Sometimes western researchers when they want to represent history of conversion of Georgia, depic... more Sometimes western researchers when they want to represent history of conversion of Georgia, depict the picture according to the Armenian model. Meanwhile the experiences of these neighboring peoples are not identical. Armenians’ break with paganism was dramatic one full of blood of martyrs. Saint Hripsime, one of the main pillars of Armenian Christianity, was brutally killed by the men of then pagan King Trdat with dozens of other accompanying her virgins(...)
It is an abstract of the conference presentation. It cosniders the problem of syncronization od d... more It is an abstract of the conference presentation. It cosniders the problem of syncronization od data of Georgian and other sources for the period of Late Antiquity. In particular , the portrait of the fourth Christian King of Georgia (Kartli) Varaz-Bakur) is represented with use of all avalable data.
The paper is about the sources of "History of Armenia" by Movses Khorenatsi. The resear... more The paper is about the sources of "History of Armenia" by Movses Khorenatsi. The research allow the author to conclude that "The conversion of Kartli 'serves for ARmenian historian as source when he describes the conversion of Georgia.
The paper is about synchronization of data providede by Georgian and non-Georgian sources about t... more The paper is about synchronization of data providede by Georgian and non-Georgian sources about the history of Georgian kingdom of Kartli in the late antique period . In particular it is focused on king Baraz -Bakur - the father of the well known Christian ascetic Peter the IBerian
Three kings by name Archil are mentioned in Georgian royal lists. The first one – he is a focus o... more Three kings by name Archil are mentioned in Georgian royal lists. The first one – he is a focus of my investigation - occupied the throne of Kartli Kingdom in ca. 420s-430s. The life of many Georgian kings, let say, Vakhtang Gorgasali, David the Builder, Queen Tamar etc are familiar to the widest strata of Georgian society (which is characterized with great interest in national past) in detail. As for Archil, he remains actually unnoticeable; text-books in Georgian history for primary schools are completely ignoring his reign, so do text-books for high schools. Only in exceptional cases they represent Archil's epoch at the best in two sentences. Georgian historians, those not specialized concretely in the antique period, also have very uncertain knowledge about Archil, while the opinions of those directly involved in research of Georgian history in period of Late Antiquity, are dramatically divided. I myself have published several investigations in which among the other themes a...
The aim of our paper is to establish some important facts of Georgian Chosroids' history and ... more The aim of our paper is to establish some important facts of Georgian Chosroids' history and through the light of these facts identify aristocratic family to which Georgian King Vakhtang Gorgasali belonged. In the scholarly literature the cessation of this royal dynasty is dated differently: according to some authors this happened already in the sixth century, according to others Chosroids were in power until ninth century. Based on reinterpretation of all available data I have come to following conclusions: the family of Georgian Chosroids extinguished for inability to be reproductive, some members of this family had no male heir, while others were childless for various reasons. The last Georgian Chosroid King was Archil (c.a. 410s-430s) who also was childless. In "KartlisTskhovreba" Archil's successor the King Mirdat – the father of well-known Georgian King Vakhtang Gorgasali, is represented as Archil's son; but actually he was Archil's adopted heir. Thus...
The paper is about Georgian identity. It represents the whole history of it from ancient times un... more The paper is about Georgian identity. It represents the whole history of it from ancient times until very recently.
Saint Nino is an Illumenatrix of Georgians. Georgians adopted Christianity as a state religion in... more Saint Nino is an Illumenatrix of Georgians. Georgians adopted Christianity as a state religion in 330s .. . The paper is devoted to the original redaction of her Vita. It was created shortly after the conversion of Georgians had taken place, ca. in the middle of 4th century.
The aim of the article is to find out the date of creation of the most ancient graphic variety of... more The aim of the article is to find out the date of creation of the most ancient graphic variety of the Georgian alphabet "Asomtavruli". This problem was touched upon by many experts, but no one was able to resolve it reasonably. According to the author of this article, the reason for this is the wrong approach to the available narrative sources; some researchers generally ignore them and try to represent the history of the origin of the Georgian alphabet only on the basis of an analysis of the alphabet itself as a system, some ignore the information of the 11th century Georgian historian Leonti Mroveli, according to which the Georgian alphabet was created by King Pharnavaz (3rd century BC), and the other part ignores the information of Koriun ( the Armenian hagiographer of the first half of the 5th century), that the Georgian alphabet was created by the Armenian cleric Mashtots. But ignoring these narrative sources can in no way be justified from a scientific point of view,...
Sometimes western researchers when they want to represent history of conversion of Georgia, depic... more Sometimes western researchers when they want to represent history of conversion of Georgia, depict the picture according to the Armenian model. Meanwhile the experiences of these neighboring peoples are not identical. Armenians’ break with paganism was dramatic one full of blood of martyrs. Saint Hripsime, one of the main pillars of Armenian Christianity, was brutally killed by the men of then pagan King Trdat with dozens of other accompanying her virgins(...)
It is an abstract of the conference presentation. It cosniders the problem of syncronization od d... more It is an abstract of the conference presentation. It cosniders the problem of syncronization od data of Georgian and other sources for the period of Late Antiquity. In particular , the portrait of the fourth Christian King of Georgia (Kartli) Varaz-Bakur) is represented with use of all avalable data.
