Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography

Cultural Anthropology Department

The task of the Department is:

To study the local culture and society, supplementing it with comparative analysis. Along with socio-cultural developments, the field of research of the Department is rapidly changing and expanding, new directions are emerging (for example, digital anthropology, disaster anthropology, material anthropology, etc.), which are also the subject of research of the Department.
From the temporal perspective - to deal with all periods, focusing specifically on the 20th–21st centuries.
To develop cultural anthropology in Armenia by promoting the influx of relevant personnel and natural generational succession.
The Department carries out its work in the following forms of activity: fieldwork, museum, archive/library and office-based research.
The output of the Department is measured by quality scientific publications (monographs, collections of articles, articles), which must be relevant and innovative, using modern methods, events participated in and organized (conferences, seminars, etc.), effective fieldwork and development of international relations (attraction of foreign resources, participation in international scientific conferences), personnel inflow, defense of theses, provision of professional opinions.

The past and present of the Department

Introduction

The Department of Cultural Anthropology of the Institute has been operating under that name since 2023. Before that, it was called Department of Contemporary Anthropological Studies, which was formed in 2005.

In the Soviet period, under the dominance of ethnohistorical research method, the study of modernity and the city remained understudied, except for some works published in the 1980s: especially cf. Markaryan E. et al., “Culture of Life Subsistence and Ethnos: An Ethno-Cultural Study (Based on Armenian Rural Culture)” («Культура жизнеобеспечения и этнос: Опыт этнокультурологического исследования (на материалах армянской сельской культуры», 1983); Harutyunyan Yu., Karapetyan E. (eds), “Population of Yerevan. Ethno-sociological Research” («Население Еревана. Этносоциологическое исследование», 1986). A tangible turn towards the study of modernity is associated with the events of 1988 in Armenia and subsequent changes in all spheres of life in the Republic. In February of 1988, mass popular demonstrations began, which became known as the beginning of the Karabakh movement.

These demonstrations lasted until the collapse of the USSR and the independence of Armenia in 1991. Ethnographers Zaven Kharatyan, Harutyun Marutyan and Levon Abrahamyan at every opportunity did not leave the suddenly created field - the squares and streets of Yerevan, trying to record and then to understand the turbulent events taking place. As a result of this special fieldwork, a number of reports and articles were published (Marutyan H., “Overcoming the Genocide Victim Complex During the Karabagh Movement («Ցեղասպանության զոհի բարդույթի հաղթահարումը Ղարաբաղյան շարժման տարիներին», 2013), Abrahamian L., “The Karabagh Movement as Viewed by an Anthropologist”, 1990), book chapters (Abrahamian L., “Armenian Identity in a Changing World”, 2006) and books, for example, Harutyun Marutyan's fundamental work about the posters and banners that appeared during the Movement (Marutyan H., “The Iconography of Armenian Identity”/ «Հայ ինքնության պատկերագրությունը», 2009). Anthropological studies of the Karabakh movement can be compared to the research of Zdzisław Mach, who has investigated similar events in Poland.

The Karabakh movement, the precursor to Armenia’s independence, continued to play a modeling role in subsequent political and civic discourses (Abrahamian L., Shagoyan G., “Rallies as Festival and Festival as a Model for Rallies”, 2013). Harutyun Marutyan qualifies it as the first revolution (Marutyan H., “The Main Features of the Karabakh Movement or the Armenian Revolution (1988-1990)” («Ղարաբաղյան շարժման կամ Հայկական հեղափոխության (1988-1990) հիմնական առանձնահատկությունները», 2013), comparing it with the second, the “velvet” revolution of 2018, which is also becoming the subject of anthropological research (Abrahamian L., Shagoyan G., Velvet Revolution, Armenian Style, 2018).

The turbulent "current" of the late 1980s forced Armenian ethnographers to deal with these issues for a long time. However, there are also hidden “regularities” here. Thus, in the late 1970s, Levon Abrahamian attempted to reconstruct a pre-festival (Ur-Festival) (Abrahamian L. A., “Primitive Festival and Mythology” («Первобытный праздник и мифология», 1983), relying mainly on the material of Australian aborigines, and in 1988 the author seemed to find himself in the whirlpool of the festival he had reconstructed (Abrahamian L., “Rite, Pre-Theater and Theater Square” («Ծեսը, նախաթատրոնը և Թատերական հրապարակը», 1990), Abrahamian L., “Archaic Ritual and Theater: From the Ceremonial Glade to Theater Square”, 1990, Abrahamian L., “Chaos and Cosmos in the Structure of Mass Popular Demonstrations. The Karabakh Movement in the Eyes of an Ethnographer” / «Քաոսը և կոսմոսը ժողովրդական ելույթների կառուցվածքում. Ղարաբաղյան շարժումը ազգագրագետի հայացքով», 1990).

