23rd Graduate Student Colloquium in Armenian Studies
University of California, Los Angeles
Conducted via Zoom
February 21, March 7, and March 14, 2026
_______________________________________________________
Panels and Presenters
February 21 | 10am, PST
Panel 1: Medieval Art and Scribal Praxis
Moderator: TBD
Presenters:
Ovsanna Khachatryan (Mashtots Matenadaran Institute of Manuscripts, Yerevan)
“Cryptographic Traditions in Medieval Manuscripts: Cultural Secrecy and Intercultural Comparisons”
This paper examines the use of cryptographic and coded writing practices in medieval Armenian manuscripts, building on the foundational work of Ashot Abrahamyan, who has identified key cryptographic systems within this tradition. While Abrahamyan’s research has laid important groundwork, many cryptographic examples in Armenian manuscripts remain understudied or unexplored.
Employing a multidisciplinary methodology that integrates manuscript analysis, symbol interpretation, and historical contextualization, this study aims to uncover lesser-known cryptographic methods, including marginalia and symbolic notations. These practices reveal how Armenian scribes preserved cultural identity and protected sensitive religious, social, and political information during periods of external pressure.
Additionally, the study adopts a comparative approach by situating Armenian cryptographic traditions alongside similar practices in other medieval cultures. This intercultural perspective offers a broader understanding of how secret writing functioned as a tool for communication, resistance, and identity preservation across different societies.
By focusing on underexamined materials and applying a clear, accessible analytical framework, this paper contributes original insights to Armenian studies and the broader field of medieval manuscript culture. The research underscores the significance of cryptographic traditions in understanding the complex dynamics of textual secrecy and cultural resilience.
Michael Blomquist (East Illinois University)
“The Iconography of Armenian Art and its Relationship with Increased Figural Representation in Two Islamic Traditions”
The following paper sets as its primary focus the relationship between the Christian iconographic art of Armenia and the artistic tradition of two Islamic states: The Seljuk Empire and Safavid Persia. To begin, the author clarifies that the paucity of figural art among the Muslim faithful is not explicitly forbidden by the Quran but that such “haram” status hardened over time due to the lack of narrative motivation within the Islamic holy texts as opposed to its centrality to Biblical storytelling. Iconoclasm in medieval Armenia was perpetrated just as flagrantly by Byzantine authorities under Leo III as it was under the stringently anti-figural caliph Yazid II. Centuries later, it was the Armenian devotion to depicting Christ, the Virgin Mother and the saints that inspired the Sunni Muslim Seljuk Turks to gradually incorporate more figural representation into their own artistic tradition; this was made possible in part by the Seljuk roots in the Central Asian Oghuz Qiniq tradition, which had a longstanding attachment to animal imagery largely dormant since their conversion at the end of the tenth century. The contrast is the Shi’a tradition of Safavid Persia, where Armenian influence is decidedly less marked. The reasons for this involve an investigation into the spiritual leadership of Sunni versus Shi’a Islam, the role of Sufi mysticism, the relative theological similarity of Armenian miaphysite Christology to Sunni Islam, and the political entanglements forged between Safavid Persia and Europe in an effort to thwart their mutual rival in the form of the Ottoman Empire.
Panel 2: Armenian Activities in the Ottoman and Russian Empires in the 19th and early 20th Centuries
Moderator: Nora Bairamian (Near Eastern Languages and Cultures, UCLA)
Presenters:
Sahika Karatepe (Binghampton University SUNY)
“Extractivism and Rural Labor in Bardizag: Charcoal Production and the Armenian Peasantry (1790-1890s)”
This paper investigates how the management of forests and land by the Ottoman authorities mobilized the labor of the Armenian peasantry in Bardizag. I pay particular attention to how increasing resource extraction, primarily charcoal production, restructured rural Armenian life. Industrial development in Istanbul relied heavily on charcoal from Bardizag and its environs, known as the “sea of trees” (Ağaç Denizi), which bound the region to the imperial capital and drew significant Amira-class investments which further commodified rural labor. Drawing on state records and official correspondence, my study situates Ottoman environmental governance within broader histories of economic coercion and the regulation of natural resources.
