Internationale Schulbuchforschung / International Textbook Research. Vol. 20 (1998), no. 4, pp.

409-424

Oliver Reisner
What can and should we learn from Georgian history?
Observations of someone who was trained in the Western tradition of science 1
Abstract
The comparison between the minimal standards for the school subject History of
Georgia and the official guidelines developed by state education reformers reveal an
overwhelming discrepancy between the claim of democratization in the education sector
and the intended creation and generation of loyalty to the Georgian state at the level of
cultural ethnicity. In a second analytical step, the reasons for the rise of this
discrepancy are traced back to their roots in Georgian society and in the lack of real
autonomy in that societys sub-systems, such as for example the scientific discipline of
history in Georgia. Thus, the potential foundation of national consensus and
legitimization of the Georgian state becomes the subject of domestic political dispute
which even extends into the classroom.
I. What Should We Learn from Georgian History?
A minimal curriculum for the school-subject History (Standarty 1997)
The Standards for the subjects History of Georgia and World History are both
derived from the corresponding Education Reform Act dated June 27, 1997. 2 Both as a
basis and in terms of goal definition, these subjects are intended to perform the task of
fulfilling state requirements in a quite direct and concrete manner. Thus, these
Standards are normative in nature and at the same time, however, formulate
excessively high demands particularly for a society in the midst of such a deep-seated
and difficult transition as that one which Georgia are currently experiencing, one which is
hardly in a position to deal with the immense problems confronting this society currently,
given the training standards of school-teachers and the omnipresent lack of funds avail[410] able for education in general.3 The imminent collapse of the secondary school
system continues to constitute a real and present danger. By converse, no specifically
outlined and coherent course of action has been developed by planners to prevent this
very scenario from actually taking place. Instead, the emergency is re-defined as an
1

From the German translated by Dave Harris. Georgian language sources are transliterated in
accordance with the system employed in the Catalogue of Georgian Books in the British Museum.
Russian language sources are transliterated in accordance with the swystem used by the journal
Eurasian Studies (former Soviet Studies).
2
sakhelmdsipo saganmanatleblo standarti sakartvelos istoriashi [The minimal curriculum for the
school subject History of Georgia, referred to hereinafter as Standard HG], Lomashvili, Parnaoz and S.
Vardosanidze. Tbilisi 1997; sakhelmdsipo saganmanatleblo standarti msoplio istoriashi [The minimal
curriculum for the school subject World History, referred to hereinafter as Standard WH],
Nikolaishvili, Tamaz and Tsira Chikvaidze. Tbilisi 1997.
3
Cf. [in German] Staatliches Programm der Bildungsreforme und ihre Umsetzung. Goethe-Institut
(ed.), Tbilisi 1995; sakartvelos kanoni ganatlebis shesakheb [Georgia's Bill on Education]. In:
sakartvelos respublika [Republic of Georgia], 165 (July 17, 1997), pp. 3-5; Melikidze, Valeri and
George Tarkhan-Mouravi: Human Development Report: Georgia 1997. United Nations Development
Programme, Tbilisi 1997. For example, the private sector economic activities of many educational
institutions outside the state budget were retroactively officially sanctioned and declared to be legal
activities to the extent that they pertained to payment of salaries and the renovation of facilities with
financial support by parents.

Internationale Schulbuchforschung / International Textbook Research. Vol. 20 (1998), no. 4, pp.409-424

opportunity and privatization of the school system becomes both a virtue and a
popular demand. Against the backdrop of these realities, I shall limit my observations on
the manner in which the Standards are being put into practice in these two historical
subjects. The basic precepts of the national principles of education include the following:
1. Democratization of the education process involving the participation of the state,
society and individuals as equal partners in the education process;
2. autonomy from the dictates of the state in terms of goals, subject matter, teaching
methods as well as the manner in which institutions of education and training are
organized;
3. openness defined as liberation from ideologies of partiality so that goals will no longer
be defined as relating to class interests, but rather as relating to general humanistic
and national values;
4. a multiplicity of educational structures (state, private, etc.) and curricular materials;
5. maintenance of national self-determination and/or due respect for nationality by
delineation into schools for each nationality in which both the Georgian language, its
history and geography will be compulsory subjects;4
6. A scientific world view centering around a concept of human beings. School must be
centrally involved in the development of the personality.
From these derive the educational tasks of preparing the personality for real life, the
education and training of a competitive generation guided by moral principles as well as
the development of members of national minorities into true citizens of the Republic of
Georgia. Both general humanistic educational and cultural values as well as Georgian
historical-cultural traditions shall provide the basis for the education of young people in
becoming adult and responsible citizens.5
[411] In this context, reforming the subject-matter of the History of Georgia also
entails the additional task of not only freeing the subject of elements of Soviet ideology;
at the same time it must also overcome the abridged version of Georgia's own
history within the framework of the History of the Soviet Union. In the aftermath of
the period in which century-old Georgian cultural traditions were merely permitted to
assume a role only as an regional studies function in Russian history,6 this situation has
changed fundamentally during the era of perestroika and most particularly since the
attainment of independent statehood. In the newer school textbooks written by

Georgias total population amounts to 5,400,841 inhabitants comprised of 3,787,393 Georgians

(70.1%), 437,211 Armenians (8.1%), 341,172 Russians (6.3%), 307,556 Azerbaijani (5.7%), 95,853
Abkhasians (1.8%), 52,443 Ukrainians (1.0%) and others, information by the Georgian Ministry of the
Population Development.
5
Cf. op. cit. Tbilisi 1995, pp. 6-7, 18-20; Georgias literature, history and geography as well as Georgian
as official language, form the compulsory general basis of general education.
6
School textbooks widely used during this period were those written by such authors as Ivane
Javakhishvili, S. Janashia and Nikoloz Berdzenishvili which dealt with ancient and medieval history
and textbooks by Shota Meskhia and V. Guchua dealing with modern and contemporary history dating
from the 1940's and 1950's. Cf. paper [in Georgian] given by Elene Medzmariashvili at a conference of
the European Council and the Georgian Ministry of Education on The Reform of History Teaching in
Secondary Schools in Tbilisi, 25.-27.10.1997.

