Raphiel Eristavi’s Writings About Ottoman Georgia

Definition

Raphiel Eristavi’s [Kakheti, 1824–Telavi, 1901] archival legacy constitutes a unique, underexplored corpus for examining the sociopolitical and cultural processes shaping 19th-century Georgia’s national identity. These archival documents contain his writings as a publicist, his ethnographic and geographical notes, literary texts, and private correspondence, shedding light on the intellectual and cultural dynamics of the period, particularly about reintegrating Muslim Georgian communities into the national space. Eristavi’s contributions to periodicals reflect his publicist activities, illustrating the press’s formative role in shaping public opinion, consolidating cultural identity, and fostering national awareness. His writings articulate his conviction that language, culture, tradition, and shared historical memory function as the primary instruments for reconnecting estranged territories with Georgia’s historical continuum. This entry analyzes Eristavi’s role as an intellectual and cultural mediator in integrating Muslim Georgian populations (i.e., Tao-Klarjeti and Samtskhe) into broader national frameworks, particularly in his writings on the Crimean War and Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878, as well as how he engaged with questions about ethnic identity, territorial cohesion, and cultural memory. By situating Eristavi’s archive within the wider efforts of the Georgian intelligentsia, this study seeks to highlight his contribution to preserving language, promoting education, and reaffirming historical unity as essential components of national and state consciousness.

1. Introduction

Georgia has historically occupied a strategic position at the crossroads of empires, located between the Black Sea, the Caucasus Mountains, and the Near Eastern world. Throughout its history, the region has been characterized by a complex mosaic of ethnic, linguistic, and religious communities. While Eastern Orthodox Christianity played a central role in shaping Georgian identity, significant Muslim Georgian populations emerged, particularly in regions under prolonged Ottoman rule. Successive periods of Persian, Ottoman, and Russian domination further transformed local identities and social structures. In the nineteenth century, these layered historical experiences made questions of religion, language, and historical belonging central to the formation of modern Georgian national consciousness.

Recent scholarship on Georgian national identity and intellectual history has increasingly emphasized the central role of cultural memory, language, and religion in shaping national consciousness [1]. In this context, some scholars highlight the enduring impact of imperial rule in Georgia’s past on the formation of modern Georgian political and cultural identity, underlining the complex dynamics of nation-building processes [2]. Focusing specifically on the role of language in national integration, Tinatin Bolkvadze [3] examines how questions of identity, belonging, and regional cohesion in Georgia are constructed through linguistic frameworks. Similarly, Nino Siprashvili explores the formation of Muslim Georgian identities, drawing attention to the fluid and often marginalized nature of religious and ethnic affiliations [4]. Furthermore, the spread of print culture and the proliferation of periodicals in the Caucasus played a formative role in shaping public opinion and fostering national consciousness, facilitating intellectual exchange and ideological consolidation. Despite these broader analytical frameworks, the specific contributions of intellectual figures such as Raphiel Eristavi remain relatively underexplored in contemporary scholarship. While existing studies provide valuable insights into structural and theoretical dimensions, there remains a notable gap in micro-level analyses that examine how individual actors mediated between cultural, political, and social domains.

This entry seeks to address this gap by situating Eristavi’s archival legacy within recent academic debates. It aims to offer a more nuanced understanding of his role in articulating national identity, integrating Muslim Georgian communities, and reinforcing the cultural and historical foundations of the Georgian state

In 1828, the Russian Empire declared war on the Ottoman Empire with the goal of gaining control over the Black Sea region and the southern part of the Caucasus. During the 1828–1829 Russo-Turkish War, Russia achieved significant military victories. As a result of the Treaty of Adrianople in 1829, the Ottomans were forced to cede southern territories, including the Akhaltsikhe Principality. The treaty granted the Russian Empire control over the regions of Akhaltsikhe, Samtskhe-Javakheti, and Kvemo Kartli.

After abolishing the Akhaltsikhe Principality, Imperial Russia established its own administrative system in the Childir region. It dismantled the local Ottoman administrative institutions (e.g., system of governance, timar land grant system) and replaced them with the Russian military and civil administration. The other provinces in Meskheti and the Lazeti region remained under Ottoman control [5].