The paper is about the sources of "History of Armenia" by Movses Khorenatsi. The resear... more The paper is about the sources of "History of Armenia" by Movses Khorenatsi. The research allow the author to conclude that "The conversion of Kartli 'serves for ARmenian historian as source when he describes the conversion of Georgia.
The paper is about synchronization of data providede by Georgian and non-Georgian sources about t... more The paper is about synchronization of data providede by Georgian and non-Georgian sources about the history of Georgian kingdom of Kartli in the late antique period . In particular it is focused on king Baraz -Bakur - the father of the well known Christian ascetic Peter the IBerian
Three kings by name Archil are mentioned in Georgian royal lists. The first one – he is a focus o... more Three kings by name Archil are mentioned in Georgian royal lists. The first one – he is a focus of my investigation - occupied the throne of Kartli Kingdom in ca. 420s-430s. The life of many Georgian kings, let say, Vakhtang Gorgasali, David the Builder, Queen Tamar etc are familiar to the widest strata of Georgian society (which is characterized with great interest in national past) in detail. As for Archil, he remains actually unnoticeable; text-books in Georgian history for primary schools are completely ignoring his reign, so do text-books for high schools. Only in exceptional cases they represent Archil's epoch at the best in two sentences. Georgian historians, those not specialized concretely in the antique period, also have very uncertain knowledge about Archil, while the opinions of those directly involved in research of Georgian history in period of Late Antiquity, are dramatically divided. I myself have published several investigations in which among the other themes a...
The aim of our paper is to establish some important facts of Georgian Chosroids' history and ... more The aim of our paper is to establish some important facts of Georgian Chosroids' history and through the light of these facts identify aristocratic family to which Georgian King Vakhtang Gorgasali belonged. In the scholarly literature the cessation of this royal dynasty is dated differently: according to some authors this happened already in the sixth century, according to others Chosroids were in power until ninth century. Based on reinterpretation of all available data I have come to following conclusions: the family of Georgian Chosroids extinguished for inability to be reproductive, some members of this family had no male heir, while others were childless for various reasons. The last Georgian Chosroid King was Archil (c.a. 410s-430s) who also was childless. In "KartlisTskhovreba" Archil's successor the King Mirdat – the father of well-known Georgian King Vakhtang Gorgasali, is represented as Archil's son; but actually he was Archil's adopted heir. Thus...
The paper is about Georgian identity. It represents the whole history of it from ancient times un... more The paper is about Georgian identity. It represents the whole history of it from ancient times until very recently.
Saint Nino is an Illumenatrix of Georgians. Georgians adopted Christianity as a state religion in... more Saint Nino is an Illumenatrix of Georgians. Georgians adopted Christianity as a state religion in 330s .. . The paper is devoted to the original redaction of her Vita. It was created shortly after the conversion of Georgians had taken place, ca. in the middle of 4th century.
The aim of the article is to find out the date of creation of the most ancient graphic variety of... more The aim of the article is to find out the date of creation of the most ancient graphic variety of the Georgian alphabet "Asomtavruli". This problem was touched upon by many experts, but no one was able to resolve it reasonably. According to the author of this article, the reason for this is the wrong approach to the available narrative sources; some researchers generally ignore them and try to represent the history of the origin of the Georgian alphabet only on the basis of an analysis of the alphabet itself as a system, some ignore the information of the 11th century Georgian historian Leonti Mroveli, according to which the Georgian alphabet was created by King Pharnavaz (3rd century BC), and the other part ignores the information of Koriun ( the Armenian hagiographer of the first half of the 5th century), that the Georgian alphabet was created by the Armenian cleric Mashtots. But ignoring these narrative sources can in no way be justified from a scientific point of view,...
გვიანანტიკური პერიოდის საქართველოს საქართველოს ისტორიის პოპულარული გადმოცემა, რომელიც ეფუძნება ... more გვიანანტიკური პერიოდის საქართველოს საქართველოს ისტორიის პოპულარული გადმოცემა, რომელიც ეფუძნება თავად ავტორის სამეცნიერო კვლევის შედეგებს
The Chrosrids were Georgian royal dynasty in 3rd-5th cc. The role of this dynasty in shaping of G... more The Chrosrids were Georgian royal dynasty in 3rd-5th cc. The role of this dynasty in shaping of Georgian identity was decisive. The founder of the dynasty king Mirian initiated the adoption of Christianity as official religion of Georgian state in 330s (according to other view in 320s). The Chosroids promoted the process of deep cultural transformation connected with Christianization as well. The research aims to represent the revised history of the Chosroid family. The book is intended for academics in field of Georgian history.
