CONTENTS:
HISTORY OF ART
A number of scholars consider that as a term Christian Renaissance represents a union of incompatible concepts, as according to them Renaissance itself was a result of opposed Christian dogmas. Debates concerning the interpretation of the New era, Renaissance, started just from the very beginning of the Humanistic Epoch. But there is the whole circle of interrelated problems concerning the coexistence of Christianity and Humanism that authorizes the term "Christian Renaissance". Humanistic ideas were brought to birth in Christian Church itself and at first they were directed towards coincidence of the new wants of the epoch with Christianity.
Usually they imply in Renaissance the restoration of antique inheritance and don't take into consideration that Humanism with its various tendencies is linked closely with early Christian traditions. The Humanistic understanding of the essence of early Christian traditions is one of the first revelations of Renaissance thought and it represented the secular and universal interpretation of Christian traditions.
In the years of High Renaissance the ideas of Renaissance were incompatible with those of Christianity, as in order to show the greatness of the New epoch there arose the striving of demising the values of the Middle Ages. As far as the middle ages wire period of supremacy of the Christian ideology, Renaissance was considered to condemn the autocracy of Christian ideology. But lately when it became possible to study the culture of Christian middle ages more deeply and to see that pre renaissance times were not dark and nor isolated. According to Hoisting the scientists don't take properly into consideration the polyhedral nature of the culture in Middle Ages. in the mythological layers of the literature of those times, in the aspiration towards chivalry in this world and in Courtesan literature Hoisting sees this sighs of renaissance. As for Burkhard he thinks rightful to speak about protorenaissance.
According to Jocief protorenaissance contains in itself everything beginning from the immunity of the Catholic Church up to various searching that arose just in protorenaissance itself.
Speaking about Christian renaissance, it is necessary to see clearly the whole way that Christian culture passed, what were it’s attitudes towards Antiquity and to comprehend the ''Humanistic'' nature of Christianity- We must differ from each other the Christian religion as the state ideology of authorities by which usually manipulate civil and ecclesiastical sovereigns and Christian teaching that preach the Apostles, the great Fathers of the Church and that was created to defend the Poor and the Needy. The role of Antiquity in Middle Ages was of non historic and non modern authority in the system of principally different spiritual values. Church was strengthening its power but the universal ideals of antiquity weren't disappearing- they were represented with various intensity on different levels of development of Christianity. Its early Middle ages the links with antiquity were weakened but such situation was basically changed by Aristothelic ideas of Thomas Aquinas and antiquity that was received through the Islamic world. Its the high Middle ages the ecclesiastical authorities who had already sat up their strong (describing) the antique ideal of amen in order to prove the advantages of spirit over matter and of church over civil authorities try to develop scholastics, but as soon as the idea of privilege of spiritual over material becomes dangerous for clerical authorities they begin to fight against this tendency.
Unlike the West- Europe, in Byzantine traditions of antique civilization of have been never weakened except in 8 th-9th centuries, especially in the times of struggling against icons. But from 10 th century there begins the process of joining of antique and christian aesthetics. Antique ideals have itself in Church as well. This can be seen in the writings of Patriarch Photius. In his "Miriobillion" 280 antique and early Byzantine authors are characterized.
In Georgia, like Byzantine, the humanistic ideals, as unseparated parts of Christian culture, developed more earlier than in Catholic world. One of the reasons of this is that the Orthodox Church became more tolerant towards this world and unlike Catholicism there was less aspiration after asceticism. In Georgian Native language had no problems in the process of its development and this is the main characteristic sign of the start of Renaissance in the West world. "the Knight in Panther's skin" and the fresco of the Angel Kintsvici are the bright examples of flowing together of Christianity and Renaissance. The main essence Christian Renaissance is not antique traditions but the coexistence of Christian dogmatism and renaissance world feeling.
Just from the beginning of 13th century, with the development of civil life and the increase of the lot of individual values, it became obvious that ecclesiastical authorities and the new society were opposed. The Catholic Orthodoxia was troubled by the system of values of the "New man" Because of this was intensified the teaching of asceticism. Never before in the history of Christianity was hate so strongly directed towards a man as in the treaty of the Pope Enochenti III "About the Denial of the world or the Nonentity of a Man".
But alongside with this in itself the Church there arose the process of rebirth of early Christian traditions in the works of Francis of Assisi, Bonaventura, Bacon, William Okam, John Scot, Thomas Aquinas, etc. They saw the world not like the preachers of asceticism but saw like they first pioneers of Christianity they saw divine in the world together with the fair.
The Order of Franciscans gave birth to the ideal of Christ's life they managed to combine pray and active preaching with the aid to neighbor. They said that "to praise God was haughtiness but it was absolutely different to praise those who were created by God and who were the personifications of god".
Monks left monasteries to perch God's word and in their preaching we see the humanistic ideals and the new thought. They managed to write in their native languages. It was one of the most important results of new thought. Monks were the first poets who created both Italian and Catalonian poetry. The essence of protorenaissance or Christian renaissance is that it doesn't at all oppose Christian dogmatism. Because the church itself gave new birth to Christian Renaissance in the epoch when under the dictate of the new historical situation the church tries to regenerate the humanistic tendencies of Christianity that was oppressed in particular period by the Church ,especially in the catholic world. Lets consider from this point of view ''The Ode to the Sun'' by Francis Assisi.
''The Ode to the Sun'' is the first specimen of Italian poetry and it precedes the poetry of Dante and Petrarka. ''it might be written by Akhnaton- the worshiper of the sun … This ode is full of Christian spirit. Unlike many other saints, Assisi was thinking more for others happiness than for the salvation of his own soul'' (B.Russel). There's clearly seen the main sign of Christian Renaissance -to receive reality on the basis of faith. Because of this it's a great mistake when "The Ode" is considered as the specimen of Scholastics, and the period as the renaissance of Scholastics of Middle ages. Monks and wens begin to fight against Scholastics and try to tear the circle of Scholastics. In order to prove the Scholastic manner of "Ode they point to the great number of fluctuations from the Bible. But the main thing is that there fuatations are inserted in the text that is full of Christian aspiration and the vector is directed towards a man and this world.
Looking at the triumphant march of the new life, Assisi preached to take care of the world with its various flowers, birds and animals. "Christianity and Renaissance are combined in "The Ode". "The poet who worshipped the sun took refuge in the cave…The verse begins with the glory to God for us and for the earth… and finishes with the worship of our sister-death". (Chesterton).
The variety of protorenaissance and Christian Renaissance is clearly seen in comparison of Assisi and Enochente III. In the first one we see the soul of Christian Renaissance, while in the other ascetic thought and strong will to use power in order to cease the tendencies of new times. Asissi denied violence and worshipped the sun; while Enochenti was leading wars in the name of Christ. Both of them belong to the world of Church and the mission of them was to save man's soul.
The list of published works:
''lran's Military and Political Orientation and Georgians ,''The works of Tbilisi St. University, 1982; #227,p.167-179.
__''Some Episodes from the History of Georgia According the Journey Book of Adam Olearius''.The materials of the Conference of Young historians. Tbilisi ,1984.p.180-184.
_ Georgian settlements in Iran (according to the original sources of West Europe). The Herald of the academy of sciences of Georgia, 1985 p.437-439
Merchant's from Georgia in Iran (Accordting to historical sources of West Europe) the materials of the conference of young historians, Tbilisi, 1982 p.217-219
The West European historical sources about "the Death of Beglarberg Iamkali Khan Undiladze of Shirazi". The works of Tb.State University, 1989; N283 p.92-102
Christian renaissance and Francis of Assisi
_Kriterium, 2000 N1 p.42-47
Scientific researches and interests:
_The problems of the history of Middle Ages (Byzantine, Italy, Germany)
the history of the Christian Church.
Relations of Georgia with Byzantine Empire and West Europe in Middle Ages.
West European historical sources about Georgia.
Ready to publish:
_The Ascetic Treaty of Enochenti III
_The articles about the history of relations between Byzantine and Georgia.
_The Fall of Trapizon empire and Georgia.
Lectures:
Tb.State University; the department of history of Middle Ages:
Zaarland University. Theme: "Relations between West Europe and Georgia in Middle Ages". 1992
In this section are published summaries from the book INVESTIGATIONS IN THE HISTORY OF ABKHAZIA/GEORGIA., Editors: G.Zhorzholiani, Ed. Khoshtaria-Brosset, Research Center for National Relations (E_mail:postmaster@nation.acnet.ge) . They cover the period from the most ancient times until the events that took place in the 1990s . They have been contributed by Georgian researchers into the issues of political history, as well as into those of anthropology, archaeology, ethnology and history of culture.
Georgian-Abkhazian relations have long been attracting the attention
of researchers. However, this problem became particularly pressing in connection
with the events in the recent years when the situation came to a head and,
most unfortunately, exploded into a conflict aggravated by bloodshed in
August 1992. The clash had been preceded by an "information war" that is
being waged even today when historic reality is misinterpreted or falsified,
and facts and events are treated with bias or are altogether distorted.
The apologists for separatism allege that the Georgians and the Abkhazians
never shared a common historic and cultural past and that the fates of
these two peoples did not most intimately intertwine in the course of history,
without bothering to try and prove what they say. It ought to be admitted
that the reaction such spurious statements provoke with some Georgian intellectuals,
including scientists, is not always objective either.
It should be thought that seeking and finding the truth would play
a prominent role in attaining mutual understanding which is a sine
qua non for just and fair settlement of this conflict, and it is
precisely for this purpose that the present collection of research papers
has been put out. It serves academic interests, in the first place, and
the Georgian researchers who have contributed their papers to this collection
present their considerations concerning century-long Georgian-Abkhazian
interrelations and arguments to support these considerations from a strictly
scientific standpoint. These articles cover the period from the most ancient
times until the events that took place in the 1990s and deal with political
history, anthropology, archaeology, ethnology, culture; there is also an
article that traces back the historical and political sources and roots
of the conflict in Abkhazia. The collection reflects the views that are
prevalent in Georgian historiography, but that does not mean that the authors
have similar positions on every issue. In a number of cases these positions
radically differ from one another, especially when the ethnogenesis of
the Abkhazian people is concerned. However, all Georgian scientists are
in agreement that:
HISTORICAL
AND POLITICAL ROOTS OF THE CONFLICT IN ABKHAZIA/GEORGIA
G.
Zhorzholiani,Research
Center for National Relations
E-mail:postmaster@nation.acnet.ge
.
The present work considers, in a concise manner, historical and political roots of the conflict in Abkhazia, Georgia. The author has made use of works of Georgian and Abkhazian researchers, of foreign scholars, as well as of documents and other materials from the archives.
The leaders and ideologists of Abkhazian separatism together with their "selfless" champions and instigators deliberately distort the historical and political roots of the conflict, purposefully falsify the history of Georgian-Abkhazian interrelations and are exceedingly biased in interpreting facts and events. Without bothering themselves to refer to relevant documents and materials (let alone resorting to the use of more or less authentic sources) and without adducing any evidence of proof, they allege that Abkhazia had enjoyed "independent statehood of its own" for over three millennia in the past; they cry from the house-tops about the "demographic expansion" of the Georgians in Abkhazia, about the "assimilation-oriented" policy pursued by Georgia, about the "immigrants" (i.e. Georgians) oppressing the autochthonous population (i.e.the Abkhazians) and about violation of the latter’s rights.
