Zaniato (Abkhazia and Nagorno-Karabakh, Caucasus)

Zaniato 🇦🇧 🇳🇰
Location: Abkhazia and Nagorno-Karabakh, Caucasus
Definition: Lit. ‘taken’, occupying empty property and marking the building as ‘taken’
Keywords: Abkhazia – Nagorno-Karabakh – FSU – Property – Expropriation – Ownership – Informal dwelling
Clusters: Market – Functional ambivalence – System made me do it – Survival – Informal dwelling
Author: Andrea Peinhopf
Affiliation: Alumna, School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University College London, UK
Website: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0432-1349

By Andrea Peinhopf, Alumna, School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University College London, UK

The zaniato principle (lit. taken or occupied) denotes an informal right of trophy acquisition of real estate in Abkhazia, one of Georgia’s breakaway regions. It became widespread during and after the Georgian-Abkhaz war in 1992-1993, which was fought between so-called Abkhazian ‘separatists’ and Georgian government forces and resulted in a mass flight of the Georgian population from Abkhazia and a large-scale redistribution of the abandoned properties among the remaining residents. On a ‘first come, first served’ basis, people entered empty homes and claimed ownership by writing zaniato (often followed by the surname of the occupier) in Russian at the entrance gate or on the walls of a dwelling (Peinhopf 2020b). There is evidence that the term and practice was also used in the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh between ethnic Armenians and Azerbaijani troops in 1988-1994 (Day.Az 2021). Beyond the former Soviet Union, the principle has been documented in Cyprus, where it is closely related to the Turkish-Cypriot term ganimet (plunder) (Navaro-Yashin 2012; Bryant 2014). Historically, it can be linked to military traditions of looting and trophy taking, now prohibited under international law (ICRC no date). Although it occurred primarily in the immediate post-war period, the ‘occupied’ principle has had long-lasting effects not only on Georgian-Abkhaz relations, but also those among the Abkhaz themselves.

In September 1993, a thirteen-months long war ended with the victory of the pro-Abkhaz forces and the mass flight of the local Georgian population from Abkhazia (HRW 1995). Subsequently, their houses were either destroyed or appropriated by ethnic Abkhazians as a reward for defeating the enemy and became known as trophy houses (trofeinye doma) (Peinhopf 2020b). Witnesses generally describe the redistribution of property as chaotic and unregulated. A Russian family living in a Soviet apartment bloc remembered the occupation of their neighbouring flat as follows: ‘One day, a young man showed up and told me that it was now his and that I should tell this to other people. Later he put a note on the door and then sold it to the current occupants’ (Peinhopf 2020a). On the surface, these takeovers were seen as justified responses to earlier occupations by Georgian troops in the territories under their control. As an Abkhaz resident, whose flat was occupied by Georgian soldiers during the war, explained, ‘One evening a group of thieves broke into our house. The next day, a “good” Georgian neighbour showed up and said “you can’t stay here, let me help you escape, I will look after your flat.” After the war, it happened the other way around: Georgians left their keys with neighbours hoping they would be able to return and maintain their property’ (Peinhopf 2020a).

At the time of the author’s fieldwork, there were no more visible signs of zaniato in Abkhazia. This photograph was taken in Shusha, Nagorno-Karabakh, where Armenians occupied houses of displaced Azeris after the war in the early 1990s. Source: Parviz Polukhzada. © Parviz Polukhzada.

However, field research conducted by the author in 2017-8 established that not all cases were socially acceptable. While there was an understanding that those whose homes were destroyed during the war had no other choice than to ‘take’ vacant properties, others were seen as using the zaniato principle to enrich themselves by occupying, and then selling, multiple dwellings. These sales usually took the form of informal transactions based on private agreements that were not registered with the de facto authorities. Moreover, people targeted not only the so-called ‘Georgian’ houses, but all kinds of industrial enterprises, raising questions about redistributive justice. According to an Abkhaz man in his late 60s, ‘The [occupation of] Georgian houses was one thing, but some people occupied whole guest houses or factories. Take the hotel Inter-Sukhum as an example . . . I remember, after the war I went inside and saw a couple of guys sitting there. I asked them, “What were you fighting for? For the hotel or your homeland?” They hadn’t built anything themselves or paid a single penny; I don’t see how they deserved it. Why do they deserve it and I don’t?’ (Peinhopf 2020b).

The redistribution of property according to the zaniato principle thus produced a new, privileged segment of society that came to be known as the new Abkhaz (novye abkhaztsy). Like the new Russians who are said to have become rich by dubious means and are known for their lavish lifestyle, the new Abkhaz symbolised an unprecedented, overt materialism at the expense of the traditional Abkhaz values of modesty, humility and self-restraint. As a result, they increasingly attracted resentment and mockery from their less well-off co-ethnics. As an older Abkhaz woman once joked, ‘The Abkhaz are a nation that likes to adopt bad things from others. For example, the Georgians who lived here had a good life and were working – what we took from them is the “showing off” but not the working [laughs]’ (Peinhopf, 2020b). Similarly to what was observed in northern Cyprus, there was a concern that post-war looting gave rise to a culture of occupation, in which possessions were simply taken rather than earned through one’s own work, thus corrupting communal values (Navaro-Yashin 2012; Bryant 2014).