As it is well known, history is not only academic discipline, but also a form of collective memor... more As it is well known, history is not only academic discipline, but also a form of collective memory.That is why history as knowledge of past plays great role in every nations’s life. It gives help to determine and maintain national identity. Georgian case is not exeption from this common rule and representation of past in Georgian reality has identity making function as well. Already in pre-modern period (in pagan as well as Christian era) Georgian historiography was quite distinguished field of Georgian culture. Variety of tasks related with general problems of historical representation were elaborated by that time. Modernity raised the Georgian historical thinking to higher level of its development. Theorizing the process of historical representation assumed more systematic character. For example, Georgian erudite Prince Vakhushti Bagrationi (1696-1757) in his work “The Description of Georgian Kingdom”, elaborated the general problems of history discipline, its objectives, forms of historical representation and study methods. Ivane Javakhishvili (1876-1940) - the eminent Georgian historian and one of the founders of Georgian studies, in parallel with investigating the concrete facts, paid great attention to the methodological aspects as well. In 1916 he published a book devoted just to general problems of history discipline. In Soviet period also the issues of methodology and history research methods were subjects of inquiries of many scholars. However, only limited number of themes were concerned as in non-pluralistic Soviet environment it was impossible for historians to choose methodology and base history representation on social theory other than Marxism. After the break-up of Soviet Union, new era in academic life began for all post Soviet (including Georgia) countries. Marxist approach was rejected by many historians, but as they actually were not able to introduce any new theory, in spite of anti-Marxist rhetoric, historiographical practice actually remained based on Marxian sociology. Because of above-- mentioned “theoretical emptiness” part of Georgian historians began avoiding more general topics and long-term processes (like ethno-genesis or nation-formation) and concentrated on more narrow research tasks and bring into focus of their inquiries short-term political incidents and facts. The academic inquiries for accumulating of knowledge concerning Georgian past were perceived by the general public (and by academic circles too) as favorable factor of forming collective memory, as mean for forging patriotic feelings and self-identification. In public perceptions the understanding of history as discipline was actually lost. Thus, in post-Soviet Georgian historiography occurred imbalance between researches devoted to the concrete facts’ representation and researches aimed at solving the theoretical problems of history discipline. This imbalance exists up to now. This situation, of course, could not be long stayed without special attention. The main goal of an international conference − “Representing History: Theoretical Trends and Case Studies” was to overcome the above problem. The conference demonstrated achievements of Georgian historiography. At the same time it made evident that Georgian historians are still in lesser degree concentrated on making socially oriented historical researches than their colleagues from abroad; theorizing history also occupies very little place in historiographical discourses. It is needless to say that history discipline in general, and Georgian national history in particular, cannot be considered seriously without theory. Theory should be basis not only research, but also for learning and teaching in field of history.
The present study is part of the project Print Media and the Process
of Shaping of Georgian Natio... more The present study is part of the project Print Media and the Process of Shaping of Georgian National Identity : Ilia’s “Iveria” (2008–2010), funded by LEPL Foundation for Georgian Studies, Humanities and Social Sciences (Rustaveli Foundation). The monograph focuses on the modern epoch and the process of the Georgian national consolidation. It is the fourth book of the research series The Georgian community and Its Identity : Ideas , Symbols , Perceptions . The first three books of the series were devoted to the studyof Georgian identity in the pre−modern epoch, having been implemented within the framework of the project Collective Cultural Identities in the Context of the Religious Conversion : A Study of the Georgian Case and Generalizations (2006–2008), also funded by LEPL Foundation for Georgian Studies, Humanities and Social Sciences (Rustaveli Foundation).The idea of the establishment of the said research series belongs tothe deceased scholar Lela Pataridze who was a participant of the both above mentioned grant projects. The present book is dedicated to her blessed memory. With respect to the theoretical knowledge available in the field of nationalism studies, the book is aimed at observing the process of the Georgian national consolidation based on one of the Georgian medias, specifically, the development of the process in question beginning from the 1870s till the middle of the first decade of the 21st century. Our study addresses specifically 1877–1906, that is, the period when Iveria was published. It is the principal source upon which we base the historical representation.According to the widely shared approach, media plays a decisive role in the establishment and further development of collective cultural identities. The post-modern epoch is characterized by the media, based on qualitatively new technologies, threatening the existing world order with explosions, casing the strain of relationships between global and national identities both on political and cultural levels.In its turn, the invention of writing had a similar powerful impetus.Written languages facilitated the creation of ethnic communities. As for the national stage of the identity evolution, it is associated with print media as a pre-requisite for the emergence of standard print languages.Print media facilitates the establishment of a network of readers of a common national scale – “imaginary society” (the term introduced by Benedict Anderson). Print media is both a reflector and a catalyst of the process of nationbuilding. The double role makes it a unique source for the study of the issue in case. The first Georgian printed book dates back to 17th century. As is known, it was a Georgian–Italian dictionary, published by Catholic missionaries in Rome in 1629. However, it was a detached fact and it could not essentially influence the development of Georgian identity. The situation changed in the 18th century; books were being printed in Georgia. Since