early period can be found on the territory of the city’s castle. In the second decade of the 18th century there were from 80 to 200 Armenians in Belgrade, mostly craftsmen and merchants. When the Habsburg Empire temporarily seized power of Belgrade, in 1732 the first Armenian Catholic clergymen came to the city from the Venetian Mekhitarist Congregation. In 1739, facing reconquest of the city by Turks, most Armenians moved north to Novi Sad, following the example of thousands of Serbs who under the leadership of Orthodox clergy escaped to the Vojvodina and Slavonia regions. There, within a few years the Armenian Catholic church of St. Gregory the Illuminator was built. A century later, on the eve of the Spring of Nations, the Armenian colony of Novi Sad counted around 30 – 40 houses, and a number of Armenian families played important roles in the life of the city. However, the turmoil of the European Revolutions of 1848 caused a severe decline in the community. The last Armenians of Novi Sad emigrated or passed away in the first decades of the 20th century, and the only keepers of Armenian heritage in the city were, until the early 1960s, the Mekhitarists from Vienna. In 1963, the St. Gregory church – the only Armenian temple in Yugoslavia – was demolished by order of the communist regime (Simonân 2006). At a time when the ‘old’ Armenian community was about to vanish in Novi Sad, the Armenian labour migrants from the Erzurum region, followed by refugees from the 1915 Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire and the 1922 Great Fire of Smyrna, reached Serbia and established themselves in Belgrade, Niš, Aleksinac, Knjaževac, Kruševac, Zaječar, Negotin, and Valjevo. In the latter town the Tehlirian family settled down, including ­Soghomon Tehlirian, who in 1921 in Berlin shot dead Talaat Pasha – a Turkish leader responsible for the extermination of Armenians. In 1936 the Union of Armenians in Yugoslavia was registered in Belgrade and at about this time the Armenian House was opened, where meetings and classes in the Armenian language and history took place (Simonân 2006). After the establishment of Josip Broz Tito’s communist Yugoslavia, in 1952 The Union was disbanded by the state, and the Armenian House was nationalised. At that time there were around 2,000 – 2,500 Armenians in the country, most of whom migrated in subsequent years to Canada, the United States, and elsewhere (Hovakimyan 2003: 354; Klarić-Žak 2006). In the 1990s a new wave of Armenian migrants escaping the war in Karabakh and the disastrous situation in Armenia reached Serbia. The exact scale of this influx, as well as the total number of people of Armenian descent currently living in the country is disputable. Estimates to be found in Armenian sources from the beginning of the 21st century vary

214

Konrad Siekierski

from 200 – 250 (Hovakimyan 2003: 353, Simonân 2006) to 1,500 individuals (Klarić-Žak 2006). The Ministry of Diaspora of RA gives a current number of around 500 people (personal contact, 2014). Importantly, in Serbia’s population census of 2011, for the first time ever the Armenian nationality and Armenian language were registered.9 222 people declared themselves as Armenians and 156 indicated Armenian as their mother tongue.10 While at first sight these results seem to support the more conservative figures from the estimates quoted above, examples from other countries demonstrate that official statistics usually present only a partial picture of diasporic demography. Most Serbian Armenians live in Belgrade, the rest in Novi Sad, Valjevo, Vrnjačka Banja and other places (Hovakimyan 2003: 354; Klarić-Žak 2006). Based on Serbia’s 2009 Law on National Councils of National Minorities, twenty minorities have established their councils, which – being subsidised from the state budget – are to “legitimately represent members of their respective minorities in matters of culture, education, the media, and official use of language” (Purger 2012). Armenians are not included in this number, although it seems that they meet the requirements, being a group which has lived in the country for centuries, is differentiated from the host society by cultural, religious and linguistic characteristics, and has its own voluntary organisations. They are surely a very small minority, so the issue of them being not “sufficiently representative” (The Law 2002) may be the reason. However, if there is any customarily accepted threshold (the law does not specify it), it has to be low: Serbian Jews have established their council despite being a community of only 582 people as registered in the 2011 census (Religion 2013: 13). The Armenian Apostolic Church and Armenian Catholic Church are absent in the country, and in times of need for religious services Armenians usually turn to the Serbian Orthodox Church. One such occasion is the annual commemoration of the Armenian Genocide on April 24, when community members gather in the church of Saint Archangel Gabriel in Zemun (a district of Belgrade). Next to the church stands a khachkar (cross-stone), erected in 1993, dedicated to the victims of the 1988 earthquake in Armenia, including the crew of a Yugoslav humanitarian plane, which crashed before landing in Yerevan (Hovakimyan 2003: 355; Klarić-Žak 2006; Simonân 2006). Since 1993, there has also been an Armenian cross-stone in Novi Sad, marking the place where the St. Gregory church used to stand (Hovakimyan 2003: 356).

9 The 2011 census was the first which formulated the questions on ethnic/national affiliation and mother tongue as open ended. As a result, four new groups (Armenians, Šopi, Banjaši, and Torlaci) and three languages (Armenian, Bunjevački and Montenegrin) were registered (Ethnicity 2012: 11; Religion 2013: 13). 10 Data of the Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia: personal contact, 2014. In official publications of the Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia, these numbers were included into a collective category of ‘Other’.

Armenians in Other Countries of Post-Socialist Europe

215

According to data of the Ministry of Diaspora of the Republic of Armenia, there are four Armenian organisations in the country: the Armenian-Serbian Friendship Club (Klub srpsko-jermenskog p ­ rijateljstva), the Union of Armenians in Serbia (Jermenska zajednica Srbije), the Armenian ­Womens’ Centre – Armenka (Jermenski ženski centar Armenka), and the Armenian Centre for Development of Science, Economy and Culture. However, they currently keep a rather low profile. For example Haykakan Spyurk Taregirk (The Armenian Diaspora Yearbook) mentions only two events in 2011: the meeting of the community representatives with Armenia’s president Serzh Sargsyan, and a tribute payed in Belgrade and Novi Sad to the victims of the Armenian Genocide (Hakobean 2012: 212). The Armenian Serbian Friendship Club was established in 1990 in Belgrade at the initiative of the Director of the Symphony Orchestra of the Serbian Broadcasting Corporation, Vardges Paronian. In 2003 the Club counted more than 800 Armenian and Serbian members. In 1995, the Union of Armenians was reestablished in Belgrade. Since then it has operated a Sunday school, where classes in the Armenian language, history and music take place (Hovakimyan 2003: 354). The Armenian Women’s Centre was established in 2002 by Gohar Harutyunyan (Sekulić) and has combined the organisation of cultural events, the commemoration of the Armenian Genocide, or protests against the assassination of Armenian journalist Hrant Dink in Istanbul, with the support of Armenian and other nationality women who are victims of family violence in Serbia (Klarić-Žak 2006; ­Supervizor 2008; U Beogradu 2007). Gohar Harutyunyan’s personal story may serve, perhaps, as a telling example of hardships experienced by some post-Soviet Armenian migrants in their destination countries, who have become ‘prisoners’ of their unregulated legal status. Harutyunyan spent 21 years in Serbia, having to apply each year for a residence card, being denied Serbian citizenship, and threatened by expulsion from the country. In 2013, when she was about to temporarily leave Serbia in order to ask for readmission, she died of cancer (Mlađenović 2013).

Armenians in Slovakia The Armenian diaspora in Slovakia is a creation of the recent, post-socialist period, although individual families of Armenian merchants and craftsmen settled there before, perhaps as early as the 17th century (Sargsyan 2003). At the beginning of the 1990s there were no more than 100 Armenians living in Slovakia, a number which ten years later increased to 400 – 500 (Žamakočyan et al. 2011: 168). This wave of migration came from Armenia and other countries of the former USSR, and the newcomers settled mostly in Bratislava, some also in Košice, Žilina and Trebišov (Žamakočyan et al. 2011: 168). Unfortunately, according to the Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic, “data on Armenian ethnicity, Armenian as the mother tongue or the most frequently used language, and the Armenian Apostolic Church are not available” (personal contact, 2014). Statistics that can be retrieved from the DataCube of Slovakia’s 2011 Census give a number of 109 Armenia-born inhabitants of Slovakia

216

Konrad Siekierski

(55 male and 54 female), half of whom lived in Bratislava (Obyvatel’stvo n. d.). In previous years, according to Eurostat, there were 145 Armenia-born individuals in Slovakia in 2003, 261 in 2005 and 63 in 2009 (Population by Sex n. d.). At the end of 2009 there were 27 citizens of Armenia included into statistics on immigrants to Slovakia (International n. d.).11 The Armenian diaspora in Slovakia started to take its institutional shape in 1999 at the initiative of the entrepreneur and NGOs activist Ashot Grigoryan (who himself moved to Slovakia in 1993). It became officially registered as the Armenian Community in Slovakia (Arménska komunita na Slovensku) in 2002. According to its founder and current leader, the Community is particularly active in presenting Armenian culture in Slovakia, strengthening economic and political relations between Armenia and Slovakia, and lobbying for the recognition of the Armenian Genocide (Žamakočyan et al. 2011: 169). The achievements towards this latter goal are significant indeed. In 1999 a concert dedicated to the victims of the genocide took place in Slovakia’s National Theatre in the presence of the country’s political elite, after which the Turkish ambassador in Slovakia was called back to Turkey (Žamakočyan et al. 2011: 169 – 170). Five years later, on 30 October 2004, the Parliament of Slovakia recognised the events of 1915 and subsequent years as genocide. The text of the parliamentary resolution was later carved out in the Armenian, English, and Slovak languages on the khachkar (cross-stone) standing on the bank of the Danube River in Bratislava. Since then Turkey has demanded, to no avail, to have the monument dismantled, while the Armenian community sets up annual commemorations of the adoption of the act and of the genocide itself at this spot (A. Grigorian 2014; Bratislava 2005; Turkey 2007; Žamakočyan et al. 2011: 170 – 171). In 2011, Slovakia went a step further by adopting, as the first country in Europe, the law which has criminalised the denial of the Armenian Genocide and introduced a punishment of up to five years’ imprisonment for such an act. Many Armenians in Slovakia run their own businesses and the Armenian Community is active in the sphere of the economy and trade, including the organisation of six Armenian-Slovakian Business Forums in 2002 – 2011 (Žamakočyan et al. 2011: 172). Since 2010 the Armenian Chamber of Commerce (Arménska obchodná a priemyselná komora) has operated in Slovakia, having as its aim the development of commercial links between the two countries (Arménska n. d.). In Slovakia there also live a number of distinguished Armenian artists, among them tenor Gurgen Ovsepian, the soloist of Slovakia’s National Theatre. Regarding the religious life of the Armenian diaspora in Slovakia, an important event took place in 2013 when one of Bratislava’s Catholic churches was leased to the Community at the expense of renovating and maintaining it. Armenian Apostolic priests from the Czech Republic and Austria are to conduct services in the church (Slovakian 2013).

