Discussion

The use of British archival materials in the study of Georgia’s modern history is well established in Georgian historiography, particularly through the work and legacy of Sir Oliver Wardrop. Yet significant bodies of material preserved in the Bodleian Library remain under-examined. This paper draws on recently accessible archival collections to reassess Georgia’s position at the political and social margins of empire at the turn of the twentieth century.
The core sources include Oliver Wardrop’s diaries, transferred to the Bodleian Library in 2018, alongside materials from the Curzon and Stokes archives and the archive of the British 27th Division. By systematically comparing these British sources with previously available Georgian archival and published materials, the The paper demonstrates how British documentation clarifies, supplements, and in some cases nuances established interpretations rather than overturning them.
The analysis is structured around three interrelated groups of sources. First, personal and official correspondence, which reveals British perceptions of political developments, everyday life, and social conditions in Georgia, offering an external perspective on local events. Second, visual materials—especially maps of Georgia and Tbilisi—which are scarce in Georgian archival collections and allow for a reconstruction of urban space, population activity, and patterns of everyday life beyond the framework of political history. Third, an archival-historiographical perspective examines the working practices of British diplomats and military officers, the production of reports and records, and the principles according to which these materials were archived.
Focusing on the period from late imperial rule through the Russian Revolution and the establishment of the Democratic Republic of Georgia (1918–1921), the paper explores how British archival materials illuminate shifting priorities, concerns, and expectations within Georgian society during a moment of profound political transition.