Nation-building in the Post-Soviet Borderlands The Politics of National Identities Graham Smith, Vivien Law, Andrew Wilson, Annette Bohr and Edward Allworth CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS Downloaded from Cambridge Books Online by IP 210.212.129.125 on Sun Dec 23 06:12:27 WET 2012. http://ebooks.cambridge.org/ebook.jsf?bid=CBO9780511598876 Cambridge Books Online © Cambridge University Press, 2012 National identity and myths in Transcaucasia 53 The Armenians place a special value on Nagorno-Karabakh because, after the division of Armenian lands between Russia and Persia in the six- teenth century, it was the one region which preserved an element of autonomy under Armenian princes subordinate to Persia (until 1828). Moreover, during the subsequent period of Russian rule, Nagorno- Karabakh became an area of refuge for many Armenians fleeing from Persia and the Ottoman Empire. As a result, the region, the one common denominator 'homeland' for the Armenians, became a symbol for Armenian unity and consolidation. On the other hand, the Azerbaijanis consider Nagorno-Karabakh to be the very place where their modern identity emerged under the Muslim khans.29 Moreover, it was the first centre of the Azerbaijani national revival at the turn of the century. Indeed, it could be argued that the struggle over Nagorno-Karabakh has itself been the most important factor in stimulating the growth of Azerbaijani national consciousness in the twentieth century. The Georgian-Abkhazian confrontation In attempting to understand the role of mythological struggle in the Georgian-Abkhazian case, the following five aspects of the distant past are especially pertinent: the question of who was the first to develop iron production, the origins of local statehood, the dispute over the ethnic composition of the ancient and medieval population of the Colchis Lowland, the question of who founded the Abkhazian Kingdom in the eighth century AD, and finally the manner in which Christianity came to the region. The origin of iron production According to the Georgian version of local history, as developed by the historian Teimuraz Mikeladze,30 iron was first invented by the Chalibs/Chalds, who occupied north-central Anatolia before the Hittites. Later the Chalibs migrated to the area at the south-east corner of the Black Sea as the ancestors of the Chans (Mingrelians), one of the groups that eventually became in turn the modern Georgian people. Mikeladze argued that these very Chalibs were reported in the Book of Genesis, and that it was they who first supplied the Hittites, the Mittani Kingdom and Ancient Egypt with iron. Mikeladze's argument served two purposes: first, he 'confirmed' the existence of early Georgian tribes across a vast territory of north-western Asia as early as the middle of the second millennium BC (in general Mikeladze assumed that the origins of the proto-Kartvelian - Downloaded from Cambridge Books Online by IP 210.212.129.125 on Sun Dec 23 06:04:07 WET 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511598876.005 Cambridge Books Online © Cambridge University Press, 2012 54 Rediscovering national histories that is, Georgian31 - community should be dated to the period before the end of the third millennium BC).32 Secondly, Mikeladze argued that the Chalibs, as the ancestors of the Georgians, made a massive contribution to human culture by, in effect, introducing the Iron Age. The Abkhazian version of events was developed in the 1970s by the professional historian Vladislav Ardzinba,33 who in the early 1990s became the Abkhazian president. He argued that iron was in fact discov- ered by the ancestors of the Abkhazian-Adyghe peoples who lived in the second millennium BC, just where Mikeladze located the Chalibs and some other 'Georgian' tribes.34 The origins of local statehood Mikeladze also argued that the powerful Kingdom of Colchis (the myth- ical home of the Golden Fleece) began its existence in western Georgia as early as the middle of the second millennium BC.35 Moreover, he claimed that Colchis was governed by an independent ruler and comprised many large towns with well-developed crafts. According to Mikeladze, this was the key reason restricting Greek colonisation in the region and preventing the Greeks from making a serious impact on the local economic and sociopolitical environment.36 In particular, Mikeladze attempted to argue that ancient Dioscurias (the modern Abkhazian capital Sukhum, known to Georgians as Sukhumi) was initially a Colchian (i.e. Georgian) city. He therefore insisted that Georgian statehood grew directly out of the Kingdom of Colchis, which survived and developed quite independently on the same territory for almost two millennia (from the twelfth century BC until the sixth century AD). Nobody could subjugate it, neither Assyria, nor Urartu, nor Media, nor Persia. Since the 1970s and 1980s many Georgian scholars have presented this version of the history of Colchis as an incontrovertible truth,37 a view that has even found its advo- cates