[0]
Pridnestrovie was part of Scythia-Parthia 100 BC, with Sarmatia extending to the Dniester river. Dacia covered today's MoldovaTIRASPOL (Tiraspol Times) - Every people has a right to its own history. But in the Soviet Union, a constant rewriting of history was the norm rather than the exception.
Now, in many post-Soviet countries and regions, this legacy still lingers. Rewriting history for propaganda purposes is common, and so are the twin evils of censorship by omission and bias by omission. That is the conclusion of Nikolai Babilunga, one of Pridnestrovie's leading historians and faculty chair of history at the Pridnestrovie State University in Tiraspol.
In March 2007 he contributed to an anthology which was published by the Slavic school of the Hokkaido University in Japan.
The work was part of a conflict resolution project sponsored by the "Centre of Excellence of the 21st century", and the project is based on the principle of involvement of historians of both parties to the conflict as a step towards peaceful co-existence.
In other words: By understanding how each side sees itself, and its history, it is possible to find compromise and common ground. It will also be possible, through careful research and by focusing only on the facts, to strip away propaganda and politically motivated rewritings of history. This issue is now being tackled head-on under the supervision of Professor Osamu Ieda of the Slavic Research Center of Hokkaido University, Japan.
An anthology entitled “Historiographies around Unrecognized States: Pridnestrovie, Nagorno Karabakh, Armenia, South Ossetia and Georgia” has been published a part of the project. It is edited by Prof. Kimitaka Matsuzato, Professor at the Slavic Research Center at Japan's Hokkaido University.
Nikolai Babilunga's research paper, “The Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic: Recognized historiography of a non-recognized state”, was part of this anthology. With the author's permission, The Tiraspol Times is re-publishing it here.
Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic: Recognized historiography of an unrecognized state
As it’s known due to an endless rewriting of books in history, an update and interpretation of historic events depending on the policy pursued by party leaders under the rule of the communist ideology the world community regarded the Soviet Union as an amazing state with “the unpredictable past”.
Even in the mid-20th century a series of articles, "Rewriting of Russian History" (New York 1956, 1962 edited by Leo Yarosh) were issued; with the authors showing how Soviet historiography changed its interpretation of the most important historic issues of Russia and the USSR depending on the political conjuncture at various times. Has anything changed since then?
A forced disintegration of the USSR didn’t put an end to such a shameful practice but it gave a new powerful spur to it. The independent states having emerged from the ruins of the Soviet super-power suffered a real boom in review of the historic past of peoples. After overthrowing dogmas of historic materialism a hasty rewriting of history began and it was often based not on true historic facts of social importance, not on deep and detailed impartial research but on national myths, folk stories, ballads, legends, and even jokes. The political order and booking of newly created national histories didn’t add true scientific objectivity to them but they even became far from reality than the Soviet historiography was.
Attempt to "Romanize" historiographies of Moldova and Pridnestrovie
On starting studies of the history of the region right after proclamation of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic (September 2, 1990, before the collapse of the USSR) a small group of researchers considered that history should not be used to settle political problems. The development of Pridnestrovie’s historiography was necessitated by crucial issues arisen at that very moment. First of all, it concerned the system of education. The point is that in the end of the 1980’s the Republic of Moldova withdrew the course of USSR History (History of Fatherland) from school and university curriculum. History of the Moldavian SSR which had a mark of that time was also banned. It was full of main semi-official doctrines and “achievements” of the Soviet historiography of the Brezhnev epoch and it was full of such terms as “a developed socialism”, “a new historic community”, “a constellation of sister republics”, “steadily growing well-being”, “a full-scale building of communism” and others. At the same time lots of dramatic and tragic pages of history were under veil. Thus, after-war hunger years, so-called golodomor and mass victims as well as the Stalin totalitarian system – anarchy, deportation of people, etc. “dropped” from the history.
