The Derbent Appeal

The Karabakh conflict had barely come to an end, when Academician Mikhail Piotrovsky, Director of the State Hermitage, issued the Derbent Appeal, a sort of manifesto for the preservation of cultural monuments in the Caucasus in the difficult post-war period. This was the subject of our conversation.

Photo: Yury Lepsky/RG

An interwoven world

How did the Derbent appeal come about?

Mikhail Piotrovsky: The Karabakh war was going on, bringing death, terrible tragedies and destruction. Including the destruction of cultural monuments. Something had to be done. What? Just to call on people to “Stop the destruction of monuments!” is senseless.

Fortunately, the issue of the protection of monuments came up almost immediately and strongly in the speeches of our leaders. I think it was Russia’s experience with Palmyra, when we proclaimed the need to save it as world cultural heritage. And here, when it’s all very close to Russia, can we really keep silent?

At the Presidential Council on Culture, I said that the whole world was looking at how Russia would solve the problems relating to monuments and, in particular, how it would prevent – and I quote the transcript – “cultural genocide in the Caucasus”.

I was convinced of the necessity to start a great undertaking to turn the war, which is always also a war of memory, into a dialogue of cultures.

And at that point a conference gathered in Derbent – under the auspices of UNESCO, with the leadership of the Republic of Daghestan participating – dedicated to the fate of cultural treasures. There I saw people of different faiths discussing with great interest a new discovery: the ditch in the Naryn-Kala fortress, which everyone thought was a water cistern, is most probably the foundations of the oldest Christian church on Russian territory. This rich scholarly discussion was taking place in a city that is very proud of its mix of different cultures and religions. It has always had churches, mosques and a fortress built by the Sassanids. (Vanya Steblin-Kamensky and I went to Derbent as young men to copy Middle Persian inscriptions and send them to Lukonin, the famous Hermitage orientalist.) This tradition of the intertwining and historical overlapping of cultures resulted in excellent scholarly discussion and care – in a Muslim republic – for Christian culture.

You can appreciate your own cultural heritage, if you have grasped someone else’s well. Understand someone else’s and you will understand your own.

This was hard to imagine; with us all debates about the Caucasus have usually ended in confrontation. Every time I wanted to say: let’s debate without turning it all into a discussion about who’s better, who’s smarter, who’s more special. An argument over who’s more special sooner or later turns into a war.

What did bring about this latest war in Karabakh?

Mikhail Piotrovsky: I would point to the term “ressentiment” that Nietzsche in his time put forward. Anger and irritation caused by frustration and failure, the search for an enemy to blame for one’s failures – that is the soil from which this war was born.

And what brings about real peace?

Mikhail Piotrovsky: Right now, I think, to a considerable extent the prevention of “cultural genocide” in the Caucasus.

The Caucasus is a concentration of monuments of different eras and peoples, with an interwoven heritage – Christian, Muslim, ethnic Iranian, Turkic Caucasian and Zoroastrian pagan. Nowhere else has such a combination of religions, civilizations and races like the Caucasus.

Syria, for example, for all its difficulties, is a Muslim country, and there are only Arabs there. In the Caucasus, though, there are great ethnic differences, compounded with religious ones. And sometimes states are behind the difference of cultures and religions, and ethnic strife tends to turn into a state-level contest.

Is there a comparable concentration of so many differences anywhere else in the world?

Mikhail Piotrovsky: Maybe in the Balkans, but to a lesser extent. The Caucasus is a unique place. It is Georgian and Armenian, Iranian and Azerbaijani, Turkish and Byzantine, Roman and Arab. It is a very “edgy” tangle. Nothing makes for easy solutions. That is why, I think, the theme of cultural monuments instantly came up in the President’s speech. It is very important that through and beyond this war (indeed through any war) we sense the culture.

Cultural monuments belong not just to one people, but to humanity.

Has anything already been taken under protection?

Mikhail Piotrovsky: In Karabakh, Russian peacekeepers are guarding the Dadivank monastery. The others are in a more or less calm condition, but what is happening in them needs to be made the subject of attention and the news.

