From the Azerbaijani carpet exhibition in The Hague to Qabil Ashirov’s article: the question of the historical attribution of carpets is replaced by attacks concerning Armenian churches, Artsakh and the history of Armenia
When Facts Are Replaced by Personal Insults: A Response to Azernews Analyst Qabil Ashirov
The Embassy of Azerbaijan in the Netherlands organized an exhibition entitled “The Magnificence of Azerbaijani Carpets: Learning Through Art” at the Atrium City Hall in The Hague. The exhibition ran from May 15 to June 20, 2025.
The works presented under the designation “Karabakh Carpets” were displayed as part of the heritage of the Azerbaijani carpet-weaving school. It was precisely this presentation that drew the attention of The Netherlands Diary.
On June 25, 2025, The Netherlands Diary published an article entitled “Carpets as Historical Memory: Azerbaijan Appropriates the Cultural Heritage of Its Neighbors,” presenting counterarguments and raising questions about the way historical and cultural heritage was represented at the exhibition.
The following day, June 26, Azerbaijani news website Azernews published an article by analyst Qabil Ashirov entitled “Armenian Myth and Media’s Crusade Against Azerbaijani Culture.”
It is noteworthy that Ashirov did not link to The Netherlands Diary article and did not even mention the name of the publication. Instead, the main target of his article became the author of the original piece, Vahan Amatuni.
Although belatedly, Vahan Amatuni has decided to respond to Ashirov’s publication, returning to the question that remained unanswered: the historical and cultural attribution of the carpets.
When Facts Are Replaced by Personal Insults
The article published by Qabil Ashirov on Azernews raises a fundamental question first and foremost: does it actually address the issues raised in my original article?
Unfortunately, for the most part, it does not.
My article was not an attempt to deny the existence or value of Azerbaijani carpet weaving, Azerbaijani culture, or the cultural contribution of the Azerbaijani people. The question I raised was much more specific: How were historical and regional carpet-weaving traditions presented at the exhibition held in The Hague?
The issue was whether carpets and carpet-weaving traditions with complex, interconnected and historically disputed origins should simply and exclusively be presented as the cultural heritage of a modern nation-state, without adequately presenting their regional, historical and ethnocultural context.
This is a historical and cultural question.
The History of a Carpet Does Not Begin with the Creation of a Modern State
Ashirov presents my argument as though I had claimed that because the Republic of Azerbaijan was formed in the 20th century, Azerbaijanis have no right to possess or present ancient cultural heritage.
I did not write anything of the sort.
The cultural history of peoples does not begin with the creation of modern states. But this principle must be applied equally to everyone.
If it is legitimate to speak about the cultural heritage of peoples who lived for centuries in territories that are now part of Azerbaijan, then it is equally legitimate to ask:
Who made a particular carpet? Where was it made? In what historical period? Which community or communities participated in its creation? And what primary or scholarly sources support that attribution?
These are questions of cultural and art history. They are not territorial claims.
Artsakh, Karabakh and the History of the Region
Ashirov devotes considerable attention to the use of the historical name “Artsakh” and attempts to present it as evidence of a political claim.
But once again, this moves the discussion away from the actual issue.
When studying the history of carpet weaving, it is not enough to consider only the present-day political borders of a particular territory. Researchers must also take into account the historical population, local craft traditions, inscriptions, stylistic characteristics, archival data, and the communities that created the carpets in question.
The history of carpet weaving in Karabakh itself demonstrates that the region cannot simply be presented within a single, politically convenient cultural narrative.
The Encyclopaedia Iranica study devoted to Caucasian carpets, for example, identifies Shusha as an important carpet-producing centre and discusses both Armenian and Muslim/Azerbaijani carpet-weaving traditions in the wider Caucasus.
This does not erase Azerbaijani carpet culture, nor does it erase Armenian traditions. On the contrary, it demonstrates why the subject requires historical nuance.
The existence of different traditions within the same geographical region is not unusual. It is one of the defining characteristics of the cultural history of the Caucasus.
The Albanian Church Does Not Answer the Question About Carpets
Ashirov refers to Caucasian Albania, the Council of Aghuen, and the history of the Albanian Church in Karabakh.
These are undoubtedly subjects worthy of historical discussion in their own right. However, they do not answer the question I raised concerning the attribution of the specific carpets presented at the exhibition in The Hague.
