Anton POPOV Birmingham University From PINDOS to PONTOS: the Ethnicity and Diversity of Greek Communities in Southern Russia*
INTRODUCTION. This paper focuses on the Greeks of Southern Russia, who comprise one of the biggest groups of the Greek population in the post-Soviet space. Their history and culture are relatively understudied in the circles of Modern Greek Studies. The Greek population of two regions in the Northern Caucasian area of Russia - Krasnodarskiy kray (Krasnodar region) and the Republic of Adyghea − are examined in this study. According to the last Soviet census in 1989, the Greeks accounted for 28337 or approximately 0,6% of all the population of Krasnodarskiy kray, including Adyghea (Narody Rossii, 1994: 433−440).1 At the same time, the Greeks are widely dispersed in the region. They live in villages and towns, where the dominant population is Russian.
INCE 1989, the Greeks’ ethnonationalist it supposes that all Pontians share one fatherland, movement has been increasing in the one history (which is associated with the medieval former Soviet Union. It was one of Empire of Trebizond), one culture with compulsory Sthe results of the liberalization of the elements and things (the Pontic folklore, the Pontic perestroika policy. In Southern Russia, the idea of (or Laz) dress, the circular dances and the Pontic violin−kemendja). Thus, the Pontic Greeks as an the ‘national revival’ began to spread among the ethnic group are understood by ethnonationalists in intelligentsia who had Greek roots. In Krasnodar the essentialist sense as different from non-Greeks region, the first Greek ethnic organisations had been as well as from non-Pontic Greeks. formed in Gelendjik, Krymsk, Anapa, Novorossiysk This Pontic ethnicity has the same feature and Krasnodar soon after The All-Union Society as any other, according to the notion of Stuart Hall, of the Soviet Greeks (VOSG) was organized in ethnicity has a tendency to ignore the real diver- Moscow (1989). They became important factors of sity of individual experiences and identities (Hall, Greek ethnicity in the region. These organisations 1996a). The main question of my paper is how the made contacts with Pontic communities in Greece, contemporary Pontic Greeks’ ethnicity as an ideo- through which the Russian Greeks got involved in logically determined collective identity correlates the Pontic Greeks’ movement. Since the beginning with the diversity of individual experiences. of the 1990s, the Russian Greeks have been taking This paper is based on life stories, which part in international meetings of Pontic Greek were collected during ethnographic research in organisations. So in 1994, representatives of The 1993−2001. The ambiguity of the interaction be- Association of Greeks’ Communities of Russia tween individual identities and Pontic Greek ethnic- (OGOR) participated in forums of the Pontians in ity is demonstrated through the narration of ethnic Athens and Boston (Dmitriev, 2000). identity by representatives of three local Greek com- These contacts produced the ‘Pontic Greeks’ munities. But it needs to be prefaced by a brief ex- ethnicity for the Greek population of the Southern planation of the approaches to ethnicity which I use Russian regions. The Greeks’ ethnonationalist in my analyses, and their links with the informants’ organisations represent the Greek population of narration of identity. Southern Russia as part of the Pontic Greeks, who can be characterised as an imagined community (in Ethnicity and Narratives of Identity terms of Anderson (1983)). The core of Pontian-ness as a mental construction is assisted by a ‘Pontic Any group is defined through differences myth’ about the homeland − the Pontos (Fann, 1991: from others. The constitution of society comes 341). The concept of Pontos is a meaningful one, within the articulation of differences, which receive
* This paper consists of data, part of which were collected through the support of George Soros Foundation and Open Society Institute (RSS program grant No. 1179/2000). ÏÎÏΠ/ ÎÒ «ÏÈÍÄÎÑÀ» Ê «ÏÎÍÒÓ»: ÝÒÍÈ×ÍÎÑÒÜ ÃÐÅÊΠ ÞÆÍÎÉ ÐÎÑÑÈÈ Popov / From Pindos to Pontos: the Ethnicity of Greeks in Southern Russia 85 generalised, symbolic meanings and are produced ratives or discourses, but it receives stability and through and only within different symbolic systems. constancy in narratives. Society as a social and cultural phenomenon ex- This stability of ethnic identity in narratives ists and is reproduced by means of symbolic com- becomes the issue of political representation in munications (Lotman, 1994). In other words, social claims of militants