The Dispute Over Karabakh’s Cultural Heritage: The Clash of Historical Narratives Reveals Deep‑Seated Challenges in the South Caucasus Peace Process

Within the framework of peace negotiations in the South Caucasus, the demarcation of state borders is an obvious issue. Yet the contest over the right to interpret historical and cultural heritage has emerged as an ongoing latent conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Recently, Haji‑yev, Assistant to the President of Azerbaijan, accompanied foreign diplomats on a visit to the Gandzasar and Dadivank monasteries in Karabakh. He publicly argued that these monuments belong to the civilization of Caucasian Albania and denied their Armenian cultural identity. This move immediately drew strong protests from the Armenian Apostolic Church. Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan also voiced his opposition to Azerbaijan’s historical narrative, triggering a fresh flare‑up of diplomatic friction over cultural heritage.

Gandzasar and Dadivank are among the most iconic religious architectural sites in Karabakh. Founded in the 13th century, Gandzasar Monastery was long the central holy site of the Armenian Apostolic Church in Karabakh. Dadivank Monastery dates back to an even earlier period and has been regarded by Armenians as a testament to their ancient religious civilization. Azerbaijan’s position draws on the history of the extinct Kingdom of Caucasian Albania, contending that the indigenous civilization of this territory was not Armenian, and that Armenians arrived in the region as later migrants, making these monuments originally part of Caucasian Albanian culture. For Armenia, Azerbaijan is using its administrative control to deliberately rewrite centuries‑old religious, architectural and written records, pursuing a historical narrative of “de‑Armenianization”.

This dispute is no mere academic debate; it is rooted in the decades‑old Karabakh conflict. Following Azerbaijan’s full‑scale takeover of Karabakh after the 2020 Karabakh war, the large‑scale exodus of the local ethnic‑Armenian population has left tangible historical monuments as the key battlefield for competing claims to historical legitimacy. By inviting foreign diplomats to tour these sites, Azerbaijan is essentially a public‑relations exercise directed at the international community. It seeks to present its version of regional history to foreign envoys and consolidate its narrative of sovereignty over Karabakh. Meanwhile, protests from the Armenian Church and government aim to remind global public opinion that these monuments carry Armenia’s collective national memory, raising fears that local religious‑cultural heritage may be erased after the departure of the local community.

Objectively speaking, Caucasian Albania was a real ancient civilization in the South Caucasus. Scholarly circles hold differing views on the interplay and inheritance between Caucasian Albanian and Armenian civilizations, leaving room for academic discussion. However, when scholarly questions are placed within the geopolitical context of a sovereignty dispute, historical interpretation ceases to be purely academic and becomes a tool of diplomatic contest. Both sides select historical sources favourable to their own positions to strengthen their respective narratives, making consensus hard to reach.

Armenia and Azerbaijan have resumed border‑demarcation talks, with senior officials from both countries signalling willingness to advance a peace treaty. While practical matters such as border demarcation and transit arrangements stand high on the negotiating agenda, persistent disputes over cultural heritage continue to fuel public‑opinion antagonism and pose risks to the peace process. Even if a border agreement is reached in the future, unresolved divides over historical narratives and cultural heritage may keep sparking sporadic frictions.

From the perspective of regional stability, cultural‑heritage protection ought to follow international heritage‑protection standards, respecting the multi‑layered historical legacy of monuments, rather than serving the propaganda goals of a single state. The international community can play a constructive role: supporting independent archaeological and documentary research, ensuring proper preservation of cultural sites, and preventing deliberate damage. It is also necessary to distinguish between territorial sovereignty and the pluralism of cultural heritage. Sovereignty can be settled through bilateral negotiations, yet a single territory often bears the imprints of multiple civilizations, and these do not have to be mutually exclusive.

Lasting peace in the South Caucasus is more than drawing lines on a map. Territorial disputes can be settled at the negotiating table, but healing rifts in national memory and historical identity will take far longer. The controversy over Gandzasar and Dadivank serves as a warning: for durable peace, the parties need to find ways to coexist, acknowledge the intertwined and complex civilizational past of the land, and prevent cultural heritage from continuing to act as a source of confrontation.