11 A remote, mountainous, Slovakian-Ukrainian border area is a gate to the EU zone for some illegal migrants, including Armenians. According to the statistics of the Border Monitoring Project Ukraine, the Border Guard detained 24 Armenian citizens attempting to enter Slovakia in 2010, 2 in 2011, and 4 in January-June 2012 (Statistics, n. d.).

Armenians in Other Countries of Post-Socialist Europe

217

Finally, it has to be mentioned that the headquarters of the Forum of the Armenian Associations of Europe (FAAE) is located in Bratislava, and since 2008 Ashot Grigoryan has been the President of this pan-European organisation, which gathers institutional members from 21 countries. Since its inception in 2001, the Forum has organised a number of conferences and thematic workshops (of Armenian writers, lawyers, etc), and been engaged in various lobbying and protest actions, mostly related to the Armenian Genocide and ­Karabakh conflict (Forum n. d.; Žamakočyan et al. 2011: 173 – 175).

Conclusion The Armenian diasporas in the five countries discussed in this chapter – Albania, Lithuania, Macedonia, Serbia and Slovakia – comprise only a tiny part of the Armenian diasporic network that spans over six continents. As such they have escaped scholars’ notice, despite the fact that each presents a promising case for research, be it a newly emerged and resilient Armenian minority in Slovakia, or a fading diaspora with a long and rich history in Serbia. Such research, once they appear, can enhance our understanding of personal and group identity strategies in today’s nation-states as they increasingly become, in Zygmunt Bauman’s words (2011: 428), “the collection of diasporas” (italics in original).

References A. Grigorian (2014) “A. Grigorian: SR ako jediná v EÚ trestá popieranie genocídy Arménov”, TASR, http:// www.teraz.sk/slovensko/sr-armensko-genocida-vyrocie/82346-clanok.html [10 September 2014]. Albania (2003) “Albania”, A. Ayvazân (ed.), Hay Sp’yowṙk’ Hanragitaran, Erewan: Haykakan hanragitaran hratarakčowt’yown, pp.  31 – 32 Ambrozaitienė Dalia, Balandienė Rasa, Nikiforova Natalja, Norušienė Eglė, Onichovska Edita, Vaitekūnienė Vanda, Važnevičiūtė Julija, Vildžiūnienė Asta (2013) “Results of the 2011 Population and Housing Census of the Republic of Lithuania”, Statistics Lithuania, http://osp.stat.gov.lt/services-portlet/pub-­editionfile?id=2348 [10 September 2014]. Armâne (2011) “Armâne Litvy sobralis' v Šaulâj”, Russkoe informacionnoe agenstvo Litvy, http://rusia.lt/ lietuva/417-armyane-litvy-sobralis-v-shaulyay.html [18 September 2014]. Arménska (n. d.) Arménska obchodná a priemyselná komora na Slovensku, http://www.armchamb.sk/index. html [10 September 2014]. Asatrian Hakob (2009) “Armenian Community of Macedonia to Have Armenian Saturday School Starting from Autumn”, Noyyan Tapan, http://nt.am/en/news/25047/ [20 September 2014]. Bauman Zygmunt (2011) “Migration and Identities in the Globalized World”, Philosophy and Social Criticism, 37 (4), pp. 425 – 435. Baxčinean Arçowi (2010) “Albaniayi Hayerë ew Haj-Albanakan Ar˙nčowťiwnner”, Haykazean hayagitakan handes, 30, pp. 603 – 612. Bratislava (2005) “Bratislava to Mark Anniversary of Resolution Censuring Armenian Genocide”, ­PanArmenian.Net, http://hyeforum.com/index.php?showtopic=12930 [10 September 2014].

218

Konrad Siekierski

Corley Felix (2001) “Lithuania: Controversy Surrounds Four-Tier Religious Status”, Keston News Service, http://www.keston.org.uk/kns/2001/010524LI-02.htm [10 September 2014]. Constitution (n. d.) Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia with the Amendments to the Constitution I-XXX, http://eudo-citizenship.eu/NationalDB/docs/MAC%20Constitution%20(amended%20by%20 XXX)%20eng.pdf [10 November 2014]. Dita (n. d.) “‘Dita e dhimbjes së madhe’ për armenët e Shqipërisë”, Agjencia.info, http://agjencia. info/2011/04/26/dita-e-dhimbjes-se-madhe-per-armenet-e-shqiperise/ [20 September 2014]. Ermenci (n. d.) “Ermenci vo Makedoniǰa”, Wikipedia, http://mk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ерменци_во_ Македонија [09 September 2014]. Ethnicity (2012) “Ethnicity. Data by Municipalities and Cities”, 2011 Census of Population, Households and Dwellings in the Republic of Serbia, Belgrade: Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia, http://pod2.stat. gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/Popis2011/Nacionalna%20pripadnost-Ethnicity.pdf [25 August 2014]. Forum (n. d.) Forum of Armenian Association of Europe, http://faaeurope.ofirme.sk/?run=content &id=4618&lang=sk [10 September 2014]. Gradonačalnikot (2008) “Gradonačalnikot Kostovski se sretna co predstavnici na ermenskata zaednica vo Makedoniǰa”, skopje.gov.mk, http://www.skopje.gov.mk/ShowAnnouncements.aspx?ItemID=1628&m id=24&tabId=1&tabindex=0 [09 September 2014]. Gusejnova Sevil (2006) “Problematika ‘pripisyvaemoj’ identičnosti (Bakinskie armâne)”, Diaspory, 4, pp.  116 – 150. Hakobean Hranuš (ed.) (2012) Haykakan Spyowr˙k’ Taregirk’, Erevan: Hayastani Hanrapetut’ean Spyowr˙­ k’i Naxararut’yown, http://www.mindiaspora.am/res/Hratarakumner/2011/Տարեգիրք%202011%20 (դաս.-անգլ.).pdf [14 July 2014]. Harowt’yownyan Vega, Harowt’yownyan R ˙ uslan (2003) “Litva”, A. Ayvazân (ed.), Hay Spyowr˙k’ hanra­ gitaran, Erewan: Haykakan hanragitaran hratarakčowt’yown: pp. 329 – 330. Hayrenik’ (2011) “‘Hayrenik’, k’ez ayspisin em tesnum’: arjagank’ner Makedoniayic”, Hayern Aysor, 105, http://old1.hayernaysor.am/files/Armenians%20Today_Weekly%20News%20105_Armenian.pdf [09 September 2014], pp. 12 – 13. Hovakimyan Ašot (2003) “Haravslavia”, A. Ayvazân (ed.), Hay Spyowr˙k’ hanragitaran, Erewan: Haykakan hanragitaran hratarakčowt’yown, pp. 353 – 356. International (n. d.) International Immigrants in the Territory of the SR by Citizenship, Sex and Age Group on 31 Dec. 2009 (Permanent Residence), http://slovak.statistics.sk/wps/wcm/connect/06e53f85-71a9-4298826c-fa073af8e7d4/1_subor_11_en.pdf?MOD=AJPERES [10 September 2014]. Kauno (n. d.) Kauno armėnų ansamblis “Hayrenik”, http://hajrenik.jimdo.com [18 September 2014]. Klarić-Žak A. (2006) “Parastos kod Krsta u kamenu. Jermeni iz Srbije održali pomen žrtvama genocida iz 1915. godine”, Glas javnosti, http://arhiva.glas-javnosti.rs/arhiva/2006/04/27/srpski/R06042602. shtml [25 August 2014]. Krasniqi Gezim (2012) “The Politics of Numbers and Identity in Albania”, CITSEE: Citizenship in Southeast Europe, http://www.citsee.eu/blog/politics-numbers-and-identity-albania [20 September 2014]. Laaksonen Annamari (2010) Making Culture Accessible: Access, Participation and Cultural Provision in the Context of Cultural Rights in Europe, Strasbourg: Council of Europe. The Law (2002) The Law on the Protection of Rights and Freedoms of National Minorities, http://www.seio. gov.rs/upload/documents/ekspertske%20misije/protection_of_minorities/the_law_on_the-protection_ rights_nat_minorities.pdf [25 August 2014]. Makedoniayi (2013) “Makedoniayi Hay Hamaynk’”, Hayern Aysor, http://hayernaysor.am/մակեդոնիայիհայ-համայնք/ [08 September 2014]. Mlađenović Lepa (2013) “Gohar Harutyunyan 1967 – 2013. Pesmom protiv stracha”, Mreža žene protiv nasilja, http://www.zeneprotivnasilja.net/zene-zenama/322-gohar-harutyunyan–1967-2013 [25 August 2014].