about ethnicity as a collective groups are constituted within discursive practises. identity for a group. Politicians use ethnicity as a So any society is, first of all, a symbolic construction, mobilising factor of modern political movements. In that determines its mental, imagined character. And fact, this political utilisation of ethnic identity is no in this logic Anderson’s definition of a nation as an more than the realisation of power upon represen- imagined political community is applied to an ethnic tations of identities. group. Thus, I understand ethnicity as a discursive Bourdieu offers an understanding of ethnic construction of collective identity. identity as a particular form of struggle over clas- In the field of Cultural Studies, Stuart Hall of- sification. The representations of reality become fers an understanding of ethnicity as a new politics part of reality in the struggle over the definition of of representations, and defines it as a historical, ethnic identity. This struggle is also the struggle to cultural and political construction. He writes that ‘the power of imposing a vision of the social world. It sup- term ethnicity acknowledges the place of history, poses to take ‘the legitimate definition of divisions language and culture in the construction of subjectiv- of social world and, thereby, to make and unmake ity and identity, as well as the fact that all discourse group’. The definition or classification consists of is placed, positioned, situated, and all knowledge is the idea of division, when part of the social world is contextual’ (Hall, 1996a: 446). So history, language separated from other space through the name. At and culture define ethnicity as discourse. Ethnic- the same time, the name brings the meaning about ity is produced by the context in which identity and the unity of the group. The ambivalent idea of the subjectivity are constituted. unity of the group and its separation from others is This approach to ethnicity comes from the central to ethnic identity. So the meaning of ethnic reconceptualization of identity as a process of identity, which accompanies the definition of ethnic- identification. Identity is not absolutely stable, but ity, creates the reality of the unity and identity of the changes in historical context. The dynamic moment group (Bourdieu, 1991: 224). of identification process is the recognition of the Self Hall notes that the discursive construction of through relationship with the Other. As Hall notes, ethnicity as well as national identity lays stress on people have most of their identities not because of the imagined homogeneity of an ethnic group (the something deep inside them, but because of how same as nation or race), and avoids discussions others have recognized them (Hall, 1996b: 344). about cultural differences and the diversity of the Identity is defined as a dialogic relationship to the individual experiences of people, who share one Other, who is outside as well as inside the Self, be- ethnicity (Hall, 1996a: 443). He agrees with Laclau cause individual can identify oneself only through an that ‘the construction of a social identity is an act of understanding of who the Other is. This means that power’, and argues that the unities or homogeneities one knows the differences him/herself from other. proclaimed by identities ‘are constructed within the But this process is ambivalent: we identify ourselves play of power and exclusion, and are a result … of as different from others because others recognize the naturalized, over determined process of closure’ our differences. (Hall, 2000: 5). If identity is a dynamic process, the only place where identity receives its stability is the represen- The ‘Pontic Greeks’ of Vitiazevo tation of self-identity or narrative of self. Identity is ‘the story we tell about the self in order to know who In 1993, in the Black Sea costal town of Viti- we are’ (Hall, 1996b: 346). This tendency to stabil- atzevo (Krasnodar region), I interviewed an old man ity in the narrative of identity is close to Bourdieu’s Ivan K.. I was interested by the Greek ethnic iden- notions about the illusion of constancy of one’s tity, and for this reason I asked the informant about identity in biography (Bourdieu, 2000). And it also the different names which were used for definition correlates with Ricoeur’s understanding of narrative identity as the third active element of the identifica- of the local Greek community. My informant told tion process, which matches selfhood and same- me that the local Russians used for Greeks villag- ness as synchronic and diachronic axes of identity