Nearly three decades after the war, the effects of the practice continue to linger on. One example is the ruination of Abkhazia’s built environment, which can only partially be explained by wartime destruction. The ubiquity of ruins and abandoned, overgrown spaces has become a defining feature of Abkhazia’s landscape. While many abandoned houses appear ownerless because of their decrepit state, most of them are in fact taken rather than simply a ‘dead matter’ (Stoler 2008: 196). Although the de facto authorities officially nationalised many abandoned buildings after the war, by that time the majority had already been informally claimed. As their ownership remains disputed, numerous buildings – including architectural icons – are left to decay (Sharia 2010; Zavodskaia 2014). A prominent case is the Soviet-era restaurant Amra, which has been neglected despite popular demands for its restoration. Officially owned by a state agency, the Amra was bought by an investor from an informal owner, who, although willing to restore it, lacks the documents necessary to officially register his ownership. Since neither the investor nor the state have been able to preserve the site, it remains barricaded off due to its poor condition (Sharia 2017b).

Terrace of the abandoned restaurant Amra. Source: Andrea Peinhopf. © Andrea Peinhopf.

Another outcome of the zaniato principle, whereby some ended up with several properties, whereas others – especially those less involved in the fighting – claimed nothing at all, is a paradoxical housing crisis, with empty dwellings across the city on the one hand, and young families lacking accommodation on the other (JAMnews 2016; Sharia 2017a). One of the areas in question is the so-called ‘New District’ on the outskirts of the capital Sukhumi, where a number of Soviet-era housing blocks have remained vacant. In recent years, the local media reported several cases of young families – usually from rural backgrounds – who moved into empty properties without legal rights (see related entries on squatting, schwarzwohnen and no entry). Having come to the city in search for better employment opportunities but finding themselves without accommodation or state welfare, they took matters into their own hands and occupied houses which others had acquired through occupation during and after the war (JAMnews 2016; Sharia 2017a). As a journalist commented, those who grew up after the war were not always willing to accept the post-war redistribution as legitimate: ‘They didn’t take part in it for obvious reasons. Now, they suggest making yet another redistribution of property, and they can’t understand why they aren’t allowed to do what the older generation was allowed to do’ (JAMnews 2016: n.p.).

What this shows is that Abkhazia’s poor socio-economic recovery over the twenty-eight years that have passed since the end of the war in 1993 cannot be explained exclusively by such external factors as the lack of international recognition due to its disputed status. It is also a result of internal dynamics, including ongoing property disputes. According to a civil society activist and blogger, ‘it is thanks to the “occupied” principle that half of the country is still in ruins. [...] how many decades must pass for the state to finally put things in order in this area?’ (Venediktova 2018: n.p.).

References

Bryant, R. 2014. ‘History’s remainders: On time and objects after conflict in Cyprus’, American Ethnologist, 41(4): 681–697

Day.Az. 2021. 'Armenians appropriated the houses of expelled Azerbaijanis in Shusha after the the occupation - archival photos [Armiane prisvaivali doma izgnannykh azerbaidzhantsev v Shushe posle okkupatsii - arkhivnye foto]', 13 February, news.day.az/politics/1315828.html

HRW. 1995. Georgia/Abkhazia: Violations of the Laws of War and Russia’s Role in the Conflict. Helsinki: Human Rights Watch Arms Project/Human Rights Watch

ICRC. no date. 'Rule 52. Pillage, Customary IHL Database', https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule52

JAMnews. 2016. 'Daite ili zakhvatim [Give it to us, or we’ll grab it]', 14 November, jam-news.net/ru/дайте-или-захватим

Navaro-Yashin, Y. 2012. The Make-Believe Space: Affective Geography in a Postwar Polity. Durham: Duke University Press

Peinhopf, A. 2020a. Conflict and Co-Existence: War, Displacement and the Changing Dynamics of Inter- and Intra-Ethnic Relations in Abkhazia. PhD diss., University College London

Peinhopf, A. 2020b. ‘The Curse of Displacement: Local Narratives of Forced Expulsion and the Appropriation of Abandoned Property in Abkhazia’, Nationalities Papers: 1–18

Sharia, V. 2010. 'Pochemu Abkhaziia do sikh por zhivet so sledami voini? [Why does Abkhazia still live with the traces of the war?]', Ekho Kavkaza, 4 August, www.ekhokavkaza.com/a/2117766.html

Sharia, V. 2017a. 'Kvartnirnii vopros: sukhumskie kontrasti [Housing questions: Sukhumi contrasts]', Ekho Kavkaza, 25 May, www.ekhokavkaza.com/a/28509113.html

Sharia, V. 2017b. 'Pogruzhenie ‘galenona’ ‘Amra’ [The sinking of ‘galleon’ ’Amra’]', Ekho Kavkaza, 17 May, www.ekhokavkaza.com/a/28493949.html

Stoler, A. L. 2008. ‘Imperial Debris: Reflection on Ruins and Ruination’, Cultural Anthropology, 23(2): 191–219

Venediktova, N. 2018. 'Prezidenty meniaiutsia, a “zaniato” ostaetsia…’ [The presidents change, but ‘occupied’ stays…]', Telestudio Asarkia, 23 January, asarkia.info/blogs/nadejda/2053

Zavodskaia, E. 2014. 'Printsip ‘zaniato’ tormozit privatisatsiiu [’Occupied’ principle curbs privatisation]', Ekho Kavkaza, 16 December, www.ekhokavkaza.com/a/26747172.html