University of Strasbourg, France
Sorbonne University, France (joint supervision)
PhD candidate
Strasbourg/France
Abstract
“Between Europe and Asia.” This oversimplified view of the region seems to have become ubiquitous today, picked up by both Caucasians and international actors and reiterated in modern travel guidebooks. A place with a dual identity; closer to Europe but unable to shake off its Eastern past. Yet to truly comprehend these dynamics, we should look back at how the Caucasus was constructed as one or the other at a time of intense and rapid transformations.
In the second half of the nineteenth century, British travelers presented two contrasting versions of empire (re)building in the South Caucasus. Now that the region was comfortably under Russian control, the British sought to assess whether it had been “properly” colonized by their rival empire. To complicate matters further, the Caucasus had previously experienced rule under the Qajar and Ottoman empires. It is interesting to examine how British travelers compared the fate of Caucasian nations under these Muslim powers in relation to the Muscovite ruler.
The field of comparative empires explains that imperial powers often evaluated each other’s competencies. While, on the one hand, nations like the Georgians could be represented in travel writings as “tamed” and having lost their once-renowned military spirit, there was a growing current in other books, which explained that a national revival was underway and would eventually lead to independence. Amid these hypotheses/assumptions, one major discussion was centered around the idea of lost historical grandeur and the question of whose role it was to awaken it: Was it Russia’s responsibility, as the new suzerain and “good” colonizer? Was “internal” colonization the solution, with the assistance of “loyal” (often Christian) subjects like the Georgians and Armenians? Were these ethnic groups “civilized” enough (like or unlike the Russians) to ensure their survival as independent entities? Were they detriments or allies of Russian colonization both in the South and North Caucasus?
To address these complex questions, my paper proposes, first, to study a selection of travel writings by British nationals who experienced these geopolitical realities in real time. Second, I aim to link these nineteenth-century events to the present day, and discuss the complicated but gradual emancipation of the South Caucasus – as well as Europe – from Russian economic and political ties.
Keywords: Comparative empires; internal colonization; travel writing; center–periphery.