Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Some of the most striking examples of this can be found in the post-Soviet republics of
the South Caucasus: Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia. Post-Soviet historiography is, in
part, a reaction to the norms that shape-shifted their way through the era of Communist
Party rule. In addition, the variegated ethnic structure of the Soviet Empire necessitated
much attention to the way in which national and ethnic histories were constructed and re-
constructed. Ethnic rivalries were often held in tension by the dominating concept of
дружба народов (i.e., friendship of peoples). The Soviet Union's "ethnic harmony" was
maintained as the logical consequence of history.1 The Great Russian big brother, even in
his imperial costume, was often said to have played a positive role in the development of
this or that nation/ethnic group and its development toward the socialist/communist ideal.
interethnic harmony, other scholarly enterprises were laying the foundation for conflict
among the narratives that would be offered in the post-Soviet construction of national and
ethnic histories. The search for ethnogenesis was one of these enterprises. Under the
cover of Soviet historiography, the description of a people’s beginnings in the distant and
misty past was but the start of a history that would conform to the predominant historical
1
In 1987 Gorbachev, one can only say in a state of profound denial, touted the ethnic harmony that had
developed as a consequence of Soviet socialism, “Вряд ли нужно доказывать важность
социалистических основ в развитии национальных отношений. Именно социалзм покончил с
национальном гнетом и неравноправием, с каким бы то ни было ущемлением прав людей по
национальным мотивам, обспечил экономический и духовный прогресс всех наций и народностей.”
Quoted in А.А. Дусоколов, Меж-национальные браки в СССР.(Москва: “Мысль,” 1987) 6.
1
determinism promoted by the Communist Party and its ideologues. Chapters of ethnic
and national histories would often begin with a nod to the politically correct progression
In the Soviet period some of these ethnic histories involved geographical overlap.
This was due, in some part, to the arbitrary nature of Soviet ethnic jurisdiction. Since,
however, ethnicity and nationality were “forms” and not “contents” in Soviet structure,
contradictions that co-existed among academic publications did not often break into
public conflict.2
As old nations were re-created and new ones born at the collapse of the Soviet
Union, national narratives were reclaimed, repeated, and written anew. This task was
especially difficult in the Caucasus region where competing claims for territory became
the underpinning for open conflict and civil war. Ethnic conflict in the newly independent
Republic of Georgia was especially severe. Two would-be independent republics remain
among the frozen conflicts in post-Soviet space: Abkhazia and South Ossetia.3
2
“Nationalist in form and socialist in content” was one of Stalin’s interpretations of the Soviet Union’s
structure. The ethnic hodgepodge of Soviet Socialist Republics, Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republics,
Autonomous Oblasts, and the like, was the “practical” outgrowth of this slogan. The status of a group’s
ethnic jurisdiction sometimes had consequences for language and education policy. As a matter of legal
reality, however, this organization had no particular guarantees. Decrees could extinguish an ethnic enclave
almost in an instant, as, for example, when “autonomous” jurisdictions were eliminated toward the end of
World War II when entire nations, such as the Chechens and Crimean Tatars, were packed up and sent into
internal exile.
3
Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh is the third of the major frozen
conflicts in the South Caucasus. I would argue that this conflict is substantially different in its origins as
compared with Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The three self-reclaimed and unrecognized republics have,
however, from time to time made common cause with each other.
2
of Georgians]4 and : „ “ [Abkhazia : the Abkhazification of Georgians].5
Japaridze has written both of these histories with some attention to religious history. In
nationality. In his short monograph Ap´xazet´i Japaridze focuses some attention on class
morning will explore some of the issues involved in Japaridze’s writing, including his a
priori assumptions about ethnic history and his use of source material. His use of ethnic
should be noted. Japaridze has been a bishop of the Georgian Orthodox Church since
1981 and was, therefore, an early participant in the revival of that church under the
leadership of Catholicos-Patriarch Ilia II.7 The church had become the target of political
dissidents in the 1970s and was accused of corruption and infiltration by the KGB.8 After
the arrest and imprisonment of Metropolitan Gaioz in 1979 the church’s governance was
greatly improved, and by the fall of the Soviet Union it was ready to assume a more
active role in society. That role has been codified in Article 9 of the Georgian
4
, – : . (Anania Japariże, K´art´l-Kaxet´i: K´art´velt´a gasomxeba) [Kartl-
Kaxeti: the Armenicization of Georgians]. (T´bilisi: Sak´art´velos sapatriark´os Manglis-Calkis epark´ia,
1999).