In the present article the author proceeds from the information placed at his disposal by today’s science and succeeds in substantiating the position that has been established in Georgian (and not only Georgian) historiography that:
The invasions of the Mongols, of Tamerlane’s hordes (14th c.), the ever increasing aggression on the part of the Ottoman Turks (end of the 16th c.) caused political weakening and economic decline of Georgia, whose population became scarce, which opened the way to vigorous immigration of highlanders (Adyghe-Circassian tribes) into present-day Abkhazia; that difficulties in Georgian-Abkhazian interrelations are connected with these invasions resulting in predominance of alien tribes on the lands shared by Georgians and Abkhazians; also with the fact that some part of the population of the country embraced Islam and by revival of pagan creeds in various areas; with introduction of the economy and lifestyle that were alien to the common Georgian traditions and which undermined the positions of Christianity in the country and triggered a drift of the Abkhazians away from the Georgians: this eventually resulted in the Abkhazians losing the sense of their common Georgian identity;
All this, in the final run, was further aggravated by Georgia’s loss of her independent statehood followed by deliberate political and administrative dismemberment of the former Georgian kingdom. As a result of this, some Abkhazians gradually ceased to regard the whole of Georgia as their motherland and eventually came to associate this notion only with Abkhazia that is merely a part of the historic territory of the Georgian kingdom;
The main role in this process was played by the policy of Russification pursued by St.Petersburg and, most certainly, by the bolshevist Russia and the communist USSR who set the Abkhazians against the Georgians by pursuing a centrist-oriented assimilatory policy that brought about the desired result - destruction of the historical and cultural commonality of the two fraternal nations and establishment, in its stead, of a new artificial Russo-Abkhazian cultural area;
Separatism became particularly active during a surge of the national-liberation movement of the Georgian people (a similar surge took place back in 1917-1921). These secessionist tendencies were far from being spontaneous: they were instigated by Moscow which then master brained the development of this process;
Georgian-Abkhazian relations became particularly bitter at the end of the 1980s. In July 1989 they climaxed into bloodshed. The Abkhazian extremists staged a pogrom of the Sukhumi branch of Tbilisi State University which took a toll of human life. Armed attacks on Georgians were perpetrated later too;
Confrontation and tension in Abkhazia mounted as the movement for secession of Georgia from the USSR gained momentum. The reactionary circles together with the aggressive major ity in the Parliament of the Russian Federation and, most regrettably, also some democratically-minded Russians still in the tenets of their imperial mentality for whom Russia was unthinkable without Georgia (and not only Georgia) and who would not resign to the collapse of the USSR, did their utmost to impede this movement and finally inspired the conflict;
Finally, the Abkhazian separatists, the gangs from the so-called Confederation of the Caucasian Peoples and mercenaries from the CIS and other countries actively supported by thinly veiled participation of the reactionary forces of Russia (the conservative majority in the Russian Parliament, some high-ranking officers in the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, separate structures of the military industrial complex, the armed forces of the Russian Federation deployed in Abkhazia) trampled upon the sovereignty of the Republic of Georgia and her territorial integrity and, fully disregarding the historic realitias and universally recognized provisions of international law, unleashed a war and seized a visceral part of Georgia - the territory of Abkhazia.
The author proceeds from the documentary material at his disposal and in a most laconic manner disproves the allegations of the separatists, their accomplices, supporters and instigators spearheaded against Georgia and the Georgian people.
ABKHAZIA
AS PART OF THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE (1810-1917)
G. Paichadze, Institute Of History, Georgian Academy of Sciences
From 1810 through to 1859 the Russian Empire annexed the Kingdom of Imereti and the West Georgian principalities of Megrelia, Guria and Svaneti. Abkhazia assumed Russia’s protection in 1801 and in 1864 the Abkhazian Feudatory State (principality) was abolished. The process of Georgia joining Russia involved Abkhazia too.
Initially the ruling prince (in Georgian - Mtavar, which literally means "head") of Abkhazia Keleshbey Sharvashidze, pursued a policy that was loyal to Turkey and in his relations with the West Georgian Kingdom and its vassal principalities Megrelia, Guria and Svaneti he reckoned only with the interests of his own crown, i.e. he participated in feudal wars that were waged in Western Georgia, challenged the authority of the King of Imereti who sought to reunite Western Georgia and intended to outlaw trading of prisoners of war and thus discontinue this practice altogether. This suited the Ottoman Empire who tried to establish its influence in Western Georgia and to this end invariably instigated trouble and deepened the political disintegration and strife in this area.
Meanwhile, seeing that the positions of Russia in Western Georgia became stronger and stronger, Keleshbey Sharvashidze decided to pursue a dual policy and in 1803 he established official contacts with the Russian military command in Georgia.
The Turkish sultan was enraged by Keleshbey’s scheming and decided to organize a conspiracy of disgruntled Abkhazian feudals against him. On the night of May 2, 1808 Keleshbey was murdered by his eldest son Aslanbey.
Leaning on the support of pro-Turkish-minded circles of Abkhazia, Aslanbey proclaimed himself Mtavar (ruling prince) and locked himself up in the Sukhumi citadel where the Turks always kept a garrison, and with the help of Turkey he got a good hold on Abkhazia.
However, his younger brother Giorgi (Safarbey) began a struggle with him for the crown of Abkhazia. Placing himself at the head of those Abkhazians who adhered to the Russian orientation, he appeared to the ruling princes of Megrelia Nina and her son Levan Dadiani for mediation in negotiations with the Russian military command. On August 12, 1808 Giorgi and his party sighed an official petition where they solemnly promised allegiance to the Russian Emperor. On February 17, 1810 Emperor Alexander I signed a decree confirming this petition as an instrument of vassalage and stating further that he recognized Giorgi as "the crown prince of Abkhazia under supreme protection of the Russian Empire".
Resuming hostilities against Turkey on the Danube and in the Caucasus, the Russian Imperial Government resolved upon starting warfare on the territory of Abkhazia too. On June 8, 1810, a Russian detachment landed on the beach in the environs of Sukhumi and two days later (on June 10) stormed and captured its citadel. Together with the Russian troops, a company under the command of Prince D.Orbeliani and Prince Giorgi Sharvashidze also entered Sukhumi. Aslanbey and his followers and supporters had to flee to Turkey.
The Bucharest peace treaty signed there in 1812, put an end to the Russo-Turkish war of 1808-1812. According to Article 6 of this treaty, Russia was to return to Turkey all the lands and fortresses it had conquered in Asia by force of weapon. This implied that Russia had to return to Turkey the cities of Anapa, Poti and Akhalkalaki her troops had stormed in battle. Nevertheless, the article was worded so that the Russians retained Transcaucasia (South Caucasus) up to Arkagay, the Adjarian Mountains and the Black Sea as areas that had voluntarily joined the Empire.
However, Turkey kept pressing its claims demanding withdrawal of the Russian troops from Western Georgia and return of all the fortifications they held there.
On February 19, 1821, Giorgi Sharvashidze died and was succeeded by his son Mikhail, a mere boy of 11 years of age, who was destined to have a long reign (1822-1864) and also to be the last ruling prince in Georgia.
After termination of the Russo-Persian and Russo-Turkish wars, St. Petersburg focused on subjugation of highlanders in the Caucasus. Special attention was devoted to the so called Abkhazian expedition that Russian troops undertook in Gagra, Pitsunda and Bombori and new fortifications were built there (1830-1831). However, Russian advance toward the north of Gagra was impeded by a staunch resistance of the Abkhazian and Ubykh militia. In 1837 the Russian troops resumed their advance along the coast line of the Black Sea and conquered new territories in the Caucasus, severely suppressing any resistance by sending punitive expeditions to the areas where it was offered. This caused anticolonial outbursts and uprisals in Abkhazia in the 20s, 30s and 40s of the 19th c., which Turkey and Russia’s rivals in Western Europe tried to use to their own advantage. This confusing situation came to a head during the East (also known as the Crimean) war of 1853-1856). The Turks managed to land their troops on the beach line near Sukhumi and concentrate in that city over 45,000 officers and men under Omar-Pasha. Russian garrisons had to leave Abkhazia, whereupon both the Megrelian and the Abkhazian principalities were occupied by the Turkish troops.
The population of these two principalities took to guerilla warfare. Some time later the Russian troops pushed the Turks out of these territories. In the course of this warfare, Abkhazians and Georgians displaced gallantly fighting the Turks side by side with Russians as part of their force. At the same time pro-Turkish-minded forces were active, too. Eventually the war was brought to a victorious end by the Russian troops who played a decisive role in this campaign.
In his reports to St. Petersburg the Viceroy of the Caucasus N. Muravyov (1854-1856) expressed his utter displeasure and concern about the conduct of the ruling prince of Abkhazia Mikhail Sharvashidze who, when Abkhazia was occupied by the Turks, refused to move over to Tiflis and was unwilling to stay permanently with the fighting Russian troops.
In November 1847, prince Mikhail Sharvashidze forwarded a petition to the then Viceroy of the Caucasus Count M.Vorontsov, where he renounced his rights as ruler over Abkhazia on condition of being granted ownership of 1500 peasant households in Imereti who were to be exempt from all taxes; also he expressed a preference to receive a lumpsum of money instead of getting a monthly allowance he was entitled to from the Russian Crown.
This request was turned down then, because the power and authority of a local ruling prince was something the Russian Imperial Government still needed in its outlying provinces and was quite happy with Prince Mikhail as a person in his capacity of a feudal lord in Abkhazia. However later, when Russia crushed the resistance of the North Caucasian nations to submit to its rule, St. Petersburg abolished the Abkhazian feudatory principality together with all the other feudal formations that had been abolished at various times earlier.
On June 24, 1864 the Viceroy of the Caucasus announced the resolution of the Russian Emperor that "Prince Mikhail Sharvashidze and his descendants were relieved from ruling over Abkhazia for ever and ever" and "that direct Russian rule was introduced therein".
After abolition of the Abkhazian principality, its territory was named the Sukhumi Military Department of the Russian Empire with further division into the Bzyb, the Sukhumi and the Abju centers together with two administrative districts of Tsetelda and of Samurzakano placed directly under the Governor-General in Kutaisi.
In 1866 Abkhazia was swept over by a large-scale uprisal of the population outraged by the arbitrary rule of Russian officials, unseemly behavior of the clergy, etc. However, the main reason of this popular outburst was the preparation for the reform of the peasantry status which began in Abkhazia in 1866. Early in August of that year the Governor-General of Kutaisi Prince D.I.Svyatopolk-Mirskiy arrived in Abkhazia with substantial force and on August 3 promulgated an ultimatum demanding that the insurgents should lay down the arms. The ultimatum worked and the insurgents surrendered to the Russian troops.
The policy of relocation of the population played a leading role in the strategy of the establishment of the Russian rule in Abkhazia. In 1867, in the wake of suppression of the uprisal of 1866, all the Abkhazian population was pronounced "guilty owing to their inadequate political reliability". A reaction to this was a wave of the "mahajirism", i.e. en masse relocation of Abkhazians to Turkey. "Mahajirism" as a movement was inspired by the pro-Turkish-minded part of the population of the one hand, and resulted from the policy of encouragement it received from the Russian authorities.
Leading public figures and social activists I.Chavchavadze, A.Tsereteli, S.Meskhi, J.Gogebashvili and others regarded this movement as a national tragedy of the Abkhazian people.
In 1883 Abkhazia - the Sukhumi Military Department - was restructured again into the Sukhumi District and was joined to the Kutaisi Gubernia and placed under the control of its Governor- General. This district now comprised 4 sections: the Gudauta sector with the center in Gudauta, the sector with the center in Sukhumi, the Kodori sector with the center in Ochamchiri and the Samurzakano sector with the center in Okumi.
The Russian Empire encouraged "mahajirism" with a view to having as much land vacated in Abkhazia as possible in preparation of the peasantry reform, so that the freed serf should come here and colonize the vacated territory.
The development of Abkhazia was also done for military strategic reasons, as well as in the interests of the budding Russian capitalism. Understandably, Abkhazia was specifically attractive as a subtropical area where health resorts could be established. By 1900, the Russian Imperial Government owned over 480,000 desyatinas of land there and granting big land areas to Russian landowners, high ranking military officers and civil officials came to be largely practiced.
Typically, Russian and sometimes also Bulgarian, German, Greek, Estonian and other settlers were allocated 15 desyatinas of land per household, whereas Abkhazians and local Georgians were given only 5 desyatinas. On top of that, the peasants, living beyond the river Inguri had no right to move over to Abkhazia.
St. Petersburg strove to Russify Abkhazians and put them against the Georgians, which the Russian authorities did not choose to conceal and stated openly and in unambiguous terms.
