What Can and Should We Learn From Georgi

Internationale Schulbuchforschung / International Textbook Research. Vol. 20 (1998), no. 4, pp.409-424

Oliver ReisnerWhat can and should we learn from Georgian history?

Observations of someone who was trained in the Western tradition of science1

AbstractThe comparison between the minimal standards for the school subject „History of Georgia“ and the official guidelines developed by state education reformers reveal an overwhelming discrepancy between the claim of democratization in the education sector and the intended creation and generation of loyalty to the Georgian state at the level of cultural ethnicity. In a second analytical step, the reasons for the rise of this discrepancy are traced back to their roots in Georgian society and in the lack of real autonomy in that society’s sub-systems, such as for example the scientific discipline of history in Georgia. Thus, the potential foundation of national consensus and legitimization of the Georgian state becomes the subject of domestic political dispute which even extends into the classroom.

I. What Should We Learn from Georgian History? A minimal curriculum for the school-subject „History“ („Standarty“ 1997)

The „Standards“ for the subjects „History of Georgia“ and „World History“ are both

derived from the corresponding Education Reform Act dated June 27, 1997.2 Both as a

basis and in terms of goal definition, these subjects are intended to perform the task of

fulfilling state requirements in a quite direct and concrete manner. Thus, these

„Standards“ are normative in nature and at the same time, however, formulate

excessively high demands particularly for a society in the midst of such a deep-seated

and difficult transition as that one which Georgia are currently experiencing, one which

is hardly in a position to deal with the immense problems confronting this society

currently, given the training standards of school-teachers and the omnipresent lack of

funds avail- [410] able for education in general.3 The imminent collapse of the

secondary school system continues to constitute a real and present danger. By converse,

no specifically outlined and coherent course of action has been developed by planners

1 From the German translated by Dave Harris. Georgian language sources are transliterated in accordance with the system employed in the Catalogue of Georgian Books in the British Museum. Russian language sources are transliterated in accordance with the swystem used by the journal „Eurasian Studies“ (former „Soviet Studies“).2 sakhelmdsipo saganmanat’leblo standarti sak’art’velos istoriashi [The minimal curriculum for the school subject „History of Georgia“, referred to hereinafter as Standard HG], Lomashvili, Parnaoz and S. Vardosanidze. Tbilisi 1997; sakhelmdsipo saganmanat’leblo standarti msop’lio istoriashi [The minimal curriculum for the school subject „World History“, referred to hereinafter as Standard WH], Nikolaishvili, Tamaz and Tsira Chikvaidze. Tbilisi 1997.3 Cf. [in German] Staatliches Programm der Bildungsreforme und ihre Umsetzung. Goethe-Institut (ed.), Tbilisi 1995; sak’art’velos kanoni ganat’lebis shesakheb [Georgia's Bill on Education]. In: sak’art’velos respublika [Republic of Georgia], 165 (July 17, 1997), pp. 3-5; Melikidze, Valeri and George Tarkhan-Mouravi: Human Development Report: Georgia 1997. United Nations Development Programme, Tbilisi 1997. For example, the private sector economic activities of many educational institutions outside the state budget were retroactively officially sanctioned and declared to be legal activities to the extent that they pertained to payment of salaries and the renovation of facilities with financial support by parents.


to prevent this very scenario from actually taking place. Instead, the emergency is re-

defined as an opportunity and „privatization” of the school system becomes both a

virtue and a popular demand. Against the backdrop of these realities, I shall limit my

observations on the manner in which the „Standards“ are being put into practice in these

two historical subjects. The basic precepts of the national principles of education

include the following:

1. Democratization of the education process involving the participation of the state, society and individuals „as equal partners in the education process“;

2. autonomy from the dictates of the state in terms of goals, subject matter, teaching methods as well as the manner in which institutions of education and training are organized;

3. openness defined as liberation from ideologies of partiality so that goals will no longer be defined as relating to class interests, but rather as relating to general humanistic and national values;

4. a multiplicity of educational structures (state, private, etc.) and curricular materials;5. maintenance of national self-determination and/or due respect for „nationality“ by

delineation into schools for each nationality in which both the Georgian language, its history and geography will be compulsory subjects;4

6. A scientific world view centering around a concept of human beings. „School must be centrally involved in the development of the personality.”

From these derive the educational tasks of „preparing the personality for real life“, „the

education and training of a competitive generation guided by moral principles“ as well

as the development of members of national minorities into „true citizens of the

Republic of Georgia“. Both „general humanistic educational and cultural values” as

well as „Georgian historical-cultural traditions“ shall provide the basis for the education

of young people in becoming adult and responsible citizens.5

[411] In this context, reforming the subject-matter of the „History of Georgia“ also

entails the additional task of not only freeing the subject of elements of Soviet ideology;

at the same time it must also overcome the „abridged“ version of Georgia's „own“

history within the framework of the „History of the Soviet Union“. In the aftermath of

the period in which century-old Georgian cultural traditions were merely permitted to

assume a role only as an „regional studies function“ in Russian history,6 this situation

4 Georgia’s total population amounts to 5,400,841 inhabitants comprised of 3,787,393 Georgians (70.1%), 437,211 Armenians (8.1%), 341,172 Russians (6.3%), 307,556 Azerbaijani (5.7%), 95,853 Abkhasians (1.8%), 52,443 Ukrainians (1.0%) and others, information by the Georgian Ministry of the Population Development.5 Cf. op. cit. Tbilisi 1995, pp. 6-7, 18-20; Georgia’s literature, history and geography as well as Georgian as official language, form the compulsory general basis of general education.6 School textbooks widely used during this period were those written by such authors as Ivane Javakhishvili, S. Janashia and Nikoloz Berdzenishvili which dealt with ancient and medieval history and textbooks by Shot’a Meskhia and V. Guchua dealing with modern and contemporary history dating from the 1940's and 1950's. Cf. paper [in Georgian] given by Elene Medzmariashvili at a conference of the European Council and the Georgian Ministry of Education on „The Reform of History Teaching in


has changed fundamentally during the era of perestroika and most particularly since the

attainment of independent statehood. In the newer school textbooks written by

recognized historians which have already been introduced into the classroom,7 the

country's own history and its role in general historical development is being dealt with

in considerably greater depth and being given more emphasis in classroom instruction.

New subjects and topics previously taboo due to ideological reasons have also been

included in the new materials and curricula. Nevertheless, „serious gaps and

deficiencies“ continue to exist and there is still a grave lack of curricula,

chrestomathies, literature on methods and other teaching aids suited to contemporary

needs. Even the newest school textbooks severely need updating and revision if they are

to meet internationally accepted standards for school textbooks.8

Inasmuch as Georgia has opted for the more viable democratic model of development,

historical education which reflects the perspective of a complete democratization of the

whole country and teaches students to adopt attitudes of tolerance toward one another,

but which above all teaches loyalty to and respect for universal, human and national

(cultural) values and treasures of one's own society becomes all the more essential.