5
, : „ “. (Anania Japariże, Ap´xazet´i: K´art´velt´a “gaap´xazeba”) [Abkhazia:
the Abkhazification of Georgians]. (T´bilisi: Sak´art´velos sapatriark´os Manglis-Calkis epark´ia, 2001).
6
Even the issue of who has the “right” to Abkhaz/Abkhazian identity is an issue in history writing. Ap´sny
is the self-designation of the ethno-linguistic group that is usually identified in English sources as
“Abkhaz” or “Abkhazian.”
7
Ilia II was enthroned 25 December 1977.
8
Zviad Gamsaxurdia, the ill-fated first president of Georgia as it moved toward independence in 1990, was
the author of several samizdat articles that made accusations against the Georgian Church during the
catholicosate of Davit´ V.
3
Constitution9 and in the 2002 Concordat signed between the Georgian government and
the Georgian Orthodox Church.10 At the present time the Church, with its priests and
hierarchs, enjoys a place of high prestige within Georgian society. This prestige would
At this point it would also be useful to say that reconstructing the ethnic history of
the Caucasus region is a very difficult task, despite the many attempts and the many
claims that are made in this field of endeavor. Our modern understandings of nation and
ethnic identity are difficult to apply to the sources we have at hand. Systematic census
data is only available since the nineteenth century and even some of this is difficult to
interpret as “Muslim” was an ethnic/national category in the 1897 census of the Russian
Empire.
Ancient and early medieval writers made lists of “tribes” that lived on what is
now Georgian territory. Again, although we have ethnonyms such as “Apsilioi” and
were, that would confirm the language or ethnicity of these people. What we do have is
testimony to the extraordinary diversity of this corner of the Greater Caucasus. Pliny
reported that Timosthenes claimed that 130 interpreters had to be employed in the ancient
city of Dioscurias (on the site of modern Soxumi) in order to cope with the 300 dialects
and languages of those who would come to trade in this Black Sea port.11 This number
alone, even when adjusted for some amount of exaggeration, should give anyone making
9
[The Constitution of Georgia] (T´bilisi: “Bona kauza”, 2007) 9. “The state proclaims
complete freedom of faith and confession, and with this acknowledges the special role of the Georgian
Apostolic Autocephalous Orthodox Church in Georgia’s history and its independence from the state.”
10
For a text of and a commentary on the Concordat, cf. ,
. [Davit´ Č´ikvaiże, Commentary on the Constitutional Concordat
between the Government of Georgia and the Georgian Autocephalous Orthodox Church] T´bilisi: 2003.
11
Pliny, Natural History, Book VI, 5. (Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard University Press, 1961) v. 2, 348-349.
4
claims about the ethnic makeup of this region reason to pause with some amount of
humble introspection. The complete elimination of the modern “other” from ancient
history would seem an act of impossible hubris, yet it is done on both sides of the “frozen
conflict” of Abkhazia.12
Japaridze begins with several assumptions about the national and ethnic history of
Georgia. The first assumption is that there has long been a unified culture, and often a
unified state, on the present territory of Georgia. Both books under consideration in this
paper start from this understanding. In the book K´art´l-Kaxet´i Japaridze assumes that
these two regions have always been a part of “Georgia,” i.e. Sak´art´velo; this includes
the territories of Javaxet´i and Upper K´art´li where significant Armenian populations
construct, these two areas have long been central to the political and cultural existence of
the Georgian people. At the same time, to get from the assumption of territorial integrity,
even in pre-modern times, and ethnic homogeneity it is necessary for Japaridze to find
been a part of Georgian.13 As mentioned above, this understanding begs the question as to
whether there has always been a “Georgia.” In fact, Georgia has existed in a number of
different permutations, with the first historical unity being achieved under the Bagratids
12
The most egregious “out-writing” of the “other” this author has seen is: Т.М. Шамба, А.Ю. Непрошин,
Абхазия : правовые основы государственности и суверенитета. (Москва: ООО “Ин-Октаво”, 2004).
