Գաբրիելյան Մ., Դաբաղյան Ա. Տնտեսությունը, առևտուրը և էթնիկությունը սահմանամերձ գոտում

: ` .(1961) , 19181920 ., -, -, --:, , -:

< ( ) < >, < > > , -

, -:< > ,, -1988- - ` -: -, -` :, 1988 .:- < >- ` :, - -, --:< >:

96

`< -> < >:` - , -: -: -, < ->: --, -( ' ` 1980: -), 1988 .-: , 40, ` 1950-1960-< > :

--, : < ->, , -< >, < >: < > ( 1980: ):, -, < -> < > -: < >- ---: -:` .- < >, 1989 . `: -

< > -` -`< -> -: --,, < > - :

< >- , `- -:` < , >, --: , .`, -< ->:

< >: `< >, ` -:< >-: , -: <> `,,, -: < > -

-( ` -), -: -, -( ,, , -), < > -, < >-: , < > --: , ,--, ,` : ---, -` , ,: < >- ,,` :

< > 2006-2007 . ,: - < > ` < -' >: -, ` -

< >, < > -: , --: ,, --: , -( ` -) -< >:

< > -, `, ` -: ,, --1988- -< >: ,, -: --: -, -, < -> , < >- 1988- : -< >- ( -) -

(Wheatley 2005:22-23):

-: 40-< >, ,

60-70-< > , -` -: -, :

4.

,` , -: -2006 .. < <>. -: … ,,( – . .), :< > ( ` ): ,: … -, `- -:, -, , -< >, , -

:>

(Цулая 2006:5):

<> <> -,--: --, -: , ,: ,-( .` - -): 2006 .-- -, --:30 -`(, 2005 .), ` -, ` -< >:

-, -, -, ` ,,31

30,-:

31. . -, ` -,

(Gultekin 2005:182):

100

` ,: ---,` ,- :

-, --` --, --, < ' >: -: -:

, 2006 .- -(Wheatley 2005:31-35):32 (Сидиков 2004; Куртов 2004): --, -` 18.000 (Sanikadze and Walker 2004:20-21):

72, -: ,

32 2007 . -,1500 :

< >- --:

, -, -: (20-30) , - -,- (Rasanayagam 2003:10-11):

: , `< > ,-( `), ` --( .` <, `> ( 2006, . 24):

, ----:-: , -: 1990-(< ->) -< > -:33 -, -

33 ` ( -` .) < > – ,. <дохлый> ( . ) -:

, ` -,:

- < > -: ,, -< >-: -, < > :

-`< >: -, -< >, < > ,: -, -` : 2006 . ---( 2006 . 1;.` Шагоян 2006), -< > `< > -:

, ,--, -: , -,:

`-: < -> -

(< ` ->, <>, 2006, 14, 17, 21): < -

> : -< -> , ,-,.` - -

` (Sahara 2001:143),

`

(Бредникова, Паченков 1999), `, ` -:, , -, -. , XVIII . --

(Бродель 1988:226-228;

. Дятлов 2000): -, -,-, -, < >: , , -, -, : < >-

102

: ( -),< > -:

5. ,

, -` ,: < >-

` , -, , -, :

< >, `:34

կամ< > -: -: -: -, < > -< >, < ->, < > < -> `:

,: , -

34 < > (nationalizing) -(nation-making) -. ` Brubaker 1996:79-83.

The study was inspired by a unique situation of Armenian-Azerbaijani border trade at time of frozen conflict and impregnable borders between two new nation states. The both situations are topographically localized in north-eastern Armenian province (marz) of Tavush, adjacent to Azerbaijan on the east, and to Georgia on the north. The existence of Azerbaijani minority, settling the district along the Armenian-Georgian border and opportunity of trade through Sadakhlo marketplace had long been the only way of economic relations between Armenians and Azerbaijanis and one of primary sources of income for many village and town residents of as the neighboring communities, so for many retail traders throughout Armenia, Na- gorno-Karabakh, Southern and Central Georgia, north-western Azerbaijan.

Our first efforts were directed to find answers to questions about the ways how the South Caucasian peoples actually cooperate on basis of individual, family, community economic interests and how the described practice may help to overcome the consequences of the protracted Caucasian conflicts and pave new roads towards stable development of the region. The ethnographic study was intend to describe the complexity of the situation, to assess the real economic impact of the border trade on economic situation of the otherwise peripheral and war-torn Tavush region, to revise the changed mutual attitudes of Armenian and Azerbaijani trade partners, if compared with ethnic stereotypes dominating their "home" societies.

So we have tried to capture a wide spectrum of issues discussed by social scientists of the region and to see on what extend the simultaneous processes of market economy and nationalization are merged. Though we have planned a

qualitative survey with structural interviews in pre-sampled communities, the obvious difference between the people living along the eastern and northern borders (with Azerbaijan and Georgia respectively) made it uneasy to follow the theoretical plan we have worked out before.

The communities along the eastern Armenian border, though benefiting from the proximity of trade in the northernmost small portion of the province, have their own experience of intercommunity trade with neighboring Azerbaijanis before the conflict. Our closer look to this experience was crucial in understanding the changes of recent two decades in the Armenian side of the now national border. As described by Nora Dudwick (1997), before 1988 the borders were permeable, administrative, impeding neither trade nor everyday contact. In other words, at the very beginning of our study we were persuaded to understand the Border in post-independence period. This task became moreover evident after ten days spent in the Summer school at the then locked border market of Sadakhlo, to which one of authors was invited by CRRC – Armenia and the SaintPetersburg based Centre of Independent Social Research.

First Chapter of this book suggests historical and anthropological perspectives on some specificities of the border between Armenia and Azerbaijan. We think that a covert explanation may be found in a note of A.D. Yeritsov, written as early as in 1886, and prompting us to search for reasons of stability of intercommunity boundaries since then and even earlier up to nationalization of the borders in 1918 and finally in 1991. The theory of ethnic economic niches, though it may seem obsolete, is quite applicable to the relations, reminiscences of which

105