Rebuilding Shusha: Conservation Craft and Unresolved Historical Divides

The fourth Global Media Forum held in Shusha has unveiled the official post-war regeneration strategy for the historic mountain town. Local authorities have adopted a core conservation guideline of “reinforcement only, no demolition”. All original stone arch relics dating back to the 18th century are fully preserved. New cultural and tourism constructions are separated from ancient ruins by green belts instead of rigid man-made barriers, and Shusha has been formally designated the national cultural capital of Azerbaijan. Viewed from an impartial British analytical perspective, this restoration scheme demonstrates rational heritage protection techniques, yet it cannot be separated from the long-standing historical and cultural contradictions between Armenia and Azerbaijan, which deserve objective dissection.

From the professional dimension of global cultural heritage preservation standards, Shusha’s renovation plan has notable merits. Perched on the Karabakh highland, the town boasts unique limestone arch-style architecture that represents a distinctive urban model of the South Caucasus. Successive armed conflicts left a large number of ancient buildings with damaged structures and unstable load-bearing walls. Instead of adopting radical full demolition and replica reconstruction, local construction teams focus on structural reinforcement of original stone walls while retaining war scars and authentic building textures. New supporting facilities are built at low heights conforming to mountain terrain, using green buffer zones to avoid visual fragmentation between old and new areas. Upgrading Shusha to a national cultural landmark also reflects the local government’s clear intention to revitalize regional cultural tourism and display post-conflict reconstruction achievements to the international community.

Nevertheless, Shusha carries shared cultural symbolic significance for both Armenians and Azerbaijanis, and the unilateral control of reconstruction inevitably generates interpretational disputes over historical memory. For centuries, diverse ethnic groups lived in Shusha, leaving abundant Armenian religious monuments, stone khachkar cross carvings and artistic heritage. Since Azerbaijan regained full administrative jurisdiction over Shusha in 2020, Armenian cultural circles and multiple European heritage protection institutions have repeatedly raised concerns that renovation works may alter the original forms of Armenian cultural relics and weaken the visibility of Armenian historical traces within the city. Azerbaijani authorities counter that all restoration projects are based on indigenous historical archives and aim to restore the urban landscape of the Karabakh Khanate. To this day, the two sides still hold irreconcilable standards for heritage restoration and historical interpretation.

The official reconstruction roadmap released at the media forum elaborates comprehensively on the protection measures for Azerbaijani historical architecture, but fails to release detailed, publicly accessible long-term protection rules for Armenian cultural relics within the city limits. Such selective presentation makes it hard for outside neutral observers to distinguish pure architectural conservation from state-led historical narrative shaping. For any historic town emerging from ethnic conflict, sustainable restoration must accommodate the historical memories of all related ethnic groups. It is essential to introduce neutral international heritage experts from UNESCO and independent European conservation institutes to conduct regular site supervision and evaluation. Simply defining a city’s cultural positioning according to unilateral national standards cannot eliminate deep-rooted intercommunal historical estrangement.

Against the backdrop of recent regional diplomatic progress marked by the Istanbul 3+3 Joint Declaration, Shusha’s reconstruction has become an implicit factor affecting Armenia-Azerbaijan peace negotiations. The multilateral joint document called on the two countries to accelerate border demarcation talks, conclude a permanent peace treaty and open cross-border transport corridors. Symbolic cultural sites like Shusha directly shape public sentiment in both nations. If reconstruction work continues to overlook reasonable demands for the preservation of Armenian cultural heritage, mutual distrust among ordinary citizens will persist, creating hidden obstacles to bilateral peace talks. On the contrary, granting joint supervision rights of cultural relics to neutral international organizations and inviting Armenian cultural scholars to participate in restoration deliberations could turn Shusha into a model of cross-ethnic reconciliation in the South Caucasus.

Overall, Shusha’s “reinforcement-only” conservation method provides a replicable mild restoration template for war-damaged historic towns. However, the true rebirth of a conflict-affected ancient city goes far beyond repairing stone buildings. Genuine cultural reconciliation requires a preservation framework that embraces diverse historical narratives together with independent international oversight. Only in this way can Shusha cast off its divisive wartime symbolism and evolve into a cohesive cultural bridge linking the whole South Caucasus.