We have to create public opinion in favour of protecting the cultural monuments. If you like, to impose on all kinds of people an understanding that, even if you hate this ethnic group and this religion, you mustn’t touch cultural monuments.

Because history belongs to every ethnic group. And cultural monuments – this is the most important thought for me right now – belong to humanity. They mustn’t be touched precisely because they do not belong to anyone in particular, they belong to everyone. And they should be protected by all of humanity, by the whole world. In Syria, in the Caucasus, everywhere.

We need to convince both ordinary people and politicians that cultural monuments are important, almost on a par with human lives. That their destruction is a crime. I have been involved in several international discussions on this topic. Many people believe that we need international rules of intervention to protect monuments. So far, there is no coherent global system for the protection of monuments, but one does need to be created. There are internationally agreed positions on what to do when human rights are violated, and when monuments are threatened a scheme should be set up to monitor and respond to the threat. Documents should be drawn up, a response mechanism should be defined, and concrete protective measures should be sought.

Some would say: Does that mean you can shoot at people, but you can’t shoot at a church?

Mikhail Piotrovsky: I understand, but this is a real dilemma. During the war, church bell-towers almost always housed an observation post. How do you deal with that, send people to attack? Demolish the bell-tower with a shell, or leave it, putting people’s lives at risk – that had to be decided by the officer. Already in the Second World War, all armies faced such questions And they still do.

Understand someone else’s and you will understand your own.

If you understand that you mustn’t touch an Armenian church or an Azerbaijani mosque, no matter how hostile you may feel towards Armenians or Azerbaijanis, that turns off the very thing that starts a war - ressentiment.

Mikhail Piotrovsky: Absolutely, it’s a deactivation of ressentiment. And maybe that is where God and our salvation lies.

In the Caucasus, we can now try to turn off the logic of ressentiment. And maybe the fate of the Caucasus will give us a chance to highlight and work out something that will help everyone...

We need to find the “sore points” of threats to monuments and talk and write about them a great deal. We need to put up a cultural barrier to ethnic and racial fights

Every nation has its own roots and its own cultural virtues. I was born in Armenia. Armenians, for example, have an almost mystical attitude towards their own heritage –religion, writing system, manuscripts, architecture. They treat the alphabet as if it were sacred. Western-oriented Armenians have even organized a provocative discussion along the lines of “If we had abandoned the Armenian alphabet and adopted the Greek one, we would be more civilized and already part of Europe.” In Echmiadzin, though, there is a gold plaque bearing the Armenian alphabet for a reason. Respect for heritage is what unites people. And here I have to express yet another thought that is not obvious to many people but very important. You can understand and appreciate your own cultural heritage better by understanding someone else’s well. “Understand someone else’s, and you will understand your own” – that’s my formula. This is what the Hermitage teaches us.

What precisely can be done at the moment to preserve cultural monuments in Karabakh?

Mikhail Piotrovsky: We need to find the “sore points” of threats to monuments, and to talk and write a lot about it. To not take our eyes off the ancient monasteries – Dadivank and Gandzasar. To pay attention to the mosques in Karabakh as well. And to keep on telling the world – without emotion – exactly what is happening to the monuments. Not so much to point the blame – “This is bad” – but to present the whole picture: the situation is this, that and the other. And in response to the argument “That’s understandable, they are sticking up for their own”, we should invariably answer that cultural heritage is always shared.

It is very difficult for everyone there at the moment. And we should not wait for the world’s sympathies to tilt in one direction (and they sometimes do tilt readily and unfairly in one direction), but put up a cultural barrier to ethnic and racial fighting.

Monitoring the state of cultural heritage would be the first element in that barrier.

This does not only apply to the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, by the way. Disputes over the borders between Azerbaijan and Georgia also impinge on the fate of one of the ancient Christian monasteries.

We need to try to create a common world feeling about what it is wrong to do.

What does world experience tell us?

Mikhail Piotrovsky: It tell us that you have to raise the sort of fuss that touches people’s hearts. Because simply making a fuss by saying something like “You scum, don’t you dare touch these things!” ends up with the “scum” going out the next day to destroy something more. We know this from experience in Syria or Mali. The militants went back to Palmyra, too, and destroyed it again.

