Transport inaccessibility of Georgia in the 1770s – 1860s

Bugaev Denis Sergeevich Applicant for PhD in History, the department of Ethnography of Caucasus, Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography named after Peter the Great "The Kunstkamera" 198330, Russia, g. Sankt-Peterburg, g. Saint Petersburg, pr. Marshala Zhukova, 43, korpus 1, kv. 138 denisbugaev@yahoo.com

Introduction

In recent decades, despite decolonization, the collapse of the socialist camp and the multiple multiplication of the number of sovereign states, the focus of scientific research has been directed at political globalization and centripetal processes, for example, V. Degoev's article ^[1] and D. Rayfield's capital monograph ^[2]. Centrifugal processes, isolationist practices and their justifications, which took place in the process of integration of a number of territories of Georgia into The Russian Empire in the 1770s—1860s, despite its high heuristic potential, was constantly overshadowed by studies of integration processes.

Foreign researcher R. Nachtigal notes the positive aspects of integration, in particular, due to the development of the transport network and historical ties with the same-faith Christian people, Georgians had the opportunity to participate in Europeanization, receive education in schools and universities, national consolidation of Georgians took place ^{[3, p. 72]}. Tracing in this article the opposite process of resistance of the territories of Eastern Georgia to inclusion in the The Russian Empire by reducing transport accessibility reveals new facets of integration processes.

The purpose of this article is to determine the impact of transport inaccessibility on the fulfillment by travelers of the 1770s-1860s of the tasks assigned to them in view of further aspirations for the integration of the region. The objectives of this research article are to determine the transport inaccessibility of Eastern Georgia at the general imperial and local levels as negative factors for travelers. The scientific novelty lies in the very formulation of the topic: the author, based mainly on the publications of travelers' diaries, characterizes the impact of transport inaccessibility on the fulfillment of pro-Russian tasks in the 1770s—1860s. In contrast to the research of R. Nakhtigal, the author of the article places more emphasis on the study of travelers' diaries, which testified to the state and changes in local and general imperial transport infrastructures from personal experience.

The article is based on the principles of historicism, authenticity and objectivity. The methodological basis of the research is a systematic approach, which is based on the consideration of the object as an integral complex of interrelated elements. The article uses the methods of the archeology of knowledge in the classical tradition of M. Foucault ^[4] and the discourse analysis of the microhistoric scale in the classical interpretation of K. Ginzburg ^[5]. A notable follower and interpreter of K. Ginzburg's ideas on Russian soil, whose scientific tools influenced the writing of this study, is V. A. Shnirelman ^[6].

Taking into account anti-globalist practices significantly complements the known historical facts, allows us to give them a new interpretation, which is relevant against the background of the ethnonational "renaissance" taking place in the region. Relevant and innovative is the appeal of the study to the transport inaccessibility of Georgia at a time when the threat of the spread of diseases dictated the model of economic activity, and the doctor's tools were limited. Now, for epidemiological reasons, there is a decrease in the physical mobility of the population between ethnonational communities and territories, interethnic hostility is being actualized for reasons of obvious or imaginary differences in vulnerability to new diseases. According to the author, the isolationist processes of the ethno-national "renaissance" may accelerate significantly in the near future and acquire radical forms.

Source database

One of the sources on the history of the study of territories and areas of interest of the Russian Empire were and still are the diaries of travelers of the XVIII–beginning. XX centuries . So L. A. Shur wrote about the diaries of Russian travelers to California and on Hawaii ^{[7; 8]}, R. Yu. Pochekaev identified the legal system of the Central Asian states on the material of travel notes ^[9], and N. G. Meladze revealed the role of notes of English travelers for studying the history of the highlands of Western Georgia ^[10].

This article examines the materials of the travels of I. A. Guldenstedt (Gildenstedt) (1745-1781), Y. G. Klaproth (1783-1835), the 19th century traveler E. Spencer (?–?), J. Bell (1797-1858), N. S. Gonetsky (Ganetsky) (1815-1904) and E. G. Weidenbaum (1845-1918) in the Eastern Georgia and adjacent territories. It should be noted that all of them more or less explicitly describe the issues of military communication, to a lesser extent concerning the issues of trade and industrial transport interaction in the 1770s–1860s. In this series of voyages of the I. A. Guldenstedt expedition of 1771-1772, the main attention is paid to the formulation of transport problems. The works of subsequent travelers, as well as the opening in the 1860s of the highway along the Georgian Military Road, the practice and results of which are described in the guidebook of E. G. Weidenbaum in 1888, are interpreted as a gradual resolution of most of them, therefore less attention is paid to them.