Starting in the early nineteenth century, the Imperial Mint, Ottoman Gunpowder Factory, Imperial Arsenal, Imperial Armoury and prominent Amira families, including the Dadyan and Kazaz, integrated Bardizag into imperial circuits of production. Ottoman policies reinforced peasants’ role in charcoal production through tax exemptions and protection from local Muslim elites, ensuring a steady supply for urban markets. Yet, while Armenian peasants relied on forests for domestic fuel and construction, the Tanzimat reforms imposed heavier taxation and tighter restrictions, undermining rural autonomy and rendering self-sufficient peasantry unattainable. The documents illustrate a narrative in which forest access diminished, leading to peasant labor being absorbed more deeply into extractive imperial systems.
By foregrounding resource extraction, the Armenian peasantry, and environmental management, this paper underscores the extractive dynamics that defined Bardizag’s incorporation into the Ottoman imperial economy.
Mete Ulatas (Pennsylvania State University)
“Spaces of Confinement, States of Becoming: Armenian Political Prisoners in the Late Ottoman Empire”
The arbitrary mass incarceration of Ottoman Armenians in the late nineteenth century rendered the Armenian public a counterpublic within the broader Ottoman society. As prisons expanded across the empire in the second half of the century, they became spaces where Armenian national identity was shaped – both through encounters within prison walls and publications that circulated outside. These prisons, rather than being merely sites of punishment, served as a constitutive element of political subjectivity, where the incarcerated developed tactics of resistance and invented new social and political imaginaries. Based on the memoirs of Armenian political prisoners published between 1890 and 1920, this study focuses on how they interpreted and navigated their imprisonment. As the Ottoman prisons did not involve the segregation of prisoners according to their crimes, the prison space became a terrain of extraordinary encounters for Armenians from different socioeconomic and provincial backgrounds. Armenians within prison walls encountered Muslims not only as state employees but also as fellow inmates with whom they shared a common space. The subjugated position of incarceration fostered male subjectivities that subverted the established notions of masculinity and power. From the interrogations and jails to the prison and trials, political prisoners’ memoirs grant us a portrayal of how Ottoman legal institutions practiced law as Ottoman Armenians developed tactics that are situated within the Ottoman legal system to avoid or minimize damages imposed on them. Stripped of the position of domination, Armenian political prisoners wrote in their memoirs with imagery of subjugated masculinity exposed to different forms of state violence.
Irina Badalyan (Yerevan State University)
“Tiflis in the Second Half of the 19th Century: Armenological Perspectives and Urban Self-Governance Institutions in the Context of Imperial and National Projects”
In the second half of the 19th century, Tiflis became the administrative center of the Caucasus for the Russian Empire and simultaneously a key hub of intellectual and social life for multiple peoples, particularly the Armenian community. The city functioned as an intermediary space where imperial administrative mechanisms and emerging national public processes interacted.
In Armenological studies, Tiflis’s role has often been considered in the context of cultural, educational, and intellectual life. However, the involvement of Armenians in urban self-governance institutions remains underexplored. Following the municipal reforms of the 1870s, newly established bodies – such as the city Duma, the municipal administration, and the office of the mayor – provided a platform where the Armenian urban elite navigated the demands of the imperial system while advancing national initiatives.
This study examines Tiflis as a city environment where Armenians played a dual role: participating in imperial administration and organizing national public life. The research also employs a comparative approach, situating Tiflis alongside other Caucasian centers, such as Baku and Yerevan, in order to contextualize the city’s experience.
The study is based on a comparative and interdisciplinary methodology, drawing on multilingual sources, including Armenian, Russian, and English scholarly literature, archival documents, and 19th century press materials. This study examines Tiflis as a center where dominant (imperial) and resistant (national) narratives coexisted and interacted. The findings demonstrate that Tiflis was not only an administrative center but also an intermediary space where the Armenian urban elite played a significant role in the intersection of imperial and national projects, establishing a prominent public and institutional presence.