Armenians in Other Countries of Post-Socialist Europe

219

Obyvatel’stvo (n. d.) “Obyvatel’stvo podl’a miesta sčítania, pohlavia, postavenia v domácnosti, postavenia v zamestnaní, ekonom. aktivity, miesta narod., štátnej prísluš., a veku – HC3”, DataCube, Sčítanie obyvatel’ov, domoc a bytov 2011, http://datacube.statistics.sk/SODB/TM1WebLogin.aspx [10 September 2014]. Population by Nationality (n. d.) “Population by Nationality, 2011, 2001, 1991”, Štatistický úrad Slovenskej republiky, http://portal.statistics.sk/files/table–10.pdf [16 September 2014]. Population by Sex (n. d.) “Population by Sex, Age, and Country of Birth”, Eurostat, http://epp.eurostat. ec.europa.eu [10 September 2014]. Population (2012) Population and Housing Census, Part 1., INSTAT: Tiranë, http://www.instat.gov.al/ media/177354/main_results__population_and_housing_census_2011.pdf [20 September 2014]. Purger Tibor (2012) “Ethnic Self-Governance in Serbia. The First Two Years of the National Minority Council”, Délkelet Európa – South-East Europe International Relations Quarterly, 3 (2), http://www. southeast-europe.org/pdf/10/DKE_10_A_DK_Purger-Tibor.pdf [25 August 2014]. Religion (2013) Religion, Mother Tongue and Ethnicity. Data by Municipalities and Cities. 2011 Census of Population, Households and Dwellings in the Republic of Serbia, Belgrade: Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia, http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/Popis2011/Knjiga4_Veroispovest. pdf [25 August 2014]. Slovakian (2013) “Slovakian Armenians Already Have Armenian Church”, The Orthodox Church, http://theorthodoxchurch.info/blog/news/2013/02/slovakian-armenians-already-have-armenian-church/ [10 September 2014]. Sargsyan Aram (2003) “Slovakia”, A. Ayvazân (ed.), Hay Sp’yowr˙k’ Hanragitaran, Erewan: Haykakan hanragitaran hratarakčowt’yown, p. 535. Simonân Babken (2006) “Armâne v Serbii v XIII-XX vekah”, Aniv, 3 (6), http://www.aniv.ru/archive/32/ armjane-v-serbii-v-xiii-xx-vekah-babken-simonjan/ [08 August 2014]. Suren (2011) “Suren Sergeev: Armânie živut v Litve s XVI veka”, Èkspress Nedelâ, http://www.nedelia. lt/news-lt/aktual/20074-suren-sergeev-armyane-zhivut-v-litve-s-hvi-veka.html [18 September 2014]. Statistical (2014) Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of Macedonia 2014, Republic of Macedonia State Statistical Office, http://www.stat.gov.mk/PrikaziPublikacija_1_en.aspx?rbr=485 [20 September 2014]. Statistics (n. d.) “Statistics”, Border Monitoring Project Ukraine (BMPU), http://bordermonitoring-ukraine. eu/statistics/ [10 September 2014]. Supervizor (2008) “Supervizor Gregorian se sreo sa predsjednicom Jermenskog ženskog centra”, OHR, http://www.ohr.int/ohr-dept/presso/pressr/default.asp?content_id=41409 [21 August 2014]. Turkey (2007) “Turkey Demands to Unmount Armenian Khachkar in Bratislava”, PanArmenian.Net, http:// www.panarmenian.net/eng/world/news/23325/ [10 September 2014]. U Beogradu (2007) “U Beogradu održana komemoracija ubijenom turskom novinaru jermenskog porekla”, Krstarica Vesti, http://vesti.krstarica.com/vesti-dana/u-beogradu-odrzana-komemoracija-ubijenomturskom-novinaru-jermenskog-porekla/ [10 September 2014]. Vickers Miranda, Pettifer James (1997) Albania: From Anarchy to a Balkan Identity, London: Hurst & Company. Zaharkevič Stepan (2013) “Armâne Reči Pospolitoj: analiz modeli kul' turnoj adaptacii”, I. Skvorcova (ed.), Hudožestvennaâ kul'tura armânskih obŝin na zemlâh Reči Pospolitoj, Minsk: Art Dizajn, pp. 20 – 29. Zenian David (2001) “The Armenians of Lithuania: The Challenge of Life in the New Diaspora”, AGBU, http://agbu.org/news-item/the-armenians-of-lithuania-the-challenge-of-life-in-the-new-diaspora/ [10 September 2014]. Žamakočyan Anna, Galstyan Diana, Manusyan Sona, Hovyan Vahram (2010) Hetxorhrdayin erkrneri haykakan hamaynk’neri ink’nut’yan xndirnerë ew teg˙ekatvakan ˙r esowrsnerë, Erewan: Noravank’. Žamakočyan Anna, Papyan Ara, Simavoryan Arestakes, Galstyan Diana, Badalyan Ēdvard, Martirosyan Samvel, Hovyan Vahram, G ˙ analanyan Tigran (2011) Arewelyan Evropayi hay hamaynk’neri xndirnerë, Erewan: Noravank’.

List of Contributors Hakob Asatryan holds an MA in Journalism from Moscow State University. Since 1991 he has been a Senior Political Correspondent for the Azg (Nation) daily/weekly. In 1993 – 1995 he was a correspondent in Yerevan to Les Nouvelles d’Armenie (Paris) and the Armenian International Magazine (USA). In 1996 – 1997 he held the position of Yerevan Bureau Chief to Les Nouvelles d’Armenie. Since 1999 he has been the Editor-in-Chief of the Orer Armenian European Magazine, published in Prague, the Czech Republic. Asatryan has received several awards for his contributions to media and journalism in Europe, the USA and Armenia. Christofer Berglund is a PhD candidate at the Department of Government, Uppsala University, Sweden. He specialises in issues of democratisation, inter-ethnic relations, and language politics, with a focus on the South Caucasus. He has published articles on these topics for the Journal of Language and Social Psychology, Demokratizatsiya, and Nordisk Østforum, and contributed with book chapters to several edited volumes, most recently the Handbook of Political Change in Eastern Europe. Timothy K. Blauvelt is an Associate Professor of Soviet and Post-Soviet Studies at Ilia State University in Tbilisi, Georgia, and a Country Director in Georgia for American Councils for International Education: ACTR/ACCELS. He has published numerous articles about political history, clientelism, nationality policy and nationalism in Russia, the Soviet Union and the Caucasus in Ab Imperio, Europe-Asia Studies, Communist & Post-Communist Studies, Nationalities Papers, and Central Asian Survey among the others. Brigitta Davidjants received her MA degree in Musicology from the Estonian Academy of Music and Theatre in 2007. Currently she is affiliated with the Estonian Academy of Music and Theatre where she is working on her doctoral thesis on cultural policy and strategies of cultural reproduction in the Armenian diaspora of Estonia. In addition, she is a leader and quanun player of the Armenian folk ensemble Atlas. David Davtyan is a PhD candidate at I. I. Mechnikov National University in Odessa. He specialises in the history of Armenian colonies, religious organisations, and political parties in Ukraine as well as the Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire. He is the head of the Armenian Union of Ukraine Committee for Historical and Cultural Heritage. Viktor Dyatlov holds a PhD in Historical Sciences, He is a Professor of the Department of World History and International Relations at Irkutsk State University, Deputy Editorin-Chief of the magazine Diaspory, and Director of the Research Centre The Inner Asia.

222

List of Contributors

Annett Fleischer holds a PhD from the Institute for Social Anthropology, the Free University of Berlin. She is the author of Migration, Marriage, and the Law: Making Families Among Cameroonian ‘Bush Fallers’ in Germany (2012). Currently, she works as a consultant for the International Organisation for Migration in Sri Lanka. István Horváth holds a PhD in Philosophy of History from Babeş-Bolyai University in Cluj. He is an Associate Professor at Babeş-Bolyai University, and a head of the Romanian Institute for Research on National Minorities. He has published articles and edited volumes on migration issues in Romania. Łukasz Łotocki holds a PhD in Sociology (specialisation in migration). He is a lecturer at the Institute of Social Policy, the University of Warsaw and the author of the book: Między swojskością a obcością. Imigranci z Armenii w Polsce. Hakob Matevosyan graduated from the PhD program at the Department of Sociology at Yerevan State University, and is currently a PhD candidate at the Institute for the Study of Culture at Leipzig University. Since 2011 he has taught at the Department of Sociology, YSU. In 2011 – 2013 he was the head of the Data Management and Processing Department of the Institute for Political and Sociological Consulting in Yerevan. He has published articles on identity construction, social capital and civic participation. Siranush Papazian-Tanielian graduated from Sofia University St. Klement O ­ hridski, the Faculty of History, with a specialisation in Ethnography. From 1976 to 2006 she worked at the Ethnographic Institute and Museum of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences in Sofia. Her research has been primarily in the sphere of traditional folk medicine as well as on traditions, culture, and everyday life of the Armenians in Bulgaria. Alina Poghosyan is a Junior Scientist at the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography at the National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia. Her main research field is in migration and transnational studies. She is the author of several publications on these and other topics related to modern Armenian culture. Lidia Prisac holds a PhD in Historical Sciences. She is a Scientific Researcher at the Institute of Cultural Heritage at the Academy of Sciences of Moldova. Her research areas are: the history of the Republic of Moldova, ethnic identity and interethnic relations, Trans­ nistrian separatism, and the history of the Armenian community in Bessarabia. She is the author of more than 40 scientific publications, including the monograph Istoriografia separatismului transnistrian. Konrad Siekierski holds an MA in cultural anthropology from the University of Warsaw. His research interests include religion in Soviet and post-Soviet Armenia, identity formation