These principles are predominantly dealt with in the state „Standards“.

These structural principles and the planned basic regulations for „History of Georgia“

are contained in the propaedeutic of the history of Georgia (grade-level 5) and the first

cycle of the history of Georgia (grade levels 7, 8 and 9) involving two classroom hours

per week. This amounts to a total of 68 classroom hours, and thus are a basic element of

the Standards for all intermediate schools whose curricula and textbooks become

compulsory and thus [412] unified standard elements of classroom instruction.9 The

standards for the second cycle of the history of Georgia (grade levels 10, 11 and 12) are

Secondary Schools“ in Tbilisi, 25.-27.10.1997.7 These include such authors as Roin Met’reveli (who holds the department chair for the „History of Georgia“ at the State University at Tbilisi), L. Sanik’idze, Mariam Lort’k’ip’anidze (who previously held the chair for „History of Georgia“ at the State University at Tbilisi), Nodar Asat’iani, P’. Lomashvili (professor of history at the Sulchan-Saba-Orbeliani Pedagogical University), Kot’e Ant’adze (professor of „World History“ at the State University at Tbilisi), Naira Mamuk’elashvili (lecturer in „World History“ at the State University at Tbilisi), Tsira Chik’vaidze, K’. T’valiashvili and G. Bolot’ashvili. See Naira Mamuk’elashvilis article in this issue.8 Paper given by Elene Medzmariashvili at a conference of the European Council and the Georgian Ministry of Education on „The Reform of History Teaching in Secondary Schools“ in Tbilisi, 25.-27.10.1997 and Standard HG, p.3-4+79 met’oduri rekomendatsiebi da gakvet’ilebis t’ematuri dagegmva istoriashi zogasaganmagat’leblo skolebis V-XI klasebisat’vis. 1997/98 sasdsavlo dseli [Methodological recommendations and thematic teaching plans for general education schools for classes 5 through 11 for the 1997/8 school year, referred to hereinafter as Recommendations]. Tbilisi, pp. 3-4. The Standard HG I have at hand is a draft version realized in October 1997 which has not definitively been authorized yet by the Georgian Ministry of Education. Therefore there are some differences from the text of the Recommendations. Modifications might have been made in the meantime. Cf. Mamukelashvilis contribution in this issue.


to be based on the curricula and textbooks for high-school classroom instruction, but

may also be adapted to suit other specialized educational purposes or even revised for

other use. This will involve one classroom hour of instruction per week which amounts

to total of 34 classroom hours per school year.10

The five main levels11 of historical thinking defined by the authors characterize for

them more or less the levels of historical consciousness which build upon the previous

ones, predominate over them and simultaneously incorporate all previous levels of

historical consciousness within themselves.

After rejecting pluralistic-alternative learning (thinking in alternatives) in the

ideologized Soviet middle school programs for the school subject history, efforts are

now being made to emphazise this very element in the reformed 12th grade level school

system. In line with these efforts emphasis is not only placed on gaining historical

knowledge, equally as important is learning to think and to raise the skills and

capacities of school pupils more comparable to international standards. In an effort to

achieve these goals classroom discussion and other „modern practices and methods“ are

to be introduced into the classrooms of the 10th through 12th grade level history

courses. Even today, such efforts are being realized „to a certain degree“. Yet, why only

there, one might ask, given the fact that most schools require pupils to pay tuition

beginning with the 10th grade level, which simply means that the vast majority of

school pupils will not profit at all from these innovations aimed at improving their

thinking and reasoning skills. Three components of the „Standards“ are separately

formulated for each grade level so that the specific requirements are available as

guidelines for the development of new curricula, school textbooks and teaching aids.

These are:

1. The content of the subject material will be pre-determined only in terms of themes and directions underlying the learning process in general. It provides an answer as to the question of what is to be learned.

2. The minimum knowledge of the pupil places limitations on the scope of knowledge which that pupil must learn at the very minimum. It provides an answer to the question as to what the pupil must know. [413]

3. The pupil's independent reasoning and the skills and capacities for making practical use of the knowledge at the command of the pupil.12

History as a school subject unites the social science disciplines and makes the

attainment of such knowledge into something systematic. Only two classroom hours per

10 Ibid.11 1. the chronological-illustrative-emotive level; 2. the historical-logical or cause-and-effect level; 3. the analytical interpretative level; 4. the critical evaluative level and 5. the pluralistic-alternative level.12 Standard HG, p.7.


week are provided for social studies in the 12th grade level. In the 9th grade level, one

weekly hour of classroom instruction will be provided for the subject „Basic Elements

of Law“ and in the 12th grade level an additional hour weekly for classroom instruction

in „Basic Elements of Economics“. This means that the two history subjects in the

general field of human sciences and the arts totaling 20 classroom hours of instruction

per week play a key role in the field of political education.

It is not addressed why „World History“ has been set up as a subject in its own right,

which possible differences do exist from the subject „History of Georgia“ and whether

or which inherent laws of historical development are taken as a basis for both. But:

Nearly all of the main stages of world history and the characteristic laws of their

development can be more effectively grasped using the facts and events of the century

old history of Georgia.13

A propaedeuticum of the „Chronicle of the History of Georgia“ for pupils of the fifth

grade has been developed in an attempt to awaken their interest and to instill in them a

feeling for the past and present of their „own country“ using individual selected

elements and episodes drawn from the history of Georgia. In addition, they are to be

instructed in these elements and episodes necessary for developing an understanding of

the basic concepts and components of world history, because otherwise it would

become necessary to develop a propaedeutic for world history also. This will be

followed by a fundamental, systematic and chronologically arranged course in national

history, beginning in the 7th grade. Divided into two three-year cycles (grade levels 7-9

and 10-12), each cycle will deal with the whole range of history from the beginning to

the present.14 While the first cycle concentrates on the presentation of the historical

facts and causal relationships, the second cycle will deal with „historical facts“ at a

higher level allowing for the presentation of various interpretations of „historical facts“

and is thus more „pluralistic-alternative“ in nature, of which, however, only one

interpretation is the „correct“ one. This instruction will be augmented by aspects of

sources research and historiography. With the exception of the introductory material

there will be no explicit references to the subject of „World History“. In the 6th grade

level the subject „World History“ begins with classic antiquity devoid of any

13 Standard HG, p.814 5th grade level: „Chronicle of the History of Georgia“ - propaedeuticum; 7th grade level: From primordial times to the second decade of the 13th century; 8th grade level: From the second decade of the 13th century to the end of the 18th century; 9th grade level: 19th and 20th centuries; 10th grade level: From primordial times top the second decade of the 13th century; 11th grade level: From the second decade of the 13th century to the end of the 18th century; 12th grade level: 19th and 20th centuries.


differentiation to other subjects and it is implicitly understood that world history deals

with the history of the non-Georgian [414] world. Only with regard to the

synchronization of both subjects is there any discussion of the fact that the various

historical periodizations do not correspond to one another, e.g. modern ages setting in

Georgia at the beginning of the 19th century whereas world history dates the beginning

of modern times in the 16th/17th centuries. Nevertheless, this subject would appear to

me to be less ridden with ideological premises than the subject „History of Georgia“

and this is indeed heartening.