the 19th century, the process of printing has become intensive. In 1819, the first Georgian newspaper was published. Since then, periodicals eventually began to play a significant role in the development of the Georgian unity. Among these publications, the significance of Iveria has been quite particular as one of the most long-lasting print media in Georgia of the said epoch. The general history of the periodical is as follows: its first issue was published on March 3, 1877, and its last issue was published on August 27, 1906. In the beginning, Iveria was a weekly newspaper. Since, 1879, Iveria turned into a monthly magazine. However, its 11th–12th issue was not published, as stated in the announcement appended to the magazine. Since 1880, it was published in the form of an anthology once in three months. Since 1881 till 1885, it was published as a monthly magazine. Since 1886, Iveria was a daily newspaper. Ilia Chavchavadze was a founder and editor of Iveria. At various periods of time, it was edited by Sergei Meskhi (since January, 1880, till November, 1886, when the editorial boards of Droeba and Iveria merged), Ivane Machabeli (1st–5th issues in 1882), Alexandre Sarajishvili (since December 5, 1901, till A. Sarajishvili was a temporary editora, and I. Chavchavadze was a publisher; since July, 1902, A. Sarajishvili was an editor and publisher), Grigol Kipshidze (since July 5, 1903, till July 1, 1905, G. Kipshidze was a temporary editor, while A. Sarajishvili was a publisher); later, till the closing of the newspaper (since July 1, 1905, P. Gogichaishvili was a temporary editor, while Pavle Tuamanishvili was a publisher), it was edited by Pilipe Gogichaishvili. Materials from Iveria have been widely applied in scholarly circulation.While studying various problems, scholars frequently refer to publications of Iveria. Irrespective of this fact, Iveria has never, as a whole, been presented as a historical source covering the process of national identity forging. Based on a widely accepted viewpoint, the later half of the 19th century is the period when the Georgian nation was formed. Despite of the fact that we essentially share this approach, we do not consider it satisfactory how the said process has been represented in Georgian historiography. The matter is that the judgment about the origin of the Georgian nation had been confined within a mere statement of the fact. The reason of the drawback, existing in the study of the problem, is partly due to Marxist sociology which appears to be a theoretical basis for the most of the works concerning the issue in point. In this case, we mean the main tendency. Unfortunately, the situation cannot be altered by the recent attempts to conceptualize the existing data within the framework of contemporary western theories. Our goal is to reconsider the approach, having been still dominant in Georgian historiography by now, and to reconstruct a detailed picture of the national consolidation of Georgians based on the theoretical approaches distinct from Marxism. This book does not concern the economic and political factors of Georgian nation building process, but it tells on public perceptions, on history of Georgian nationalism, on conceptualization of Georgian national identity markers. The process of the transformation of an ethnic community, having emerged based on a collective cultural identity, into a national community is characterized by the concentration of public interest on certain themes. Principal indicators of the process of national consolidation can be regarded the emergence of public interest in such themes as “people,” “education,” “mother tongue,” “homeland,” “others,” “our others,” “our unity,” “our character,” “our culture,” “our destiny,” “our women,” “our heroes,” “our roots,” “our religion,” etc. These themes and the intensity of public interest toward them can be viewed as indicators of the process of nation-making. The book analyzes Iveria publications with respect to these themes. The abundance of the collected data and the impossibility of their reduction conditioned the voluminous character of the work to be published within the framework of the grant project. That is why it was decided to publish it in two volumes. The present book, that is Volume 1, is based on the data from Iveria of 1877–1891. The following one, that is Volume 2, will present the outcomes of the research based on the Iveria issues from 1892–1906. Naturally enough, the work of the said goal initially posed the question what “nation” and “nationalism” are, as indicators of the national consolidation process. With respect to the above mentioned, thefirst part of the present book, Theoretical Foundation, presents our understanding of the said and some other notions based on the most up to-date achievements in theorizing of the said phenomena in the specialist literature. The second part of the work Historical Background: Emergence of Georgian Nationalism, tells about the realities of the earlier half of the 19th century, about the pre-requisites, based on which the Georgian nationalism of the later half of the 19th century and the earlier half of the 20th century, that is of the period when Iveria was published, emerged. The third part of the work, Data Analysis and Historical Representation : 1877–1891, is an attempt to interpret the data with a view to the principal indicators of the a national consolidation process.
In its turn, this part consists of three sections; specifically, the data has been grouped according to the following periods: 1877–1881, 1882–1886, 1887–1891.The present volume ends with the part The Idea of Georgian Nationand Ilia’s “Iveria”, presenting the process of the formation of the idea ofthe Georgian nation as it was treated by Ilia Chavchavadze, having beenreferred to as a father of the Georgian nation. The Epilogue presents briefly the results of the analysis of the facts, having been collected in the publications of Iveria between 1877–1891. Volume 2 presents the data from 1892–1906, being also divided into threesections: 1892–1896, 1897–1901, and 1902–1906. “Iveria” and Georgians as Its Readers is the part of Volume 2 and of the book as a whole. It focuses on the principal results of the process of the conceptualization of the Georgian nation and the impact of the Iverian conception of the Georgian nation had on the Georgian community. The chronological limits, indicated above the main parts and sections of the work, do not mean the periodization of the history of Georgia based on a particular trait. We merely selected the periods of equal length (approximately fifteen years for parts, and five years for sections). Such an approach makes it more adequate to analyze data. Besides, the comparison of the data from the periods of equal length provides an interesting picture in terms of the dynamics of the development of the process.