March 7 | 10am PST
Panel 3: Prehistoric Archaeology of the Armenian Plateau
Moderator: TBD
Presenters:
Mariam Saribekyan (Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, Armenian Academy of Sciences, Yerevan)
“Beliefs and Lifestyle of Early Bronze Age People in Armenia Based on Clay Figurines”
Between the late 4th millennium BC and the early 3rd millennium BC, the Kura-Araxes tradition spread throughout the whole South Caucasus and the adjacent areas. During the emergence and expansion of this tradition, there was a notable advancement in architectural solutions and economic practices. This period also witnessed significant progress in pottery craftsmanship, leading to the creation of diverse clay objects, as well as the appearance of zoomorphic and anthropomorphic clay figurines in various cultural sites of this era.
The practice of crafting clay figurines began in the Neolithic period, but during this era, anthropomorphic figurines were more prevalent. Later, in the Chalcolithic period some zoomorphic figurines started to appear also in the territory of Armenia and South Caucasus. While some of these sites and figurines have been extensively investigated, most of the objects excavated especially from the Early Bronze Age site of Harich, which has the largest collection of figurines (347), did not receive the attention of researchers and remained unstudied and unpublished for many years. Since 2020, efforts have been underway to initiate a fresh examination, digitization, and publication of the archaeological artifacts.
These figurines symbolize sedentary societies engaged in agriculture and animal husbandry. They provide valuable insights into the lifestyle and beliefs of the people of that era and studying the technology of their making and distribution serve as a resource for unraveling their significance for Kura-Araxes tradition in Armenia. These anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figurines will be discussed during the conference in relation to the beliefs and lifestyles of Early Bronze Age people of Armenia
Artyom Ananyan (Yerevan State University)
“Modelling the Bronze and Iron Age Archaeological Landscape of the Tavush Region through GIS Analysis”
This paper presents an interdisciplinary spatial-archaeological study of Bronze and Iron Age sites in Tavush Province, Armenia, emphasizing the integration of archaeology, digital humanities, and geospatial sciences. Using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) as the core analytical tool, the research models settlement patterns, burial, and fortification patterns in a complex and strategically important borderland. Over 120 archaeological sites—burial grounds, fortresses, and settlements—were systematically georeferenced and analyzed through a combination of data from the national registry of immovable monuments, remote sensing materials, and direct field observations. Employing QGIS and Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) digital elevation models, the sites were further classified into chronological phases: Early, Middle, and Late Bronze Age, as well as Urartian and post-Urartian Iron Age. Spatial clustering and heatmap analyses identified several concentration zones, particularly around Berd, Dilijan, Ijevan, and Noyemberyan, corresponding to historically and culturally significant landscapes.
By combining archaeological theory with technological methodologies, the study demonstrates how digital cartography and spatial analysis can reconstruct ancient cultural landscapes and provide insights into long-term human–environment interaction. The findings underscore Tavush’s archaeological heritage’s remarkable density and diversity, highlighting the urgency of developing strategies for its documentation, preservation, and further research.
Sharing these results at the UCLA 23rd Annual Graduate Student Colloquium in Armenian Studies is particularly significant, as the project embodies an interdisciplinary approach that links Armenian archaeology with broader debates in heritage studies, digital methods, and cultural history.
Panel 4: Ethnonational Imaginary and Culture
Moderator: Aram Ghoogasian (History, UCLA)
Presenters:
Cassandre Lejosne (University of Lausanne)
“Copying Zvart‘noc‘: Architectural Models between Medieval Memory and Modern Heritage”
This paper explores the enduring role of architectural copies in shaping Armenian cultural memory from the Middle Ages to the present. Drawing on Richard Krautheimer’s theory of architectural iconography, I examine how replication functions not as passive imitation but as an active re-inscription of meaning across time.
The case of the church of Gagikašen, commissioned in the early eleventh century by King Gagik of Ani, offers a striking medieval example. Contemporary sources explicitly identify the church as a deliberate copy of the seventh-century church of Zuart‘noc‘, already in ruins at the time. Gagikašen reproduced Zuart‘noc‘s innovative tetraconch plan and proportions, translating a monument of Armenia’s Christian conversion into a new millennium marked by political instability and eschatological anxiety. The copy thus functioned simultaneously as a technical achievement and as a symbolic claim to continuity with sacred origins.