Due to the fact that the number of classroom instruction hours (units) has been pre-

determined by the Ministry of Education in its Schedule of Instruction Units, we must

assume that the „Standards“ are a sort of maximal rather than minimal program which

set very close limitations on the achievement of the substantive goals of the subject.

Because the teacher is compelled to teach these so called minimal requirements, little

time will remain for either taking a closer look at certain elements or discussing

alternative interpretations of events. The „Standards” reveal no originality in respect to

structuring classroom materials anew. They follow the existing textbooks,15 which

represent little more than a paraphrasing of the eight-volume standard work „Sketches

of the History of Georgia” written in the early 1970's.

There is much too little material devoted to dealing with historical documents and the

interpretation of sources. The interpretation of original sources is dealt with only once

at the 7th grade level in connection with learning the capacity to think and act

independently. It is precisely teaching a critical approach to texts and original

documents which is so urgently needed in a country with a Soviet background. Such a

teaching is needed, if classroom experience is to achieve the goal of developing pupils'

capacities to make their own judgments and thus to become more self-reliant as adult

citizens.

How does this Standard HG relate to the premises set forth by the state we presented in

our introduction?

1. What sort of democratization is being striven for if even with reference to the

„Standards” the goals and reality do not correspond to one another? The concept of

„democratization” is used symbolically and is meant to emphasize the proximity to the

West and/or Europe in the reform programme as well as the Standard HG. However,

this claim to democratization is neither formally nor substantively adhered to. 15 Cf. Lomashvili, P’arnaoz: sak’art’velos istoria 1801-1918, X klasis sakhelmdzghvanelo [History of Georgia 1801-1918. 10th grade level classroom textbook]. Tbilisi 1992


Substantively, this becomes evident in the neglect of all of the topics and themes so

essential to the creation and maintenance of a democratic state. Government by law,

state monopoly of violence, constitution, parliamentarianism or division of powers, not

to speak of question of participation in government are dealt with at no point in the

Standards HG as learning goals. At a formal level, the extensive demands on the

amount of material to be dealt with in classroom instruction leave little room for the

teacher to develop any personal accents in the course. Pupils are required to learn an

enormous number of facts to meet minimal course requirements, they have no [415]

possibility to gain in such skills as being able to learn on one's own are hardly possible.

The authoritarian attitude of the two authors becomes highly evident on the basis of

their positivistic concept of science which allows for various interpretations only as a

means of finally arriving at the one objective truth. This has the effect of preventing

any critical reflection and review of axiomatic presumptions and key epistemological

interests.

2. It is equally incomprehensible why the „Standards“ were not democratically

developed and formulated by politicians, scientists and teachers involved in the

educational reform process. The formulation of general guidelines is simply not

considered to be an element of the education process, despite the fact that confidence

and the resulting legitimization for reforms and the creation of a democratic state can

only be achieved through cooperation.16

The latter holds true with reference to autonomy from the dictatorship from the state in

the formulation of goals in the choice of teaching materials and methods as well as the

organization of education and the establishment of school facilities. The reform

program - seriously impaired by lack of funds and the urgent reduction in teaching

personnel - is in serious danger of coming to a complete halt due to the resistance of the

teaching staff, if sufficient attention is not directed toward dealing with their precarious

financial situation. Degrading their work to mere „executive organs” carrying out

higher orders hardly serves to bolster their already diminished social prestige. The

teachers’ proclivity for reform is of key importance if the reform program is to register

any measure of success whatsoever. Thus, for instance, the „Association for the

Protection of the Esteem of Pedagogues“ not only rejects certification, it also denounces

certification and the education reform process as „anti-national“ and its reformers as 16 Cf. for example the public critique of the manner in which the qualifications of teachers is „certified“ in Mosiashvili, T’inat’in: izrdeba upskruli ganat’lebis rep’ormatorebsa da pedagogebs shoris. ra sargeblobas gvadzlevs atestatsia? [The gap between education reformers and pedagogues is getting larger. What value does „certification“ have for us?]. In: Rezonansi (30 September 1997), p. 15.


„enemies of Georgia“ and at least in some areas it has also boycotted „certification“.

The education administration has responded with the threat of disciplinary measures

even including expulsion from the teaching staff.17

3. What meaning can openness ultimately have if overcoming the tradition of

ideologized education fails to become a reality and under a merely different cover „the

Communist ideology is replaced by unqualified religious or para-patriotic narration that

distorts the vision of world as it did before, although in new directions“18? Locking all

perspectives to a „national ideology“19 stifles any possibility of shifts in the own point

of view, thus making it impossible to develop any understanding of the other person's

ideas and arguments. We find [416] no other mention of the goal to develop pupils'

capacity for tolerance or concrete prerequisites anywhere in the Standard HG.

4. There is no diversity of types of classroom contents to see. Why not, for example,

simply do away with the principle of chronological order in the second cycle and adopt

the principle of themes (included in the Standards as one of many principles available)

whose emphases can be co-determined by teachers and pupils in the classroom? Only

by the provision of individual choices a multiplicity makes sense.

5. Thus, preserving national self-determination of providing for deference to the

Georgian national character is the only perspective from which Georgian history is

observed and presented. The depth to which the amount of classroom attention devoted

to „Georgian Culture“ from the stone ages to the present is astounding. Even in

classical antiquity there would appear to be a preliminary unity of Georgians, despite

the fact that the first evidence of any concept of „Georgia” dates from the 11th century.

Correspondingly, we are confronted throughout history with the „struggle of the

Georgian people” against foreign „conquerors“. And although territorial states were

completely unknown to mediaeval Georgia with its distinctly feudal structures,

„Georgia's statehood” is viewed as a supra-temporal, ahistorical phenomenon, because

today autochthony is used as the primary legitimization for territorial claims to rule. In

addition we are also confronted with a dangerous „double standard“ revealed at a point

in the text where Georgia's regional supremacy is not characterized as „conquest“, but is

rather described euphemistically as a „strengthening of foreign policy expansion“.20

17 Ibid.18 Cf. Melikidze and Tarkhan-Mouravi op. cit., p. 5919 For example, the broad response in the cultural and scientific communities with reference to: Rat’iani, Jemal: rdsmena sakut’ari da k’veqnisa [One's own belief and that of one's country]. In: literaturuli sak’art’velo [Literary Georgia] (June 1997), as reflected in the August issue of the same magazine No. 31, p. 320 Standard HG, p. 19


Thus, it is not surprising to find that the non-Georgian elements of the population are

not mentioned any place in the text. We are confronted with a lack of distance and self-

reflectivity with regard to one's own history and thus one's own present.