THE CONVERSION OF GEORGIA (KARTLI)
Summary
1. The eminent Georgian historian and public figure Ek... more THE CONVERSION OF GEORGIA (KARTLI) Summary 1. The eminent Georgian historian and public figure Ekvtime S. Taqaishvili was born in 1863 in a village of Western Georgia. On graduating from the historico-philological faculty of Petersburg University in 1887 he returned to Georgia and embarked on educational and later scholarly activity. In 1907 the ,,Georgian Society of History and Ethnography“ was founded en Taqaishvili's initiative. The Society gathered, described, researched and published monuments of Georgian antiquity, thereby paving the way for a scientific study of Georgian history. Under the conditions of tsarism's colonial policy of Russification it was naturally difficult to help awaken the national consciousness. However, together with other Georgian figures, Taqaishvili began to tackle — with vigour and zeal—matters on wich the future of the Georgian people depended: the question was being decided whether the people could stand up to the tsarist colonial policy or-—though surviving physically—it would perish spiritually, i. e. degenerate as a nation. Tasks of this magnitude demanded from the scholar not only high professionalism but also iron will, social prestige, and personal charm, none of which were lacking in Taqaishvili. In 1921, having suffered a political fiasco, the Menshevist government of Georgia fled abroad, taking along priceless — not only from the viewpoint of Georgian culture — items of gold and silver,, unique manuscripts, etc., i. e. treasures formed of the collections-of Georgian museums, as well as the possessions of churches and monasteries. Taqaishvili was charged with the safety of the treasure. For many years, under extremely difficult conditions, he battled for the preservation of the Georgian national heritage. It was only in 1945 — with the help of the Soviet government — that he succeeded in returning the treasure to his native country. He, too, returned to Georgia from a long forced emigration — already an old, spiritually tormented man. Nevertheless, till his death in 1953, Taqaishvili continued his scholarly research, sharing with his colleagues his reminiscences, interspersed with witticisms and jokes, so characteristic of his frank nature. In the second half of the 19th century, when Taqaishvili started scholarly work, Georgian historical science was undergoing major changes. The complex process of interpretation of the past heritage set in. New problems were posed which could not be solved on the basis of the available sources. Correctly grasping the specificities of the period, Taqaishvili devoted most of his time to augmenting the source base: he brought to light and published various documents of past history. He was the first to publish many works of Old Georgian literature, ,,The Conversion of Georgia“ being one such monument. The monument in question was discovered in 1888. In 1890 — 1891, Taqaishvili published its Georgian text in two parts, with notes and a study. In 1900, his own Russian translation of the text came out. The present publication is a new edition of that translation. It has been edited, supplied with new commentaries, maps, index of proper names and a study. II. The work in question deals with a definite historical fact: the conversion of the Georgians to Christianity in the first half of "the 4th century by Nino the Illuminatrix. An analysis of the content and style of the document permits to identify three parts in it: an historical chronicle representing a brief history of Georgia from the 4th cent. B. C. to the 9th cent. A. D., and two redactions of the ,,Life of St. Nino“: the short and the extended versions. The extended ,,Life of St. Nino“ constitutes a collection of reminiscences. Separate points of Nino's biography are recalled by the author of redaction — Salome Ujarmeli daughter-in-law of the first Christian king of Georgia Mirian, by Nino herself, her pupils and closest associates. The short redaction of the ,,Life of St. Nino“ is a very condensed narration in the third person, without accenting the author's presence. Study of the text has shown that at its inclusion in the Chronicle it had been abridged from a complete archetype of a lost redaction of the ,,Life of St. Nino“ which was more amenable to abr idgement than the extent long version of complex composition. The compiler of the ,,Conversion of Georgia had worked towards an organic fusion of these genetically differing parts; as the result, the monument represents a unified system rather than a mechanical conglomerate of works. The purpose of the system is to present the fact of conversion of the Georgians to Christianity in relationship to other developments in Georgian history. This historiographic task is attained in the ,,Conversion of Georgia“ through a combination of two different-sized redactions of an hagiographic monument with the Chronicle. The short redaction of the Life of St. Nino“ — included in the Chronicle — shows the conversion of the Georgians in the course of historical events, where — as the extended redaction — given at the end of the Chronicle — allows to see the same fact separately — as a close up. As a result, the ev idence on the conversion of the Georgians is perceived in a broad historical context, with due account of the details. The central idea of the ,,Conversion of Georgia“ is to show the fact of the conversion to the Georgians in the historical perspective, which is not characteristic of its component parts taken separately. Therefore, in relation to these parts the ,,Conversion“ is a qualitatively new development, and its compiler is not a mere editor of a collection but author of an important historical work. The origin of the ,,Conversion of Georgia“ is linked to the activities of a major political figure — King Vakhtang Gorgasal, in particular to his reorganization of the Georgian church in the second half of the 5th century. As a work of major significance for Christian Georgia, the ,,Conversion“ was repeatedly redacted over the centuries. Traces of these later alterations are visible in the historical Chronicle which was gradually updated to the 9th century.