Stand side by side

Is it realistic to turn wars of memory into a dialogue of cultures?

Mikhail Piotrovsky: Our main role is not to eliminate the wars of memory – they cannot be eliminated – but to shift memory into a different register which helps to weaken the “element of war” and turn it into competition. Not rivalry, rivalry can also be deadly, but peaceful competition. When we compete in the museum business, we aren’t thinking about how to crush a competitor, but about how to become good ourselves.

It is important that a museum-like ethic comes into play. Within such an approach, there is also room for feeling for one’s country. For me, the future of the Caucasus in general is very important. Russia’s position in the Caucasus is important, the memory of Yermolov, Paskevich, Griboyedov, the capture of Erzurum and Kars, and the Caucasus front in the First World War.

A dialogue of cultures is, after all, the principle of the Hermitage as a universal museum.

Mikhail Piotrovsky: Yes. And it became universal in the 20th century – under Orbeli, Artamonov and my father Boris Borisovich Piotrovsky. It is precisely in a museum like this that you can see how good and right it is – the dialogue and diversity of cultures.

With the Derbent Appeal, you are heir to Joseph Orbeli and the Caucasian cultural and scholarly contingent in the Hermitage in the 20th century. The mission of proclaiming the importance of Caucasian culture – for the world and for Russia – that’s Orbeli’s line, isn’t it?

Mikhail Piotrovsky: Well, my father was also a part of it. His discovery of Karmir Blur was a very important chapter in the history of learning. But Orbeli, yes, he created the Department of the East, the Russian department, the permanent display of the Caucasus. In the Hermitage it’s represented by the halls of Karmir Blur and Moshchevaya Balka, of Kubachi, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and by the Eastern “Arsenal”.

It is, if you like, the commandment of the Hermitage to have everyone stand side by side and have them all look at one another. And – ideally – to teach them to find pleasure in your neighbour not being like you. Although we are not managing that last part yet. Not just us, no-one is.

Those who destroyed Palmyra are the bad guys.

In all recent wars a cultural criterion invariably appears. It is clear that those who destroyed Palmyra were the bad guys, and those who are trying to rebuild are the good ones.

Mikhail Piotrovsky: It is not that straightforward. Those who take the reconstruction upon themselves are immediately told: “While you’re busy with ancient stones, people are starving to death alongside.” That’s what was said in Bamiyan, Afghanistan, for instance, when people tried to restore the statues of Buddhas. And how can we start restoring something in Palmyra now, when there is an empty town next door, where people cannot find work? That’s why we decided that the first thing to do is to rebuild the museum, which would not only attract tourists, but also give jobs to the locals. Then it will go on to deal with the consequences of the war, using local workers, which is very important.

Can’t Russia – by dint of once having been an imperial power – find its cultural mission in this?

Mikhail Piotrovsky: I think Russia should take this on. Archaeologists and museum workers are certainly ready to get involved. Still, it would be good if all this were also taken up by the international community, becoming part of a common action. We know from the example of Syria how oversensitively every announcement is received that Russia will be doing something – something positive! –with regard to monuments of world culture. There is an immediate outcry from the Arabs, say, or the French: “That isn’t yours!” That’s why I think everyone should get involved in such matters. The Day of Palmyra that we held in the Hermitage on 2 December was in part our step in that direction – linking Russian efforts with those of UNESCO.

Who should organize cultural monitoring in the Caucasus?

Mikhail Piotrovsky: I think it will be effective if political forces in Russia and countries in and around the Caucasus take care of it. The attention of international cultural institutions is also important, though. The scholarly conference in Derbent was held under the aegis of UNESCO, of its Russian committee. Mounir Bouchenaki, an advisor to the Secretary General of UNESCO and the world’s foremost authority on the protection of monuments, was present, as were representatives of ICOM and ICCROM. UNESCO’s Russian Committee will forward all our proposals to Paris, on top of which they have been officially sent to UNESCO. I have also written to the World Monuments Fund (WMF), which has asked what can be done in the Caucasus and how.