P. S. Pallas (1741-1811), who was the head of the academic expedition, published in German a collection of works by I. A. Guldenstedt on the expedition of 1768-1774 ^{[11; 12]}. However, the material for this article is the Russian-language edition of 2002 ^[13], which published a corrected and supplemented part of the archival diary travel and reporting notes of the detachment of the academic expedition of I. A. Guldenstedt, relating to travels in the Caucasus in 1770-1773. The choice of the subject of study is due to the fact that, as mentioned earlier, it is archival travel notes as a source that allow you to learn about the phenomena of everyday life and the transport system of travel destinations.

The group affiliation of the authors of travel diaries is often not so decisive and deceptive. So lawyer R. Yu. Pochekaev notes that "it is often difficult to classify certain travelers by both national and professional affiliation <...> probably the most striking example of the confusion of the status of a traveler is the figure of A. Vambery, who visited Central Asia in 1863. A subject of Austria?Hungary, a Jew by religion, an Oriental scholar by profession, he visited the region, posing as a Turkish pilgrim. And just a few years ago, documents were made public confirming that his trip was organized by the British special service" ^{[9, pp. 26-27]}. Despite possible insinuations about nationality and professional affiliation, the work of I. A. Guldenstedt is considered in the article as a report of a civilian researcher acting on behalf of the Russian government in the territories under the Russian military protectorate.

Here it is also necessary to point out the position of V. A. Tishkov, who, as the head of Russian ethnologists and anthropologists, traces the evolution of ideas in the area of his academic responsibility. V. A. Tishkov argues that, firstly, the issues of nation-building have always been in the focus of socio-cultural anthropology and ethnology, and secondly, the regime of nation-building is not provides epistemological damage to anthropologists working in its conditions ^{[14, pp. 91-92]}.

The program at the foreign Medical and Surgical College of Berlin, where I. A. Guldenstedt, a student of the Russian Empire, studied, practically did not differ from the training at the university in the medical and surgical specialty. The educational process was aimed at training military doctors at a large clinic ^{[15, p. 5]}. The doctoral degree received shortly after graduation from the college confirmed the high level of training and knowledge of the Russian scientist of German nationality.

The 2002 edition of I. A. Guldenstedt's work consists of three main parts: travel descriptions of a diary nature, analytical notes on the political and geographical structure of Georgia and the Caucasus, as well as a number of heterogeneous appendices. The above-mentioned publication covers the part of the academic journey that concerned the scientist's stay in the Caucasus, omitted descriptions of the trip to Ukraine and Southern Russia. It includes materials about four trips: "From Astrakhan to Kizlyar in 1770", "Travels and observations on Terek and in The Caucasus Mountains in 1771", "Travels and observations in Georgia, 1771" and "Stay at the Terek in 1773" ^{[16, pp. 19-20]}. Only the third of them fully relates to the subject of the article.

The translated edition of I. A. Guldenstedt from German is based on the text prepared posthumously by P. S. Pallas ^{[11; 12]}, verified by the compiler with the travel diaries of I. A. Guldenstedt 1768-1773. (SPbF ARAN, R. I, Op. 100, No. 6, 7) and supplemented with materials of reports sent to the Academy of Sciences (SPbF ARAN, F. 3, Op. 33, No. 5) ^{[16, pp. 18-20]}. Thus, the publication is a reworking of the following textual generalities: the traveler's diary entries, which he supplemented and clarified over time; based on the diaries of the scientist's analytical reports to the Academy of Sciences, after sending them by messenger, they did not change; as well as the secondary text of the head of all Academic detachments (expeditions) P. S. Pallas, who is on a trip to Georgia he did not personally participate, but was her contemporary and involved person. According to the "Russian Biographical Dictionary", during his lifetime I. A. Guldenstedt published only 3 ethnographic works based on the materials of his academic expedition ^{[17, pp. 189-190]}.