Uploads
Papers by Mariam Chkhartishvili
The book is intended for academics in field of Georgian history.
and maintain national identity. Georgian case is not exeption from this common rule and representation of past in Georgian reality has identity making function as well. Already in pre-modern period (in pagan as well as Christian era) Georgian historiography was quite distinguished field of Georgian culture. Variety of tasks related with general problems of historical representation were elaborated by that time. Modernity raised the Georgian historical thinking to higher level of its development.
Theorizing the process of historical representation assumed more systematic character. For example, Georgian erudite Prince Vakhushti Bagrationi (1696-1757) in his work “The Description of Georgian Kingdom”, elaborated the general problems of history discipline, its objectives, forms of historical representation and study methods. Ivane Javakhishvili (1876-1940) - the eminent Georgian historian and one of the founders of Georgian studies, in parallel with investigating the concrete facts, paid great attention to the methodological aspects as well. In 1916 he published a book devoted just to general problems of history discipline. In Soviet period also the issues of methodology and history research methods were subjects of inquiries of many scholars. However, only limited number of themes were concerned as in non-pluralistic Soviet environment it was impossible for historians to choose methodology and base history representation on social theory other than Marxism. After the break-up of Soviet Union, new era in academic
life began for all post Soviet (including Georgia) countries. Marxist approach was rejected by many historians, but as they actually were not able to introduce any new theory, in spite of anti-Marxist rhetoric, historiographical practice actually remained based on Marxian sociology. Because of above--
mentioned “theoretical emptiness” part of Georgian historians began avoiding more general topics
and long-term processes (like ethno-genesis or nation-formation) and concentrated on more narrow research tasks and bring into focus of their inquiries short-term political incidents and facts. The academic inquiries for accumulating of knowledge concerning Georgian past were perceived by the general public (and by academic circles too) as favorable factor of forming collective memory, as mean for forging patriotic feelings and self-identification. In public perceptions the understanding of history as discipline was actually lost.
Thus, in post-Soviet Georgian historiography occurred imbalance between researches devoted to the concrete facts’ representation and researches aimed at solving the theoretical problems of history
discipline. This imbalance exists up to now. This situation, of course, could not be long stayed without special attention. The main goal of
an international conference − “Representing History: Theoretical Trends and Case Studies” was to overcome the above problem.
The conference demonstrated achievements of Georgian historiography. At the same time it made evident that Georgian historians are still in lesser degree concentrated on making socially oriented historical researches than their colleagues from abroad; theorizing history also occupies very little place in historiographical discourses. It is needless to say that history discipline in general, and Georgian national history in particular, cannot be considered seriously without theory. Theory should
be basis not only research, but also for learning and teaching in field of history.
of Shaping of Georgian National Identity : Ilia’s “Iveria” (2008–2010),
funded by LEPL Foundation for Georgian Studies, Humanities and Social
Sciences (Rustaveli Foundation).
The monograph focuses on the modern epoch and the process of the
Georgian national consolidation. It is the fourth book of the research
series The Georgian community and Its Identity : Ideas , Symbols ,
Perceptions . The first three books of the series were devoted to the studyof Georgian identity in the pre−modern epoch, having been
implemented within the framework of the project Collective Cultural
Identities in the Context of the Religious Conversion : A Study of the
Georgian Case and Generalizations (2006–2008), also funded by LEPL
Foundation for Georgian Studies, Humanities and Social Sciences
(Rustaveli Foundation).The idea of the establishment of the said research series belongs tothe deceased scholar Lela Pataridze who was a participant of the both above mentioned grant projects.
The present book is dedicated to her blessed memory.
With respect to the theoretical knowledge available in the field of
nationalism studies, the book is aimed at observing the process of the
Georgian national consolidation based on one of the Georgian medias,
specifically, the development of the process in question beginning from
the 1870s till the middle of the first decade of the 21st century. Our
study addresses specifically 1877–1906, that is, the period when Iveria
was published. It is the principal source upon which we base the
historical representation.According to the widely shared approach, media plays a decisive role in the establishment and further development of collective cultural identities. The post-modern epoch is characterized by the media, based on qualitatively new technologies, threatening the existing world order with explosions, casing the strain of relationships between global and national identities both on political and cultural levels.In its turn, the invention of writing had a similar powerful impetus.Written languages facilitated the creation of ethnic communities. As for the national stage of the identity evolution, it is associated with print media as a pre-requisite for the emergence of standard print languages.Print media facilitates the establishment of a network of readers of a common national scale – “imaginary society” (the term introduced by Benedict Anderson). Print media is both a reflector and a catalyst of the process of nationbuilding.
The double role makes it a unique source for the study of the
issue in case. The first Georgian printed book dates back to 17th century. As is known, it was a Georgian–Italian dictionary, published by Catholic missionaries in Rome in 1629. However, it was a detached fact and it could not essentially influence the development of Georgian identity. The situation changed in the 18th century; books were being printed in Georgia. Since the 19th century, the process of printing has become intensive. In 1819, the first Georgian newspaper was published. Since then, periodicals eventually began to play a significant role in the development of the Georgian unity. Among these publications, the significance of Iveria has been quite particular as one of the most long-lasting print media in Georgia of the said epoch. The general history of the periodical is as follows: its first issue was published on March 3, 1877, and its last issue was published on August 27, 1906.
