|
Theoretical setting
Like many other
ethnic conflicts, the Abkhazo-Georgian issue has
many causes and background problems. Every specialist in the various fields of
social sciences can explain one or the other side of this conflict with an
individual method. In my opinion, the role of historiography is particularly
important in explaining the many ethnic issues of the present Caucasia. Of course these conflicts have their own
history of development. But, I mean here, that the historiography itself is
one of the main factors of the conflicts among, other causes such as
sociological, economic, regional, religious, tribal and political view
points.
It is very easy
to understand how historical literatures without scientific evidence would
agitate nationalistic minded people. As in the cases of Japan-Chinese or
Japan-Korean historical issues, the article of the late Prof. Inqolova about the origin of the Abkhazians of Abkhazia
had a crucial influence on Georgian political activists and provoked anger
among the Abkhazians. The protest and demonstration against the publication
of this unscientific article by a Georgian newspaper became the direct cause
of the bloody conflict of Sukhumi
in 1989. As Japanese schoolbooks of history became the cause of anger among
Chinese, Korean and other nations of Asia,
so the unpublished article of this philologist did so also among the Abkahzians.
In the former Soviet Union, all publications were censored
elaborately beforehand and in theory any possibility to cause displeasure
among the brothers of Soviet nations could not be found in schoolbooks,
popular histories and periodicals. Future harmony among theSoviet
nations was considered more important than facts of the past.
Scientific
literature was less censored than popular literature, but every political
unit of a titled nation had its own state historiography. In Caucasia, the first ethnic issues started in the form
of academic discussions on one or the other problem of the historical pasts,
among historians, academicians, doctors and doctoral candidates of the neighbouring political units of republics, autonomous
republics and autonomous provinces.
First, they had
to arrange their research within the limits of official historiography, which
demanded the sovereignty, or at least the autonomy of the enclaves of titled
politico-administrative units. Second, the status and the boundary of a
titled nation had been determined by historical right and the present
distribution of inhabitants. The density and growth of a nation could be
controlled by population policy and historical right by finding more proof of
"indigenousness" of the titled nation.
It is now
well-known that the boundaries of the Soviet national units were often
changed by the Moscow government at least in
the Caucasus or else change was requested by
people who were dissatisfied with the existing border. Any new study which
exceeded the limit or undermined the geographical structure of the
historiography of neighboring republics was understood as an infringement on
the neighbor and the author was criticized as a disturber of socialistic
order.
The present
frontiers of titled units are not always in accord with the past activities
of the Soviet nationalities. Until the korenization
policy, they could share their historical past; but after that they had to
divide everything among themselves. A cultural or political activist of the past who has international stature, must also be recognized
as a national leader by the moderndry residents
living in their own national enclave, although any sense of nationality meant
nothing at the time of the leader.
The institution
of titled nation came from political attitudes toward ethnocracy,
and ethnocracy did not come along with the real
democracy. Superiority of a titled nation over other national minorities
within their titled national territory was not ensured by the Soviet
constitutions, but in reality important posts of any official organizations were given to the members of that titled nationality. To
be a member of a titled nation within its border is to have a better chance
of success in life. So, to judge the "indigeniousness"
of a nation in its titled enclave is not only of a matter of scientific fact
or national pride, but also of material interest. Quiet discussions among
scholars were followed by disputes between nationalists and then civil wars.
We can find examples of this in the conflicts in the Mountainous Karabakh and clashes between Lezghi
and Avar activists and the Azerbaijani police and
so on. The cause of the Abkhazo-Georgian conflict
is one of these cases.
METHODOLOGICAL PREVIEW:
MAIN SUBJECTS AND CLAIMS OF THE ABKHAZO-GEORGIAN CONFLICT IN THE SCHOLARLY
LITERATNRE
Some of the most important items of
historical disputes between two nations are as follows.
1) Ethnic identity of ancient Abkhazians (Abasgoi). Were they ancestors of Apsuas
(present Abkhazians) or Kartvelians (Georgians)?
2) Ethnic character of the Abkhazian
kingdom.
3) Ethnicity of the Bagratid
kings; Georgian or Abkhazian?
4) Ethno-territorial structure of the
Abkhazian Princedom (satavado).
5) Abkhazian policy of the Georgian
government in 1917-21.
6) Abkhazian policy of Soviet Georgia and
the growth of the Georgian immigrants in Abkhazia.
All of these items are subjects of
scholarly discussions.
ABOUT THE ANCIENT INHABITANTS OF THE
PRESENT ABKHAZIA: A CASE STUDY
The first known
state of Georgia is Colchis, the land of the Golden Fleece. In all Georgian
literature on histroy Colchis is named Egrisi, of which descendants are claimed to be Megrelians (an ethinic group of
western Georgia).
However, based on some linguistic data, western as well as Abkhazian
philologists claim that the inhabitants of Colchis
were Abkahzians. The half brother of Media Apsyrtos (old Babylonian 'absu'
(the abyss), or an Old Abkhazian */a-psw-art- (the
Abkhaz-pronoun suffix-pronoun) bears the Abkhazian name by the explanation
John Colarusso. Thismeans
natives of the eastern coast of the Black Sea
were Abkhazians and the Georgians, who live there now, were newcomers. So,
the present Abkhazians have the right of titled nation including the demand
for sovereignty and independence from Goergia.