The border regions with the Ottoman Empire were of particular strategic interest to Russia, and it began preparing to integrate them. For this purpose, Russia dispatched a reconnaissance group under the leadership of General Gurieli in 1874. The Russian authorities selected Gurieli for this mission because of his familial ties with the rulers of Adjara and Shavshet, as they believed this would make the expedition less suspicious to Ottoman authorities. One member of this group was Giorgi Kazbegi, who documented and later published his findings in Russian in a travelog titled Three Months in Ottoman Georgia [6].

Parallel discussions unfolded in the newspaper Droeba, which became a central platform for disseminating knowledge about Muslim Georgia during the 1870s. Among its contributors, Sergei Meskhi played a particularly influential role. In a widely cited 1875 article, Meskhi underscored the enduring “Georgian spirit” among Ottoman Georgians and called for greater awareness within Georgian society regarding the existence of approximately 200,000 compatriots living beyond the mountains. He framed the division between Christian and Muslim Georgians as a consequence of coercive historical processes rather than intrinsic cultural divergence, thereby reinforcing a narrative of shared national identity.

This discourse was further developed by prominent writers and public figures, including Raphiel Eristavi, who contributed extensively to the press. These authors sought to symbolically reintegrate Muslim Georgians into a unified national space through print culture. Their writings consistently emphasized historical continuity, linguistic unity, and shared cultural heritage as the foundations of Georgian identity. In this context, the press functioned not merely as a medium of information but as an instrument of nation-building.

A particularly significant intervention came from Akaki Tsereteli, who, during the years 1875–1877, published an appeal addressed to Ottoman Georgians. His text articulated a powerful rhetoric of unity, portraying the division between Georgian communities as a temporary rupture imposed by historical circumstances. Tsereteli urged caution and solidarity in the context of impending conflict, advocating for a collective orientation toward a shared future. His appeal reflects the broader intellectual effort to frame political developments—especially the Russian–Ottoman confrontation—in terms of national reunification.

Following the conclusion of the war and the incorporation of regions such as Tao into the Russian Empire, scholarly and journalistic interest in Ottoman Georgia expanded further. Authors including Ilia Alkhazishvili, Solomon Aslanishvili (Bavreli), Dimitri Bakradze, and Zakaria Chichinadze published detailed accounts of the region’s geography, history, and social life. These writings provided valuable empirical data while simultaneously reinforcing the narrative of historical belonging. However, they also acknowledged the profound transformations experienced by local populations under Ottoman rule. Chichinadze, for instance, noted that cultural and social changes had, in some cases, rendered Georgian identity less immediately recognizable, particularly in regions such as Oltisi.

Despite these transformations, the dominant tone of Georgian public discourse remained oriented toward the possibility of restoring historical unity. The idea of Muslim Georgia became a central theme in nineteenth-century Georgian journalism, where it was framed not as a peripheral or foreign space but as an integral component of the national body. Unity was conceptualized primarily through two interrelated dimensions: the recognition of a shared historical past and the preservation of the Georgian language as a core marker of identity.

In 1877, another war broke out between Imperial Russia and the Ottoman Empire, with Russia again achieving significant victories. Following the war, several territories including Kars, Ardahan, Adjara, and Oltisi became part of the Russian Empire through the Treaty of San Stefano and subsequent decisions made at the Congress of Berlin in 1878. This marked the beginning of Georgian society’s growing interest in these regions. New information about Muslim Georgians living beyond the borders became accessible to the Georgian public. During the Russo-Ottoman war, particular interest was sparked in the region, and gradually the term “Ottoman/Turkish Georgia” came into use.

In the second half of the nineteenth century, the question of Ottoman Georgia emerged as a significant concern among leading Georgian intellectuals. The growing relevance of this issue is reflected in the increasing number of publications and public interventions addressing the condition of Georgian populations living under Ottoman rule. These efforts played a critical role in stimulating interest within Georgian society toward regions beyond imperial borders, particularly those inhabited by Muslim Georgians, about whom reliable information had previously been scarce. During the period of the Russo–Ottoman War, this interest intensified markedly, and the term Ottoman (or Turkish) Georgia gradually became established in Georgian public and scholarly discourse.

In 1877, Ilia Chavchavadze had published an article titled “Ottoman Georgia” in the newspaper Iveria [7], writing as follows:

Every nation lives through its history. It is a treasury where a people find the strength of its soul, the voice of its spirit, the excellence of its character and intellect, its identity, and its distinctiveness. In our view, neither unity of language, nor unity of religion or origin binds people to one another as strongly as unity of history.