The same model has resurfaced in modern Armenian architecture, particularly in the work of Baghdasar Arzoumanian (1916-2001) and more recently in the Church of the Holy Martyrs in Gyumri (2010–2015). Here, replication no longer responds to medieval royal ambitions but to modern projects of national identity and commemoration. The adoption of medieval forms, combined with dedications tied to the Armenian Genocide and community resilience, turns architectural copying into an act of heritage preservation and cultural self-assertion. By juxtaposing these medieval and modern iterations, the paper highlights how “copies” serve as powerful instruments for negotiating memory, belonging, and identity.
Margarita Khakhanova (Masaryk University)
“Hidden Soviet Ideology: The Construction of the Armenian Capital”
Yerevan stands out among Soviet capitals, as its architecture appears at first glance to diverge significantly from the canonical image of Soviet urbanism. The use of local materials, distinctive architectural forms, and multiple references to medieval Armenian monuments and religious buildings gave the city a markedly different character. According to the vision of architect Alexander Tamanian, the general plan of Yerevan was to be grounded in Armenia’s ancient history, rich cultural traditions, and ideals of independence and integrity. The Soviet authorities’ approval of this plan, and particularly the realization of buildings with such a distinct national visual vocabulary, inevitably raises important questions. How, in a context of severe Soviet censorship—marked by the suppression of national sentiment, the primacy of internationalist ideology, and the active persecution of religion—was the construction of such a distinctly national city possible?
This paper investigates how Tamanian’s original plan was adapted to align with Soviet ideology. Special attention will be paid to the role of architecture and the destruction of heritage as instruments of cultural dominance and strategies for asserting Soviet political authority.
Jonathan Hollis (East Illinois University)
“Listening to Armenian Baku: History and Memory in Digital Diaspora”
Ethnic Armenians constituted a sizeable minority in twentieth century Baku, Azerbaijan. They were particularly prominent as instrumentalists, performing and recording with renowned singers in state-sponsored ensembles as well as informal settings. This community reached its peak in the 1970s, before ethnic tensions spurred mass emigration. The pogroms against the Armenian population in January 1990 ended the Armenian presence in the city. Members of this community, now living in a distinct diaspora within Russia, Armenia, and the United States, are currently involved in digitizing and archiving the musical culture of Armenian Baku through social media networks such as VKontakte, Facebook, and YouTube. In particular, the “Clarinet Caucasus” YouTube account has digitized recordings of well known members of this Armenian musical community, including many amateur home audio and video recordings of performances. Spanning nearly a century, these digital archives and musician-specific memorialization pages serve as a digital record of the Armenian musicking community in Azerbaijan. Considering these digital repositories and how members of the Baku Armenian diaspora experience these recordings, I explore how these digital archives enable acts of remembering and digital diasporic intimacy. Listening to these Armenian musicians of the past elicits karot, the particularly Armenian sense of loss and longing, but also of perseverance. A study of these digital memorialization projects, and the reactions these archives create, reveals the digitally mediated construction of homeland, the reification of a chronological and social place through preservation of sound and image.
March 14 | 10am PST
Panel 5: Armenian Media in a Modern and Contemporary Timeframe
Moderator: Alexia Hatun, (Near Eastern Languages and Cultures, UCLA)
Presenters:
Armenuhi Muradyan (University of Halle-Wittenberg)
“Armenian Women Between Empires: the Earliest Contributions to Print Media”
This paper examines the earliest contributions of Armenian women to the periodical press and women’s emerging role in public, intellectual, and educational life in the 19th century. While Armenian historiography has begun to acknowledge the cultural and literary activities of women, many aspects remain underexplored and require reevaluation and further investigation.
