WHO makes the city?
This is an eternal, philosophical question of urbanism. Presidents, mayors, construction companies, developers, national heroes (Tamanyan), chief architects (from N. Buniatov to N. Sarkisyan), just architects … or the residents themselves, from whose "small" contributions urban life and environment are formed?
Saskia Sassen writes about “the different ways in which the city“talks to itself”, realizing the principles of open urbanism [urbanism open to different sources or subjects of influence - AI]: a city as made, including as a result of the summation of many small interventions and changes from below. Each of these many small interventions may seem insignificant, but together they add meaning to the concept of incompleteness of the city and show that it is this incompleteness that allows cities to live long, thereby surpassing the influence of other, more powerful creatures. "[41].
It is clear that Big and Strong Beings are ruling the ball today. They created the joint venture (under the banner of the implementation of the Big Idea of another Hero - Tamanyan). There is almost no place for small and weak in today's city - it is being built from top to bottom. So it was in the 30s - 50s. But then everything was softened by the "manual" study of projects and their handicraft implementation (details). Today, instead, there are "plastic" buildings, designed by copy / past + size (more space - more income).
And there is also the pressure of extra-architectural factors: "… the great narratives of television or advertising trample or even more atomize the small narratives of streets and neighborhoods."[42].
But should this current balance of power be transferred to the attitude to the city's past? To crush, sweep away everything created by small subjects? Wouldn't it be more useful to recognize that these small creatures-subjects - at least in the past - the right to their (and ultimately, urban) values, and for the city created in this way - its remnants - a value comparable to the values of the Big (Hero / Idea / Utopian cities)? This is the value of an inhabited but fading everyday life … But not gone: there are still cozy small courtyards in the very center, in Conde, in many other places. With wooden galleries. Grape pergolas. Home furniture, taken outside … After all, these so-called. "Bedbugs" have very important urban qualities, which are not and most likely never will be in the monologue products of the "Bolshoi", such as the joint venture. Warmth. Naturalness. Multi-generational habitation. Patina. Man-made. Soul. It is there, as the same de Certeau writes, the repository and repository of the spirits of the city:
“If the great ancient gods are dead, then the“lesser”- the gods of forests and dwellings - survived all the upheavals of history; they still swarm around us, they transform our streets into forests, and our houses into enchanted castles; they also extend beyond the dogmatically established boundaries of an imaginary "national heritage"; they own the place, even if we think we have locked them up, boarded them up, sealed them and put them under glass in almshouses for folk arts and traditions. "[43].
Booths - one of the few Armenian words that I still remember - is also a manifestation of this spontaneous activity of small entities in the arrangement of the urban environment - the "grassroots" urban arrangement. It is a pity that today is almost the only thing possible for them.
Peretamanyan? Nedotamanyan?
When the role of the architect in the city becomes too prominent, it is dangerous. Even "artificial" Petersburg was created by many, different architects from the very beginning … But only they played a service role there - executors of orders. And Tamanyan in Yerevan is like Yerevan in Armenia: there is a feeling of too much …
True, then you realize that this is more of an imposed feeling - the role of this architect is emphasized in every possible way in any articles about the city, but in the city itself there are not so many buildings, and the plan was able to take root, lie down on the ground, does not tear his eyes …
Comparison of the pre-revolutionary, Tamanyan and modern city plans shows that Tamanyan retained all the directions of the main streets, adding only a few radical innovations: the square, the People's House (the future Opera) with an adjacent square, Northern and Main avenues, and circular boulevard.
He gave modern Yerevan, perhaps, the main thing - he invented a new image of the center. Immediately, and managed (together with his students) to translate it into form, into space, into powerful symbolic buildings. In a new city, as we know, this is not easy to do. If you only understand Yerevan as a new city …
And therefore Tamanyan is undoubtedly the genius of the place - the genius loci of Yerevan. But the soul of the city is connected not only with it. Moreover, paradoxically, he turned out to be one of her "looseners". Keeper and Destroyer - in One?
After all, Tamanyan also laid another vector: the ruthless destruction of the old material substance of the city. With all the planning delicacy, almost all of the buildings on the 1924 plan are new, regular, quarterly (with the exception of several churches and mosques).
Today it is clear that Tamanyan, inventing the new Yerevan, in relation to the old one acted within the framework of the strategy of “destroying the place”, which, as N. and D. Zamyatins believe, “abolition of all its traditional features and signs, stereotypes and signs. Instead, a new place appears - the meta-place of the Genius, who with his creativity melts old local images in his figurative "furnace" "[44].
