Paper long abstract:

The emergence of the Azerbaijani and transformation of the Armenian identities occurred in the situation of the ethnic clashes between the two, revolutions and the collapse of the empires at the beginning of the twentieth century. In the age of the shattering empires, against the background of the inter-ethnic confrontation between Armenians and Azerbaijanis (then known as Caucasian Tatars), the transformations of the identities were entangled.

While the conflicts pushed forward certain narratives and visions, it is the new interpretations of the history that endowed the structural transformations. Historical narratives are tools for transformation of the social groups into political communities. The stories of the past and the present are told and retold to include the historical memories of certain social groups, to privilege certain symbols and myths, and to overlooks others. Historical narratives developed and stressed in the historiography crystallized the self-determination process in which the identification of “others” also plays a crucial role.

In this paper, I am investigating the Armenian and the Azerbaijani historical narratives from the late Imperial to the end of the Soviet eras. The main focus would be the Soviet Azerbaijani and Armenian historians. Particularly, I will follow the transformations of the heroic self-images of these nations and the emergence of mutual exclusion. By doing this, I will keep the overall historical background and especially the Soviet nationalization politics in my sights.

Paper long abstract:

Thirty years after the demise of the Soviet Union, independent Georgia’s historiography is still experiencing an identity crisis. Starting from Ivane Javakhishvili's works from the beginning of the 20th century, 'scientific" historiography became a necessary tool for achieving international acknowledgement among the European nations in the post-1918 order of nation states. Under Stalin, historiography was turned into a tool for legitimizing the privileged status of titular groups with primordial claims to certain territories. With Georgia’s independence in 1991, the role and functions of historiography required redefinition for the period of transition and up to the present day. In this presentation, Prof. Reisner will identify the major trends in the writing of the history of Georgia that he would summarize as 1). Renovation, 2). Reconstruction, and 3). Nationalisation. Rather than discussing individual works, Dr. Reisner will focus on the environment of the writing of history and the production of historical knowledge necessary for Georgia to orient itself in a globalizing world.

Paper long abstract:

Paper examines four different exhibitions at Simon Janashia State Museum each corresponding to the state endorsed myths on nation in Soviet and post-Soviet Georgia and their internalization in the museum space. The exhibition on the Epoch of Shota Rustaveli organized in 1937, almost personal project of Joseph Stalin was formally dedicated to the 750th anniversary of Georgian epic Poet, Shota Rustaveli, both a personification of a Soviet dictator himself and archetype of Georgia as ancient civilization. After the wartime revival of the myth of autochthony and local patriotisms, in the beginning of 1950’s various plans were conceived on unified historical-archeological exhibition presenting Georgia’s past from pre-historical times up to its Sovietization. As a result, by the end of 1960’s, for the first time a linear story on Georgia’s suffering and resurrection was told through archeological, ethnographic objects and naturallia at Simon Janashia State Museum. In the context of destalinization and republican party leaders performing a balancing act between Kremlin and local nomenklatura a new museum was opened on the premises of Simon Janashia State Museum in 1973 named after People’s Friendship Museum. The exhibition concept in compliance with the cult of Great Patriotic war and people’s friendship was first of such kind across the entire Soviet Union. The late perestroika and post-independent period witnessed widespread iconoclasm and zeal to produce “right history” all over the post-Soviet space. New-found representations of contemporary history paved way to complete reversal of what counted as heroism and patriotism decades ago. Discourses on Soviet occupation in Georgia gained their ground especially after the Rose Revolution in 2003 and soon crystalized into a new foundational myth of now independent republic. Nevertheless, national history is still constituted by old narratives filled with brand-new content while public history spaces are still haunted with the ghosts of the past heroes and villains. It is already telling that the exhibition on Soviet Occupation in 2006 was organized in the same room hosting the exhibition on Soviet Georgia (part of the unified historical-archeological exhibition) less than a half century away. While asking how these exhibitions represent and reflect on historical events and concepts, I look at them as contact zones between state, official historiography, and the society at large; as mediums transmitting different meanings at different times through memory agents, texts, objects, and visual material all having their own agency and materiality.

Paper long abstract:

How should we approach the commemoration of suffering? Usually, empathy and common decency suggest we partake and remain silent even if we have reservations.

At the same time, a kind of sacralization of the past carries risks for the present and future, as Micheal Rothberg, Timothy Snyder, and other authors have pointed out. This sacralization of the past can become an issue in the historiography in various locations across the region, yet scholars often lack a frame for critique.

In this paper I will propose an Ethics of Political Commemoration, based on Ius ad Memoriam and Ius in Memoria, loosely based on Just War Theory, and will illustrate how this can be applied to several aspects of commemoration in the Caucasus. One positive standout example is the Aurora Prize out of Armenia, which takes deep historical trauma as a starting point for recognizing “those who risk their lives, health or freedom to save the lives, health or freedom of others.”

The paper may also be of interest to scholars interested in commemoration in other regions, as it proposes a transferable framework with which to structure debates on memory.