My paper focuses on the very first Armenian women who engaged with periodicals in two distinct early modern imperial contexts: the Ottoman Empire and Tsarist Russia. These women were active as contributors, correspondents, editors, and even founders of periodicals. Their numbers were limited. Yet their interventions were substantial. They opened up new spaces for women’s voices in Armenian intellectual and public discourse. Information about them is often fragmentary, even to the extent that determining basic biographical facts about them remains a subject of scholarly inquiry.
The primary sources for this research consist of the written traces Armenian women’s activities left behind in print media. Methodologically, this paper works on the basis of the historical-comparative, biographical, and discourse-analytical approaches in order to reconstruct women’s contributions. The paper also contextualizes them within the broader patterns of 19th-century public culture.
This research aims to illuminate the significance of Armenian women’s role during a challenging and tragic historical period. By uncovering heretofore overlooked aspects of women’s involvement in journalism, literature, and discourse, this paper deepens our understanding of the factors that influenced the formation of modern Armenian identity.
Diana Ghazaryan (Pázmeny Peter Catholic University, Budapest)
“Mediating in the Empire(s): The Krikorian Studio and Armenian Social Agency through Visual Culture in Ottoman and Mandate Jerusalem”
Photography in the late Ottoman Empire was not merely a tool for documentation but a medium through which imperial subjects actively shaped visual narratives of space, identity, and authority. While Constantinople has often been seen as the center of the Ottoman photographic production, this paper shifts the focus to Jerusalem, exploring the Empire’s understudied southern periphery through the lens of the first Armenian photographers.
In this paper I will analyse the role of Armenians in Jerusalem through photographs by Garabed Krikorian (1847-1920), the founder of the first photographic studio in Jerusalem, and his son, Johannes, as the second and third generation of photographers. While exploring the agentic role of the Krikorian studio as an example of a local enterprise and a connection to broader trans imperial networks, I will examine the way Armenian photographers navigated the shift of political landscapes, from late Ottoman rule to the British Mandate, while serving diverse customers— Ottoman officials, Christian pilgrims, and European tourists and emperors . The paper investigates how Armenian photographic practices shaped the visual narratives of Jerusalem Armenian diaspora and their broader transformations in Ottoman and post-Ottoman Armenian identity-making. By positioning Armenian photographers as cultural mediators, this research offers a new perspective on Armenian studies sometimes neglected under the Ottoman and post-Ottoman studies, highlighting the role of Armenians in the multiethnic and multicultural environment of Jerusalem in the late 19th – and early 20th – centuries.
Ani Kojoyan (Yerevan State University)
“Language, Power, and Gendered Disinformation in Contemporary Armenian Public Discourse”
In recent decades, Armenian public discourse has increasingly revealed discursive practices that undermine the political and professional legitimacy of women. A central component of these practices is gendered disinformation, which operates not only at the ideological and content level but also through distinctive linguistic and stylistic layers. My paper analyzes how such disinformation functions in Armenian discourse, focusing on the everyday language and rhetorical strategies that trivialize or delegitimize women’s voices. The corpus includes excerpts from political speeches, media texts, and journalistic publications.
Methodologically, the study combines critical discourse analysis with stylistic analysis, enabling a systematic examination of both narrative structures and rhetorical devices. Particular attention is given to metaphors, similes, irony, hyperbole, colloquialization, and stigmatizing labels, all of which serve to shift women’s statements from the sphere of public argument into the realm of personal status or “street/common talk.” These stylistic devices not only diminish the seriousness of women’s contributions and professionalism but also reinforce gender stereotypes in public perception.
The findings underscore that language itself functions as a tool of social power in contemporary Armenian communication. The paper’s scientific novelty lies in its systematic exploration of the stylistic features and narratives of gendered disinformation, a as a distinct and timely field within Armenian linguistics. More broadly, the study contributes to Armenian Studies by offering a grounded, language-centered framework for analyzing the intersections of style, discourse, and gender, while also providing practical insights for critical language awareness useful to educators, journalists, and students.
Cosponsored by UCLA Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures UCLA Promise Armenian Institute Society for Armenian Studies and Research National Association for Armenian Studies and Research (NAASR)