6. What kind of „humanization“ is being striven for if neither individuals nor concrete

groups of actors, but rather large, abstract collectives (people, class) or concepts

(Georgian statehood) and mythologized leading personalities are given key attention.

How are school pupils supposed to develop any understanding of or feeling for the

possibilities for social action on the part of individuals in their specific historical

environments and how are they to obtain any clarity as to their own potential for social

and/or political activity or obstacles against such activity in a democratic community?

Where are there any provisions for promoting independent learning for school pupils or

where are any provisions made for dealing with their questions about their own history?

No attempt is even made to adapt the subject matter to the experiential world of school

pupils.

One gains the impression that „national patriotic education“ could do away with all of

evils and problems of the younger generation (criminality, drug consumption, violence,

lack of discipline) identified in the educational reform program. The reasons for these

evils appear to be external factors (most often [417] Russian) which can only be

overcome by rediscovering one's own values. The „History of Georgia” is intended to

play a pivotal role comparable to that previously played by the subject „History of the

Soviet Union”. Where previously this served the key function of legitimizing the role of

the Communist Party, today, paradoxically, it would appear to serve the function of

legitimizing the independence of the Georgian national state.

The Standard WH differs significantly from the Standard HG. The majority of the

criticisms do not apply here. The subject-matter is clearly delineated according to

didactical learning goals and class levels (time and space, cause and effect, the

interpretation of history, historical research, organization and communication), even if

the volume of material is still impressive. The use of curricula from the United States,

Great Britain and Russia bear witness to the considerable efforts being made to open the

gates to the outside world. Nevertheless, a positivistic concept of science and the basic

presumption of ethnic communities as permanent societal phenomena continue to be

key theorems of the Standard WH. Political goals are explicitly set forth (the

significance of private property, free enterprise, market economy and the proliferation

of the principles of democracy) which can clearly be found in current teaching


materials. Unfortunately, the relationship between national history and world history

simply does not receive the attention it deserves. The fact that the subject is dealt with

on a more open manner has, of course, a great deal to do with the nature of the material,

at the same time, it is of course less subject to the ideological norms required for the

„History of Georgia“ due to its diminished relevance for the legitimization of the state

in general.

II. What Can Be Learned From the History of Georgia?

These ideas expressed in the Standard HG do not reflect the views of any individual,

they must be taken as reflecting the ”common sense” of the country’s educated elite.

The relevance of historical experience constitutes the connecting link between what

should be learned and what can be learned. The essential difference consists of how this

historical experience is consumed and presented. This process is characterized by the

dual task of building a nation and effecting the transformation away from the Soviet

system. Due to the fact that in this context science is perceived not only as an institution

of the systematic assimilation of knowledge, but also as reflecting on the conditions

under which bodies of knowledge come into existence, I would first like to deal with

the function of history in Georgian society.21

Yet, precisely the euphoric experiences of the Georgian national movement and the

ensuing civil war, the defeat in Abkhazia and the conflict in Southern [418] Ossetia

have unveiled the fiction of Georgian national unity. Even if culturally a nation indeed

existed, this simply does not suffice to establish a basic political consensus for the

society as a whole. A collection of critical essays by young Georgian authors expresses

the hope that ”suffering leads to comprehension” of the previously inconceivable

division of the Georgian people and their defeat by the Abkhasians.22 They make the

attempt to grasp the causes by undergoing a process of self-critical reflection and not

merely by attributing them to external factors (the geopolitical location and ‘demon

Russia’, etc.), but rather embedded in their own history, culture and mentality as well as 21 Cf. Oexle, Otto Gerhard: Die Frage nach dem Verhältnis von „Wissenschaft“ und „Leben“ als gegenwärtiges und als historisches Problem.In: Natur und Geschichte. Naturwissenschafliche and historische eiträge zu einer ökologischen Grundbildung. Herrmann, Bernd and Angela Budde (eds.). Arbeitskreis Umweltgeschichte der Universität Göttingen. Niedersächsisches Umweltministerium. Hannover 1989, pp. 20-27.22 Group of authors: tchk’ua vaisagan. statiebi [From suffering to comprehension. Articles]. Caucasian Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development (CIPDD). Tbilisi 1994. The title is a variation of a play by the Russian playwright Aleksandr Griboedov.


the entanglement in the Soviet system. We are witnessing a much deeper seated internal

crisis of the modernization of Georgian society dating back to the Seventies which

continues into the present. This crisis can be summed up as follows: „Taking leave of

the conventions of long-lived morality compels transition to a reflective pattern of

justification.“23 Yet, if the deficiencies of the Soviet system during the Brezhnev

stagnation led to a wide-spread re-traditionalization in Georgian society,24 any

„modernization“ defined as „growth of the adaptive and self-regulating capacities of a

societal system“25 urgently demands a functional differentiation and separation of the

value spheres (economy, belief, science, society, etc.) into autonomous areas with their

own specific logics. This enables one to arrive at „segmentary conflict resolutions” and

for the most part prevents value conflicts from becoming structurally dominant or

individual conflicts of interest (most often distribution conflicts) from being dramatized

into system conflicts.26

The Soviet era, however, outlawed the creation and development of independent, stable

institutions, so that such institutions as determinant factors for action are not available.

Thus in attempting to define a „national interest“ the only instrument available for this

purpose is the „nature of the outline of hegemonic national identity“ as the decisive

measure of the success or failure of transformation and creation of the nation. This

results in the permanent recourse to Georgia's own history and the use of historical and

cultural arguments as a means of conducting political controversy so astonishing to

Western observers. Because national identity is not conceived of as the subjective

identification of individuals, but rather as an objectively binding definition of

belonging, this means that those groups which ultimately succeed in implanting their

definition of national identity will also determine the interests of the [419] national

state. However, this means that the foundations for the legitimization of a young

national state will become an object of domestic political controversy and can thus tend

to function more disintegrative than as an integrative factor.27 This is manifested in the

23 Eder, Klaus: Geschichte als Lernprozeß? Zur Pathogenese politischer Modernität in Deutschland. Frankfurt/Main 1991, p. 67. The principle of a generalized reciprocity can be achieved by means of an ethic of (religious or moral) convictions or an ethic of responsibility (Max Weber).24 Cf. Dragadze, Tamara: Rural Families in Soviet Georgia. A Case Study in Ratcha Province. London and New York 198825 Cf. Sterbling, Anton: Eliten, Realitätsdeutung, Moderniseirungsprobleme. Aufsätze 1987-1988. Beiträge aus dem Fachbereich Pädagogik der Universität der Bundeswehr Hamburg 3 / 1989, p. 51.26 Cf. ibid., p. 2527 Cf. on this aspect the extremely enlightening study by Jacoby, Volker: Geopolitische Zwangslage und nationale Identität: Die Konturen der innenpolitischen Konflikte in Armenien. Doctoral thesis in the Department Gesellschaftsawissenschaften of the Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe-Universität at Frankfurt a.M. 1998, p.17.


overthrow of the previous president Gamsakhurdia, in the fundamentalist tendencies

within the Georgian-orthodox church or in the example of the „Association for the

Protection of the Esteem of Pedagogues” cited above.