Harutyun Marutyan had published a work on the interior of a rural house (Marutyan A., “Interior of an Armenian Folk Dwelling (second half of the 19th – early 20th centuries)” («Интерьер армянского народного жилища (вторая половина XIX – начало XX вв.», 1989) and intended to study the interior of a city dwelling next, but when the events of 1988 began, he deviated from the intended topic. However, the city, albeit in a different form, found a place in his studies in 1988, when numerous posters and banners formed the new, temporary “interior” of the city.

Another shift in interest towards urban anthropology occurred with Gayane Shagoyan. This time the cause was not man-made, but a consequence of natural forces. It was the destruction of her birthplace, Gyumri, the second largest city in Armenia (formerly Leninakan), as a result of the December 1988 earthquake. Gayane Shagoyan’s scholarly interest in weddings (Shagoyan G., “«Seven Days, Seven Nights»: Panorama of the Armenian Wedding” («”Յոթ օր, յոթ գիշեր”. հայոց հարսանիքի համայնապատկեր», 2011) gave way to the problems of a city that suffered from an earthquake (Shagoyan G., “Essays on the Anthropology of a City That Survived an Earthquake” («Очерки антропологии города, пережившего землетрясение», 2010).

The new political and economic situation created after independence prompted Svetlana Poghosyan to direct her professional interest, which was mainly related to the Armenian traditional costume (Poghosyan S., “The Traditional Costume of the Armenians of Shirak-Javakheti (late 19th - early 20th centuries), («Շիրակ-Ջավախքի հայոց ավանդութային տարազը (19-րդ դ. վերջ – 20-րդ դ. սկիզբ)», 1994), to the field of gender studies, the issues of new social roles of women (Poghosyan S., “The Working Woman in Modern Society” («Աշխատող կինը արդի հասարակությունում», 2001), Poghosyan S., “Women in a Crisis Situation: Women Fighters of the Artsakh War” («Կանայք ճգնաժամային իրավիճակում. Արցախյան գոյամարտի կին ազատամարտիկները», 2006).

Arsen Hakobyan, who studied the Tat-speaking Armenian group formerly living in Azerbaijan (A. Hakobyan, “The Tat-speaking Armenians” («Թաթախոս հայերը», 2002), turned to the anthropology of violence and people's diplomacy after the Karabakh conflict (A. Hakobyan, “The Origins of Violence During the Karabakh Conflict” («Բռնությունների սկզբնավորումը ղարաբաղյան կոնֆլիկտի ժամանակ», 1988), S. Huseynova, A. Hakobyan, S. Rumyantsev, “Kyzyl-Shafag and Kerkendj: History of Village Exchange in the Situation of the Karabakh Conflict”, («Кызыл-Шафаг и Керкендж: история обмена сёлами в ситуации Карабахского конфликта», 2008), A. Hakobyan, “People's Diplomacy during the Karabakh Conflict: Village Exchange in Kerkendj and Kyzyl-Shafag, 2011, Hakobyan A. “Anthropology of Ethnic Conflict in the Context of Everyday Life”, 2011).

After the war, an inevitable topic of study arose: the problem of refugees and their adaptation to new conditions (Shagoyan G., Hakobyan A., Khurshudyan V., “«Pandi Ukht» as a Paradigm of Getashen Identity” («”Պանդի ուխտը”՝ որպես գետաշենցիների ինքնության հարացույց», 2018), Baghdasaryan M., “Contesting Belonging and Social Citizenship: The Case of Refugee Housing in Armenia”, 2011, Baghdasaryan M., “Citizenship at the «Historic Homeland»: Refugees from Azerbaijan in Armenia”, 2014). The problems of Syrian-Armenian immigrants were later added to the problems of refugees from Azerbaijan (Hakobyan A., “From Aleppo to Yerevan: The War and Migration from the Window of the Bus Route”, 2016). The topic of studying refugees became relevant again, forming a new public demand for the study of this field, in connection with the forced migration of Artsakh Armenians in 2023. Several researchers of the Department are currently engaged in these urgent issues (Hranush Kharatyan, Gohar Stepanyan, Gayane Shagoyan, Hasmik Knyazyan, Zaruhi Hambardzumyan, Grigori Ayvazyan). Emigration, a classic crisis topic, has also been the subject of study (Kharatyan H. (ed.), “Emigration from Armenia” («Արտագաղթը Հայաստանից», 2003), Dolzhenko I., “Migration Processes among the Russian Population of Armenia” («Миграционные процессы среди русского населения Армении», 1990).