ers the scornful nickname Pindos before World War respectively. In Paul Ricoeur‘s semiotics, identity is II. Ivan K. could not explain clearly the origin of this a plot of a story (Wodak, de Cillia, Reisigl, Liebhart, word. But he had the presupposition that it could 1999: 11−15). be related to the name of the mountain in Greece, Thus, dialectically, identity, a dynamic pro- he had heard about the existence of it. Continuing cess of identification, is represented within nar- the reasoning, he matched this name with the sup- ÏÎÍÒÈÉÑÊO-ÊÀÂÊÀÇÑÊÈÅ ÈÑÑËÅÄÎÂÀÍÈЯ 86 Studia Pontocaucasica posed place of origin of his ancestors. He found dulidhies (from Ordu), the Baphrali/Paphrinothies the confirmation in the legendary Argonauts, who (from Baphra), the Apeshlidhies (the name Apesh sailed from the Balkans to the Caucasian coast of could used for some village near Trebizond), the the Black Sea. Samaruksidties (the village area in the sandjak of According to archival data, the village of Vi- Trebizond). The descendents of the Greeks-refu- tiazevo was inhabited by the Greeks who migrated gees (1917−19) from the former Kars region of Tsar from Anatolian Turkey (the Ottoman Empire) in 1862 Transcaucasia are known among other Greeks as (in the State Archive of Krandarskiy Kray (GAKK, the Garslidhies. found 668, description 1, file 3151.15)).2 So the an- However, the people had already used the cestors of my informant never lived in Greece. His concepts of Pontians, Pontic Greeks and pontiaka own odyssey included the difficulties of life in a Rus- (the Greek word for the Pontic dialect). They heard sian village during collectivisation; survival in the line them in Greece during visits to the country as tour- of fire of WWII; travelling into exile in Northern Ka- ists or for meeting with relatives who had emigrated. zakhstan (Central Asia) after his family at the time of These visits became easier during perestroika and Stalin’s repression; and returning to his native place after the collapse of the Soviet Union. But before during Khruschev’s thaw. Thus, we are left with the the beginning of the 1990s, the majority of my in- question “What does it mean to be ‘Pindos’?” with- formants had never heard of the name of Pontians. out any answer yet. But below I will try to describe They told me: “Yes, we are the Pontic Greeks, they the almost one hundred and fifty years of history of
Conclusion is often determined by the languages which are used. These can be Russian, Greek, Turkish, the The cases of Greek identity, given above, terminology of Soviet anthropology, records in So- demonstrate the complicated situation which influ- viet passports, and even slang. Others also indicate ences the narratives of ethnicity by representatives the particular meaning of Pontic ethnicity, because of different Greek communities in Southern Russia. identity is a dynamic process of demarcation of These conditions might be described as cultural ‘het- boundaries between Self and Other. As Fredric ereglossia’. Using this word after Mikhail Bakhtin, Barth argues, ethnic groups are constituted only James Clifford writes: “With expended communi- through boundaries (Barth, 1996: 79).6 But others cation and intercultural influence, people interpret are different in each concrete case. They can be others, and themselves, in bewildering diversity of Russians or Turks as well as Greek Greeks or Turk- idioms…”. Heteroglossia assumes that different lan- ish-speaking Greeks. The Pontic myth constructs guages as well as cultures co-exist in the world and the Pontic Greeks’ ethnicity on the boundary as they do not exclude each other but rather intersect well. It separates the Pontians from others and the with each other (Clifford, 1996: 22−23). In the case rest of the Greeks. of the Greeks in Southern Russia, there is a compli- Thus, the Pontic Greek ethnicity is accepted cated intersection of different languages, cultures, by different Greek communities in Southern Russia, historical backgrounds, economical strategies and because they find in it an explanation of their margin- individual experiences. ality and otherness. At the same time, it becomes an The ideologically constructed conception of ongoing process of meaning-making, which is very Pontic Greek ethnic identity receives new mean- flexible to the changing of external circumstances, ings in individual narratives, which depend on the instead of a unified and coherent identity. It is a concrete historical and cultural context. Moreover, changeable frontier space, instead of a strict and the interpretation of Pontic ethnicity by individuals unbroken border.