13
Ilia II has often made such a statement. Cf.
14
Cyril Toumanoff, Christian Caucasia. (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1963) 437:
“The territory occupied by the Georgian people was for the first time united into one whole by the
Bagratids in the eleventh century.” The “received tradition” of Georgian history is that a unified state of a
5
The assumption is also made that much of Georgia’s past is characterized by a
understanding is shared by many whose careers spanned the later decades of the Soviet
period. Previously these individuals had written more or less to the party line about ethnic
relations. Converted now to writing more explicitly nationalist histories, these historians
use selected assumptions from Soviet-era writing to promote the agenda of writing “new”
histories.15
In the two works under discussion Anania Japaridze deals with populations of
Armenians and Abkhazians within the boundaries of the Republic of Georgia, as these
boundaries are recognized under international law; i.e. not recognizing the self-
the Armenians, with special attention to the Armenians of Javaxet´i and to those of Upper
K´art´li. The Abkhazians under question are in the Soviet-era territory of the Abkhazian
Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic and under post-Soviet Georgian law as the
“guests.” This idea was a mainstay among the more chauvinist Georgians at the fall of the
Soviet Union, but has, by and large, disappeared from Georgian political discourse. This
was applied to ethnic groups that had lived within the current borders of Georgia for
sort existed under one of the earliest of Georgia’s rulers, Parnavaz, and again during the reign of Vaxtang
Gorgasali.
15
Mariam Lortkipanidze could be considered a convert of sorts in this context. Pavel Ingoroqva’s 1954
work Giorgi Merč´euli has played a crucial role in the Georgian understanding of ancient ethnic
homogeneity.
16
For a time under Zviad Gamsaxurdia Abkhazia’s autonomy was eliminated. This was among the many
acts that exacerbated relations between the Georgians and the Abkhazians. Autonomy was restored and has
been the subject of much legislation from Georgia’s Parliament. The practical application of these laws
awaits resolution of the Georgian-Abkhazian conflict.
6
centuries. One could only surmise that the concept of “guest” meant that these peoples
were destined at some time in the [near?] future to go “home.” The Abkhazians were
especially threatened by this categorization. Most of them believe that they were
autochthonous to the region they now occupy. There are, among the Georgians, various
ideas about the “tardiness” of their arrival, with Japaridze taking the middle ground that
they appeared in Georgian territory in the late medieval period, when a group of North
between the political realities of Eastern and Western Georgia. He insists that “the
territory that is now called Abkhazia, was, according to Old Georgian sources, settled by
Kartvelians, i.e. Mingrelian, ethnic groups.”17 Japaridze also makes this broad claim: “ …
the Kuban River, was settled by Georgians …”18 The use of the term “West Georgia” to
Armenian Christians in Georgia have Georgian ancestry. Following the analysis and
Armenian Christianity in the late medieval and early modern periods because the
Armenian Church was in a more favored position in both the Savafid Persian and
17
Ap´xazet´i, 5.
18
Ibid., 7. The ambiguity of the term k´art´veli has been used by both sides of the debate. It can mean
simply “Georgian” or it can be used to mean “Kartvelian” in the sense that includes Svans, Mingrelians,
and Laz. Those who want to convey a broad understanding of the Georgian nation use the former
understand, while those who want to reduce the number of proper Georgians, use it in the latter fashion. It
is especially difficult when population statistics are cited; one must be careful to take into account the
underlying terminological assumptions.
7
Ottoman Turkish Empires.19 Japaridze makes the further assertion that the Georgian
Orthodox Church, among all other Christians in these Muslim empires, was singled out
for persecution. The period under consideration was one of great turmoil in Georgian
at that point in time. At the same time the Orthodox Church can be credited for providing
some sense of unity among those territories where Georgian was maintained as the
Georgian identity.