in modern science fiction.38 Most Abkhazian historians, on the other hand,39 cast doubt on the very existence of the Colchis Kingdom, as would most other scholars. The Georgian version was evidently forged with certain political ideas in mind, as will be demonstrated below. The problem of the population of ancient Colchis During recent decades there has been a trend in Georgian scholarship to argue that the ancient population of Colchis, including what is now Abkhazia, was made up entirely of Georgian tribes. More cautious Georgian scholars used to distinguish between two components amongst Downloaded from Cambridge Books Online by IP 210.212.129.125 on Sun Dec 23 06:04:07 WET 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511598876.005 Cambridge Books Online © Cambridge University Press, 2012 National identity and myths in Transcaucasia 5 5 the local population of the Colchis Lowland about two thousand years ago, namely the Georgians and the Abkhazians-Adyghes.40 Even then, however, it was argued that the Abkhazian-Adyghes were highlanders who had only recently moved to the plain,41 which meant that only Georgians had lived there before. However, by the 1980s the ethnocentric version became the dominant one in school curricula and in the Georgian mass media. It was first explicitly formulated by the Georgian philologist Pavle Ingorokva,42 and then developed by historians such as Mikeladze, who went so far as to argue that only Colchians (i.e. ancient Georgians) lived in Dioscurias and on the Black Sea coast in the distant past.43 Thus, according to Mikeladze, the Colchis Lowland was an ethnically homogeneous and politically integrated territory as early as the middle of the first millen- nium BC.44 Similarly, the contemporary Georgian historian Marika Lordkipanidze has argued emphatically that only the Georgians were the autochthonous inhabitants of Colchis, and that the ancestors of modern Abkhazians arrived much later.45 She doubts that the Apsilae and the Abasgoi of the first to second centuries AD, mentioned by classical writers as living on what is now Abkhazian territory, can be considered the ancestors of the modern Abkhazians, and prefers to treat them as if they were Kartvelians (Georgians). In her view, one must distinguish between the local ancient Abkhazians and 'Apsua' who arrived later and gave roots to the modern Abkhazians. Thus she is inclined to identify indiscriminately with the Georgians both ancient Abkhazians and some other tribes of ancient Colchis (for instance, Sanigae and Missimians), whose ethnic identity is in reality obscure and is the subject of continuing controversy.46 Following Ingorokva, she insists that the ancestors of the modern Abkhazians were backward highlanders who reached Abkhazia only in the seventeenth century, when the region was temporarily devastated and 'cleansed' of its Georgian inhabitants by Turkish raiders. With these argu- ments, she is able to present the Georgians as not only the original autochthonous population in Abkhazia, but also the dominant majority from time immemorial.47 According to Abkhazian authors, on the other hand, the ancestors of the Abkhazian-Adyghe peoples were the original inhabitants of the whole of north-east Asia Minor and south-west Transcaucasia. It was the Kartvelians who moved to the area much later, pushing the Abkhazian-Adyghe groups to western Transcaucasia.48 The present Abkhazian president Vladislav Ardzinba frequently repeats these claims in his political rhetoric.49 The Abkhazian version of events (arguably with more historical support) links the Apsilae and the Abasgoi directly to the Downloaded from Cambridge Books Online by IP 210.212.129.125 on Sun Dec 23 06:04:07 WET 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511598876.005 Cambridge Books Online © Cambridge University Press, 2012 5 6 Rediscovering national histories ancient Abkhazian-Adyghe groups: the Apsilae are associated with the Abkhazian self-name 'Apsua', and the Abasgoi with the Abazinian self- name 'Abaza'. The Sanigae and the Missimians are treated as related populations rather than as Kartvelians.50 These tribes supposedly ruled the Black Sea littoral up to the modern city of Sukhumi and even further to the south, where they came into contact with the Mingrelians. In other words, it is argued that the Abkhazians already occupied all their modern territory by the first mil- lennium AD. They were therefore the true local inhabitants rather than newcomers, with roots going back at least one and a half to two thousand years and possibly even longer.31 Moreover, Abkhazian historians have used tsarist and Soviet ethnodemographic data to claim that it is only the tremendous changes in the ethnic composition of the area during the last century and a half that have turned the Abkhazians from a natural major- ity of the population into (before the war of the early 1990s restored their majority status) an artificial minority. Extensive Mingrelian resettlements into Abkhazia took place only in the 1930s-l 950s, i.e.