List of Contributors

223

in the Armenian diaspora, as well as modern Polish Catholicism. He is the co-editor of Armenia: kultura współczesna w ujęciu antropologicznym and author of several articles published in academic journals and collective volumes. Aghasi Tadevosyan is a Senior Scientist at the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography at the National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia, and a lecturer in cultural anthropology at Yerevan State University. His research interests include issues of everyday life, migration, modernisation, minorities, and socio-cultural aspects of transition in post-Soviet countries. He is the author of 11 monographs and more than 50 articles. Andrzej Tichomirow holds an MA in History from the Yanka Kupala State University and in East-Central European and Post-Soviet Studies from the University of Warsaw. He is a PhD candidate at Ludwik and Aleksander Birkenmajer Institute for the History of Science of the Polish Academy of Sciences. His research interests include history of ideas in the 19th century, historical and contemporary national minorities in Belarus, and politics of memory. Stefan Troebst is a historian and Slavicist. He is a professor of East European Cultural History at the Global and European Studies Institute of Leipzig University, Germany, as well as Deputy Director of the Leipzig Centre for the History and Culture of East-Central Europe (GWZO), where he heads a research network on Armenians in Eastern Europe. He publishes on modern European history, contemporary interethnic relations in Central and Eastern Europe, and Armenians in early modern Northeastern Europe. Ilka Veress holds an MA in Sociology from Babeş-Bolyai University. She works as a researcher at the Romanian Institute for Research on National Minorities, specialising in the issues of ethnicity, identity politics, and the sociology of values. Ion Xenofontov holds a PhD in Historical Sciences. He is a Scientific Secretary at the Institute of the Encyclopaedic Studies of the Academy of Sciences of Moldova. His research area is oral history, military history, and encyclopaedic research. He is the author of more than 80 scientific publications, including two monographs: Războiul din Afganistan (1979 – 1989). În memoria participanților din Republica Moldova and Războiul sovieto-afgan (1979 – 1989). Studiu de istorie verbală. Percepții. Documente. Ulrike Ziemer is a Senior Lecturer in Sociology at the University of Winchester. Her recent publications include the monograph Ethnic Belonging, Gender and Cultural Practices: Youth Identities in Contemporary Russia, and an edited volume East European Diasporas, Migration and Cosmopolitanism.

Index Abalyan Iskuhi 117 Abdul Hamid II 194 Abgarowicz Kajetan 88 Abgaryan Gagik 162 Abkhazia 41, 48, 69, 75–77, 112 Abovian Khachatur 131 Abrahamyan Marine 167 Abramian Ara 35–37 Abramyan Tigran 161, 165, 167 Achatryan Armen 117 Adamyan Grigor 117 Agadzhanyan Leva 117 Agajanian Argishti 150 Agekân Karen 116 Aghanian Denise 19 Aivazovsky Gabriel 88 Aivazovsky Ivan 88, 118 Akhalkalaki (city, District) 71, 73, 75, 77–78, 80–82 Akhaltsikhe 70, 73 Akkerman see: Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi Akopân Vigen 78 Albania 13, 205–207, 217 Albena 201 Aleksinac 213 Alexander I 99 Alexander II 71–72 Alexandru cel Bun 99 Altaev Aleksandr 104 Alvesson Mats 15, 131 Ambrozaitienė Dalia 208–210 Amfiteatrov Aleksandr 71 Amosov Andrej 45 Ananikyan Armen 168 Ananyan Jaurès (Ananân Žores) 98–99 Anatolia 69 Anderson Benedict 17 Anenii Noi 101 Ani 98, 117, 172, 176 Anikevič Irina 117

Aniv (periodical, Belarus/Russia) 116–117 Antonenko Oksana 78 Aragats (periodical, Ukraine) 94 Arakelyan Ashot 167 Arakelyan Pavel 117 Aram Khachaturian Choir (Bulgaria) 195 Ararat periodical, Latvia 122 periodical, Romania 188 periodical, USA 33 Province 57 Archbishop Józef Teodorowicz Union of Armenians in Poland 153 Arghamanyan Nareh 167 Argutian Iosif 99 Armavir 44 Armen 206 Armenia: Örmény Kulturális Közéleti Folyóirat (periodical, Hungary) 173–174 Armenia Club (Czech Republic) 161 Armenian Association in Poland 154 Armenian Association in Silesia (Poland) 154 Armenian Association of Albania 207 Armenian Charitable Society for Ladies (Russian Empire) 44 Armenian Charitable Society for Women (Russian Empire) 44 Armenian Charitable Society in the Caucasus (Russian Empire) 43 Armenian Centre for Development of Science, Economy and Culture (Serbia) 215 Armenian Chamber of Commerce (Slovakia) 216 Armenian Civil Association of the Grodno Region – Musaler (Belarus) 117 Armenian Civil Association of the Mogilev Region – Masis (Belarus) 117 Armenian Community in Lithuania – Garun 210 Armenian Community in Riga (Latvia) 122

Index

Armenian Community in Slovakia 216 Armenian Community of Transnistria 102 Armenian Cultural Association (Albania) 207 Armenian Cultural Foundation (Hungary) 173 Armenian Cultural Society (Estonia) 129–133, 136, 138 Armenian Cultural Society (Poland) 153–154 Armenian-Czech Society 161–162 Armenian-Czech Society – Urartu 163 Armenian Democratic Liberal Party (Ramgavar) 17, 194 Armenian Diaspora in the Republic of Moldova – Mair Aiastan 101 Armenian Foundation of the Circle for Interest in Armenian Culture (Poland) 153–154 Armenian Front (Romania) 182 Armenian General Benevolent Union (AGBU) 17, 160, 200–201 Armenian General Union of Body Culture (Homenetmen) 17, 201 Armenian House Bulgaria 197 Czech Republic 163 Serbia 213 Armenian-Macedonian Friendship Club 212 Armenian-Polish Association – Ani 154 Armenian-Polish Social Committee 154–155 Armenian Relief Society (ARS) 17, 201 Armenian Research Centre – Aniv 117 Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaktsutiun) 17, 44, 72–73, 78, 194 Armenian-Serbian Friendship Club 215 Armenian Service of Radio Liberty (Czech Republic) 163, 166 Armenian Song and Dance Ensemble (Bulgaria) 195 Armenian Studies Research Centre – Aniv 117 Armenian Union (Czech Republic) 160 Armenian Union in Lithuania 210 Armenian Union in the Republic of Macedonia 212 Armenian Women’s Association in Moldova – Tatevic 101 Armenian Womens’ Centre – Armenka 215

225

Armenian World Congress 17, 36 Armenopolis see: Gherla Armyanskiy Chas (periodical, Ukraine) 94 Armyanskiy Vestnik (periodical, Ukraine) 94 Artsakh see: Nagorno-Karabakh Arutiunian Ruslan (Harutyunyan Ruslan) 210 Arutûnân Ûrik 14, 35 Arutûnân Anna 21 Arutyunyan Kliment (Arutûnân Kliment) 108, 112 Arzumanyan Arsen 14–15 Asatryan Hakob 15, 160, 162, 211–212 Asdurian Emil 207 Asdurian Manvel 207 Aslanian Artin 159 Association of Armenian Students of Agriculture (Czech Republic) 160 Association of Armenians in Poland 154–155 Association of Polish Armenians 154 Association of Transylvanian ArmenianHungarians (Romania) 189 Atlas (musical ensemble, Estonia) 133 Australia 129 Austria 160, 164, 216 Avanesyan Garik 163, 167–168 Avanesyan Ruzanna 116 Avetisyan Gevorg 168 Avetisyan Gor 167 Awedis (periodical, Poland) 154 Axentowicz Teodor 87 Ayvazân A. 15, 21 Ayvazyan Kristine 167 Azerbaijan 21, 32, 41, 48–51, 54, 73, 80–81, 89–91, 112–113, 135, 161, 164, 170, 174, 176, 210–211 Babadzhanyan Hamazasp 112 Babayan Armen 211 Babayan Genadiy 102 Babayan Suren 167 Babrujsk 117 Bachmann Carine 54–55, 57–58, 60–61 Bade Klaus 14 Baghdasaryan Rafik 211 Baghramyan Hovhannes 112, 168

226

Index

Bakalian Anny 176 Bakhtin Mikhail 122 Baku 32, 48–50, 71, 80, 89, 112–113, 115, 130, 133, 138–140 Balabanov Aleksandar 211 Balabanov Kosta 211 Balabanova Namičeva J̌ asminka 211–212 Balabanyan Manyoil 211 Balicki Janusz 150 Balǰyan Hayk 206 Baramidze Gigla 77 Barącz Sadok 88 Bardak Ummuhan 62 Barth Frederick 47 Batumi (city, Province) 69–71 Bauman Zygmunt 217 Baxčinean Arçowi 159–160, 206–207 Bălți 101, 104 Beglecov Maksim 42 Belarus 20, 54, 107–118, 146 Belgium 160, 167 Belgrade (Beograd) 213–215 Belhadj Marnia 19 Bender see: Tighina Benedict XVI 167 Berezhany 88 Berglund Christofer 17–18, 76, 79 Berlin 213 Bessarabia 86–87, 98–100, 105, 179 Bezlošadnyj Stepan 104 Bezviconi Gheorge 98 Białystok Voivodeship 111 Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi (Akkerman) 86, 95–96 Bilohirsk (Karasubazar) 86–87 Bin Laden Osama 153 Biuletyn Ormiańskiego Towarzystwa Kulturalnego (periodical, Poland) 154 Blato the son of Babug 212 Blauvelt Timothy 17–18, 75, 83 Bodikyan Levon 206 Boeck Brian J. 46 Bogdanovka see: Ninotsminda Boguš Tat' âna 108, 115