The danger of “reality crises” and the misdirection of societal development continues to

plague Georgia even today, because the economy or in our case science cannot marshal

sufficient autonomy to make decisions according to their own rationality criteria

determined by the institution. Its specific knowledge and its interests are simply not

considered in the decision-making process of society as a whole.28 In the same manner,

there is no process by which the specific interests of large elements of the population

are incorporated into decision-making processes involving the whole of society.

Consequently, motivational structures and living strategies have developed which are

essentially immune to ideological demands and thus highly impervious to political

direction. The spheres of the politically controlled public domain and the private sphere

which is completely sealed off from the former have drifted further apart and now it

appears that they are to be (compulsively) re-united on the basis of a new „national

ideology“.29 In an effort to offset this trend schools play a key role. Particularly they

generate loyalty to the state and public morals by instilling national identity (like the

emphasis placed on nation/nationality in the Standard HG) against this trend.30 The

legitimacy of the state community so direly needed is not becoming a reality, because

citizens are deprived of any opportunity to participate in this process and a real sharing

of interests. Despite the existence of an independent state, Georgian society is in serious

danger of [420] developing a „pathology,“31 if it does not succeed in developing a 28 For Eder, the connection between the idea of the autonomous subject and forms of egalitarian-discursive nationalization signifies the ”key to creation of political modernity” and takes place at two levels: 1.) Creation of community in the form of an association, for example, involving formal equality of all members, new topics and new manners of speaking and debate and 2.) in the legal codification of political activities in the form of regulating the formal chances of access to the political system as well as procedures for involving those persons who will be effected by decisions which have to be made, op. cit., p. 1129 Cf. Sterbling, op. cit., p. 18. He perceives the obstacles to modernization in eastern European societies as embedded in the fact that in Soviet society the development of elites as a form of societal development along specific various socio-cultural and socio-economic interests up to an „ideologically united elite“ was rigidly repressed much in the same manner in which patterns of knowledge, interpretations of reality and criteria of rationality which failed to conform to the dominant ideology as officially interpreted were subject to suppression (pp. 27-8 and 38)30 For an earlier period see „Schooling, Educational Policy and Ethnic Identity. Edited by Janusz Tomiak in collaboration with Knut Eriksen, Andreas Kazamias and Robin Okey. European Science Foundation. New York University Press, Dartmouth 1991 (Comparative studies on governments and non-dominant ethnic-groups in Europe, 1850-1940, vol. 1); Fletcher, George P.: Loyality. An Essay on the Morality of Relationships. Oxford University Press. New York / Oxford 1993.31 Cf. Eder, op. cit., p. 10: [in German] „We can speak of pathology if we can establish the fact that a society partially or completely destroys its own structural pre-requisites during the course of its development. The pathological element involved consists of the destruction of any possibility of entering into a debate over which normative order will have collective applicability.“


universally binding normative order. Desperate calls for „the iron arm of rule by law“

or the attempted assassinations of president Shevardnadze32 clearly illustrate how

precariously national independence is actually embedded into Georgia's own society. In

the realm of science and education there is a complete lack of a formalized regulation of

admission tied to performance criteria. The attempt to subject only teachers to such

standards by means of „certification“ while simultaneously ignoring the situation at the

universities led precisely to the extreme reactions cited above.

What does all this mean with regard to reforming school texts and curricula for the

subject „History of Georgia“? To begin with, there can be no new materials if the self-

perception of Georgia's historians does not change so that history no longer serves as a

projection screen for presenting the great past of the nation, but rather as an

independent discipline with its own specific set of scientific laws. Here, we can cite the

example of Ivane Dzhavakhishvili, the father of modern Georgian historiography. In

1904, he published a scientific essay entitled „Patriotism and Science“ criticizing

„advocacy science“ not dedicated to scientific principles, but willing to „accentuate the

positive characteristics, while minimizing the deficiencies“ in order to come to peace

with the past as both „fruitless“ and „damaging“. He stressed the fact that only a critical

and reflective reception of Georgian history would be of any use to Georgian society:

„The difference between critical, scientific and common perceptions is that we conceive

of our contemporary perceptions of the past as being correct, as if the dismantling and

refutation of such conceptions would be tantamount to the destruction of our deeds in

the past and of successful life in general.”33 These words are as valid today as they were

then inasmuch as these „common perceptions“ have relinquished none of their function

as a „civil religion“ or „transcendental elements of order“34 and thus correspond well

32 Due to the fact that it was assumed that the country as a whole would revert into a state of chaos and clan warfare was in case of a successful assassination.33 Cf. Javakhishvili, Ivane: mamulishviloba da metsniereba [Patriotism and Science]. Tbilisi 1904, p.12; reprint: Ivane Javakhishvili: t’khzulebani t’ormet t’omad. Tomi XII [Works in twelve volumes. Vol. 12]. Tbilisi State University Press, Tbilisi 1998, p.64-87. His critique was predominantly aimed at the founder of Georgian pedagogy, Iakob Gogebashvili, and is embedded in a positivistic concept of „true history“ (tcheshmariti istoria) „as it really was“. This could easily be translated into the present as a contemporary and honest concept of the science of history. Cf. in this context Parsons, J.W.R.: The Emergence and Development of the National Question in Georgia, 1801-1921. Ph.D. thesis University of Glasgow, January 1987, p. 23, particularly notes 16 and 1734 Cf. Rotholz, Walter: Die politikwissenschaftliche Kulturdiskussion: Nachholbedarf in Deutschland. In: Die Neue Gesellschaft / Frankfurter Hefte, 3 (1998), in particular p. 246: [in German] „The imagination creates a symbolic network of meanings. A society devoid of such meanings simply does not exist. Such ultimate justifications are necessarily transcendental: They are not available to society, because they would otherwise be in no position to provide any plausible horizon for justification. Nevertheless, they do bind people. What this means is that in order to provide such a justification interrelationship such symbols must represent a 'truth' of some sort.“


with the currently predominant positivistic conception of science. It is not necessary to