Institutionalization of Modernity Studies

The need to research the above-mentioned issues led to their institutionalization, as a result of which the Department of Contemporary Anthropological Studies was formed at the Institute in 2005. The Department was created on the basis of a thematic group that had existed since the second half of the 1990s, the members of which were previously researchers of the Department of Ethnography and were mainly engaged in the study of modern everyday life and the ethnography (anthropology) of crisis.

As a result of the protracted crisis in the country, the group staff gained extensive experience in research. They participated in various international and then local grant projects aimed at overcoming the crisis in the country. It should be recalled that after the collapse of the USSR, the general economic crisis in the post-Soviet space was further aggravated in Armenia due to the devastating earthquake of 1988 and the war in Karabakh (1991–1994). The researchers, working on these projects, learned new methods and approaches to fieldwork and analysis. It can be said that it was not theory and training that prepared them for fieldwork, but, on the contrary, fieldwork opened up new directions in the field of ethnography/anthropology (for details, see Shagoyan G., “Forum: Education in Anthropology and Social Sciences” («Форум: Образование в антропологии и социальных науках», 2005).

We will limit ourselves to just one example: a book on poverty, which was a unique additional result of various projects implemented mainly by the World Bank in 1994-2000, aimed at studying problems in the areas of poverty, impoverishment and survival strategies in the conditions of a global crisis, social security, refugees, health and education, and environmental protection. Thanks to these projects, ethnographers were able to conduct research in almost all regions of Armenia. The book created as a result was called “Stories on Poverty. Materials and Studies” («Պատմություններ աղքատության մասին», 2001) by Kharatyan H. (ed.). The first part of the book contains stories about poverty collected by ethnographers, short and long excerpts from biographical interviews. The second part is presented with analytical articles by the same authors, which are based on the collected general material, and the last article, which acts as a conclusion, has comments on the issue under study, based on the materials of the first part and the articles of the second part. The index of important concepts placed at the end unites the issues raised in these three sections. The word “patmut‘yun”, placed in the plural in the title, has two meanings in Armenian (“story” and “history”): it suggests that we are actually dealing with the history of poverty (cf. the ambiguous Russian word “история” or the English pair of words “story” and “history”). Five years later, a new study was conducted, the results of which were reflected in the second book “Stories on Poverty” (2007) by Kharatyan H., Marutyan H. (eds). Thus, the individual “stories” became a real “history” - the ethnographic chronicle of Armenia during the transitional period of 1994–2005 (Shagoyan G., “Book-reviews on Kharatyan H. (ed.), Patmut‘yunner aghk‘atut‘yan masin [Stories on Poverty]”, 2001 and Kharatyan H., Marutyan H. (eds), “Patmut‘yunner aghk‘atut‘yan masin [Stories on Poverty]”. Book 2, 2007, 2011) and, one could say, the first postmodern ethnographic work of Armenia.

In 2008, the Applied Ethnography Group was formed in the Department, led by Hranush Kharatyan. This direction of ethnography, responding to the ongoing, usually crisis-like events, assumes urgent professional intervention.

Anthropology of memory

Violence, refugees, mass migration are unfortunately well-known phenomena in Armenian history, which became especially relevant after the Armenian Genocide in Ottoman Turkey during World War I. The Karabakh conflict and especially the massacres of Armenians in the Azerbaijani city of Sumgait at the end of February 1988 also did not escape comparison with genocide. This becomes clear from the already mentioned work of Harutyun Marutyan (Marutyan H., “Iconography of Armenian Identity. Volume 1: The Memory of Genocide and the Karabagh Movement” («Հայ ինքնության պատկերագրությունը։ Հատոր 1. Ցեղասպանության հիշողությունը և Ղարաբաղյան շարժումը», 2009).