This unity, a unity of the shared understanding of a common history despite changed religion and forgotten language, is what became the main tool through which brought the Muslim Georgians who had been separated from their homeland back into the historical fold.

Within this broader intellectual context, Raphiel Eristavi occupies a particularly important position. Raphiel Eristavi (Kakheti, 1824–Telavi, 1901) was a prominent Georgian writer, intellectual, and public figure of the nineteenth century, whose activities spanned literature, education, and cultural institution-building. He made a significant contribution to the establishment of the Georgian Museum and the Society for Spreading Literacy Among Georgians, and was among the founders of the Georgian professional theater. Eristavi also took part in the 1882 commission that prepared the standard text of The Knight in the Panther’s Skin. His literary production reflects a wide thematic range; particularly in the 1870s–1880s, his poetry articulated strong humanist and democratic values. In addition to his literary work, he contributed to the development of Georgian scientific terminology in fields such as mathematics, physics, and chemistry, and in 1873 published the Concise Latin–Russian–Georgian Dictionary. These intellectual and cultural engagements situate Eristavi within the broader processes of nation-building and identity formation in nineteenth-century Georgia. His early and sustained engagement with the question of Ottoman Georgia distinguishes him as one of the first Georgian public figures to systematically address the issue.

Raphiel Eristavi became actively involved in the movement that began in the 1870s, with his writings on topics related to Ottoman Georgia being multifaceted. He was not only a writer and poet but also a public figure who actively participated in the 1870s and 1880s in efforts aimed at reintegrating into a unified Georgian space Georgians who had been separated from their homeland.

Eristavi’s interest in Georgian themes within the context of the Russo-Ottoman wars began much earlier. Between 1854 and 1856, he had published a feuilleton in the newspaper Kavkaz [Caucuses], in which he vividly describes the events of the Crimean War [8,9,10,11]. During the course of the wars between the Ottoman Empire and Imperial Russia, Georgian society’s interest was awakened in the territories that were part of the Ottoman Empire. As a public intellectual at that time, Eristavi was actively engaged in strengthening the national consciousness of Muslim Georgias living in those regions.

In the 1870s, Eristavi’s articles “Information on Ottoman Georgia” were published in the newspaper Droeba [12,13]. This piece further developed the author’s interest in the territories that had historically belonged to Georgia. In 1876, he published a poem titled “To the Brothers” and dedicated it to the Serbian people’s struggle against the Ottoman Empire during the Great Eastern Crisis of 1875–1878 in the Balkan Peninsula [14].

After the end of the Russo-Ottoman war of 1877–1878, Raphiel Eristavi became actively involved in initiatives launched within Georgian society aimed at reintegrating Muslim Georgia into the historical Georgian space. His involvement is reflected in the materials published in Droeba, which detailed both the steps Georgian society had taken and Eristavi’s personal contributions to these efforts [15]. He sought to support preserving and strengthening the national identity of Georgian Muslims living under the Ottoman Empire.

The multicultural, multilingual, and multinational Ottoman Empire was experiencing the throes of disintegration in the 19th century. International intervention in the process of disintegrating non-Muslim elements within the empire provoked not only internal rebellions but also wars. The Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878 was a significant turning point in the process of going from the birth of nationalism to the independence of the Balkan nations, and its conclusion with the Treaty of Berlin in 1879 left a legacy of problems for the next half century. Despite having been successfully defended, Batumi and its surrounding area should also be noted to have been abandoned in exchange for compensation. For this reason, the article needs to be viewed from the perspective of the 19th century.

In this context, this study is based on the analysis of historical documents and contemporary press materials. Drawing on archival sources and published articles, and employing a historical-comparative approach, it examines Raphiel Eristavi’s work in order to highlight his role in shaping contemporary Georgian society’s attitudes, priorities, and integration strategies toward Muslim Georgia.

During the research, we employed a contextual research method based on source studies, through which we sought to examine the purpose and significance of the source within its historical and social context, relying on the source itself. Based on a comparative analysis of Raphiel Eristavi’s journalistic writings related to Ottoman Georgia, we attempted to present his place and contribution to the national movement.