In the beginning, Iveria was a weekly newspaper. Since, 1879, Iveria
turned into a monthly magazine. However, its 11th–12th issue was not
published, as stated in the announcement appended to the magazine. Since 1880, it was published in the form of an anthology once in three months. Since 1881 till 1885, it was published as a monthly magazine. Since 1886, Iveria was a daily newspaper. Ilia Chavchavadze was a founder and editor of Iveria. At various periods of time, it was edited by Sergei Meskhi (since January, 1880, till November, 1886, when the editorial boards of Droeba and Iveria merged), Ivane Machabeli (1st–5th issues in 1882), Alexandre Sarajishvili (since December 5,
1901, till A. Sarajishvili was a temporary editora, and I. Chavchavadze was a publisher; since July, 1902, A. Sarajishvili was an editor and publisher), Grigol Kipshidze (since July 5, 1903, till July 1, 1905, G. Kipshidze was a temporary editor, while A. Sarajishvili was a publisher); later, till the closing of the newspaper (since July 1, 1905, P. Gogichaishvili was a temporary editor, while Pavle Tuamanishvili was a publisher), it was edited by Pilipe Gogichaishvili. Materials from Iveria have been widely applied in scholarly circulation.While studying various problems, scholars frequently refer to publications of
Iveria. Irrespective of this fact, Iveria has never, as a whole, been presented as a historical source covering the process of national identity forging. Based on a widely accepted viewpoint, the later half of the 19th
century is the period when the Georgian nation was formed. Despite of
the fact that we essentially share this approach, we do not consider it
satisfactory how the said process has been represented in Georgian
historiography. The matter is that the judgment about the origin of the
Georgian nation had been confined within a mere statement of the fact.
The reason of the drawback, existing in the study of the problem, is
partly due to Marxist sociology which appears to be a theoretical basis
for the most of the works concerning the issue in point.
In this case, we mean the main tendency. Unfortunately, the
situation cannot be altered by the recent attempts to conceptualize the
existing data within the framework of contemporary western theories.
Our goal is to reconsider the approach, having been still dominant in
Georgian historiography by now, and to reconstruct a detailed picture of
the national consolidation of Georgians based on the theoretical
approaches distinct from Marxism. This book does not concern the
economic and political factors of Georgian nation building process, but it
tells on public perceptions, on history of Georgian nationalism, on
conceptualization of Georgian national identity markers.
The process of the transformation of an ethnic community, having
emerged based on a collective cultural identity, into a national
community is characterized by the concentration of public interest on
certain themes. Principal indicators of the process of national
consolidation can be regarded the emergence of public interest in such
themes as “people,” “education,” “mother tongue,” “homeland,” “others,”
“our others,” “our unity,” “our character,” “our culture,” “our destiny,”
“our women,” “our heroes,” “our roots,” “our religion,” etc. These themes
and the intensity of public interest toward them can be viewed as
indicators of the process of nation-making. The book analyzes Iveria
publications with respect to these themes.
The abundance of the collected data and the impossibility of their
reduction conditioned the voluminous character of the work to be
published within the framework of the grant project. That is why it was
decided to publish it in two volumes. The present book, that is Volume 1,
is based on the data from Iveria of 1877–1891. The following one, that is
Volume 2, will present the outcomes of the research based on the Iveria
issues from 1892–1906. Naturally enough, the work of the said goal initially posed the
question what “nation” and “nationalism” are, as indicators of the
national consolidation process. With respect to the above mentioned, thefirst part of the present book, Theoretical Foundation, presents our
understanding of the said and some other notions based on the most up to-date achievements in theorizing of the said phenomena in the
specialist literature. The second part of the work Historical Background: Emergence of Georgian Nationalism, tells about the realities of the earlier half of the 19th century, about the pre-requisites, based on which the Georgian
nationalism of the later half of the 19th century and the earlier half of
the 20th century, that is of the period when Iveria was published,
emerged.
The third part of the work, Data Analysis and Historical
Representation : 1877–1891, is an attempt to interpret the data with a
view to the principal indicators of the a national consolidation process.
In its turn, this part consists of three sections; specifically, the data
has been grouped according to the following periods: 1877–1881, 1882–1886, 1887–1891.The present volume ends with the part The Idea of Georgian Nationand Ilia’s “Iveria”, presenting the process of the formation of the idea ofthe Georgian nation as it was treated by Ilia Chavchavadze, having beenreferred to as a father of the Georgian nation.
The Epilogue presents briefly the results of the analysis of the facts,
having been collected in the publications of Iveria between 1877–1891.
Volume 2 presents the data from 1892–1906, being also divided into threesections: 1892–1896, 1897–1901, and 1902–1906.
“Iveria” and Georgians as Its Readers is the part of Volume 2 and of the
book as a whole. It focuses on the principal results of the process of the
conceptualization of the Georgian nation and the impact of the Iverian
conception of the Georgian nation had on the Georgian community.
The chronological limits, indicated above the main parts and
sections of the work, do not mean the periodization of the history of
Georgia based on a particular trait. We merely selected the periods of
equal length (approximately fifteen years for parts, and five years for
sections). Such an approach makes it more adequate to analyze data.