The collective memory of the genocide has also become a subject of study (Marutyan H., “Genocide Memory as a Forming Factor of a New Identity (late 1980s – early 1990s”) («Ցեղասպանության հիշողությունը որպես նոր ինքնության ձևավորիչ (1980-ական թվականների վերջ – 1990-ական թվականների սկիզբ», 2005), Marutyan H., “The Role of Memory in the Structure of National Identity: Theoretical Questions” («Հիշողության դերն ազգային ինքնության կառուցվածքում. տեսական հարցադրումներ», 2006), Marutyan H., “Traumatic Memory as the Most Important Factor in Preservation of Armenian Identity in Turkey” («Տրավմատիկ հիշողությունն իբրև հայկական ինքնության պահպանման կարևորագույն գործոն Թուրքիայում», 2008), Marutyan H., “Trauma and Identity: On Structural Particularities of Armenian Genocide and Jewish Holocaust”, 2014), Grigoryan H., “Masses and Mass Violence: The Participation of the Muslim Population of the Ottoman Empire in the Armenian Genocide” («Զանգվածները և զանգվածային բռնությունները. Օսմանյան կայսրության մուսուլման բնակչության մասնակցությունը Հայոց ցեղասպանությանը», 2017) and the reflection of this large-scale tragedy in subsequent, also not devoid of drama, events related to the repatriation of Armenians who lost their homeland after the genocide to a new homeland, Soviet Armenia, (Stepanyan A., “Repatriation of the 20th Century in the System of Armenian Identity” («XX դարի հայրենադարձությունը հայոց ինքնության համակարգում», 2010).

The author of the book that reveals the issues of repatriation, Armenuhi Stepanyan, grew up among repatriates, so this work is to some extent autobiographical. It is not surprising that it is included in the “Anthropology of Memory” («Հիշողության ազգագրություն») series published by the Department. This is the third book in the series, the second being the already mentioned volume by Harutyun Marutyan (Marutyan H., “Iconography of Armenian Identity. Volume 1: The Memory of Genocide and the Karabagh Movement”, 2009) about the collective memory of the genocide, and the first is the diary of a girl who was exiled to Siberia with her family in 1949, which has become a unique document telling about everyday life in Stalinist exile (Alexanyan A., “Siberian Diary: 1949–1954” («Сибирский дневник: 1949–1954 гг.», 2017).

8 books have already been published in this series, the titles of which express the entire palette of the anthropology of memory (Oganezov G., Kharatyan G. (eds), “Armenian Self-Defense in Kirovabad in 1988–1989 through the Eyes of Witnesses” («Самооборона армян Кировабада в 1988–1989 гг. глазами oчевидцев», 2014), Kharatyan H., Shagoyan G., Marutyan H., Abrahamyan L., “Stalinist Repressions in Armenia: History, Memory, Everyday Life” («Ստալինյան բռնաճնշումները Հայաստանում. պատմություն, հիշողություն, առօրյա», 2015), Grigoryan H., “Masses and Mass Violence: The Participation of the Muslim Population of the Ottoman Empire in the Armenian Genocide” («Զանգվածները և զանգվածային բռնությունները. Օսմանյան կայսրության մուսուլման բնակչության մասնակցությունը Հայոց ցեղասպանությանը», 2017), Shagoyan G. (ed.), “Unheard Voices: Memory and Post-Memory in Oral History” («Չլսվող ձայներ. հիշողությունն ու հետհիշողությունը բանավոր պատմություններում», 2018), Pirumyan-Minasyan R., Minasyan B., “From Tabriz to the Stalinist Gulag: An Interrupted History” («Թաւրիզից ստալինեան գուլագ. ընդհատուած պատմութիւն», 2019).

Separate branches of the anthropology of memory are represented by collections of articles compiled using the methodology of oral history (Kharatyan H., Shagoyan G., Marutyan H., Abrahamyan L., “Stalinist Repressions in Armenia: History, Memory, Everyday Life” («Ստալինյան բռնաճնշումները Հայաստանում. պատմություն, հիշողություն, առօրյա», 2015), Shagoyan G. (ed.), “Unheard Voices: Memory and Post-Memory in Oral History” (Չլսվող ձայներ. հիշողությունն ու հետհիշողությունը բանավոր պատմություններում, 2018)) and research conducted using the principle of visual anthropology (Yeranosyan A. “«Tree Narratives»: A Workbook for Creating Family Trees and Collecting Oral Stories” («“Ծառապատում”. Տոհմածառերի ստեղծման և բանավոր պատմությունների հավաքագրման աշխատագիրք», 2020).

Study of identity issues

All the mentioned topics and plots are in one way or another connected with the self-awareness of a person in a changing world, the refinement of certain shades of one's own identity. At the title level, the term "identity" appeared in 2001 in the book "Armenian Folk Arts, Culture, and Identity" (Abrahamian L., Sweezy N. (eds), 2001), in the creation of which the employees of the institute participated mainly. Of course, it would be more correct to use the term "identification", since it reflects a continuous process and not a fixed image (T. Eriksen). This is especially noticeable in crisis and post-crisis conditions, which contribute to the clarification and revaluation of one's own identity. This is exactly the situation reflected in the title of the book "Armenian Identity in a Changing World" by L. Abrahamian (2006).