Internationale Schulbuchforschung / International Textbook Research. Vol. 20 (1998), no. 4, pp.409-424

recognized historians which have already been introduced into the classroom, 7 the
country's own history and its role in general historical development is being dealt with in
considerably greater depth and being given more emphasis in classroom instruction. New
subjects and topics previously taboo due to ideological reasons have also been included
in the new materials and curricula. Nevertheless, serious gaps and deficiencies continue
to exist and there is still a grave lack of curricula, chrestomathies, literature on methods
and other teaching aids suited to contemporary needs. Even the newest school textbooks
severely need updating and revision if they are to meet internationally accepted standards
for school textbooks. 8
Inasmuch as Georgia has opted for the more viable democratic model of development,
historical education which reflects the perspective of a complete democratization of the
whole country and teaches students to adopt attitudes of tolerance toward one another,
but which above all teaches loyalty to and respect for universal, human and national
(cultural) values and treasures of one's own society becomes all the more essential. These
principles are predominantly dealt with in the state Standards.
These structural principles and the planned basic regulations for History of Georgia are
contained in the propaedeutic of the history of Georgia (grade-level 5) and the first cycle
of the history of Georgia (grade levels 7, 8 and 9) involving two classroom hours per
week. This amounts to a total of 68 classroom hours, and thus are a basic element of the
Standards for all intermediate schools whose curricula and textbooks become
compulsory and thus [412] unified standard elements of classroom instruction. 9 The
standards for the second cycle of the history of Georgia (grade levels 10, 11 and 12) are
to be based on the curricula and textbooks for high-school classroom instruction, but
may also be adapted to suit other specialized educational purposes or even revised for

These include such authors as Roin Metreveli (who holds the department chair for the History of
Georgia at the State University at Tbilisi), L. Sanikidze, Mariam Lortkipanidze (who previously
held the chair for History of Georgia at the State University at Tbilisi), Nodar Asatiani, P.
Lomashvili (professor of history at the Sulchan-Saba-Orbeliani Pedagogical University), Kote Antadze
(professor of World History at the State University at Tbilisi), Naira Mamukelashvili (lecturer in
World History at the State University at Tbilisi), Tsira Chikvaidze, K. Tvaliashvili and G.
Bolotashvili. See Naira Mamukelashvilis article in this issue.
8
Paper given by Elene Medzmariashvili at a conference of the European Council and the Georgian
Ministry of Education on The Reform of History Teaching in Secondary Schools in Tbilisi, 25.27.10.1997 and Standard HG, p.3-4+7
9
metoduri rekomendatsiebi da gakvetilebis tematuri dagegmva istoriashi zogasaganmagatleblo
skolebis V-XI klasebisatvis. 1997/98 sasdsavlo dseli [Methodological recommendations and thematic
teaching plans for general education schools for classes 5 through 11 for the 1997/8 school year, referred
to hereinafter as Recommendations]. Tbilisi, pp. 3-4. The Standard HG I have at hand is a draft version
realized in October 1997 which has not definitively been authorized yet by the Georgian Ministry of
Education. Therefore there are some differences from the text of the Recommendations. Modifications
might have been made in the meantime. Cf. Mamukelashvilis contribution in this issue.

Internationale Schulbuchforschung / International Textbook Research. Vol. 20 (1998), no. 4, pp.409-424

other use. This will involve one classroom hour of instruction per week which amounts
to total of 34 classroom hours per school year.10
The five main levels11 of historical thinking defined by the authors characterize for them
more or less the levels of historical consciousness which build upon the previous ones,
predominate over them and simultaneously incorporate all previous levels of historical
consciousness within themselves.
After rejecting pluralistic-alternative learning (thinking in alternatives) in the ideologized
Soviet middle school programs for the school subject history, efforts are now being made
to emphazise this very element in the reformed 12th grade level school system. In line
with these efforts emphasis is not only placed on gaining historical knowledge, equally as
important is learning to think and to raise the skills and capacities of school pupils more
comparable to international standards. In an effort to achieve these goals classroom
discussion and other modern practices and methods are to be introduced into the
classrooms of the 10th through 12th grade level history courses. Even today, such efforts
are being realized to a certain degree. Yet, why only there, one might ask, given the
fact that most schools require pupils to pay tuition beginning with the 10th grade level,
which simply means that the vast majority of school pupils will not profit at all from
these innovations aimed at improving their thinking and reasoning skills. Three
components of the Standards are separately formulated for each grade level so that the
specific requirements are available as guidelines for the development of new curricula,
school textbooks and teaching aids. These are:
1. The content of the subject material will be pre-determined only in terms of themes and
directions underlying the learning process in general. It provides an answer as to the
question of what is to be learned.
2. The minimum knowledge of the pupil places limitations on the scope of knowledge
which that pupil must learn at the very minimum. It provides an answer to the
question as to what the pupil must know. [413]
3. The pupil's independent reasoning and the skills and capacities for making practical
use of the knowledge at the command of the pupil.12
History as a school subject unites the social science disciplines and makes the attainment
of such knowledge into something systematic. Only two classroom hours per week are
provided for social studies in the 12th grade level. In the 9th grade level, one weekly
hour of classroom instruction will be provided for the subject Basic Elements of Law
and in the 12th grade level an additional hour weekly for classroom instruction in Basic
Elements of Economics. This means that the two history subjects in the general field of
10

Ibid.
1. the chronological-illustrative-emotive level; 2. the historical-logical or cause-and-effect level; 3. the
analytical interpretative level; 4. the critical evaluative level and 5. the pluralistic-alternative level.
12
Standard HG, p.7.
11

Internationale Schulbuchforschung / International Textbook Research. Vol. 20 (1998), no. 4, pp.409-424

human sciences and the arts totaling 20 classroom hours of instruction per week play a
key role in the field of political education.
It is not addressed why World History has been set up as a subject in its own right,
which possible differences do exist from the subject History of Georgia and whether or
which inherent laws of historical development are taken as a basis for both. But: Nearly
all of the main stages of world history and the characteristic laws of their development
can be more effectively grasped using the facts and events of the century old history of
Georgia.13
A propaedeuticum of the Chronicle of the History of Georgia for pupils of the fifth
grade has been developed in an attempt to awaken their interest and to instill in them a
feeling for the past and present of their own country using individual selected elements
and episodes drawn from the history of Georgia. In addition, they are to be instructed in
these elements and episodes necessary for developing an understanding of the basic
concepts and components of world history, because otherwise it would become
necessary to develop a propaedeutic for world history also. This will be followed by a
fundamental, systematic and chronologically arranged course in national history,
beginning in the 7th grade. Divided into two three-year cycles (grade levels 7-9 and 1012), each cycle will deal with the whole range of history from the beginning to the
present.14 While the first cycle concentrates on the presentation of the historical facts and
causal relationships, the second cycle will deal with historical facts at a higher level
allowing for the presentation of various interpretations of historical facts and is thus
more pluralistic-alternative in nature, of which, however, only one interpretation is the
correct one. This instruction will be augmented by aspects of sources research and
historiography. With the exception of the introductory material there will be no explicit
references to the subject of World History. In the 6th grade level the subject World
History begins with classic antiquity devoid of any differentiation to other subjects and
it is implicitly understood that world history deals with the history of the non-Georgian
[414] world. Only with regard to the synchronization of both subjects is there any
discussion of the fact that the various historical periodizations do not correspond to one
another, e.g. modern ages setting in Georgia at the beginning of the 19th century
whereas world history dates the beginning of modern times in the 16th/17th centuries.
13