Yerevan was not Tamanyan's hometown, the most important memories of his childhood and youth that form a person were not associated with it. He had not been here at all until the summer of 1919. It is also important that the architect grew up in a new city: Yekaterinodar (present-day Krasnodar) was only 85 years old when the future architect was born there. Is it not from this, in part, the attitude to the "inherited" environment of Yerevan as to something alien, primitive, invaluable, even hostile? “Tamanyan did not hide his intention to destroy the old Persian-Turkic-Tsarist Russian city and build a modern Armenian capital. … Tamanyan's urban planning idea was the task of expressing the unity of all Armenians, all Armenian lands! "[45]
Like most architects with access to large-scale urban planning, he succumbed to the lure of city authorship, seeking to "transform the city from fact to idea."[46]… Based on an overly simple and selectively understood story:
“If you ask if there were any cases that it was allowed to change the shape of the city, breaking the old, the answer is ready. There is a rich literature on this issue. There is no city in Europe that has not undergone such a breakdown. A hundred years ago Paris changed fundamentally, a fourth part of the city was demolished and built up in a completely new way: new boulevards, wide streets, squares, etc. For this, France had to take a large loan, 1 billion 200 million francs. The same can be said for Berlin, London, Vienna, Rome and other big cities. The most valuable quarters, even 6-8-storey buildings, were demolished to the ground. The city of Ulm was demolished by 80%; and built up. Let's get closer. Now Moscow is facing similar works …
Therefore, it is necessary to take advantage of the historical lessons, experience of Europe and Russia and get down to work "[47].
And the work went on and is still going on - they have already reached the buildings of Tamanyan's students. And before his own projects - as in the cases of the joint venture and the drum of the House of Government.
So, not only the ongoing demolition of old Yerevan, but also the distortions of its own ideas, unfortunately, completely fit into the tradition laid down by the great architect himself.
One can dream of what the “ideal” Yerevan could be, exactly built “according to Tamanyan”. Maybe even a city, in terms of the quality and integrity of the environment, comparable to the historical center of St. Petersburg. It didn't work out … Regret about the "truly Tamanyan", 5-storey integral Yerevan is one of the sad motives of this city. But this is regret about an unrealized idea. The pain from the destroyed reality of "black houses" and shady green courtyards is sharper.
Excessive heroization of Tamanyan, his presentation as almost a mythical progenitor of the city ("Tamanyan is the main hero of the nation in the 20th century. The plan of Yerevan and the people of Yerevan (the intellect of Yerevan) are the main achievements of the Armenians in the 20th century"[48]) drives the city into a cultural trap: after all, if Tamanyan is the father of the city, then nothing could have happened here before him.
Historical memory of the city: high - low - middle
There is a High History (the city is "29 years older than Rome"; an ancient "own" Church, Language / Alphabet / Manuscripts / Matenadaran, Country From Sea to Sea, Genocide …) "-" the shame of Yerevan "… And there is, probably, the dependence of the nation on this" High History "and pride in it? And only with her?
Thus, in the minds of the Yerevan intellectuals, the nation is divided into “real” and “fake” its representatives (the latter are uncultured, do not know their native history, are unaccustomed to city life, etc.). But the Armenians are both those, and others … And now the "real", intelligent Armenians are replaced by "new", come in large numbers, "rabies". And the tradition of polarization lives on … JV is for new, rich, relevant, trendy, fashionable … Cond - for outsiders, poor peasants, "lepers", how did the local pear seller introduce himself to me? But rich merchants once lived there, noble townspeople - meliks[49]…
Where is the "average", "median" in Yerevan today?
“Only those who are able to give a bribe, that is, the rich, get access to the subject of economic activity. This state of affairs reinforces social polarization, giving no chance for the emergence of a middle stratum. Classes reproduce themselves "[50].
The JV, made for the rich, has increased environmental polarization. Here you can get in touch with the VIP world, and, probably, for this the teenagers hanging around there love it. But is it possible to enter this world through the joint venture? Does it lead somewhere not in a spatial sense - in a social sense?
Well, yes, Yerevan is not Rome, different historical layers are not so obvious, powerful and equal in it; but also - just as objectively - not New York, which, according to de Certeau, is also “not Rome: he never mastered the art of aging, playing with his eras. His present hourly re-creates itself, rejecting the achievements of the past and challenging the future. "[51].