Almost all the works of the Department are related to the problem of identity transformation researchers dealing with social or ethnic groups of one type or another:

Russians living in Armenia (Dolzhenko I., “The Social Status of Russians in Armenia (according to the 1989 census)” («Социальный статус русских Армении (по материалам переписи 1989 г.)», 2002), Dolzhenko I., “Russian Diaspora in the Republic of Armenia: Modern State and Perspectives of Development” («Русская диаспора в Республике Армении: современное состояние и перспективы развития», 2003), Dolzhenko I., “The Current State of Religious Communities of Molokans in Armenia” («Современное состояние религиозных общин молокан Армении», 2004));
Assyrians: (Dolzhenko I., “Some Issues of Family Construction among the Assyrians of Armenia («Некоторые вопросы семейного строительства у ассирийцев Армении», 2001), Dolzhenko I., “National-mixed Families among the Assyrians of Armenia // The Lavrov (Central Asian-Caucasian) Readings. 2000–2001” («Национально-смешанные семьи у ассирийцев Армении // Лавровские (Среднеазиатско-Кавказские) чтения. 2000–2001 гг.», 2002));
Yezidi (Melkumyan H., “«Elites» Between Nationalism and Tradition: The Modernization Processes in the Yezidi Community of Armenia”, 2016, Melkumyan H., “Informal Shrines and Social Transformations: The Murids as New Religious Mediators among Yezidis in Armenia”, 2018);
Bosha (Marutyan H., “The Contemporary Expression of the Identity of the Boshas”, 2011);
Udi (Aivazyan G., “Udis” (Удины, 2023);
Former Armenian residents of Baku and Banants village (Baghdasaryan M., “Contesting Belonging and Social Citizenship: The Case of Refugee Housing in Armenia”, 2011, Baghdasaryan M., “Citizenship at the «Historic Homeland»: Refugees from Azerbaijan in Armenia”, 2014);
Baluchis of Sistan and Baluchistan (Boyajian V., “There Ethno-Religious Aspect in Balochi Identity?”, 2016);
Armenians who remained in the provinces of Turkey after the Genocide (Kharatian H., “The Middle Ages of the 20th Century: Armenians in the Provinces of Turkey after the Genocide (A)” («Ի» դարի միջնադար: Հայերը Թուրքիայի գաւառներում Ցեղասպանութիւնից հետո (Ա)», 2013);
Iranians and Iranian-Armenians (Sargsyan T., “The «Mahriye» Regulating Marital Relations in the Islamic Republic of Iran” («Ամուսնական հարաբերությունները կարգավորող “մահրիեն” ԻԻՀ-ում», 2017), Stepanyan A., Sargsyan H., “Immigration and Resettlement Problems of Iranian-Armenians (1946–1970s)” («Իրանահայերի ներգաղթն ու վերաբնակեցման խնդիրները (1946–1970-ական թվականներին», 2009));
the women's group of post-Soviet Armenia (Poghosyan S., “The Working Woman in Modern Society” («Աշխատող կինը արդի հասարակությունում», 2001), Poghosyan S., “Women in a Crisis Situation: Women Fighters of the Artsakh War” («Կանայք ճգնաժամային իրավիճակում. Արցախյան գոյամարտի կին ազատամարտիկները», 2006)):

A good example of the extent to which the issue of identity can be included in studies of such groups is the title of the research topic of Vahe Boyajyan, who studies the Baluchis of Sistan and Baluchistan, bordering Afghanistan and Pakistan: “The Formal and Cultural Border As a Means of Subethocultural Identity Formation Or a New Identity Creation” («Ֆորմալ և մշակութային սահմանը որպես սուբէթնոմշակութային ինքնությունների ձևավորման միջոց կամ նոր ինքնության առաջացում»).

Researching the Soviet period

During the years of the Soviet Union, it was not desirable and even unacceptable to study the present of the Soviet period. Today, when there are no more ideological barriers, it turns out that a significant period of our country's history remains unstudied not only historically, but also from an ethnographic point of view. The work of the research group formed on the initiative of Hranush Kharatyan was mainly directed at issues related to Stalinist repressions. Targeting first and foremost the everyday life of the repressed, the researchers also encountered the paucity of political analyses of that period.