Standard HG, p.8

5th grade level: Chronicle of the History of Georgia - propaedeuticum; 7th grade level: From
primordial times to the second decade of the 13th century; 8th grade level: From the second decade of
the 13th century to the end of the 18th century; 9th grade level: 19th and 20th centuries; 10th grade
level: From primordial times top the second decade of the 13th century; 11th grade level: From the
second decade of the 13th century to the end of the 18th century; 12th grade level: 19th and 20th
centuries.
14

Internationale Schulbuchforschung / International Textbook Research. Vol. 20 (1998), no. 4, pp.409-424

Nevertheless, this subject would appear to me to be less ridden with ideological premises
than the subject History of Georgia and this is indeed heartening.
Due to the fact that the number of classroom instruction hours (units) has been predetermined by the Ministry of Education in its Schedule of Instruction Units, we must
assume that the Standards are a sort of maximal rather than minimal program which set
very close limitations on the achievement of the substantive goals of the subject. Because
the teacher is compelled to teach these so called minimal requirements, little time will
remain for either taking a closer look at certain elements or discussing alternative
interpretations of events. The Standards reveal no originality in respect to structuring
classroom materials anew. They follow the existing textbooks, 15 which represent little
more than a paraphrasing of the eight-volume standard work Sketches of the History of
Georgia written in the early 1970's.
There is much too little material devoted to dealing with historical documents and the
interpretation of sources. The interpretation of original sources is dealt with only once at
the 7th grade level in connection with learning the capacity to think and act
independently. It is precisely teaching a critical approach to texts and original documents
which is so urgently needed in a country with a Soviet background. Such a teaching is
needed, if classroom experience is to achieve the goal of developing pupils' capacities to
make their own judgments and thus to become more self-reliant as adult citizens.
How does this Standard HG relate to the premises set forth by the state we presented in
our introduction?
1. What sort of democratization is being striven for if even with reference to the
Standards the goals and reality do not correspond to one another? The concept of
democratization is used symbolically and is meant to emphasize the proximity to the
West and/or Europe in the reform programme as well as the Standard HG. However, this
claim to democratization is neither formally nor substantively adhered to. Substantively,
this becomes evident in the neglect of all of the topics and themes so essential to the
creation and maintenance of a democratic state. Government by law, state monopoly of
violence, constitution, parliamentarianism or division of powers, not to speak of question
of participation in government are dealt with at no point in the Standards HG as learning
goals. At a formal level, the extensive demands on the amount of material to be dealt
with in classroom instruction leave little room for the teacher to develop any personal
accents in the course. Pupils are required to learn an enormous number of facts to meet
minimal course requirements, they have no [415] possibility to gain in such skills as being
15

Cf. Lomashvili, Parnaoz: sakartvelos istoria 1801-1918, X klasis sakhelmdzghvanelo [History of

Georgia 1801-1918. 10th grade level classroom textbook]. Tbilisi 1992

Internationale Schulbuchforschung / International Textbook Research. Vol. 20 (1998), no. 4, pp.409-424

able to learn on one's own are hardly possible. The authoritarian attitude of the two
authors becomes highly evident on the basis of their positivistic concept of science which
allows for various interpretations only as a means of finally arriving at the one objective
truth. This has the effect of preventing any critical reflection and review of axiomatic
presumptions and key epistemological interests.
2. It is equally incomprehensible why the Standards were not democratically developed
and formulated by politicians, scientists and teachers involved in the educational reform
process. The formulation of general guidelines is simply not considered to be an element
of the education process, despite the fact that confidence and the resulting legitimization
for reforms and the creation of a democratic state can only be achieved through
cooperation.16
The latter holds true with reference to autonomy from the dictatorship from the state in
the formulation of goals in the choice of teaching materials and methods as well as the
organization of education and the establishment of school facilities. The reform program
- seriously impaired by lack of funds and the urgent reduction in teaching personnel - is
in serious danger of coming to a complete halt due to the resistance of the teaching staff,
if sufficient attention is not directed toward dealing with their precarious financial
situation. Degrading their work to mere executive organs carrying out higher orders
hardly serves to bolster their already diminished social prestige. The teachers proclivity
for reform is of key importance if the reform program is to register any measure of
success whatsoever. Thus, for instance, the Association for the Protection of the Esteem
of Pedagogues not only rejects certification, it also denounces certification and the
education reform process as anti-national and its reformers as enemies of Georgia
and at least in some areas it has also boycotted certification. The education
administration has responded with the threat of disciplinary measures even including
expulsion from the teaching staff.17
3. What meaning can openness ultimately have if overcoming the tradition of ideologized
education fails to become a reality and under a merely different cover the Communist
ideology is replaced by unqualified religious or para-patriotic narration that distorts the
vision of world as it did before, although in new directions18? Locking all perspectives
to a national ideology19 stifles any possibility of shifts in the own point of view, thus
16

Cf. for example the public critique of the manner in which the qualifications of teachers is certified
in Mosiashvili, Tinatin: izrdeba upskruli ganatlebis repormatorebsa da pedagogebs shoris. ra
sargeblobas gvadzlevs atestatsia? [The gap between education reformers and pedagogues is getting
larger. What value does certification have for us?]. In: Rezonansi (30 September 1997), p. 15.
17
Ibid.
18
Cf. Melikidze and Tarkhan-Mouravi op. cit., p. 59
19
For example, the broad response in the cultural and scientific communities with reference to: Ratiani,
Jemal: rdsmena sakutari da kveqnisa [One's own belief and that of one's country]. In: literaturuli

Internationale Schulbuchforschung / International Textbook Research. Vol. 20 (1998), no. 4, pp.409-424

making it impossible to develop any understanding of the other person's ideas and
arguments. We find [416] no other mention of the goal to develop pupils' capacity for
tolerance or concrete prerequisites anywhere in the Standard HG.
4. There is no diversity of types of classroom contents to see. Why not, for example,
simply do away with the principle of chronological order in the second cycle and adopt
the principle of themes (included in the Standards as one of many principles available)
whose emphases can be co-determined by teachers and pupils in the classroom? Only by
the provision of individual choices a multiplicity makes sense.
5. Thus, preserving national self-determination of providing for deference to the
Georgian national character is the only perspective from which Georgian history is
observed and presented. The depth to which the amount of classroom attention devoted
to Georgian Culture from the stone ages to the present is astounding. Even in classical
antiquity there would appear to be a preliminary unity of Georgians, despite the fact that
the first evidence of any concept of Georgia dates from the 11th century.
Correspondingly, we are confronted throughout history with the struggle of the
Georgian people against foreign conquerors. And although territorial states were
completely unknown to mediaeval Georgia with its distinctly feudal structures,
Georgia's statehood is viewed as a supra-temporal, ahistorical phenomenon, because
today autochthony is used as the primary legitimization for territorial claims to rule. In
addition we are also confronted with a dangerous double standard revealed at a point
in the text where Georgia's regional supremacy is not characterized as conquest, but is
rather described euphemistically as a strengthening of foreign policy expansion.20 Thus,
it is not surprising to find that the non-Georgian elements of the population are not
mentioned any place in the text. We are confronted with a lack of distance and selfreflectivity with regard to one's own history and thus one's own present.
6. What kind of humanization is being striven for if neither individuals nor concrete
groups of actors, but rather large, abstract collectives (people, class) or concepts
(Georgian statehood) and mythologized leading personalities are given key attention.
How are school pupils supposed to develop any understanding of or feeling for the
possibilities for social action on the part of individuals in their specific historical
environments and how are they to obtain any clarity as to their own potential for social
and/or political activity or obstacles against such activity in a democratic community?
Where are there any provisions for promoting independent learning for school pupils or
sakartvelo [Literary Georgia] (June 1997), as reflected in the August issue of the same magazine No.
31, p. 3
20
Standard HG, p. 19