However, the mass criticism of Moldova’s historiography in the media didn’t lead to cleansing changes and a detailed research into the history of the people but to replacement of one doctrine with another one. In the early 90’s the course on history of Romanians identifying Moldovans with Romanians as an axiom requiring no proof and setting out key elements of a new model of Moldova’s historiography replaced a standard approved by high-rank officials. The key elements are as follows: the Romanian nation didn’t arise in the 19th century when the independent Romanian state emerged, but during Roman colonization of the Balkan and Danube territories that was accompanied by Romanization of barbaric tribes; throughout the history Romanians’ greedy neighbours, mainly “eastern barbarians” and “Slaviс nomads”, made attempts to “tear the Romanian community as well as its territory apart”; this community, that is the Romanian nation, throughout its multi-century history had been struggling heroically for creation of the united great state whose foundation was laid even in the pre-Christian age and included many independent states of Europe where allegedly Romanian (that is, Thracian) tribes lived.
Of course, the only criteria of progressive nature and moral justification for either historic fact or personality in such а frame of reference is how much it facilitated the resolution of the super-task – the integration of all Romanians and Romanian territories since the old days up to the present moment. The Moldavian state, the Moldavian culture and the Moldavian history with its unique character is regarded as an unfortunate mistake that broke the integrity of the Romanian ethnos, a sovereignty of the Romanian state that existed before 1359 (that is before formation of the Moldavian feudal principality) as somewhat desired ideal. Heterogeneous and not connected with each other facts from the history of Moldavia, Wallachia, Transylvania and Romania itself combined in a chaotic mosaic. All the Slavs and especially pre-revolution Russia and the USSR were shown as a natural and ominous enemy of the Moldavians (called “Bessarabian Romanians” in historiography of Moldova). However, the scientific world remains rather skeptical about the thesis of full identity of all eastern Romans as a conception of formation of the Romanian ethnos and its statehood from time immemorial.
Probably, propaganda efforts aimed at changing a traditional ethnic identity of Moldovans had low effect in recent years. According to the referendum “Moldova – our common home” which was held in 1995 as well as the last population census only a few percent of people identify themselves with Romanians. Most of the Moldavians still identify themselves as an independent nation different from neighbouring nations whose language, culture and history are both similar and quite different to theirs. The attempts to Romanize Pridnestrovie have even less effect. Local Moldavians refused to transfer to the Latin alphabet and to “clear it up” in Latin. The Moldavian language in PMR preserves the traditional Cyrillic alphabet that the Moldavians have used for five centuries and is one of three official languages of PMR. One third of Pridnestrovie’s population is the Moldavians; together with the Ukrainians and Russians they form a basis of Pridnewtrovie’s poly-ethnic community, so withdrawal of history of Moldavia from the curriculum met with negative response of the people of Pridnestrovie. No person wanted their children to study textbooks and according to the curriculum designed by Chisinau’s historians.
From an ethnocentric to a regional approach: Creation of Pridnestrovian historiography
Half a year after declaration of independence of PMR (March 12, 1991) the supreme legislature, the Supreme Council adopted a resolution on top-priority measures to preserve the moldavian ethnos, language and culture. Stating that “lately the process of Romanization of the Moldavian nation has become active in the SSR of Moldova” and “an anti-national policy of burying the Moldavian identity, culture, language, traditions in oblivion is underway”, Parliament outlined a series of measures to preserve the Moldavian identity and culture. The decision was taken to set up a scientific research laboratory for studying the history of Moldavia and Pridnestrovie at the Pridnestrovian University, to task authors to write textbooks on history of Moldavia and Pridnestrovie. The plan was to write an objective and detailed history of Pridnestrovie from the ancient to present times.
Such is a prehistory of the development of the Pridnestrovian historiography. Unlike many other republics that emerged from ruins of the Soviet Union Pridnestrovie’s authorities didn’t dictate official doctrines and postulates. Moreover, there could be no such “truth” for the history of Pridnestrovie was rather obscure and unclear. Even high-skilled experts in history have fragmentary knowledge and there were reasons for this. There were no summary papers on the history of the region because the statehood was determined in the 20th century. In pre-revolutionary Russia and Ukraine, Poland, Turkey and Romania there were no special works on the history of left bank regions. For half a century period of development of historiography only a few papers on various issues relating to the history in the period of existence of the Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic as a part of the Ukraine between 1924 and 1940 or during the civil or the Great Patriotic wars were published (papers by S. Aftenuk, Z. Ivanov, A. Lazarev, A. Repida, K. Stratievski and others). Then several research papers in history of Tiraspol and the Armenian colonies of Grigoriopol, also social and economic development of left-bank Pridnestrovie in the 19th century (papers by Zh. Avanyan, I.A. Antsupov, Y. I. Druzhinina, I.I. Zharkutski, V. M. Kabuzan and others).