However, this policy pursued by the Imperial Government with a view to instigating hostility and strife between the Abkhazians and the Georgians was deplored by advanced Abkhazian, Georgian and Russian intellectuals. In Abkhazia, democratically-minded intelligentsia openly opposed the colonialist policy of the Russian Tsarism and thus contributed to strengthening Georgian-Abkhazian relations that have a long history.
GEORGIAN-ABKHAZIAN
RELATIONS IN THE FIRST QUARTER OF THE 20th CENTURY
A. Menteshashvili, Tbilisi
State University
Proceeding from recent archive documents, the author makes an attempt to trace back the development of Georgian-Abkhazian relations and highlight the role the Imperial and Soviet Russia played in this process.
The author has perused the archive funds of the Russian Center for Preservation and Studies of the Newest History Documents, in particular the Stalin and Ordjonikidze documents of the Central State Historical Archives of Georgia, the Archives of Foreign Policy of the USSR, funds of the Archives of the Government of the Democratic Republic of Georgia (1918-1921) preserved at the Houghton Library of Rare Manuscripts, Harvard University, as well as the documents of the People’s Soviet (Council) of Abkhazia issued over the period from 1918 through to 1921. All this information was pieced together and yielded an objective and unbiased picture of the course of events from the 1900s until 1931, i.e. until Abkhazia’s status of an autonomous republic within the Georgian SSR was finalized and promulgated de jure.
The author has made the following conclusions:
And yet the lessons drawn from history teach us that conflicts are resolvable and this is what needs to be achieved. To this end politicians from both conflicting sides must apply maximum efforts to start the process of revival of the traditional brotherly interrelations between the Georgians and Abkhazians, and the only possible way to achieve this is that of mutual compromises.
THE ETHNO-CULTURAL
SITUATION IN NORTH-WESTERN TRANSCAUCASIA IN THE STONE AND EARLY METAL EPOCH
O. Djaparidze, Professor, Tbilisi
State University
Owing to its geographic position, North-Western Colchis had since earliest times been a link between Western Transcaucasia and northern areas of the Caucasus. Recent archaeological finds evidence than man had come to populate Transcaucasia quite early in the past. The Black Sea littoral and the adjacent coastal area of Western Georgia were the lands that hosted ancient man and where he eventually proliferated. North-Western Caucasus probably possessed favourable conditions for man to live and thrive.
Monuments of ancient epochs have been found here, the most noteworthy of them being an Acheullean station of ancient man known as Yashtkhva. Later on ancient man moved northwards - to the basin of the Kuban river.
The subsequent epochs - the Mousterian and upper Palaeolithic periods - saw a more vigorous spread of ancient man over North-Western
Transcaucasia. Presumably, the Upper Palaeolithic epoch witnessed a dramatic cooling of the climate all over Transcaucasia, as well as in the entire Caucasus. So, ancient man had to seek other habitats with a more favourable climate. At the same time, the population of the Western Caucasus becomes denser, especially so in its north-western part and in the basins of the rivers Rioni and Kvirila. Quite well known in North-Western Colchis are the following Upper Palaeolithic sites: Apiancha Svanta Savane, Tsivi Mgvime and other stations. At that time the population of the Caucasus, particularly in Transcaucasia was chiefly concentrated in Western Transcaucasia. This circumstance brought various groups of people together and promoted the formation of a homogeneous culture. It may be surmised that Western Transcaucasia was home to the all-Caucasian ethnic culture.
During the subsequent Mesolithic period the climate changed again and the present geological period - the Holocene epoch - set in. Monuments from this time in North-Western Transcaucasia are well known: Kvachara, Apiancha, Djermukhi, Tsivi Mgvime, etc. The Mesolithic times saw the beginning of a large-scale proliferation of man throughout the Caucasus thanks to the now friendlier natural conditions, which process contributed to disintegration of homogeneous cultures. At this time local variants of culture were formed in different regions of the Caucasus. The population infiltrated here mostly from Western Transcaucasia and its spread all over this large territory was to contribute to the disintegration of the all-Caucasian ethno-cultural community.
The New Stone Age - the Neolithic - is one of the most significant epochs in the life of mankind, during which the foundation was laid for new forms of economy - agriculture and animal husbandry. The Neolithic culture was to stem from the local Mesolithic bases. This is well evidenced by the monuments from North-Western Colchis - Apiancha, Tsivi Mgvime, etc. where Early Neolithic materials have been unearthed from under Late Mesolithic strata. Neolithic monuments are well known in this region of Colchis - Gali I, Gumurishi, Chkhortoli, Kistriki (near Gudauta), etc.
This period could have perhaps seen the formation of a rather strong tribal organization. Late Neolithic sites are well known here, mostly in the coastal area - Machara, Gvandra, Guadikhu ,etc. Quite noteworthy are the hoes of the so-called "Sochi-Adler" and the "Sukhumi" types unearthed chiefly in the coastal area between Gagra and Sochi. These hoes are traced back as originating from Western Asia where similar implements occur as used in the early stages of the development of agriculture. However, the form of these hoes could have well been evolved locally.
The transition to the new forms of economy caused a substantial
growth of the population which doubtless pointed to the efficiency of the agricultural system. Settlement of the redundant population over a large territory contributed to gradual alienation of the people from one another which, in a certain measure, found its reflection on the material culture. By the close of the Neolithic period the cultural community loses its unity, and the process of disintegration of all-Caucasian community that had started as early back as during the Mesolithic times becomes still better expressed. We can make judgement of all these rather sophisticated processes proceeding from archaeological material that has been unearthed. In actual fact, material culture is the basic source of our information that can throw light on the ethno-cultural processes that took place in the Caucasus in the most ancient times. Other information, such as linguistic, or anthropological is practically absent.
It is almost impossible to say anything definite about the linguistic situation of the population in the Late Neolithic times. The disintegration of a single cultural community couldn’t have failed to tell on the language the people spoke. The cultural peculiarities observable locally could have probably indicated disintegration of the ethno-linguistic community too. As far back as in the Mesolithic times dialectal groups of the all-Caucasian language began to drift apart from one another which, to a certain extent, was promoted by the geographic relief of the Caucasus. The linguistic community gradually loses its communal character, and the all-Caucasian language gradually breaks up into so many related tongues.
It may be inferred that by the close of the Stone Age (7th-6th millennia B.C.) the Caucasian social and linguistic community fell apart. By this time the main ethnic groups of the ancient population of the Caucasus should have germinated: East Caucasian, West Caucasian and South Caucasian together with the delineation of the territories of their habitation. The north-western part of the Caucasus was mainly peopled by the parent Abkhazian-Adyghe population, the North-Eastern part of the Caucasus gathered on its territory the parent Nakho-Daghestani community. South Caucasian parent Kartvelian tribes lived in Western Georgia and in the main areas of central Transcaucasia.
Thus, the turn of the epochs from Stone Age to Metal witnessed disintegration of the all-Caucasian community, and ancestors of all the peoples of the Caucasus came to the fore and occupied the historic arena here.
First human settlements on the territory of the Colchian Plain appear at the beginning of the Metal Epoch. Most noteworthy in its northern part are those at Ochamchiri, some remains of stations at Machara, Gvandra and elsewhere. In the Early Bronze epoch the dolmen culture becomes widespread in North-Western Colchis. In the latter half of the 3rd millennium B.C. an original culture takes shape in Western Transcaucasia whose roots can be traced to the local Neolithic culture. No essential changes in the ethnic composition of the population are observable.
Issues concerning the origin of the most ancient population of the Caucasus and the primary areas of its habitation have long attracted the attention of researchers. Already ancient authors noted the patchwork fashion of distribution of their contemporary Caucasian peoples over the territory of the Caucasus and located the areas of their original habitation somewhat further down south from where they live today. These views were shared by quite a number of prominent scholars. However, archaeological finds dramatically changed the idea of where the Caucasian peoples originally lived and the concept of their local origin comes to the fore. Issues of the ethnogenesis of the most ancient population of the Caucasus have long been the object of investigation of linguists. Despite the fact that studies of the Caucasian languages have a long history, scholars are still divided as to the kinship between these tongues_. The thing is that genetic ties between the Caucasian languages go back into the most ancient past and their reconstruction is extremely problematic. However, it may be assumed that all the Caucasian languages take their origin from one parent language from which the Caucasian autochthonous languages stemmed and branched out later on. This process appears to have been quite long and complicated. As will be seen, differentiation of the all-Caucasian language began as early back as at the end of the Palaeolithic period, in the Mesolithic and in the Early Neolithic epochs.
There also exists another - an opposite view of the Caucasian languages which questions their kinship, particularly that of the Kartvelian and the North Caucasian languages. It is, doubtless, extremely difficult to judge of how true the picture of remote past as reconstructed from linguistic data is, but early archaeological materials testify that it was the time when the Caucasus was an area of a gradual change of cultures.
The surmise that the Caucasian tribes and, understandably, their languages penetrated into the area from outside does not seem to be sufficiently well founded. Even if we assume that these tribes had penetrated into the Caucasus from the south, they could not have found this area unoccupied or deserted, but, rather, they found themselves in a densely populated area with a rather developed culture, where the local ethnic element must have played a leading and determining role. Therefore, the view that Caucasian tribes are autochthonous appears more convincing. So all the basic Caucasian peoples must have shared a local ethno-cultural origin.
NON-INDO-EUROPEAN
ETHNIC GROUPS (THE HATTIANS AND THE KASKEANS) IN ANCIENT ANATOLIA ACCORDING
TO HITTITE CUNEIFORM TEXTS
G. Giorgadze, Institute Of History, Georgian Academy of Sciences
Hittite written sources from the 17th-13th cc. B.C. inform us that the Hattites were the most ancient non-Indo-European tribes that lived in Anatolia (Asia Minor) on the broad plain in the right-bank arch formed by the present-day river Kizil-Irmak (the Marassanta-Marassantia in the Hittite texts) and the Gallis in the classic epoch) and further up to the shores of the Black Sea also extending over the latest region of Pontus. The Hattites called their country "Hatti" and their language "Hattami". Their capital city Hattush was located near the present-day Turkish village of Boghazkõy. Their large religious centers were Arinna, Nerik, Tsiplanta, Lakhsan and elsewhere which later became main religious centers of the Indo-European Hittites. The chief deities of the Hattian pantheon were the Goddess of the Sun, the God of the Moon, the God of Vegetation, the Goddess of the subterranean (nether) world, God Tsilipuri, God Tashkhapuna and others. The Hattite society may be described as an early class organization (the Hattites had a king and his queen styled as "Tabarna" and "Tavannana" respectively. The texts also make mention of the "throne", "the Royal Prince", "warriors", etc. Judging by the archaeological data, the cultural level of the Hattites was rather high (they knew the technology of smelting iron from ore).
A number of researchers admit that the Hattites were an autochthonous tribe. However, the present stage of the development of Hittite studies gives some scholars grounds to conclude that the Hattites were not aboriginal tribes, but they, rather, may have moved over to the northern part of Central Anatolia either during or after Indo-European tribes had appeared in Asia Minor (around the middle of the 3rd millennium B.C.). Presumably, the Hattites came to Anatolia from the North-Western Caucasus - the abode of Abkhazian-Adyghe tribes. This surmise is corroborated by a number of linguistic, archaeological and anthropological data.
Comparison of grammar forms seems to support the opinion that "Hattami"- the language of the Hattites, belongs to the family of ancient Caucasian languages. Its lexicon retains features that are common with West Caucasian languages. This was concluded after etymological studies and analysis of a number of Hattami words, although some of these words are guesswork. The most reliable linguistic material, based on phonetic affinities, gives the scholars grounds to regard Hattami as one of the most ancient Caucasian languages, which totally disproves the hypothesis advanced by a number of researchers who maintain that North Caucasian tribes originated from Anatolia.