This became an opportunity for researchers to address, in addition to ethnographic issues: memory, family, community relations, press studies (Kharatyan H., Shagoyan G., Marutyan H., Abrahamyan L., “Stalinist Repressions in Armenia: History, Memory, Everyday Life” («Ստալինյան բռնաճնշումները Հայաստանում. պատմություն, հիշողություն, առօրյա», 2015), secret religious practices (Manucharyan N., “Baptisms in the Conditions of Atheism in Soviet Armenia” («Մկրտությունները Խորհրդային Հայաստանի աթեիզմի պայմաններում», 2018), etc.), and also some political episodes, using especially archival materials (Sargsyan T., “Non-Betraying Women, Accused under Article 69 (Archival Materials and Oral Stories)” («Չմատնող կանայք, 69-րդ հոդվածով մեղադրյալները (արխիվային նյութեր և բանավոր պատմություններ», 2023), as a result of which, together with the National Archives of the Republic of Armenia, they created a complete digital database of the repressed. Through the efforts of Hranush Kharatyan, exclusive documents and data from the period of Stalinist repressions were brought to Armenia from Russian and Georgian archives.

In addition to state archives, researchers also began working with family archives. To publish them, the Department created the “Anthropology of Memory” series, which included not only scientific analyses related to social memory (Marutyan H., “Iconography of Armenian Identity. Volume 1: The Memory of Genocide and the Karabagh Movement” («Հայ ինքնության պատկերագրությունը։ Հատոր 1. Ցեղասպանության հիշողությունը և Ղարաբաղյան շարժումը», 2009), but also the memories of individual people (Alexanyan A., “Siberian Diary: 1949–1954” («Сибирский дневник: 1949-1954 гг.», 2007)) and memoirs (Pirumyan Minasyan R. and Minasyan B., “From Tabriz to Stalin’s Gulag. Interrupted History” («Թաւրիզից ստալինեան գուլագ. Ընդհատուած պատմութիւն», 2019)).

The Soviet past (including from the perspective of anthropology) is also studied in a visual anthropological manner (Yeranosyan A. “Image and Narrative: 20th Century Syunik in Guros's Photographs” («Պատկեր և պատում․ XX դարի Սյունիքը Գուրոսի լուսանկարներում», 2024)).

Studies of the Soviet period in post-Soviet Armenia, depending on various political events, from time to time became highly relevant (Abrahamyan L., “The Secret Police as a Secret Society: Fear and Faith in the USSR” («Тайная полиция как тайное общество: страх и вера в СССР», 1993), Manucharyan N., “The Reflection of Communist Ideology in the Street Renaming Policy in Soviet Yerevan (1921-1939)”, 2015). Therefore, some topics, although they referred to the Soviet past, were essentially a response to current events in post-Soviet Armenia. Thus, the initiative of the heirs to erect a monument to Anastas Mikoyan became the occasion for heated public discussions, which covered numerous episodes of Soviet history related to this long-lived politician, from the Sovietization of Armenia to the Caribbean crisis and the suppression of the Hungarian uprising (Shagoyan G., “Should a Monument be Erected to Anastas Mikoyan? The Experience of “Social Lustration” in Armenia” («Ставить ли память Анастасу Микояну? Опыт «социальной люстрации» в Армении», 2016)).

The connection between the Soviet and the post-Soviet is also studied from the perspective of linguistic anthropology (Ghazaryan L., “Comrades, Conflicts, and Classrooms: Language Policy and Practice in Post-Soviet Armenian Education”, 2024).

“The paths of the festival”

Another area of research related to modernity is related to the festival. Ethnographers, as is known, are generally inclined to festivals. We are deeply convinced that there is even a special “path of the festival” for understanding different peoples (Abrahamian L. “Conversations near the Tree” («Беседы у дерева», 2005). It was mentioned above that the mass demonstrations of 1988 revealed many similarities with the archaic festival, the prototype of the medieval carnival. Gohar Stepanyan, who defended her PhD thesis on traditional festivals entitled “The Armenian System of Festive Behavior (According to Ethnographic Materials of the Late 19th - Early 20th Centuries)” («Հայոց տոնական վարքային համակարգը (ըստ 19-րդ դարի վերջի – 20-րդ դարի սկզբի ազգագրական նյութերի», 2007), began to study modern urban festivities. One of these is “The Last Bell”, a school-leaving ceremony, which contains traces of the traditional Barekendan carnival, which completely disappeared from the life of Armenians immediately after the establishment of Soviet power. This new festivity has already found its place in the title of her book about festivals (Stepanyan G., “From the Last Bell to the New Year: Festive Practices, Memory, Reconstruction” («Նոր տարուց Վերջին զանգ. տոնական պրակտիկաներ, հիշողություն, վերակազմում», 2020). Another case of returning to carnival culture, this time with the conscious use of carnival satire for political purposes, was described by Hranush Kharatyan in her book about the folk festivals (Kharatyan-Arakelyan H., “Festival and the Culture of Festive Celebration in Armenia” («Տոնը և տոնահանդեսի մշակույթը Հայաստանում», 2010).