The main focus of historians’ interest was on two periods:
1. During active exploration and colonization of Novorossiya in Northern Prichernomorie (Black Sea region, in the late 18th century) when Pridnestrovie was one of the most densely populated regions of the Russian Empire;
2. After the October revolution and occupation of Bessarabia by Romanian forces Pridnestrovie served as a testing area of the Moldavian Soviet statehood – an autonomy within the Ukrainian SSR was formed. Before 1924 no statehood existed on those Cossack lands and the borders of the Moldavian principality didn’t extend to the east to the Dniester.
The Moldavian researchers of the feudal period took no interest in this region. Ukrainian historians were not interested in this region’s history for Pridnestrovie had became a part of other Union republic – the Moldavian SSR since 1940. At the moment of creation of the independent statehood (the 1990’s) whole periods of history remained unveiled. It’s abnormal and surprising for the Pridnestrovian lands were of great importance in Eurasia, a contact zone for various civilizations and cultures. The Dniester banks are one of the most interesting regions of Europe with more ancient archeological Slavic sites than even in Central Russia.
For centuries Pridnestrovie has been an arena for struggle of various nations trying to rule on these lands. The people who lived here but didn’t create their own statehood was an object of policy of more powerful states and a victim of their bloody conflicts.
During the Slavic colonization the lands of Pridnestrovie served as a borderline between two powerful unions of Slavic tribes – the Ants and the Sklavins. Then they joined the Kievan Rus and turned into rather a densely populated region of the Old Russian state. After the breakup of the Kievan Rus Pridnestrovie was a part of the eastern Slavic Galich – Volyn principality.
In 1569 the northern part of Pridnestrovie was a part of Rech Pospolitaya whereas the southern part occupied by Crimean Tartars became a western border of the Crimean Khanate, a vassal of the Ottoman Empire. For many centuries Pridnestrovie has remained a territory where the interests of powerful hostile states – catholic Rech Pospolitaya, Muslim Crimean khanate and orthodox Moldavian principality subordinate to the Ottoman Empire clashed. For they waited help from nowhere, self-defense was the only way to survive. The late 18t century was the longest peaceful period in the history of Pridnestrovie. When the border was transferred from the Dniester to the Prut Pridnestrovie didn’t serve as a geopolitical border zone any more; the land were inhabited by Ukrainians, Moldavians, Russians, Bulgarians, Armenians, Germans, Jews and others. The Pridnestrovian social community is notable for the ethnic and religious tolerance and friendliness that was promoted by inter-ethnic marriages. There have never been an ethnic majority that could have claims on supremacy in the region. The main ethnic elements of the Pridnestrovian community - Moldavians, Ukrainians, Russians – are almost equally represented in the region. That’s why the Pridnestrovians are so suspicious and oppose strongly the attempts of Chisinau authorities to proclaim the Bessarabian Romanians to be the main masters of these lands and the others to be “aliens” and “occupants”. The Dniester retrieved its role of a geopolitical border zone Bessarabia’s annexation to Romania in 1918.
In the mid 1920’s the Bolsheviks formed the Moldavian ASSR in this part of Ukraine despite the fact that only one third of the population were Moldavians, more than half of the population were Ukrainians.
There were no ethnic conflicts for a 16-year existence of the Moldavian autonomy in the Pridnestrovian region of Ukraine. In the early August, 1940 the Moldavian autonomy was annulled. The Pridnestrovian part of MASSR as well as Bessarabian regions mostly populated by Moldavians was annexed to a new republic of the Soviet Union – the Moldavian SSR. The state existed successfully within the Soviet Union (up to its breakup) over 50 years. The collapse of the Soviet Union promoted by nationalistic elites of former union republics, including Moldova, can’t but provoke the breakup of a number of sovereign states artificially created by Stalin’s regime that could exist artificially only within the borders of the USSR. When nationalistic forces came to power and proclaimed the republic “an occupied Romanian land” and “unlawful entity” created by the Soviet occupational regime, when an inter-ethnic tension in Moldova increased and there was an outburst of civil conflicts, the leadership of Moldova made statements about withdrawal from the Soviet Union it provoked a response of the people of Pridnestrovie. the idea to restore their statehood was widely spread among the people; they saw it as the only chance to avert the worst course of events, genocide, thousands of victims and hundreds of thousands of refugees.