Bohosian Mihran (Bohosân Mihran) 193–196, 200, 202 Bohosiewicz Maciej 156 Boratyński Ludovicus 109 Borchalo 73 Bosnia and Hercegovina 21 Boston 201 Botoşani 99, 179 Bourdieu Pierre 122 Brah Avtar 42–43 Bratislava 215–217 Brăila 180, 188 Breckenridge Carol A. 43 Brednikova Ol' ga 14 Brest Region 113 Brettell Caroline 123 Brno 161, 165–167 Broers Laurence 74, 76 Brown Lyn M. 49 Brubaker Rogers 20, 175 Budapest 172, 174 Bucharest (Bucureşti) 16, 100, 180, 182, 187–188, 196 Bucovina 179 Budkin Sârġej 117 Bugaj Nikolaj 88 Bulgaria 14, 17, 188, 193–203 Buławski Rajmund 111 Buranân Karen 32 Burawoy Michael 45 Burgas 197–198, 201–203 Buzek Józef 111 Byzantine Empire 193 Bzhishkyan Hayk see: Gai Caffa see: Feodosia Cairo 130, 201 Caligari Giovanni Andrea 109 Canada 200, 213 Cassarino Jean-Pierre 56, 59, 63 Catharina II 99 Caucasus (North Caucasus, South Caucasus, Transcaucasus, Transcaucasia) 9, 17, 19, 40– 41, 43–44, 47, 62, 69–74, 108, 110, 113–114, 118

Index

Caucasus – Eastern Europe Information Centre (Czech Republic) 162 Cavoukian Kristin 14–15 Chakhalyan Vahagn 81 Chaloyan Asthgik 21 Chechnya 41, 112 Cher (Cherilyn Sarkisian LaPiere) 136 Cheramidoglu Constantin 100 Cherkasy 96 Chernivtsi 96 Chicago 130 Children’s Dance Ensemble – Arevik (Belarus) 116 China 146 Chișinău 99, 101–105 Church Albanian Orthodox 207 Armenian Apostolic 40, 43–46, 49, 51, 72, 79–80, 87–89, 92–93, 95–96, 99–100, 102– 105, 109–111, 115, 122, 124–126, 132, 137–138, 141, 155, 160, 165, 168–169, 171–172, 175, 180– 182, 187–189, 194–198, 203, 207, 210, 214–216 Armenian Catholic 87–89, 109–111, 155, 172, 174–175, 177, 180–182, 187–189, 199, 213–214 Bulgarian Orthodox 197 Georgian Orthodox 76–77, 79–80 Greek Catholic 111, 182 Macedonian Orthodox 212 Moldovan Orthodox 98, 105 Roman Catholic 87, 103, 110–111, 165, 180, 182, 207, 216 Serbian Orthodox 213–214 Ciecieląg Paweł 153, 155 Cioroiu Ion 181 Circle of Interest in Armenians’ Culture (Poland) 154 Clifford James 13 Cluj-Napoca 188–189 Cohen Anthony P. 16 Cohen Robin 129 Community of Armenians in the Republic of Moldova 101–102 Comrat 101 Congress of Baltic Armenians 122, 210

227

Constantinople see: Istanbul Constanţa 180, 187–188 Corley Felix 210 Cornell Svante 73, 77 Cracow (Kraków) 109, 153–155 Crimea 86–90, 94–95, 213 Croatia 21 Csíkszépvíz see: Frumoasa Cultural Centre – Armenia (Moldova) 103 Cyprus 200 Czech Republic 9, 20, 159–169, 205, 216 Czechoslovakia 159–160, 205 Çakmakxhian Xovasar 207 Čèban I. L. 111, 115–117 Černý Václav 162 Čikadze Elena 14, 27 Danelyan Grigoriy 116 Darbinyan Levon 116 Darieva Tsypylma 39 Dashnaktsutiun see: Armenian Revolutionary Federation Daugavpils 121 David the Builder 69, 79 Davidjants Artem 130–131, 133–136, 138–139 Davidjants Brigitta 15–16, 18, 133, 208 Davityan Davit 159 Davtyan David (Davtân David) 15, 17–18, 87–88 de Certeau Michel 121 Demetriou Spyros 77 Democratic Committee of the Armenians Living in the People’s Republic of Romania 182 Denskus Tobias 131 Dzerzhinsky District 107 Devedjian Hovhannes 194 Diaszpóra 21 Magazin (periodical, Hungary) 173 Dmitrieva Marina 9 Dink Hrant 215 Dnipropetrovsk (city, Province) 90, 96 Dobos Balász 172 Dobrich (Tolbukhin) 194, 196, 201 Dokšycy 117

228

Index

Donetsk (city, People’s Republic, Province) 89–90, 95–96 Dorohoi 99 Dorpat see: Tartu Drbohlav Dušan 161 Dufoix Stéphane 20 Duka Dominik 164–165 Dumbrăveni (Erzsébetváros) 179, 188–189 Durrës 206 Dvin (musical ensemble, Estonia) 133 Dyatlov Viktor (Dâtlov Viktor) 15–18, 20, 28, 124 earthquake: 1988, Spitak 48, 54, 89–90, 104, 112, 115, 123, 135, 140, 144, 161, 174, 214 Echmiadzin 115, 165, 196 Edigaryan Eduard 167 Egiazaryan Georgiy (Èġiâzaran Ġeorġij) 116 Egypt 160, 201 Ekaterinodar see: Krasnodar Elbląg 154–155 Elias Norbert 176 Elizabetpol see: Ganja Elizabetpol Governorship 70 Ember Melvin 14 Erdélyi Örmény Gyökerek Füzetek (periodical, Hungary) 173–174 Erebuni Dance Ensemble (Belarus) 116 Erebuni Vocal and Instrumental Ensemble (Bulgaria) 195 Erivan see: Yerevan Erivan Governorship 70, 73 Erkanian Artem 42 Erzsébetváros see: Dumbrăveni Erzurum (Karin) 213 Estonia 9, 16, 122, 129–141 Estonian Armenian National Society 130–132 Ezzeddine-Lukšíková Petra 161 Faist Thomas 58 Farashyan Egiazar 117 Feodosia (Caffa) 86–87, 93, 96 Ferguson James 47 Firsov Evgenij (Firsov Evgenyi) 14–15, 17, 27 Fishman Joshua A. 183 Fleischer Annett 18–19, 55, 59–60

Floerkemeier Holger 60 Focşani 188 Forum of the Armenian Associations of Europe 217 France 14, 17, 36, 54, 56, 59, 160, 167, 188 Freud Karel 161 Frumoasa (Csíkszépvíz) 179, 189 Foundation Centre for Armenian Culture – Musa Ler (Poland) 154 Foundation of Culture and Heritage of Polish Armenians 154 Gai (Bzhishkyan Hayk, Ġaj) 111 Galaţi 99, 180, 188 Galicia 86, 109 Galikian Babik 160 Gallio Tolomeo 109 Galkina Tamara 14–15 Gamsakhurdia Zviad 75–77 Ganja (Elizabetpol, Kirovabad) 32, 48, 50, 70, 113 Garabedân Akop 194 Garegin II 165, 188, 198 Gasparean Venera 101, 103 Gasparyan Djivan 45, 94–95 Gdańsk 150, 154–155 Gellner Ernest 31 Geneva 72 genocide: Ottoman-Turkish against Armenians 16, 39–40, 45, 49, 71, 88, 90, 104–105, 115, 129–130, 137–139, 141, 160–164, 169, 171–174, 176, 180, 201–202, 207, 211–217 Genov Nikolai 54–55, 57–58, 61–62 Georg Deodatus (Georgium Deodatum) 159 George Julie 71, 78 Georgia 17, 41, 48, 50, 69–83, 112, 124, 145 Germany (German Democratic Republic, German Empire) 21, 33, 56, 59, 148, 160, 167 Geronyan Alexander 122 Gevorkyan Aleksandr 47, 54–55 Gharadjian Gevorg 72 Gharibyan Hrayr 167 Gharibyan Mariam 167 Ghazaryan Shushan 163 Gheorgheni (Gyergyószentmiklós) 179, 188–189

Index

Gherla (Armenopolis, Szamosújvár) 180, 187– 189 Gjirokastër 206 Glick-Schiller Nina 20, 123 Gliwice 153, 155 Goltz Hermann 21 Golub Masisa (periodical, Ukraine) 94 Gomel (Homiel’) Region 113 Gomidas Choir (Bulgaria) 195 Gori 69 Gosh Mkhitar 88 Grant Bruce 49 Greece 17, 207 Gregory the Illuminator 110, 198 Grigorian David 54 Grigoriopol 98–99, 101, 103–104 Grigorjan Rafik 131 Grigoryan Ashot 216–217 Grigoryan Larisa 166 Grigoryan Maksim 211 Grodno (Hrodna) (city, Province, Region) 110–111, 113, 115–117 Gromov Nikolaj 46 Guajta Džovannij 98 Gudaszewski Grzegorz 153, 155 Guentcheva Rossitza 191 Gupta Akhil 47 Guretski Voitsekh 77 Guseynova Sevil (Gusejnova Sevil) 21, 32 Gyergyószentmiklós see: Gheorgheni Gyumri (Leninakan) 32, 50 Ġaj see: Gai Ġarachavik A. M. 111, 115–117 Ġradzinar Vol´ġa 115, 117 Habermas Jurgen 122 Habsburg Empire 109, 213 Hačaturân Vazgen 44 Hačikân Manušag 203 Hagopian John 33 Haidarlȋ Dan 98–99 Hakhnazaryan Narek 167 Hakobean Hranuš 15, 21, 215 Hakobyan Grigor 81 Halabyan David 168