Her previous book on traditional festivals (Kharatyan-Arakelyan H., “Armenian Folk Festivals” («Հայ ժողովրդական տոները», 2005) had already become a table book for many, especially for those who are interested in festive life and organize fetivals. Along with the rise of post-Soviet nationalism and the growing interest in “national” festivals, the number of self-proclaimed ethnographers in Armenia has sharply increased, who, in particular, offer their own scenarios of traditional and new festivals. Sometimes a new fesyival can even take on a state and national scale, as happened during the celebration of national independence in 2005 (Abrahamian L., “Dancing around the Mountain: Armenian Identity Through Rites of Solidarity”, 2007, Abrahamian L. “Dancing around the Mountain: Totalitarian Festival of National Identity in Post-Soviet Armenia” («Танец вокруг горы: тоталитаристский праздник национальной идентичности в постсоветской Армении», 2014)).

Ethnography of a city / Urban anthropology

In the mid-1980s, there was a growing interest in the city, especially the capital of Armenia, Yerevan. This is understandable, since Yerevan is one of the rapidly developing cities that are attractive to both sociologists and ethnographers. For example, in 1987, L. Abrahamian and Hr. Pikichian published the first article in a planned series on the ethnography of the modern city («Заметки по этнографии современного города (на примере Еревана). Рабиз и изменчивость городской социальный иерархии», 1987, Abrahamian L., Pikichian R. “Observations on the Ethnography of a Modern City: The Example of Erevan. 1. The Rabiz and the Variability of the Urban Social Hierarchy”, 1990, Abrahamian L., “Armenian Identity in a Changing World”, 2006, ch. 5). The second article in this series was devoted to the automobile culture of Yerevan in the 1970s and 1980s (Abrahamian L., Pikichyan R., “Notes on the Ethnography of a Modern City. Yerevan's Automobile Culture” («Заметки по этнографии современного города. Автомобильная культура Еревана», 1989)). A similar shift in the focus of ethnographers' attention in fieldwork, from the village to the city and from archaic forms of culture to modern forms, is also observed in post-Soviet Russian ethnography. It was precisely this topic that the first discussion of the journal "Anthropological Forum" "Modern Trends in Anthropological Research" was devoted to, in which the staff of the Department also participated (Abramyan L., “Forum: Modern Trends in Anthropological Research” («Форум: Современные тенденции в антропологических исследованиях», 2004).

In the post-Soviet years, the “destruction” of Yerevan’s center began: new, mostly faceless buildings and avenues were rapidly being built, destroying the old houses and narrow streets that provided the city’s distinctive character. Although this was done under the guise of completing the project of Alexander Tamanyan, the creator of modern Yerevan, in reality this was a serious threat, first and foremost, to Tamanyan’s Yerevan, and not only to Tamanyan’s Yerevan.

As a response to these processes, works related to another architectural field of urban anthropology are being published (see, for example, Marutyan H., “Armenia–Diaspora: Meeting in the Center of Yerevan” («Հայաստան–Սփիւռք. հանդիպում Երեւանի կենտրոնում», 2007), Marutyan A., “From the History of Preservation and Construction of the Historical Center of Yerevan (XIX – Beginning of the XXI Century)” («Из истории сохранения и застройки исторического центра Еревана (XIX – начало XXI века», 2014), interest in the historical and cultural issues of the city is growing (Abrahamian L., “Between the National and Stalinist. Tamanyan's Yerevan from the Perspective of a Cultural Anthropologist” («Ազգայինի և ստալինյանի միջև. Թամանյանի Երևանը մշակութաբանի տեսակետից», 2016), Abrahamian L., “Yerevan Sacra: Old and New Sacred Centers in the Urban Space”, 2011, Abrahamian L., “Tamanyan's Yerevan Between Constructivism and Stalin Era Architecture”, 2018), memorialization (Marutyan A., “Monument or Museum? The Politics of Memory in the Homeland and in the Diaspora (on the Example of Armenian and Jewish Experience)” («Памятник или музей? Политика памяти на родине и в диаспоре (на примере армянского и еврейского опыта)», 2015), Shagoyan G., “Memorialization of the Earthquake in Gyumri” («Мемориализация землетрясения в Гюмри», 2009), Abrahamian L., “Yerevan: Memory and Oblivion in the Organization of Space in a Post-Soviet City” («Ереван: память и забвение в организации пространства постсоветского города», 2010) and de-memorialization (Abrahamian L., “The Fight against Monuments and Memory in the Post-Soviet Space (on the example of Armenia)” («Борьба с памятниками и памятью в постсоветском пространстве (на примере Армении)», 2003, Abrahamian L., “Armenian Identity in a Changing World”, 2006, ch. 13).