Difficulties in the development of Pridnestrovian historiography
In 1990 after the referendums it was the second attempt of the people of Pridnestrovie to build their own statehood – the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic. It was a guarantee of survival, safety, freedom and non-violent approach to the settlement of controversial issues and arising disagreement. The bloody conflict on the Dniester in Bendery and Dubossary in 1991-1992 gave an idea to the Pridnestrovians that they should obtain full independence from a hostile state. Constant attempts to suppress the Pridnestrovian statehood by blockades – financial, informational, customs, communicational, economic and others – proves that the people have chosen the right course for independence from the neighbouring state. The Pridnestrovians are sure that their choice should be understood and accepted adequately by the world community; their right to self-determination is immanent, the right to create their own statehood requires no sanctions by Moldova, Russia, Ukraine, Romania or any other country.
While studying different historic periods researchers have to go beyond its limits, to study history of other states and nations. It is one of the peculiar features of the development of the Pridnestrovian history school…
The Pridnestrovian historiography faced another problem. The Archives of PMR were established only after creation of the republic. So the researchers have to use the Archives and libraries of Western and Eastern Europe, the Balkans and Asia. Moldova as well as Rumania also has no documents relating to the Middle Ages.
The sources relating to the northern part of Pridnestrovie are available in Latin and Polish. The documents relating to the history of southern part of Pridnestrovie are mostly available in Tartar, Turkish and Arabian and are kept in Istanbul and other centers to which there’s no easy access for researchers. Lots of source available in Slavic, Old Moldavian, Lithuanian, Armenian, Jewish, Belarusian, Greek and Ukrainian even those published in the late 19th – early 20th centuries are real rarities and are stored in archives of different states…
In other words the Pridnestrovian historiography began with a blank page.
There’s no experienced staff in our republic. It could have taken years to train the staff. The last decade of the 20th century notable for such events as the breakup of the Soviet Union, the collapse of the financial system of the state and putting national currencies into circulation, an economic crisis, blockades and hostilities was not beneficial for the work of scientists and development of the historic conception. Besides, historians trained by the Marx material school could hardly go beyond the limits. But after a thorough examination Pridnestrovie’s history is rather paradoxical far beyond all known theories. For instance, we can trace the elements of the so-called Moldavian feudalism and special republican relations among Cossacks and other types of feudal relations. Being an arena for wars Pridnestrovie had no opportunity to develop like neighboring states. External and often occasional reasons might lead to cardinal changes for a short period of time. So the historian had to refuse from division of the historic past of the region into periods on the basis of the evolution of the formational structure of the society that can’t be traced in Pridnestrovie. They decided to base the division into periods on important milestones and events having an impact on the history such as mass migration of the population, the change of ethnos, civilizations and cultures, military campaigns and others.
Realizing the scale of the task and hurdles they could face the researchers of the scientific and research laboratory “Pridnestrovie’s history” established at the Pridnestrovian State University in 1991 (Head – N.V. Babilunga, leading researcher – B.G. Bomeshko, senior researcher – V.Y. Grosul) began formulating a conception and a strategy of writing a fundamental three-volume paper on history of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic. To write a three-volume work was a super task alongside with other researches that united highly-skilled experts in different issues and periods of South-Eastern European history as well as beginners, experts in regional studies, even students. A series of lections on history of Moldavia, a collection of papers “Bessarabian issue and formation of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic”, a commemorative reference book “The Book of memory of defenders of Pridnestrovie”, brochures “Bendery – shot but unconquered”, “Dubossary – a bleeding wound of Pridnestrovie”, “Pridnestrovian conflict: historic, demographic, political aspects”, a collective monograph “Pridnestrovie’s phenomenon” and many others.
The annual historic anthology of Pridnestrovie played a key role in development of the Pridnestrovian anthology. This democratic and deeply scientific project, the anthology found its readers and became very popular within and outside the republic.