229

Halabyan Vladimir 168 Hamasyan Tigran 167 Hambardzumyan Anna 167 Hancilova Blanka 55, 57, 59–60, 62, 65 Hann Chris 21 Hannerz Ulf 43 Hansa Fund for Armenian Orphans 160 Hansa Karel 160 Haraway Donna 130 Harowt’yownyan R˙uslan 211 Harowt’yownyanVega 211 Harutyunyan Gohar (Sekulić Gohar) 215 Harutyunyan Gor 168 Harutyunyan Levon 45 Harutyunyan Monica 168 Haskovo 202 Havel Václav 161 Hayastan yev Menk (periodical, Czech Republic) 162 Hayatun Cultural Centre (Georgia) 79–80 Hayrapetyan Aghasi 211 Hâncești 101 Heleniak Timothy 42 Herder Johann Gottfried 9 Herzig Edmund 39 Hin Judith 74, 76 Hnchak see: Social Democrat Hnchakian Party Hodorogea Paul 103 Hoffman Bruce 39 Holland 160 Homenetmen see: Armenian General Union of Body Culture Horakova Milada 161 Horváth István 16, 18–19, 184 Hotin 99 Hovakimian Ashot 164 Hovakimyan Ašot 213–215 Hovannisian Richard 73 Hovyan Vahram 202 Hoxha Enver 207 Hunanyan Anatoliy 168 Hunanyan David 168 Hungary 13–14, 17, 164–165, 170–177, 180, 182, 188–190, 211

230

Index

Huntington Samuel 129 Huys (periodical, Czech Republic) 162 H"nkanosân Kohar 200 Iaşi 99, 179, 188 Ilia II 79 India 146 International Armenian Civil Organisation – Urartu (Belarus) 117 International Charity Association of Armenian Doctors and Lawyers from Moldova – Urartu 101 Ion Vodǎ cel Cumplit (Ion Armeanul) 99 Iorga Nicolae 99 Iran 138 Ireland 137 Isakowicz-Zaleski Tadeusz 155–156 Ishkanian Armine 60 Issakov Sergej 131 Istanbul (Constantinople) 109, 180, 201, 215 Ivano-Frankivsk (Stanisławów) 88, 109 Ivanova Tat' âna 102–104 Izmail 86 Japan 211 Javakheti (Javakhk) 48, 69–71, 73–75, 77–83 Javakhk (organisation, Georgia) 77–78 Jeremjan Levon 133 Jihlava, 161, 163, 166 Johansson Alice 55, 65 Jūrmala 121 Kali Kinga 14–15, 181 Kamenatsi Hovhannes 88 Kamyanets-Podilskyi 86–87, 96, 109, 208 Kappeler Andreas 70 Karabakh see: Nagorno-Karabakh Karakashian Agop 197 Karakozov Mamikon 116 Karapetân Levon 44 Karapetyan Anna 162–163 Karapetyan Armen 167 Karapetyan Samvel 45 Karasubazar see: Bilohirsk Kardashian Kim 136 Karin see: Erzurum Karlovy Vary 161

Kars 80 Kascian Kiryl 108 Katchaznouni Hovhannes 73 Kaunas (city, Region) 209–210 Kaunas Armenian Community (Lithuania) 210 Kaunas Armenian Ensemble – Hayrenik (Lithuania) 210 Kaunas Region Armenian Community (Lithuania) 210 Kavaldjiev Todor 202 Kazakhstan 54, 88, 146, 161 Kazaryan Armen 117 Kechek Andranik 133 Kelly Melissa 42 Kerch 93 Kezlev see: Yevpatoria Khachatryan Sergey 167 Khachaturian Aram 160, 167 Khachaturian Trio (musical ensemble, Armenia) 167 Khachaturian Haroutiun 50 Khachaturov Danil 45 Khachkar (periodical, Russia) Khaleyan Yervand (Xaleyan Ervand) 108 Kharkiv (city, Province) 88, 90, 94, 96 Khatisian Alexander 73 Kiliya 86 Kindler Evžen 165 King Charles J. 42 Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes 211 Kirovabad see: Ganja Kiss Tamás 183 Klaipėda 209–210 Klaipėda Armenian Community – Van (Lithuania) 210 Klarić-Žak A. 213–215 Klebark Wielki 155 Klimkovič Iryna 111–112, 116, 118 Knjaževac 213 Kocharyan Arsen 162 Kočani 211 Kokot Waltraud 14–15, 129, 139 Koloyan Armen 166 Komitas 167

Index

Komitas Quartet (musical ensemble, Armenia) 163 Korâkin Kirill 14 Korchë 206 Kosic Ankica 65 Kosovo 205, 212 Košice 215 Kovács Bálint 9, 172, 176 Kraków see: Cracow Krasniqi Gezim 206 Krasnodar city (Ekaterinodar) 32, 40–41, 44–45, 47–51 Krai, Region 18, 34, 36, 39–51, 113 Krikor Jan Honory 208 Krivušina Vera 14–15, 27 Krunk (periodical, Latvia) 122 Kruševac 213 Kuban 44, 46 Kurkchiyan Marina 39 Kutaisi Governorship 70 Kuty 88 Kuznetsov Igor (Kuznecov Igor' ) 15, 42 Kuznetsova Rita 41 Kyiv (city, Province) 90, 94–96 Kyrgyzstan 54 Laaksonen Annamari 209 Laitin David 72 language Armenian 9, 15–16, 33, 35, 45, 48, 51, 57, 74– 75, 79–81, 83, 91–93, 100–103, 105, 110–111, 114–115, 122, 131, 133–134, 137–139, 141, 144, 154, 160, 162, 166, 170–175, 183, 188–190, 195, 198–201, 203, 212–216 Belarusian 107, 110–111, 114–115 Bulgarian 194, 199–200 Bunjevački 214 Czech 160, 162 English 15, 216 Estonian 132, 137 French 199 Georgian 74–76, 78–83, 134 Hungarian 10, 172–173, 175, 187, 190 Montenegrin 214 Polish 107, 109–111, 144, 148, 151, 155

231

Romanian 100–101, 188, 190 Russian 15, 26, 34–35, 55, 74–75, 81, 91–92, 96, 100–101, 107, 113–116, 132, 138, 140, 144 Slovak 216 Ukrainian 10, 91–92, 96 Yiddish 107 Latvia 18, 110–111, 121–127, 210 Latvian Armenian Cultural Centre 122 Latvian Armenian Society 122 Lavie Smadar 42 Lebanon 17, 160, 200 Lee Everett S. 143–144 Leninakan see: Gyumri Leselidze Konstantin 75 Leustean Lucian 180 Liachavičy 117 Libardian Gerard 39 Liepāya 121 Lithuania (Grand Duchy of Lithuania) 86, 108–109, 111, 122, 205–206, 208–211, 217 Litvin Aleksey 108, 112 Livezeanu Irina 182 Lordkipanidze Mariam 69 Lori 73 Loris-Melikov Mikhail 72 Lucas Robert E. B. 60 Luhansk (People’s Republic, Province) 89–90 Lur' e Svetlana 14, 40, 45 Lushnjë 206 Lutsk 86, 88, 109 Luxembourg 168 Luzhkov Yuriy 36 Lviv 86–88, 93, 96, 109, 208 Lynch Michael 19 Łotocki Łukasz 14, 16, 18–19, 143 Łódź 154–155 Łukasiewicz Ignacy 88 Macedonia 13, 16, 193, 205–206, 211–212, 217 Madżarski Jan 109, 118 Madżarski Leon 109 Magola Alexandru 99, 103 Maikop 44 Maisuradze Giorgi 79 Makiyivka 93, 96

232

Index

Maksoudian Krikor 15 Manuc Bei (Mârzayan Emmanuel) 100 Manugiewicz Samuel 88 Manukyan Gagik 167 Mannheim Karl 176 Marciniak Tomasz 14–15, 155–156 Mardigian Dirair 196–198 Mardirosian Haig 160 Mardirosian Nshan 160 Margaryan Gurgen 174 Markarian Anisa 207 Martin Aryn 19 Martirosyan Muraz 167 Marutyan Harutyun 176 Mârzayan Emmanuel see: Manuc Bei Masaryk Tomáš Garrigue 160 Massey Douglas 60 Masumyan Bella 117 Matevosyan Hakob 15, 17 Mead George Herbert 122–123 Mekhitarist Congregation 198–199, 213 Mekhuzla Salome 82 Melkonian Educational Institute (Cyprus) 200 Melkonian Garabed 200 Melkonian Krikor 200 Melkonyan Eduard (Melkonân Èduard) 15, 31, 124 Melvin Neil J. 42 Meskheti see: Samcche Mesrob Kevork 198 Mesrobyan School (Bulgaria) 198 Mesrop Mashtots’s Association of Armenian Culture and Charity (Russia) 45 Metreveli Ekaterine 78 Mezhlumyan Aramayis 168 Miasin (periodical, Belarus) 116 Mihailean Felix 101 Mihalčuk Larysa 109, 111, 115, 118 Mikaelian Kristapor 194 Mikuli Karol 88 Minasyan Anna 55, 57, 59–60, 62, 65 Minsk (city, Province, Region) 110–111, 113, 115–117