Ancient new Yerevan is somewhere in the middle between these two great cities - not as historical as Rome, not as modern as New York. And, perhaps, his way is in cultivating his middle. In other words, the very integrity, comfort, authenticity of the everyday environment, that which is called the "small center" here. And the depth of history and the boldness of Art Nouveau can only set off this environmental core of the city.
Cond: "hotbed of resistance"
Well, the second reason of the article was this mysterious place, ignored by the majority of intellectuals in Yerevan.[52]… Found at first in a few tourist blogs, in rare photographs on the Internet. But, living in the city, you gradually realize that you can no longer do without visiting it. And you are drawn there. Stronger and stronger. North Avenue led to Cond. You just need to find a staircase or a steep alley running up from Saryan, Leo, Paronyan streets. Ascend. And find yourself in another world.
Here you can wander for hours, enjoying the pattern of the "natural" layout. Crooked streets, twisted alleys, cracks of aisles, resting on cozy courtyards, dead ends, chipped staircases. Labyrinth. Let's compare with Baku Icheri Sheher, with Lisbon Alfama. And the feeling - due to the almost 100% authenticity of the environment - is more like Lisbon.
The buildings are poor, many are cut from improvised, the cheapest materials (as the architect T. Poghosyan told me, according to the once established registration procedure, it was necessary to show that you have a house in which you live. night. So they stand).
But on the other hand, this is a completely self-organized environment. Human. Handmade. Constantly giving a sense of contact, close neighborly (often kinship) ties that exist there between the inhabitants. And even an accidental person does not "squeeze" you out of this contact field, it rather invites you to come in, see, talk.(This happens most often in other enclaves of the environment of old Yerevan). So he spoke to one of the landlords in the courtyard of an old Persian mosque. She knows its history, dating back to 1740, and participates in modern life: she builds a separate sanitary block for little grandchildren who will soon return from crisis Belarus.
Using the image of Mitsos Alexandropoulos, we can say that the inhabitants of Kond for many centuries "kind of created a" khachkar ", having contrived to populate a small space with a bunch of amazing things and events …"[53].
Michel de Certeau spoke of such phenomena as Condes as “hotbeds of resistance” of a stubborn past: “They stick out in the middle of a modernist, massive, homogeneous city, like the tips of a tongue that shows you the unknown, and perhaps the unconscious. They surprise "[54].
Well, many residents of Kond, with whom I managed to talk, want to live in it:
- Someone (specifically, who) has already bought everything here, so we are waiting for them to demolish us and give us apartments.
- But it's better here than in an apartment, isn't it?
- Oh yeah! We would have allowed it - we would have done everything here ourselves, put it in order …
I don’t know if Andrei Bitov wrote about Konda in his "Lessons of Armenia":
“That's really -“people lived here”! They lived, loved, gave birth, got sick, died, were born, grew, grew old … Someone plastered the wall, someone brought out an extra tripod table in the house, someone planted flowers, someone destroyed a barn and cleared the area, and someone then he built a chicken coop nearby. The yard grew like a tree - old branches died, new dead ends grew - and a tree does not have an imperfect arrangement of branches, although where it is thicker, sometimes less often, where it is crooked, and where it is broken off, but a tree! Children chirp in the crown, lovers are propping up the trunk, and the black grandmother, bent over, fiddles at the roots - melts the stove, picks up a chip and drops it. The perspective of generations, each yard is like a family tree … , -
but the image of Kond and similar places-khachkars is conveyed here very accurately.
Harutyun Khachatryan's documentary "Kond" (1987) was largely built on the contrast of perception of this area from the inside and from the balconies of a high-rise Intourist hotel hanging over it. Today the modernist "Dvin", once Big and Strong, is lifeless and, possibly, will be demolished, but Kond stands and lives … What is more stable?
Cond / SP (personal feelings and PPS criteria)
The departing spirit is a new spirit?
Is the proto-city a futuropolis?
Well, if not opposed: these environments could be understood as equal, coexisting layers of the environment of the same city. But only if you recognize the right of Kond to be and remain Kond.
That “Armenian” (after all, Kond was considered the Armenian part of the city at the beginning of the 20th century, when there were about the same number of Armenians in Yerevan as there were “Aderbeijan Tatars”), what are the Armenians ashamed of? But why should we be ashamed of this? After all, this is the real preserved city life, which you will find in few places in the world?