Internationale Schulbuchforschung / International Textbook Research. Vol. 20 (1998), no. 4, pp.409-424

where are any provisions made for dealing with their questions about their own history?
No attempt is even made to adapt the subject matter to the experiential world of school
pupils.
One gains the impression that national patriotic education could do away with all of
evils and problems of the younger generation (criminality, drug consumption, violence,
lack of discipline) identified in the educational reform program. The reasons for these
evils appear to be external factors (most often [417] Russian) which can only be
overcome by rediscovering one's own values. The History of Georgia is intended to
play a pivotal role comparable to that previously played by the subject History of the
Soviet Union. Where previously this served the key function of legitimizing the role of
the Communist Party, today, paradoxically, it would appear to serve the function of
legitimizing the independence of the Georgian national state.
The Standard WH differs significantly from the Standard HG. The majority of the
criticisms do not apply here. The subject-matter is clearly delineated according to
didactical learning goals and class levels (time and space, cause and effect, the
interpretation of history, historical research, organization and communication), even if
the volume of material is still impressive. The use of curricula from the United States,
Great Britain and Russia bear witness to the considerable efforts being made to open the
gates to the outside world. Nevertheless, a positivistic concept of science and the basic
presumption of ethnic communities as permanent societal phenomena continue to be key
theorems of the Standard WH. Political goals are explicitly set forth (the significance of
private property, free enterprise, market economy and the proliferation of the principles
of democracy) which can clearly be found in current teaching materials. Unfortunately,
the relationship between national history and world history simply does not receive the
attention it deserves. The fact that the subject is dealt with on a more open manner has,
of course, a great deal to do with the nature of the material, at the same time, it is of
course less subject to the ideological norms required for the History of Georgia due to
its diminished relevance for the legitimization of the state in general.

II. What Can Be Learned From the History of Georgia?

These ideas expressed in the Standard HG do not reflect the views of any individual, they
must be taken as reflecting the common sense of the countrys educated elite. The
relevance of historical experience constitutes the connecting link between what should be
learned and what can be learned. The essential difference consists of how this historical

Internationale Schulbuchforschung / International Textbook Research. Vol. 20 (1998), no. 4, pp.409-424

experience is consumed and presented. This process is characterized by the dual task of
building a nation and effecting the transformation away from the Soviet system. Due to
the fact that in this context science is perceived not only as an institution of the
systematic assimilation of knowledge, but also as reflecting on the conditions under
which bodies of knowledge come into existence, I would first like to deal with the
function of history in Georgian society.21
Yet, precisely the euphoric experiences of the Georgian national movement and the
ensuing civil war, the defeat in Abkhazia and the conflict in Southern [418] Ossetia have
unveiled the fiction of Georgian national unity. Even if culturally a nation indeed existed,
this simply does not suffice to establish a basic political consensus for the society as a
whole. A collection of critical essays by young Georgian authors expresses the hope that
suffering leads to comprehension of the previously inconceivable division of the
Georgian people and their defeat by the Abkhasians.22 They make the attempt to grasp
the causes by undergoing a process of self-critical reflection and not merely by attributing
them to external factors (the geopolitical location and demon Russia, etc.), but rather
embedded in their own history, culture and mentality as well as the entanglement in the
Soviet system. We are witnessing a much deeper seated internal crisis of the
modernization of Georgian society dating back to the Seventies which continues into the
present. This crisis can be summed up as follows: Taking leave of the conventions of
long-lived morality compels transition to a reflective pattern of justification.23 Yet, if the
deficiencies of the Soviet system during the Brezhnev stagnation led to a wide-spread retraditionalization in Georgian society,24 any modernization defined as growth of the
adaptive and self-regulating capacities of a societal system25 urgently demands a
functional differentiation and separation of the value spheres (economy, belief, science,
society, etc.) into autonomous areas with their own specific logics. This enables one to
arrive at segmentary conflict resolutions and for the most part prevents value conflicts

21

Cf. Oexle, Otto Gerhard: Die Frage nach dem Verhltnis von Wissenschaft und Leben als
gegenwrtiges und als historisches Problem.In: Natur und Geschichte. Naturwissenschafliche and
historische eitrge zu einer kologischen Grundbildung. Herrmann, Bernd and Angela Budde (eds.).
Arbeitskreis Umweltgeschichte der Universitt Gttingen. Niederschsisches Umweltministerium.
Hannover 1989, pp. 20-27.
22
Group of authors: tchkua vaisagan. statiebi [From suffering to comprehension. Articles]. Caucasian
Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development (CIPDD). Tbilisi 1994. The title is a variation of a play
by the Russian playwright Aleksandr Griboedov.
23
Eder, Klaus: Geschichte als Lernproze? Zur Pathogenese politischer Modernitt in Deutschland.
Frankfurt/Main 1991, p. 67. The principle of a generalized reciprocity can be achieved by means of an
ethic of (religious or moral) convictions or an ethic of responsibility (Max Weber).
24
Cf. Dragadze, Tamara: Rural Families in Soviet Georgia. A Case Study in Ratcha Province. London
and New York 1988
25
Cf. Sterbling, Anton: Eliten, Realittsdeutung, Moderniseirungsprobleme. Aufstze 1987-1988.
Beitrge aus dem Fachbereich Pdagogik der Universitt der Bundeswehr Hamburg 3 / 1989, p. 51.