Minsk Municipal Armenian CulturalEducational Association – Ayastan 116 Mitseva Evgeniya (Miceva Evgeniâ) 14, 193–194, 197, 200 Mkrtchyan Hayk 168 Mkrtchyan Varine 167 Mkrtumyan Eduard 211 Mkrtumyan Suren 211 Mladá Boleslav 161, 163 Mlađenović Lepa 215 Mogilev (Mahilioŭ) (city, Province, Region) 110–111, 113, 117 Mohácsek Magdolna 186 Mohyliv-Podilskiy 110 Mokin Konstantin 14–15, 27 Moldova 54, 98–105, 172, 179, 188 Montenegro 21 Moscow 15, 36, 55, 58, 104, 167 Movsisyan Sergey 168 Muntenia 99 Muradyan David 168 Muradyan Hovik 167 Murawski Krzysztof 150 Musayelyan Suren 121 Münz Rainer 18 Myasnikov Aleksandr (Myasnikyan Aleksandr) 111, 118 Mykolayiv 96 Naggashian Gyut 207 Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh, Karabakh): conflict, movement, region, Republic of, 21, 41, 45, 48–49, 54, 77, 89–90, 112–113, 123, 133, 135, 139, 144, 168–170, 174, 202, 213, 217 Nairi (periodical, Czech Republic) 163 Nakhichevan 99, 213 Nastasă Lucian 182 Nazarbekian Avetis 72 Negotin 213 Nesterov Tamara 100, 103 New Nakhichevan 87, 103, 122 New York 153, 201 Nicholas II 73 Nicosia 200 Nieczuja-Ostrowski Paweł 17, 155

Index

Nielsen Greg 122 Nigesen Kersti 131 Nijaradze Giorgi 79 Nikoghosyan Ararat 162 Ninotsminda (Bogdanovka) 77, 82 Niš 213 Njdeh Garegin 194 Nodia Ghia 76, 78 Nor Ghiank (periodical, Romania) 188 North Bucovina 179 North Caucasus see: Caucasus North-Western Province 110 Novi Sad 213–215 Nowogródek Voivodeship 111 Nyárády Károly R. 181 Odessa (city, Province) 88–90, 93–94, 96 Odorheiu Secuiesc 189 Ohanjanyan Hamo 73 Ohliger Rainer 18 Okraska Remigiusz 143 Omyła-Rudzka Małgorzata 147 Orer (periodical, Czech Republic) 162–167, 169 Osipean Serghei 101 Osipov Aleksandr 41 Oslo 117 Ostapenko Lûbov' 15 Ostrava 161 Oswald Ingrid 42 Ottoman Empire 9, 49, 71–73, 82, 86, 88, 90, 100, 129, 139, 160, 182, 194, 206, 211–213 Oussatcheva Marina 14–15, 18, 39 Ovsepian Gurgen 216 Ozanian Andranik 194 Palloni Alberto 151 Panossian Razmik 39, 137 Papazian-Tanielian Siranush (Papazân-Tanielân Siranuš) 14–15, 17, 193–194, 197, 200 Parekordzagani Tsain (periodical, Bulgaria) 193 Paris 207 Paronian Vardges 215 Parsamian Gagik 150 Pashkovskyi Armenian Association (APO) (Russia) 45, 47 Pattie Susan P. 22, 39, 60, 135, 137, 139, 171

233

Pazardjik 196–197 Pál Judit 99, 172 Pálek Bohumil 162 Pełczyński Grzegorz 14, 154 Peretokina Elena 102, 104 Petros Adamyan State Armenian Drama Theatre (Georgia) 79 Petrosyan Margarita 58 Petrosyan Nshan 104 Pettifer James 206–207 Pilavchyan Barsegh 165 Piloyan Vrteska Armine 212 Pinsk 109 Piramowicz Grzegorz 88 Pisarevskij Georgij 99 Piteşti 180, 188 Plovdiv 193–195, 197–199, 201–202 Plzeň 161 Podgradskaâ Elena 87 Podolia 86, 109 Poghosian Gevorg 34 Poghosyan Alina 16, 18–19, 208 Polack 109 Poland (Polish Kingdom) 13–14, 16–17, 19, 88, 98, 107, 110–111, 143–156 Polesie Voivodeship 111 Polish-Armenian Foundation 154 Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth 86–87, 108–109, 117, 208 Poloskova Tat' yana 35 Popkov Vâčeslav 15, 28 Popov Anton 41 Popovici Ion 99 Portes Alejandro 18 Poturljan Mokin 207 Prague (Praha) 159–169 Prilep 211 Prisac Lidia 16, 98 Progressive Organisation – Yerevan (Bulgaria) 195 Pross Wolfgang 9 Purger Tibor 214 Puškin Iġar 107–108 Putin Vladimir 36

234

Index

Radziwiłł Michał Kazimierz 109 Ragimov Akif 108, 112–115 Rakachev Vadim (Rakačev Vadim) 15, 41 Rakacheva Yaroslava (Rakačeva Âroslava) 15, 41 Ramgavar see: Armenian Democratic Liberal Party Ramishvili Vladimer 75 Riga (Rīga) 107, 111, 121–122, 124, 132, 210 Ritchey Neal P. 58 Roche Aideen 82 Roman 179 Roman Meredith L. 47 Romania (Romanian Kingdom, Old Kingdom) 13–14, 16, 18–19, 88, 99–100, 104, 152, 174, 179–191, 196 Rstakyan David 78 Rumbaut Rubén G. 18 Ruse 194–195, 197–198, 201 Rus’ 109 Russian Empire 14, 39, 42–44, 46, 70–73, 82, 86–87, 99–100, 108–111, 131 Russia (Russian Federation) 9, 13–15, 17–19, 26–37, 39–51, 54–66, 76–78, 80–81, 89, 113, 116, 122, 124, 138, 145–146, 161, 208 Rustem Jan 87, 208 Saakashvili Mikheil 79–82 Sačkova Elena 198 Safarov Ramil 174, 211 Safonov Igor 101 Safran William 39, 129, 133, 140 Saghoyan Mikayel 211 Sahakyan Bako 45 Samtskhe (Meskheti) 75, 77, 83 Samtskhe-Javakheti 77, 112 Sankt Petersburg 132 Sardarov Armen 116 Sardarov Sergey 112 Sargsyan Alexander 163 Sargsyan Aram 215 Sargsyan Armen 167 Sargsyan Marat 211 Sargsyan Serzh 164, 215 Sarkisian Eduard 163 Sarkisian Marina 163

Saroyan William 170, 199, 212 Savvidis Tessa 54–55, 57–58, 61–62 Sayat Nova 80 Scacco Alexandra 184 Scotson John L. 176 Sefereanţ Nicolai 102 Serbia 13, 205–206, 212–215, 217 Sevastopol 90 Seyranyan Tigran 164 Shaginyan Marietta 103, 160 Shahbazyan Araik 168 Shahinyan Vagharshag 162 Shahnazarian Nona 39, 48 Shahumyan District 48, 112 Shamkir 48 Shane Scott 76 Shatvoryan Vilen 94 Sheffer Gabriel 18 Shevardnadze Eduard 76–80 Shirak Province 57 Shkodër 206 Shumen 194–198, 201 Siekierski Konrad 14–15, 19 Silistra 194, 196–198 Simferopol 87, 96 Simonân Babken 213–214 Simonân Mger 43–44, 48 Simoyan Sergey 211 Sivec Taccâna 116 Skaryna Francysk 109 Skopje 16, 211–212 Slavonia 213 Sliven 196 Slovakia 160, 164–165, 168, 205–206, 215–217 Slovenia 21 Slutsk 109 Smbatyan Sergey 167 Smith Anthony 129, 176 Smith Jeremy 75 Smolensk 109 Smyrna 213 Social Democrat Hnchakian Party (Hnchak) 17, 44, 72, 194 Sochi 41

Index

Sofia 194–201 Soghomyan Marto 163 Sokobanja 213 Sokolov-Mitrič Daniil 41 Solkhat see: Staryi Krym Solomon Flavius 100 South Caucasus see: Caucasus South Korea 146 South Ossetia 75–77 Soviet Union (USSR) 13, 15, 19, 26, 28, 30, 33–34, 39–40, 42, 44, 48, 50, 54, 74–76, 83, 88–90, 100, 105, 107–108, 111–113, 118, 121, 131–132, 134–135, 143–144, 148, 159, 161, 173, 176, 182, 199, 205, 207–208, 215 Spain 160 Spendiarov Alexander 88 Stalker Peter 150 Stanisławów see: Ivano-Frankivsk Stara Zagora 196, 201 Stark Oded 60 Staryi Krym (Solkhat) 86, 93 Stelian Sergiu 98 Stepanân Armen 15, 28 Stopka Krzysztof 109–110 Strzeszewski Michał 147 Subbotina Irina 15 Suceava 104, 179, 187–189 Sudak 86–87 Sukhumi 76 Sukiasyan Tigran 167 Sumgait 48, 89, 112–113 Sundukian Armenian Amateur Theatre Company (Bulgaria) 201 Suny Ronald Grigor 39, 70–72, 74 Swedenburg Ted 42 Syria 160, 212 Sys Anatol 117 Szamosújvár see: Gherla Székely István Gergő 184–185 Székely Land 189 Szturm de Sztrem Edward 111 Šahbazjan Džanna 133 Šapiro Vladimir 15

235

Šiaulių Region Armenian Community (Lithuania) 210 Širinân Nerses 196–197 Štetina Jaromir 161 Štip 211 Tadevosyan Aghasi 16, 18–19, 208 Tajikistan 54, 112 Talaat Pasha 213 Tallinn 1–2, 4–6, 8, 13–14 129–134, 140–141 Tankian Serj 94 Tartu (Dorpat) 131, 140 Tavitǰan Diran 211 Tavitǰan Garabet 211 Tavitǰan Garo 211 Tbilisi (Tiflis) 43, 48, 50, 69, 71–83, 112 Tehlirian Soghomon 213 Teodorowicz Józef 88 Ter-Sarkisânc Alla 14, 40 Tetovo 211 Thessaloniki 207 Thrace 194 Tichomirow Andrzej 16, 112–115, 208 Tiflis see: Tbilisi Tiflis Governorship 70–71 Tighina (Bender) 101, 103 Tirana (Tiranë) 206–207 Tito Josip Broz 213 Titova Tat' âna 15 Tîrgu Mureş 189 Tkachyov Alexandr 42, 46 Toje Hege 46 Tokhyan Aramayis 168 Tolbukhin see: Dobrich Tomuleț Valentin 99 Tonian Gagik 162, 167 Topakbašân Vartanuš 195–197, 203 Torosiewicz Teodor 88 Toramanyan Arshavir (Toramanân Aršavir) 98–100, 104 Tölölyan Khachig 13–14, 20–21, 54, 129, 175 Transcaucasia see: Caucasus Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic 73 Transcaucasus see: Caucasus