We were unable to “internalize” this environment, to include it in the generally accepted, legitimate image of the city (“Tamanyan's” Yerevan is exclusive, like any mono-concept), in its own identity, in the myth of the city … Have not read Jane Jacobs, who half a century ago described the positive experience of reviving such “slums” "And their role in major American cities …[55]
Many architects operating in Yerevan contribute to the destruction of this relic of the "Yerevan spirit" (constant - since the 60s - talk about the imminent demolition of Kond or the creation of a "theme park" for tourists there). Nobody talks about the reintegration of Kond to Yerevan, about the revitalization of this environment … Native, but shameful? Or is it someone else's?
But what is the value of the Kond environment in terms of objective criteria? And can there really be a public space at the joint venture? The New York-based urban group Project for Public Space (www.pps.org) has formulated the rules for creating public space - place-making - through synergistic effects of many meaningful components collected from the bottom up.[56].
Having once applied these criteria to the Moscow Tverskaya (the period of the pre-crisis "boom"), I did not see their manifestations there.[57]… But two or three of the PPS criteria are already working on the joint venture. Is this enough (with the suppressed microhistory and the absence of local communities) to create a living urban Place here?
We must honestly admit that Tamanyan's idea of concentrating city-wide cultural institutions on joint ventures was hardly feasible in the 2000s. But during its construction it was possible to create a full-fledged boulevard, with a variety of functions, with a better architecture, without allowing excessive height or at least “taking it away” along with parking lots to the back of the new building. However, there are still some things that can be fixed and improved here.
But with the possible rehabilitation of Kond, the approach to the formation of the environment must be completely changed. The methods of creating a joint venture will lead to the loss of a unique (for Yerevan, Armenia, the South Caucasus) town-planning formation, a tract that miraculously preserved in the center of a million-plus city the authenticity, authenticity, the atmosphere of the old self-organized environment[58]… The original city. With a natural, non-museum life and powerful - thanks to it, and not a possible imitation of Place du Tertre - tourist potential. But the main thing is with human potential. People who are accustomed to self-organization are, in principle, ready to participate in a well-thought-out project to rehabilitate their environment. Does anyone in Yerevan think about it? The world is full of successful implementation of such projects, and the closest example is the beginning of the revival of the Betlemi quarter in old Tbilisi.[59].
Condé's use of the urban planning paradigm that spawned the JV would kill him. North Avenue leads to Kond?
Urbocide?
I understand all the provocativeness of the application of this image[60] to the main Armenian city. And yet: the attitude of today's Yerevan residents (and many architects writing in the media, and most of the townspeople) to those layers (sectors, fragments) of the historical urban environment of Yerevan, which were created long ago (Persian and Russian periods) or spontaneously (Kond) and not are included in the set of "branded", iconic, politically important or commercially advantageous places and objects, perhaps, it is possible to designate it with this word.
Isn't it surprising: we ourselves are depriving ourselves of the places we need most of all, the most closely connected with the soul of the city?
But the admissibility and acceptance of such a new thing, which is mainly being built today in Yerevan - isn't it the same urbancide? Is it possible that the present city has nothing to do with the millennial architectural culture of the Armenian people? It seems that if it is connected, it is only grains, dots in certain places and people.
Etcabout/andtransparent joint venture
The brilliant Armenian artist Yervand Kochar, one of the discoverers of spatial painting, showed in his works the multi-layered reality: life is heterogeneous, many-sided and multi-temporal, its layers are permeable, transparent, albeit ghostly, from under one another appears. Even the physical bodies of women, men, animals merge in him through stratification, their flow into each other …
This is also true Yerevan. Take a closer look: under the fresh ocher of the joint venture one can see the umber and soot of the "black houses" that once stood here, the luminous Neapolitan yellow of grapes ripening in their courtyards, the red pomach of long decayed slogans on the delicate multicolor of "lion-painted" tuff facades, the watercolor azure of Conda. Northern Avenue leads to Kond.
Some organizational proposals
1. It is time for Yerevan to realize itself as a full-fledged, complex, truly historical city; accordingly, a strategy and a comprehensive program for the preservation (rehabilitation) of its urban planning heritage are needed. The historical urban environment should be considered systematically - in the complex of all its layers, elements and value components (including the spirit of the place). Individual projects (such as "Old Yerevan", various proposals for "reconstruction" of Kond or the implementation of Tamanyan's ideas) should proceed from this vision, fit into this strategy and in no case be considered locally.
