«Թելից քաշել» - Հարցազրույց Լիլիա ԱՎԱՆԵՍՅԱՆԻ հետ

Introduction and Methodology

Avanesyan speaks about the formation of her research interest — from family roots (relatives who were carpet weavers from Artsakh) to her professional work in the collections of the Museum of History of Armenia, where since 1990 she has been in charge of the carpet collection (approximately 1,400 storage units). Her research method combines work with museum collections, field expeditions to Armenian villages (since 2002–2003, including a large-scale collection of material in 2008), and analysis of historical sources and epigraphy.

Key Thesis: The Local Origin of Armenian Carpet Weaving

The central thesis of the article is the substantiation of the autochthonous, rather than borrowed, character of Armenian carpet art. In support of this, the following are cited:

epigraphic data — an inscription from 1086 on a khachkar in the village of Kurtan (Lori), recording the renewal of a "sacred carpet" by members of the royal Kiurikian dynasty, which predates the previously known inscription from Kaptavank (1234–1243);
archaeological evidence — depictions of carpet-weaving looms on bronze belts of the Kingdom of Van and tools for carpet-making from the fortress of Teishebaini (Karmir Blur);
ethnographic parallels — the preservation of rituals (for example, the rite of cutting the carpet), recorded both in Artsakh and in Lori, testifying to the cultural unity of the nation.

Historical Transformation and the Loss of Authorship

A separate section is devoted to the mechanisms that led to the erasure of Armenian carpet weaving from public consciousness:

the capitalist modernization of the second half of the 19th century, which destroyed traditional crafts among Armenians more severely than among neighboring peoples;
the interception of orders and technologies by other ethnic groups of the Caucasus, even as Armenian authorship of technical innovations was retained (the scissors of Kh. Ghazazyan, the hook for tying knots, and carpet-weaving looms of the Soviet period);
the Soviet-era practice of labeling Artsakh carpets as produced in "Azerbaijan";
the postwar looting and export of carpets from Armenian villages by traders who smuggled them through Kars into Turkey disguised as "ancient Turkish carpets."

Conclusion

The author concludes that restoring carpet weaving to its former scale is unrealistic; however, the primary task is the development of carpet studies as a science — the systematization of the distinguishing features of Armenian carpets, their identification, and their documentation in collections around the world, in order to preserve this cultural heritage at least in scholarly memory.