236

Index

Transnistria 98, 101–103 Transylvania 171–177, 179–182, 187–190 Transylvanian Armenian Roots Cultural Association (Hungary) 173–174, 189–190 Trebišov 215 Triandafyllidou Anna 14, 20, 65 Trojnickij Nikolaj 110–111 Turaŭ 109 Tunyan Ara 210–211 Turkey 39, 75, 80–81, 138, 146, 194, 216 Turkmenistan 54 Ukraine 17, 19–20, 86–96, 99, 109–110, 113, 145–146, 161, 208, 216 Ungheni 101 Union of Armenian Cultural and Educational Organisations – Yerevan (Bulgaria) 195, 201 Union of Armenians in Romania 16, 181, 184– 191 Union of Armenians in Russia 17, 35–37 Union of Armenians in Serbia 215 Union of Armenians in Ukraine 17, 93–95 Union of Armenians in Yugoslavia 213 United Javakhk (organisation, Georgia) 81 United Kingdom 167 United States of America 17, 33, 36, 54, 56, 100, 132, 146, 148, 182, 188, 201, 213 Upper Silesia 155 USSR see: Soviet Union Utidjian Haig 165–167 Uzbekistan 54 Ústí nad Labem 161, 167 Vahagn (periodical, Estonia) 132 Vahan (periodical, Bulgaria) 193 Valjevo 213–214 Valmiera 121 Van 211 Vardanian Mariam 72 Vardanian Suren 150 Vardanyan Ruben 45 Vardanyan Vazgen 167 Varga Árpád 180 Varna 194, 197–198, 201 Vartanjan Gohar 132 Vartanjan Juri 132, 138

Vartivaryan Hagop 165 Vaslui 99 Vazgen I 132, 160 Velké Meziříčí 168 Venice 199, 207, 211, 213 Ventspils 121 Verdery Katherine 45 Veress Ilka 14, 16, 18–19, 183 Vernatun (periodical, Ukraine) Vertovec Steven 65, 123 Vickers Miranda 206–207 Vienna 165, 207, 211, 213 Vietka 117 Vietnam 146 Vilnius (Vil’na, Wilno) (city, Province, Voivodeship) 109–111, 208–210 Vilnius Region Armenian Community (Lithuania) 210 Virk (organisation, Georgia) 78 Visaginas 209–210 Visaginas Armenian Community (Lithuania) 210 Višnevskij Anatolij 35 Vitebsk (Viciebsk) (Province, Region) 110–111, 113 Vladimirova Alena 102 Vlorë 206 Vojvodina 213 Volhynia 86 Volski Lyavon 117 Vorontsov Mikhail 70 Vorontsov-Dashkov Illarion 72 Vosganian Varujan 187 Voskanyan Margarit 133 Vratsian Simon 194 Vremiş Maria 101 Vrnjačka Banja 214 Vrteski J̌ an 212 Wahlbeck Östen 42 Wallachia 99, 179–180 Warsaw (Warszawa) 150, 153–155 Wądołowska Katarzyna 147 Werth Paul (Wert Pol) 110 Wheatley Jonathan 78, 81

Index

Wickramasekara Piyasiri 65 Wilno see: Vilnius Wimmer Andreas 20, 123 Wodak Ruth 140 Wrocław 154–155 Xenofontov Ion 16 Yalta 93, 96 Yambol 197 Yaralyan Ara 133 Yazedjian Ani 130, 137–139 Yegayan Levon 116 Yeganyan Ruben 123 Yelgava 121 Yerevan (Erivan) 15, 32, 36, 48–51, 57, 74, 78, 99, 124, 130, 140, 167, 200, 214 Yerevan (periodical, Bulgaria) 193, 195, 203 Yerevan Choir (Bulgaria) 195 Yerkramas (periodical, Russia) 32 Yevpatoria (Kezlev) 86–87, 96 Yilmaz Harun 73 Yugoslavia 21, 205, 211, 213 Zabrze 154–155

237

Zachariewicz Alfred 88 Zachariewicz Julian 88 Zaharian Hajg 207 Zaharkevič Stepan 208 Zaječar 213 Zajončkovskaâ Žanna 55 Zaporizhzhya (city, Province) 90 Zavaryan Aghasi 168 Zelenčuk Valentin 99 Zeman Miloš 164 Zenian David 209 Zhukov Georgy 75 Zhurbin Mikhail 41 Ziemer Ulrike 14–15, 18, 40, 43 Ziętek Dorota 14 Zinovsky Vladimir 113, 115 Zhurzhenko Tatiana (ŽurženkoTat' âna) 28–29 Zog I 207 Žamakočyan Anna 15, 19, 208, 210, 215–217 Žilina 215 Żołędowski Cezary 153

MARINA DMITRIEVA, BÁLINT KOVÁCS (HG.)

DIE KUNST DER ARMENIER IM ÖSTLICHEN EUROPA (ARMENIER IM ÖSTLICHEN EUROPA – ARMENIANS IN EASTERN EUROPE, BAND 2)

Der vorliegende Band versammelt Beiträge von Kunsthistorikern, Bauforschern, Ethnologen und Historikern zur Rolle der Armenier in der frühneuzeitlichen Kunstgeschichte Zentral- und Osteuropas. Behandelt werden sakrale Malerei und illuminierte Handschriften, Architektur und Städtebau, Kunsthandwerk und -sammlungen. Den geografischen Rahmen bilden dabei die heutigen Staaten Polen, Ukraine, Belarus, Rumänien, Moldova und die Russländische Föderation. Die von armenischen Künstlern geschaffenen Werke spiegeln ihre multiethnische und plurikonfessionelle Umgebung wider, ohne dabei ihre ursprünglichen Traditionen aus Mittlerem Osten und Kleinasien zu verleugnen. 2014. 256 S. 27 FARB. UND 28 S/W-ABB. GB. 170 X 240 MM. ISBN 978-3-412-21107-3

böhlau verlag, ursulaplatz 1, d-50668 köln, t: + 49 221 913 90-0 [email protected], www.boehlau-verlag.com | wien köln weimar

VISUELLE GESCHICHTSKULTUR HERAUSGEGEBEN VON STEFAN TROEBST IN VERBINDUNG MIT ARNOLD BARTETZKY, STEVEN A. MANSBACH UND MAŁGORZATA OMILANOWSK A

EINE AUSWAHL BD. 9 | ARNOLD BARTETZKY NATION – STAAT – STADT ARCHITEKTUR, DENKMALPFLEGE UND VISUELLE GESCHICHTSKULTUR VOM 19. BIS ZUM 21. JAHRHUNDERT 2012. 276 S. 69 S/W- UND 177 FARB. ABB. GB. | ISBN 978-3-412-20819-6 BD. 10 | AGNIESZKA GASIOR (HG.) MARIA IN DER KRISE KULTPRAXIS ZWISCHEN KONFESSION UND POLITIK IN OSTMITTELEUROPA 2014. 388 S. 81 S/W- UND 47 FARB. ABB. GB. | ISBN 978-3-412-21077-9 BD. 11 | ARNOLD BARTETZKY, RUDOLF JAWORSKI (HG.) GESCHICHTE IM RUNDUMBLICK PANORAMABILDER IM ÖSTLICHEN EUROPA 2014. 213 S. 24 S/W- UND 70 FARB. ABB. GB. | ISBN 978-3-412-22147-8 BD. 12 | ARNOLD BARTETZKY, CHRISTIAN DIETZ, JÖRG HASPEL (HG.) VON DER ABLEHNUNG ZUR ANEIGNUNG? DAS ARCHITEKTONISCHE ERBE DES SOZIALISMUS IN MITTEL- UND OSTEUROPA FROM REJECTION TO APPROPRIATION? THE ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE OF SOCIALISM IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE

BD. 13 | AGNIESZKA GASIOR, AGNIESZKA HALEMBA, STEFAN TROEBST (HG.) GEBROCHENE KONTINUITÄTEN TRANSNATIONALITÄT IN DEN ERINNERUNGSKULTUREN OSTMITTELEUROPAS IM 20. JAHRHUNDERT 2014. 352 S. 51 S/W- UND 12 FARB. ABB. GB. | ISBN 978-3-412-22256-7 BD. 14 | STEFAN ROHDEWALD GÖTTER DER NATIONEN RELIGIÖSE ERINNERUNGSFIGUREN IN SERBIEN, BULGARIEN UND MAKEDONIEN BIS 1944 2014. 905 S. 18 S/W- UND 10 FARB. ABB. GB. | ISBN 978-3-412-22244-4 BD. 15 | MARINA DMITRIEVA, LARS KARL (HG.) DAS JAHR 1813, OSTMITTELEUROPA UND LEIPZIG DIE VÖLKERSCHLACHT ALS (TRANS)NATIONALER ERINNERUNGSORT 2016. 400 S. 49 S/W- UND CA. 40 FARB. ABB. GB. | ISBN 978-3-412-50399-4

2014. 297 S. 43 S/W- UND 175 FARB. ABB.

TT166

GB. | ISBN 978-3-412-22148-5

böhlau verlag, ursulaplatz 1, d-50668 köln, t: + 49 221 913 90-0 [email protected], www.boehlau-verlag.com | wien köln weimar