Internationale Schulbuchforschung / International Textbook Research. Vol. 20 (1998), no. 4, pp.409-424

from becoming structurally dominant or individual conflicts of interest (most often

distribution conflicts) from being dramatized into system conflicts.26
The Soviet era, however, outlawed the creation and development of independent, stable
institutions, so that such institutions as determinant factors for action are not available.
Thus in attempting to define a national interest the only instrument available for this
purpose is the nature of the outline of hegemonic national identity as the decisive
measure of the success or failure of transformation and creation of the nation. This
results in the permanent recourse to Georgia's own history and the use of historical and
cultural arguments as a means of conducting political controversy so astonishing to
Western observers. Because national identity is not conceived of as the subjective
identification of individuals, but rather as an objectively binding definition of belonging,
this means that those groups which ultimately succeed in implanting their definition of
national identity will also determine the interests of the [419] national state. However,
this means that the foundations for the legitimization of a young national state will
become an object of domestic political controversy and can thus tend to function more
disintegrative than as an integrative factor.27 This is manifested in the overthrow of the
previous president Gamsakhurdia, in the fundamentalist tendencies within the Georgianorthodox church or in the example of the Association for the Protection of the Esteem
of Pedagogues cited above.
The danger of reality crises and the misdirection of societal development continues to
plague Georgia even today, because the economy or in our case science cannot marshal
sufficient autonomy to make decisions according to their own rationality criteria
determined by the institution. Its specific knowledge and its interests are simply not
considered in the decision-making process of society as a whole.28 In the same manner,
there is no process by which the specific interests of large elements of the population are
incorporated into decision-making processes involving the whole of society.
Consequently, motivational structures and living strategies have developed which are
essentially immune to ideological demands and thus highly impervious to political
26

Cf. ibid., p. 25
Cf. on this aspect the extremely enlightening study by Jacoby, Volker: Geopolitische Zwangslage und
nationale Identitt: Die Konturen der innenpolitischen Konflikte in Armenien. Doctoral thesis in the
Department Gesellschaftsawissenschaften of the Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe-Universitt at Frankfurt a.M.
1998, p.17.
28
For Eder, the connection between the idea of the autonomous subject and forms of egalitariandiscursive nationalization signifies the key to creation of political modernity and takes place at two
levels: 1.) Creation of community in the form of an association, for example, involving formal equality
of all members, new topics and new manners of speaking and debate and 2.) in the legal codification of
political activities in the form of regulating the formal chances of access to the political system as well
as procedures for involving those persons who will be effected by decisions which have to be made, op.
cit., p. 11
27

Internationale Schulbuchforschung / International Textbook Research. Vol. 20 (1998), no. 4, pp.409-424

direction. The spheres of the politically controlled public domain and the private sphere
which is completely sealed off from the former have drifted further apart and now it
appears that they are to be (compulsively) re-united on the basis of a new national
ideology.29 In an effort to offset this trend schools play a key role. Particularly they
generate loyalty to the state and public morals by instilling national identity (like the
emphasis placed on nation/nationality in the Standard HG) against this trend. 30 The
legitimacy of the state community so direly needed is not becoming a reality, because
citizens are deprived of any opportunity to participate in this process and a real sharing
of interests. Despite the existence of an independent state, Georgian society is in serious
danger of [420] developing a pathology,31 if it does not succeed in developing a
universally binding normative order. Desperate calls for the iron arm of rule by law or
the attempted assassinations of president Shevardnadze32 clearly illustrate how
precariously national independence is actually embedded into Georgia's own society. In
the realm of science and education there is a complete lack of a formalized regulation of
admission tied to performance criteria. The attempt to subject only teachers to such
standards by means of certification while simultaneously ignoring the situation at the
universities led precisely to the extreme reactions cited above.
What does all this mean with regard to reforming school texts and curricula for the
subject History of Georgia? To begin with, there can be no new materials if the selfperception of Georgia's historians does not change so that history no longer serves as a
projection screen for presenting the great past of the nation, but rather as an independent
discipline with its own specific set of scientific laws. Here, we can cite the example of
Ivane Dzhavakhishvili, the father of modern Georgian historiography. In 1904, he
published a scientific essay entitled Patriotism and Science criticizing advocacy
science not dedicated to scientific principles, but willing to accentuate the positive
characteristics, while minimizing the deficiencies in order to come to peace with the
29

Cf. Sterbling, op. cit., p. 18. He perceives the obstacles to modernization in eastern European societies
as embedded in the fact that in Soviet society the development of elites as a form of societal development
along specific various socio-cultural and socio-economic interests up to an ideologically united elite
was rigidly repressed much in the same manner in which patterns of knowledge, interpretations of
reality and criteria of rationality which failed to conform to the dominant ideology as officially
interpreted were subject to suppression (pp. 27-8 and 38)
30
For an earlier period see Schooling, Educational Policy and Ethnic Identity. Edited by Janusz Tomiak
in collaboration with Knut Eriksen, Andreas Kazamias and Robin Okey. European Science Foundation.
New York University Press, Dartmouth 1991 (Comparative studies on governments and non-dominant
ethnic-groups in Europe, 1850-1940, vol. 1); Fletcher, George P.: Loyality. An Essay on the Morality of
Relationships. Oxford University Press. New York / Oxford 1993.
31
Cf. Eder, op. cit., p. 10: [in German] We can speak of pathology if we can establish the fact that a
society partially or completely destroys its own structural pre-requisites during the course of its
development. The pathological element involved consists of the destruction of any possibility of entering
into a debate over which normative order will have collective applicability.
32
Due to the fact that it was assumed that the country as a whole would revert into a state of chaos and
clan warfare was in case of a successful assassination.

Internationale Schulbuchforschung / International Textbook Research. Vol. 20 (1998), no. 4, pp.409-424

past as both fruitless and damaging. He stressed the fact that only a critical and
reflective reception of Georgian history would be of any use to Georgian society: The
difference between critical, scientific and common perceptions is that we conceive of our
contemporary perceptions of the past as being correct, as if the dismantling and
refutation of such conceptions would be tantamount to the destruction of our deeds in
the past and of successful life in general.33 These words are as valid today as they were
then inasmuch as these common perceptions have relinquished none of their function
as a civil religion or transcendental elements of order34 and thus correspond well with
the currently predominant positivistic conception of science. It is not necessary to [421]
subject one's self to the tension of the coexistence of various explanatory approaches,
because the facts point to a single absolute truth. 35
As the only currently renowned historian, Guram Qoranashvili has taken up
Dzhavakhishvili's critique and confirmed its urgency for the present day in his search an
answer to the prospects for survival of Georgian historical sciences. 36 He postulates the
fear among historians of losing their illusions which must survive before the backdrop
of the new opportunities and freedoms in an independent Georgia. A new paradoxical
situation has come about in which their thinking has lagged behind the new conditions
and appears frozen in a mythological character. Within the guild of historians, selfcritical questions concerning a (neo-) formation of Georgian historiography find no place
33