[421] subject one's self to the tension of the coexistence of various explanatory

approaches, because the facts point to a single absolute truth.35

As the only currently renowned historian, Guram Qoranashvili has taken up

Dzhavakhishvili's critique and confirmed its urgency for the present day in his search an

answer to the prospects for survival of Georgian historical sciences.36 He postulates the

„fear among historians of losing their illusions“ which must survive before the

backdrop of the new opportunities and freedoms in an independent Georgia. A new

paradoxical situation has come about in which their thinking has lagged behind the new

conditions and appears frozen in a „mythological character“. Within the guild of

historians, self-critical questions concerning a (neo-) formation of Georgian

historiography find no place on its agenda. Despite all of the development of Georgian

historiography during the past seventy years, he sees no qualitative progress since the

days of Dzhavakhishvili. There is simply no awareness of the necessity of historical

syntheses of the caliber of Theodor Mommsen's „History of Rome“, which

Dzhavakhishvili despite more unfavorable circumstances sought to emulate. The Soviet

era had discontinued the promising developments in this field and replaced them with

hardly creative „surrogates“ produced by broad-ranging collective works. Little

attention was ever paid to world history as if this were a matter only for Europeans, but

not for Georgians. According to Qoranashvili, what is lacking is „the historian with an

inspired personality” capable of producing “truly creative historiography”.

In the same vein, the derogatory attitude toward the philosophy of history (which he

does not perceive of as metaphysical) and methodology has had a devastating effect.

Precisely at that point in 1988 as perestroika really began to take effect, the director of

the Academy Institute of History and Ethnography (which is named after Ivane

Dzhavakhishvili) closed the Department of Georgian Historiography and Public

35 Oexle, op. cit., pp. 21-22. He defines positivism as containing the following four elements: 1. The assimilation of immanent laws of nature, society or history and purportedly apriori facts from which a correspondingly structured totality can be derived in accordance with these laws; 2. Science as the insuperably highest form of knowledge and wisdom; 3. Its educational effects which strives to change people and society and actually does change them in the sense of never-ending progress, a constant improvement in the condition of people and human nature itself; 4. Positivistic (natural) science as the „exemplary“ principal science. Science is thus conceived of as an all-encompassing force in life, as a new religion.36 Cf. Qoranashvil, Guram: movamzadot’ sap’lavi k’art’uli kliosat’vis? [Are we digging Georgian Clio's grave ?] In: 7 dghe [Seven days], 50 (December 22-28, 1995], p. 5 and from the same author: mosazrebani istoriograp’iis ak’t’ualuri problemebis shesakheb [Thoughts about some current problems of historiography], in: matsne ist. ser. [Herald. History (...) series], 2 (1992), p. 178-183 and his latest monograph: erovnuli sakitkhi. Zogadt’eoriuli da konkretul-istoriuli aspektebi [The National Question. Fundamental theoretical and specific historical aspects]. Tbilisi 1997.


Thought and in so doing prevented any renewal of the discipline. The very same

director, by then nearly eighty years old, announced in 1995 that in the face of the

significant transformation „a scientifically substantiated and argumentative transition”

from the ideas, conceptions and laws of the past was a necessity. The pre-requisites for

such a transition are still lacking today and not only in material terms. One of the main

reasons for [422] having landed in the current quagmire in which Georgian

historiography currently finds itself bogged down is its ruling gerontocracy and the

attendant paradox that society has the expectation that precisely those individuals will

effect the renewal of Georgian historiography who maneuvered the discipline into its

current position in the first place. Qoranashvilis second reason for the current crisis is

the „ego-centrism of the Georgians” which I would prefer to characterize as a reduction

of world perception to the national in Georgian society since the late Sixties. 37 The

purported opposition to the system was directed exclusively at national affairs, it was

not used productively to develop new methods and theories as was the case in Estonia

not only in the field of historiography (e.g. Lotman’s semiotic “Tartu School”). There,

an Historic Commission was created to deal with the question of the applicability of

historical perceptions and knowledge obtained during the Soviet era.

Personnel continuities impede such a critical review of the successes and mistakes of

Soviet Georgian historiography in Georgia and they also impede any substantive,

methodological and theoretical renewal of the discipline of historiography. The vast

majority of the upcoming generation of historiographers has left the major research

institutes and universities and shifted to non-government organizations or simply

emigrated. Newer historical syntheses are not forthcoming. At least, new original

sources, memoirs and classic studies are being published which can be used at some

point in the future to produce new syntheses. Even more so than during Soviet times,

history is currently being conceptualized as the history of political events for

legitimation and identity reasons.38 There is a general lack of any intellectual body of

thought based on clear categories and terms capable of differentiated comprehension of

an extremely complex historical reality, qualitatively more complicated than a mere

reduction to any „struggle of the Georgian people for unity and independence“. New

approaches and deviating evaluations of historical facts both from within and without

37 Cf. on this point Gerber, Jürgen: Georgien: Nationale Opposition und kommunistische Herrschaft seit 1956. Baden-Baden 1997, pp. 33-60 and 61-113.38 Cf. for example the glut of pamphlets and position papers by historians, archeologists and other scientists from both sides of the border who attempt to substantiate their respective claims to Abkhazia using historical arguments.


are publicly condemned as denigrations of acts of service to the nation (as indicated

above in Dzhavakhishvili's dictum), without the slightest indication of any awareness of

internationally accepted scientific standards.39 This „splendid isolation“ has to date not

been overcome.

So there will be many serious problems for the renewal of the subject matter of history

curricula and materials, textbooks, etc. as does Guram Qoranashvili with respect to

Georgian historiography. Only the autonomy of the science of [422] history as research

can develop the new syntheses which will be able to effect positive changes in the

subject matter methods of teaching history as a subject in the school system. This is,

however, no longer a political issue, but rather inextricably contingent upon

institutional renewal and the readiness to undergo personal re-orientation on the part of

scientists and teachers which does not relinquish their personal „transcendental

orientations“ but subjects their historical core to scientific review and cleanses the core

from cherished myths.

What then can really be accomplished? The essential pre-condition is an open dialogue

between representatives of two different systems of science where the basic ground

rules must be clarified and agreed upon (such as concepts of science, common interests,

etc.). In order to ensure that this dialogue is fruitful for both sides, it should address

itself to specific topics or issues of the discipline in general and be conducted over an

extended period of time.

