Reclaiming Byzantium

Russia, Turkey and the Archaeological Claim to the Middle East in the 19th Century

Pinar Üre

• Publisher: I.B. Tauris
• Year: 2020
• Print ISBN:
  9780755637232
• Edition: 1
• eBook ISBN:
  9781788317450
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Historiography
• Index: History

There is a long-held feeling in Russia that Moscow is the true heir to the Christian Byzantine Empire. In 1894, Imperial Russia opened one of the world's leading centres for Byzantine archaeology in Istanbul, the Russian Archaeological Institute – its purpose was to stake the claim that Russia was the correct heir to 'Tsargrad' (as Istanbul was referred to in Russian circles).

This then is the history of that institute, and the history of Russia's efforts to reclaim its Middle East – events since in the Crimea, Syria and Georgia are all, to some extent, wrapped up in this historical framework. Ure looks at the founding of the Russian Archaeological Institute, its aims, and its place in the 'digging-race' which characterised the late Imperial phase of modern history. Above all, she shows how the practise of history has been used as a political tool, a form of "soft power".

1

Double-headed eagle flying over Russia: Russian appreciation of the Byzantine heritage

To advance through a Crusade,

To purify the Jordanian waters,

To liberate the Holy Sepulchre,

To return Athens to the Athenians,

The city of Constantine – to Constantine

And re-establish Japheth’s Holy Land.¹

1.1 Fyodor Ivanovich Uspenskii: The making of a Russian Byzantinist

In a speech he delivered in commemoration of the 900th anniversary of the Christianization of Rus’ in 1888, Fyodor Uspenskii, who would later be the first and only director of RAIK, argued that even though the medieval Rus’ society tried to stand against Byzantine cultural influence, Byzantine culture gradually penetrated into Rus’ lands, which altered the political ideals of the latter. With the Christianization of the Rus’ in the 10th century, Uspenskii argued that the ‘Hellenic genius’ of the Byzantine Empire merged with a ‘great nation’ (velikii narod) to the north of the Black Sea.²

This last sentence perfectly sums up not only the individual opinion of Fyodor Uspenskii but also indicates why Byzantine studies occupied a very important place in Russian archaeological scholarship since its beginnings in the 18th century. Before embarking on the establishment of RAIK, Uspenskii was already a famed scholar specializing on the relations between the Byzantine Empire and its Slavic neighbours and inhabitants. Uspenskii was born to a priest’s family and attended a religious school before entering the Historical-Philological Department of the St Petersburg University.³ His early religious education might have had influence on his future interest in the history of Orthodoxy. As Vladimir Ivanovich Lamanskii’s (1833–1914) student at Imperial St Petersburg University, Uspenskii was influenced by the Pan-Slavist political views of his professor and mentor.⁴ A notable scholar, Lamanskii was renowned for his studies on the sociopolitical history of the Byzantine Empire, as well as Byzantine relations with southern Slavs.⁵ While still a student at the Historical – Philological Faculty at St Petersburg University, Uspenskii received a prize from the Slavic Benevolent Committee in 1871 with his article ‘The First Slavic Monarchs in the North-West’ which was published as a book in 1872.⁶ In 1874, Uspenskii defended his thesis ‘The Byzantine Author, Nicetas Choniates from Chonae’,⁷ which was based on important sources from the 12th and 13th centuries. Uspenskii’s doctoral dissertation, which was completed in 1879, was entitled ‘The Formation of the Second Bulgarian Kingdom’, in which Uspenskii shed light on the relations between the Bulgarians, Serbs, the Byzantine Empire and medieval Rus’.⁸

