Cjss second Issue: cjss second Issue qxd

the first leader of the struggle against Russia. He called for the unity of the
Caucasian peoples.
Another version of the narrative was created in the center – in Moscow.
After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Shamil – previously tabooed topic –
appeared in the center of the interest of professional historians, as well as
journalists and publicists. But after the beginning of the first Russian-Chechen
War (1994) the number of books and articles on the topic of the Caucasian
history declined and the issue of Shamil became the subject of media covering
(Gammer, 1999). Until the second war of Chechnya (1999) Moscow changed
the memory politics and from 1997 she was actively involved in the arrange-
ments dedicated to the 200 anniversary of Shamil. Shamil was placed in the
pantheon of the official heroes of Russia. The new official narrative was cre-
ated: mostly it is identical of the Dagestan-Avar narrative, although with one
difference: the period after 1859 is stressed in particular: Shamil influenced
on the process of reconciliation with the former enemy and he became an ad-
mirer of Russia and its culture. He bequeathed to the Dagestan peoples (and
to Chechens as well) an eternal peaceful coexistence with Russians. This nar-
rative of Moscow was an attempt to contradict with an effort of using the
legacy of Shamil against Moscow. This aspiration coincided with those of the
local Dagestan-Avar elites and other North Caucasian ones, as well as with
the interests of the North Caucasians, represented in the central government,
as all other narratives could be used by the alternative elites.
Since the establishment of the soviet rule in the Caucasus the two ver-
sions of the narrative of the united Caucasus are formed. One of them was
created in the Soviet historical science and it was based on the ideology of
the brotherhood and friendship of the soviet peoples. It should be mentioned
that the roots of the “brotherhood” did not traced far in the historical past,
rather it was based on the new Soviet ideology through the overcoming of
the old hatreds and enmity.
The plan of the forming of the “new soviet men” implied the erosion of
the differences between the peoples. Correspondingly, the substitution of the
ethnic identity with the common Soviet identity was accented, which should
be much deeper and stronger then any other identity. Although the official
rhetoric of brotherhood and unity had a real impact on the thinking of the So-
viet citizens (Cornell, 2001), but the Soviet identity did not manage to substi-
tute the ethnic, religious or some other group identities, rather it came to
coexist with them. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union the unifying Soviet
identity disappeared and the inefficiency of the narrative, based on the ide-
ology, became obvious. The fact influenced on the Caucasian peoples and it
was painfully reflected in their lives, which was expressed in the Caucasian
conflicts first and foremost.   
122
Caucasus Journal of Social Sciences

---

Since the 20s of the 20
th
century the issue of the creation of the Caucasian
Confederation was actively discussed in the emigrant circles. The past re-
ferred for the arguments. In this respect, the letters of Dimitri Vachnadze,
Nikoloz Inasaridze, Samson Firtskhalava, as well as the Armenian politician
A.Jamalian, are quite interesting (Sharadze, 2004). Although quite often
rational arguments were overshadowed with emotion and pathetic, but these
letters in the emigrant periodicals, as well as the attempts of the creation of
the Caucasian confederation in the 30s of the 20
th
century are interesting as
the attempts of the overcoming of conflicting memory.
In the post-Soviet period the narrative of the united Caucasus was loaded
again and it got a new content. It is interesting that it was formed in parallel
with the empowerment of ethno nationalism.   
In the beginning of the 90s of the 20
th
century, when the Caucasus was
the scene of the several conflicts, the conception of the “Common Caucasian
House” was born, which was determined by the new circumstances, created
after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and by the pathos of the confronta-
tion with Russia. The idea was realized in the form of the Confederation of
the Caucasian Peoples, which was supported by the governmental officials of
the Russian Federation. 
Confederation played not only the negative role in the conflicts of the
Caucasus, but the experience was also layered in the collective memory of the
Caucasian peoples in spite of its short-term existence. In the later period the
attitude towards the idea of the unity of the Caucasus became more cautious
and skeptical. Although the supporters of the idea of confederation were striv-
ing for its reanimation from time to time but it did not gain any response.
Another attempt of the creation of the united Caucasian narrative in the
post soviet period came from the official political circles. In the 90s of the 20
th
century, as a response to the conception of S.Huntington and in the form of its
alternative the idea of the “Peaceful Caucasus” was offered by the President
of Georgia and the President of Azerbaijan. Different from the “Caucasian
House” it was aimed not at the unity of any form, but rather it was looking for
the common interests and for the creation of the conditions for the peaceful
co-existence through negotiations and agreement.
In terms of creation of the common narrative several international con-
ferences held in Tbilisi, in 1997-1998 under the initiatives of politicians
should be taken into consideration. A particular attention was paid to the
search for the historical-cultural foundations of the unity of the Caucasian
peoples. The speeches delivered at these conferences by the Georgian politi-
cians could serve as an example of the effort of creation of the new narrative.
In these cases the attempts of revitalization of the myth of kinship of the Cau-
123
Caucasus Journal of Social Sciences

---