At the same time, the 2002 edition is replete with omissions regarding travel to Georgia. So P. S. Pallas notes that he omitted observations of the weather, many botanical and zoological materials. In the 2002 edition, such materials are further reduced ^{[16, p. 19-20]}. In addition, for various reasons, a number of materials and maps have been omitted, which creates significant gaps ^{[16, p. 20]}, but gives dynamism to the narrative.

The genesis of the knowledge presented in the publication thus appears to be a complex process with multiple agents having their own interests and points of view. Publication by I. A. Guldenstedt 2002 — the result of the application of the method of archeology of knowledge on a microhistoric scale. The archaeology of knowledge, according to M. Foucault, is "nothing more than a repeated act of writing: that is, an orderly transformation in a preserved form of an external character — of what has already been written. This is not a return to the mystery of the origin, it is a systematic description of the discourse?object" ^{[4, p. 261]}.

In this regard, it should be noted that I. A. Guldenstedt did not see the description of the entire long-term academic expedition, or its individual episodes, as possible and worthy of publication. Based on his notes, he published 21 highly specialized works, of which 3 were of an ethnographic and historical nature, 4 were devoted to economic problems, and 14 to natural sciences ^{[17, pp. 189-190]}. In Russian, the 2002 publication of the translator T. K. Shafranovskaya with comments by Yu. Yu. Karpov ^[13] is a worthy material for reference as a source.

The work of Y. G. Klaproth ^[18-19], published in 1812-1814 in Berlin and Halle in German, was written 4-7 years after the trip, which was associated with the unofficial relocation of the scientist from Russia to German cities, and then to France. Despite the fact that the expedition was carried out at the expense of the Russian treasury, work on its publication was carried out in conditions of increasing confrontation between Russian and European societies, open military confrontation of 1812-1815, excessive movements of records prepared for publication over long distances, which could affect the completeness and sharpness of statements against Russia in the publication.

Works by E. Spencer ^[20-21] and J. Bell ^[22-23] are considered in their originals in English. Both of them were published by their authors within a year or two after the end of the expedition in 1838 and 1840, respectively. Thus, the works of J. von Klaproth, E. Spencer and J. Bell express in many ways an anti-Russian position.

 The publication of N. S. Gonetsky's letters in 2003 ^[24] represents the first publication of family correspondence from only one sender as a source in its translation into modern writing standards with comments, thus the semantic changes made to the text are minimal. The publication of E. G. Weidenbaum ^[25] is an authentic facsimile reproduction of the work of 1888 without making distortions in the text.

The level of development of state roads in The Russian Empire and Eastern Georgia

For the reign of Catherine II (1762-1796), Yu. I. Petrov, a researcher of the law and history of roads, notes the binary nature of the existing state transport arteries — the presence of land roads and waterways proper. The latter included not only canals, dams, locks, but also towpaths — lanes equipped along the shore for the movement of boatmen and horses pulling vessels against the current or in places where it was absent ^{[26, pp. 136-139]}. The waterway system of that time met the interests of supplying mainly large cities, such as St. Petersburg?Petersburg, Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod.

The state invested colossal funds for that time in the construction of waterways and the development of related infrastructure, while the construction of land routes was characterized by underfunding. Thus, 833,719 rubles were spent on the Novgorod Canal in 1797-1804, and on The Ivanovo Canal in 1807-1810 was spent 738,000 rubles. ^{[27, p. 18-19]}. Since 1797 , 66,753 rubles have been allocated annually to maintain the Ladoga Canal located near the capital . ^{[27, p. 39]}. At the same time , the development of the military road in Georgia, later called the Georgian Military Road, was allocated a total of 71,028 rubles. 50 kopecks in 1803 ^{[27, p. 40]}.

As of ser. XIX century . in places where towpaths were developed, as I. Vernadsky points out, the traction of horses driven by boatmen was used, these paths also served to return boatmen and horses to places of permanent residence ^{[28, p. 7]}. The movement of overland — wheeled and sleigh — loads, mail and travelers along such prominent and all-weather landmarks as rivers with the presence of inns on the way, infrastructure for minor household repairs and medical centers should be called mutually beneficial for everyone.