What must be striven for is cooperation and discussion between Western and CIS

scientists. However, in the context of larger projects (research, books), it must be

committed to objective pre-requisites: 1. the scholarly qualification and past

performance of the co-operating partners based on their publications and 2.

demonstration of a willingness to adopt new approaches, because otherwise we will

have accomplished nothing other than to have created a confrontation between partners

decidedly committed to specific positions, and are willing only to pay lip-service to

reform (as has demonstrated in our example of the „Standards“ for „History of

Georgia“).

39 Cf. for example the critique leveled by the historian of the Institute of History, Giuli Asatiani, at the book by the Armenian American social historian, Ronald Grigor Suny: The Making of the Georgian Nation. Bloomington and Indianapolis 1988, 1994 (2nd ed.) which develops precisely the synthesis of the process of nation building in the 19th and 20th centuries called for by Qoranashvili. See for a first critical reexamination of ist own historiography the booklet by Merab Vachnadze and Vakhtang Guruli: [in Georgian] Questions on Modern and Contemporary History of Georgia. Tbilisi 1998


A monumental project such as the German „Historical basic terms“40 which began in

the Seventies and is only today nearing completion is something helpful for every

national historiography. In addition to special aids in dealing with specific questions, a

Russian translation, for example, of the „Handbook of the Didactics of History“41 could

be very useful in this endeavor. In the same vein the Federal Republic of Germany or

the European Union could help by financing the translation of selected syntheses of

European history so direly needed as examples for Georgian historians to deliver cogent

models for a modern „History of Georgia“ as a synthesis of national and world history.

40 Otto Brunner, Werner Conze, Reinhart Koselleck (eds.): [in German] Historical Basic Terms. A Historic dictionary on the political-societal language in Germany. Vols. 1-7. Stuttgart 1972-199241 Klaus Bergmann, Klaus Fröhlich, Annette Kuhn, Jörn Rüsen, Gerhard Schneider (eds.): [in German] Handbook for Didactics of History. Hannover 1997 (5th rev. ed.)


Literature:

Georgian language sources are transliterated in accordance with the system employed in the Catalogue of Georgian Books in the British Museum. Russian language sources are transliterated in accordance with the system used by the journal „Eurasian Studies“ (former „Soviet Studies“).

ALASANIA, Giuli: k’art’velebi baton ronald siunis t’valsazrisit’ [Die Georgier nach der Ansicht des Herrn Ronald Suny]. T’bilisi 1997

GROUP of AUTHORS: tchk’ua vaisagan. statiebi [Verstand durch Leiden. Artikel]. Caucasian Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development (CIPDD). T’bilisi 1994

BILDUNGSGESETZ: sak’art’velos kanoni ganat’lebis shesakheb [Georgiens Gesetz zur Bildung], in der Ztg.: sak’art’velos respublika [Republik Georgien], Nr. 165, 17.07.1997, S.3-5

BILDUNGSREFORM: Staatliches Programm der Bildungsreform und ihre Umsetzung. Tbilisi 1995JAVAKHISHVILI, Ivane: mamulishviloba da metsniereba [Patriotism and Science]. t’bilisi 1904.

Reprint in Ivane Javakhishvili: t’khzulebani t’ormet tomad. tomi XII [Works in twelve volumes. Vol. XII. T’bilisi State University Press]. t’bilisi 1998, p.64-87

DRAGADZE, Tamara: Rural Families in Soviet Georgia. A Case Study in Ratcha Province. London und New York 1988

EDER, Klaus: Geschichte als Lernprozeß? Zur Pathogenese politischer Modernität in Deutschland. Frankfurt/M. 1991

FLETCHER, George P.: Loyality. An Essay on the Morality of Relationships. Oxford University Press. New York / Oxford 1993 (Dt.: Loyalität. Über die Moral von Beziehungen. Frankfurt/M. 1994)

GERBER, Jürgen: Georgien: Nationale Opposition und kommunistische Herrschaft seit 1956. Baden-Baden 1997

GESCHICHTLICHE GRUNDBEGRIFFE. Historisches Lexikon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland. Herausgegeben von Otto Brunner, Werner Conze, Reinhart Koselleck. Bd. 1-7. Stuttgart 1972-1992

GUSSEJNOV, Gassan: Abchasen und Georgier unter vier Augen?, in: Kommune 1/1994, S.19-22. [Zum Aspekt der „oral history“ in den Kulturen des Kaukasus]

GVCHIRDEBA EROVNULI IDEOLOGIA [Wir brauchen eine nationale Ideologie], in der Zsf.: literaturuli sak’art’velo [Literary Georgia], no. 31, 1.-8. August 1997, p.3

HANDBUCH DER GESCHICHTSDIDAKTIK. Herausgeber Klaus Bergmann, Klaus Fröhlich, Annette Kuhn, Jörn Rüsen, Gerhard Schneider. Hannover 1997 (5. überarbeitete Auflage)

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT: Georgia 1997. By Valeri Melikidze, George Tarkhan-Mouravi. United Nations Development Programme, Tbilisi 1997

JACOBY, Volker: Geopolitische Zwangslage und nationale Identität: Die Konturen der innenpolitischen Konflikte in Armenien. Inauguraldissertation im Fachbereich Gesellschaftswissenschaften der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität zu Frankfurt am Main 1998

MAMUK’ELASHVLI, Naira: Aufsatz zur Konferenz am GEI „Sozialismus und Geschichtswissenschaft“, in: ? (1998), S.?

METODICHESKIE REKOMENDATSII i tematicheskoe planirovanie po istorii Gruzii dlja V-XI klassov srednej shkoly 1997-1998 god [Methodische Empfehlungen und thematische Unterrichtspläne für allgemeinbildende Schulen der Klassen 5 - 11 im Schuljahr 1997/98]. Tbilisi 1997

MET’ODURI REKOMENDATSIEBI da gakvet’ilebis t’ematuri dagegmva istoriashi zogadsaganmagalit’eleblo skolebis V-XI klasebisat’vis. 1997/98 sasdsavlo dseli [Methodische Empfehlungen und thematische Unterrichtspläne für allgemeinbildende Schulen der Klassen 5 - 11 im Schuljahr 1997/98]. t’bilisi 1997

MOSIASHVILI, T’inat’in: izrdeba upskruli ganat’lebis rep’ormatorebsa da pedagogebs shoris. ra sargeblobas gvadzlevs atestatsia? [Die Kluft zwischen der Bildungsreformern und den Pädagogen ist gewachsen. Welchen Nutzen bringt uns die Attestierung?], in der Ztg.: Rezonansi , 30.09.1997, p.15

OEXLE, Otto Gerhard: Die Frage nach dem Verhältnis von „Wissenschaft“ und „Leben“ als gegenwärtiges und als historisches Problem, in: Natur und Geschichte. Naturwissenschaftliche und historische Beiträge zu einer ökologischen Grundbildung. Zusammengestellt und bearbeitet von Bernd Herrmann und Angela Budde, „Arbeitskreis Umweltgeschichte der Universität Göttingen“. Hg. vom Nds. Umweltministerium. Hannover 1989, p. 20-27

