Executive Summary
A delegation of reportedly around 150 diplomats and representatives accredited in Azerbaijan, representing 58 countries and nine international organizations, took part in an Azerbaijani government-organized two-day tour of Karabakh on 11–12 September 2026, led by presidential aide Hikmet Hajiyev. During the visit to Gandzasar monastery Hajiyev displayed volumes remaining from the former Matenadaran-Gandzasar museum exhibition. Showing that a reproduced manuscript page was followed by blank pages, he presented this as evidence of Armenian historical “falsification.”
The claim disregards both standard museum practice and the documented history of the Gandzasar collection. Museums and manuscript repositories commonly keep rare and fragile originals in protected storage and display facsimiles or purpose-made reproductions, which may reproduce only the pages intended for exhibition. Moreover, when the Matenadaran-Gandzasar center opened in 2015, the Matenadaran publicly stated that its exhibition included both originals and copies. During the 2020 war, its collection was evacuated to Yerevan, where the manuscripts were subsequently exhibited and their evacuation publicly documented.
The incident is significant beyond the misrepresentation of a museum copy. It forms part of Azerbaijan’s broader falsification of the history of Nagorno-Karabakh and appropriation of Armenian cultural heritage through its systematic “Albanization.” Presenting such narratives directly to foreign diplomats also constitutes an element of cognitive warfare targeting international audiences: a simple visual manipulation is used to introduce doubt about documented historical evidence and gradually normalize Azerbaijani state narratives. Such historical falsification can contribute to retrospectively legitimizing Azerbaijan’s military takeover of Nagorno-Karabakh in 2020–2023 and potentially create a narrative basis for further expansionism.
It is also important to emphasize that such behaviour by senior Azerbaijani officials significantly harms the ongoing Armenian֊Azerbaijan normalization process by narrowing the space for peace dialogue and raising doubts about Azerbaijan’s commitment to the process and its intentions.
The Gandzasar Incident and Museum Practice
During the visit, Hikmet Hajiyev displayed volumes remaining from the former Matenadaran-Gandzasar museum and showed foreign diplomats that a reproduced manuscript page in one of them was followed by blank pages. Azerbaijani media subsequently presented the episode as the exposure of Armenian historical “falsification.”
The Azerbaijani presentation conflated an exhibition copy with the medieval manuscript it was intended to represent. The presence of blank pages in a museum reproduction provides no evidence that the original manuscript was fabricated.
Museums, libraries and manuscript repositories routinely limit the exposure of medieval and ancient manuscripts. Originals may be kept in secure, environmentally controlled repositories because prolonged exposure to light, fluctuations in temperature and humidity, repeated handling and the mechanical strain of display can contribute to their deterioration. Facsimiles and reproductions are therefore commonly used for exhibitions.
Such exhibition copies do not necessarily reproduce an entire manuscript. If only a particular folio, miniature or opening is intended to be displayed, there is no need to reproduce hundreds of pages that visitors will never see. The remaining pages of a purpose-made exhibition volume may therefore be blank.
In the Gandzasar case, the use of copies was not concealed. When the Matenadaran-Gandzasar Scientific and Cultural Center opened in November 2015 as a branch of the Mesrop Mashtots Matenadaran, the Matenadaran stated that the museum displayed manuscripts associated with Artsakh and Syunik as well as originals and copies of historical documents, early printed books and other materials.
The presence of reproductions in the museum was therefore publicly acknowledged long before the Azerbaijani authorities presented one of them as evidence of Armenian “falsification.”
The Manuscript Collection Was Evacuated to Yerevan
An essential fact was omitted from the presentation to foreign diplomats: during the 2020 war, the collection of the Matenadaran-Gandzasar center was evacuated to Yerevan for its protection.
This was publicly documented shortly after the war. In March 2021, Hetq reported that the collection – more than 100 exhibits – had been safely transported to Yerevan. Matenadaran Director Vahan Ter-Ghevondyan explained that no location in Nagorno-Karabakh could ultimately be considered secure during the hostilities, making evacuation necessary.
The Matenadaran independently confirmed the evacuation. In 2021, it organized The Manuscript Art of Artsakh exhibition in Yerevan, presenting manuscripts associated with Gandzasar, Amaras, Dadivank and other manuscript centers.