Immediately after completing his degree at St Petersburg University, Uspenskii was appointed to the Imperial Novorossiya University as a lecturer, and brought the St Petersburg tradition of Byzantinology to Odessa.⁹ In his lectures, Uspenskii underlined the relevance of studying Byzantine history to understand Russian and broader Slavic history. Uspenskii claimed that the Byzantine Empire undertook an educative (vospitatel’ny) role in its relations with its European neighbours in the West (novoevropeiskie narody) and Slavic neighbours in the North. He argued that European historians, while expressing gratitude for the positive influence the Byzantine Empire exerted on ‘wild hordes’ (dikiia ordy – with this, probably meaning peoples inhabiting areas north of the Byzantine Empire, notably the Slavs) and transforming them into ‘historical nations’ (istoricheskie narody), they should also not forget the sacrifices the Byzantine Empire made in defence of Europe, making itself the ‘bastion of civilization’ (oplot’ tsivilizatsii). Uspenskii argued that ‘the new empire in Tsargrad, in the period of a thousand years of its existence, continued, by virtue of its historical mission, the development of ideas and institutions (poniatiia i uchrezhdeniia), bequeathed [to it] by Rome, and following the tradition, spiritually educating new peoples’.¹⁰

In his studies, Uspenskii emphasized the organic links between Russia, the Balkan Slavs and the Byzantine Empire. His arguments implied the antiquity of Russian cultural existence in the region once ruled by the Byzantine Empire. If there had been intensive cultural interactions between Russian and Byzantine civilizations, then it was only natural that Russian culture had penetrated into regions within the Byzantine sphere of influence. This argument further strengthened Russia’s position as the legitimate inheritor of the Byzantine tradition. The historical and cultural interactions between Russians and Byzantium legitimized contemporary Russian scientific (in fact, not only scientific, but also political) interest in the history of the Byzantine Empire.

Uspenskii outlined his arguments in a speech at the Odessa Slavic Benevolent Society in 1885, in commemoration of the 1,000th anniversary of St Methodius’s death. He argued that the priest brothers St Cyril and St Methodius might have had contacts with Russians in Chersonessos – although this argument was not grounded on any objective evidence. Uspenskii further claimed that Russian cultural existence on the Black Sea coast, especially in Crimea, dated back to as late as the 9th and 10th centuries.¹¹ By tracing archaeological records in the Black Sea basin, Uspenskii’s arguments in fact underlined the antiquity of Russian existence on the Black Sea coast, and implicitly endorsed the legitimacy and even necessity of incorporating these regions to the Russian Empire.

Uspenskii’s discussion of the Crusades also revealed how he linked distant history to contemporary political issues. Linking the Crusades to European history, Uspenskii claimed that the Crusades opened the path for the struggle between the East and the West, which continued up to the 20th century under the name of the ‘Eastern Question’. He nearly identified the Crusades as the origin of the Eastern Question, and claimed that Russia was ‘destined’ (suzhdeno) to take part in it.¹² Therefore, Uspenskii defined the Eastern Question not only as a political problem, but as a civilizational encounter between what he saw as opposing forces, the East and the West, although how he conceptualized East and West remained blurry.

The theme of ‘Eastern Question’ appeared often in Uspenskii’s writings. In fact, he identified the history of Byzantine studies with the history of the Eastern Question. Uspenskii expressed very openly the view that scientific interests always went hand in hand with political and economic interests. Making comparisons with European nations, especially with France, which he deemed the cradle of Byzantine studies, Uspenskii complained that scientific Byzantinology developed comparatively late in Russia. He argued that while the French, since the Crusades, planted the seeds of scientific Byzantinology through their missionaries, consuls and commercial colonies in the Near East, Russians were too late to embark on a scientific study of the Byzantine Empire, despite the fact that political and religious tendencies brought Russia closer to Byzantine civilization than any other European nation.¹³ He argued that the development of Byzantinology as a scientific branch of study in Russia should be analysed within the context of Russia’s political and cultural interests and self-perception (samoopredelenie).¹⁴

