Study of Issues in the Ethnic History of the Abkhazians in the Context of the Georgian-Abkhazian Conflict, by Georgy Anchabadze

This article was first published in Aspects of the Georgian-Abkhazian Conflict, Volume II (August 1999, pp. 20-40) in Russian (University of California, Irvine), and is translated into English. Written by Georgy Anchabadze (Achba), it examines the ethnic history of the Abkhazians within the framework of the Georgian-Abkhazian conflict, highlighting the role of historical narratives in shaping inter-ethnic tensions.

Аспекты грузино-абхазского конфликта
Aspects of the Georgian-Abkhazian Conflict

Volume II – August 1999, pp. 20-40
UCI – University of California, Irvine (2000)

Editors:
Paula Garb
Arda Inal-Ipa
Paata Zakareishvili

Study of Issues in the Ethnic History of the Abkhazians in the Context of the Georgian-Abkhazian Conflict

Ethnic conflicts often involve historical narratives as a crucial component. The opposing parties frequently seek to justify the legitimacy of their claims by invoking history, addressing both the origins and evolution of ethno-political opposition, as well as issues only distantly related to the conflict.

Every conflict has a long prehistory, sometimes spanning decades or even centuries, during which tensions accumulate between peoples or between a people and a state with a different ethnic foundation, leading to clashes that foster enduring inter-ethnic hostility. The facts of this opposition, viewed from starkly contrasting perspectives, serve as key resources in the information battle. In such contexts, the flexible use of history and the free interpretation of historical facts are quite common. It is also noteworthy that some historians, involved in this information warfare, attempt to deepen the conflict by searching for its roots and manifestations in distant historical periods where, objectively, there were no real conditions for the development of ethnic opposition.

Another subject that stirs intense debate is the issue of the ethnic identity of the ancient inhabitants of disputed territories. The parties in conflict aim to use this to assert their exclusive rights to contested lands, even though it is well-known that representatives of international organisations, to whom this information is primarily directed (once the conflict gains the attention of bodies like the UN and OSCE), tend to have little interest in such distant historical matters. This type of "historicism" seems particularly characteristic of post-socialist societies (the former USSR, Yugoslavia, and others), where, until recently, all public activity was tightly controlled ideologically, and only in matters of ancient and mediaeval history (i.e., before the Marxist era) was there some degree of intellectual freedom. In these circumstances, national-patriotic ideas were most often expressed in historiography, as well as in artistic and literary works on historical subjects. The intellectual elites of the Soviet Union, having been denied their own statehood and the opportunity to openly discuss and address national issues, turned to history in their search for the "national spirit," inevitably leading to some degree of mythologisation. This phenomenon is especially evident in the Caucasus, where peoples have traversed a long historical journey, and where attachment to the homeland is expressed in all facets of spiritual life. Thus, in the Caucasus, public opinion often regards the most compelling argument in territorial disputes not as the legal ownership of disputed lands or the current composition of their population, but rather the answer to the question: which ethnic group originally inhabited this land?

The historical dimension of ethnic conflicts is typically a key element in the information warfare that takes place during the early stages of inter-ethnic tension, while the conflict itself remains in a latent state. Even when the confrontation escalates into open military and political conflict, this historical element retains its significance.

In this context, the Georgian-Abkhazian conflict can be considered a textbook example. Its historical aspect stands out so prominently that to a casual observer, it might appear to be the principal cause of the conflict. This impression is further strengthened by the fact that, in the 1950s-1970s, historical issues in Abkhazia acted as catalysts for inter-ethnic crises on an unprecedented scale within the USSR. Today, however, following the military and political developments, the historical theme has understandably taken a backseat. It no longer plays the central role in shaping the socio-political climate that it did 10-12 years ago. This shift is partly due to the de facto separation of Abkhazia from Georgia, which has effectively ended the broad flow of information between the two regions. One could say that today, the people of Abkhazia are largely unaware of what is being discussed in Tbilisi, and the reverse is also true. Nevertheless, there remains a strong interest in the polemical issues surrounding the history of Abkhazia. The primary focus of this politicised academic debate continues to be the ethnic identity of the ancient inhabitants of Abkhazia. Furthermore, scholars are also engaged in debates about the ethno-political nature of the Abkhaz kingdom, a feudal state in (today’s –Ed) Western Georgia during the 8th-10th centuries. The perspectives of Georgian and Abkhaz scholars on these matters are increasingly at odds, and it seems unlikely that their positions will converge while the conflict between Georgians and Abkhazians remains unresolved. Yet, when Georgian-Abkhaz relations were less strained, historical disputes did not provoke such intense reactions. The conclusions of Georgian and Abkhaz scholars frequently coincided, with Georgian experts making considerable contributions to the study of the Abkhaz language and history.

The full article in PDF can be downloaded by clicking here (282 KB)