References Anderson, Benedict (1983), Imagined Communi- Hall, Stuart (1996a), ‘New Ethnicities’, in D. Morley ties: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, & Kuan-Hsing Chen, eds., Stuart Hall: Critical Dialogues London: Verso. in Cultural Studies, New York, London: Routledge. Barth, Fredric (1969), ‘Introduction’, in F. Barth, Hall, Stuart (1996b), ‘Ethnicity: Identity and Differ- eds., Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. The Social Organi- ence’, in G. Eley & R.G. Suny, eds., Becoming National. A zation of Culture Difference, Bergen, Oslo, London. Reader, Oxford; New York: Oxford university Press. Barth, Fredric (1996), ‘Ethnic Groups and Bound- Hall, Stuart (2000), ‘Introduction: Who needs aries’, in J. Hutchinson & A. Smith, eds., Ethnicity, Oxford; ‘Identity’?’, in S.Hall & P.du Gay, eds., Questions of Cul- New York: Oxford University Press. tural Identity, London: Sage Publications. Bourdieu, Pierre (1991), Language and Symbolic Karpozilos, Apostolos (1991), ‘Pontic Culture Power, Cambridge: Polity Press. in the USSR between the Wars’, Journal of Refugee Bourdieu, Pierre (2000), ‘The biographical illu- Studies, 4 (4), Special issue. The Odyssey of the Pontic sion’, in P.du Gay, J.Evans & P.Redman, eds., Identity: Greeks: 364-371. A Reader, London: Sage Publications; New Delhi: Thou- Kolesov, Vladimir (2000), Cherkesskie (Gorskie) sand Oaks. Greki, Center for Racial, Ethnic & Linguistic Minorities Clifford, James (1996), The Predicament of Cul- Rights. Bulletin, 2 (Krasnodar): 87−101, http://history. ture. Twentieth-Century Ethnography, Literature, and Art, kubsu.ru/centr/pdf/kn6_87-101.pdf eighth printing, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, Kuznetsov, Igor (1997), ‘PONTICA CAUCASICA England: Harvard University Press. ETHNICA I’, in Igor Kuznetsov and Anton Popov, eds., Dmitriev, Konstantin (2000), ‘Iz Istorii Obschest- Studia Pontocaucasica 2. Pontiyskie Greki, Krasnodar. vennogo Dvizhenia Grekov Rossii’, Center for Racial, Eth- Lotman, Yuri (1994), Besedy o russkoi kulture: byt nic & Linguisti Minorities Rights. Bulletin, 2 (Krasnodar): i traditsii russkogo dvorianstva (18 − nachala 19 veka), 55−64, http://history.kubsu.ru/centr/pdf/kn6_55-64.pdf Sankt-Peterburg: Iskustvo. Fann, Patricia (1991), ‘The Pontic Myth of Home- Meeker, Michael E. (1971), ‘The Black Sea Turks: land: Cultural Expressions of Nationalism and Ethnicism Some Aspects of Their Ethnic and Cultural Background’, in Pontos and Greece, 1870−1990’,Journal of Refugee International Journal of Middle East Studies, 2 (1971). Studies, 4 (4), Special issue. The Odyssey of the Pontic Narody Rossii (1994), Moskva: Sovetskaia Greeks: 340-356. Entsiklopedia. ÏÎÍÒÈÉÑÊO-ÊÀÂÊÀÇÑÊÈÅ ÈÑÑËÅÄÎÂÀÍÈЯ 90 Studia Pontocaucasica
Volkova, Natalia (2000), ‘Greki Kavkaza’, Center Construction of National Identity, (Critical Discourse for Racial, Ethnic & Linguistic Minorities Rights. Bulletin, Analysis Series), Edinburgh: Edinburgh University 2 (Krasnodar): 15−43, http://history.kubsu.ru/centr/pdf/ Press. kn6_15-43.pdf Yeloeva, Fatima (1995), ‘Turkoyazychnye pra- Voutira, Effie (1991), ‘Pontic Greeks Today: Migrants voslavnye greki Vostochnoy Gruzii (Tsalkinskiy I Tetrit- or Refugees?’, Journal of Refugee Studies, 4 (4), Special is- sue. The Odyssey of the Pontic Greeks: 400-420. skaroyskiy rayony)’, in Yazykovoy centr philologicheskogo Wodak, Ruth; de Cillia, Rudolf; Reisigl, fakulteta Sankt-Peterburgskogo gosudarstvennogo uni- Martin and Liebhart, Karin (1999), The Discursive versiteta. Nauchnye doklady, Sankt- Peterburg.