2. Systematic work is required on the inventory of archaeological, architectural, historical monuments and all ordinary historical buildings of the city. A possible methodology could be the system for assessing the architectural value of buildings in the context of the urban environment InterSAVE, which provides for the formation of an electronic database and the release of a publicly available municipal urban planning atlas.[61].
3. It is worth thinking about giving certain areas of the town-planning heritage of Yerevan (Kond) a special conservation status, similar to the status of a landmark existing in the Russian legislation on monuments protection. Subject to the law by all participants in urban planning (what to do, in our countries such a condition has to be stipulated), such a status is able to protect the historical tract valuable for the city from destruction and stimulate citizens who want to live and work in this territory to develop the environment through the preservation of heritage.
4. It is advisable to concentrate efforts on several key complexes of urban planning heritage, to develop on a competitive basis program and project proposals for their preservation (rehabilitation), to select - with a broad public discussion - the best options for these flagship projects. Projects should provide for the participation of residents and show the “city and the world” the possibilities of Yerevan in applying modern approaches to preserving not only the most valuable cultural monuments, but also the historical urban environment as a whole.
5. As for our main "heroes", with the joint venture everything is more or less clear. What is done is done. For a long time, its town-planning advantages will be "superimposed" by the flaws in architecture and the consequences of modernist inattention to the past of the place. Additional layers are needed here: good design of the environment, preservation of the local "hotbed of resistance" - at the corner of st. Teryan, diversification of service, creation of consumption niches for people of different incomes and different cultures.
But what is the most correct way to deal with the still integral Kond, proceeding from the presumption of its unconditional preservation (I hope I managed to show its need for Yerevan)? Here to think and think. But you can't think for a long time - it may be too late …
Most likely, the approach that is appropriate for Kond (as, indeed, for all genuine remnants of old Yerevan) may be similar to the one described by de Certeau back in 1983: “New renovation distances itself from educational and state-regulated concepts that call for protection treasure "in the public interest". She is more interested in ordinary dwellings than in historical monuments; in the superficial historicity of local communities than in national legitimacy; in "collages" that have arisen as a result of the successful reuse of the same buildings than in the remnants of clearly distinguished, privileged cultural eras … The new renovation, like the old one, still tries to "preserve" things, but now it is also the composition of garbage, which cannot be explained within the framework of pedagogical linearity or fit into the ideology of reference books - it spreads throughout the city, like the traces of aliens from other worlds "[62]… And the one to which J. Jacobs called: “To get rid of slums, we must consider their inhabitants as people capable of realizing their interests and acting towards their realization, which they undoubtedly are. We must recognize, respect and build upon the forces of renewal that exist in the slums themselves and are evidently at work in real cities. "[63]… And if A. Bitov, who at the end of the 60s found entire streets of genuine old Yerevan, was amazed at their strange charm, as if he didn’t believe himself: “Neither this street nor these courtyards have any historical and architectural value. It will be demolished, and here new buildings, convenient in all respects, will arise, people will settle in them, they will love, give birth and die, suffer and rejoice. But I don't know if in a hundred years these walls will be so warmed up with warmth and love, life and death, so that, just turning the corner and taking the first step, you will feel the same kinship and happiness as now on this muddy clay street?.. Or will everything be reflected from matte and shiny, even and flat surfaces?.. "- then we, today, burdened with the experience of countless, irrevocable environmental losses, but miraculously inherited the preserved, not demolished remnants of that city, it's time to realize their real values and begin to preserve consciously.
And first of all, it is worth trying to restructure the attitude of Yerevan residents to this place: it should begin to be perceived as one of the main values of Yerevan. The nature of its value is different from the usual "iconic" mono-values of this city. This is the value of an arranged, inhabited everyday historical environment, middleness, vernacularity, "family", shrjapata[64], dialogue. And if such “horizontal”, “grass rout” values get a worthy material embodiment, complement the vertical of the Armenian Genocide memorial on the neighboring Tsitsernakaberd hill, the city will only benefit from this. Yerevanians, do not be shy about the "rubbish" of the old city - it contains the true pearl grain of Yerevan, perhaps more expensive than the "gold leaf" and "rhinestones" of the joint venture.