Having moved over to Central Anatolia, more precisely - to its north and north-western parts - the Hattites should, understandably, have established contacts with the aboriginal population of the area (of whom we know nothing so far) and also with their Indo-European neighbours who appeared in the south of Anatolia after the parent Anatolian language had branched out from the parent Indo-European language (in Europe or in Nearer Asia). Presumably, the Hattami language had definite contacts with the Hittite and the Palai languages and these links existed after (and not before) the differentiation of the parent Anatolian Indo-European language. The influence of the Hattami language on the third Anatolian Indo-European language - Luvian - cannot be proved. If Hattami had been in contact with that parent Anatolian Indo-European language, its impact, after the above differentiation, would have been reflected in the Luvian language too, but it is not the case here. Mutual contacts among the Hittites, the Palais and the Hattites resulted in eventual merging of the Indo-European and the Hattite tribes. By the 18th century B.C. this process had been accomplished: the Hittites and the Palais took the upper hand and the Hattites assimilated with them. The influence they exerted upon the Hittites found its expression in the religion, mythology and other social spheres. By about the middle of the 17th century B.C. the Hattites as an ethnic group had practically disappeared in Anatolia. Their language - Hattami - became dead and was resorted to by the Hittites when they needed to record religious texts, myths, etc.
During the existence of the Hittite state (17th-12th cc. B.C.) tribes of obviously non-Indo-European origin lived in the north and north-east parts of Central Anatolia, extending over the western portion of Pontus. These tribes are mentioned in Hittite and Assyrian texts as the Kaskeians (Ka¹keans). It is just this territory which used to be home to the Hattites.
Ethnic origin of the Kasks still remains unclear. Some scholars proceed from Kask toponyms (some of which are indeed of Hattish origin) and conclude that the Kasks were none other but Hatts or, at any rate, tribes closely related to them. These scholars also admit the possibility of a connection of the Kasks with the tribes in the North-West Caucasus. This influence is based solely on a phonetic affinity between the name "Kaska" ("Kashka") found in the Hittite texts and the name of the Circassian (Adyghe) tribe that sounds as "Kashag". However, this supposition alone cannot serve as a solid confirmation of factual similarity between Kask and Circassian tribes, because researchers also observed the fact that the name "Kaskeans" as mentioned in the Hittite sources has phonetic affinities with the names of the tribes (or peoples) who lived in various other epochs and parts of the world - viz. in Africa ("Kaskeans"), in Europe ("Csca"), in Asia (Gasa) and elsewhere.
No other connections of the Kasks with the North-West Caucasus have so far been revealed and proved. Therefore, the supposition of the existence of their genetic links with the Abkhazo-Adyghe tribes seems hypothetical to us. More acceptable at this junction is the view that the Kaskeans could have been genetically connected with South-Colchian (in particular, with the West-Georgian, i.e. Megrelo-Chanian) tribes that in the period of antiquity lived on the territory that neighboured on the eastern provinces of Pontus. This is provable by comparing the toponyms, proper names and some separate words of Kaskean origin with words of West-Georgian (Megrelo-Chanian) origin. It emerges that Kaskean words contain many toponyms, proper names and separate words that possess the structure of the Megrelian language, which should be regarded as indicative of Colchian rather than Abkhazo-Adyghe origin of the Kaskeans (for greater detail see our article "On the Ethnic Origin of Kaskean (Kashkean) Tribes according to Hittite Cuneiform Texts", the "Artanudji" Journal, No. 10, Tbilisi, 1999 (text in Georgian). Widely current in special literature is the opinion that the terms "Kaskeans" in Hittite texts, "Kaskeans" in Assyrian sources and "Abeshla" in the Assyrian texts from the times of Tiglatpalasar I are variants. If this is true, our above opinion about the ethnic origin of the Kaskean tribes should then be taken into consideration.
If the Kaskeans, as mentioned in the Hittite texts, were tribes of South-Colchian origin, then the Kaskeans referred to in the Assyrian texts should also be regarded as being of this origin together with the Abeshlais, because the terms "Kaskean" and "Abeshla" that occur in the Assyrian sources are regarded as synonyms. It follows that in this case the "Kaskeans" from the Hittite and Assyrian texts and the "Abeshlas" from the Assyrian sources should be regarded as tribes of South-Colchian origin.
However, if the terms "Kaskean" and "Abeshla" and their synonym "Apsil" (as proposed by some scholars) are not variants of the same name (as presumed by us), then these terms should be considered as names of different, though closely related tribes of predominantly West-Georgian origin, seeing that the version of South-Colchian origin of the Kaskeans does not seem to cause particular objections.
PROBLEMS
OF ETHNOPOLITICAL HISTORY OF ANCIENT ABKHAZIA
M. Inadze, Institute of History, Georgian Academy of Sciences
The author makes detailed scrutiny of the information provided by Graeco-Roman and Byzantine sources and concerning the contemporary ethnic processes that went on then on the territory of present-day Abkhazia, as well as the ethnic composition of the population of this area at that epoch with a view to tracing back the ethnic origin of the Abazghis and then, upon subjecting the data thus obtained to critical analysis, to making an objective assessment of the scientific value of these data the toponymic, linguistic and archaeological materials that have been revealed on the territory of Abkhazia over the last 50 years.
Studies of the data provided by Hecataeus of Miletus (6th c. B.C.) and Pseudo-Scylax of Caryanda (4th c. B.C.) show that in the Early Antiquity both the foot-hills of Northern Colchis and the Black Sea littoral near Dioscuria (now Sukhumi) were populated by tribes of West Kartvelian origin (the Cols, the Coraxi), while Colchians played a leading ethnic and political role. The archaeological materials provide clear evidence that in the first half of the 1st millennium B.C. Colchian culture extended over the population of Northern Colchis.
Ancient Greek authors say absolutely nothing about tribes of Abkhazo-Adyghe origin living on the territory of Northern Colchis during the period when an ethno-political unity was formed with the Colchians at the head (6th c. B.C.). The first ever reference to numerous tribes living at the foot-hills of the Greater Caucasus mentions these tribes, describing them as the Sarmatians of the
Caucasus; it was made by Strabo (1st c. B.C. - 1st c. A.D.). We are inclined to think that the term "Caucasians" also extended to cover ethnic groups of Adyghe origin.
The present research offers a critical analysis of the information gleaned from antique authors and concerning the Moskhs (Moschi) residing in Northern Colchis. The source of this information is to be found in the writings of several Greek authors: Helanicus of Mithilenus (5th c. B.C.), Palephatus of Abydos (4th c. B.C.) and also in the works of the historians who made record of the wars waged by Mithridates. According to the above information, the Moskhs shared this area of habitation with other tribes (the Cerceti, the Heniochi, the Coraxi, etc).
The author feels that the mention of the Moskhs as living on this territory implies not the whole nation but, rather, separate ethnic groups that had immigrated to the area in question from down south, moving from Eastern Asia Minor toward the north-east and north-west after their vast political amalgamation had been decimated by the Urartians in the Pre-Antique period. With this in view, the area of their new habitation should be sought as localized in Northern Colchis at the foot-hills and not on the Black Sea littoral.
The author also considers issues connected with the ethnic origin of the Heniochi who, according to Artemidorus of Ephesus, occupied, in the 5th - 1st cc. B.C, the Black Sea littoral that is part of present-day Abkhazia: - from the environs of Pitiunt or Pityus (Bichvinta) to the river Achaeuntus (the Shakhe river near present-day Tuapse).
The information we find in the works of Greek and Roman authors (Strabo, Pliny the Elder, an anonymous author, etc.) permits a surmise that the Heniochi were probably tribes of Svanian and Megrelo-Chanian origin.
Sources from Late Antiquity evidence that by the 1st c. A.D. the population living on the territory of present-day Abkhazia suffered dramatic ethnic and political changes which, on the one hand, may have been connected with a new influx of North Caucasian tribes, and, on the other, - with the decline of the tribal unions that had thitherto existed in the area (including the Kingdom of Colchis) and the emergence of new ethno-political units.
Pliny mentions a new ethnic formation - the Sanigae or Sanigs, who appeared on the shores of Northern Colchis from the 1st c. A.D. At some period this tribe is also mentioned as neighbours of the Heniochi, but from the 2nd c. A.D. the Heniochi cease to be mentioned altogether in historical sources, and the principality of the Sanigs becomes predominant in the area under study.
Judging by the information we inherit from antique authors (Memnon, Flavius Arrianus, an anonymous author), the principality of the Sanigs was a rather considerable ethnopolitical unit that occupied a major part of the north-eastern littoral of Pontus. We may infer, therefore, that the population of the east part of the Sanig principality maintained closer contacts with the Svanian ethnic world and was closely related with numerous Svanian tribes who lived in the mountains above the city of Dioscuria which, according to Arrianus, was part of the Sanig principality, while the western part of the Sanig political unit incorporated Megrelo-Zanian tribes.
The 1st c. A.D. witnesses an increased influx of Circassians and Adyghe into the eastern and western parts of the Sanig principality, which reflects on the toponymy of the north-eastern littoral of the Black Sea. Written sources from the 1st c. A.D. also mention the Apsils as a tribe among the Sanigs and the Lazians. According to Pliny, the Apsils at that time were supposed to live in the gorge of the river Astelephos (Kodori) - an area with Tsebelda as its political center. At that time the city of Tskhumi (Sebastopolis) hadn’t yet become part of the ethno-political area of Apsilia. Proceeding from the information provided by Memnon who mentioned only two ethno-political units in the north-eastern part of Pontus - viz. those of the Lazians and the Sanigs, one may infer that in the 1st -2nd cc. A.D. the territory controlled by the Absils was located mostly in the interland and not on the littoral.
Ethnic provenance of the Apsils remains one of the most difficult and controversial issues in today’s historical science. Some researchers are inclined to think that the Apsils originated from the Adyghe, and support this inference by the coincidence of the root "aps" with the present-day self-name of the Abkhazians that sounds as "Apsua". But the suffix "il" in this particular case can only be connected with the East-Kartvelian suffix "el" that indicated the place of origin of this or that subject, person or tribe. The stem "Aps" of the tribal name of the Apsils is also connected with the river Apsar (the present-day Chorokhi) mentioned by Pseudo-Scylax in the 4th c. B.C. But here the name of the river has the ending "ar" which, again, is a Kartvelian (Zano-Megrelian) suffix. The existence of such toponyms that carry Georgian suffixes makes doubtless evidence that by the time the Circassian-Adyghe ethnic groups began to penetrate into Northern and South-Western Colchis, this area already had an indigenous population of both East- and West-Kartvelian origin whose toponyms eventually found their way into ancient Greek and Roman literary texts.
It should be surmised that a lengthy presence of the Apsils in the Megrelo-Chanian, Svanian and East-Kartvelian milieu, and their close interrelations must have exerted a powerful impact on their culture and language. It is not fortuitous that on their territory, that bordered on the Svanian world, many Georgian toponyms were registered by Byzantine authors: e.g. Cibelius (now Tsebelda), the political center of the Apsils whose name is clearly connected with the East-Georgian word "tsipeli" meaning a beech-tree.
In the southern part of the land controlled by the Apsils that bordered on the territory of the Lazians, these ethnoses lived together from the 1st - 2nd cc. A.D. under the influence of the traditions of the Colchian material culture and the social life of the West-Kartvelian population. The Apsils, partially mixed with the Lazians (or Egris) and were eventually involved in the political and cultural life of the entire country. That acceptance by the Apsils of the local Colchian cultural traditions becomes a determining factor of their further historic development together with the Lazians and their still closer rapprochement.
The process of assimilation and ultimate merging of the Apsils with the Lazians in the Black Sea littoral between the rivers Galidzga and Kodori becomes quite evident by the 6th c. A.D. Besides other factors (cultural traditions, etc.), this process was also promoted by political subordination of the Apsils to the Lazians, by the 4th-5th cc. who, now strengthened by the latter, embraced Christianity together. All this still more vigorously contributed to still further and closer assimilation of these two tribes, while in the north-east some of the Apsils residing there merged with the Svans.
Beginning from the 5th c., the Apsils evidently take advantage of the new influx of Abkhazo-Adyghe tribes arriving from the north and weakening the Sanig principality, and seize its south-eastern part up to the fortress of Trachaia (known as Anacopia in the Middle Ages). Now Tskhumi becomes a city of the Apsils-Apshils, and the Apsils thus become next door neighbours of the Abazghis.