One of the most important transport arteries of the region from the point of view of Russia was the road connecting Moscow and Tiflis through the Great Caucasian Ridge. I. A. Guldenstedt mentions only the passage to Georgia in "Travels and Observations on the Terek and in The Caucasus Mountains in 1771" ^{[13, p. 45]} and in "Travels and observations in Georgia, 1771" ^{[13, pp. 75-77]}. The term "Georgian Military Road" and the specific route had not yet developed.

In the book dedicated to the 200th anniversary of the St. George's Treatise (1783), I. Bogomolov and G. Khutsishvili note that in the summer of 1769 The future Georgian Military Road, which connected Vladikavkaz and Tiflis (Tbilisi), was used to help the Russian troops to Irakli II ^{[29, p. 6]}. For Kartli?An important transport project of the Kakheti Kingdom was the arrangement and maintenance of the Daryal Passage, which served as the basis for a long-term pro-Russian globalist policy.

As of the end of 1807, Y. G. Klaproth speaks pessimistically about the prospects for the development of the future Georgian Military Road. The traveler notes that people who are stupidly gathered into a tangle only waste their time, not contributing to the public good, as is often the case in Russia ^{[18, p. 678]}. In 1809, the expeditions of water communications and state roads were merged ^{[27, p. 27-28]}. Further, researchers of the history of the Georgian Military Road emphasize that only "[c] transfer in 1811 Intensive road works have been launched on the Georgian Military Road under the direction of the Department of Railways" ^{[29, p. 7]}.

In the period of 1812-1816, due to the Patriotic War of 1812 and related events, funding decreased and activities for the development of the road network were insignificant ^{[27, p. 44]}. In 1810, 2,310,000 rubles were allocated, 1,980,000 rubles were spent, and in 1812 — 4,680,000 rubles and 3,800,000 rubles . accordingly. The temporary Office established instead of the Expedition moved to Rybinsk, and then to Cherepovets ^{[27, p. 40]}. In this regard, it is quite understandable that, despite the inclusion of the Georgian Military Road in the highway development project of the Ministry of Railways in 1811, regular wheeled traffic was established along it only in 1827 ^{[29, p. 7]}.

Foreign German researcher of the issues of transport integration of the Caucasus in The Russian Empire R. Nachtigal notes that "at the beginning of the XIX century. it is unlikely that there was such a way through the main ridge of the Greater Caucasus, which can be called a road in the usual sense for us. Then the Government of the Empire was able to provide significant material resources and human resources to steadily pursue the goal of creating reliable and regularly operating communication routes in a remote mountainous territory inhabited by a religiously and ethnically diverse population <...> This contributed to the unification and integration within Territories of the Russian Empire that previously differed greatly in their socio?economic, religious and ethnic features" ^{[3, p. 72]}. It should be noted that a contemporary of the events of the early XIX century, J. Bell realizes the integrating potential of the construction of high-quality roads by the Russian administration, and therefore opposes the construction of a road for Russian pilgrims through Asia Minor to Jerusalem, the project that was based on the Unkar-Iskelesian Treaty (1833) ^{[23, pp. 338-339]}.

In the guide to the Caucasus 1888 its compiler E. G. Weidenbaum reports that in 1834 the infrastructure was sufficiently developed on the Georgian Military Road and a permanent postal connection was established between Moscow and Tiflis ^{[25, pp. 278-282]}. Postal communication at that time led to the fastest dissemination of scientific works, decrees and orders. Thus, the letters of General N. S. Gonetsky from the Crimean War (1853-1855) from Armenia constantly talk about the importance of the supply of goods, problems with mail delivery and interruptions in the activities of the Georgian Military Road ^[24]. The impact of adverse factors in the conditions of the military conflict led to the fact that in 1855-1863, work was carried out and a new highway with a more gentle and high-speed traffic was launched ^{[25, pp. 283-284]}.