Is the mechanism for cultural monitoring clear yet?

Mikhail Piotrovsky: Not yet. It still has to be invented, but it definitely will be. For now, at this stage, what’s important is goodwill. For example, Russian peacekeepers have entered Dadivank Monastery, and there was a possibility that they wouldn’t....

In general, since the Second World War, armies at war have had to have Kunstschützoffizieren – officers engaged in the protection of works of art. At the front, they had the task of identifying cultural monuments, determining their significance and taking measures for their preservation. That experience is now becoming relevant again. We can hardly demand that all Russian peacekeepers do this, but if one competent officer takes on the task that will already be enough. The main thing is that he should record the condition of the monument. It is a task for others – politicians, museum workers – to then talk about it.

It must be understood too that the threat to the monuments does not come from state forces. Azerbaijan’s state politicians will do everything to ensure that cultural monuments and monasteries are not touched, but people’s emotions are raging all over. And it’s those emotions that need to be restrained. For example, by pointing out that the names of victors cannot be written on a captured monument.

Fragile things of culture

What must monitoring necessarily include?

Mikhail Piotrovsky: Accurate information about what is happening, confirmed by Russian peacekeepers. That will serve as a basis for writing letters to heads of state.

The term woke – a willingness to notice and react immediately to injustice – is fashionable in the world nowadays. The willingness to watch and stop if people see something wrong going on. To blow the whistle. Here too, we need to take notice and give signals that demand a response.

What is particularly at risk?

Mikhail Piotrovsky: Monasteries on military-occupied territory may not be touched yet. Cemeteries are most vulnerable. They always suffer as prominent symbols of memory.

In addition to monasteries and cemeteries, excavations can also suffer. At Shahbulag in Karabakh, a settlement has been excavated that archaeologists believe to be the ancient Tigranakert. Others reckon it to be a mediaeval fortress. Right now, it is important that those disputes do not lead to damage to the site. In any case, it must be preserved and studied.

These are the most fragile things of culture that can and should be monitored. Letting everyone know loudly what is going on. Even though there are official authorities, laws and good intentions. They should be monitored everywhere – in the Caucasus and beyond.

The dream of the Caucasus.

Mikhail Piotrovsky: At the moment, it is very important to realize the connectedness of the Caucasus. To understand that the South Caucasus, for example, is very closely linked to all the rest. And the whole of the Caucasus – to Stavropol, Krasnodar, the Crimea, to Russia. The cultural unity of the Caucasus and a profound global understanding of its cultural face – that is what is important.

The cultural face of the Caucasus is one of the most impressive in the world?

Mikhail Piotrovsky: As a united whole built on exceptional diversity – yes. And it would be wonderful to come up with a plan for jointly studying and presenting the Caucasus to the world – as a unique example of how such a jewel is born from the historical movement of peoples: the nature, culture, people, places of worship...

Key issue

Quarantine warfare

Why, in the rarefied time of quarantine, when we are living more in nature than in history (tending and protecting our health), did everything suddenly explode into war?

Mikhail Piotrovsky: Because a pandemic brings additional vulnerability and breeds hysteria. At present, even in the Hermitage everyone – visitors and museum workers alike – are on the verge of hysteria, on the point of attacking one another.

In actual fact, the epidemic stifles some things and, on the contrary, brings others out.

And everything that has happened does, of course, have historical roots. Today, some are playing emotionally on old grievances. In 1994, when the conflict in Karabakh flared up again, an old Armenian grievance played a role. This time it is an old Azerbaijani one. You cannot be guided by old grievances, though. Especially now. We are going through a moment when a bad peace is more precious than a good quarrel.

Russia fulfilled its mission in the 1990s too, when a terrible ethnic quarrel started in Azerbaijan, Armenia and Karabakh, by some incomprehensible intuition it was able to find a way to put everything on hold. Now it has broken loose again, and Russia has once again prevented terrible bloodshed. And now, more than ever, it is important to share the feeling that blood must never be spilled further.

Read the text of the Derbent Appeal on the website of the State Hermitage.