The "Abasks" (Abazghis) are first mentioned by Flavius Arrianus (2nd c. A.D.) as living in close neighbourhood with the Apsils and the Sanigs. We fully share the view of Acad. I.Djavakhishvili who inferred that the Apsils and the Abazghis used to live in the highlands of Northern Colchis. Svaneti and Skvimnia were thus located to the east of the area occupied by these two tribes. Seeing that the Abazghis are never mentioned (until the 2nd c. A.D.) as residing anywhere on the north-western littoral of the Black Sea or in the foothills of Northern Colchis, we have every reason to suppose that ethnic groups of the Abasks-Abazghis began to arrive and settle in this area only from the 1st c. A.D. And Arrian’s reference to the Abazghis whose ruler (prince) was raised to the dignity of "basileus" (king) by the Emperor Hadrian is yet another clear evidence of the fact that by the 2nd c. A.D. the Abazghis had gained such a potential that the Roman authorities had to reckon with them. We surmise that the Abazghis were substantially strengthened by the so-called Abzoei ethnic groups who used to live in numerous tribes in the North Caucasus and who, described by Pliny as the "Abzoae" living in the North Caucasus near Meotida (i.e. the Sea of Azov), eventually came down from the mountains in the north. The Roman Empire could establish contacts and even obtain military reinforcements from the Abazghis who could provide them with men and cavalry units. Just such cavalry detachments of the Abazghis are mentioned in the "Noticia Dignitarum" which refers to them as "wings" detailed to fight cavalry forces of the Chans - tribes of highlanders living to the south of the Lazians.
According to contemporary written accounts, the Abazghis who were on the rise since the 2nd c. A.D. gradually spread their political influence over the Sanig principality. Later on the political ascendance of the Abazgis must perhaps be substantially promoted by the new influxes of highlanders from the North Caucasus who brought over and introduced at their new area of habitation new forms of economy (e.g. animal husbandry) and their own way of life (inroads and pillage).
From the wealth of information Procopius of Caesarea has left to us, the most interesting in this particular case is the fact that in the 6th c. the Abazghis were not a politically and socially heterogeneous society. Outstanding from among them are two tribes ruled by their princes (or archons: the Western tribe and the Eastern tribe (Procopius of Caesarea "The Gothic Wars"). The latter incorporated more or less socio-economically advanced Abazghis who lived mostly in the plain and had been professing Christianity for quite some time since its inception. The western tribe’s territory (to the north of Pitiunt) was inhabited by the Abazghis who arrived here comparatively later and who were at a rather low level of social development (they still worshipped groves and coppices, sold children to slavery, etc. (and the Emperor Justinian nearly had to resort to force to convert them to Christianity). If follows that the border between the above two Abazghi tribes seems to have followed the course of the river Abascos (now the Bzyb). In the 6th-7th cc., the Byzantine Empire tried to use the Abazghi principalities as a political force spearheaded against Lazica, and to this end it encouraged the Abazghi princes to enlarge their domains at the expense of neighbouring Svaneti that had thitherto been under Lazica’s sway. By the 7th-8th cc. A.D., the Abazghis seize some territories of the coastal Apsils, except the lands that were controlled by the tribe known as "Chach" that had apparently merged with the Lazians. Now Tskhumi, referred to in the early 8th c. as a city of "Abshids" (Apsils) becomes an Abazghian city. Scholars believe that the "Chach" tribe was related to the Apsils and was simultaneously under a strong influence of the Lazians.
Thus, the Abazghis ("the Abkhazians" in Georgian) were characterized by ethnic mixture. They were not a monoethnos: those of them who lived in the plain typically mixed with the Kartvelian population, (Sanigs, Moskhs) while highlanders merged with ethnic groups of Adyghe origin that periodically came down from the North Caucasus. The Abazghis also differed according to their economic activities. The plain dwellers were mostly engaged in agriculture and easily established feudal relations with Georgian feudal society, embraced Georgian culture, learned their spoken language and writing, their way of life, their religion which, on the whole, greatly contributed to their rapprochement and peaceful co-existence of these two nations. It was just this part of the Abazghi population that later played a leading role in breaking Abkhazia away from the Byzantine Empire and in the reunification of the now independent Abazghi Principality with the former Kingdom of Egrisi which resulted in the establishment of a unified West-Georgian kingdom, known in history as the Kingdom of Abkhazia.
ABKHAZIA
IN THE LATE ANTIQUE AND EARLY MEDIEVAL EPOCHS
N. Lomouri, Museum of Georgian Art
In the first centuries of the Christian era the area from the river Galizga to the river Shakhe was home to both Abkhazian tribes (the Apsils and the Abazghis) and Megrelo-Chanian (Colchian) and Svanian ethnic groups (the Sanigae or Sanigs and the Suanno-Colchians). At the same time, the Georgian (Kartvelian) population occupied a large territory that exceeded the area settled by the Apsils and the Abazghis.
Later on, consequent upon the rise of the Kingdom of Lazians (also known as Egrisi in Georgian sources) that occupied central areas of Western Georgia, the ethno-political map of North-Western Colchis underwent considerable changes: by the beginning of the 5th c., if not earlier, the borderline between the Lazians (or the Ergs) and the Apsils no longer followed the course of the river Galidzga, but was shifted to that of the river Kodori. The Apsils had been pushed by the Lazians up to the north, and the border between the lands of the Abazghis and the Apsils passed somewhat to the north-east of Sukhumi, around the course of the river Gumista. In their turn, the Apsils had pushed the Abazghis beyond the river Gumista onto the territory occupied by the Sanigs on the Black Sea coast between the rivers Shakhe and Psou; now the Sanigs found themselves squeezed between Abkhazo-Adyghe tribes - the Djiks from the west and the Abazghis from the east. We should have thought that the Svano-Colchians were partly with the Sanigs and partly with the Abazghis.
The rise of the kingdom of Egrisi and expansion of its territory began from the 3rd c. After the 4th c. and until the sixties of the 6th c. the territory of historic Abkhazia, i.e. the lands populated by the Apsils and the Abazghis and the major part of the territory populated by the Sanigs and the Suanno-Colchians were part of Egrisi. Among the tribes subjugated by the kings of Egrisi, contemporary written sources along with the Apsils also mention the Misimians who occupied part of the Kodori river gorge and were doubtless a Svanian tribe. It follows, therefore, that Svans lived in the Kodori gorge as early back as at the beginning of the Mediaeval epoch.
According to written sources, the dependence of different political formations on the territory of Abkhazia upon the king of Egrisi varied from tribe to tribe. Thus, the Abazghis had rulers of their own who were vassals to the king of Egrisi, while the Apsils and the Misimians were under his direct rule and their lands were provinces of this kingdom like the saeristavos in East Georgia. The process of breakaway from Lazica germinates as early as at the beginning of the 6th c. This movement was also encouraged and supported by the Byzantine Empire, the result being that in the middle of the 6th c. Abazghia declares itself an independent principality (Archontate), breaks away from Egrisi and becomes a province of the Byzantine Empire with a population comprising the Abazghis per se together with the Sanigs and the Suanno-Colchians. As for the Apsils and the Misimians (the Kodori Svans), they stayed under the king of Egrisi and when this kingdom was abolished early in the 7th c., they remained under the sway of Laz Patricians. It was about the early 8th c., when the north-western part of Apsilia from the river Kelasuri to Anacopia (now Novi Aphon - New Ahos) unified with Abazghia.
The early 8th c. also saw the formation of yet another political unit that was independent of Lazica and subordinated itself directly to the Byzantine Empire. Georgian sources called it the Saeristavo of Abkhazia, while Byzantine authors described it as the Archontate of Abazghia. The border between Egrisi and Abazghia-Abkhazia ran along the course of the river Kelasuri, roughly speaking. The Saeristavo of Abkhazia comprised, along with Abkhazian, also Georgian tribes, and the Georgian (Megrelian and Svanian) population, evidently predominant in that area numerically, occupied a leading position in significance and in its general share in the country. This conclusion is corroborated by the indisputable fact that Colchian (West-Georgian) culture was prevalent here since long
ago, and that all over the Bronze, the Early Iron, the Antique and the Early Mediaeval epochs only Colchian material culture has been proved as flourishing on the territory of historic Abkhazia, characterized by definite local peculiarities but developing within the framework of unified West Georgian and from a definite time later - of general Georgian culture. Analysis of architectural monuments, archaeological finds, the linguistic and religious situation of the Early Mediaeval period allows us to conclude that despite their origin both the Apsils and the Abazghis were, in ethnocultural terms, an integral part of Georgian ethnic unity, such as the Egrs, the Svans, the Kakhis or the Meskhis.
Some Abkhazian researchers (Z.Anchabadze) put forward a hypothesis that the ethnic base of the Abkhazian Saeristavo was "the unified Abkhazian ethnos that had resulted from consolidation of separate Abkhazian tribes and small nations". This hypothesis caused objections on the part of other scholars (N.Berdzenishvili, E.Khoshtaria-Brosset). We cannot agree with it either, because the Early Feudal epoch did not offer any objective conditions, any pre-requisites for Abkhazian tribes to consolidate into a nation. These tribes did not have any tradition of statehood, of a state with a spoken and written language of its own; in other words, they did not have even the necessary minimum of the components that are required as a basis, as a pre-requisite of consolidation of any tribe or tribes into a nation. On the contrary, that period offered every condition for integration of all these tribes into a single Georgian people. Thus, though the establishment of the Archontate of Abkhazia (or the Abazghian Saeristavo) contributed to the unification of the Apsils and the Abazghis, it did not at all mean that the given feudal unification was ethnically separate to any extent. Neither its ethno-cultural character, nor the level of its social development differed it in any manner from other saeristavos of Georgia. And this situation precisely accounts for why the Abkhazian Eristavis seceded from the Byzantine Empire, rallied around themselves the whole of Western Georgia and proclaimed themselves "Kings of the Abkhazians". The state they thus created was, in all parameters, not an Abkhazian, but a Georgian kingdom. The issue of the essential nature of this state cannot be disputed in serious historic science and cannot have an alternative solution. Leon II (Leon I of the newly established kingdom) was styled "King of the Abkhazians" because his dynasty originated from Abkhazia, although it is hard to say who were the eristavis or archons of Abkhazia by their ethnic origin: they could have well been representatives of the local nobility - i.e. Abazghis, Apsils, Sanigs, - or Byzantines. But that does not make much matter, the main thing being what the kingdom under them was like. The character of the "Abkhazian Kingdom" is pretty clear: the majority of its population was made up by the Georgians. Now this new kingdom comprised Svaneti, Racha, Lechkhumi, Mingrelia, Upper and Lower Imereti plus Guria and Adjaria. All these lands had a Kartvelian population: - Megrelians, Svans, Karts and, as mentioned earlier, Abkhazia proper had a considerable percentage of Kartvelians. Judging by the culture, the state language and the language of the church, as well as by the policy pursued by the "Kings of Abkhazia", the "Kingdom of Abkhazia" was actually a Georgian state formation. Understandably, this formation took an active part in all the political developments of the time which resulted in the formation of a unified Georgian kingdom, a Georgian feudal state.
________ Thus, neither in the Antiquity, nor in the Early Feudal epoch was historic Abkhazia an independent state, and Abkhazian tribes never had a statehood of their own. Abkhazia was a visceral part of Kartvelian state formations - first Colchian, then Laz (Egrisi), later the so-called Abkhazian Kingdom and finally, from the close of the 10th c., it became part of the unified Georgian kingdom and until the late Middle Ages it remained as just another administrative unit like other saeristavos of Georgia. The involvement of the Abkhazians into the process of consolidation of the Georgian nation contributed to further integration of the Abkhazian tribes into the Georgian ethnic milieu.top
THE HISTORIC
STATUS OF ABKHAZIA IN GEORGIA’S STATEHOOD
D. Muskhelishvili, Institute Of History, Georgian Academy of
Sciences
Ancient Greek sources unequivocally indicate that in the 1st millennium B.C. the territory of present-day Abkhazia was part of the West Georgian Kingdom of Colchis, inhabited by Georgian tribes (Coraxi, Cols, Colchians and others), while the cities of Dioscuria (now Sukhumi) and Pitiunt or Pityus (now Pitsunda) were in the area inhabited by Colchians.
