Tbilisi, Baku, and Yerevan: Neoclassicism and Imperial Signification in the Caucasus

Abstract

Contrary to urban histories of the Caucasus that have tended to take an individual capital city and chart urban development from the Persian imprint and the Russian imperial legacy to the Soviet reconstruction, this article takes a comparative look at three national capitals, Baku, Yerevan, and Tbilisi, in order to argue for their similarities as well as their distinctness. It puts forth that the markers of the “national monumentality” and “capitality” of these three cities were set in place in the period of Russian imperial rule and that the central cores of Yerevan, Baku, and Tbilisi remained relatively unchanged into the Soviet era. This argument stresses that the impact of both the historiography of the Soviet urban revolution and the nationalizing historiography that continues to idolize genius figures like Armenian–Soviet architect Alexandr Tamanyan has led to an under-appreciation of the many imperial traces remaining in the Soviet-era cities. The article proceeds by using the architectural evidence, alongside travel accounts authored by those very familiar with imperial urban settings that describe Baku, Tbilisi, and Yerevan in some detail in these periods, to shed light on the changing dynamics of these locations (or lack thereof) into the Soviet era. Imperial travelers are supplemented by literary sources, as well as a spotlight on the example of Tamanyan and his centrality to movements like the World of Art group of neoclassicist architects in St. Petersburg. It is argued that it was neoclassicism that united the urban approaches in Baku, Tbilisi, and Yerevan under the Russian and Soviet periods of rule and that this violent rupture from the Persianate past continues to dominate these cities today.