Remembering conflict: the Russo-Georgian War of 2008 in Georgian museums

Abstract

The Russo-Georgian War of 2008 is an understudied topic within Memory Studies in Anglophone academic literature. However, considering the War's significant role in shaping Georgia's socio-political landscape and identity, the omission is puzzling. This thesis addresses this gap, by examining how the war is commemorated in museums. Through the theoretical lenses of Memory Formats and Critical Museology, three case studies were analysed: the Museum of Occupation in Kaspi, the 2008 War Museum in Ergneti (both privately-funded), and the Museum of Battle Glory in Gori (state-funded). Using Thematic Analysis for interviews with museum staff and the Winterthur Model for artefact analysis, this research aimed to answer the following research question: How is the Russo- Georgian War of 2008 remembered in Georgian museums and why? The findings suggest that the remembrance of the Russo-Georgian War revolves around three main themes: (1) Personalised Victimisation, driven by individual and social memories to pass on these experiences to future generations. (2) Historical Analogies, emphasising Georgia's ongoing struggle for sovereignty and reinforcing national identity through a collective national consciousness. (3) Russia as the Aggressor, highlighting the role of Russia as the villain, while silencing the roles of separatists and Georgia in the conflict to protect a positive self-image. Moreover, financial constraints and a lack of professional display policies also influence how the war is remembered, leading to somewhat fragmented and unnuanced exhibitions. Notably, Personalised Victimisation is present in all museums, whereas Historical Analogies and Russia as the Aggressor are absent in the state-funded museum. The divergence reflects broader societal-political contrasts in Georgia, particularly since the outbreak of the full-scale war in Ukraine. Georgian society supports Ukraine and condemns Russia, whereas the ruling Georgian Dream party has shifted from a policy of normalisation with Russia towards a more pro-Russian orientation. Grassroots initiatives to commemorate the war, contrasted with the Georgian Dream's minimal efforts in this area, shows a strong societal desire to remember the conflict. A desire which is not shared by the officials, indicating a lack of interest or willingness to engage in the politics of memory.