Later on, in the 1st-2nd cc. A.D., Apsils and Abasks believed by some scholars to be ancestors of the present-day Abkhazians are first mentioned as living on this territory. Apsils are, indeed, one of West Georgian tribes. As for the Abasks, there are no sufficient grounds to regard them as direct ancestors of today’s Abkhazians despite the close affinity of the ethnonyms "Abask" and "Abkhaz". Later on, from the 4th c., these tribes, together with Missimians - a tribe of Svanian origin - were subjects of the Kingdom of Lazica/Egrisi that was established on the territory of ancient Colchis. Over the 4th-5th cc. all these tribal unions were under the cultural influence of their overlords who had embraced Christianity in the early 4th c.
Formally a vassal of the Byzantine Empire, the Laz Kingdom (the Kingdom of Egrisi, or Lazica) was actually an independent country that strove for full independence. Vying with Iran in Transcaucasia, the Byzantine Empire sought to spread its influence over the North Caucasus too, and was, therefore, interested in controlling the policy pursued by Lazica and took efficient measures to that end. It was just for this reason that in the 20s of the 7th c. Emperor Heraclius II placed Abkhazia - one of the provinces of his vassal kingdom - under his direct rule and appointed his viceroy (archon) to that province with a seat in Anacopia (now Novi Aphon - New Athos), whom Georgian historic sources refer to as the "Eristavi (military ruler) of Abkhazia".
This marks the beginning of the rise of the "Saeristavo of Abkhazia", directly promoted by the Byzantine crown, which encouraged territorial expansion of Abkhazia that in the 6th c. occupied the territory between the rivers Gumista and Mzymta and, spreading both eastward and westward, comes to possess the lands stretching from the river Kelasuri to the estuary of the river Kuban (by the 30s of the 8th c.). Thus, Abkhazia annexed some part of Apsilis in the east and a substantial portion of Zikhia in the West.
By that time all Georgian feudal culture that stemmed from the potent socio-economic base of Eastern Georgia attained a rather high level. This culture had been vigorously spreading in Western Georgia over the centuries where it successfully rivaled with Greek Orthodox Christianity that conducted the divine service in the Greek language which the local population did not understand. Powerful spread of Georgian culture extended over the north-western provinces of Georgia - the territory of Abkhazia. This is corroborated by the construction, from the 6th c. on, of Georgian churches which, ipso facto, presupposes the existence of Georgian Christian communities on the territory of Abkhazia and is indicative of a vigorous spread of Georgian feudal culture and the Georgian language (in opposition to Greek). This active process resulted in apostasy of the Abkhazian Eristavi Leon I, a viceroy of the Byzantine Emperor in Abkhazia, also renounced Greek orientation and became a vassal of Archil - the "Erismtavari (Supreme Ruler) of Georgia". Since then (i.e. since the 40s of the 8th century on) Abkhazia finally becomes an visceral part of the political, social and cultural world of Georgia. Supported by Georgian political circles the feudal lord of the Abkhazians Prince Leon II unites the whole Western Georgia in the 70s of the 8th c. And in the 790s he assumes the title of King of the Abkhazias and becomes actually fully independent.
An outstanding Georgian political and cultural figure, Leon II moved the capital to Kutaisi which was then the centre of Georgian culture, and the Holy See of the Catholicos of Abkhazia was moved to the Bichvinta Cathedral (at Pitsunda).
Over the 9th-10th cc. Leon II’s successors continued the construction of the Georgian state in political and cultural terms: they founded new monasteries and established new bishoprics, promoted the development of Georgian writing and actually joined the political struggle waged by other principalities with a view to unifying entire Georgia.
Georgian culture is meanwhile embraced not only by the Abkhazian nobility, but also by the grassroots. Since then, from the viewpoint of the Georgian feudal culture, the Abkhazians became Georgians, very much like Gurians, Megrelians, Svans, etc. And it is precisely for this reason that the ethnonyms "Abkhaz", "Abkhazia" and "Kartveli" (Georgian) became synonyms over the period when Georgia was a united feudal monarchy (11th-15th cc.). Abkhazia was its integral part, just the same as Kakheti, Guria, Odishi (Megrelia), Svaneti and other provinces.
After this united monarchy fell apart into separate kingdoms and principalities which took place at the close of the 15th c. due to ceaseless difficulties in its relations with foreign powers, Abkhazia remained under the sway of Odishi, which, in its turn, was loyal to the King of Imereti (Western Georgia). In the 17th. c., the Princes Sharvashidze, the feudal lords of Abkhazia, succeeded in becoming practically independent monarchs, although formally they still remained vassals to the Prince of Odishi. The border between these two principalities still passed along the course of the river Kelasuri, coinciding with the ethnic line of division between the Megrelian and the Abkhazian population. Incidentally, the latter had, by that time, undergone substantial demographic changes.
The point at issue is that as the united Georgian monarchy was gradually suffering ever-increasing political weakening and by the close of the 6th c. totally collapsed as a single state. An intestine struggle among feudals aggravated by incessant invasions and inroads from outside, brought the once vigorous economy of the Georgian Kingdom to total ruin and dramatically reduced the population in the central plain areas of Georgia. In Abkhazia the population dwindled too. Understandably, all these circumstances provoked aggressive activities of Caucasian highlanders who started to descend from the mountains and settle in the plain area of Georgia.
This tendency developed all over the Caucasus and became known in Eastern Georgia as the so-called "Lekianoba" - infiltration of the Lezghins and the Ossetians into Transcaucasia from the north. Western Georgia and, particularly, Abkhazia saw the penetration of various North Caucasian Adyghe and Abazin (Apsua) tribes who brought along with them primitive feudal patriarchal social relations typical of the highlands and totally alien to the indigenous population raised in the traditions of ancient Georgian feudal culture. Thus, the formation of the present-day population of Abkhazia on the above territory (up to the river Kelasuri) took place mainly as a result of the merge of the Abazins-Apsua who had descended from the North Caucasus with the indigenous population of Abkhazia. The Georgians have preserved their tribal name as the Abkhazians, while their self-name remained "Apsua".
In the subsequent centuries the principality of Abkhazia never featured as a whole single state. The arrival of the tribes of highlanders broke the territory of the principality into numerous semi-feudal and semi-patriarchal tribal units headed by petty princelings permanently at variance with one another.
From the 1760s the entire Western Georgia and, particularly, Megrelia was in the death throes of feudal anarchy. In the 1780s the Abkhazians-Apsuas turned this situation to their advantage, invaded the north-western part of Megrelia, decimated the indigenous population and seized the territory up to the river Enguri, whose course marks the border between Abkhazia and Megrelia to this day.
After the annexation of Georgia by the Russian Empire in 1801, the new administration reunited (in 1805) some of the territories between the rivers Enguri and Galizga captured by the Abkhazians-Apsua with Megrelia (the principality of Odishi) and in 1810 the whole of Abkhazia was annexed by Russia. In 1864, the Imperial Government abolished the principality of Abkhazia and all its territory became part of the Kutaisi Gubernia.
THE KINGDOM
OF ABKHAZIA
M. Lordkipanidze, Professor, Tbilisi
State University
The Kingdom of Abkhazia was established in Western Georgia at the close of the 8th c. Unification of Georgian lands with subsequent establishment of a single state was a process that took several decades and was conditioned by a number of internal and external political circumstances.
The striving to become a single state is traceable throughout the entire history of Georgia, but the natural historic process of consolidation was more often than not impeded by unfavourable political developments both at home and abroad.
In the wake of the victories won by the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius (610-641) in his warfare against Iran, Transcaucasia and, particularly, Georgia found itself under the political influence of the Byzantine Empire which created favourable conditions for reunification of Georgian lands. But from the middle of the 7th c. Transcaucasia became an area of interests of the Arab Caliphate whose policy was aimed at disintegration of vanquished Georgia. The Byzantine Empire that also suffered defeat after defeat at the hands of the Caliphate tried to consolidate her position by encouraging Christian countries in their struggle against the Arabs.
Under such circumstances, the ongoing expansion of the Saeristavo of Abkhazia that absorbed the neighbouring Svaneti, Ashpileti, Misimianeti and other ethno-political units of Western Georgia proceeded if not with help, then with tacit consent of Constantinople. Since then the implication of the toponym "Abkhazeti" (in Georgian written records) and "Abkhazia" (in Greek sources) began to broaden and extend over the territories annexed to the Saeristavo of Abkhazia.
Prince Archil - a Royal prince of the ruling dynasty of Kakheti - whose native Kakheti was then under Arab domination, was de facto Eristavt-Eristavi of the former Kingdom of Egrisi and he married off his niece (daughter of his late brother Myr, King of Egrisi) to Leon the Abkhazian and passed over to him the crown of Egrisi; all this happened with the consent of the Byzantine Imperial court.
Leon I remained a vassal to the Empire, and so was later his nephew and heir (son of his brother) Leon II who in due time inherited both Abkhazia and Egrisi. At the close of the 8th c. Leon II took advantage of the differences that were plaguing the Empire and, with the help of the Khazars he broke away from Constantinople and assumed the title of King. Abkhazia and Egrisi were united by mutual free will very much like in a dynastic marriage. The notion of "Abkhazia" - "Abazghia" also extended: - it now implied the whole Western Georgia, although some sources (e.g. Armenian sources from the 10th-11th cc.) refer to this state as "Egrisi", its rulers - Kings of Egrisi, and its people - the Egrisians.
The Western Georgian state - the "Kingdom of Abkhazia" covered the whole territory of the historical Western Georgia from Nikopsia to Chaldea and from the Black Sea to the Likh (or Surami) mountain range. The kingdom was populated by Kartvelian (Georgian) tribes: Karts, Svans, Ergs and also Abkhazians and its capital was Kutaisi, an ancient Georgian city located in the centre of the area occupied by Kartvelian population. Kings of Abkhazia, irrespective of their ethnic origin, were Georgian statesmen who built and strengthened Georgian statehood.
Ecclesiastically, Western Georgia (its west part) adhered to Constantinople and the divine service there was conducted in Greek. Eastern part of Georgia (Imereti, Argveti, Racha, Lechkhumi) recognized the Catholicos at Mtskheta as their spiritual leader. After unification of the country the Byzantine political power over it came to an end and it was impossible to put up with the ecclesiastic supremacy in the west. Abkhazian kings, supported by the Holy See at Mtskheta, began a hard and lengthy struggle for joining the All-Georgian church. This problem was basically solved over the 9th c. Greek bishoprics were abolished and replaced by Georgian ones and the divine service was conducted in the Georgian language that the majority of the country’s population knew or could follow. By the 10th c. the church reform was completed and Abkhazia entered the united Georgian religious community.
The Kingdom of Abkhazia was a densely populated country with a considerable number of cities and towns, among which the capital Kutaisi deserves special mention. Other major cities were Vartsikhe (referred to as Rhodopolis in Greek sources), Tsikhegodji (Archaeopolis in Greek sources), the coastal cities Poti (Phasis), Sukhumi (Sebastopolis) and Bichvinta (Pitiunt) connected with the Greek world since most ancient times, Anacopia - the capital of the Saeristavo of Abkhazia , etc.
The country was well protected by forts and castles on the coast line, and mouths of river gorges were well fortified against invasions from the north.
Some branches of agriculture flourished, together with handicrafts and trade. The country was a crossroads of local (Caucasian) and international trade routes. Its economic rise is attested by large-scale construction work in the 9th-10th cc. when churches and monasteries were built, Kutaisi grew and spread out, its walls and fortifications were restored and new ones built, etc.
Georgian was the state language, both spoken and written. It was the language of state administration and of the divine service; the royal court kept chronicles of the reign of Abkhazian kings and hagiographic and hymnographic centres were established and functioned in churches and monasteries.