The chronology is therefore straightforward: the Gandzasar center opened in 2015 with an exhibition explicitly containing originals and copies; its collection was evacuated to Yerevan during the 2020 war; the evacuation and subsequent presence of the manuscripts in Yerevan were publicly documented in 2021; and in 2026 an exhibition copy remaining at Gandzasar was presented to foreign diplomats as evidence that Armenian manuscripts had been fabricated.
The existence and provenance of medieval manuscripts associated with Gandzasar are also documented in manuscript catalogues and scholarly research through manuscript numbers, dating, folios, colophons and other codicological evidence.
Historical Falsification and the “Albanization” of Armenian Cultural Heritage
The Gandzasar episode extends beyond the misrepresentation of a museum exhibit. It forms part of a broader Azerbaijani policy of falsifying the history of Nagorno-Karabakh and appropriating its Armenian cultural heritage through systematic “Albanization.”
Armenian churches, monasteries, inscriptions, manuscripts and other elements of cultural heritage are presented as “Caucasian Albanian,” while their Armenian provenance and historical context are challenged or denied. Gandzasar itself occupies an important place within this narrative.
This goes beyond competing interpretations of medieval history. Armenian cultural heritage can be physically preserved while its Armenian identity is detached from it and replaced by another historical attribution.
This process has unfolded alongside the documented destruction, damage and alteration of multiple sites of Armenian cultural heritage in Karabakh since 2020, particularly following the displacement of its Armenian population in September 2023. Independent satellite-based monitoring has continued to document such cases, demonstrating that the challenge concerns both the physical preservation of Armenian heritage and the manipulation of its historical and cultural identity.
The manuscript episode applies the same method to documentary heritage: rather than challenging the provenance, dating, colophons or other codicological evidence through scholarly methods, the physical characteristics of a museum reproduction are transformed into supposed evidence that the Armenian historical record itself was fabricated.
This has contemporary political implications. Diminishing or denying the longstanding Armenian historical and cultural presence in Nagorno-Karabakh contributes to normalizing and retrospectively legitimizing Azerbaijan’s military takeover of the region in 2020–2023. If Armenian historical presence is portrayed as fabricated, or Armenian heritage as the product of appropriation of “Caucasian Albanian” heritage, the removal of Armenian political control and ultimately of the Armenian population can more easily be incorporated into a narrative of historical “restoration.”
The Cognitive-Warfare Dimension
The participation of foreign diplomats gives the Gandzasar episode an additional significance. Azerbaijan’s cognitive warfare is directed not only against Armenia but also at Armenia’s international partners and wider international audiences.
Organized visits to territories under Azerbaijani control allow Azerbaijani authorities to expose foreign representatives directly to carefully constructed historical and political narratives. The objective does not necessarily require diplomats to accept these narratives immediately. Introducing doubt can itself be effective: documented facts are placed alongside politically constructed claims, competing explanations are multiplied, and the distinction between scholarly evidence and state narratives becomes less clear to audiences unfamiliar with the subject.
The Gandzasar demonstration illustrates this mechanism particularly well. Opening a volume, revealing blank pages and describing them as evidence of Armenian “falsification” creates a simple and memorable visual message. Explaining museum conservation practices, the evacuation of the collection, manuscript provenance, catalogue numbers and medieval colophons requires considerably more context.
This asymmetry is useful in cognitive warfare. The objective may be less to persuade international actors that one historical narrative is definitively correct than to undermine confidence in established evidence and create the perception that the history itself is fundamentally disputed.
The presence of foreign diplomats can also be instrumentalized through official communication and media coverage, giving such narratives international visibility and an appearance of legitimacy regardless of whether the diplomats themselves endorse the claims presented to them.
The Gandzasar episode therefore illustrates the intersection of historical falsification, cultural-heritage appropriation and cognitive warfare. By targeting not only Armenian historical memory but also international perceptions, these practices seek to normalize a revised history of Nagorno-Karabakh that can retrospectively legitimize Azerbaijan’s actions in 2020–2023 and potentially provide a narrative basis for further expansionism. They should consequently be understood not only as questions of cultural heritage and historical memory, but also as a challenge to Armenia’s cognitive security and to sustainable regional peace.