Besides, the comparison of the data from the periods of equal length
provides an interesting picture in terms of the dynamics of the
development of the process.
Summary
1. The eminent Georgian historian and public figure Ekvtime S. Taqaishvili was born in 1863 in a village of Western Georgia. On graduating from the historico-philological faculty of Petersburg University in 1887 he returned to Georgia and embarked on educational and later scholarly activity.
In 1907 the ,,Georgian Society of History and Ethnography“ was founded en Taqaishvili's initiative. The Society gathered, described, researched and published monuments of Georgian antiquity, thereby paving the way for a scientific study of Georgian history.
Under the conditions of tsarism's colonial policy of Russification it was naturally difficult to help awaken the national consciousness. However, together with other Georgian figures, Taqaishvili began to tackle — with vigour and zeal—matters on wich the future of the Georgian people depended: the question was being decided whether the people could stand up to the tsarist colonial policy or-—though surviving physically—it would perish spiritually, i. e. degenerate as a nation. Tasks of this magnitude demanded from the scholar not only high professionalism but also iron will, social prestige, and personal charm, none of which were lacking in Taqaishvili.
In 1921, having suffered a political fiasco, the Menshevist government of Georgia fled abroad, taking along priceless — not only from the viewpoint of Georgian culture — items of gold and silver,, unique manuscripts, etc., i. e. treasures formed of the collections-of Georgian museums, as well as the possessions of churches and monasteries. Taqaishvili was charged with the safety of the treasure. For many years, under extremely difficult conditions, he battled for the preservation of the Georgian national heritage. It was only in 1945 — with the help of the Soviet government — that he succeeded in returning the treasure to his native country. He, too, returned to Georgia from a long forced emigration — already an old, spiritually tormented man. Nevertheless, till his death in 1953, Taqaishvili continued his scholarly research, sharing with his colleagues his reminiscences, interspersed with witticisms and jokes, so characteristic of his frank nature.
In the second half of the 19th century, when Taqaishvili started scholarly work, Georgian historical science was undergoing major changes. The complex process of interpretation of the
past heritage set in. New problems were posed which could not be solved on the basis of the available sources.
Correctly grasping the specificities of the period, Taqaishvili devoted most of his time to augmenting the source base: he brought to light and published various documents of past history. He was the first to publish many works of Old Georgian literature, ,,The Conversion of Georgia“ being one such monument.
The monument in question was discovered in 1888. In 1890 — 1891, Taqaishvili published its Georgian text in two parts, with notes and a study. In 1900, his own Russian translation of the text came out.
The present publication is a new edition of that translation. It has been edited, supplied with new commentaries, maps, index of proper names and a study.
II. The work in question deals with a definite historical fact: the conversion of the Georgians to Christianity in the first half of "the 4th century by Nino the Illuminatrix. An analysis of the content and style of the document permits to identify three parts in it: an historical chronicle representing a brief history of Georgia from the 4th cent. B. C. to the 9th cent. A. D., and two redactions of the ,,Life of St. Nino“: the short and the extended versions.
The extended ,,Life of St. Nino“ constitutes a collection of reminiscences. Separate points of Nino's biography are recalled by the author of redaction — Salome Ujarmeli daughter-in-law of the first Christian king of Georgia Mirian, by Nino herself, her pupils and closest associates.
The short redaction of the ,,Life of St. Nino“ is a very condensed narration in the third person, without accenting the author's presence. Study of the text has shown that at its inclusion in the Chronicle it had been abridged from a complete archetype of a lost redaction of the ,,Life of St. Nino“ which was more amenable to abr idgement than the extent long version of complex composition.
The compiler of the ,,Conversion of Georgia had worked towards an organic fusion of these genetically differing parts; as the result, the monument represents a unified system rather than a mechanical conglomerate of works. The purpose of the system is to present the fact of conversion of the Georgians to Christianity in relationship to other developments in Georgian history. This historiographic task is attained in the ,,Conversion of Georgia“ through a combination of two different-sized redactions of an hagiographic monument with the Chronicle. The short redaction of the Life of St. Nino“ — included in the Chronicle — shows the conversion of the Georgians in the course of historical events, where — as the extended redaction — given at the end of the Chronicle — allows to see the same fact separately — as a close up. As a result, the ev idence on the conversion of the Georgians is perceived in a broad historical context, with due account of the details.
The central idea of the ,,Conversion of Georgia“ is to show the fact of the conversion to the Georgians in the historical perspective, which is not characteristic of its component parts taken separately. Therefore, in relation to these parts the ,,Conversion“ is a qualitatively new development, and its compiler is not a mere editor of a collection but author of an important historical work.
The origin of the ,,Conversion of Georgia“ is linked to the activities of a major political figure — King Vakhtang Gorgasal, in particular to his reorganization of the Georgian church in the second half of the 5th century.
As a work of major significance for Christian Georgia, the ,,Conversion“ was repeatedly redacted over the centuries. Traces of these later alterations are visible in the historical Chronicle which was gradually updated to the 9th century.