Notes 1 Since 1989 the Greek population of the region has been component of Bzhedughable inhabitants are the Kurds, changing. The significant part of it emigrated, generally, who are the recent migrants from Armenia. to Greece. At the same time, recent migrants from Tran- 5 The Cossacks are a group of the Russian population in scaucasia (Armenia and Georgia, including Abkhasia) the Nothern Caucasus and the modern ethno-national- and Kazakhstan supplemented it, this process is going ists movement in some post-Soviet countries (Russia, especially intensively after the collapse of the Soviet Un- Ukraine, and Kazakhstan), which is especially active in ion. The next demographic census will be taken in 2002, Southern Russia. 6 it will be the first census in post-Soviet Russia. F. Barth argues that ethnic groups are units of ascription 2 This and following references to archival documents were and identification of social actors themselves. They have kindly given by my colleague Vladimir Kolesov. the characteristic of the organising interaction between people. Barth rejects the primordial givens as essential 3 Some leaders and active participants in the Pontic Greek features, which form ethnic identity. Instead, he focuses movement have written and published books, which usu- on the boundaries of ethnic groups, which influence the ally are a description of history of the particular group or ethnic identities of actors rather than the cultural contents Greeks’ village, or the life history of famous compatri- of particular social organisations. But ethnic boundaries − ots. Good examples are books Tsalkians Children of are maintained during and through transactions between Georgia (Tsalkintsy − deti Gruzii) (1990) and The Greeks different groups. On the other hand, the role of oth- of Georgia (Greki Gruzii) (1990), which are widespread ers/strangers becomes significant for the formation of among Greek-migrants from Georgia. boundaries and self-consciousness of an ethnic group. 4 There are several families of the Agydh in Bzhedughable. From Barth’s point of view, ethnicity is a boundary proc- The name of the village is an Adyghian one, the official ess, which looks like a matrix of strategies open to the status of this village is aul that means natives’ village participants in the inter-ethnic game (Barth, 1969; see settlements in Northern Caucasus. The last significant also Voutira, 1991: 407−409).
À. Ï. Ïîïîâ Îò «Ïèíäîñà» ê «Ïîíòó»: Ýòíè÷íîñòü è ðàçëè÷èÿ ãðå÷åñêèõ ãðóïï â þæíîé Ðîññèè
Термин «понтийские греки» часто используется как этническая характеристика греческого на- селения Кавказа. Вместе с тем понтийское самосознание распространяется среди греков региона относительно недавно. Значительное влияние на формирование понтийской идентичности оказывали миграция кавказских греков в Грецию, которая стала возможна с конца 1980-х годов, и деятельность греческих национально-культурных обществ, появившихся в регионе в начале 1990-х. В фокусе дан- ной статьи находится интерпретация «понтийскости» информантами, представителями трех групп греческого населения Северо-западного Кавказа: 1) греками поселка Витязево, чьи предки пересе- лились из Трапезундского вилайета Османской империи в XIX веке; 2) урумами хутора Гавердовский в окрестностях Майкопа, значительная часть которых является недавними мигрантами из Восточной Грузии, и 3) потомками так называемых «черкесских греков» аула Бжедугхабль (Адыгея). Анализируя индивидуальные нарративы, автор статьи приходит к выводу, что на Кавказе понтийская идентичность приобретает смысл культурной и исторической дистанции от греческой нации как «воображаемого сообщества» (используя термин Б. Андерсона). В то же время, рассказывая о себе, как о понтийцах, информанты конструируют собственную этническую биографию, в которой они ищут объяснение культурной неоднородности греческого населения региона. (А. П. Попов)