The existence and history of Caucasian Albania, as well as the different interpretations of that history, cannot by themselves determine the ethnic or cultural affiliation of every carpet produced in Karabakh centuries later.
Likewise, the history of the transfer of church property in the 19th century cannot, by itself, resolve the question of the origin of any particular carpet.
If the discussion is about carpets, then the arguments should also be about carpets.
Armenian Carpet Weaving Should Not Disappear Under the Label “Caucasian”
I have never claimed that all Caucasian carpet weaving is Armenian.
On the contrary, the Caucasus has historically been a meeting place of numerous peoples and cultural traditions. Armenians, Azerbaijanis, Persians, Georgians, Kurds and other communities all contributed to the formation of the region’s rich textile heritage.
But recognizing cultural diversity does not mean erasing individual traditions.
Shared regional heritage should be studied as shared heritage, while at the same time the contribution of individual communities should be identified wherever the historical evidence allows.
Armenian carpet weaving, including traditions associated with Karabakh and other historical Armenian cultural centres, is documented in specialist literature and collections.
These interpretations can be discussed, challenged, compared with other sources and examined through scholarly debate.
But calling an interpretation a “myth” is not a historical refutation.
The Question of Tabriz
Ashirov also addresses my observations concerning Tabriz and Ardabil.
His response focuses mainly on the ethnic composition of Tabriz and on the history of states whose rulers or ruling elites were Turkic-speaking.
But again, that is not the question I raised.
Tabriz is today a city in Iran, and the region has a long and important Azerbaijani-speaking cultural history. Neither of these points is disputed.
However, the fact that a region had a particular ethnic or linguistic composition does not automatically mean that all of its cultural production can, without qualification, be presented as the national heritage of a modern neighbouring state.
The same principle should also be applied to Armenian heritage.
Historical cultural identity is often more complex than modern political borders.
Personal Insults Are Not Historical Evidence
Ashirov describes my article and its author using expressions such as “thick-headed,” “shameless,” “empty” and “hostile.”
Such language may have a place in polemical writing, but it cannot replace evidence.
I am prepared to discuss every specific historical claim in my article, source by source.
If a particular claim is incorrect, then let us identify it clearly:
Which claim is wrong?
Which primary or scholarly source contradicts it?
What evidence supports the alternative interpretation?
That would constitute a genuine historical discussion.
Figures concerning Armenia’s population, migration statistics, predictions about Armenia’s future, or generalizations about Armenians do not answer the question of the historical attribution of the carpets displayed in The Hague.
The Question Remains the Same
According to the official presentation by the Embassy of Azerbaijan, the event in The Hague was an exhibition of Azerbaijani carpets and carpet-weaving heritage.
That is precisely why its historical presentation deserves scrutiny.
My question remains simple:
Was the historical, regional and ethnocultural background of each carpet and carpet-weaving tradition presented in a sufficiently complete and balanced manner?
Ashirov’s article does not provide a detailed answer to this question.
Instead, considerable space is devoted to Armenia, Artsakh, Caucasian Albania, territorial history, poets, political history and demographic issues.
These are separate subjects.
I return to the carpets.
A carpet is not a political weapon. It is a historical and cultural document.
And if we genuinely want to “learn through art,” as the title of the Hague exhibition suggested, then we must also be prepared to study the history of that art in all its complexity — including the different peoples, communities and cultural traditions that contributed to its development.
One Word for Those Who Understand, a Thousand and One for Those Who Do Not
Just as Azernews analyst Qabil Ashirov began his article with a proverb that was logically disconnected from the subject, let us also conclude with a proverb, as a call for reason:
“I struck the mountain, but Gaspar took the blow.”
I was speaking about the historical and cultural attribution of the carpets displayed in The Hague, while the Azernews analyst responded with a discussion of Armenia, Armenians, migration, Artsakh and the future of Armenia.
There is another Armenian saying:
“One word for those who understand, a thousand and one for those who do not.”
So the question arises: Was all this explanation and time really necessary when, instead of answering the specific questions raised, the discussion was shifted to other subjects while the issue of the attribution of historical and cultural heritage remained exactly where it was?
Mr. Ashirov, please do not change the subject. We were talking about carpets — the carpets that were exhibited in The Hague.
Vahan AMATUNI
The Netherlands Diary