International conferences produced good results. The first one “Pridnestrovie: past, present, future” was organized by the laboratory in Tiraspol in 1992 soon after the cease of hostilities. General Aleksander Lebed’s words “You can hardly imagine how important the conference is for your future!” can’t but be regarded as prophetical.Pridnestrovian historians jointly with experts from Russia, Moldova, Gagauzia, the USA and other states and regions joined research projects in sociology, conflict resolution, poltical science and other areas. The results of researches were published both in PMR and foreign states.
Such conferences and symposiums uniting scientists’ efforts to study historic and modern problems of the Pridnestrovian region are held twice a year. The material of some conferences was published and became a real fount of collective wisdom, a way to resolve problems by “an intellectual storm”. Our researchers often go abroad to take part in scientific forums.Attempts at creating a common historiography with Moldova
The wish of the OSCE mission to Moldova to promote mutual understanding between the new Pridnestrovian historiography and Chisinau pro-Romanian historiography is rather demonstrative. These attempts were not successful.
After the breakup of the USSR the common information space within which our peoples lived, scientific researches were conducted and scientific schools arose was broken. It led to the loss of lots of scientific material and even to the collapse of some scientific institutions. Boundless flows of information were cut off by national borders of newly-emerged states. But unlike a football or hockey team the science can’t be national by definition.
What was the result? The “national renewal” proclaimed in the late 80’s turned to an unprecedented collapse of the national culture and spirituality of most nations torn out from the favourable environment and placed to nationally limited reservations where there’s no place for science, education and even elementary literacy.
As for the quality of life of the population living in post-Soviet republics, it’s well-known. Moldova occupies one of the last places. Having successfully divided the public property, oligarchic clans run the republic and make profits, steal foreign investments and grants given by the West.
Unlike Moldova Pridnestrovie’s situation is quite different, though it faces huge economic, financial and social hurdles, most of which are created artificially as a result of blockades. Our state has preserved its economic potential which is steadily developing. Most of people trust and support the leaders of the republic. Every PMR citizen is protected by the Constitution and legislation of PMR from any infringement on dignity and rights, from any discrimination as to nationality, language, beliefs, etc. No scientific institution was closed or staff was fired as to language, ethnos or political criteria. New scientific institutions are open. Setting up the Pridnestrovian State University (PSU) was among the first decisions taken by the leadership of the newly declared republic.
So the question arises: is there a chance to establish and promote informational cooperation between researchers from Moldova and Pridnestrovie who live under so different regimes? Is it necessary? The scientific and research laboratory at PSU (Pridnestrovian State University, also named the T.G. Shevchenko University) accumulated more than 15-year experience in cooperation with scientists from Moldova and other states. So we can draw some conclusions as to ways to optimize and develop it. After Chisinau’s historiography change its course and the history of Moldavia was replaced with pseudo-scientific doctrine of “history of Romanians”, when the Moldavian history school was destroyed at scientific and educational institutions of Moldova, lots of scientists continued studying the history of the Moldavian state though they had to go underground. Many of those courageous people despite a serious threat to their wellbeing and even life became the researchers of our laboratory and being highly skilled experts they collaborated on two-volume History of PMR, Pridnestrovie’s phenomenon and others. These are such outstanding historians as I. A. Antsupov, L.E. Repida, I.D. Chobanu, P.M. Shornikov, A.P. Lisovina, A.Y. Skvortsova, E.A. Bognibov, etc.
Nevertheless it is incorrect to suppose that such a close cooperation with Chisinau’s scientists is a rule; quite the contrary, considering huge pressure of pro-Romanians on politics, public life and consciousness. Over those years they enjoyed an ideology of aggressive Romanism: course, programs and textbook were designed to conceal the unique character of the Moldavian nation, were full of pro-Romanian and even pro-fascist propaganda. Any opposition to pro-Romanian official course was suppressed. The writing of such scientific and methodological literature was sponsored by local and foreign funds. It is not surprising that a whole generation of historians for whom it is rather suitable. Having a control over finances that are spent on these purposes, the group is somewhat like a clan that does not allow any competition. They’d rather led society to a new stage of the civil conflict than allow pro-Moldavians to change plans, subjects and direction of scientific researches as well as school and university curriculum. There’s no chance to reach a compromise with them. The attempts of Mr. Gotfrig Hanne, the officer of the OSCE mission to Moldova, to bring historians from Moldova and Pridnestrovie together in studying and teaching the history of native land failed.