Notes (edit)
[41] Open Source Urbanism. An op-ed from New York by Saskia Sassen // domus, June 29, 2011 //
[42] De Certeau M. Ghosts in the city. P. 121.
[43] De Certeau M. Ghosts in the city. P. 113.
[44] Zamyatin N., Zamyatin D. The genius of the place and the city: options for interaction // Bulletin of Eurasia. 2007. No. 1 (35). P. 77.
[45] Balyan K. Yerevan. Fragments. How did Tamanyan combine this intention with the activities of leading the Committee for the Protection of Historical Monuments of Armenia?
[46] De Certo M. Walking around the city // Communitas / Community. 2005. No. 2. S. 82. //
[47] Tamanyan A. O. [From the report “On the planning of mountains. Yerevan ", 1924] // Masters of Soviet architecture about architecture. T. 1. M.: Art, 1975. S. 251.
[48] Balyan K. Yerevan. Fragments.
[49] Arutyunyan V. M., Asratyan M. M., Melikyan A. A. Decree. op. P. 22.
[50] Shakhnazaryan N., Shakhnazaryan R. “Respect, cajole, repay”: discourses on alternative economics, kinship and corruption in Caucasian communities // Laboratorium / 2010. №1. P. 69.
[51] De Certo M. Walk around the city. P. 80.
[52] This is how the “Tashkent Russians” say: “Old town? We don't go there. What for?" (Kosmarsky A. Moskvich in Tashkent, or Experience of the development of the "eastern" city: power, everyday life, sacred // Bulletin of Eurasia. 2007. No. 1 (35). P. 40).
[53] Alexandropoulos M. Travel to Armenia. M.: UniPress SK, 2008. S. 29.
[54] De Certeau M. Ghosts in the city. P. 109.
[55] See: J. Jacobs. Death and Life of Large American Cities / Per. from English Moscow: New Publishing House, 2011.460 p. First published in 1961, this book has become a hymn to a self-organizing, living city - and a handbook for preserving it.
[56] In fact, the aforementioned urban acupuncture in Barcelona works exactly according to the principles of PPS.
[57] See: A. Ivanov, Tverskaya street: still a public space // Architectural bulletin. 2007. No. 5. S. 58–59 //
[58] I will cite just one quote from a certain Karen Mikaelyan, referring to 2009. “In the central part of the capital, in general, already built up and well-maintained, there are still several local areas of dilapidated buildings that are praying for liquidation. First of all, Kond, which was talked about for several Soviet decades, but nevertheless was in no hurry to disturb this anthill. The task was getting worse every year, at last the hour had struck. A single developer has been determined, which will greatly help to effectively implement the future project. “Now there is an intensive work on design developments, - continues S. Danielyan [in 2009 - the chief architect of Yerevan. - AI]. - They are carried out by the French architectural bureau AS. I think in the end we will get a very picturesque and beautiful quarter " (https://analitika.at.ua/news/2009-01-15-5413). The pictures of this project that I saw cause shock, unfortunately, confirming the legitimacy of the title of the next chapter.
[59] See:
[60] The term "urbancid" was used in relation to Moscow by Yu. G. Veshninsky. See, for example: Veshninsky Yu. G. Axiology of cultural space-time (within the boundaries of the post-Soviet cultural space) // World of psychology. Scientific and methodical journal. No. 4 (44), October - December, 2005, p. 226-236 //.
[61] See: https://www.sns.dk/byer-byg/Netpub/INTRSAVE/TEKST/CONTENTS. HTM; Ivanov A. Danish methodology for assessing the historical development of SAVE: opportunities for use in Russia // Architectural Bulletin. 2000. No. 2. P. 10–15. The technique was tested in the Russian Federation with the participation of the author in 2001-2002. during the development of the International pilot project "Formation of a database on development and the release of the municipal atlas of the city of Pushkin (formerly Tsarskoe Selo)".
[62] De Certeau M. Ghosts in the city. P. 111.
[63] Jacobs J. Decree. op. P.283.
[64] Shrjapat (literally translated from Armenian “environment”) is a concept underlying the social life of an Armenian. This is a wide circle of relatives, friends, close and distant acquaintances of a person with whom he maintains or can maintain personal, informal, benevolent and mutually respectful relationships (see, for example: Lurie S., Davtyan A. Decree, op.).
The article was first published with the author's abbreviations in the "City" group at www.facebook.com/groups/126698914082522/
Published here in full.
Return to the first part of the article >>>
More about the author >>>