The territory of Georgian liturgical use included Mingrelian and Svan speaking
areas, as well as Abkhazia. The latter by the late medieval period was a region of mixed
ethnicity and language. The Orthodox Church, as Ottoman control became more direct,
was unable to hold its place in the Abkhazian society. Japaridze sees this as an occasion
for the denationalization of some of the local “Kartvelian” population; here mainly
Mingrelians.
It is difficult to take the small amount of evidence that Japaridze gives for the
preference of the Armenian Church and turn it into several centuries of favor. Any
favoritism of the Armenian Church in the Persian Empire should be remembered only in
light of the massive deportation of Armenians to New Julfa in Isfahan at the beginning of
the seventeenth century. Georgians were also moved to the Persian Empire during the
Safavid period. There is, however, some disagreement as to whether they were Christian
or Muslim when that transfer was made.20 Japaridze does cite important evidence from
19
K´art´l-Kaxet´i, 4-8.
20
Babak Rezvani
8
cemetery inscriptions that Georgians in New Julfa were affiliated with Armenian
Churches, perhaps because this was the only alternative allowed by the Persians.21
Christians. This is a nineteenth century Russian designation that refers to Gregory the
Illuminator who brought Christianity to Armenian lands in the early fourth century.
While not historically inaccurate, one might make the case the using Grigorian
claim to apostolic validity. Would anyone call the Georgian Orthodox Christians Ninoite?
to some more virulently anti-Armenian literature of the post-Soviet period. One example
Foe? Or Why do the Armenians claim 650 Churches?].22 This work, published by the St.
David the Builder Orthodox Parish Union, is a virulent screed against Armenian
Christians. The authors are not content with the use of Grigorians. They recognize
Gregory the Illuminator’s Orthodoxy, but insist that the Armenian Church, by not
accepting the Definition of the Council of Chalcedon, has betrayed the faith of Gregory.
Rather, they assert, that Armenian Christians might better be called “Petrosians” after
Japaridze also uses the term “Monophysite” for the Armenian Christians. This
term has become more problematic as ecumenical discussions over the past several
21
K´art´li-Kaxet´i,
22
–– ? 650 . (Somxet´i – mteri t´u moqvare? anu ratom ič´emeben
somxebi 650 eklesias?) [Armenia – Friend or Foe? Or Why do the Armenians claim 650 Churches ].
(T´bilisi: Cm. Mep´e Davit´ Aġmašeneblis saxelobis mart´lmadidebeli mrevlis kavširi, 2006).
23
A Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition. (London: Mowbrays, 1995) v. 2, pt. 1: 252-254.
9
decades between Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches have yielded agreement over
how much their Christologies, despite terminological and historical issues, do essentially
coincide.24 The use of the term is now more restricted to its original meaning; i.e. as a
fifth century epithet used by those who accepted the Council of Chalcedon against those
who did not. The aforementioned work from the St. David the Builder Union considers
Ethnic terms in Japaridze’s Ap´xazet´i for the Abkhazians and their ancestors
present some issues. Perhaps the most problematic of the epithets frequently used by
Japaridze is one version or another of mt´ieli [mountaineer]. On its face, this term is just a
description of someone who lives in the mountains. Yet, in this book the level of
“civilization” is an issue and there is a whiff of “hillbilly,” perhaps, in the frequent use of
Lamberti who described the mountain people as not living in organized towns or villages,
Mingrelian) ethnicity. The New Abkhazians are those who are now called by the term
Abkhazian (in Georgian ap´xazuri). This is a way of emphasizing that the “new Abkhaz”
are not autochthonous and foreign to the territory they have occupied for at least several
centuries.26
24
Paulos Gregorios, et al., ed., Does Chalcedon divide or unite : towards convergence in Orthodox
Christology. (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1981). The authors of these essays comment on
statements made after discussions in Aarhus (1961), Bristol (1967), Geneva (1970), and Addis Ababa
(1971).