After Colchis, Lazica occupied the ancient territory of Colchis as a successor state, which
was inhabited by Megrelians in the Georgian view or
Abkhazians in the Abkhazian view. The Laz people
who live in Turkish Lazistan now, speak a language
very akin to Megrelian, so one can determine the
main body of Lazicas were
Georgians.
If the
inhabitants of the kingdom
of Lazica
were Georgians, where were the present Abkhazians' ancestors at that time?
From the first or second century, Greek writers wrote about the Apsilae and the Abasgoi. There
are some opinions about their origin and identity. Maybe they were indigenous
to Abkhazia or the whole of Western Georgia, and until that time had been
simply called Colchians or Lazicas
together with other tribes and ethnic groups of Western
Georgia. Or else they were newcomers from the Northern
Caucasus, during these centuries. They may have had relations
with the present Svans (an ethnic group among
Georgians), or Adyge-Abkhzians. If they were native
Adyge-Abkhazians, present day Abkhazians, as the
descendants of indigenous inhabitants, have the perfect right of titled
nation. One typical Abkhazian opinion is that not only the Abasgoi but also the Apsilae
belonged to the Abkhazians. One of the most extreme opinions of Georgians is
that both of these groupes were Georgians, and the
present Abkhazians penetrated through the Caucasian Mountains
to Abkhazia in the 17th century; according to this opinion, the Abkhazians
have no right to a titled nation and or even to autonomy, which they
currently enjoy.
In the 11th
century B. C., the Assyrian inscriptions made reference to the "Abeshela", a tribe which lived in the North
Anatolian mountains. Then, in a medieval Georgian chronicle written by Juansher, mentions a toponym of
"Apshileti" (or the land of Apshils). Some scholars
insist that Apshil is the missing link between the
ancient Abeshela and the classic Apsils. Here we must take into account that V. Ardzinba, chairman of the supreme soviet of Abkhazia, is
a specialist in the history and languages of ancient Anatolia.
After the weakening of the Lasica (in Georgian Egrisi) kingdom, in the 6th century the Princedom of Abasgia became a direct vassal of the Byzantine
Empire. According to Prof. Mariam Lordikipanadze, the Abasgoi
annexed the "Apsilia north to the river Kodori" in the second century, and then after the
6th century the "Apsilia proper" between
the river Kodori and the river Egrisitsqali
(Ghalidzga). In the 730s the Arab general of Murvan the Deaf invaded Western
Georgia. Juansher wrote that the
"city of Tskhum
of Apshileti and Abkhazia" was burnt by him. Tskhum was at that time called the city of Apshileti,
which in the 8th century was incorporated into Abkhazia. So, according to the
theory of some scholars the Abkhazia Proper existed to the North of Tskhum (Sukhumi),
where the main body of the inhabitants became the ancestors of the presentday Abkhazians. The Tskhum
district of the Apsletia and the Apsletia Proper, between the Kodor
and Egrisitsqali, were inhabited by the Georgians.
In this view, Tskhum has even a Georgian etymology.
But, according to an other opinion, the Apshletis were the ancestors of the present day
Abkhazians, who now call themselves the Apsuas, and
the Abasgoi were their northern brothers who used a
language very akin to that of the Apshletis and
came across the mountains. Therefore, the present Abkhazians are indigenous
to the central as well as the northern part of Abkhazia.
CONCLUSION
One can find
two key factors in the ethnic issues of the Caucasia.
One is the institution of titled nation and the second is the theory of
"indigenousness" of inhabitants. As long as the institution of
titled nation was prolonged within the borders settled in Soviet times, the
claim of inheritance by the inhabitants would continue. One of the Russian
solutions to the conflict, namely to make the Georgian refugees go back to
the Gali and Ochamchile
regions under the protection of international peacekeeping army, was harshly
rejected by the Abkhazian side, because this was the /iskonnyj/
territory of Abkhazia, although these provinces were inhabited compactly and
densely by the ethnic Georgians before 1994. As for the Georgians, all
Abkhazia except the North-Western corner of the country is also the /iskonnyj/ territory
of Georgia. But,
neither sides has an accurate memory of their
ancient ancestors. Abkhazians have no explanation as to why they are called
Abkhazians and their country is called Abkhazia, when they themselves were
called Apsua and their country Apsuni. Only historiography
can fulfill their desire for national satisfaction about the past. So,
historiography wanders between the policy of titled nation and the theory of
indigenous inhabitants. Before trying to solve the conflict we must
understand each side's national sentiment about history as well as the
material interest which comes from it. Then we must wait for a new theory of
the past which depends neither on the system of tilted nation nor on the
theory of "indigenousness".
Copyright (c) 1996 by the Slavic
Research Center
/ Hokkaido University
/ Japan
Originally published at:
http://src-home.slav.hokudai.ac.jp/sympo/Proceed97/kitagawa.html
|