The kingdom of Abkhazia was a powerful state. It offered active and efficient resistance to the influence of the Byzantine Empire and defended itself against the encroachments of the Arab Caliphate. It never lost an opportunity to fight against the Caliph’s forces that invaded Georgia (against Buga Turk in the year 853, against Abul Kassim Ayu Sadj in 910-915). Abkhazia assisted Byzantine church in its missionary activity aimed at further promotion of Christianity among the Alans (Ossetians) and tried to broaden the sphere of its influence: whereas in the early 8th c. the kingdom owned a certain length of the route along the course of the river Alazani that connected the city of Bardav - the seat of the Caliph’s viceroy - with Arab possessions in the Caucasus. By the middle of the 10th c. the authority of the West Georgian state extended over Djavakheti (Southern Georgia) ruled by an eristavi appointed by the Abkhazian king. Here the Abkhazian kingdom resisted the efforts of the Armenian Bagratid ruling dynasty who made several attempts to establish their domination in various regions of Georgia.
The Western Georgian state became an active participant in the struggle waged by other Georgian kingdoms and principalities in the 9th-10th cc. for expansion of their domains and for establishing their authority over Shida (Inner) Kartli with Uplistsikhe as its centre. The ultimate goal of this struggle was reunification of all Georgian lands into one single state. From the 60s of the 9th until the 70s of the 10th c. the situation changed dramatically when brothers began to fight for the crown. In 975 the throne was occupied by Theodosius who had been blinded in the fratricidal war. The country was in a shambles and arbitrary rule reigned supreme. The situation was further aggravated by the fact that the blind king had no direct heir. The only legal successor to the crown was Prince Bagrationi, son of Theodosius the Blind’s sister and at the same time grandson of King Bagrat II of Kartli and Tao - another Kartvelian state. At this stage of the struggle for supremacy in Georgia the Abkhazian Kingdom walked out and gave up its claims.
Now, under the new circumstances, the Eristavi of Kartli Ioane Marushisdze worked out an ultimate plan of action: he suggested that David, the Kuropalates of Tao who had then the strongest position should either occupy Shida Kartli himself, or give it over to his close relative prince Bagrat Bagrationi who was also the heir of issueless David.
Kuropalates David of Tao was an ambitious and powerful ruler. Yet, in this case he placed the interests of the state above his own. Taking into account the legitimate rights of prince Bagrat for the Western Georgian throne and rightly assessing and appreciating the plan of Ioane Marushisdze aimed at unification of the great majority of Georgian lands under the crown of the successor to three thrones, David resolved upon handing Shida Kartli over to Prince Bagrat.
The rulers of Kakheti took advantage of the strife and tribulations rending the country apart and besieged Uplistsikhe with the intention to seize Shida Kartli and it was only the interference of David of Tao that resolved the situation: - the Kakhetian princes withdrew their forces. At the ceremony of ceding Uplistsikhe to Prince Bagrat, Kuropalates David of Tao stated that Prince Bagrat was a legitimate heir to Abkhazia and Kartli, as well as ruler over his own domains, while he, David, would assist him as best he could.
Three years later (in 978), again with the support of Ioane Marushisdze and Kuropalates David of Tao, Prince Bagrat Bagrationi was crowned King of the Abkhazians. Thus foundation was laid for unification of the majority of Georgian lands and subsequent establishment of Sakartvelo - the state of Georgia.
THE TERRITORY
OF PRESENT- DAY ABKHAZIA
Z. Papaskiri, TSU University, Sukhumi Branch
The close of the 10th and early 11th c. saw the completion of a lengthy process of unification of all Georgian lands into one state, headed by King Bagrat III Bagrationi of the Abkhazians and Kartvelians. The fact that kings of the now united Georgia were styled as kings of the Abkhazians and Kartvelians was an expression of the hegemonistic role of Western Georgia (the Kingdom of Abkhazia) in the unification process. It was the Kutaisi throne around which all the Georgian lands rallied to form a united Georgian kingdom. At the same time, the accession to it of a representative of the Abkhazian ruling family signified only a partial change of the ruling dynasty, because Bagrat III occupied the West Georgian ("Abkhasian") throne not only as a member of the house of Bagrationi, but also as a legitimate representative of the local Abkhazian dynasty of the Leonids on his maternal side.
Irrespective of the desire of some researchers (Yu.Voronov) to find, at whatever cost, elements of national Abkhazian statehood inside the united Western Georgian kingdom, the territory of present-day Abkhazia was some sort of an autonomy within that kingdom which, in the 11th-12th cc., was far from being a single streamlined administrative structure. Since Leon II who founded the Kingdom of Abkhazia at the close of the 8th c., the country was subdivided into the following administrative units (the Saeristavos): the Abkhazian Saeristavo comprising the north part of the country, approximately from Anacopia (now Novi Aphoni - New Athos) to Nicopsia (to the north of present-day Tuapse); the Tskhumi Saeristavo stretching from present-day Gudauta District to Anacopia and extending over the Sukhumi and Gulripshi Districts and part of the Ochamchiri District; and the Saeristavo of Bedi, composed of a part of the Ochamchiri District and the whole of the Gali District. The supposition of Z.Anchabadze who maintained that the Saeristavos of Abkhazia and Tskhumi merged together in the reign of Queen Tamar (close of the 12th - early 13th c.) on ethnic grounds, i.e. because both Saeristavos had an Abkhazian population, is the result of a non-critical comprehension and interpretation of the relevant chronicles (viz. the records made by the so-called First Historian to Queen Tamar). All the data available attest that in the 11th-12th cc. ethnic Abkhazians were concentrated in the north part of today’s Abkhazia, in a particular Saeristavo known since the first Leonids (9th-10th cc.) as the "Abkhazian Saeristavo" which had never incorporated the territory of the Tskhumi Saeristavo.
The status of the Eristavis of Tskhumi, Abkhazia and Bedia (Odishi) did not differ in anything from that enjoyed by other Eristavis, and contrary to what some researchers (G.Tsulaya) hold, Abkhazia did not have "the status of a feudatory principality within united Georgia". Besides, representatives of the princely family of Sharvashidze whose ethnic origin cannot be described as unquestionably established, did not rule over the whole territory of present-day Abkhazia, but were Eristavis of only one part of it, ruling over the Saeristavo of Abkhazia.
Historians (Sh. Inal-Ipa) are quite right in observing that in the period when Georgia was a united kingdom the territory of present-day Abkhazia "looked like anything but an outlying province". We have every reason to believe that in the 11th-12th cc. none other than the Saeristavos located on the territory of present-day Abkhazia were a force upon which kings of Georgia could lean in their struggle against the obstreperous feudal opposition.
There is not a single fact to attest antigovernment, let alone separatist sentiments among the Abkhaz feudals allegedly disgruntled (as described by Z. Anchabadze, Sh. Inal-Ipa) by the abolition of the Abkhazian Kingdom. It may be safely stated that with the accession of Bagrat III and the subsequent formation of the united Georgian kingdom, the so-called "Abkhazian Kingdom" did not suffer any ethnopolitical or legal changes as a separate state. So any abolition of the Abkhazian Kingdom in the 11th-12th cc. is out of the question. All this period saw further expansion of this kingdom’s territory, and it is not fortuitous that practically all Georgian and foreign written sources at that time referred to Georgia only as "Abkhazia".
In the 13th c., the devastating invasions of Horezm Shah Jalal-ud-Din followed by the conquest of Georgia by the Mongols not only substantially undermined the military and political power of the country, but revealed a number of flaws in Georgian statehood as a united monarchy. In the 40s of the 13th c. the Mongols divided Georgia into 8 dumans (military-cum-administrative units) two of which were located in Western Georgia. The territory of present-day Abkhazia became part of the duman the Mongols entrusted to Tsotne Dadiani to rule over. After 1259 when Georgia actually broke down into two kingdoms, the territory of today’s Abkhazia came to be ruled by David Narin, son of Rusudan who later on formed a separate kingdom of Likh-Imereti in Western Georgia. Despite these changes, Abkhazia continued to actively participate in the all-Georgian processes, while the Abkhazian ethnic world was so close to the Georgian ruling dynasty that Queen Tamar named her son and heir Lasha which, according to an ancient Georgian author or editor-cum-commentator who lived in the times close to the reign of Lasha-Giorgi (Z.Anchabadze) translates from the language of the Apsars (i.e. the Apsua-Abkhazians) as "the enlightener of the Universe".
After the death of David Narin (1293), an intestine war began among the feudals which Giorgi Dadiani took to his advantage and, according to Prince Vakhushti (18th c.), "laid his hands on the Saeristavo of Tskhumi, and captured Odishi (Megrelia) in whole up to Anacopia". During the reign of Giorgi V the Illustrious (1314-1346) who succeeded in restoring the political and state unity of Georgia the Saeristavo of Tskhumi was still within the domains of the Odishi ruling prince Dadiani, whereas the fortresses located on the territory of the Saeristavo of Abkhazia proper, ruled by the Sharvashidzes, were placed under the personal control of the King.
Over the entire 14th c. despite the Imeretian Bagrationis - descendants of David Narin who strove to break the kingdom of Likht-Imereti away from the united kingdom, the Eristavis whose domains were located in Western Georgia (including Sharvashidze, the Eristavi of Abkhazia) were stable in their loyalty to the central power greatly contributing thereby to the preservation of all unity. At the same time, the period from the 14th to the first half of the 15th c. is marked by further strengthening of the rulers of Odishi. The data from both national and foreign sources provide clear evidence that at that time the border of the north-eastern direction passed not along the river Bzyb (as held by Z. Sharvashidze), but followed the course of the river Psou (E.Mamistvalishvili). The rights of the Princes Bedian-Dadiani to these lands constituting the territory of present-day Abkhazia are explicitly described and fixed in the materials from Genoese colonies.
The fall of Constantinople (1453) and the increased expansion of the Osman Turks over the territories to the north and east of the Black Sea caused dramatic changes in the political situation on the territory of today’s Abkhazia. Despite this, the last king of united Georgia Giorgi VIII (1446-1466) succeeded in repelling the first detachments of the Turkish force that landed on the beach near Sukhumi in 1454 and in restoring law and order in the area.
In the 60s of the 15th c., Georgia was gripped by a profound political crisis which, among other things, was largely caused by the failure of Giorgi VIII to set up a powerful anti-Osman coalition in the east with a view to crushing the Turks in alliance with European countries. The close of the 15th c. saw disintegration of the united Georgian state into separate minor kingdoms and principalities. At that time the territory of present-day Abkhazia actually remained under the sway of the Megrelian ruling prince, although only the so-called "Upper Abkhazia" was territorial part of Odishi, while "Abkhazia until Djiketi was owned by Shervashidze, and this Shervashidze defied some commands and ordering about enjoined upon him by Dadiani" (Vakhushti Bagrationi). Later on (at the beginning of the 17th c.) the Princes Sharvashidze still succeeded in breaking away from their dependence on the Dadianis and established a separate principality of their own that first stretched as far as the river Kodori and then (at the close of the 17th c. to the early 18th c.) reached the banks of the river Inguri.
ETHNO-POLITICAL
PROCESSES ON THE TERRITORY OF PRESENT-DAY ABKHAZIA IN THE 15th-18th CENTURIES
T. Beradze, Institute Of History, Georgian Academy of Sciences
Abkhazia in its present-day borders took shape basically after fierce and sanguinary intestine feudal wars and ethno-political processes that took place in the 15th -18th centuries in the north-west part of Georgia.
After final collapse of the united Georgian State at the close of the 15th c., the Kingdom of Imereti was established in Western Georgia with the principalities of Guria, Megrelia (in Georgian -Samegrelo) and Abkhazia (in Georgian - Abkhazeti) as its vassals. The Princes Sharvashidze who ruled over Abkhazia regarded themselves as vassals to both the King of Imereti and to the Dadianis, the princely rules of Odishi.