We used qualitative research methods, specifically the desk research method. Through the application of the historical-comparative method, we sought to analyze Raphiel Eristavi’s works related to Ottoman Georgia. Based on the synthesis of both archival materials and articles published in the press, we attempted to demonstrate Raphiel Eristavi’s role in shaping the attitude, priorities, and integration context of Georgian society of that period toward Muslim Georgia.

2. Discussion

The Korneli Kekelidze Georgian National Centre of Manuscripts has a preserved manuscript by Raphiel Eristavi titled “Information on the Part of Georgia Currently Under Ottoman Rule.” In addition to geographical descriptions of the historical regions of Tao and Chaneti, the manuscript includes noteworthy ethnographic observations [16]. The text is difficult to read and contains passages such as the following:

Some say—and some even claim to prove—that in the time of Queen Tamar [Eristavi crosses something out here]… and certain historical facts confirm that during Tamar’s reign, the borders of Georgia extended as far as Trebizond, or to be more precise, to the end of Chaneti, to the Iron Gate (with a note: the Iron Gate refers to a coastal structure, today Bursa, which can still be seen in the sea, opposite the village of Atina in Chaneti). To the east is the Caspian Sea, to the west is the Black Sea, to the north is the Caucasus [Eristavi adds a note here as well]: this was the final boundary of Georgia. Thus, even Mozdok and Tsaritcha were within Georgian borders, [on another page] and the people living there [author’s note:] (mostly Christian) were predominantly Georgian—and still are [crossed out]. Remnants of this population remain. Women’s dress, even today, remains Georgian; as for the mountain peoples of different kinds (pure Georgians such as the Mtiuletians, Mokhevians, Svans, Pshavians, Khevsurians, Gudamaqarians, and others) [the parenthesis is Eristavi’s own], they were under the same administration, lived under the same law, and contributed either with military service or in population [the top of the same page has the following marginal note:] “By the help of the Lord, I, the humble son of Ivan, completed this sacred ecclesiastical work—O saints of God, remember the poor one.”

The text continues on the next page:

… and in other ways as well. Thus, many of the poor people [crossed out] were indebted due to poverty and carried ice down from the mountains to the valleys for the kings during summer. Christianity was widespread everywhere. This is proven by the ruined churches.

This entry is a valuable source of ethnographic and geographical data that clearly outline Georgia’s historical borders. These borders significantly exceeded the boundaries of the modern state and were defined not only by geography but also by legal, religious, and ethnic unity. The territories included within Georgia’s historical boundaries were inhabited by Christian Georgian populations who lived under a unified political administrative system.

Raphiel Eristavi’s phrase “as for the different kinds of mountain peoples (pure Georgians such as the Mtiuletians, Mokhevians, Svans, Pshavians, Khevsurians, Gudamaqarians, and others)” is particularly notable, as this statement directly counters the view of Tsarist Russia, which had questioned the Georgian origin of mountain ethnographic groups such as the Svans and Khevsurians. By asserting their Georgian identity, Eristavi was challenging the imperial discourse of the time, which often classified them as foreign ethnicities.

Thus, historical accounts concerning Georgia’s borders and ethnic unity are not only geographically interesting but also deeply connected to questions of national identity, cultural continuity, and the historical integrity of the state.

The manuscript is accompanied by two cards. In the upper corner on page 4, one card contains the note, “The wall of Parkhali Church (apparently) has a circular inscription on the outside written in Asomtavruli letters.” The other side of the note reads, “Christ have mercy on Theodore.” Next to this is written vertically, “Outside.” Below the Asomtavruli writing, a Russian note reads, “Heбo [Sky],” and next to which is written vertically: “On the sky.” Another note says, “We departed from Atini; Selim Beg welcomed us with great honor. Then we departed [unreadable] and stayed at the house of Khoja’s brother, Hasan and Muragha, with great hospitality. We left the village and reached Batumi in the evening.”

The second card has a note that reads, “At the altar,” followed by an Asomtavruli inscription. Below that, the card reads, “Mustafa Rostom Beg adopted the name Rostomashvili. His son, Salah Beg, took the name Etaula Begishvili [Durats Beg], descendants of Sefer Muhammed Beg. The begs of Shavsheti were everywhere considered the masters of Imerkhevi and kin to one another” [16].