Memorialization forms new public rituals of remembrance, which sometimes approach the traditional burial ritual (Marutyan H., “The Monument as a Cemetery (On the Example of the Genocide Memorial)” («Հուշարձանը որպես գերեզմանոց (Ցեղասպանության հուշահամալիրի օրինակով)», 2006), Marutyan H., “A Monument to the Victims of Genocide in the Context of Rituals of Memory of the Armenian People” («Памятник жертвам геноцида в контексте ритуалов памяти армянского народа», 2008)), and new practices are being formed and new discourses are being developed around traditional burial rituals (Hakobyan S., “Funerals That Can Be Photographed and Funerals That Cannot Be Photographed” («Թաղումներ, որոնք կարելի է լուսանկարել, և թաղումներ, որոնք չի կարելի լուսանկարել», 2018). Rapidly changing public spaces are being formed in the city, with new residents (Marutyan H., “Armenia-Diaspora: Meeting in the Center of Yerevan” («Հայաստան–Սփիւռք. հանդիպում Երեւանի կենտրոնում», 2007), Dilanyan A., “To Become a Citizen: Rural Migrants in Modern Yerevan” («Стать горожанином: сельские мигранты в современном Ереване», 2011)), and new forms of “appropriation” of space (Dilanyan A., “Indirect Vandalism” («Անուղղակի վանդալիզմ», 2014)).

Among the post-Soviet public spaces are the souvenir “Vernissage” and the adjacent “Barakholka” (the flea-market) and the old stuff (“krchi”) market, another crisis response (Melkumyan H., “Yerevan Vernissage as a Cultural Space” («Երևանյան վերնիսաժը որպես մշակութային տարածք», 2007), Melkumyan H., “«Unnoticed» Social and Urban Culture. «Barakholka» in the Vernissage Area” («”Չնկատվող” սոցիալական և քաղաքային մշակույթ. Բարախոլկան Վերնիսաժի տարածքում, 2010). In the souvenir Vernissage, old symbols are actively revalued, and new symbols of Armenian identity are created (Melkumyan H., “«Ideal Homeland». Nationality Discourse in Tourist Art” («”Իդեալական հայրենիք”. ազգայնակության դիսկուրսը զբոսաշրջային արվեստում», 2014). It is even possible to trace the correlation that exists between the symbols of “Armenianness” gathered on the souvenir backgammon board and the “compressed” presence of similar symbols in the modern urban landscape (Abrahamian L., Melkumyan H., “«Compressed» Texts of Souvenirs and Semiotics of Urban Landscape («”Сжатые” тексты сувениров и семиотика городского ландшафта», 2012).

A separate direction in urban anthropology is the study of the structure of the city through the study of the “proprietary” structures of ward authorities (“guards” of the Soviet period) (Abrahamian L., “From «Guards» to Ward Authorities: On the Organization of Yerevan’s Public Space” («“Գվարդիականներից”՝ թաղային հեղինակություններ. Երևանի հանրային տարածքի կազմակերպման շուրջ», 2013). The detailed study of a specific part of the city is gaining new momentum, for example, the micro-ethnography of Firdus Street (Melkumyan H., “Firdus: The Market and Urban Memory of Yerevan”, 2019).

Another new direction was adopted by the Department's specialists in urban anthropology - the study of other cities in Armenia. Thus, Gayane Shagoyan is researching not only the post-earthquake memorialization of Gyumri, but also the social-urban origins of the city's peculiarities (for example, the humor of Gyumri residents) (Shagoyan G., “Gyumri: Urbs Ridens (Laughing City). From Social History to a Tourist Brand” («Urbs ridens (ծիծաղող քաղաք). սոցիալական պատմությունից մինչև զբոսաշրջային բրենդ», 2019) and the competition of Gyumri-Leninkan, the country's second city, with the first city, the capital Yerevan (Shagoyan G., "«The First» and «the Second» in the Images of Gyumri: A Semiotic Analysis of Urban Text” («Первый» и «второй» в образах Гюмри: опыт семиотического анализа городского текста», 2012). Recently, the small city has also become a subject of study. Such is, for example, Hamlet Melkumyan's anthropological research on Metsamor (Melkumyan H., “Soviet Ideology, Utopian Futures & Daily Transformations of Urban Space in Metsamor”, 2018), which reveals Soviet urban myths and their post-Soviet fate.