MOUNTAINS OF DISCONTENT: GEORGIAN ALPINISM AND THE LIMITS OF SOVIET EQUALITY, 1923-1955 BY BENJAMIN BAMBERGER DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2019 Urbana, Illinois Doctoral Committee: Professor Diane Koenker, Chair Professor Mark Steinberg Associate Professor John Randolph Professor Antoinette Burton ABSTRACT This dissertation examines the development of an independent mountaineering community in Georgia and its relationship with the Soviet center from the early 1920s until the immediate post-Stalin period. In 1923, a group of Georgian students led by the mathematician Giorgi Nikoladze and the local guide Iagor Kazalikashvili summited the Kazbegi peak, an imposing 5000-meter high mountain located along the Georgian military highway. This ascent served as the foundation for the creation of a nationally oriented climbing community that focused on summiting Georgian peaks through cooperation with local peoples in mountainous regions. Over the next decade, Georgian alpinists formed their own Geographic Society and made numerous summits on Georgian mountains, making the Georgian alpinist community the only non-Russian organization of alpinists in the Soviet Union at this time. As Soviet tourism centralized and became more ideologically rigid in the early 1930s, Georgian climbers came under pressure from Moscow to conform to the new norms of proletarian touring. The centralization of Soviet mountaineering meant that over the next three decades, Georgian alpinists were repeatedly denied autonomy over where and when to climb and were criticized for their insistence on developing alpinism among the mountainous populations of Georgia instead of workers in industrial centers. Officials and tourists from the Soviet center who came to the Caucasus meanwhile regularly highlighted the “backwardness” of mountainous peoples as a way to emphasize the superiority of the Soviet project. As I show, these conflicting orientations meant that mountainous regions became contested spaces where questions about the centralization of control and the proper relationship to local people played out on mountain trails and alpine expeditions. ii Histories of Soviet nationalities policies have often emphasized the constructive nature of Soviet rule; that is, the many ways that the Soviet federalism succeeded in promoting national identities and national spaces. I argue instead that despite a stated commitment to federalism and the equality of all Soviet citizens, the center consistently infantilized mountainous peoples and denied the projects of non-Russians in developing mountainous spaces. An examination of tourist periodicals, newspapers, and the archives of tourist institutions, both in Moscow and in Tbilisi, illustrates how these “great-power” attitudes represented a deep continuity with nineteenth century visions of the Caucasus and Caucasians. Secondly, by focusing on the works of Georgian alpinists and regional guides, I attempt to show how the meaning of Georgia itself, as both a physical space and an intellectual project, was often formed far from the center. Although the Georgian SSR was envisioned in Moscow, the content of that space was ultimately produced not just in Tbilisi but also in the mountainous regions of the republic. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation would not have been possible without the collaboration and support of so many mentors, colleagues, and friends. It has been my absolute privilege to work with Diane Koenker, who has helped guide my research and writing from the first day I arrived in Illinois. I had no way of knowing when I began the program how fortunate I was to have Diane as my advisor, but it is clear to me now how central her guidance, encouragement, and unerring kindness have been to my development as a scholar. Mark Steinberg has been enormously generous with his time and I will always be grateful for his willingness to take on multiple independent studies even when his schedule was at its busiest. From the beginning, Mark always pushed me to expand the scope of my research and make broader and more theoretically rich arguments and this dissertation is better because of his mentorship. Antoinette Burton helped me to see some of the important historiographical intersections between British and Russian history, especially when thinking more critically about empire. But she has also been unfailingly supportive of a project that only tangentially touched on her own research, and Antoinette’s feedback, suggestions, and teaching were fundamental to the dissertation’s development. John Randolph encouraged me to clarify my arguments on the historiography of Soviet nation building and to think more deeply about the value of spatial histories. I have greatly valued his insights and support, whether on the dissertation committee or during a first year course when he was the first to teach me how to construct a historiographical essay. It is difficult to find the words to express my thanks to this wonderful group of scholars, and I hope it is obvious the ways that their own research and teaching are reflected in the dissertation. iv The University of Illinois has been such a supportive home for the past seven years that I would be remiss if I did not thank several other people. Maria Todorova taught me everything I know about nationalism and always helped to put the stresses of the academic program into their proper perspective. Valeria Sobol’s class on the Caucasus in the Russian imagination helped me think more deeply about the importance of Russian literary imaginations, and formed much of the material for chapter two. The Russian, East European, and Eurasian Center (REEEC) on campus has been incredibly supportive of my research, and Alisha Kirchoff and Maureen Marshall were always unbelievably helpful in working through all the details of FLAS appointments. I am likewise grateful for the financial support of the American Research Institute of the South Caucasus and the help of its director, Talin Lindsay. The Graduate College at the University of Illinois likewise provided a dissertation completion grant that provided the time and resources for me to finish the dissertation. At the University of Illinois, I was fortunate to meet and become friends with so many excellent graduate students, many of whom are now well into their academic careers. I know that without the support of Alex Kais, I would have never made it through prelims. Patryk Reid and Deirdre Ruscitti Harshman have been wonderful colleagues and made me feel welcome in Russian studies from the very beginning. Utathya Chattopadhyaya always encouraged me to have confidence in my intellectual abilities and has been a great friend. Utathya saw the value of my research before I even could, and his encouragement has meant a lot to me. Zachary Riebeling is an excellent scholar and friend, and I have incorporated so many of his ideas into my thinking about European history. John Marquez is a brilliant researcher and has always offered help at moments of difficulty. I am grateful for the support of these friends and so many more that there is simply not space to list. v Outside of the history department I met a number of people who were also central to the completion of this dissertation. Will McGehee helped make Urbana feel like home with his delicious meals and great conversation. Dan Meyer and Miyuki Ansari Meyer have been the best of friends. Alissa Harvey was a fellow traveler for so much of my academic program and I will always be grateful for her support. Shawn Basey made trips to Tbilisi infinitely more fun and was an enthusiastic companion on countless trips. Lisa Morrison offered so much encouragement and help and is a great friend. Santiago Santacruz, Ana Chara, Nathan McCallum, Julia Cisneros, Haley Cabaniss, Jorge San Juan, Monica Lugo-Velez, and Alex Bragg have been absolutely amazing climbing partners and even better friends. Our friendship helped me to see, on a very personal level, how climbing creates affective bonds that transcend social difference, a key argument of the dissertation. My greatest thanks goes to my parents, Jeffrey and Debra Bamberger, who have supported me in so many ways throughout this program. I could not have completed the dissertation without them. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 CHAPTER 1: AT THE EDGE OF THE NATION: THE FORMATION OF THE GEORGIAN CLIMBING COMMUNITY ...............................................................29 CHAPTER 2: PROLETARIAN TOURIST OR GREAT-POWER CHAUVINIST?: SOVIET TOURING FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE CAUCASUS .............................................................................................................86 CHAPTER 3: GEORGIAN ALPINISM AT THE CROSSROADS OF PROLETARIAN TOURISM ...........................................................................................132 CHAPTER 4: CONTESTED AUTHORITY: THE GEORGIAN ALPINE CLUB AND THE REORGANIZATION OF SOVIET ALPINISM FROM REPRESSION TO WAR .................................................................................................180 CHAPTER 5: A QUESTION OF RESPECT: GEORGIAN MOUNTAINEERING AFTER THE WAR ....................................................................237 CONCLUSION: GEORGIAN ALPINISM AT THE CENTER OF THE SOVIET PROJECT .........................................................................................................285