Cf. Javakhishvili, Ivane: mamulishviloba da metsniereba [Patriotism and Science]. Tbilisi 1904, p.12;
reprint: Ivane Javakhishvili: tkhzulebani tormet tomad. Tomi XII [Works in twelve volumes. Vol. 12].
Tbilisi State University Press, Tbilisi 1998, p.64-87. His critique was predominantly aimed at the
founder of Georgian pedagogy, Iakob Gogebashvili, and is embedded in a positivistic concept of true
history (tcheshmariti istoria) as it really was. This could easily be translated into the present as a
contemporary and honest concept of the science of history. Cf. in this context Parsons, J.W.R.: The
Emergence and Development of the National Question in Georgia, 1801-1921. Ph.D. thesis University of
Glasgow, January 1987, p. 23, particularly notes 16 and 17
34
Cf. Rotholz, Walter: Die politikwissenschaftliche Kulturdiskussion: Nachholbedarf in Deutschland. In:
Die Neue Gesellschaft / Frankfurter Hefte, 3 (1998), in particular p. 246: [in German] The imagination
creates a symbolic network of meanings. A society devoid of such meanings simply does not exist. Such
ultimate justifications are necessarily transcendental: They are not available to society, because they
would otherwise be in no position to provide any plausible horizon for justification. Nevertheless, they
do bind people. What this means is that in order to provide such a justification interrelationship such
symbols must represent a 'truth' of some sort.
35
Oexle, op. cit., pp. 21-22. He defines positivism as containing the following four elements: 1. The
assimilation of immanent laws of nature, society or history and purportedly apriori facts from which a
correspondingly structured totality can be derived in accordance with these laws; 2. Science as the
insuperably highest form of knowledge and wisdom; 3. Its educational effects which strives to change
people and society and actually does change them in the sense of never-ending progress, a constant
improvement in the condition of people and human nature itself; 4. Positivistic (natural) science as the
exemplary principal science. Science is thus conceived of as an all-encompassing force in life, as a
new religion.
36
Cf. Qoranashvil, Guram: movamzadot saplavi kartuli kliosatvis? [Are we digging Georgian Clio's
grave ?] In: 7 dghe [Seven days], 50 (December 22-28, 1995], p. 5 and from the same author:
mosazrebani istoriograpiis aktualuri problemebis shesakheb [Thoughts about some current problems
of historiography], in: matsne ist. ser. [Herald. History (...) series], 2 (1992), p. 178-183 and his latest
monograph: erovnuli sakitkhi. Zogadteoriuli da konkretul-istoriuli aspektebi [The National Question.
Fundamental theoretical and specific historical aspects]. Tbilisi 1997.

Internationale Schulbuchforschung / International Textbook Research. Vol. 20 (1998), no. 4, pp.409-424

on its agenda. Despite all of the development of Georgian historiography during the past
seventy years, he sees no qualitative progress since the days of Dzhavakhishvili. There is
simply no awareness of the necessity of historical syntheses of the caliber of Theodor
Mommsen's History of Rome, which Dzhavakhishvili despite more unfavorable
circumstances sought to emulate. The Soviet era had discontinued the promising
developments in this field and replaced them with hardly creative surrogates produced
by broad-ranging collective works. Little attention was ever paid to world history as if
this were a matter only for Europeans, but not for Georgians. According to Qoranashvili,
what is lacking is the historian with an inspired personality capable of producing truly
creative historiography.
In the same vein, the derogatory attitude toward the philosophy of history (which he
does not perceive of as metaphysical) and methodology has had a devastating effect.
Precisely at that point in 1988 as perestroika really began to take effect, the director of
the Academy Institute of History and Ethnography (which is named after Ivane
Dzhavakhishvili) closed the Department of Georgian Historiography and Public Thought
and in so doing prevented any renewal of the discipline. The very same director, by then
nearly eighty years old, announced in 1995 that in the face of the significant
transformation a scientifically substantiated and argumentative transition from the
ideas, conceptions and laws of the past was a necessity. The pre-requisites for such a
transition are still lacking today and not only in material terms. One of the main reasons
for [422] having landed in the current quagmire in which Georgian historiography
currently finds itself bogged down is its ruling gerontocracy and the attendant paradox
that society has the expectation that precisely those individuals will effect the renewal of
Georgian historiography who maneuvered the discipline into its current position in the
first place. Qoranashvilis second reason for the current crisis is the ego-centrism of the
Georgians which I would prefer to characterize as a reduction of world perception to
the national in Georgian society since the late Sixties.37 The purported opposition to the
system was directed exclusively at national affairs, it was not used productively to
develop new methods and theories as was the case in Estonia not only in the field of
historiography (e.g. Lotmans semiotic Tartu School). There, an Historic Commission
was created to deal with the question of the applicability of historical perceptions and
knowledge obtained during the Soviet era.
Personnel continuities impede such a critical review of the successes and mistakes of
Soviet Georgian historiography in Georgia and they also impede any substantive,
37

Cf. on this point Gerber, Jrgen: Georgien: Nationale Opposition und kommunistische Herrschaft seit
1956. Baden-Baden 1997, pp. 33-60 and 61-113.

Internationale Schulbuchforschung / International Textbook Research. Vol. 20 (1998), no. 4, pp.409-424

methodological and theoretical renewal of the discipline of historiography. The vast

majority of the upcoming generation of historiographers has left the major research
institutes and universities and shifted to non-government organizations or simply
emigrated. Newer historical syntheses are not forthcoming. At least, new original
sources, memoirs and classic studies are being published which can be used at some
point in the future to produce new syntheses. Even more so than during Soviet times,
history is currently being conceptualized as the history of political events for legitimation
and identity reasons.38 There is a general lack of any intellectual body of thought based
on clear categories and terms capable of differentiated comprehension of an extremely
complex historical reality, qualitatively more complicated than a mere reduction to any
struggle of the Georgian people for unity and independence. New approaches and
deviating evaluations of historical facts both from within and without are publicly
condemned as denigrations of acts of service to the nation (as indicated above in
Dzhavakhishvili's dictum), without the slightest indication of any awareness of internationally accepted scientific standards.39 This splendid isolation has to date not been
overcome.
So there will be many serious problems for the renewal of the subject matter of history
curricula and materials, textbooks, etc. as does Guram Qoranashvili with respect to
Georgian historiography. Only the autonomy of the science of [422] history as research
can develop the new syntheses which will be able to effect positive changes in the subject
matter methods of teaching history as a subject in the school system. This is, however, no
longer a political issue, but rather inextricably contingent upon institutional renewal and
the readiness to undergo personal re-orientation on the part of scientists and teachers
which does not relinquish their personal transcendental orientations but subjects their
historical core to scientific review and cleanses the core from cherished myths.
What then can really be accomplished? The essential pre-condition is an open dialogue
between representatives of two different systems of science where the basic ground rules
must be clarified and agreed upon (such as concepts of science, common interests, etc.).
In order to ensure that this dialogue is fruitful for both sides, it should address itself to