PARSONS, J.W.R.: The Emergence and Development of the National Question in Georgia, 1801-1921. Ph. d. thesis university of Glasgow, January 1987


QORANASHVILI, Guram: erovnuli sakitkhi. zogadt’eoriuli da konkretul-istoriuli aspektebi [Nationale Frage. Allgemeintheoretische und konkret historische Aspekte]. t’bilisi 1997

QORANASHVILI, G.: movamzadot’ sap’lavi k’art’uli kliosat’vis ? [Bereiten wir der georgischen Kleio das Grab?], in: 7 dghe [Seven Days] no.50, 22.-28.12.1995, p. 5

QORANASHVILI, G.: mosazrebani istoriograp’iis ak’t’ualuri problemebis shesakheb [Überlegungen zu aktuellen Problemen der Historiographie], in: matsne ist. ser. [Herald. History (...) series] 2 / 1992, p. 179-183

RATIANI, Jemal: rdsmena sakut’ari t’avisa da k’veqnisa [Der eigene Glaube und der des Landes], in der Zsf.: literaturuli sak’art’velo [Literary Georgia], June 1997

ROTHHOLZ, Walter: Die politikwissenschaftliche Kulturdiskussion: Nachholbedarf in Deutschland, in: Die Neue Gesellschaft / Frankfurter Hefte 3/1998, p.242-247

SCHOOLING, Educational Policy and Ethnic Identity. Edited by Janusz Tomiak in collaboration with Knut Eriksen, Andreas Kazamias and Robin Okey. European Science Foundation. New York University Press, Dartmouth 1991 (Comparative studies on governments and non-dominant ethnic-groups in Europe, 1850-1940, vol. 1)

STANDART GG: saxelmdsipo saganmanat’leblo standarti sak’art’velos istoriashi [Der Staatliche Bildungsstandard im Fach „Geschichte Georgiens“]. P’arnaoz Lomashvili, S. Vardosanidze. t’bilisi 1997

STANDART WG: saxelmdsipo saganmanat’leblo standarti msop’lio istoriashi [Der Staatliche Bildungsstandard im Fach „Weltgeschichte“]. Tamaz Nikolaishvili, Tsira Chikvaidze. t’bilisi 1997

STERBLING, Anton: Eliten, Realitätsdeutung, Modernisierungsprobleme. Aufsätze 1987-1988. Beiträge aus dem Fachbereich Pädagogik der Universität der Bundeswehr Hamburg 3/1989

SUNY, Ronald Grigor: The Making of the Georgian Nation. Bloomington und Indianapolis 1988, 1994 (2nd rev. ed.)

TAKAHASHI, S.: The Reconsideration of History in Historical Perspective: „The Georgian Question“ in Soviet Historiography, in: T. Ito (Hg.), Facing Up To the Past. Soviet Historiography Under Perestroika. Sapporo 1989, S. 243-258

VACHNADZE, Merab/GURULI, Vakhtang: sak’art’velos akhali da uakhlesi istoriis sakit’khebi [Fragen der neuen und neuesten Geschichte Georgiens]. t’bilisi 1998

XOSHTARIA-BROSE, Edisher: k’art’uli istoriuli metsnierebis ganvit’arebis dghevandeli donisa da dzirit’adi amotsenebis shesakheb [Das gegenwärtige Entwicklungsniveau der georgischen Geschichtswissenschaft], in: matsne ist. ser. [Herald. History (...) series] 1 / 1992, p. 156-162

Textbooks for subjects of „History of Georgia“ and „World History“:

ANT’ADZE, Kote / MAMUK’ELASHVLI, Naira: akhali istoria, VIII klasis sakhelmdzghvanelo, meore gamotsema [Moderne Geschichte. Lehrbuch für die 8. Klasse. 2. Auflage]. t’bilisi 1997

ANT’ADZE, Kote / P’IRTSKHALAVA, L.: shua saukuneebis istoria, VII klasis sakhelmdzghvanelo, I-II nadsili [Geschichte des Mittelalters. Lehrbuch für die 7. Klasse. Teil 1 u. 2]. t’bilisi 1996

ASAT’IANI, Nodar / LORT’K’IP’ANIDZE, Mariam: sak’art’velos istoria VIII-IX klasis sakhelm-dzghvanelo [Geschichte Georgiens. Lehrbuch der Klassen 8 bis 9] . t’bilisi 1990

BOLOT’ASHVILI, G.: uakhlesi istoria, X klasis sakhelmdzghvanelo, XIX s-is 70-iani dslebi - 1945 ds. I-II nakvet’i [Neueste Geschichte. Lehrbuch für die 10. Klasse. Die 70er Jahre des 19. Jahrhunderts bis 1945. Teil 1 u. 2]. nakvet’i I: XIX s-is 70-iani dslebi - 1918 [Teil 1: 1870er bis 1918]; nak’veti II: 1918-1945 ds. [Teil 2: 1918-1945]. t’bilisi 1996

KIGHURADZE, Nino/ MEDZMARIASHVILI, E.: uakhlesi istoria, XI klasis sakhelmdzghvanelo [Neueste Geschichte. Lehrbuch für die 11. Klasse]. t’bilisi 1997

LOMASHVILI, P’arnaoz: sak’art’velos istoria 1801-1918, X klasis sakhelmdzghvanelo [Geschichte Georgiens 1801-1918. Lehrbuch der 10. Klasse]. t’bilisi 1992

LOMASHVILI, P’arnaoz: sak’art’velos istoria 1918-1985, XI klasis sakhelmdzghvanelo [Geschichte Georgiens 1918-1985. Lehrbuch der 11. Klasse], t’bilisi 1994, 3. Auflage 1997

MAMUK’ELASHVLI, Naira: akhali istoria (1814-1871), IX klasis sakhelmdzghvanelo [Moderne Ge-schichte 1814-1879. Lehrbuch für die 9. Klasse]. t’bilisi 1992

MAMUK’ELASHVLI, Naira: akhali istoria, VIII klasis sakhelmdzghvanelo [Moderne Geschichte. Lehrbuch für die 8. Klasse. Teil 1 u. 2]. t’bilisi 1992

T’VALISHVILI, K’./ CHIKVAIDZE, Tsira: dzveli msoplios istoria, VI klasis sakhelmdzghvanelo, I-II nadsili [Geschichte der antiken Welt. Lehrbuch für die 6. Klasse. Teil 1 u. 2]. t’bilisi 1995

Date post:	18-Feb-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	judit-szilbereky
View:	218 times
Download:	2 times

What Can and Should We Learn From Georgi

Documents