25
Ap´xazet´i,
26
Ap´xazet´i,
10
Japaridze also uses variations on the terms Adyghe and Cherkess. These terms are
used in connection with Aps´auri – a Georgian version of Apsny, i.e. what the
Abkhazians call themselves. These terms are for Japaridze a way of emphasizing the
“North” Caucasus in the Georgian historical mind is often the source of the more
been for reasons of social standing. He posits two separate manifestations of this sort of
“social” conversion.
to an Abkhazian identity in the imperial period and says that this is so because of the
perception that the Abkhazian mountaineers were relatively free in contrast to the
Mingrelians, many of whom still lived as serfs into the nineteenth century. This makes
for a curiously Marxist interpretation of ethnic history in Abkhazia. Some of the evidence
offered for this “conversion” has to do with the shifting definition of Abkhazian, as well
the differences of opinion about who the Samurzaqano people are/have been. They are
counted in some numerations of the small territory in the mixed borderland between
Japaridze also speaks of “conversions” in the Soviet period. He refers to the last
decades of the Soviet period, as Abkhaz language policy and culture suffered during the
time of Stalin and Beria. The near prohibition of Abkhazian language publishing and the
27
Ap´xazet´i,
11
lack of Abkhazian language instruction in schools are a sign of Abkhazian disfavor
during that period. Only after Stalin’s death was there a reversal of this oppression.
providing data for the idea that Georgians have become Abkhazian in the later Soviet
period. He considers an important excess of Abkhazian growth between the 1939 and
1970 censuses.28 His figure of 83,000 Abkhazians for 1970 is actually the number for
1979 and when the increase of 1939-1979 is compared to the increase of the general
Soviet population, the Abkhaz population actually grew slightly more slowly, [47.6 %]
than the general population [55.9 %]29 during that same period. This inaccurate reporting
are persons who call themselves Armenians and have Armenian names, but whose native
Armenians. They are perhaps among the 32,246 ethnic Armenians resident in the
Georgian S.S.R. listed in the Soviet census of 1970 with Georgian as their native
language. The category of Armenian native speakers of Georgians disappears in the 1989
census, in which only 1,214 Armenians consider “other languages” of the U.S.S.R. as
their native tongue. Presumably some of these are in the Dmanisi region and are native
included in the 28,370 who in 1989 considered Georgian as their second language. The
number of Armenians in Georgia who considered Russian their native language grew
from 36,410 to 60,610 between 1970 and 1989. It is also possible that some of the
28
Ibid., 81.
29
This figure would need to be adjusted downward to exclude the Baltic nations and other territories that
the Soviet Union annexed prior to and during World War II.
12
Georgian speaking Armenians of 1970 considered themselves Georgian by 1989. They
certainly would, one might assume, not be among those migrating out of Georgia.
Specific census data for the areas under discussion by Japaridze would have been helpful,
Concluding remarks
Kaxet´i and Ap´xazet´i, writes about sensitive issues in the context of ethnic relations in
the Republic of Georgia. Both sides of various conflicts have wielded the writing of
conflict” between the self-proclaimed Republic of Abkhazia and the Republic of Georgia.
Abkhazians and Georgia have written vast numbers of books and articles to bolster past
and present historical and territorial claims. Fewer books have been written about the
place of Armenians as an ethnic minority within the Republic of Georgia, but there is a
great deal of passion and feeling when these are done in the context of church history.
Japaridze is clearly writing from the Georgian perspective in both of the books
terminology, in some ways, predetermines the conclusions he makes. He does not allow
for a lot of discussion of other perspectives, sometimes covering a less than confident
While Japaridze’s writings do represent one side of the arguments under question,
they must be taken together with other material in a dialogue of perspectives. It is also
important to check the information behind Japaridze’s writings (such as census numbers)
30
Ibid.,
13
and to ask questions of source material that he does not consider (such as the audience for
Japaridze writing would also have been enhanced by a more critical use of older sources.
14
Bibliography
–– ? 650 . : .
,
2006.
15