The inclusion of a military road to Eastern Georgia, which has no access to the sea, in the project of water communications and state roads significantly raised its status. The allocation of public money directly from the treasury, despite the relatively smaller volume, indicated the importance that the authorities of the Russian Empire attached to the established communication precisely to the final destination in Tiflis. The organization of the Daryal Passage was of particular value. Among other things, travelers had the opportunity to use only the Darial Passage without visiting the final points of the Georgian Military Road - Tiflis and Vladikavkaz.

Development of local roads in Eastern Georgia

The main state roads were not the only weak point in the transport infrastructure of Eastern Georgia. Local roads also remained of very poor quality for a long time. Thus I. A. Guldenstedt, summing up what happened during the Georgian stage of his expedition to the protectorate of Russia, notes the catastrophically poor quality of roads: "Clay?muddy and rocky mountain roads <...> made many expedition horses completely unsuitable for continuing the journey and extremely tired everyone" ^{[13, p. 137]}.

The absence of a special road surface with drainage hindered the movement of the expedition for some time after the rains. So I. A. Guldenstedt notes in his notes dated August 5 that the expedition experienced difficulties in the vicinity of the Herga Creek, "since it rained all day, neither people nor horses could stand firmly on their feet on bare limestone or clay in other places" ^{[13, p. 123]}. Much later than I. A. Guldenstedt — at the end of the 1830s ? the Englishman E. Spencer testifies to the inaccessibility of the territories of Georgia that had already become part of Russia, which remained until his time. The scientist used mountain riverbeds as roads ^{[20, pp. 334-335]}.

Against the background of the absence of noticeable equipped roads as objects of care of the local population, the operation of bridges as nodal points of underdeveloped transport infrastructure, which also require maintenance, is critical. Constructive interaction regarding the bridge should be called I. A. Guldenstedt's notes from the beginning of May 1772, where the traveler notes that "they crossed the bridge, for which a nobleman from Mtskheta charges a bridge fee. He (the bridge — D. B.) barely survived our crossing" ^{[13, p. 96]}.

At the same time, an example of a real threat of extortion against I. A. Guldenstedt and his detachment is the conflict with the Ossetians regarding the bridge fee when they left the territories of Eastern Georgia in the same year. So, the head of the expedition offered Ossetians 20 rubles for 2 bridges, but they demanded 80 rubles, besides, there was information about a detachment of 300 Ossetians set up for robbery ^{[13, pp. 139-140]}.

From this state of affairs, it follows that travelers under the influence of the negative factor of the weak development of the transport network had to rely entirely on building personal relationships with local owners, which greatly hampered and slowed down communication over long distances. This conclusion finds its analogy in the travel notes of J. Bell, who for the 1830s notes the deliberate neglect and destruction of roads, trails and bridges by the local population in the vicinity of Gagra, located in Western Georgia, both because of internal strife and to counter Russian troops. Safe for the life, health and freedom of the traveler, progress through the mountains becomes possible only with the help of guides ^{[23, pp. 348-349]}.

***

Summing up, it should be noted that the records of I. A. Guldenstedt and other travelers of the 1770s-1860s indicate problems in the organization of land communications between The Russian Empire and Eastern Georgia. The conducted review leads to the idea that archival travel notes as a source sufficiently fully reveal the functioning of the transport system of travel destinations.

The inaccessibility of Eastern Georgia from the position of the Russian Empire was a negative phenomenon. Travelers had to rely entirely on personal relationships with local rulers, who pointed out convenient paths and trails, which greatly hindered the transfer of goods and rapid communication. The current situation did not allow the functioning of the general imperial system of government communication between the capital in St. Petersburg and the administrative center of the Russian territories in the Caucasus in Tiflis, for example, the supply and postal service of the army. The inclusion of the military road to Eastern Georgia in the project of water communications and state roads, as well as the allocation of funds directly from the treasury significantly raised its status and importance.

There were also significant problems at the local level of transport relations, since there was no developed system of crossings and bridges. Places of reliable and safe standing also depended on relationships with local rulers, which made it difficult to develop the Caucasus region already close to its administrative center. It should be concluded that the impassability of roads resulting from the absence of an artificial roadway and crossings hindered the mobility and effective activity of the bearers of the ideas of Russian statehood in the territories of Kartli?The Kingdom of Kakheti, and later Georgian province.