By the time Georgia collapsed, the territory of present-day Abkhazia was unequally divided between Odishi and Abkhazia. The greater part of this territory (from the river Inguri to Anacopia, now Novi Aphon -New Athos) inclusive of the small river Anakopiitskali (now the Psirtskha) belonged to Odishi. Abkhazia began on its other bank. The course of the river Anakopiistskali was an ethnic border between the Georgians and the Abkhazians. This river also served as a sort of a line of division in the ecclesiastical structures of Western Georgia. The principality of Abkhazia was directly under the Abkhazian, i.e. West Georgia’s Catholicos, while the territory between the rivers Inguri and Anakopiistkali was divided among the bishoprics of Dranda, Mokvi and Tsalendjikha who served under the same, i.e. West Georgia’s Catholicos.
By the mid-16th c. West Georgian principalities became fully independent of the kings of Imereti. After 1578-1580 the Abkhazian rulers broke free from the power of the princes of Odishi as their overlords. By that time the city of Tskhumi (now Sukhumi) had already been captured by the Abkhazians and the new border between the principalities of Odishi and Abkhazia was laid somewhere to the south of this city.
By the 15th-16th centuries, the north-western part of Abkhazia up to the river Bzyb had been conquered by Circassian and Adyghe tribes. Attempting to make up for their territorial losses, the Abkhazians, in alliance with the Djikis and other West Caucasian tribes, began to attack Odishi with a view to obtaining access to the Colhian plain.
In the 20s of the 17th c. these inroads acquired a permanent character. Levan II Dadiani (1611-1657) crushed their first inroads into Megrelia and restored the sovereignty of Odishi over Abkhazia, turning it again into his vassal.
However, "recognition of the power of the Dadianis as their overlords" did not prevent the Abkhazians from continuing their devastating inroads. Therefore, the Prince of Odishi built a set of fortifications on the border with Abkhazia, known today as the "Kelasuri wall". By command of Levan II Dadiani this wall was to be defended by both the spiritual and temporal feudal lords of Megrelia.
The left bank of the Kelasuri was fortified best of all, because until the 70s of the 17th c. the course of this river marked the border between Odishi and Abkhazia. After the 80s of the 16th c. this river divided the Abkhazians from the Georgians.
After the death of Prince Levan II Dadiani, Odishi quickly declined. A short time later, Western Georgia became the arena of long intestine wars which the Abkhazians were never too late to take to their advantage. By the close of the 17th c. they conquered the north-west part of Odishi from the river Kelasuri up to the river Inguri. The territory between the rivers Kelasuri and Galidzga became part of the principality of Abkhazia. Here the majority of the local population was sold into slavery and the people had to flee to other regions of Georgia. Only a few remained in their homes and eventually assimilated with the invaders.
By the 20s of the 18th century, the territory between the rivers Galidzga and Inguri acquired the state of royal property that became known as Samurzakano and was administered by a side line of the Sharvashidze princely family. As a rule, in the 18th century it was regarded as part of Odishi and retained indigenous population.
At the end of the 70s of the 18th century, the Abkhazians undertook another offensive, where, besides Abkhazians, tribes from the Western Caucasus also participated. Then Samurzakano broke away from the Dadiani domination too.
A decisive battle took place in 1779 or 1780 on the left bank of the Inguri at the village of Rukhi, where Georgia emerged victorious. The Abkhazians had to retreat and resign to the loss of Eastern Megrelia for ever and ever.
ON ETHNIC
CONSOLIDATION OF THE ABKHAZIANS
Ed. Khoshtaria-Brosset, Research
Center for National Relations
E-mail:postmaster@nation.acnet.ge
Consolidation of the Abkhazians and their establishment as a nation is one of the most complicated issues.
Adequate study of this issue requires a true and detailed picture of the ethno-political processes in north-east Transcaucasia (South Caucasus) in that part of historic Colchis which is home to the Abkhazians today.
The abortive attempts Abkhazian and some Russian scholars have made to prove that the territory of present-day Abkhazia had, in ancient times, been home only to the ancestors of the Abkhazians and to no one else (particularly Kartvelian or Georgian ethnic groups) and the stubborn refusal of these scientists to recognize the mixed nature of the aboriginal population of the area in the past despite the prevalence of doubtless aboriginal Georgian (Svanian and Zan) groups over the Abazghis and the Apsils regarded as ancestors of the Abkhazians, were aimed at proving the existence of sufficient grounds for the Abkhazian nation to be formed as early as at the beginning of the Mediaeval period and further develop as an independent ethno-political entity.
Abkhazian researchers (Z.Anchbadze and others) strive to prove that the Abkhazian people traversed, on its own, all the stages of ethnic development from a group of people under feudal domination to a socialist nation, and attempt to present the ties the Abkhazians maintained with their surrounding reality, particularly with the Georgian population, culture and statehood as merely day-to-day relations with the neighboring outside world. Notably, the above authors make these assertions when they admit that the divine service in Abkhazia was conducted in Georgian, the architectural style was Georgian, etc.
The history of Abkhazia as an integral part of Georgia, the data describing the establishment of the Abkhazian ethnic community have been preserved mostly in Georgian historic sources, particularly in the collection of mediaeval chronicles "Kartlis Tskhovreba" (History of Georgia), in hagiographic works, in the works of the historian Vakhushti Bagrationi (18th c.) and elsewhere. In the earlier period these sources are complemented by the information furnished by Graeco-Roman and Byzantine authors who had recorded data concerning the stay of the Cols, the Coraxi and other ancient Colchian tribes on the territory of present-day Abkhazia, where the Abkhazians and the Apsils (believed to be ancestors of the Abkhazians) and the Sanigs (regarded by the majority of scholars to be of West-Georgian (Megrelo-Zanian or Svanian origin) settled and lived from the 1st-2nd centuries A.D. In early Middle Ages these tribes joined together and formed the principality of Abazghia (the Abazghians being predominant, hence the name) also known in Georgian sources as Abkhazia. By the 80s of the 8th century, as we know from Georgian chronicles, the Eristavi (ruler ) of Abkhazia Leon also ruled over Egrisi which a dynastic marriage had joined to Abkhazia up to the Likhi Mountain Range, i.e. his domains covered the whole Western Georgia and so he styled himself "King of the Abkhazians" on the strength of obtaining the crown of Egrisi together with the territory of that Kingdom, and because he was of noble stock himself as a representative of Abkhazian princely family. This is how the West Georgian-Abkhazian Kingdom originated. In other words, Abkhazia and the Abkhazians naturally integrated into the political and cultural organism of the whole Georgia. Since then Kutaisi became the most ancient political and cultural center of West Georgia, became the capital of the new monarchy (before that the seat of Abkhazian ruling princes was in Anacopia).
Abkhazian scholars (Z.Anchabadze and others) regard the establishment of the Abkhazian Principality by the 8th century as marking the formation of the Abkhazian feudal nation, but N.Berdzenishvili proved that in the 8th-9th centuries the territory of Georgia was the arena of consolidation of Kartvelian ethnic groups and the subsequent emergence of a single feudal Georgian nation under the East-Georgian (Kartlian) Catholicos-Patriarch. Predominant in that new nation was the Kart (Kartlian) tribe. Other national Georgian ethnic groups were also involved in that process.
It follows thus that according to V.Berdzenishvili, the turn of the 7th to the 8th century did not offer appropriate conditions for consolidation of the Abkhazians into a separate feudatory nation; neither were there such conditions for the formation of the Egrisi (West Georgian) people who already had traditions of statehood of their own. V.Berdzenishvili concludes that "the 8th-9th centuries were an epoch, but not one of consolidation of the Abkhazian people..., it rather was the final incorporation of Abkhazia into the Georgian feudal nation...". "Consolidation"... is indicative of a great cultural and political victory of the feudal Georgian people".
One of the basic factors indicative of ethnic identity that also attests that this or that nation has attained a definite level of social consciousness and self-awareness is the self-name of that nation (the Abkhazians call themselves "Apsua"). But it should be borne in mind in this context that transformation of an ethnic entity into a feudal nation necessarily implies the presence of other subjective and objective conditions, such as a developed form of statehood, a state language (both spoken and written), national literature, historiography as forms of expression of one’s awareness of one’s national identity, etc. It is to be admitted though that the Abkhazians never possessed these features. They acquired them when they had joined the Georgian state and they gradually became a part of the Georgian political and cultural milieu, being now in close connection with the Georgian people politically and culturally and in day-to-day contacts. S.Arutyunov rightly observes that it was just these factors that contributed to the formation of the Abkhazians into a nation pressed together with the Georgian people. The entire history of the Abkhazian ethnos illustrates and, indeed, corroborates this conclusion.
The Abkhazian Kingdom, i.e. the West Georgian state was headed by Georgian kings from the Royal house of Bagrationi, who succeeded in unification of the whole Georgia. Historic sources represent Abkhazia as an administrative unit - a Saeristavo, an integral constituent part of the Georgian monarchy. Naturally, under these conditions the Abkhazians were an ethnic group associated with the Georgian people, a group that preserved its national peculiarities and its spoken language.
After the collapse of the united Georgian state in the 15th century, the Kingdom of Imereti and feudatory principalities of Samegrelo (Megrelia), Guria and then Abkhazia, were formed on its territory. Formally these principalities were vassals of the King of Imereti, but in part they strove for total and complete independence.
After Eastern Georgia (in 1801) and then Western Georgian Kingdom and its vassal principalities joined the Russian Empire (in 1810-1867), Abkhazia (from 1883 renamed the Sukhumi District) was part of the Kutaisi Gubernia. Over the 19th century, Georgia, as part of the Russian Empire, becomes involved into the Russian and then through it, into the world market. However, some Abkhazian scholars maintain that Abkhazia, too, was an arena of the formation of a bourgeois nation, despite the extreme weakness of its industrial development and the absence of bourgeoisie, capitalists and proletariat in that country. As for the formation of the Abkhazian nation, it becomes possible only under the Soviet power, when Abkhazia developed as an economic region within Georgia that had autonomous offices of organs of political power.
Whereas during the Russian rule the Abkhazians were totally denied any political rights, after the February 1917 revolution and during the period of the Georgian Democratic Republic, Abkhazia was first provisionally proclaimed a Soviet Socialist Republic, which status was later reduced to an autonomous republic. Having reorganized the cultural institutions from the associated status to fully national bodies, Abkhazians, now a small separate nation, continued to develop the political, cultural and socio-economic spheres of their Republic as part of Georgia.
EPIGRAPHIC
MONUMENTS OF ABKHAZIA
L. Akhaladze, TSU University Sukhumi Branch
Abkhazia has a wealth of monuments of Georgian culture which still bear Georgian inscriptions executed in "mrglovani asomtavruli" (literally in Georgian - rounded capital letters), "kutkhovani nuskha-khursuri" (in Georgian literally meaning angular small letters) and "mkhedruli" (in Georgian literally meaning civil script). The varied spectrum of the discovered geographic monuments and the analysis of their sources make clear evidence that these ancient inscriptions found all over Georgia provide a great deal of information for comprehending a whole number of pivotal issues concerning the history of Georgia generally and of Abkhazia in particular. Palaeographically speaking, these inscriptions form an uninterrupted line of the development of Georgian writing and indicate that Abkhazia has always been a visceral part of the cultural and political life of Georgia, much the same as Kartli, Kakheti, Imereti and other historic regions of Georgia.
Known to us today in Abkhazia are over 80 Georgian inscriptions made out on frescoes, carved on stone or chased on metal. They are executed in ancient Georgian alphabets "mrglovani asomtavruli", "kutkhovani nuskha-khursuri" and "mkhedruli". Many inscriptions on icons, crosses, church ware and other objects that have survived all over Georgia to this day are semantically connected with those found in Abkhazia and carved on stone or made out al fresco.
The inscriptions found on the territory of Abkhazia pertain to various epochs and have a different meaning and significance. Chronologically, they come from the 9th-19th centuries, although the majority of them were made in the 9th-16th centuries. They can be arranged in groups according to their character and purpose and mostly commemorate construction of buildings and theirs builders; sometimes such inscriptions also deal with legal matters.
As mentioned earlier, there are so many Georgian inscriptions found in Abkhazia, that not all of them have been described and analyzed in the present research.
The cultur