These findings emphasize coexistence and cultural closeness but emphasize Georgian culture, similar to all nationalist views. As can be seen, Batumi and its surrounding area had witnessed the emergence and transformation of a shared culture.

2.1. The First Set of Manuscripts (Rafiel Eristavi Archive [REA] 137/150) [14]

The inscriptions from the Parkhali Church that are preserved in the case file are a topic for a separate study and thus are not discussed further here. However, the Muslim Georgian names and surnames written on the cards are ethnographically interesting. Eristavi should be noted as describing events in the first person, although no confirmed source exists to verify that he had personally traveled to Adjara. Eristavi may have been relying on Giorgi Gurieli’s records, as he had used Gurieli’s notes in other writings.

The document from Raphiel Eristavi’s archive preserved at the National Centre of Manuscripts holds historical and geographical significance and contains valuable, albeit limited, ethnographic information [14] (Figures S1–S3).

The second manuscript preserved at the National Centre of Manuscripts that drew our attention and is related to the Ottoman question is the poem “To the Brothers (Modzmetadmi),” which the author dates as being from 30 August 1876 [14] (Figures S2, S4 and S5). It is dedicated to the Serbian people’s struggle against the Ottoman Empire.

Eristavi developed a nationalist discourse in the poem, one that reminds how faith is being tested today as it had in the past: “Some difficulties are deeply affecting the Christian communities; therefore, the Serbs and the people of Shavsheti have become determined in their faith. We must pray for and support them, because we are brothers walking on the same path.”

The poem’s central theme is on reviving the spirit of collective resistance. Its title and address “To the Brothers” serve as a call for solidarity and support. The archive file contains both a rough draft of the poem and its clean, revised version [14]. The contents of the archive file are presented in Figures S1–S5.

2.2. The Second Set of Manuscripts (REA 29/56) [16] (p. 458)

2.2.1. Raphiel Eristavi in the Pages of the Newspaper Kavkaz

War broke out between the Ottoman Empire and Imperial Russia between 1853 and 1856, and this was called the Crimean War. The newspaper Kavkaz actively published reports on the progress of the war, and the issue of reclaiming Ottoman Georgia was already being widely discussed within Georgian society. Raphiel Eristavi’s articles that were published in Kavkaz responded directly to the war being waged against the Ottomans.

Raphiel Eristavi demonstrated an interest in the issue of Ottoman Georgia as early as the 1850s. As mentioned above he was among the first Georgian public figures to take an interest in this issue of national and state significance. In this period, several of his articles and feuilletons were published in the newspaper Kavkaz. In his articles published between 1854 and 1855, he recounts episodes of the conflict. Of particularly noteworthy interest is the feuilleton published in the December issues of Kavkaz in 1854, titled Stories of Our Militiamen: Memories, in which he vividly depicts battle scenes with the Turks [8,9,10,16].

The article in issue 93 of Kavkaz used a highly literary style to describe the battles that had taken place in Guria and near the Choloki River on 4 June 1854 [8]. Eristavi writes how the militia commander, “… attacked and defeated the Turks. He introduced them to his sword and bullets. The Turks would have preferred to avoid such an encounter altogether, but it was too late… The Turks dispersed.” Written heroically, these words were clearly intended to provide the epic thought needed during the years of the Crimean War.

Interestingly, Eristavi appeared under the pseudonym of Dadaev Magarsky in this issue of Kavkaz. However, he would continue publishing feuilletons under his real name, Raphiel Eristavi, in later issues [8,9,10].

On 26 January 1856, Kavkaz published another article by Raphiel Eristavi titled “The Caucasian Chronicle” (Kaвкaзcкaя Лemonucь), Here, we present the section that specifically addresses the campaign of Omer Pasha toward Kutaisi, in which he refutes rumors that the Ottomans had captured Kutaisi and were advancing toward Tbilisi [11]. The author vividly and dramatically describes the clash with the Ottoman army, emphasizing their retreat:

Kutaisi. (From a letter addressed to Berzhe) The movement of Omer Pasha in Samegrelo—or, as some have described it, the demonstration of the Turkish serasker (which is to say, the same figure), intended to draw our forces away from Kars—gave rise to considerable speculation. It would have been preferable had these reports borne greater resemblance to the truth. Instead, certain individuals—more precisely, malicious tongues and unreliable rumor-mongers (including foreign newspaper correspondents)—circulated false claims that Omer Pasha had advanced toward Kutaisi, resulting in the complete evacuation of the city. Some even asserted that he had entered Kutaisi, while his forces had occupied the heights of Surami and were threatening Tiflis from there. What, in fact, occurred? The Turkish serasker did indeed set out, but his advance was notably slow. His primary concern appears to have been to avoid direct confrontation with Russian forces, lest he lose what remained of his army. Initially, there was an intention to threaten the city, following a pattern seen in earlier incursions by enemies advancing into Asia. However, Omer Pasha soon found his suspicions confirmed following the events at the Enguri River: two and a half of our battalions managed to hold off a Turkish force of twelve thousand for six hours, ultimately forcing them into retreat, while the waters of the Enguri carried away hundreds of Turkish soldiers. Subsequently, our forces began to advance. The Turkish troops withdrew toward the Enguri, where they were deliberately allowed to remain in order to lure them into a more advantageous position for engagement. Although Omer Pasha achieved a certain outcome—namely, the diversion of our forces from Kars—this was not accomplished in the manner he had intended. Our troops withdrew from that direction only after Kars had fallen to Russian arms. As for the widely circulated claims regarding Omer Pasha’s advance toward Kutaisi and the alleged evacuation of the city, these began dramatically but ended in a catastrophe that the Turkish forces would not soon forget. Would the Turkish serasker have wished to enter Kutaisi? In reality, only a small number of his officers and soldiers briefly entered the city. Omer Pasha himself crossed the Tekhura River (approximately 60 versts from Kutaisi), bypassed the city at a distance, and, due to insufficient supplies, requisitioned maize and ghomi from the impoverished Mingrelian population. Payment was made at half the value, and in currency so devalued that, as contemporaries remarked, it would scarcely be accepted even in Turkey. Stationed on the banks of the Tekhura, Omer Pasha waited for favorable weather conditions. At the time, Colchis was enveloped in dense fog; heavy rains had caused rivers to overflow their banks. Under such circumstances, further advance was impossible. Moreover, provisions failed to arrive from Constantinople. Confronted with these constraints, the serasker was forced to retreat.

Meanwhile, our agile mounted militia, undeterred by the swollen rivers, crossed to the opposite bank and initiated partisan operations. Alarmed by both the militia and the local population, Omer Pasha reportedly appealed—somewhat rhetorically—whether such relentless resistance was necessary, before continuing his withdrawal. Although it is said that he even visited the baths of Kutaisi—an act for which he was reportedly criticized within his own ranks—his troops experienced a far harsher “immersion” in the waters of the Tekhura during their retreat toward Redut-Kale. The river flooded so severely that it overtook them approximately twelve versts from the fortress. For three days, the soldiers remained stranded in water, unable to advance or retreat. They narrowly escaped death; a significant portion of the army—nearly a quarter—fell ill, and the survivors eventually regrouped at the redoubt. Following this unsuccessful campaign and substantial losses, the Turkish forces began to perish in large numbers, “like flies,” as contemporary accounts describe. These circumstances clearly demonstrate that Kutaisi could not have been deserted. At most, two or three families may have temporarily left the city—hardly sufficient to characterize it as abandoned. To those who disseminated false reports, one might pose the question: can a city truly be considered empty if gatherings were still held, where both men and women continued to celebrate and dance, even to the point of wearing out multiple pairs of shoes? Rather than dwell further on correcting these inaccuracies, it is preferable to turn to more encouraging developments than to dwell on those that provoke indignation [11]. All of this information is derived from Figure S5a–d.

2.2.2. Raphiel Eristavi in the Pages of Droeba

Numerous articles were published in the newspaper Droeba, including several by Raphiel Eristavi. Public figures and writers of the time sought to use their words as a means of reintegrating people who had been separated from their homeland back into a unified Georgian space. Hope was renewed that historical unity could be restored with Muslim Georgia. Georgian intellectuals spared no effort, using newspaper publications and active public engagement on the ground to awaken the national consciousness among Islamized Georgians. Emphasis on the need to unite became a central leitmotif in Georgian public discourse within the context of reintegrating Muslim Georgia. This unity was based on a shared historical understanding and on the language as a key marker of identity. Articles by Georgian writers and publicists were regularly published in the Iveria and Droeba newspapers.

During the Great Eastern Crisis of 1875–1878, Raphiel Eristavi’s sister, Ana Eristav-Chavchavadze, traveled to Artvin to serve as a humanitarian worker. She spent nearly a year there, during which she contracted typhus and passed away. Raphiel Eristavi published a tribute to her in Issue 178 of Droeba, titled “In Place of an Obituary.” The letter is further evidence of the national importance of the issue of Ottoman Georgia for Georgian society of that period, including Georgian women. It clearly reflects the progressive thinking of the grieving writer and his positive attitude toward the public and charitable activity of women, writing the following [17]:

Let us no longer claim that our society lacks women of energy, women who are eager to learn and devoted to charity. Let us no longer assert that a woman’s only purpose is to give birth and raise children. Let us return to them the truth they have always deserved, still deserve, and will continue to deserve: to grace and crown the places and roles they assume.

When war broke out between the Ottoman Empire and Imperial Russia, Raphiel Eristavi published an article in Droeba titled “Information on Ottoman Georgia” [12]. The writer’s sentimental tone toward Georgians who would been “torn from their homeland by misfortune” is especially striking: “The Ottomans, Qizilbash, and other mighty peoples have not let the Georgians rest. They have burned, devastated, and exiled entire villages, and thus Georgia was diminished.” For Eristavi, establishing the national identity and rebuilding Georgian unity was a top priority.

His article includes ethnographic information about Muslim Georgia, offering a glimpse into daily life in regions such as Adjara and Shavsheti. Eristavi lists Georgian surnames and settlements in Muslim Georgia, writing, “If anyone dares to doubt that these lands are part of Georgia…” He then names several villages and notes how he had relied on information provided by Grigol Gurieli, which he clearly states at the beginning of the article. Eristavi asserts, “Let me boldly say that Ottoman Georgia has over one million people of Georgian descent who still speak Georgian today.” He also remarks, “Only about 20,000 Laz people speak Mingrelian. Their clothing and customs are Georgian; only the Ottoman fez and rain cloak set them apart. Their language is pure old Kartvelian, and their appearance evokes that of a native of Georgian soil.”

Eristavi not only sought to represent and make known the lives of Muslim Georgians to the rest of Georgia but also emphasized how strongly those separated from the homeland desired to reconnect, writing, “Some of them know how to read and write in Georgian and are eager to find a teacher for their children. They search but can find neither instructors nor books” [12].

After the end of the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878, when Adjara, Artvin, and Ardahan were returned to Georgia, a celebratory banquet was held in Tbilisi on 22 November 1878, at which Raphiel Eristavi also spoke. The event is recorded in Droeba under the headline Banquet for the Newly Reunited Georgians [15]. The article features remarks by Prince Grigol Orbeliani, who stated as follows:

We too, the children of Georgia, had been separated from one another for centuries. We suffered greatly at the hands of enemies and endured devastation, but we never forgot our estranged brothers. Our eyes and hearts were turned toward you, dear sirs, and we longed for the day when the sun of reunification would shine upon us.

The article also records the speech delivered by Akaki Tsereteli, which reportedly moved the audience deeply. Unfortunately, Raphiel Eristavi’s own speech was not published in the newspaper. Still, one can clearly imagine the joy of the Georgian public when lands once severed from the homeland were finally reunited with their roots.

As a defining factor of ethnic and cultural identity, language became a crucial focus in Muslim Georgia after these territories were reintegrated. On 19 June 1882, a meeting of the Society for the Spreading of Literacy was held, as documented in Droeba [18]. One of the items on the agenda was the potential closure of a school in Batumi due to lack of funding. At the meeting, Raphiel Eristavi spoke, expressing his concerns as follows:

If the school has not yet been firmly established, that is not the end of the world… People there have only recently settled. Those who were going to leave have left, and those who would remain are remaining. Now they are struggling, and the school is struggling. We have raised the banner of education. Must we now return in shame?

Even before these Muslim Georgians were reunited with us, Grigol Gurieli used to request teachers and books. Now that they have been reunited, now that we have at least one school there, should we destroy it?

In Raphiel Eristavi’s personal archive preserved at the National Centre of Manuscripts, only one file was located, numbered 137/150 [14]. Unfortunately, other archival files referenced in scholarly sources (entries 140, 142, 149, 150, 161.2) did not contain any relevant material.

3. Conclusions

The Ottoman Empire had implemented a millet system, derived from the concept of zimmi [protection of non-Muslims living in an Islamic state] in Islamic law and adapted to its own principles. Accordingly, each millet possessed its own internal social organization, a closed social structure organized around its own traditions. However, these millets were recognized and protected as legal entities by the state. In this sense, the millet system in the Ottoman Empire was a unique phenomenon, not only as a unique administrative organization but also as a social structure developed within the unique social and cultural environment of Ottoman society. Within this framework, the Ottoman millet system throughout the empire’s existence ensured the preservation of the religious, if not cultural, identities of diverse groups, including those living in specific geographical areas, as well as those with dispersed settlement patterns that sometimes lacked linguistic unity [19,20].

As can be seen, the publications appearing in the pages of the Georgian press, as well as the broader focus of Georgian society in the 1870s and 1880s, were particularly directed toward the Georgian identity of Muslim Georgia. Raising national consciousness among the population of the newly reintegrated regions of Tao and Adjara, shaping informed public opinion, and strengthening language as a central element of culture and identity were vital.

To this end, the long and painful process that had begun in the early 1870s through ethnological research, publicist writings, poetry, and civic activism was all directed toward a single goal: to restore Georgians who had been separated from their homeland to their historical roots.

Raphiel Eristavi actively participated in the efforts to study the condition of the historical regions of Georgia that were under Ottoman control. From both his archive and his articles that were published in Droeba, he evidently paid great attention to the geographic, ethnographic, and cultural description of historical Tao, Chaneti, Shavsheti, and Adjara, as well as other regions. Because no confirmed evidence is found of Eristavi having personally traveled to these areas, he is most likely to have relied on Giorgi Gurieli’s notes.

Eristavi’s manuscripts, including the one titled “Information on the Part of Georgia Currently Held by the Ottomans”, contain many important details. They name old Georgian settlements and describe the Georgian inhabitants’ way of life, language, traditions, religious status, and forms of governance.

In the article Eristavi published at the onset of the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878, Eristavi movingly conveyed the plight of Georgians separated from their homeland. He emphasized how the people living on these lands had continued to preserve their Georgian identity through language, clothing, and cultural practices, despite the influence of the Ottoman presence and the changes it had brought.

Importantly, Eristavi strove to demonstrate to both the public and the state that these regions were an inseparable part of Georgian history and culture and that the people residing there had retained a connection to their Georgian roots.

The findings of this entry indicate that Georgian society in the second half of the nineteenth century actively sought to shape the national consciousness of Muslim Georgians through publicist writing, the restoration of linguistic ties, and broader cultural integration. Within this process, Raphiel Eristavi’s letters and publications served a broader national agenda: preserving Georgian cultural identity while presenting Ottoman Georgia as an integral part of the Georgian historical and cultural space. The publicist literature of the period further demonstrates that the Georgian intelligentsia attached particular importance to understanding the attitudes of Muslim Georgian populations, with education emerging as a key instrument in the reconstruction of national identity. In this context, Eristavi emphasized the role of schools and the activities of the Society for the Spreading of Literacy as central mechanisms for sustaining and strengthening national consciousness. Overall, his intellectual and cultural efforts reveal an approach oriented less toward confrontation and more toward integration, aiming to incorporate Muslim Georgia into a shared national framework.

Classical empires, despite their policies of war, violence, and conquest, had managed to hold together diverse identities, cultures, languages, and religions (i.e., differences) well enough to transcend the local into the global. These empires had managed these differences within the framework of past practices, environmental conditions, the other empires’ positions, and the attitudes of their own subjects. However, the nationalist movement that had been brought about by the French Revolution completely changed this perspective.

Eristavi and other Georgian intellectuals also appear to have been acting in accordance with the ideas that prevailed in the 19th century. The political situation in the Balkans would also be a disruption in the Caucasus [21]. For the analysis of the social structure in Ottoman Georgia as it transformed and differentiated under the influence of Islam, Balcı and Motica’s studies are of particular relevance [22]; likewise, Kahraman’s [23] academic examinations of the impacts on the ethnic structure may contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of Eristavi’s manuscripts.