Over several years there were seminars in Chisinau and Tiraspol, the Coordinating Committee for school education was set up. After long discussions with our colleagues from Chisinau they drew up a plan of the work of working groups that was not put into practice despite a sincere wish to reach an agreement and all efforts of diplomats.
I think that noble efforts of the OSCE Mission to Moldova to establish the Internal Moldavian historic commission for designing textbooks with the purpose to promote better understanding between the parties and to find solutions to controversial issues on the history of Moldavia was doomed to failure. Unfortunately, the supporters of the modern counter-history of the Republic of Moldova, patriots of Moldavia and pro-Moldavians were not involved into the work of the Commission. It’s of no use to make attempts to reach a compromise with those who reject the existence of Moldavia, for whom it is unprofitable to study the history of the native land. It was proved by the seminar “Teaching history in Moldova” held in Chisinau in September, 2002 and organized by the Information Bureau of the Council of Europe to Moldova, RM Education Ministry and the OSCE Mission to Moldova. There was much debate and disputes between a clan of monopolists and independent researchers, the members of the Association of scientists named after Milesku-Spataru, also teachers from Moldova and Gagauzia. The latter was indignant at the behaviour of Chisinau pro-Romanians who pursued the only goal to consecrate curriculums in history designed by them and to receive a pardon for pro-Romanian "brainwashing" of a young generation of Moldavians. However, there is a group of relatively independent historians in Moldova ready to exchange the information and the results of researches and even cooperation with their colleagues from Pridnestrovie though they are not supporters of Pridnestrovie or are neutral. In 1998 the researchers of our laboratory participated in the implementation of the project “National processes, language relations and identity” initiated by Professor of Stanford Unicersity David Laytin co-authored by deputy Director of the Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology of the Russian Academy of Science, Professor Mikhail Guboglo. Jointly with the Centre for studying inter-ethnic relations at the Russian Academy of Science with which the scientific and research laboratory of Pridnestrovie cooperates under the contract the scientists from Moldova under the aegis of the Department of ethnic relations and language functioning and the National Assembly of Gagauzia took part in the sociological research. It resulted in lots of publications in scientific journals of Pridnestrovie, Moldova, Russia, the USA and other states. The research demonstrated that striving for impartiality and conscientiousness of researchers having different political views and beliefs could unite people and promote progress in science.
Another example of informational cooperation is the international research project “The outlook for the settlement of the conflict between Moldova and Pridnestrovie: a role of building a civil society supported by the Research Support Scheme” of the Institute of open society (Prague). The project was led by Vladimir kolosov, Doctor in Geography, director of the Centre for geopolitical research at the Geography Institute of the Russian Academy of Science, participants – D.V. Zayats and A.D. Krindach (Moscow), L. Drumya (Chisinau), N.V. Babilunga (Tiraspol). The results of researches were published in different states in different languages and are available in the Internet, were commented in periodicals. In other words, a sensible pragmatism and political impartiality could produce good results and increase chances to success.
In September, 2002 the web-journal “Moldova academic review” was presented in Chisinau (editor PhD in history O. Gaushchnko). The first issue was devoted to Pridnestrovie and it was called “Pridnestrovie – from the past to the future”. The journal is unique for it serves as a tribune open for representatives of both parties to the conflict. Experts in history, political science, sociology, philology and other sciences were given a chance to express their views on the past, the future of our region and possible solutions. It’s hard to judge if a reader who is not well-informed may have a clear picture of history and events happening in the region. An occasional visitor could hardly take an interest in this website, www.iatp.md/academicreview [1], but a qualified reader will give his due to the editor and authors of the journal. The key task of the Moldova Academic Review and similar media is to present information about processes happening on the Dniester to the world community.
It’s hard to speculate now on whether integration of Moldova and Pridnestrovie is still possible. The wounds are still bleeding, criminals who unleashed this massacre are still not punished and they are in power. Is there any need for this artificial merger of different economies, cultures and mentalities (though with similar historic roots)? At present geopolitical and political goals of our state systems and views on human rights and freedoms and other value have little in common. But the informational cooperation with historians from Chisinau is possible. We can suppose two possible scenarios depending on the geopolitical vector to be chosen by the leaders of this state. If Moldova chooses to strengthen and democratize its state system, the contacts will be extended. If it incorporates into Romania, the cooperation field will be limited.