38

Cf. for example the glut of pamphlets and position papers by historians, archeologists and other
scientists from both sides of the border who attempt to substantiate their respective claims to Abkhazia
using historical arguments.
39
Cf. for example the critique leveled by the historian of the Institute of History, Giuli Asatiani, at the
book by the Armenian American social historian, Ronald Grigor Suny: The Making of the Georgian
Nation. Bloomington and Indianapolis 1988, 1994 (2nd ed.) which develops precisely the synthesis of
the process of nation building in the 19th and 20th centuries called for by Qoranashvili. See for a first
critical reexamination of ist own historiography the booklet by Merab Vachnadze and Vakhtang Guruli:
[in Georgian] Questions on Modern and Contemporary History of Georgia. Tbilisi 1998

Internationale Schulbuchforschung / International Textbook Research. Vol. 20 (1998), no. 4, pp.409-424

specific topics or issues of the discipline in general and be conducted over an extended
period of time.
What must be striven for is cooperation and discussion between Western and CIS
scientists. However, in the context of larger projects (research, books), it must be
committed to objective pre-requisites: 1. the scholarly qualification and past performance
of the co-operating partners based on their publications and 2. demonstration of a
willingness to adopt new approaches, because otherwise we will have accomplished
nothing other than to have created a confrontation between partners decidedly
committed to specific positions, and are willing only to pay lip-service to reform (as has
demonstrated in our example of the Standards for History of Georgia).
A monumental project such as the German Historical basic terms40 which began in the
Seventies and is only today nearing completion is something helpful for every national
historiography. In addition to special aids in dealing with specific questions, a Russian
translation, for example, of the Handbook of the Didactics of History41 could be very
useful in this endeavor. In the same vein the Federal Republic of Germany or the
European Union could help by financing the translation of selected syntheses of
European history so direly needed as examples for Georgian historians to deliver cogent
models for a modern History of Georgia as a synthesis of national and world history.

40

Otto Brunner, Werner Conze, Reinhart Koselleck (eds.): [in German] Historical Basic Terms. A
Historic dictionary on the political-societal language in Germany. Vols. 1-7. Stuttgart 1972-1992
41
Klaus Bergmann, Klaus Frhlich, Annette Kuhn, Jrn Rsen, Gerhard Schneider (eds.): [in German]
Handbook for Didactics of History. Hannover 1997 (5th rev. ed.)

Internationale Schulbuchforschung / International Textbook Research. Vol. 20 (1998), no. 4, pp.409-424

Literature:
Georgian language sources are transliterated in accordance with the system employed in the Catalogue
of Georgian Books in the British Museum. Russian language sources are transliterated in accordance
with the system used by the journal Eurasian Studies (former Soviet Studies).
ALASANIA, Giuli: kartvelebi baton ronald siunis tvalsazrisit [Die Georgier nach der Ansicht des
Herrn Ronald Suny]. Tbilisi 1997
GROUP of AUTHORS: tchkua vaisagan. statiebi [Verstand durch Leiden. Artikel]. Caucasian Institute
for Peace, Democracy and Development (CIPDD). Tbilisi 1994
BILDUNGSGESETZ: sakartvelos kanoni ganatlebis shesakheb [Georgiens Gesetz zur Bildung], in
der Ztg.: sakartvelos respublika [Republik Georgien], Nr. 165, 17.07.1997, S.3-5
BILDUNGSREFORM: Staatliches Programm der Bildungsreform und ihre Umsetzung. Tbilisi 1995
JAVAKHISHVILI, Ivane: mamulishviloba da metsniereba [Patriotism and Science]. tbilisi 1904.
Reprint in Ivane Javakhishvili: tkhzulebani tormet tomad. tomi XII [Works in twelve volumes.
Vol. XII. Tbilisi State University Press]. tbilisi 1998, p.64-87
DRAGADZE, Tamara: Rural Families in Soviet Georgia. A Case Study in Ratcha Province. London und
New York 1988
EDER, Klaus: Geschichte als Lernproze? Zur Pathogenese politischer Modernitt in Deutschland.
Frankfurt/M. 1991
FLETCHER, George P.: Loyality. An Essay on the Morality of Relationships. Oxford University Press.
New York / Oxford 1993 (Dt.: Loyalitt. ber die Moral von Beziehungen. Frankfurt/M. 1994)
GERBER, Jrgen: Georgien: Nationale Opposition und kommunistische Herrschaft seit 1956. BadenBaden 1997
GESCHICHTLICHE GRUNDBEGRIFFE. Historisches Lexikon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in
Deutschland. Herausgegeben von Otto Brunner, Werner Conze, Reinhart Koselleck. Bd. 1-7.
Stuttgart 1972-1992
GUSSEJNOV, Gassan: Abchasen und Georgier unter vier Augen?, in: Kommune 1/1994, S.19-22. [Zum
Aspekt der oral history in den Kulturen des Kaukasus]
GVCHIRDEBA EROVNULI IDEOLOGIA [Wir brauchen eine nationale Ideologie], in der Zsf.:
literaturuli sakartvelo [Literary Georgia], no. 31, 1.-8. August 1997, p.3
HANDBUCH DER GESCHICHTSDIDAKTIK. Herausgeber Klaus Bergmann, Klaus Frhlich, Annette
Kuhn, Jrn Rsen, Gerhard Schneider. Hannover 1997 (5. berarbeitete Auflage)
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT: Georgia 1997. By Valeri Melikidze, George Tarkhan-Mouravi.
United Nations Development Programme, Tbilisi 1997
JACOBY, Volker: Geopolitische Zwangslage und nationale Identitt: Die Konturen der innenpolitischen
Konflikte in Armenien. Inauguraldissertation im Fachbereich Gesellschaftswissenschaften der
Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universitt zu Frankfurt am Main 1998
MAMUKELASHVLI,
Naira:
Aufsatz
zur
Konferenz
am
GEI
Sozialismus
und
Geschichtswissenschaft, in: ? (1998), S.?
METODICHESKIE REKOMENDATSII i tematicheskoe planirovanie po istorii Gruzii dlja V-XI klassov
srednej shkoly 1997-1998 god [Methodische Empfehlungen und thematische Unterrichtsplne
fr allgemeinbildende Schulen der Klassen 5 - 11 im Schuljahr 1997/98]. Tbilisi 1997
METODURI
REKOMENDATSIEBI
da
gakvetilebis
tematuri
dagegmva
istoriashi
zogadsaganmagaliteleblo skolebis V-XI klasebisatvis. 1997/98 sasdsavlo dseli [Methodische
Empfehlungen und thematische Unterrichtsplne fr allgemeinbildende Schulen der Klassen 5
- 11 im Schuljahr 1997/98]. tbilisi 1997
MOSIASHVILI, Tinatin: izrdeba upskruli ganatlebis repormatorebsa da pedagogebs shoris. ra
sargeblobas gvadzlevs atestatsia? [Die Kluft zwischen der Bildungsreformern und den
Pdagogen ist gewachsen. Welchen Nutzen bringt uns die Attestierung?], in der Ztg.:
Rezonansi, 30.09.1997, p.15
OEXLE, Otto Gerhard: Die Frage nach dem Verhltnis von Wissenschaft und Leben als
gegenwrtiges und als historisches Problem, in: Natur und Geschichte. Naturwissenschaftliche
und historische Beitrge zu einer kologischen Grundbildung. Zusammengestellt und bearbeitet
von Bernd Herrmann und Angela Budde, Arbeitskreis Umweltgeschichte der Universitt
Gttingen. Hg. vom Nds. Umweltministerium. Hannover 1989, p. 20-27
PARSONS, J.W.R.: The Emergence and Development of the National Question in Georgia, 1801-1921.
Ph. d. thesis university of Glasgow, January 1987
QORANASHVILI, Guram: erovnuli sakitkhi. zogadteoriuli da konkretul-istoriuli aspektebi [Nationale
Frage. Allgemeintheoretische und konkret historische Aspekte]. tbilisi 1997
QORANASHVILI, G.: movamzadot saplavi kartuli kliosatvis ? [Bereiten wir der georgischen Kleio
das Grab?], in: 7 dghe [Seven Days] no.50, 22.-28.12.1995, p. 5