Uspenskii found it embarrassing that Russian academics lagged behind their European colleagues in a field as intrinsically linked to Russian imperial identity as Byzantine studies. He sadly acknowledged that until the establishment of RAIK, very little was done in the name of Byzantine studies in Russia. There was not a single institution dedicated exclusively to the study of Byzantine history, although Byzantine studies had to be the ‘main duty of Russian science’, and a national obligation.¹⁵ To overcome this shortcoming, Uspenskii made great efforts to strengthen Byzantine studies in Russian academia throughout his academic career. On several occasions, he expressed dismay at the absence of an institution for Byzantine studies and advocated the necessity of a multi-functional institute of Byzantinology. When he was the head of the Odessa Historical-Philological Society, he worked for the establishment of a Byzantinology department, which was realized in 1892.¹⁶ Two years later, when the prominent academic publication, Vizantiiskii Vremennik started to be published, one of the promoters of the journal was Uspenskii.¹⁷ When RAIK was established upon the initiative of Russian diplomats in Istanbul, Uspenskii ardently participated in this project. In many respects, the achievements of the institute were unthinkable without the personal contribution of Uspenskii.

Uspenskii’s career path was not an exceptional one in late imperial Russia. In fact, his research interests and his arguments very much fit into an already established Byzantinology tradition in Russian academic circles. Both Uspenskii’s alma mater, Imperial St Petersburg University, and the city where Uspenskii received professorship, Odessa, were particularly important centres for the study of Byzantine history.

1.2 The development of archaeology and Byzantine studies in the Russian Empire

The first academic studies of Byzantine history, as well as the first archaeological surveys of Byzantine monuments in Russia date back to the 18th century, to the establishment of the Imperial Academy of Sciences in 1724. In 1804, a chair for the Department of Fine Arts and Archaeology was established at this institution under the Faculty of History and Philology.¹⁸ The establishment of universities in Moscow (1755) and St Petersburg (1724; reconstituted in 1819) were also important cornerstones for the development of Byzantine archaeology in Russia.¹⁹ Rich with ancient Greco-Byzantine monuments, the Black Sea coasts became one of the most preferred destinations for Russian antiquarians and historians after the 18th century.²⁰

German scholars played an important role in the development of Russian historical scholarship, including the development of Byzantinology in its early beginnings.²¹ Russia’s Greek community, inhabiting mostly in southern Russia, also played an important role in the development of Byzantine studies both as scholars and as benefactors. For instance, wealthy members of the Greek community were instrumental in the establishment of the Odessa Society of History and Antiquities in 1839.²² Outside of Russia, members of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem organized expeditions to holy places of Orthodoxy in Palestine and Syria, many of which were Byzantine-era monuments, as early as 1840s.²³ It should be noted that at this early stage, and well into the late 19th century, the line between history and archaeology was blurry not only in Russia but in other parts of Europe as well. Therefore, it is nearly impossible to draw a line between archaeologists and historians of the Byzantine past. Generally, these subjects were taught in the same departments and regarded as the branches of the same discipline.²⁴

The institutions that helped the development of Russian archaeology included museums, universities and the Imperial Academy of Sciences, with the latter focusing more on research.²⁵ An important centre, the Imperial Russian Archaeological Society was established in St Petersburg in 1851, with special branches dedicated to Russo-Slavic, Oriental, classical, and Byzantine art and archaeology.²⁶ It was followed by the Moscow Archaeological Society, established in 1864 by Count Aleksey Serg...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half-title Page
• Dedication
• Title Page
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction: Introduction: Regenerating distant past: Nationalist and Imperialist uses of ancient history in the 19th century
• 1 Double-headed eagle flying over Russia: Russian appreciation of the Byzantine heritage
• 2 Archaeology in the Ottoman Empire:
• 3 At the intersection of science and politics:
• 4 Expeditions of the Russian Archaeological Institute and contacts with Ottoman authorities
• 5 On the eve of the Balkan Wars:
• 6 The doom of empires:
• Conclusion
• Notes
• Suggestions for further reading
• Bibliography
• Index
• Copyright Page