Modern stage of PMR's historiography
After the collapse of the communist ideology the church and the religion was steadily reviving. I can’t but note a fruitful influence of the Russian Orthodox Church on modern Pridnestrovian historiography. Annual readings having been organized by Tiraspol and Dubossary Diocese and the Pridnestrovian State University gave a spur to regional studies. Seven books were published: lecturers, students, experts in regional studies conducted researches on the church history.
The development of the Pridnestrovian history school is accompanied by a real renaissance of regional studies which involves lecturers, museum and archives workers, journalists as well as students and schoolchildren. Lots of historic papers have been published over the last years. However, amateur scientists having their own views on history and a wish to thrust them upon the public may distort the scientific picture, impede and even put obstacles to researches. The publication of the historic Atlas of PMR whose authors (A.Z. Volkova, I.I. Krisko, A.A. Temnikov and others) made an unsuccessful attempt to write the history of the region within the present borders of PMR without a regard to processes happening in those states whose part Pridnestrovie was in different periods of history. This Atlas is not an Atlas though, and the number of historic, orthographic and other mistakes is unrivalled. The main danger of works of the kind is their claim on academic, politically topical and official character.
Having no opportunity to give a detailed analysis of the development of history school of Pridnestrovie, I’d like to dwell on the level that it had reached by the early 21st century. In 2000-2001 the scientific and research laboratory “Pridnestrovie’s history” published a three-volume research paper “History of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic” co-authored by tens of scientists from Pridnestrovie, Russia, Moldova and Ukraine. The first volume’s focus is on ancient times starting from first settlements on the Dniester and primitive communal relations, Pridnestrovie’s joining the Kievan Rus, Galych-Volyn principality, the Golden horde, the Great Lithuanian and Russian principality, the Polish Kingdom, Rech Pospolitaya, the Crimean khanate, the Russian empire up to February revolution and formation of a democratic republic and the first Soviets.
The second volume presents the Soviet epoch – the Soviets’ coming into power in the region, the civil war and creation of the Moldavian statehood on the left bank of the Dniester as a part of the Ukrainian SSR, occupation during the Great Patriotic war and the post-war history of Pridnestrovian lands as a part of the Moldavian SSR up to the breakup of the USSR and the disintegration of Moldavia in the late 80’s and the early 90’s of the 20th century. The last volume describes the dramatic events aimed at restoration of the statehood in Pridnestrovie, proclamation of PMR, heroic defense of PMR from external aggression, Pridnestrovie’s everyday life during the modern period of history of Pridnestrovie, its economic, social, political and cultural development.
The publication of the book has become a significant event in the public and political life of the republic, an important stage in development of historiography and history school of an unrecognized state. In accordance with this work the conception of the historical education as well as school textbooks in native history has been designed. Currently history of Pridnestrovie is taught in all PMR institutions of secondary and higher education in native languages. The history of Moldavia is included in the curriculum in Moldavian schools, the history of Ukraine – in Ukrainian schools.The Moldavian history is not taught in the Republic of Moldova; it was replaced with a doubtful course named instead 'History of Romanians'.
The children of Pridnestrovie study the native history as well as the history of Moldavia. It’s hard to predict the further course of Moldova as an independent state or a Romanian province. But we have grounds to believe that a recognized historiography has developed in the unrecognized state. We hope it will promote recognition of our state in the near future. - - Nikolai Babilunga.
Nikolai Babilunga is Head of the Department of History at the Institute of History, State and Law at Pridnestrovie's State University, PSU T.G. Shevchenko, in Tiraspol. He wrote this study for the anthology "Historiographies around Unrecognized States: Pridnestrovie, Nagorno Karabakh, Armenia, South Ossetia and Georgia”, edited by Professor Kimitaka Matsuzato of the Slavic Research Center at Japan's Hokkaido University.
See also:
» The shared - and not so shared - history of Pridnestrovie and Moldova [2]
» Slavic Pridnestrovie is birthplace of ancient Ukraine [3]
» Moldova's ethnic-based independence movement and the River of Blood [4]
» The former Moldavian SSR: A non-country which broke in two [5]