What do you think?
Rate this book
The Caucasian Knot: The History and Geopolitics of Nagorno-Karabagh
As the Soviet Union entered its death throes, the self-determination of the nations within its republics became an issue over which people were prepared to die. When Azerbaijan declared its independence, the Armenian enclave of Nagorno-Karabagh followed suit. Before long, pogrom and war were the order of the day, resulting in thousands of Armenian and Azeri casualties.
This book examines the history of Mountainous Karabagh, the ancient Artsakh of the Armenians, and assesses the mass of archaeological material and documentary evidence supporting the conflicting Azeri and Armenian claims. The authors follow the populations of the area from antiquity through periods of Mongol, Turkmen and Persian occupation, on to Turkey's and Russia's entry onto the scene, the period of Bolshevik rule, perestroika and, finally, the war with Azerbaikjan. This book highlights the Armenian culture of the enclave, traces Karabagh's demographic evolution and situates the current hostilities in terms of the interests of neighbouring Russia, Iran and Turkey. The picture that emerges of a clash of nationalistic passions and of Russian economic, military and diplomatic calculation is a signpost for future conflicts on both sides of the Caucasus.
The assertion of Armenian and Azeri identity and culture remain at the heart of this tragedy. This book helps us to understand why the Armenians feel so strongly that Artsakh is theirs and is worth dying for.
This book examines the history of Mountainous Karabagh, the ancient Artsakh of the Armenians, and assesses the mass of archaeological material and documentary evidence supporting the conflicting Azeri and Armenian claims. The authors follow the populations of the area from antiquity through periods of Mongol, Turkmen and Persian occupation, on to Turkey's and Russia's entry onto the scene, the period of Bolshevik rule, perestroika and, finally, the war with Azerbaikjan. This book highlights the Armenian culture of the enclave, traces Karabagh's demographic evolution and situates the current hostilities in terms of the interests of neighbouring Russia, Iran and Turkey. The picture that emerges of a clash of nationalistic passions and of Russian economic, military and diplomatic calculation is a signpost for future conflicts on both sides of the Caucasus.
The assertion of Armenian and Azeri identity and culture remain at the heart of this tragedy. This book helps us to understand why the Armenians feel so strongly that Artsakh is theirs and is worth dying for.
208 pages, Paperback
Published November 1, 1994
2 people are currently reading
148 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
July 5, 2024
Such an amazing and crucial book. The contents of the book provide a comprehensive overview of Nagorno-Karabagh’s history, from antiquity to the twentieth century. This includes a detailed analysis of the myriad of empires that ruled over historical Armenia and Nagorno-Karabagh (Turks, Arabs, Mongols, Persians, etc) and the steadfastness of the Armenian people to preserve and celebrate their national culture.
I think the most important aspect of the book was its ability to deviate from oversimplifying this conflict to a supposed centuries-old and ancient struggle over land. The authors insist, rather, that the struggle over Nagorno-Karabagh can be traced down to unjust foreign policy carried out by the newly emerged Soviet Union when both Armenia and Azerbaijan became soviet republics in the early 1920s. The redrawing of borders by the Soviet Union came with specific foreign policy interests that were important to them at the time. Stalin viewed Ataturk as an “anti-bourgeois” figure, and believed that Turkey could be a strong ally of the Soviet Union and a good way of maintaining strong relations with the Muslim world. On July 5, 1921, Nagorno-Karabagh would be handed to Azerbaijan under the justification that it had stronger ties to Azerbaijan: despite its population being 94% Armenian.
The book also had some smaller essays which I thought were very interesting. One of my favourite ones was an analysis of art history. In this, the authors examine the ways in which the architecture of churches, chapels, and monasteries in ancient Armenia follow the same plans and techniques as the ones in Nagorno-Karabagh: these plans and techniques being volcanic rock, as well as inscriptions in the Armenian language which usually indicate the name of the architect, who the church is dedicated to, and precise dating.
Altogether, this is an amazing book to read if you are interested in Nagorno-Karabagh, and want to gain more insight into the region: especially after more than 100k Armenians were ethnically cleansed from there in 2023. This is a good book to pick up as it is relatively unbiased. Although the authors are Armenian, they don’t shy away from engaging with Azeri perspectives and explaining them in depth, as well as providing a myriad of sources (40ish pages of this 170 page book are footnotes).
I think the most important aspect of the book was its ability to deviate from oversimplifying this conflict to a supposed centuries-old and ancient struggle over land. The authors insist, rather, that the struggle over Nagorno-Karabagh can be traced down to unjust foreign policy carried out by the newly emerged Soviet Union when both Armenia and Azerbaijan became soviet republics in the early 1920s. The redrawing of borders by the Soviet Union came with specific foreign policy interests that were important to them at the time. Stalin viewed Ataturk as an “anti-bourgeois” figure, and believed that Turkey could be a strong ally of the Soviet Union and a good way of maintaining strong relations with the Muslim world. On July 5, 1921, Nagorno-Karabagh would be handed to Azerbaijan under the justification that it had stronger ties to Azerbaijan: despite its population being 94% Armenian.
The book also had some smaller essays which I thought were very interesting. One of my favourite ones was an analysis of art history. In this, the authors examine the ways in which the architecture of churches, chapels, and monasteries in ancient Armenia follow the same plans and techniques as the ones in Nagorno-Karabagh: these plans and techniques being volcanic rock, as well as inscriptions in the Armenian language which usually indicate the name of the architect, who the church is dedicated to, and precise dating.
Altogether, this is an amazing book to read if you are interested in Nagorno-Karabagh, and want to gain more insight into the region: especially after more than 100k Armenians were ethnically cleansed from there in 2023. This is a good book to pick up as it is relatively unbiased. Although the authors are Armenian, they don’t shy away from engaging with Azeri perspectives and explaining them in depth, as well as providing a myriad of sources (40ish pages of this 170 page book are footnotes).