Internationale Schulbuchforschung / International Textbook Research. Vol. 20 (1998), no. 4, pp.409-424

QORANASHVILI, G.: mosazrebani istoriograpiis aktualuri problemebis shesakheb [berlegungen zu
aktuellen Problemen der Historiographie], in: matsne ist. ser. [Herald. History (...) series] 2 /
1992, p. 179-183
RATIANI, Jemal: rdsmena sakutari tavisa da kveqnisa [Der eigene Glaube und der des Landes], in
der Zsf.: literaturuli sakartvelo [Literary Georgia], June 1997
ROTHHOLZ, Walter: Die politikwissenschaftliche Kulturdiskussion: Nachholbedarf in Deutschland, in:
Die Neue Gesellschaft / Frankfurter Hefte 3/1998, p.242-247
SCHOOLING, Educational Policy and Ethnic Identity. Edited by Janusz Tomiak in collaboration with
Knut Eriksen, Andreas Kazamias and Robin Okey. European Science Foundation. New York
University Press, Dartmouth 1991 (Comparative studies on governments and non-dominant
ethnic-groups in Europe, 1850-1940, vol. 1)
STANDART GG: saxelmdsipo saganmanatleblo standarti sakartvelos istoriashi [Der Staatliche
Bildungsstandard im Fach Geschichte Georgiens]. Parnaoz Lomashvili, S. Vardosanidze.
tbilisi 1997
STANDART WG: saxelmdsipo saganmanatleblo standarti msoplio istoriashi [Der Staatliche Bildungs standard im Fach Weltgeschichte]. Tamaz Nikolaishvili, Tsira Chikvaidze. tbilisi 1997
STERBLING, Anton: Eliten, Realittsdeutung, Modernisierungsprobleme. Aufstze 1987-1988.
Beitrge aus dem Fachbereich Pdagogik der Universitt der Bundeswehr Hamburg 3/1989
SUNY, Ronald Grigor: The Making of the Georgian Nation. Bloomington und Indianapolis 1988, 1994
(2nd rev. ed.)
TAKAHASHI, S.: The Reconsideration of History in Historical Perspective: The Georgian Question in
Soviet Historiography, in: T. Ito (Hg.), Facing Up To the Past. Soviet Historiography Under
Perestroika. Sapporo 1989, S. 243-258
VACHNADZE, Merab/GURULI, Vakhtang: sakartvelos akhali da uakhlesi istoriis sakitkhebi [Fragen
der neuen und neuesten Geschichte Georgiens]. tbilisi 1998
XOSHTARIA-BROSE, Edisher: kartuli istoriuli metsnierebis ganvitarebis dghevandeli donisa da
dziritadi amotsenebis shesakheb [Das gegenwrtige Entwicklungsniveau der georgischen
Geschichtswissenschaft], in: matsne ist. ser. [Herald. History (...) series] 1 / 1992, p. 156-162
Textbooks for subjects of History of Georgia and World History:
ANTADZE, Kote / MAMUKELASHVLI, Naira: akhali istoria, VIII klasis sakhelmdzghvanelo, meore
gamotsema [Moderne Geschichte. Lehrbuch fr die 8. Klasse. 2. Auflage]. tbilisi 1997
ANTADZE, Kote / PIRTSKHALAVA, L.: shua saukuneebis istoria, VII klasis sakhelmdzghvanelo, I-II
nadsili [Geschichte des Mittelalters. Lehrbuch fr die 7. Klasse. Teil 1 u. 2]. tbilisi 1996
ASATIANI, Nodar / LORTKIPANIDZE, Mariam: sakartvelos istoria VIII-IX klasis sakhelmdzghvanelo [Geschichte Georgiens. Lehrbuch der Klassen 8 bis 9] . tbilisi 1990
BOLOTASHVILI, G.: uakhlesi istoria, X klasis sakhelmdzghvanelo, XIX s-is 70-iani dslebi - 1945 ds.
I-II nakveti [Neueste Geschichte. Lehrbuch fr die 10. Klasse. Die 70er Jahre des 19.
Jahrhunderts bis 1945. Teil 1 u. 2]. nakveti I: XIX s-is 70-iani dslebi - 1918 [Teil 1: 1870er bis
1918]; nakveti II: 1918-1945 ds. [Teil 2: 1918-1945]. tbilisi 1996
KIGHURADZE, Nino/ MEDZMARIASHVILI, E.: uakhlesi istoria, XI klasis sakhelmdzghvanelo
[Neueste Geschichte. Lehrbuch fr die 11. Klasse]. tbilisi 1997
LOMASHVILI, Parnaoz: sakartvelos istoria 1801-1918, X klasis sakhelmdzghvanelo [Geschichte
Georgiens 1801-1918. Lehrbuch der 10. Klasse]. tbilisi 1992
LOMASHVILI, Parnaoz: sakartvelos istoria 1918-1985, XI klasis sakhelmdzghvanelo [Geschichte
Georgiens 1918-1985. Lehrbuch der 11. Klasse], tbilisi 1994, 3. Auflage 1997
MAMUKELASHVLI, Naira: akhali istoria (1814-1871), IX klasis sakhelmdzghvanelo [Moderne Geschichte 1814-1879. Lehrbuch fr die 9. Klasse]. tbilisi 1992
MAMUKELASHVLI, Naira: akhali istoria, VIII klasis sakhelmdzghvanelo [Moderne Geschichte.
Lehrbuch fr die 8. Klasse. Teil 1 u. 2]. tbilisi 1992
TVALISHVILI, K./ CHIKVAIDZE, Tsira: dzveli msoplios istoria, VI klasis sakhelmdzghvanelo, I-II
nadsili [Geschichte der antiken Welt. Lehrbuch fr die 6. Klasse. Teil 1 u. 2]. tbilisi 1995