Georgia and Armenia: a scholarly discourse

Interview by Georgy Kalatozishvili

The Caucasus is an extremely complex region, where a great number of ethnic groups as well as religious confessions are represented. Nevertheless, the Caucasus is at the same time a unified civilization, a unique cultural phenomenon and a home for all its peoples. This complexity predetermines heated discussions among scholars and experts on several historical problems. There are such controversial issues in the history of Georgian-Armenian relations. Alexander Abdaladze, PhD, prominent Georgian scholar, expert on Georgian-Armenian relations and author of two popular science books: “Georgia and Armenia” and “The Armenian Problem in Georgia”, agreed to tell VK correspondent Georgy Kalatozishvili his opinion on some of these problems.

- Mr Abdaladze, is it true that arguments on matters of history are traditional for Georgians and Armenians?

- The Armenian kings forged the kingdom of ‘Great Armenia’ in the II-I centuries BC – that is more than 22 centuries ago. At the same time, there were attempts to unite the whole Caucasus. It is well-known that the Caucasus is a unified natural region, so an aspiration to unite it politically was only natural. The Caucasus is located right between Europe and Asia, and it has always suffered from invasions. Neither Georgians nor Armenians could protect the Caucasus on their own, so they had to unite their efforts. However, both Georgian and Armenian kings had ambitions of their own, so rivalry was not uncommon.

Modern Georgian and Armenian scholars often argue about who was the true leader of this unification process, the Armenian Kingdom or the Georgian Kingdom.

Some Armenian scholars even pose the question in such a manner: which nation was the leading one in the Caucasus, the Georgians or the Armenians? Our scholars still address these ultimate questions in their discussions. Some Armenian experts peremptorily state that only Armenians have a right to be called a ‘leading nation’ in the Caucasus. We can’t agree with that, as even though Armenian kings managed to create the ‘Great Armenia’ spreading from sea to sea, it could survive only 15-20 years, while the ‘Great Georgia’ existed throughout the XII-XIII centuries AD. So it was Georgia, not Armenia, that managed to unite the whole Caucasus, even for a historically short period; and the claims of Armenian scholars are not substantiated.

-What are the usual topics of discussions between Georgian and Armenian scholars?

-There is the phenomenon of the so-called ‘Armenian-centrist’ ideology. Its partisans claim that all Georgian achievements – political, cultural, economic, etc. – were made by ethnic Armenians. For example, there’s a US scholar, Roland Swinn, who claims that Georgians as a nation emerged only thanks to Armenians.

There are a lot of other examples of such ‘misunderstandings’: for example, some Armenian textbooks seriously try to prove Shota Rustaveli’s Armenian origin. Of course, this theory is absolutely unfounded, but Armenian experts have a whole lot of other unfounded theories like that. Ilya Chavchavadze wrote a monograph disproving such hypotheses.

I would like to stress once again that this misinterpretation of history is rooted deep in the past. And of course there are endless discussions about who contributed more to the Caucasus’s development – Georgians or Armenians.

On a large scale, Armenian statehood in the Caucasus ended in the XI century and was revived only in 1918 (only to fall again under pressure from communist Russia). On the other hand, the Georgian state survived from ancient times till the XIX century, when it was annexed by the Russian Empire. So our state was able to survive external pressure for much longer.

Armenian experts explain this fact by ‘specific circumstances’ that Armenia had to face, while Georgia existed in much more friendly environment. That is not true, conditions were equally adverse.

The fact that Armenia was revived in the 19th century and that Armenians started returning there should be credited to Russia and Georgia: only 25,000 Armenians remained in their homeland back then, and if the same was true for Georgia, the Russian Empire wouldn’t have had any solid foothold in the Caucasus to revive Armenia.

Georgian King Irakly II called Russia to Georgia, and it is due to his efforts that Armenia even exists today. But of course our Armenian colleagues don’t want to recognize that.

- There’s also the problem of the ethnic attribution of some historical sites and figures?

- Armenians say that all Georgian achievements were made by ethnic Armenians. They say, for example, that Shota Rustaveli was an ethnic Armenian because “such a prominent poet could only be a member of an equally prominent nation – Armenia”. A strange syllogism, isn’t it?

They also say that the Bagration family were ethnic Armenians, even though there is no solid evidence for that. The Bagrations were from Urartu district, and some Armenian scholars say that Urartians were Armenians – however, no serious scholar believes that. Cyrill Tumanov, a scholar of Armenian origin, even claims that the majority of Georgian noble families have Armenian roots.

No one denies that some Georgian noble families are of Armenian origin, but they date back only to the XVIII century, when King Irakly II granted nobility to a small number of Armenians, but that is all.

Some monuments and churches are also disputed. For example, Armenians claim that there are 350 Armenian churches in Georgia and demand their return to the Armenian Church. These claims, however, are also groundless. The majority of Armenian churches were constructed in Georgia in the XIX century, when ther  autocephaly of the Georgian Church was abolished, while the Armenian Church still had autocephaly. Back then there were some riots in Georgia and Russian tsars found support in Armenia.

Claims of the Georgian alphabet being created by Armenian enlightener Mesrop Mashtots are equally absurd, as it is a historical fact that he didn’t know the Georgian language.

All these claims have no scholarly value, but their ideological component is so aggressive, that one has to respond to them.