January 2, 2022
While written from an Armenian perspective, I was highly impressed with the impassionate approach taken by the authors. That's not to say that the author's don't have their own position on the subject of Nagorno-Karabakh (one only needs to look at their surnames to presume correctly what their position is). However, that doesn't mean that they are unwilling to engage with both sides of the conflict.
The strongest element of the historical overview is how it confirms that the current conflict between the Armenians and Azerbaijanis in Nagorno-Karabakh has it's roots in modern history rather than vague notions of "ancient conflicts" or "religious oppositions". While anyone, apart from historical revisionists, taking a look at the history of Nagorno-Karabakh would be hard pressed to deny the predominantly Armenian heritage of the region, the authors make no attempt to deny a long standing Islamic population in the Karabakh plains up to the Caspian Sea for centuries. With the Arab conquests, the arrival of Central Asian Turks, the advance of the Mongols, and even the policies of the Persians, there have been a variety of Islamic people in the South Caucasus for centuries. The authors also make no attempt to deny the presence of Turkic Shia Muslims (predecessors of the Azerbaijanis) within Karabakh itself, though they correctly note that the Armenians were typically sedentary in the mountainous region while the proto-Azerbaijanis were nomadic herdsmen who would fluctuate between living in the plains and moving into the highlands throughout the year.
While the ancient history is definitely colored by conflict between the local Armenians and the various external actors coming into the region, this has less to do with ancient hatreds between people of different ethnicities and religions as it was simply the fact of the ancient world, no matter the region. If historical conflict should dictate contemporary grievances, then one should be more inclined to imagine Western Europe to be more Balkanized than the Balkans. Likewise, in regard to religious opposition, one should imagine that Azerbaijan would have an equally strenuous relationship with Georgia and that Armenia would likewise have conflicts with Iran. Since we can see that historic conflict doesn't necessitate modern conflict (ala Western Europe) and that religious adherence doesn't presume national conflict (ala Armenia-Iran and Azerbaijan-Georgia), the roots of the conflict must lay somewhere else. The authors make a convincing case that the actual roots of the conflict lay with British policies in Azerbaijan following WW1 alongside the Soviet policies in the region and the Soviet attitude towards Turkey and the earlier Sovietized Azerbaijan over the interests of the Armenians.
My final highlight are the authors willingness to engage with Azerbaijani arguments, to recognize Armenian involved in pro-Azerbaijan policies, as well as to account for injustices caused by Armenians (whether in the early 20th century or near the turn of the century with the beginning of the contemporary conflict).
For anyone with a more than passing interest in the region of Nagorno-Karabakh, this is a must read in terms of historical background for the region which helps to more accurately frame the causes and history of the contemporary conflict.
The strongest element of the historical overview is how it confirms that the current conflict between the Armenians and Azerbaijanis in Nagorno-Karabakh has it's roots in modern history rather than vague notions of "ancient conflicts" or "religious oppositions". While anyone, apart from historical revisionists, taking a look at the history of Nagorno-Karabakh would be hard pressed to deny the predominantly Armenian heritage of the region, the authors make no attempt to deny a long standing Islamic population in the Karabakh plains up to the Caspian Sea for centuries. With the Arab conquests, the arrival of Central Asian Turks, the advance of the Mongols, and even the policies of the Persians, there have been a variety of Islamic people in the South Caucasus for centuries. The authors also make no attempt to deny the presence of Turkic Shia Muslims (predecessors of the Azerbaijanis) within Karabakh itself, though they correctly note that the Armenians were typically sedentary in the mountainous region while the proto-Azerbaijanis were nomadic herdsmen who would fluctuate between living in the plains and moving into the highlands throughout the year.
While the ancient history is definitely colored by conflict between the local Armenians and the various external actors coming into the region, this has less to do with ancient hatreds between people of different ethnicities and religions as it was simply the fact of the ancient world, no matter the region. If historical conflict should dictate contemporary grievances, then one should be more inclined to imagine Western Europe to be more Balkanized than the Balkans. Likewise, in regard to religious opposition, one should imagine that Azerbaijan would have an equally strenuous relationship with Georgia and that Armenia would likewise have conflicts with Iran. Since we can see that historic conflict doesn't necessitate modern conflict (ala Western Europe) and that religious adherence doesn't presume national conflict (ala Armenia-Iran and Azerbaijan-Georgia), the roots of the conflict must lay somewhere else. The authors make a convincing case that the actual roots of the conflict lay with British policies in Azerbaijan following WW1 alongside the Soviet policies in the region and the Soviet attitude towards Turkey and the earlier Sovietized Azerbaijan over the interests of the Armenians.
My final highlight are the authors willingness to engage with Azerbaijani arguments, to recognize Armenian involved in pro-Azerbaijan policies, as well as to account for injustices caused by Armenians (whether in the early 20th century or near the turn of the century with the beginning of the contemporary conflict).
For anyone with a more than passing interest in the region of Nagorno-Karabakh, this is a must read in terms of historical background for the region which helps to more accurately frame the causes and history of the contemporary conflict.
October 29, 2022
Biased, which was to be expected, although in a somewhat more subtle way than usual armenian justifications of separatism and violent ethnic cleansing that took place in Karabakh in the 1990s. All the more dangerous and repulsive when conveyed by ‘studied’ individuals representing art and academia. Nationalism is a curse, and armenians have suffered from it at their own hands. It is a shame that their thought leaders are only encouraging these damaging narratives that have les to so much suffering and continue to steer them on the path of destruction and alienation.
Read
December 17, 2019Full of accurate information about history and contemporary (1990's) Republic of Artsakh.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews