Rap

INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI
films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some
thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be
from any type o f computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon th e quality of the
copy submitted.
Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality
illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins,

and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete
manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if
unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate
the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and
continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each
original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced
form at the back o f the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6 x 9 black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations
appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to
order.
UMI
A Bell & Howell Information Company
300 N orth Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor M I 48106-1346 USA
313/761-4700 800/521-0600
Reproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
IMAGINING HISTORY AT THE CROSSROADS:

PERSIA, BYZANTIUM, AND THE ARCHITECTS
OF THE WRITTEN GEORGIAN PAST
Volume I
by
Stephen Harold Rapp, Jr.
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
(History)
in The University o f Michigan
1997
Doctoral Committee:
Professor John V.A. Fine, Jr., Chair
Professor Kevork B. Bardakjian
Professor Rudi P. Lindner
Professor Ronald G. Suny, The University of Chicago
UMI Number: 9722070
Copyright 1997 by
Rapp, Stephen Harold, Jr.
All rights reserved.
UMI M icroform 9722070

C opyright 1997, by U M I Com pany. All rights reserved.
This m icroform edition is protected against unauthorized
copying under T itle 17, United States Code.
UMI
300 N o rth Zeeb Road

Ann A rbor, M I 48103
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.

---------------------------------------- 1997
Copyright, All Rights Reserved
Reproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
... Since Dioscurias is situated in such a gulf and occupies the most
easterly point o f the whole sea, it is called not only the recess o f the
Euxine, but also the "farthermost" voyage. And the proverbial verse.
"To Phasis, where for ships is the farthermost run [EIE $AEIN,
ENQA NAYEIN EEXATOE APOMOE]," must be interpreted thus...
Strabo. XI.2.16
And Aneran and Eran will be confounded, so that the Iranian will
not be distinguished from the foreigner, those who are Iranians will
turn back to foreign ways...
Jamasp-namag. Bailey, trans.. p. 56
"Constantinople is a rotten city. Chiaberi and I learned a lot in the

palace o f Caesar Basil. Blinding, burial alive, crucifixion, poisoning,
cutting off both hands, assassination - our Georgian kings were
taught all this in the Byzantine Empire... Constantinople is rotten to
the core, a nest o f dissipation, corruption, and treachery..."
- Monologue o f Shavleg Toxaidze in
K. Gamsaxurdia's historical novel
The Hand o f a Great Master. Eng.
trans. (Moscow. 1955), p. 80
... The people were to forget their past, and in fact the following
generations lost their recollection of it. and the only sign of their being
a distinct nationality which remained was their own language in the
midst o f peoples speaking other tongues. In this, however, lies just
the tragedy o f their existence. What are they? GQrdjis! What is their
past? From where do they come? What is their history? They do not
know and they are not permitted to know...
- M.T., "Georgia," in the newspaper
The Georgian Messenger,

no. 14, 20 July 1919
For my mother and father,

Gwen M. Rapp and Stephen H. Rapp, Sr.,
and in memory of Cyril Toumanoff.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The intellectual odyssey leading to the completion o f this studs' was lengthy, often overwhelming,
and sometimes erratic. Happily, myriads o f well-wishers friends and strangers alike lined the
pathway at every turn, and in many respects it is a travesty that only my name should appear as that of the
author. But in the end, I was responsible for sifting through the enormous and diverse medieval evidence,
and for incorporating the innumerable comments proffered by my teachers and colleagues. Any
inaccuracies and errors herein are, in no way, a reflection o f the enormous help I have received. To be
sure, it is impossible for me to give special acknowledgment to each person who assisted in this endeavor.
However, I should wish to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to a great many of them: to those I
have overlooked, I offer my sincere thanks here to you en masse.
My quest into Georgian history began at Rose-Hulman Institute o f Technology in Terre Haute.
Indiana, and I am particularly grateful to Peter F.H. Priest for inculcating in me a love of the Russian
language and for leading me for the first time to the Soviet Union and to Georgia in 1987. While
pursuing a M A at Indiana University. I profited from the guidance and friendship o f Herbert Kaplan.
Devin DeWeese, Yuri Bregel, David Spaeder, and Michael Teague. A special debt is owed to the Lilly
Library and its staff. I must single out the efforts o f Dodona Kiziria, my Georgian teacher, under whose
care I studied at T b ilisi University in 1990. The 1990 Kartvelian Summer School in T bilisi was a
grand experiment: its successes far outweighed its shortcomings, and I owe a great debt to its organizers.
I should especially wish to thank Nino Chelidze for her untiring friendship and assistance.
I must acknowledge the generous support rendered by several organizations during my residency
at The University o f Michigan (UM): the UM Rackham Graduate School: the UM Department o f History:
the Alex and Marie Manoogian Foundation: the American Numismatic Society and its wonderful staff:
Dumbarton Oaks: Fulbright-Hays: the International Research and Exchange Board (IREX): and the Social
Science Research Council (SSRC). As a Fulbright-Hays/IREX scholar in the United Kingdom and the
Republic o f Georgia in 1994-1995,1 was assisted and sustained by many kind individuals. In the UK my
thanks to Robert Thomson, Sebastian Brock, David Barrett, Antony Eastmond (who kindly made a
typescript o f his forthcoming book available to me), Jeff Childers, and Chris Mummery, as well as to the
Oriental Institute o f Oxford University, the Bodleian Library, the Ashmolean Museum, and the British
Library/Museum. In Georgia I benefited from the assistance and kindness o f Manana Gegeshidze. Anni
Laghidze, Giorgi Cheishvili, T a m ila Mgaloblishvili and family. Mariam Lort'k'ip'anidze. Giuli
Alasania, T am ar Ot'xmezuri and family, Zaza Sxirt'ladze, Zaza Alek'sidze. M zek'ala Shanidze. Edisher
Xoshtaria-Brosse, Davit' Ninidze, and Gia Ch'xatarishvili and his family and friends, as well as the
Kekelidze Institute o f Manuscripts (MSS), the Central State Historical Archive, the Institute o f History
and Ethnography', the Georgian Oriental Institute, T b ilisi University, and various other libraries and
museums. Other colleagues and teachers have assisted me at various times; in particular. I have received
especially pertinent comments and advice from Robert Hewsen, Nina Garsolan. Jonathan G ra n t and
Leonora Neville. Ken Church, my fellow adventurer in Georgia. Georgian studies, and life has made an
indelible imprint on my understanding o f history and the arguments of this thesis.
I would be remiss not to single out the labors and contributions of my dissertation committee,
without whose direction this thesis would have been less successful. Ronald Suny. now o f The University
o f Chicago, introduced me to the unstable world o f modem Georgian history- and politics, and also serv ed
as my navigator through the perilous seas o f early graduate funding. Kevork Bardakjian taught me
Armenian and wisely recommended that I should study at Oxford; his knowledge o f medieval Armenian
literature, and his willingness to teach me some Classical Armenian on his own time, was exceedingly
beneficial. Rudi Lindner's effective and extraordinary teaching style, and his careful and deliberate
approach to writing and research, proved to be an invigorating force during the prolonged and terribly
intense writing-stage o f this dissertation. My thanks are especially pronounced for John Fine. Jr.. my
friend and mentor. He unhesitatingly took upon himself the challenge o f supervising a future specialist of
medieval Georgian history. His unfailing interest in me. and my subject, cannot be understated, and this
dissertation would simply have not been possible without him and his keen editorial skills. My thanks
also to the frequent hospitality rendered by his wife, Gena, and mother, Elizabeth.
Finally, I must express my deepest thanks to my own family who has endured many years o f my
intense fascination with a far-away, if not alien, country. My mother Gwen, father Steve, and sister Amy,
have all supported me throughout my academic career, and indeed, all o f my life. Although my transition
at the college level from engineering, to Slavic languages, to Soviet studies, and to medieval Georgia and
Byzantium w as a rocky and at times unpleasant one, my parents unfailingly stood behind me. During the
past five years, my companion and wife Holly Avey has endured my constant absence due to travel, not to
mention m y figurative absence while immersed in historical inquiry. Her interest in m e and my work, and
her gracious understanding o f the need that the subject be satisfactorily introduced to the Englishspeaking world, is a debt which I can never repay fully,
^ 3 3 6 0 */
Stephen H. Rapp, Jr.

Tucson, Arizona and Ann Arbor, Michigan
17 M arch 1997
Research for this project was assisted by grants from the Fulbright Program, the International Research
and Exchanges Board (IREX). and the Social Science Research Council (SSRC)/American Council of
Learned Societies (ACLS). The grant from IREX was supported in part with funds provided by the
National Endowment for the Humanities, the United States Information Agency, and the U.S. Department
o f State. The grant from SSRC/ACLS was made possible with funds provided by the U.S. Department of
State under the Program for Research and Training on Eastern Europe and the Independent States o f the
Former Soviet Union (Title VIII). Additional support was provided by The University o f Michigan at
Ann Arbor. None o f these organizations is responsible for the views expressed
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Ta b le
of
Co n t e n t s
Page
Acknowledgments
iv
Introduction
Historical Overview
Note on the Sources
Modem Studies on Medieval Georgian Historical Literature
10
The Texts
12
The Manuscripts
17
Non-Historical Georgian Texts and Non-Textual Evidence
33
Note on Armenian Sources
34
Note on Transliteration
38
General Maps
PART ONE.
41
THE PRE-BA GRA TID PERIOD.
C hapter One. Forging the P re-B agratid Historical Tradition.
45
46
I. The Dawn o f Georgian Historical Writing
46
II. The Corpus of Mok c 'evay k 'art 'lisay
49
vii
The Original Core
49
Constituent Texts o f the Corpus
50
m . The Corpus o f C'xorebay k'art 'velt'a mep et 'a Traditionally Attributed

to Leonti Mroveli
55
The Ufe o f the Kings: Extant MSS and the Title o f the Text
55
The Identification o f Leonti Mroveli. the Traditional Author o f
59
C'xorebay k'art'velt'a mep'et'a
IV.
The Components o f the Corpus of C'xorebay k 'art 'velt 'a mep 'et 'a
and a Further Consideration o f the Literary Activities o f
Leonti Mroveli
62
Sources and Influences
69
a. Local Georgian Sources
70
b. Persian Influences
72
c. Greek Sources/Influences Explicitly Cited
81
d. Armenian Influences and Sources
86
e. Unacknowledged Influences: The Deluge Universe!
88
Internal Evidence for Dating The Ufe o f the Kings
101
The Date o f The Ufe o f the Kings
109
The Corpus o f C 'xorebay vaxtang gorgaslisa Tradi tionally

Attributed to Juansher Juansheriani
1 12
The Title o f C 'xorebay vaxtang gorgaslisa
11 2
The Author, Date, and Composite Nature o f the Text
113
viii
The Sources o f C 'xorebay vaxtcmg gorgaslisa

a. The U fe o f Persia
121
b. The Hermetica
122
c. Armenian Influences
124
A The Book o f Nimrod
125
e.
128
Georgian Sources
The Earliest Georgian Reference to the K 'art'velian Bagratids
132
The Dates o f the Constituent Texts
134
C h ap ter Two. T he Algebra of O rigins.

I.
120
The Origin of the K 'art'velians and Post-Diluvian K 'art'Ii
136
136
The Sons of Togarmah and the O rigin o f Caucasia
137
Haos
146
K 'artlos
148
The Immediate Progeny o f K 'art' los
151
Stemma of the Eponymous Ancestors o f Caucasia
153
The Roman Empire in Pre-Bagratid Georgian Historical Texts
155
The Persian Context Admitted: K 'a rt'Ii as Part o f the Persian

Commonwealth
158
Cosmopolitanism Admitted and Explained
176
Intellectual Vandalism: Scribes, Patriotism, and the Legend of

Haos and K 'art'los
185
ix
The Legacy o f K 'a rt' los and His Progeny in Later Literature
II.
The Mythical Conquest o f K 'art'li by Alexander the Great and the

Establishment o f Indigenous Royal Authority
197
Georgian Sources on Alexander's Invasion o f K 'art'li
197
The Narrative o f the Mythical Conquest o f K 'art'li by Alexander

of Macedon
198
Azon/Azoy and the Two Georgian Traditions o f the Establishment

of Kingship in K 'art'li
203
A Further Consideration o f the Dates o f the Medieval Traditions

of Alexander
210
Alexander in Succeeding Georgian Historiography
213
Chapter Three. Representations o f Pre-Christian Kingship.

I.
193
P'am avaz
219
220
P'amavaz Becomes King
220
P'amavaz as the Patron of the Georgian Language and the

Inventor o f the Georgian Script
223
n. The Secular Image o f Pre-Christian K 'art'velian Kingship
243
Intitulatio
244
Divine Fortune: T he Persian Conception o f Famah
255
Kings as Sasanid Royal Heroes
258
Me' xet' a and the Mobility of Kings
264
Kings as Creators and Pinnacles o f Administration
267
Kings as Alliance Makers and the Utility o f M arriages
280
Kings as Builders
282
HI. The Traditions o f Pre-Christian Religious Devotion
Chapter Four.
286
The Alleged "Pagan" Pantheon of Pre-Christian K a rt'li
287
The Image o f K 'artvelian Religious Practices at the Tim e of

Alexander
292
Royally Sanctioned Idol Worship
294
Tree and Pillar Worship
299
A Further Consideration o f Astral Worship
304
King and Community Christianized.
311
I. The Antecedents o f Christianization
311
The Move Towards Monotheism... and Retrogression into

Apostasy
311
King Aderki and the Birth o f Christ
314
Rev I"the Just"
318
II. Two Memories, One King: The Persian Mihran and the Christian Mirian
in the Georgian Historical Tradition
320
The Pre-Christian Mihran of The Ufe o f the Kings
320
The Christian Mirian o f The Conversion o f K'art '// and The Life
326
o f Nino
III. Nino, the Illuminatrix o f K 'art'li
The Earliest Tradition o f the Christianization of K 'a rt'li: Rufinus
xi
331
332
The Armenian Traditions o f the Conversion o f K 'a rt'li
339
The Earliest Extant Georgian Tradition of Nino: The Conversion
346
o f K'art'li
The Popular Tradition: The Ninth-/Tenth-Centuiy Life o f Nino
348
Notable Metaphrases
356
Ep'rem M e'ire on the Christianization of Egrisi/Ap'xazet'i
357
IV. Early Christian Kingship in K 'a rt'li
359
Kings as the Builder o f Churches
360
"Pagan" Backlashes
362
Early Christian K 'art'velian Monarchs as Sasanid Hero-Kings and

a Further Consideration of the Date o f The Life o f the
364
Successors o f Mirian
V. The Image o f the Early Church in Kart' li
366
Early Church Organization
367
The Apostolic Claim
372
Chapter Five. The Imagined Vaxtang Gorgasali and the Autumn of Pre-Bagratid
K'art'li.
I.
Image o f Realm: Description and Attention to Detail in The Life o f
383
384
Vaxtang Gorgasali
Dialogue and Exaltations o f the Christian God
387
The Military: Troops and Armament
390
Wealth and Money
392
Roads
395
xii
II.
Image o f the King
399
The Persian/Sasanid Dimension
400
The Byzantine Dimension
4 11
A Biblical Model o f Kingship: The O ld Testament King-Prophet

David
418
The K' art' velian Dimension
420
a. The King as Mediator
421
b. The King as Church Builder
424
c. The Establishment o f Tp' ilisi and Artanuji
425
m . Vaxtang in Contemporary Non-Georgian Sources
428
Ghazar P' arpec' is History o f Armenia
429
Procopius
431
IV. Image o f the Church Under Vaxtang
437
Christian K 'art'li and Zoroastrianism
437
Church Organization Under Vaxtang
446
The Establishment o f the Kat 'alikos-ate: Beginnings o f

Autocephaly?
451
Ecclesiastical Schism with Armenia
465
V. Vaxtang in Subsequent Georgian Historiography

Bagratid-Era References to Vaxtang Gorgasali
xiii
471
471
[Volume II]
PART TWO. THE BA GRA TIT) PERIOD.
Chapter Six. From K 'art'li to Sak'art'velo: The Inception, Ideology, and

Historiography o f the Early K'art'velian Bagratids.
I.
The Context o f Arab Domination and the Ascendancy o f the

Guaramids
481
481
Abolition o f Royal Authority Reconsidered
481
The Dawn o f Islam According to Medieval Georgian Historical

Sources
483
The Move Towards a Byzantine Orientation: Ps.-Juansher
486
n. Early Bagratid Historical Works
III.
480
492
Sumbat Davit'is-dze
492
The Anonymous Chronicle o f K'art'li
495
Innovations in Early Bagratid Historical Writing
497
a. Nusxuri and mxedruli Scripts
498
b. The K'oronikon: The Medieval K 'art'velian

Calendrical System
500
c. Influx o f Greek Vocabulary
504
d. New Designation Sak'art'velo
505
The K 'art'velian Bagratids Come to Power

The Historical Provenance of the K 'art'velian Bagratids
507
507
IV.
Surabat Davit'is-dze and the Origin o f the K'art'velian

Bagratids
515
The Legendary Origin o f the Bagratids: The Development o f

Jewish and Davidic Origins
522
Bagratid Royal Nomenclature
535
The Emergence o f Sak' art'velo (Georgia)
541
Davit' of Tao/Tayk' and Two Byzantine Rebellions
542
The Death o f Davit' ofTao/Tayk'
547
Bagrat HI, King o f all-Georgia, and the Theme o f Iberia
548
Giorgi I and the Rebellion o f the Two Nikephoroi in 1022
552
Bagrat IV and the Diminishing Byzantine Threat
556
C hapter Seven. Looking Tow ards Byzantium : Refinement of Rule and Image.
I. Bagratid Royal Titulature
560
560
The Byzantine Dignity o f Kuropalates
560
The Byzantine Dignities o f Nobelissimos, Sebastos. and
566
Caesar
Non-Honorific Accretions Under the Early Kings o f All-Georgia
569
Developments after Rusudan
581
II. Innovations of Early Bagratid Kingship
583
Development o f a Royal Administration
584
Royal Documents, Legal Codes, and Coinage
589
xv
Development o f a Secular Literature
594
The Royal Standard, the Royal Emblem, and Border Markers
596
Badges o f Royal Authority: Regalia and Coronation
602
Building Activities
612
"Diplomatic" Marriages
615
Immemorialization: Calendrical Dates for Births and Deaths, and

Notices on Burial Places
622
Palaces and Seasonal Residences
626
III. The Georgian Church in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries
629
Monastic Foundations Abroad
630
Titulature o f the Ecclesiastical Hierarchs
635
Ecclesiastical Documents and a Further Comment on the

Ecclesiastical Hierarchy
638
Shift in Liturgy
640
Georgian Ecclesiastical Councils
641
Polemic and the Armenian Question
644
IV. Portraits of Two Great Sovereigns: Davit' II and T a m a r
652
The Qualities o f a Good Monarch
653
Solar and Astral Imagery and the Concept o f Sharavandedi
658
Royal Epithets. Metaphors, and Renewal
663
The Saint-King
672
The Cosmopolitan Kingdom
679
xvi
Georgia Uncompromised
Epilogue
683
689
Excursi
Excursus A: Chronological Table o f K artvelian and Georgian Rulers
707
Excursus B: Further Remarks on the MSS o f K'art'lis c'xovreba
712
Excursus C: K 'art'velian Bagratid Stemma
729
Glossary
733
Bibliography
739
xvii
INTRODUCTION1
Historical discourse, the technique by which history is approached and studied, is constantly
subject to change. The prevailing discourse, o r really discourses, often infiltrates the works of the time,
though it must be said that more recent methods o f inquiry are not necessarily superior to earlier ones.
There is no strict linear progression in historical understanding. Should this thesis have been written a
hundred years ago, it might very well have been based upon the s tr ia premise o f geographical
determinism, an approach which has its merits as long as it does not stand alone .2 It so happens that
historians o f my own time have set sail upon the vast ocean o f identity, which is currently dominated by
buoys signaling the "truth" about nations, nationality, nationalism, and ethnicity. It might surprise the
reader to find that these four terms, and much o f the elaborate theory accompanying them, have no place
in this study. To be sure, I endeavor to provide a glimpse into the self-perception o f medieval Georgian
historians and elites and how they conceived of, and sometimes created, a shared past for their
community. But suffice it to say that the concepts o f nation, nationality, nationalism, and ethnicity, as
shaped tty scholars like E. Hobsbawm, M Hroch, B. Anderson, and A. Smith, are not strictly applicable to
the pre-modem period, be it to the Georgian o r any other community .3 A basic justification of this
assertion lies in the fact that the pre-modem period lacked the intense forms o f social communication,
interaction, and organization so diligently studied by K. Deutsch.
The contemporary understanding o f nationalism and ethnicity, however, m ay offer some points of
departure but only tangentially for our inquiry'. The insightful study of R. Suny, The Making o f the
Georgian Nation (1988, rev. ed. 1994). advances the idea that nations are constantly being made and
remade by hard intellectual labor, and the author successfully applies this ebb and flow to the experience
o f modem Georgia. Immersing himself in the current discourse, Suny demonstrates that a Georgian
nation may be traced only to the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. This notion, as one might
guess, has infuriated a great many Georgians, for it seems to deny the well-known antiquity of their
The reader's attention is also directed to the glossary, excursi (including regnal tables), list of
abbreviations, and bibliography (will full references to the works cited) placed at the end o f this thesis
(volume II).
The influence of this approach is readily apparent in W.E.D. Allen, History o f the Georgian People
(1932, repr. 1971).
The concept o f an "imagined community" developed Ity Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections
on the Origin and Spread o f Nationalism (1983), was particularly' useful, though not directly applicable.
people."* However, the related issues o f nation, nationalism, nationality, and ethnicity essentially boil
down to questions o f terminology and the very nature o f history. Many non-scholars, and some careless
scholars, are willing to regard history as static; thus the concept o f nation, like others, is often applied to
any period indiscriminately. But this obscures and simplifies the dynamic character o f humanity and
history alike, for social organization and conceptualization are regularly being made and remade, defined
and redefined, intentionally or n o t In short, nations are by the current definition m odem organisms, and
I use that last term precisely because they are in a sense alive and changing, both from within and
w ithout In any event the definition o f nations as necessarily m odem does not preclude the existence of
macro-level social bonds and organization in the pre-modem era.
Suny's canvass is enormous. Accordingly, there are certain lacunae especially in the
historiographic, literary, and cultural spheres, but a particularly weak point in his broad argument
concerns the pre-modem period. To be fair, Suny is not a medieval historian, and he does not masquerade
as one. He must be commended for regarding pre-modem Georgian history as essential for understanding
the present His political summary o f pre-modem Georgian history, however, is not well integrated into
his subsequent arguments and its significance for his study is irresolute. Suny is rightly convinced that
the concept o f the nation, as conceived by the current discourse, is not applicable to pre-modem Georgia.
Archaic and medieval forms o f "Georgian" identity existed, for there was a "Georgian" community in premodem times .5 Suny recognizes that "Georgian" communities had existed prior to the formation of a
modem Georgian nation. But he leaves unresolved the nature o f the identity', or really identities, by which
the "Georgians" o f the pre-modem period defined themselves. This circumstance inspired me to examine
Georgian self-identity before the existence of a modem Georgian nation. Who were the ancient and
medieval Georgians?
At this junction it should be emphasized that the question just raised is itself problematic, for the
English term "Georgian" does not exist in the Georgian language. Rather, at present k'art'veli
( ^ 6 0 )3 0 2 5 0 ; lit. "K'art" velian") denotes both a citizen o f the Republic o f Georgia as well as an inhabitant
o f the core Georgian region of K 'art'li. Likewise, k'art'uli
refers to the Georgian language,
that is. literally the language o f the K'art'velians, which is now regarded as the language o f all-Georgia.
Originally, k'art'veli was applied only to the populace of K 'art'li. As for "Georgia," in the modem
parlance the term Sak'art'velo
lit. "[land] where the K 'art'velians live") refers to the
entire Republic o f Georgia, whereas the toponym K 'art'li denotes only the eastern region by that name.
"*E.g., G. Gach'ech'iladze, "Amerikuli dghiuridan: eri istoriuli da politikuri kategoriaa," Komunisti, 5

Aug. 1990, p. 3, and "Amerikuli dghiuridan: es uch'inari mteri dok'trina!," Komunisti, 12 Aug. 1990,
p. 3.
5 Or, more properly, "Georgian"
communities.
"Sak'art'velo" achieved common usage only in the eleventh century when Bagrat III (978-1014) first
succeeded in uniting K 'art'li w ith the western region o f Ap'xazet'i. Simultaneously, k'art'veli began to
be applied to all "Georgian" subjects o f the monarch. Prior to the eleventh century a unified Georgia (i.e..
Sak'art'velo) did not exist 6 Even in this era, during the heyday o f the medieval Georgian kingdom, we
must challenge the nature and extent o f unit}'; to be sure, all Georgia was united under a single political
force, but the degree and type o f political, linguistic, religious, economic, and socio-cultural
standardization that exists today did not exist a t that time. In this study, when referring to the political
and social enterprises, the terms "G eorgia" and "G eorgian" are employed only for the eleventh century
and after, while " IT a rt'li and " K 'a rt'v e lia n " are preferred for the preceding period. However, in an
attempt to limit confusion, I employ the attributive "Georgian" here when referring to the language (even
though this imparts a grossly anachronistic linguistic unity) and to the historical tradition which was. to
some degree, shaped by later Georgian bookmen.
It is worth emphasizing from the outset that in terms of (extant) local historical writing, the
ancient and early medieval history o f "Georgia" is focused upon the region of K 'art'li and its rulers. This
contrasts with Egrisi, the Colchis o f the Graeco-Roman tradition, whose history was documented by
Classical writers. Graeco-Roman influence in "Georgia" was concentrated along the coast, i.e.. Egrisi. In
other words, we know about the history of early Egrisi largely through Classical (foreign) evidence while
K 'art'li, which would later emerge as the core o f "Georgia," is enshrined in local sources. This dichotomy
is particularly evident should the recent study o f D. Braund QGeorgia in Antiquity, written from the
perspective o f Greek and Latin information) be compared with this dissertation. In any event. I believe
that Classical and local sources complement one another, and to discuss one without the other regardless o f the subject of inquiry - yields a contorted image. Be that as it may. from the perspective o f
Georgian texts, which are the focus o f this stud}-, the early history o f "Georgia" is precisely the history- o f
K 'art'li. This distorted picture is partially the result o f the relatively late composition of the local sources
and their anachronistic projection o f unity and predominance back into the remote past.
The term "tradition" is used here in several ways, though not usually in the sense of ritual and
behavior. A "manuscript tradition" (or "MS trad itio n ") refers to the particular MSS (the original and
copies) by which a given text was transmitted. These MSS, as we shall see, were subject to scribal
accretions, deletions, and errors, not to mention damage and deterioration. So the various MSS for any
text often diverge, in some cases quite greatly. But a relatively late MS need not be less reliable than an
earlier one, for the later document may have been copied from a more reliable exemplar. This is
important to keep in mind in the present study, since many o f our extant (or, surviving) Georgian MSS
6 Cf. the implications in D. Braund,
Georgia in Antiquity (1994). Note the problematic use o f "Georgia"
in the title.
are rather late, and the original versions usually have not come down to us. In a perfect world, we would
wish to have access to the originals o f the texts. But in their transmission through later MSS, how the
texts are or are not deliberately altered to reflect the political and social demands of the moment is an
important consideration. It is argued here that although the MS tradition o f Georgian historical texts is a
relatively late one, nevertheless the received forms o f the sources in question probably reflect for the most
part, the authentic versions. In a general sense, the "G eorgian historical tradition" refers to the
received texts relevant to a given topic. Moreover, the "pre-Bagratid historical tradition" refers only to
relevant pre-Bagratid historical texts. It should be said that in this study a historical tradition is defined as
being based upon written evidence. The pre-modem Georgian oral tradition was almost certainly a rich
one, and although relics o f it are preserved in present-day oral traditions, we shall not base our arguments
upon modem folk-tales. As a consequence, this study proceeds through the lens o f the medieval written
word. That is not to belittle the importance o f oral tradition, for much o f what happened in pre-Christian
"Georgia" was probably transmitted in this manner, perhaps for centuries (and our medieval authors no
doubt tapped into this rich oral tradition). Moreover, innumerable communities like the Maoris of New
Zealand^ did not develop a written tradition (in the Western sense at least) until after their relatively
recent contact with and subjection to European adventurers and colonists.
This thesis began as an examination o f medieval "Georgian" identity. Consequently I nanowed
my focus to the development of a shared Georgian history. The m aking o f a common past by native
historians, and the ways it was reshaped to reflect the political and social needs and realities o f later times,
forms the core o f this study. Just as modem nationalists may be accused o f rewriting history to further
their own ambitions, so too did medieval historians rewrite the past in order to legitimatize their own
times, or a desired future, and to imbue their aspirations with justifications grounded in the perceived
infallible authority of antiquity. The casting and recasting o f identity, and a community's history, is not
only a phenomenon of the modem period, but o f the pre-modem era as well.
The theme common to all the chapters o f this study is how early K 'art'velian historians depicted
and molded the past. As we shall see. these historians made many decisions, both consciously and
unconsciously. What is paramount here is that Georgian history, and the history o f any community for
that matter, should not necessarily be regarded literally. I shall argue that many o f the recollections of
"Georgians past, especially of its pre-Christian period, are images deliberately created considerably later,
though some of these images are based upon oral traditions and perhaps some now-lost intermediary texts,
the fact remains that the descriptions were carefully sculpted at a later time. Myths they may be, but the
historians intended for these myths to be accepted as troth, and modem patriots are acceding faithfully. It
is for this reason that we shall often focus upon the author and his period rather than the era being
Ê.g., see J. Belich, Making Peoples: A History o f the New Zealanders (1996).
described. Arguments made here are on the basis o f medieval texts. However, since many new books and
articles by modem specialists have appeared since the important work o f C. Toumanoff. 1 have been
compelled to provide ample references to this recent literature in the notes and bibliography. It is
unfortunate that a rather large proportion o f these studies view the Georgian past through the lens of
nationalism. I do not deny that m odem Georgians have a rich and ancient heritage o f which they are and
should be justifiably proud. However, one must be careful not to equate modem Georgia with its premodem antecedents, or to transfer m odem conceptions indiscriminately into the p ast In sum, I am
interested in how medieval K 'art'velians and Georgians conceived o f their community, and thus I have
based my arguments to the fullest possible extent on the documents which they produced.
HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
It is assumed that the reader is not a specialist in medieval Georgian history, but that he/she is
familiar on a basic level with the actors o f the time, viz. the world-empire o f Alexander the Great and the
various Hellenistic enterprises, Parthia/Persia/Iran, Rome/Byzantium, Islam and the Caliphate, and the
Mongols.
The earliest period of Georgian history, like that o f many communities, is shrouded in mystery
and legend. However, the first medieval K'art'velian historians already attempted to explain the
ethnogenesis o f their community by linking it with ancient events and persons. The mythical foundation
o f K'artTi - the heartland of the later all-Georgian realm is attributed to a certain K 'a rt'lo s (cf.
K art'li) and his sons, who, with their progeny, are called the K 'art'losiani-s. This imagined K 'art'los is
depicted as being one o f Noah's immediate descendants (through Togarmah/T'argam os, whose own
relatives are known in Georgian as the T'argam osiani-s), and thus the establishment o f K 'artTi was cast
in an Old Testament context. For the earliest history o f the world, medieval Christians, including the
K'art'velians. considered the Old Testament (especially Genesis) and related apocrypha to be the ultimate
authority. K 'art'los eldest son and successor. M c'xet'os, was believed responsible for raising, at the
confluence of the Mtkuari (Kura) and Aragwi rivers, the city o f M c'xet'a (Rus. Mtskheta). a center which
served as the royal seat o f the K 'art'velian monarchy until the sixth century AD.
The authors describing the emergence of local royal authority likewise attempted to link K'artTi
with prominent figures in world history. Thus the semi-mythical first K 'art'velian king P 'arn av az (299O
234 BC) is said to have established his rule in response to the tyrannical regime of Azon the
^Regnal dates in this study, unless otherwise indicated, follow those calculated by Toumanoff. A regnal
table is attached to the end of this study. It should be noted that historians in Georgia often subscribe to
different computations, especially for the pre-Bagratid period. E .g, Vaxtangs death, calculated to have
happened ca. 522 by Toumanoff, is placed a decade or more earlier by many Georgian specialists.
Macedonian, who him self had been set in place by Alexander the Great. The rule ofP'am avaz and his
successors, the P'arnavaziani-s, is poorly understood today. However, the Georgian historical tradition
identifies several short-lived dynasties as P'arnavaziani-s (through marriage links), including the
K'art'velian Nebrot'iani-s (Nimrodids). Arshakuni-s (Artaxiads). and Arshakuniani-s (Arsacids). The
Georgian account o f their tenure was consigned to parchment considerably later in the Christian period,
but the existence o f many o f these individuals and their dynasties is nevertheless confirmed by references
in ancient Classical (Greek and Roman) and Armenian texts, as well as Persian inscriptions.
The K 'art'velian dynasty known as the Chosroid (Georgian Xuasroiani). whose origin can be
traced directly to Persia, began with the rule o f M ihran/M irian H I (284-361). Ironically, although
Mihran himself was alleged to be the son o f the Persian shahanshah ("King o f Kings or Great King), he
was the first monarch o f the K 'art'velians to accept Christianity. According to the late fourth-century
Roman ecclesiastical historian Rufinus, an unnamed non-K 'arf velian holy woman effected the kings
conversion. The Georgian sources for this event survive, and were probably originally written down, only
from the seventh century. In them the holy woman is named Nino. Early Georgian works about Nino,
here collectively referred to as the Nino Cycle, attempt to connect the king's conversion to Constantine
the Great," the first Christian Roman emperor. Therefore, the K 'art'velian monarch is said to have
dispatched an embassy to Constantine at Nino's behest. Soonafter. probably in the second-half o f the
fourth century, at the impetus o f Christian clerics a specifically Georgian script was invented (although
the Georgian tradition attributes it to the first king P'amavaz!). The earliest extant work of Georgian
literature. The Martyrdom ofShushaniki. was composed by the priest Iakob C'urtaveli shortly thereafter in
the fifth century.^ It should be noted that this text is not properly historical, but hagiographical (i.e.. it
relates the life and worics o f a saint). Moreover, no Georgian historical texts, or MSS in any script, from
the pre-Christian period survive today, and in my estimation, such documents never existed.
Later traditions eulogized the rule o f Vaxtang I G orgasali (ca. 447-ca. S22). who was a
Chosroid king in the direct line o f Mihran/Mirian. The life (vita) o f this king was composed two to three
centuries after his death and contains numerous fanciful items. Vaxtang is made to be a model
K'art'velian Christian king, who was simultaneously K'art'velian. Christian, and Persian. Later
historians, and a great many modem specialists, routinely point to his reign as the time when both the city
of Tp'ilisi (mod. T bilisi, Rus. Tiflis) was established as the royal seat and the K'art'velian Church
became autocephalous (i.e independent in its internal affairs, free of administrative interference by other
Churches). The validity o f these opinions will be scrutinized in this study.
% or the possibility that this text was written much later, see C. Toumanoff, "Christian Caucasia Between
Byzantium and Iran," Traditio 10 (1954), p. 170 and footnote 266 (after P. Peeters).
In the course o f the sixth century, K 'art'velian nobles, seeking greater local autonomy, persuaded
the Persian shahanshah to dissolve the monarchy. K'art'velian kingship fell into abeyance, perhaps as
early as the 530s but certainly by ca. 580; it was restored by the K 'art'velian Bagratids in 8 8 8 The kings
were replaced by a series o f presiding princes, and this extended interregnum is known as the principate.
Some o f these rulers, beginning w ith Guaram I (588-ca. 590), the founder o f the G uaram id princely
dynasty, came to be favored by the Byzantine emperors and were granted high Byzantine dignities. The
reign o f the Guaramids marked the palpable reorientation of the ruling circles o f K 'artT i to Byzantium,
especially following the sacking o f Tp'ilisi by the emperor Heraclius (610-641). The turning of K'artTi
from Persia to Byzantium was enhanced by the rise o f Islam and the Byzantines' desire to use the
Christian realms o f Caucasia (i.e.. Armenia and K 'a rt'li) as a first line o f defense against the Caliphate,
which in the course o f the second-half o f the seventh century had subdued Caucasia. It should also be
noted that the earliest extant G eorgian historical works were composed during this period.
It was in the context o f the Islamic domination o f the Near East that the B ag ratid (Arm.
Bagratuni) dynasty assumed the helm o f Caucasian politics. Having initially arisen in Armenia, a
permanent K' art'velian branch o f the family established itself in the southwestern regions (Tao/Tayk'.
Klarjet'i, Shavshet'i) in the last quarter o f the eighth century (earlier, some Bagratids seem to have been
established at Odzrq'e, but their house eventually disappeared). The first K 'art'velian Bagratid to rule as
presiding prince was Ashot I (813-830). Ashot's murder by the Muslims was a momentous occasion for
the K'art'velians, and this event is among the first to be recorded in texts using the k'oronikon, the native
Georgian calendrical system. The early Bagratids. like their Guaramid predecessors, sought and received
Byzantine dignities and honors. K 'art'velian royal authority was reestablished in 8 8 8 . under Byzantine
tutelage, by A darnase n /IV (888-923).
Only with the reign o f B ag ra t i n (978-1014) may we speak o f a united Georgia (Sak'art'velo).
Bagrat, with the assistance o f D av it' o f Tao/Tayk' (966-1000), became the king o f K 'art'li. Ap'xazet'i
(Rus. Abkhaziia, i.e.. in the far west), and Tao/Tayk' (in the southwest). The united Georgian kingdom
was short-lived, for it collapsed in the thirteenth century when a series o f ineffective monarchs was faced
with the invasions o f the Khwarazm-shah and the Mongols. But prior to this, the Georgian realm was the
most powerful kingdom in the northern part o f the Near East, especially during the reigns o f Davit' O
(1089-1125) and his great grandaughter T 'a m a r (1184-1213).
A standardized system of ordinals for K'art'velian/Georgian princes and monarchs does not exist. The
various dynasties, branches w ithin dynasties (this accounts for this Adarnase being reckoned as either the
second or the fourth), and the long rule o f presiding princes has complicated matters. Toumanoff s
genealogical work is by far the most detailed and successful on this subject. Therefore, I have usually
followed his numbering in this study.
For much of the twentieth century, specialists have regarded the extant medieval Georgian
historical texts as products o f the Bagratid period, and especially, from the eleventh through the thirteenth
centuries, that is, from the time o f the apogee of the medieval kingdom. Some scholars, particularly M.
Tarchnishvili, P. Ingoroqva. and C. Toumanoff, have already demonstrated that the texts describing the
earliest periods o f Georgian history were actually composed just prior to the establishment o f the
K 'art'velian Bagratids. When I embarked upon this study, I was unconvinced that this was the case.
Rather, I was tempted to believe that the Bagratids, under the influence o f Armenian and Byzantine
civilization, had been responsible for introducing the Georgians to the art o f historical writing. This. I
thought, could be explained by the fact that the Bagratids had migrated from Armenian lands, and the
Armenians had been familiar with the genre from the fifth century AD. Moreover, the K 'art'velian
Bagratids owed some o f their achievements to direct Byzantine support, an d the Byzantines, as is well
known, had a long tradition of historical writing extending back to Roman times. Having carefully
examined the contents o f the relative texts, however, I found myself compelled to consign some o f them to
the pre-Bagratid period. That is to say, I am now convinced that the Georgian texts describing the earliest
period o f K'art'velian/Georgian history up through the establishment o f the K 'art'velian Bagratids at
the end o f the eighth century represent a pre-Bagratid Georgian historical tradition which differs
substantially from the subsequent Bagratid tradition. Instead o f simply verifying the research o f others. I
have grounded my arguments in a careful reading of the medieval texts, an d have painstakingly attempted
to provide contemporary or near-contemporary evidence for each assertion.
The goals o f this study are: to establish and describe the two earliest periods of medieval
Georgian historical writing (i.e pre-Bagratid and Bagratid); to demonstrate the conscious reorientation
by the K 'art'velian Bagratid elite (especially contemporary historians and the ruling families) from Persia
towards Byzantium; and, in the process, to establish the heterogeneity o f the pre-modem K 'art'velian and
Georgian communities. Moreover, this study, in tandem with the works o f Javaxishvili and Toumanoff. is
envisaged to serve as a commentary for the historical corpus o f K'art'lis c'xovreba (i.e.. The Georgian
Royal Annals, discussed infra).

This study differs from previous ones in that it focuses primarily upon the internal evidence of
the Georgian texts. The assertions made here are based upon a careful reading and consideration of the
medieval sources themselves. The identification and existence o f the pre-Bagratid Georgian historical
tradition is considered in the initial five chapters. The dating o f the sources which describe the earliest
period o f Georgian history is paramount, and this question forms the crux o f the first chapter. From the
beginning, I shall place special emphasis on the Persian context o f early K 'art'velian history, a situation
which persisted even among the early Christian K 'art'velian monarchs and historians. In chapter two, the
mythical and semi-mythical story written down only ca. 800 in my estimation about the ethnogenesis
o f the K 'art'velians is examined. It should be emphasized that much o f the received early history of
K 'art'li/G eorgia is a considerably later creation and is mythical, yet we shall see that the invention of this
myth was far from haphazard or even ahistorical. The establishment o f K 'art'velian kingship and the
successive pre-Christian monarchs of K 'a rt'li are addressed in chapter three. Chapter four describes the
transformation of a skeletal legend o f the Christianization o f K 'art'li. evolving from the activities o f an
unnamed holy woman to a series o f detailed accounts of an identified woman named Nino. Perhaps more
than any other topic considered here, the development o f the Nino Cycle dramatically shows how
historical traditions could be shaped and reshaped in the pre-m odem era. K ing Vaxtang. allegedly the
greatest o f pre-Bagratid Christian K 'art'velian monarchs, is the subject o f chapter five. The era o f
Vaxtang is extremely significant, for although his later vita projected back certain issues and inventions
from the author's own time (ca. 800), the text did fictionally display the potential o f ByzantineK a rtv elian cooperation made possible by K 'art'li's Christianization two centuries earlier. The final two
chapters examine the earliest Bagratid histories. It is impossible to render a comprehensive treatment of
this relatively well-documented period in two chapters, but my goal is to demonstrate more fully the
existence o f two distinct historical periods and traditions an d not to provide a narrative o f the political
history o f this aurea aetas.
It must be emphasized that much o f the early history o f K' art' li/Georgia, in its received form, is
legendary. For example, the account o f the ethnogenesis o f the K 'art'velians was written only ca. 800
AO, well over a millennium after the fact. To be sure, earlier sources were plundered (especially the Old
Testament) so that the provenance o f the K'art'velians might be plausibly interpolated, but the fact
remains that this tradition is relatively late. Some historians may be tempted to disregard this mythical
period. This study is not so much interested in analyzing the actual events and individuals of ancient
Georgia, nor in establishing any "truth" about ancient Georgian history by comparing the later Georgian
information with the near-contemporary evidence of Greek an d Latin texts, but rather in understanding
how later medieval (i.e eighth-century AD and later) K 'art'velian/Georgian writers comprehended,
sculpted, and on some counts created, a common past for their community. As we shall see, the
information they provide about the period from the mythical eponym K 'art' los up through the
Christianization of the monarchy, and beyond, is almost certainly the result o f later productions. I would
argue, however, that the image o f K 'art'li's earliest history', formulated ca. 800, is historical for the period
of the authors, for it reflects what they deemed as the K 'art'velian community's understanding whether
accurate or not o f their own past. Because of the relatively late composition of our sources, and the late
MSS in which they are now preserved, we shall constantly be forced to consider the author/scribe and his
time, at times neglecting the reputed antiquity o f a given account.
NOTE ON THE SOURCES
It is assumed that the reader has no background in medieval Georgian literature; therefore, a
brief overview o f the major medieval texts examined in this study will be provided here. The date and
10
authorship o f a great many o f the Georgian texts are passionately debated today, and a comprehensive
examination o f those offered here, and the justification for my own views, are presented when they
become relevant in this thesis. Here I shall merely provide a succinct introduction and reference guide,
noting only the most controversial points which themselves w ill be discussed in greater detail in the main
te x t F irst I shall turn to the modem study o f medieval Georgian historical literature.
Modem Studies on Medieval Georgian Historical Literature
In 1943 C. Toum anoff published "Medieval Georgian Historical Literature (Vllth-XVth

Centuries) in Traditio, a prestigious journal o f medieval studies. It remains, until now, the only such
comprehensive scholarly treatment in English. * * Subsequently, Toumanoff expanded upon and modified
some o f his earlier views in his monumental Studies in Christian Caucasian History (1963). ^
Toum anoffs hypotheses were not completely original, for he had benefited from the research of several
generations o f Georgian scholars. L Javaxishvili, perhaps Georgia's most famous historian, first
published his Dzveli k'art'uli saistorio mcerloba (V-XVUJ ss.), or Old Georgian Historical Writing (5th-
17th Centuries) in 1916; it was recently reprinted in 1977 as part o f his Collected Works. Although
several important MSS have been discovered since its initial publication, Old Georgian Historical Writing
still remains valuable today. Javaxishvili's hypothesis were incorporated into his K'art'veli eris istoria,
^Toum anoff, "Medieval Georgian Historical Literature (Vllth-XVth Centuries)." Traditio 1 (1943). pp.
139-182; Toumanoff summed up his views, with some modifications, in his Studies in Christian
Caucasian History (1963), pp. 20-27 et sqq; see also idem., "The Oldest Manuscript o f the Georgian
Annals: The Queen Anne Codex (QA), 1479-1495," Traditio 5 (1947), pp. 340-344. Brief considerations
are offered by R.P. Blake, "Georgian Secular Literature, Epic, Romantic, and Lyric (1100-1800)," HSNPL
15 (1933), pp. 25-48; P. Ingoroqva, "The Path o f the Development o f Georgian Literature and Rust'hveli."
in the introduction to Shofha Rust'hveli. The Knight in the Tiger's Skin, trans. M.S. Wardrop with E.
Orbelyani and S. Jordanishvili, pp. x-xxiv; R.W. Thomson. " K 'a rtlis c'xovreba," in DMA, vol. 7. pp.
222-223; idem., "Georgian Literature," in DMA, vol. 5 (1982), pp. 416-419; and idem., "The Writing of
History: The Development o f the Armenian and Georgian Traditions," in SSCISSM, vol. 43a (1996), pp.
493-520. My views were first published in the brief survey in R.G. Hoyland, Seeing Islam as Others Saw
It: A Survey o f the Non-Muslim Sources Relevant to Early Islamic History (1997), excursus five. The
analysis o f historical literature by D. Rayfield, The Literature o f Georgia: A History (1994), is dependent
upon earlier work (although he fails to cite Toum anoff on this subject!); it does not, on the whole, offer
any new insights on this theme. Although Rayfields chapters on "chronicles" (pp. 49-57 and 92-97) do
not reflea the intense controversies enveloping Georgian historical writing, they remain an adequate
general introduction. O f original works in other Western languages we have only the various
introductions and commentaries o f M.-F. Brosset and J. Karst, Litterature georgienne chretienne, esp.
"Historic," pp. 102 - 110 , which is now outdated.
^T o u m an offs magnum opus essentially constitutes a pan-Caucasian (i.e., it addresses both Armenia and
"Georgia") precursor to Adontz, Armenia in the Period o f Justinian: The Political Conditions Based on
the Naxarar System, trans. with additions by N.G. Garsolan (1970).
11
or A History o f the Georgian People, which has been reprinted and reedited on numerous occasions; ^
Toumanoff was indebted to many o f the ideas developed in i t This book was the first modern, critical
history of the "Georgian community in any language. Javaxishvili's immense contributions were
recognized by the naming o f both the History Faculty o f T b ilisi University and the Institute o f History and
Ethnography in his honor.
Javaxishvilis works have been venerated as holy writ by successive generations of Georgian
scholars, though his views were expanded, updated, and on some points corrected, by K. Kekelidze.
Kekelidze zealously studied historical, hagiographical. liturgical, and secular texts, and an annotated
bibliography o f all his works would constitute a small book . 14 His contributions to the study o f Georgian
literature were recognized by the nam ing o f the Georgian Academy of Sciences Institute of MSS in
T b ilisi in his honor. ^
Perhaps the most renowned o f Kekelidze's published works is a comprehensive,
detailed, and still unsurpassed, study o f pre-modem Georgian literature, K art 'uli literatures istoria, or A
History o f Georgian Literature. This massive work, the standard guide on the theme, has been reprinted
and reedited several times. The version published in 1987, edited by A. Baramidze, is usually cited
here. ^ Unlike Javaxishvili's study, Kekelidze's K'art'uli literaturis istoria was partially translated into a
Western language, forming the basis o f M . Tarchnishvili's Geschichte der kirchlichen georgischen
Uteratur (1 9 5 5 ).^
Had Toumanoff and Tarchnishvili not published their studies in English and German
respectively, many Western scholars would have been hopelessly denied any meaningful knowledge o f
medieval Georgian historical writing. The obstacle o f reading Georgian is a formidable one. and it is a
sad reality that many o f the works o f the handful o f great modem Georgian historians will never be known
to Western scholars. Yet even the publication o f research about Georgia in Western languages does not
1
X
I. Javaxishvili, K'art veli eris istoria. 2nd ed. (1928). is the edition usually cited in this study. It should
be noted that the use of the term "Kart'veli" in the title is rendered here as "Georgian" and not
"K 'artvelian," for his history is one o f all-Georgia.
I'h lis collected works now number thirteen volumes; they do not yet include all o f his publications. Sec
Kekelidze. Etiudebi dzveli k'art'uli literaturisistoriidan (1956-1974).
15The Institute o f MSS houses the great majority o f medieval Georgian MSS to be found in the Republic
of Georgia. The earliest recensions o f the medieval historical corpus K'C' (The Life ofK'art'li, or The
Georgian Royal Annals) are to be found at the Institute.
^^The editions used in this study are; Kekelidze, K'art'uli literaturis istoria, 2 vols. (1941 and 1958); and
Kekelidze with A. Baramidze. Dzveli k'art'uli literaturis istoria (V-XVIIIss.) (1969), most recently
published in 1987.
17
'T h e notes o f the famous Georgian historian N. Berdzenishvili on early Georgian historical literature are
also insightful (published posthumously): Sak'art'velos istoriis sakit'xebi, 1st ed., vol. 9 (1979).
12
guarantee Western notice. The studies o f both Toumanoff and Tarchnishvili have too often been ignored
by or remain unknown to - Roman and Byzantine historians, specialists whose interests often intersect
with medieval Georgian history. 18 This is, o f course, partly a reflection of the peripheralization o f
Georgian studies in Europe and North America.
Several other Georgian scholars have offered surveys o f Georgian literature (of widely varying
quality and detail),
soundly based
yet the works o f Javaxishvili and Kekelidze remain the most creative, intuitive, and
The elevation o f Javaxishvili and Kekelidze to heroic levels is w arranted but the
popular, and even scholarly, depiction o f their work as infallible is not. For all o f its shortcomings, the
nationalistic milieu o f post-Soviet Georgia has made it possible for links of this sacred chain o f
scholarship, which may be traced to the pen o f Javaxishvili (and his contemporaries), to be challenged
However, a great many pseudo-scholars are presently emerging, and instead of initiating a meaningful,
scholarly debate, shock tactics (i.e.. offering diametrically opposed views to the established paradigms of
Javaxishvili, Kekelidze, etc. so as to generate maximum interest) and fanatical patriotism are en vogueM
The Texts
The vast majority of extant medieval Georgian historical writings is preserved in the corpus
known as S'art'lis c'xovreba (,3*6 c3C?ob 3 6 0 1 3 6 3 6 *), or literally The Life o f K'art 'lifGeorgia. Fewcontemporary extant works of a historical nature escaped inclusion in that compendium. It is not
altogether clear why this should be the case. However, a prominent characteristic o f Georgian historical
writing is that it was produced in support of, and often commissioned by. the K 'art' velian/Georgian
18This is even more true for Near Eastern and Russian specialists who are almost universally
unacquainted with these works.
^ E .g ., A.S. Khakhanov, Ocherkipo istoriigruzinskoi slovesnosti. 2 vols.: Ingoroqva. "K'art'uli
mcerlobis istoriis mokle mimoxilva." Mnat'obi 1 (1939). pp. 163-188.2 (1939). pp. 141-173.4 (1939).
pp. 94-138, and 9 (1939), pp. 97-141. and 10-11 (1939). pp. 197-272; Lang. Landmarks in Georgian
Literature: An Inaugural Lecture Delivered on 2 November 1965; and A. Manvelishvili. Dzveli k'art 'uli
mcerloba (1987).
jr\
The essentially indiscriminate acceptance o f the theories of Javaxishvili and Kekelidze is contagious,
infecting even Western specialists, most recently by Rayfield, The Literature o f Georgia.
21
One such work is by R. Baramidze, P'amavazman dzlier hqo k'ueqana t'visi, with Rus. sum.,
"Pamavaz i ego rol' v usilenii mogushchestva strany." pp. 42-50. Even usually careful scholars have
stumbled into the snare o f rampant nationalism, as is the case with the archaeologist O. Lordkipanidze,
Georgian Civilization: Whence Does Its History Start?. Other modern specialists have sought to justify or
even shape internal politics. E.g., M. L o rtk ip a n id z e , "The Abkhazians and Abkhazia," in her Essays
on Georgian History, pp. 189-209.
13
Crown. That is to say, unlike the case in neighboring Armenia, where numerous histories were composed
yy
to glorify noble families,
historical writing in K 'art'li/G eorgia was the prerogative o f the royal clan.
K'art'lis c'xovreba is essentially the official, royally sanctioned, interpretation o f the K 'art'velian past,
and it is precisely for this reason that Toumanoff styled it The Georgian Royal Annals. Although these
sources were partially based upon archival evidence, they were nevertheless subject to extensive
manipulation by royal historians and later scribes. Georgian historical writing served not only as the
official view of the past but also as royal propaganda to explain the origins o f the various dynasties,
thereby demonstrating their legitimacy to rule, and to trumpet and enshrine forever royal achievements .23
We shall first direct our attention to those few historical writings which are not found in any of
the divergent MSS o f K'art'lis c'xovreba. Second, we shall consider the various historical works which
constitute that medieval corpus. The various MSS will be briefly considered thereafter, it should be noted
that the components o f K'art'lis c'xovreba, with the exception o f the inserted Life o f Nino, do not appear
independently of the MSS of that corpus. Finally, relevant non-historical Georgian works, and Armenian
historical texts, will be examined. The reader should recall that this introduction is not intended to
provide a comprehensive analysis o f medieval Georgian literature. Therefore, it will not offer a complete
enumeration of received works, original or otherwise.2^
Owing to the relatively large number o f corpora, and in an effort to keep them separate from their
constituent texts, I shall employ Georgian titles for corpora and English ones for their components. This
convention is particularly appropriate since corpora are customarily named alter one o f their component
texts thus compounding the confusion. In the following enumeration (but not in the main text), titles of
corpora are also capitalized .23 The bracketed forms here are those used in the notes. Cross-referencing
below is to the numbers assigned here to each text.
yy
E.g.. The Epic Histories (formerly attributed to P'awstos Buzandec'i) seeks to exalt the Mamikonean
clan: and T omva Arc' runi composed his history to glorify his own clan. See also Toumanoff, Studies.
pp. 128 (footnote 223) and 140 (footnote 245).
yi
See also E. Abashidze, "K'art 'lis c xovrebis" carmok'mnisa da ganvit arebis salat 'xebi, pp. 101-115.
y*
My study is particularly interested in original literature and therefore considers only briefly the
translations of the Bible as well as patristic, homelitic, and exegetical works. Several short, imprecisely
dated works are also not cited here; many o f them are included in the important collection o f Zhordania,
K'ronikebi, 2 vols. (1893 and 1897). A third vol. (dealing with the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries),
by the same title, was ed. by G. Zhordania and Sh. Xant'adze (1967).
Some o f the Georgian titles are truncated in the following enumeration. Full titles are provided in the
bibliography.
14
Texts Outside K'art'lis c'xovreba
1. MOK'C'EVA Y K'ART'USA Y = lit. THE CONl'ERSION OF K'ART'LI [Mok\ k'art'.].

The corpus o f Mok'c'evay k'art'lisay was traditionally considered as a single te x t
although Toumanoff convincingly demonstrated that it is composed o f six independent
works. It survives in the tenth-century Shatberdi codex, the fourteenth-/fifteenth-century
Chelishi codex, and two unpublished codices from Mt. Sinai (new collection. Sin-48 and
Sin-50) apparently from the tenth/eleventh century. The corpus consists of the
following components:
a. The Primary History o f K'art'li [Prim. Hist. K'art'li]
b. Royal List I
c. The Conversion o f K'art'li proper [Conv. K'art'li]
d. Royal List II
e. Royal List III
f. The Life o f Nino [Life o f Nino inMok'. k'art'.].
It should be noted that all o f these titles, except The Conversion o f K'art'li and The Life
o f Nino were suggested by Toumanoff and do not appear in any o f the MSS. Moreover,
the MSS themselves do not provide information on authorship. The text that furnishes
the name for the corpus, The Conversion o f K'art'li, seems to be the earliest text; it was
written as early as the seventh century and is almost certainly a pre-Bagratid production.
It constitutes the earliest Georgian account o f the Christianization o f K 'art' li. O f the
remaining texts, only The Primary History o f K'art'li, which is concerned with the
establishment o f the K 'art'velian monarchy at M c'xet'a in the time o f Alexander the
Great, may be pre-Bagratid. for it was conceivably based upon the ca. 800 Life o f the
Kings (s.v., #4a, infra). The Life o f Nino is a version o f the vita written in the Bagratid
period (ninth/tenth century) and is closely related to the version in C'xorebay
k 'art 'velt 'a mep 'et'a (s.v., #4). The three Royal Lists are all Bagratid-era productions
and are based upon the initial pre-Bagratid texts o f K'art'lis c'xovreba. It should be
noted that only the Shatberdi codex includes The Primary History o f K'art 'li and Royal
List I. The Chelishi codex and Sin-48 include only the texts describing Christian
K 'art'li, whereas Sin-50 includes only a text about Nino, probably The Ufe o f Nino
(little is known about the unpublished Sin-48 and Sin-50).
2. Divan o f Kings = Divani mep 'et 'a [Divan].

The Divan is a brief list o f the monarchs o f Ap' xazet' i (in western Georgia). It was
composed in the eleventh century and is usually attributed to Bagrat III (978-1014).
3. Monument o f the Erist'avi-s = Dzegli erist'avt'a [Mon. Erist'.].

This text is unique among medieval Georgian historical works, for it was not written by,
and in support o f the monarchy, but rather is a record o f the erist'avi-s (regional
governors) o f K 'sani. Written in the fifteenth century, perhaps by Grigol Bandas-dze, it
addresses the period from the ninth through the fifteenth centuries.
15
Texts Within K'art'lis c'xovreba
4. C'XOREBAY26 K'ART'VELT'A MEP'ETA = THE LIFE OF THE KINGS [Cx. k'art'.
mepet'a].
This corpus is always placed first in the extant redactions o f K art Tis c 'xovreba. It
describes the earliest history o f K 'art'li, from its origin through the Christianization of
its monarchy. Traditionally, the entire corpus is considered to be the work o f the
eleventh-century archbishop Leonti Mroveli. although this view was rejected inter
alios by Toumanoff. In this study it will be demonstrated that Leonti Mroveli was
merely an editor, and at most he wrote the terminating, short section on the immediate
successors o f Mirian, the first Christian K 'art'velian monarch. The corpus consists of
the following components:
a. Life o f the Kings
b. Life o f Nino [Life o f Nino in C'x. k'art'. mep'et'a]
c. Life o f the Successors o f Mirian. [Life Succ. Mirian]
The Life o f the Kings explains the ethnogenesis of the K 'art'velian community,
beginning with the legendary eponym K 'art'los. This text also describes the
establishment o f the K 'art'velian monarchy under P'am avaz. It should be noted that
this tradition differs slightly from The Primary History o f K art'li (s.v # la). The Life
o f the Kings terminates with the conversion o f Mirian (284-361). This text is
considered by most specialists in Georgia to be an eleventh-century work; however, I
shall argue, as did Toum anoff that it was actually composed ca. 800. in the preBagratid period. The Life o f Nino was written by a different author, and is extremely
sim ilar to a work by the same name contained in Mok'c'evay k'art'lisay (s.v., #lf). This
vita was composed in the Bagratid period, in the ninth o r tenth century. The Life o f the
Successors o f Mirian, which is untitled in the corpus (the title is mine), is a brief
continuation of The Life o f the Kings and brings the history of K 'a rt'li down to the early
fifth century.
5. C'XOREBA Y VAXTANG GORGASUSA = THE LIFE OF VAXTANG GORGASAU [C'x. vox.
gorg.\.
This corpus is often considered to be a single text written by a certain Juansher
Juansheriani in the eleventh century. However, Toumanoff demonstrated that it actually
consists o f two works written in the pre-Bagratid period ca. 800. I do not concur with
Toumanoff that the author o f the latter work was Juansher. Since Juansher was a
historical figure, I refer to the author as Pseudo-Juansher.
a. Life o f Vaxtang
b. The brief untitled continuation by Ps.-Juansher.
^ T h e Old Georgian term c'xorebay corresponds to the Latin vita and the Greek BIOE. In modem
Georgian it is rendered c 'xovreba. i.e., with an inserted "v" and without the old nominative marker "-y."
It should be noted, however, that the modern form K'art'lis c 'xovreba (K'C") is used throughout this study
since it is so widely used by contemporary specialists.
16
As we shall see, internal evidence strongly suggests that The Ufe o f Vaxtang was written
in the same era as The U fe o f the Kings (s.v., # 4a). This text is a semi-mythical
biography o f Vaxtang I (ca. 447-ca. S22). Although it incorporates several fantastic
tales, it is built around historical events. The continuation o f this text describes the
reigns o f Vaxtang's successors down through the eighth century'. It was definitely
written by a different author, Ps.-Juansher (whose identity is considered later), for there
are hardly any stylistic commonalities between The Ufe o f Vaxtang and the continuation
by Ps.-Juansher. Ps.-Juansher is the first near-contemporary Georgian historian o f the
events he describes.
6.
Martyrdom o f Arch 'il = Camebay arch 'ilisi romeli iqo mep e k'art'lisa [Mart. Arch V/].
This text is a historical-hagiographical work which relates the events surrounding the
martyrdom o f the prince A rch'il n in 785/786. The date o f this text is uncertain: a
vague passage found elsewhere in K'art'lis c 'xovreba attributes it to Leonti Mroveli. It
is almost certainly a Bagratid-era work (i.e., it post-dates ca. 800). In any event this
text was not written tty the same author o f The Ufe o f the Kings (also traditionally
attributed to Leonti Mroveli).
7. Sumbat Davit' is-dze, The U fe and Tale o f the Bagratids = C'xorebay da ucqebay
bagratoniant'a.
Sumbat Davit'is-dze (lit. "son of Davit'") is the earliest medieval Georgian historian to
identify himself within his own work. W riting in the eleventh century. Davit' is-dze
sought to describe the origin o f the K 'art'velian branch o f the Bagratid clan which had
been established there only in the late eighth century. The author attempted to prove
that the K 'art'velians were the direct descendants of the Old Testament King-Prophet
David, thus demonstrating that they were uniquely fit to rule. This text was not
incorporated into all the MSS o f K'art'lis c 'xovreba; it is missing from the earliest
extant version - the Armenian adaptation (perhaps because the Armenian
adaptor/translator did not want to publicize further these Georgian claims) - and the
earliest extant Georgian redaction (the Anaseuli MS). When K'art'lis c'xovreba was
reedited Ity the King Vaxtang VI Commission in the eighteenth century. Davitis-dzes
history was dismembered and inserted into other texts, especially The Chronicle o f
K'artli (s.v.. #8 ) but also Ps.-Juansher (s.v., #5b).
8.
The Chronicle o f K'art'li = Matiane k'art'lisay [Chron. K'art'li],

This work is not given a title in K'art'lis c 'xovreba, but was named by Javaxishvili, who
believed it to be written ju st prior to the reign o f Davit' II (1089-1125). The Chronicle
o f K'art'li is the only medieval Bagratid-era historical work to describe the rule o f both
pre-Bagratid and Bagratid princes, covering the period after A rch'il II (s.v., #6 ) to
Bagrat IV (1027-1072).
9. The Ufe o f Davit' = C'xorebay mep'et'-mep'isa davit'isi.

The biography o f Davit' II (1089-1125) was composed near the time of his death,
perhaps by his famous contemporary, the monk Arsen. The earliest extant version o f
K'art'lis c'xovreba, the Armenian adaptation, breaks off in mid sentence within this
work. Its author's language is sophisticated, and it is likely that he was fluent in Greek
17
10. The Histories and Eulogies = Istoriani da azmani sharavandedt'ani [Hist, and Eul.\.
The reigns o f Giorgi i n (1156-1184) and his daughter T am a r (1184-1213) are the
subject o f this lengthy tex t The name o f its author is unknown. However, in scholarly
literature he is often referred to as the First Historian o f T amar. The Histories and
Eulogies is not incorporated into the earliest extant Georgian MS (Anaseuli). but is
found in other early MSS (i.e., MQm). This text was written in the thirteenth century.
11. The Ufe ofT'amar = C'xorebay mep'et'-mep'isa t'amarisi.

Javaxishvili attributed this text to Basil! Ezosmodzghuari. although this identification is
not made within any contemporary' text (within or outside K'art 'lis c 'xovreba). Many
scholars refer to its author as the Second Historian o f T am ar. In any event, this text
was composed in the thirteenth century and covers the activities o f both Giorgi III and
T amar. It has come down to us in a defective state, its second part having been lost and
replaced (in some later MSS) with excerpts from The Histories and Eulogies (s.v., #10).
Toumanoff s hypothesis that The Ufe o f Tamar was not incorporated into K'art'lis
c'xovreba until much later is probably correct, but by the sixteenth century it was found
in some MSS of that corpus.
12. History o f the Five Reigns [Hist. Five Reigns],

This brief, untitled history' was written by an anonymous author (usually identified as
The Chronicler of the Times o f Lasha Giorgi = Lasha giorgis-droindeli mematiane),
probably in the thirteenth century. It describes the reigns from Demetre I (1125-1154)
through Giorgi IV Lasha (1213-1223). It should be noted that this work is not properly
a chronicle, although some dates (in the Georgian era. or k'oronikon) are provided.
13. (The Chronicler o f a Bygone Age = Zham f aaghmcereli]. The Chronicle o f a Hundred Years
= Asclovani matiane [Chron. Hund. Years],
The name and author o f this fourteenth-century text have not come down to us; T .
Zhordania suggested that it be called The Chronicle o f a Hundred Years since it
describes the period from Giorgi IV Lasha up to 1317. This lengthy text is not found in
the earliest extant Georgian MS o f K'art'lis c'xovreba (Anaseuli), but is found in other
early MSS (i.e.. MQm). It is dedicated mainly to the Mongol domination of Georgia.
The Manuscripts
The medieval histories of K'art'lis c'xovreba, up through the thirteenth-century History o f the
Five Reigns, was published for the first time, with an accompanying French translation, by the eminent
K 'artvelologist M.-F. Brosset (with the assistance o f D. Ch'ubinashvili) in 1849. Brosset's splendid
edition incorporates the only comprehensive translation o f the corpus into any language; thus many
Western specialists, having no other recourse, have been forced to rely upon it. But Brosset had at his
18
disposal only a handful o f late MSS, and after the publication o f his edition, sev eral earlier variants
surfaced which considerably broadened our understanding o f K'art'lis c'xovreba.
In Brosset's time it was widely believed that K'art'lis c'xovreba was a rather late work written by
a single author (or group of authors) for King V axtang V I (1675-1737). But subsequent scholarship has
amply demonstrated that K'art'lis c'xovreba consists o f multiple sources several of which are of
remarkable antiquit}. Moreover, K'art'lis c'xovreba had only been edited, and not composed, by the
Vaxtang VI Commission of "learned men "2 7 and therefore this compilation is actually comprised of
several, distinct texts which had been conjoined perhaps from as early as the ninth century. Javaxishvili.
Kekelidze, Toumanoff; and others have proven beyond any doubt that the constituent histories of Kart'lis
c'xovreba represent a very old tradition of historical writing.

Countless scholars in Georgia have devoted their careers to the study of K'art'lis c'xovreba and
its respective components. Before examining the MS tradition (that is to say. the succession o f MSS
which transmitted K'art'lis c'xovreba), I should make reference to some o f the influential modem studies
that have considered the nature and contents of that corpus. As already mentioned, the first Georgian
edition o f the corpus, with an accompanying French translation, was published by M.-F. Brosset. K'art'lis
c'xovreba = Histoire de la Georgie (1849). Z. Chichinadze published the Georgian text again in 1908.2**
But both o f these publications, based only upon later MSS, were superseded by S. Qauxch'ishvili's critical
edition o f K'art'lis c'xovreba, 2 volumes (1955 and 1959). This edition was based upon the earliest
Georgian MSS, many of which were unknown in Brosset's time. Qauxch'ishvili's publication remains
even today the only comprehensive critical edition o f K'art'lis c'xovreba. For the most part.
Qauxch'ishvili's edition remains up-to-date.2^ since only one pre-Vaxtangiseuli (i.e.. predating the
Vaxtang VI Commission) MS has been discovered since its publication, the so-called M c'xet'ian variant
(Q) of 1697.^0
present, no updated critical edition o f the entire corpus o f K'art 'Us c xovreba is
planned.2 1 However. Georgian scholars have begun to publish the constituent texts separately, taking Q
into account.
27The antiquity o f K'C was definitely established with the discovery o f the medieval Armenian
adaptation o f that corpus.
2 *Z. Chichinadze,
K'art'lis c'xovreba.
2^This is not to suggest that there are not shortcomings with respect to Qauxch'ishvili's readings of the
MSS. Toumanoff; Studies, pp. 345 (footnote 21), 346 (footnote 24), 403 (footnote 49) notes some of these
misreadings. Moreover, M Shanidze has demonstrated that some o f the leaves of the archetype of the
received text of The Ufe o f Davit' were misplaced and were blindly copied in later MSS: this went
unnoticed by Qauxchishvili. See Shanidze in The Ufe o f Davit', introduction.
3See A.E. Klimiashvili, "Novyi spisok 'Kartlis Tskhovreba' 1697 goda," Moambe 3 (1960), pp. 371-376.
3 ^ p o p u l a r version of K'C' is now being published: N. Shoshiashvili, ed.,
K'art'lis c'xovreba, vol. 1
19
Qauxch'ishvili's text has not been comprehensively translated into any language, although
several o f the constituent histories as he edited them have been rendered into Russian, and the works up
through the thirteenth century were rendered into German by G. Patsch in 1985.32 Until recently, no
scholarly English translation o f any text o f K'art'lis c'xovreba had appeared R Thomson has nowtranslated the histories up through and including The Life o f Davit' as part of his study of the medieval
Armenian adaptation o f K'art'lis c'xovreba (Rewriting Caucasian History [1996]).33 He provides
parallel English translation o f both the Armenian adaptation and the Georgian text (the latter as edited by
Qauxch'ishvili). Thomson's translation is excellent and displaces Brosset's French rendition as the
standard In view of the relative obscurity o f K'art'lis c 'xovreba in the West, it is, to some degree,
unfortunate that Thomson did not render more importance to, and offer more commentary on, the
Georgian text than its Armenian adaptation. It should be noted that Thomson was seemingly not aware of
the new Q ("M c'xet'ian") M S. His translation is based entirely upon Qauxch'ishvili's edition, and he did
not incorporate the recent re-edition of The Life o f Davit' by M. Shanidze. In any event, Thomson's
translation (both Georgian and Armenian) is first rate. A few o f the Bagratid-era histories were translated
into English by K. Vivian in 1991, but her w ork exhibits signs o f reliance upon Brosset's outdated edition,
and did not take into consideration the M c'xet'ian MS and recent Georgian scholarship.3* A flaw o f
Vivian's rendition is that she incompletely translated several o f the texts and did not employ ellipses to
mark such instances.
The Georgian passages translated within this study are my own unless otherwise noted. In
isolated cases I have chosen to base my translations upon those o f others (especially Thomson): often these
renditions have been modified with regards to terminology (e.g., Thomson often uses "Georgia" for
"K'art'li"; the difference is paramount in this thesis). The reader should also note that I do not usually
cite Thomson's translation o f the Georgian text since within it he includes convenient cross-referencing to
Qauxch'ishvili's edition (the last o f which is always cited in this study).
M odem studies o f K'art'lis c'xovreba are far too numerable to be enumerated here. The
component histories are treated individually in the literary studies o f Javaxishvili. Kekelidze.
Tarchnishvili, Toumanoff, and N. Berdzenishvili. The question o f the origin o f K'art'lis c'xovreba and its
relationship to the corpus M ok 'c 'evav k art lisay was recently tackled by E. Abashidze, but his hypothesis
(1994), with a children's version appearing as idem., K'art'lis c'xovreba, vol. I (1992).
3 2 Patsch,
Das Leben Kartlis.
See also my forthcoming review essay in Etudes byzantines.

3 *Vrvian,
Georgian Chron. See also my review in ASSC 4-5 (1992-1993), pp. 90-93.
20
that the former was first enjoined in the twelfth century is, in my opinion, a bit Ia te .^ a marvelous
synopsis of K'art'lis c'xovreba, as well as a succinct summary' o f m odem historiography, is to be found in
M. Lort'kipanidze's Ra aris "k'art'lis c'xovreba?", or R'hat is K'art'lis C 'x o v r e b a ?
Published in
1989. it contains an extensive bibliography, including contemporary sources, translations, and modem
studies, in Georgian, Russian. French, German, an d English. Lort'k'ip'anidze thoroughly investigates the
controversies surrounding the corpus, its components and MS tradition, and its historical value, and offers
a brief overview o f the editorial work of the K ing Vaxtang VI Commission.
Although the MS tradition o f K'art'lis c'xovreba is rich, few detailed studies o f it have been
attempted. This is, in my opinion, largely because o f the abhorrence many medievalists have for being
forced to work with relatively late MSS. Only one work in any language considers the MS tradition o f
K'art'lis c'xovreba in detail. In 1954 K. G rigolia published his Axali k'artlis c'xovreba. or The Sew
K'art'lis c 'xovreba. Grigolia makes a detailed examination of the Georgian MSS known up to his time,
dividing them into two useful categories: pre-Vaxtangiseuli and Vaxtangiseuli. These terms, which were
not invented by Grigolia but were popularized by him, are based upon the name Vaxtang. i.e.. King
Vaxtang VI; they terminate in the genitive suffix -iseuli which has the meaning "of." "belonging to."
"named for." Thus MSS which contain K'art'lis c 'xovreba as edited by the King Vaxtang VI Commission
in the early eighteenth century are referred to as Vaxtangiseuli. We should emphasize that these term s
refer to groups (here: "recensions") o f MSS and not exclusively to any single MS. Adding to the
confusion, the suffix -iseuli is also used for the names o f individual MSS.
Grigolia records the employment of different Georgian scripts.-*^ In this regard it should be said
that the majority o f the relevant MSS are in the mxcdruli ("knightly") script which was developed around
the eleventh century and is used by Georgians today. This script was invented in the Bagratid period, at
the time that the royal bureaucracy was expanding and records were increasing. Mxedruli is a rounded
script which is much easier and faster to write than the earlier ones. The two scripts which predate
mxedruli are known collectively as xuc'uri ("priestly"). The oldest o f the xuc 'uri scripts is asornt 'avruli.
which is a majuscule script. Asomt'avruli was developed in the fifth century as the direct result o f the
Christianization o f K 'artTi. By the early Bagratid period (ninth/tenth century) nusxuri. a miniscule
script, appeared-*** Asomt'avruli and nusxuri are not usually commingled within the same word (i.e.. an
Â bashidze, "K'art'lis c'xavrebis" carmok'mnisa da ganvit'arebis safdt'xebi. In my view, theearliest

version of K 'C ' existed by the end o f the ninth century, soon after the composition o f The Life o f the
Kings, The Life o f Vaxtang, an d the anonymous history by Ps.-Juansher.
*^M. Lort'k'ip'anidze, Ra aris "k'art'lisc'xovreba?".
J 'F o r a succinct survey, see T. Papuashvili, "Pismennost," in Ocherfd istorii Gruzii, vol. 2, pp. 467-477.
^**Both xuc 'uri scripts are still used by the modem Georgian clergy.
21
asomt'avruli "capital" followed by nusxuri "m iniscules"),^ although frequently we encounter

asomt'avruli employed in nusxuri and mxedruli texts as a way to emphasize a word or phrase, or more
commonly, for titles and headings.
Although Grigolia examined several Vaxtangiseuli MSS, his study is not quite comprehensive
since it neglects the numerous MSS from the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The most glaring
omission from Grigolia's work is a formal stemma o f the transmission o f K'art'lis c'xovreba.
No detailed study o f the MS tradition o f K'art'lis c'xovreba has appeared since the publication of
Grigolia's work. However, a brief yet valuable summation of our knowledge about these MSS was
published by Toumanoff in 1947/*** and a more general survey by M. Lort'k'ip'anidze appeared in
1991/** Although Toumanoff was concerned primarily with the earliest extant Georgian MS. the
Anaseuli (his "Queen Anne") variant, he does offer a stemma o f the m ajor redactions o f K'art'lis
c'xovreba, although without offering comment This stemma, as Toumanoff himself admits, was based
upon that generated earlier by Qauxch'ishvili in 1 9 4 2 .**^
An entire monograph could be devoted to the MS tradition o f K'art 'lis c 'xovreba. A fresh,
original study o f these documents still awaits its historian. Here I shall provide a brief overview o f the
MSS, referring the interested reader to the more detailed analysis in Excursus B.
Essentially, then, there exist two major recensions (groups) o f MSS, those composed before the
eighteenth-century King Vaxtang VI Commission ("pre-Vaxtangiseuli") and those based upon its editorial
alterations ("Vaxtangiseuli"). We shall consider each in turn.
^ T h e only exception is the relatively common use o f a majuscule for the initial letter o f a word which
begins a paragraph or text
^T oum anoff, "The Oldest Manuscript o f the Georgian Annals," pp. 340-344.
**Published as the introduction to Vivian, Georgian Chron., pp. xxvii-xlvii.
^ K 'C Queen Anna = K'art'lis c'xovreba: ana dedop'liseuli nusxa, ed. by S. Qauxch'ishvili,
introduction, p. Ixxxiii. Toumanoffs stemma is more detailed, inserting the main Vaxtangiseuli
redactions as well as their now-lost archetype(s); it was also published in his "Medieval Georgian
Historical Literature," pp. 164-165, footnote 21.
22
Pre-Vaxtangiseuli M SS^
The pre-Vaxtangiseuli recension consists o f four Georgian MSS. the earliest o f which was copied
in the last decade o f the fifteenth century. All o f the pre-Vaxtangiseuli Georgian MSS are defective at the
beginning except for the Mariamiseuli (M) variant o f 1633-1645/1646. M is extremely important since it
forms the basis for the initial history o f K'art'lis c'xovreba, The U fe o f the Kings (other early Georgian
MSS are all defective for it). Ironically, the earliest extant version o f K'art'lis c'xovreba is an Armenian
adaptation which was made originally in the eleventh/twelfth century, and in any case by the thirteenth
(see the English translation by Thomson). There are six main MSS o f the Armenian adaptation, and all
of them are based upon the earliest extant MS (or a close relative o f it) which itself was copied in the
period 1279-1311.
The pre-Vaxtangiseuli MSS o f K'art'lis c'xovreba may be summarized as:
Date copied
1279-1311
1479-1495
16th century
1633-1645/1646
1697
MS
abbr.
Arm/A
A
C
M
Q
MSjiame
M &4 4
Armenian adaptation
Anaseuli
Chalashviliseuli - Old
Mariamiseuli
Mc'xet'ian redaction
KeUnst. MS HQ-795
KeUnst. MS #Q -207
Kek.lnst. MS # S-30
KeUnst. MS #Q-1219
Matenadaran # 1902
M ajor Vaxtangiseuli MSS
As we have seen, only four Georgian MSS o f the pre-Vaxtangiseuli recension are extant, and
only one o f them, the Mariamiseuli (M) variant, is complete. In contrast, well over fifteen complete, or
nearly complete, MSS o f the Vaxtangiseuli survive. It is well beyond the scope o f this study to present a
detailed analysis of the editorial changes effected by the King Vaxtang VI Commission in the early
I have followed the convention o f modem Georgian specialists in listing MSS. When more than one
MS is cited, e.g., A and M and Q. they, are referred to as AMQ. Georgian specialists use Latin characters
as the abbreviations for these MSS.
44Repository conventions used only in this introduction are: M atenadaran = Matenadaran MSS
Repository, Erevan, Armenia; and Ceret'. = House Museum o f Akaki Ceret'eli, Sxvitori, Georgia.
23
eighteenth century (probably 1703-1705), but some o f its characteristic alterations are noted in Excursus
B .45
We possess no evidence that any pre-Vaxtangiseuli MS was completely copied after the work o f
the King Vaxtang VI Commission, although one later MS, the m variant, is entirely dependent upon a
pre-Vaxtangiseuli MS for the histories o f T a m a r and the period that followed. T hat is to say. all extant
MSS that have been dated to the eighteenth century and later are based upon the Vaxtangiseuli recension.
Vaxtangiseuli MSS are characterized by a preamble which occurs in all complete documents o f
that recension. Although there are some minor variations to this preamble, its content is remarkably
consistent The critical text o f Qauxch' ishvili renders the passage as:
O honorable and noble K 'art'velians, from the time that K'art'lis c'xovreba had been in
part corrupted by copyists and, in part as the result o f the revolutions o f the times, it has
been [neglected and has remained] unwritten. But Vaxtang V .4 6 son o f Leon and
nephew o f the renowned Giorgi [XII], has assembled learned m en and collected
whichever [MSS he could find] o f K'art'lis c 'xovreba, as well as charters from
M c'xet'a, from Gelat'i, from numerous churches, and from nobles. And they compared
[them], and that which was corrupted they rectified. And they also found other writings:
they made excerpts from the histories of the Armenians and the Persians: and in this
manner they wrote it down. 4 7
According to Toumanoff, the intellectual labors of the Vaxtang VI Commission rectified

approximately 90% of the errors which had crept into the corpus.4* However, the work of the
commission was not without its faults. Although filling several o f the received textual lacunae, the
4C
The most comprehensive treatment to date o f the commission's editorial work is in K. Grigolia, Axali
k'art'lis c'xovreba, pp. 197-286 (with even later changes discussed, pp. 287-328). Shorter considerations
are to be found in: M. Lort' k' ipanidze. Ra aris "k 'art'lis c xovreba? ". esp. "Vaxtang VI komisiis
sak'm ianoba" pp. 53-66 and 67-81; idem., in Vivian, Georgian Chron., introduction, pp. xxvii-xlvii; S.
Qauxch'ishvili in
esp. "Vaxtangis 'm ec'nier kac't'a mushaoba." introduction, pp. 023-029 and
030-034: and Toumanoff, "Medieval Georgian Historical Literature," pp. 161-166.
46It is striking that Vaxtang is given this ordinaL for modern scholarship has demonstrated that he was
actually the sixth king to bear that name. But Vaxtang VI was the fifth Bagratid king to be named in
honor of the fifth-century K ing Vaxtang I Gorgasali. See also Toumanoff, "Medieval Georgian Historical
Literature," p. 164, footnote 18.
The Life o f the Kings, p. 3, apparatus criticus, U. 1-3. Cf. the trans. o f Toumanoff, "Medieval
Georgian Historical Literature," p. 164. The verb in the final sentence for "writing" is aghcemes: for this
verb see ch. 1. It should be noted that the Georgian text of quoted passages in this study is provided only
when necessary to demonstrate nuances in the Georgian, or in the case o f particularly important accounts.
48Toumanoff "Medieval Georgian Historical Literature," pp. 179-181.
24
commission's insertions were nevertheless artificial and not always accurate. Although the insertion of
regnal and paginal headings, subtitles, marginalia, and indices facilitated the reading o f K'art 'lis
c'xovreba, this standardization also obscured the fact that the corpus was comprised o f a number o f
distinct histories, some composed as early as ca. 800 AD. And it has been suggested that the commission
may have destroyed or lost some early MSS, an d this accusation is not without reason. However, it
remains a fact that the commission did edit K'art'lis c'xovreba, and it is largely because of its work that
Brosset was able to publish a Vaxtangiseuli variation of the corpus in 1849.
Standing on the precipice o f oblivion, Vaxtang Vi's political authority was extremely feeble. In
his time, it was uncertain how much longer the political entity o f Georgia could withstand the mounting
Persian threat. The unmitigated disasters o f the seventeenth an d eighteenth centuries compelled some
Georgian elites to turn inward and to focus upon non-political endeavors, like literature. Thus the early
eighteenth century. like the period ca. 800 before it, emerged as a period of extreme interest in literature
and linguistics in G eorgia.^ Vaxtang VI him self ordered and presided over the editing of not only
K'art'lis c'xovreba but also the twelfth-century epic Knight in the Panther's Skin by S hot'a R ust'aveli . '50
Also during his reign the Dasturlamali, the first officially promulgated law' code in Georgia since the
fourteenth century, was com piled.^ Vaxtang set up the first printing press in Georgia in 1709.^
Meanwhile, Vaxtang's bastard son, Vaxushti (1696-1756) wrote several extensive works, including a
retelling o f K'art 'lis c 'xovreba as well as an outstanding geographical treatise.^ Sulxan-Saba O rbeliani
^ O n the activities o f Vaxtang VI. see: M. Kikodze. Vaxtang 17-is saxelmcip'oebrivi moghvaceoba
(politikur-ekonomikuri dasoc'ialur-kulturuli sak'mianoba) (1988). with Rus. sum.. "Gosudarstvennaia
deiatelnost Vakhtanga VI." pp. 196-202.
^ O n e such MS o f the Vaxtangiseuli recension o f Shot'a Rust'aveli's work is Kek.Inst.SfS # Q-7I4. 94 11
(eighteenth century).
^ *For Vaxtang's law code, see: Code o f I 'axtang 17 = P' urceladze trans.. with Eng. sum., pp. 3 3 1-334:
Corpus Juris Ibero-Caucasici. Karst e d and trans.. vol. 1, parts 1 and 2: and the Rus. trans. of A.S.
Frenkel', Sbomik zakonov gruzinskago tsariia Vakhtanga 17. An unpublished generally accurate, trans. of
much o f this legal corpus was made by O. Wardrop (Oxf.Wardr. # M S.W ardd3). For the fourteenthcentury legal code o f King Giorgi the Brilliant, see: Code o f Giorgi V= P'urc'eladze e d and trans.. For
an Eng. rendering see O. Wardrop, trans. and comm.. "Laws o f King George V. o f Georgia. Sumamed
th e Brilliant," JRAS (1914). pp. 607-626.
57
Înstrumental in the introduction of printing to Georgia was the archbishop of Wallachia. the Georgian
clergyman Anthim the Iberian ( d 1716). Vaxtang himself took a personal interest in the early activities
of this press. See Lang, The Last Years o f the Georgian Monarchy 1658-1832 (1957). pp. 130-136.
^ T h e autograph o f Vaxushtis works is believed to be Cent.HistArchJvfS # f. 1448, no. 103 (copied in
1745); other extant MSS do not predate 1774. Vaxushti's history is cited by many modern scholars
writing on medieval themes. However, his study is not regarded as a principal source here, for his
information on ancient and medieval K 'art'li is fully based upon known sources (i.e., K'C' and Mok'.
k'art'.). For cases of verbatim borrowing, see Qauxch'ishvili in Vaxushti, introduction, esp. "Vaxushti da
25
(1659-1725), the uncle o f Vaxtang, when he was not in Europe attempting to secure French and papal
support for Vaxtang against the Persians, compiled the first lexicon o f the Georgian language - A
Bouquet o f Words - which is still o f great value to m edievalists.^ Sulxan-Saba, who eventually
converted to Catholicism, also left us many other works, including a book o f fables and an unpublished
diary (now defective) o f his travels throughout southern Europe and A natolia.^ The beginnings o f
modem Georgian nationalism, in my opinion, may be traced directly to this period and the intellectual
labors o f Vaxtang VI, Vaxushti. and Sulxan-Saba Orbeliani.^* And it was precisely in this atmosphere
that an intense interest in K 'art 'lis c 'xovreba, itself perceived as a relic o f and testimony to the glorious
past, germinated among the princes and nobles o f Georgia.
The major Vaxtangiseuli redactions o f K'art'lis c'xovreba, which were copied from the first
decade o f the eighteenth century until the 1830s, may be summarized as:
'dzveli k 'art'lis c'xovreba,'" pp. 024-046, with parallel texts from Vaxushti and K'C". The importance of
Vaxushti's reworking o f K'C' is that it was widely copied and that it introduced a great many modem
Georgians to their shared past: essentially, Vaxushti was part o f the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century
movement to nationalize K'C'. In any event, his geographical information is still o f great value to
medievalists. Mik'ayel C h'am ch'ean wrote a corresponding work on Armenia later in the same century.
SeeM . Chamch'ean, Patmut'iwn Havoc'i skzbane minch'ewcam Team 1784, 3 vols. (Venice. 17841786).
^ S .-S . Orbeliani = Sulxan-Saba Orbeliani, Sitqvis kona, 2 vols. (1991 and 1993). A beautifully
illustrated, virtually unknown MS o f this text may be found at Indiana Universitys Lilly Library. W.E.D.
Allen M S #22 (323 ((). It was copied in 1724. For a description, see my "Highlights o f Georgian History
Holdings at Indiana University Bloomington," ASSC 3 (1991), p. 43.
'One such MS of Sulxan-Saba's diary, "Mimoslvay ap rik et'sa. italias, hroms. da q~lsave dasavlet'isa
k'~qnasa" ("Travels to Africa, Italy, Rome, and All the Lands o f the West"), is SPB Or.Inst.MS # E-69.
(NB: T h e m a r k i n g in transcription notes the use of abbreviations in the original text; this convention
will be found throughout this thesis). For a description see Orbeli, Gruzinslae rulcopisi Instituta
vostokovedeniia, pp. 81-82.
5 6 Cf. R. Suny,
The Making o f the Georgian Nation, 2nd ed., pp. 54-55.
26
Date copied
1699-1703/1709
ca. 1700/1705-1724
1719-1744
1731
1736
mid 18th century
1748
1761
1761
18th century
2 nd half 18th century
2 nd h alf 18th century
1822
1833-1834
1839
MS
abbr.
R
T
P
c
m
D
E
P
b
d
s
MS name
MS
Rumianc'eviseuli
Teim uraziseuli
P'alavandishviliseuli Old
Chalashviliseuli New
Mach'abliseuli
Janashviliseuli
Saeklesio muzeumisa
P'alavandishviliseuli New
Barat'ashviliseuli
Dadianiseuli
Sxvitoruli
[Q-383]
[S-5316]
[S-5314]
[M-18]
KeUnst. M S # H-2080
SPB.Or.Inst. M S # M-24
KeUnst. MS if H-9S8
KeUnst. MS # Q-207
KeUnst. M S # H-2135
KeUnst. MS # S-4730
KeUnst. MS # A-131
Kek.Inst. M S # H-988
KeUnst. M S # S-25
KeUnst. M S # S-354
Ceret'.
KeUnst. M S if Q-383
KeUnst. M S if S-5316
KeUnst. M S if S-5314
SPB.Or.Inst. A /S# M-18
Our knowledge of the relationship of the extant MSS o f K'art 'Iis c 'xovreba remains
incomplete.
57
Beyond the division o f the MSS into pre-Vaxtangiseuli and Vaxtangiseuli recensions, only
one other grouping has been firmly established. It seems certain that the Mariamiseuli. the Me' xetian,
and the Mach'abliseuli variants (MQm) consist o f a group that was produced from a common, but lost,
exemplar. The MQm group is called the "M c'xet'ian recension" in Georgian scholarly literature. It is
widely held that MQm itself shared a prototype with C, and thus, if we descend another generation.
CMQm may in fact constitute a group. Yet even the existence o f this recension must be treated with
extreme caution, for although studies o f individual texts suggest the validity o f this grouping,^ we shall
be able to identify conclusively this recension only after the MQm MSS o f all the component histories
have been compared.
Determining the relationship o f MSS within the Vaxtangiseuli recension is considerably more
tenuous. The following stemma summarizes the present state o f scholarship and should be considered
Surprisingly few attempts have been made to construct formal stemmae for the MSS of K'art lis
c'xovreba. I am aware o f only four previous attempts, none o f them particularly detailed: K'C'-Queen
Anna Redaction = S. Qauxch'ishvili ed., introduction, p. lxxxiii (for ACMm only); Toumanoff
"Medieval Georgian Historical Literature," pp. 164-165, footnote 21; idem., "The Oldest Manuscript of
the Georgian Annals," pp. 343-344; and M. Shanidze in The Ufe o f Davit', introduction, p. 144 (for
ACQMm only). Regrettably, K. Grigola did not generate a stemma in his Axali k'art'lis c 'xovreba.
CO
E.g., MQm definitely constitutes a recension with respect to the biography o f King Davit' IL See M.
Shanidze in The U fe o f Davit', introduction, esp. pp. 52-156.
tentative at best All MSS designated by Greek letters (prototypes) and the characters x a n d y (important
redactions signifying a group) are assumed to have existed and are not extant: each of these symbols likely
represents multiple MSS.
Stemma of Pre-Vaxtangiseuli MSS
Georgian Prototype
Pre-Bagratid Sources, 8th-9th cents.
Georgian Prototype
Pre-Bagratid and Bagratid Sources,
I lth-12th cents.
7
12th-13th cents.
Armenian adaptation
Arm/A
1279-1311
x2
yi
16th cent.
1633-1645/6
1697
m
1736
29
It is not altogether clear precisely where the Armenian redaction o f K'art'lis c'xovreba should be situated
within this stemma, since we neither know when it was originally copied nor do we possess any early
Georgian MSS o f the corpus.
The two earliest extant MSS of the Vaxtangiseuli recension are R and T. and both exhibit
characteristics o f editorial changes. But most subsequent MSS were not based directly upon RT. Could
there have been a (now lost) Vaxtangiseuli prototype? It is likely that DEPRTcm were all copied from a
common exemplar. After the mid eighteenth century the MSS are extremely dependent upon the earlier
Vaxtangiseuli documents. But all of these are hypothetical statements at b est and the matter will not be
resolved until specialized work is attempted. From Brosset's own admission, we know that his MS (B)
was based upon the P'alavandishviliseuli codex (P/p).
30
Stemma of Vaxtangiseuli MSS
Sources
?Vaxtangiseuli
Prototype (ca. 1703-ca. 1705)
16991703/9
l
ca. 1700/51724
1719-1744
and 1761
1731
1736
mid 18th cent

1748
B
1839
O f the remaining MSS, bds and Q-383 are directly dependent upon earlier Vaxtangiseuli
redactions (with any possible Vaxtangiseuli prototype having been lost or rendered unavailable), although
the precise relationship has yet to be determined. However, S-5316 (copied in 1822) and S-5314 (18331834) are related and constitute a group. In fact, S-5314 was copied directly from S-5316. and both
include colophons which relate that the MSS were made in the Russian city o f Riazan', just south of
Moscow. We may refer to S-5316 and S-5314 collectively as the Riazan' recension.
Now that the major MSS of K'art'lis c'xovreba as well as the constituent histories of that corpus
have been enumerated, we may plot the contents o f the respective MSS in tabular form. All o f the pre-
31
Vaxtangiseuli MSS are listed, as well as the major Vaxtangiseuli variants, i.e., RTm. The Vaxtangiseuli
portion (c) o f the Chalasbviliseuli codex (C/c) is provided for comparison to its older component C: C/c is
bracketed below since they comprise a single, but hybrid, MS. The final column, V, represents the
remainder o f the Vaxtangiseuli MSS. The histories constituting the two corpora o f C'xorebav k'art'velt'a
mep'et'a and C'xorebav vaxtanggorgaslisa are also grouped together.
32
VAXTANGISEULI
PRE-VAXTANGISEUU
II
A nn/
A
ii=Cx k a rt.
- -
- -
mep et a =
Life o f the Kings
Life o f Nino
Life Succ. Mirian
- i
[C
I*
cj
!f=C'jc. vaxtang gorg.=

life o f Vaxtang
Ps.-Juansher
Mart. Arch 'il
Sumbat Davitis-dze
Chron. K'art'li
Life o f Davit'
Hist, and Eul.
life o f Tamar
Hist. Five Reigns
Chron. Hund. Years
KEY = = = = =
Included
Excluded
><
k
Defective
*
+
X.
*
*
t
t

*
*
Excerpts inserted into Chron. K'artii

T includes more extensive inserts in Chron. K'art 'li than other
MSS o f the Vaxtangiseuli recension
Edited version o f Hist, and Eul. with excerpts from The life o f Tamar
inserted
Excerpts used in a Vaxtangiseuli History o f Demetre and Davit' III
Both the pre-Vaxtangiseuli and Vaxtangiseuli recensions incorporate the same texts which
describe pre-Bagratid K a r t l i , that is. the corpora C 'xorebay k 'art 'velt 'a mep et a and C 'xorebay vaxtang
gorgasiisa as well as The Martyrdom o f Arch 'il. The Vaxtangiseuli recension injected no new medieval
texts, and, because of the editorial changes effected by the Vaxtang VI Commission, the pre-Vaxtangiseuli
variants o f the texts are almost certainly closer to their pristine form. It is for this reason that preVaxtangiseuli MSS are usually afforded priority over the later recension in this study. Yet modem
scholars first became aware o f K'art 'lis c 'xovreba only through the later redaction (viz. Brosset).
33
Non-Historical Georgian Texts and Non-Textual Evidence
Since the focus o f this thesis is historical, hagiography, other "secular" works, and non-textual
evidence (including archaeological, epigraphic. numismatic, and artistic evidence) is examined only in
special circumstances.
Georgian hagiographical works are of some relevance, since a few texts survive for the preBagratid period. However, it should be said that these texts are now extant only in MSS copied during the
Bagratid era, and thus their original forms have almost certainly been altered. The earliest extant work of
Georgian literature is The Martyrdom ofShushanifd. It was written as early as the late fifth century and is
attributed to the priest lakob C'urtaveli (lit. "of C'urtavi"). The next earliest dated work is The
Martyrdom o f Evstat'i, written in the sixth century. Both o f these texts survive only in MSS from the
eleventh century and later. The Martyrdom o f the Children o f Kola survives in a tenth-century MS and
may have originally been composed as early as the fifth/sixth century. Perhaps the most famous vita from
the period o f M uslim domination (especially from the second-half o f the seventh century until the
establishment o f Bagratid power) is Ioane Sabinis-dze's Martyrdom ofHabo (NB: Habo is often rendered
as Abo). It was written in the late eighth century, just prior to The life o f the Kings and the corpus
C xorebay vaxtang gorgaslisa. O f the hagiographical texts mentioned in this section, it is noteworthy that
Shushaniki (Armenian), Evstat'i (Persian), and Habo (from Baghdad) were all Christian nonK'art'velians. Only the children martyred by their "pagan" parents in The Martyrdom o f the Children o f
Kola seem to have been K'art'velians. This circumstance clearly demonstrates the absence o f nationalism
in the pre-m odem period.
The first great work of hagiography of the Bagratid period is Giorgi Merch'ules Works o f Grigol
Xandzt'eli. M erch'ule wrote this tract in 951, nearly a century after the death of Grigol Xandzt'eli (lit. "of
Xandzt' a " ) . ^ After the establishment of the Iveron monastery on M l Athos in Greece in the late tenth
century, several K'art'velian/Georgian monks took up residence there. Outstanding among the important
original hagiographical works o f these monks are Grigol Mt'acmi[n)deli's Life oflovane and Ep't'wme
(composed ca. 1044) and Giorgi M e'ire's Life o f Giorgi Mt'acmideli (ca. 1070).
We should mention here the polemical work o f Arsen Sap'areli O il "of Sap'ara"). He composed
a text devoted to the ecclesiastical schism between the K 'art'velians and Armenians which was formalized
by the third Armenian Church council held at Dwin in 607/608. Ironically, his Schism o f the
^ S e e esp. the lengthy study o f P. Ingoroqva, Giorgi merch'ule: k'art'uli mcerali meat'e saukunisa
(1954).
34
K'art'velians and the Armenians exploited Armenian texts, turning them on their heads, so as to
demonstrate that the Georgians were not at fault as the Armenians had claimed from the start.
Secular literature was a relatively late development and appeared only under the Bagratids. The
most famous work is the thirteenth-century Knight in the Panther's Skin (Vep xistqaosani) o f Shot a
Rust'aveli. Another contemporary secular work pertinent to this study is the Amiran-darejaniani
attributed to Mose Xoneli.
Royal charters and coinage, as well as lexicons, dictionaries, and grammars are specifically
examined when they prove relevant in the course o f this work.
Note on Armenian Sources
This study focuses upon the self-identity o f the medieval K 'art'velians and especially their
understanding o f their own p a s t Therefore, Georgian sources are emphasized. However, no study of
ancient and medieval K 'art'li/G eorgia is possible without taking into consideration neighboring Armenia.
The works of several exceptional modem historians, like the monumental study o f N. Adonc' on the
Justinianic reform o f Armenia, are somewhat flawed because they have addressed one community in
isolation from the other. More recently, N.G. Garsoian's excellent work on the Persian context of early
Armenian society would have been further strengthened had it contained even a cursory examination of
the K'art'velian experience. The genius of ToumanofFs magnum opus was that it treated Armenia and
K artli/Georgia, in several respects, as a single social unit. To be sure, each community was distinct
(language is an obvious example), but Toumanoff understood that the modem notions o f borders and
nationalism had no place in the ancient and medieval environment.
Because I have limited the scope of my study to the self-identity o f the K'art'velian/Georgian
community, the Armenians have been afforded less attention than they probably deserve. However, I
recognize the importance of Armenian historical writing, and Armenian evidence is employed whenever
relevant Because Armenian historical literature emerged in the fifth century, almost three centuries
before that of the K'art'velians, Armenian sources help illuminate the early history o f the neighboring
K'art'velians. Therefore, a sketch o f the relevant Armenian texts is appropriate.
The fifth century was the first great period o f literary activity among the Armenians. To this
time belongs several noteworthy historians. The conversion of the Armenian king T 'rdat (Arm. Trdat,
Gk. Tiridates) is described by A gat'angeghos (Agathangelos), whose suspect name is Greek for the
"Bearer of Good News." The original history of Agat'angeghos was written in Armenian but is now lost;
scholars have detected four extant recensions of Agat'angeghos 1 text, in Armenian and other languages.
The "A" group comprises the now extant Armenian text (Aa, fifth century or later, translated into English
by R.W. Thomson (1976]), and medieval translations in Arabic (Aar), Greek (Ag), and Georgian (aFg,
fragment). The Georgian fragment is extremely short and relates part o f the martyrdom o f the holy
35
woman Ripsime/Rhip" sim e .^ The "V" recension is not extant in Armenian, but includes an Arabic
rendition (Va) published and translated by Marr (1904) and a Greek rendition (Vg). The other two
groups are later versions and abridgments of "A" and " V with texts in Georgian. Syriac. Karshunt.
Arabic, Ethiopian, Greek, and Latin. The various redactions o f Agat'angeghos (known collectively as the
G rigorian Cycle, for Gregory the Illuminator) were most recently described by Thomson (in the
introduction to his translation) and G. Winkler (1 9 8 0 ).^

To the fifth century also belong other important Armenian histories. The Epic Histories, a text
formerly attributed to a certain P'awstos Buzandac'i, relates the early history o f Christian Armenia. Its
author has little to say about K 'art' li. It was translated into English, with outstanding appendices and
detailed commentary, by Garsofen (1989). The same is true for Eghishe (Elishe; English translation by
Thomson [1982]) whose tract focuses upon the disastrous Armenian uprising o f 451 which ended in the
defeat of Vardan Mamikonean at the Battle of Avarayr. G h azar P 'a rp e c 'i (Lazar P'arpec'i) is the most
relevant Armenian text o f this era for us, for he touches often upon K 'a rt'li and provides the only
contemporary Caucasian evidence for the renowned K 'art'velian king Vaxtang. Thomson translated this
source in 1991. The hagiographer-historian Koriwn wrote a biography o f his master Mashtoc' (later
called Mesrop). According the Armenian tradition. Mashtoc' devised the Armenian script. Significantly,
his biographer also claimed that he had fashioned alphabets for the K 'art'velians and Caucasian
Albanians as well. There is no scholarly English rendition o f this text.
From the period of Islamic domination and the rise of the K 'art'velian Bagratids the history
attributed to Sebeos is important This text is often referred to as The History o f Heraclius. since much of
it is concerned with the Byzantine emperor Heraclius' invasion of the N ear East. A translation has been
published privately by R. Bedrosian (1985), but a scholarly rendition by' Thomson is forthcoming. In the
same era Ananias Shirakec'i (Shirakac'i) composed an important geography, which is particularly useful
for Caucasia and Sasanid Iran. R.H. Hewsen published both the long and the short recensions o f that text
along with massive commentary, in 1992. The eighth-century history o f Ghewond (Levond) was put into
English by Z. Arzoumanian (1982).
Perhaps the most famous medieval Armenian history was composed by Movses X orenac'i
(Moses Khorenats'i, Moses of Chorene). Although Xorenac'i himself claims to have written in the fifth
century, modem scholarship (recently that of Toumanoff, Thomson, etc.) has successfully demonstrated
that he could have written no earlier than the late seventh century and perhaps as late as the ninth century.
CambrMS # Georgian MS.5 = MS. Add. 1890.3. For the text and an Eng. rendering o f this fragment,
see R.P. Blake, "Catalogue of the Georgian Manuscripts in the Cambridge University Library," HTR 25/3
(Jul. 1932), pp. 216-221. Blake believes that it was written in Jerusalem in the eleventh century.
^ G . Winkler, "Our Present Knowledge o f the History o f Agat'angeghos and its Oriental Versions,"
REArm, n.s. 14 (1980), pp. 125-141.
36
Still, many specialists in Armenia continue to place him in the fifth century. Xorenac'i says little about
Kartli directly. However, his text is the first attempt to sum up Armenian history since antiquit}', and in
that regard we shall compare it to the parallel Georgian attempt o f The Life o f the Kings. Moreover.
Xorenac'i was a supporter of the Armenian Bagratids (Bagratuni-s) and his theories on their provenance
was known to the K'art'velian/Georgian branch o f that clan. Xorenac'i relied upon many sources, both
oral and written. One o f his sources for early Armenia was the so-called Primary History o f Armenia,
perhaps written in the seventh century. These texts were translated together by Thomson (1978).
The tenth century was also a period o f historiographic efflorescence among Armenian scholars.
Yovhannes D rasxanakertc'i, or John the Cathoiicus, wrote a history o f Armenia down to his own time,
drawing upon Xorenac' i (as had become customary). Drasxanakertc' i spent some time at the court o f a
K 'art'velian Bagratid prince. His history was translated by K. M aksoudian(1980). The History o f the
House o f Arc'runik' was composed by T'om va A rc 'ru n i (Artsruni) and was brought down to the twelfth
century by an anonymous continuator, it was translated by Thomson in 1985. Like mam contemporary
Armenian historical works, his history was written for a particular noble house and not for the Crown (the
opposite was true in K'art'li/Georgia). Other sources from this period include that attributed to The
Anonymous Story Teller (sometimes referred to as Ps.-Shapuh Bagratuni. translated by Thomson in
1988-1989) and the anti-K'art'velian polemical work by the bishop Uxtanes. The earlier Book o f Letters
(Girk' t'ght'oc', fifth-century and later) was a principal source for Uxtanes. Uxtanes' history was rendered
into English by Arzoumanian (1985 and 1988). The History ofTaron has been redated by L. Avdovan
(who translated the text in 1993) to the second-half o f the tenth century: Avdovan reattributed it to Ps.Yovhannes M amikonean.
A history o f the Caucasian Albanians was written by Movses Dasxuranc'i (sometimes called
Movses Kaghankatuac' i) and continuators in the course of the tenth through thirteenth centuries. It
provides important evidence for the legendary foundation of the Albanian community and was translated
by C.J.F. Dowsett (1961). In the eleventh century we possess histories by Aristakes Lastivertc'i
(translated into Russian by K.N. Iuzbashian [1968]) and Asoghik (Asolik. also Step'anos ofTaron:
translated into French by E. Dulaurier [1883]).
The history o f M atthew o f Edessa is an important source for the consolidation of Bagratid power
in K 'art'li and the establishment o f a unified Georgian realm in the eleventh century. It was composed in
the twelfth century and translated by A E . Dostourian in 1993. Following the translation and adaptation
o f the Georgian historical corpus of K'art'lis c'xovreba into Armenian in the twelfth/thirteenth century,
several Armenian historians made use of it. V ardan Arewelc'i's Historical Compilation of the thirteenth
century was translated by Thomson in 1989. The contemporary history o f M x it'a r Ay rivanec'i was
translated into Russian by K Patkanov in 1869. The thirteenth-century Step'annos O rbelean, however,
knew Georgian and seems to have read K'art'lis c'xovreba in its original; M.-F. Brosset published this
history in 1864-1866. Finally, Kirakos G andzakec'i, also of the thirteenth century, touches upon the
37
reign o f the Georgian queen T amar. Gandzakec'i's history was translated into Russian by L.A.
Khanlarian in 1976.
It should be emphasized that Armenian texts, unlike their Georgian counterparts, are customarily
used here in their English translations (when available). W hen a particular point must be made, o r when
I am at odds with the published translation, the original Classical Armenian is cited. Armenian editions
used in this study are enumerated in the bibliography.
38
NOTE ON TRANSLITERATION
A number o f languages employing non-Latin scripts are pertinent to this study, especially Georgian.
Armenian, Russian, and Greek. Each o f these languages has some characters which do not have any
single equivalent in English. No universally accepted systems o f transliteration exists for these languages:
here, scholarly-based systems (i.e., those that closely correspond to the original) are applied, although in
some instances single Georgian, Armenian, an d Russian characters are rendered with two Latin
characters (e.g., "sh" and "ch") in order to avoid excessive diacritical markings. The Georgian and
Russian systems in my study are based upon those o f the Library o f Congress. The Armenian system used
here is a modified version o f that used in Revue des etudes armeniennes. Greek phrases and names are
usually rendered directly from Greek. However, some names and titles are known in scholarly literature
by their Latin equivalents which are given precedence here so as to limit confusion (e.g.. Procopius and
not Prokopios; Heraclius for Herakleios). Persian and Arabic words are usually transliterated according to
The Encyclopedia o f Islam.

It should be noted that three scripts exist for Georgian. Because o f technological limitations, only the
most recent (and still used) script, mxedruli, is employed in this study. It should be noted that all three
Georgian scripts have characters which directly correspond to one another. Moreover, no Georgian script
employs both majuscule and miniscule letters. Thus, I have chosen to capitalize only the first letter o f the
initial word in titles and transliterated passages.
Proper names within the main text are capitalized according to English rules. They have usually been
transliterated from a given author's native language. Thus the name of the Georgian author of the famous
book K'art 'veli eris istoria is rendered from the Georgian as (Ivane) Javaxishvili although in Russian we
find the variants Dzhavakhishvili and the Russianized Dzhavakhov. Such variations are noted in the
bibliography. In the main text, historical personae are usually referred to in their native tongue:
accordingly. Iovane/Ioane corresponds to die English John, Davit' to David, and Petre to Peter (but note
"Peter the Iberian," and not Petre the K'art'velian, since this is the form commonly used in scholarly
literature).
Old Georgian nouns, including proper ones, term inated in either -/ or -v. With respect to proper nouns,
the -/ and -y are often dropped (e.g., Davit' and not Davit' i: Bagrat and not Bagrati), although in some
cases they are retained for euphony.
It should also be noted that an orthographic change was instituted for Georgian in the first third of the
twentieth century. This accounts for certain discrepancies. Thus: old form Tp'ilisi (used here for all pretwendeth-centuiy contexts) is equivalent to the new form T bilisi; K 'u t'a t'isi-K 'u t'aisi: Sak'art'uelo
Sak'art'velo (the latter form is preferred here). The medieval forms are preferred in this study, although
the modem ones are used when referring to the m odem city/site.
39
GEORGIAN
6
b
b
b
8
G
d
3
e
01
k'
gh
00
t'
3
k
25
I
3
zh
6
T
b
s
d
I
3
w
o
u
3
P
(3
c
d
dz
ch
b
X
q'
sh
ch'
Pp
b
bb
2q
z
tt
e
Co
e
Ois
t'
d-d
zh
Hi
i
U
i
Iq
gh
ch
LTtf
m
U
n
fin
2A
j
6j
sh
Oi
%)
P
3?
fki
r
Sifi
t
Pp
Uu
s
44
ch'
5g
c'
hi
w
Oift
p'
Pp
k
Oo
to
(\ m
u
mi
[ev]
33
z
Hr
i
ftn
i
Kk
k
dxj)
f
Xx
kh
Uu
ts
ARMENIAN
Uuj
a
IMu
RUSSIAN
Aa
a
56
b
Bb
V
Tr
g
Aa
d
Ee
e
Ee
e
TK x
JIji
Mm
m
Hh
n
Oo
0
nn
P
Pp
r
Cc
s
Tt
t
yy
Hh
ch
Him
sh
mm
shch
blbl
V
bb
39
e
K) k >
iu
Aa
ia
"b-b
N
zh
40
GREEK
Aa B/3
b
a
Nr
ks
n
Ty
g
Oo
o
AS
d
nr
P
E
e
Pp
r
zr
z
Sag
s
Hi,
e
Tr
t
60
th
Yu
y
u
i
f
Kx
k
Xx
ch
AX
1
ps
[u]
m
Qco
0
r A C A N 1 K FJT I 2
A V
. ' \
a p ' x a ^ e t :
tCWlNTA'N
ANAJCOPIA
**
'i '' '
A r'S ir.K T l t )
ctxumi
, - '''rh.
( SCYTHI A)
M A G U G E T ' \y'>
. <r \ y ~ r - / ^
,
J / (
(Qudaqvi
,T 'A k uR<fJ
S I
o il V a O f t M l ' i
Cqondttt
*}
'
7lM P .R IiT 'l
LT.' i
' v ,/'
' .
f* |
.A'1
/
;
AKSIANI A l l s ' *
L I
fo *
%
'
(;-cll
'S P.M , ' J
' - .
^ V) 1
f
mnmJm (
...
/.
\SA K O fiT')'
m o v aR an i
' .
xoiv(n t w
r r . ,> '* '
J
.
a i iri^ -
/ ),
V/
n d i
E i j '/ f
^ ----- V
l * ~ V - <.
j sp
.-' v ......
^ ' E K
KAMnutoA1!^
flAROABA'Ni; M,
TMOQvi *
^KARI
n
lagodvtii
SI
DMANISI
KARfJU-K'ALAK'l
5
M ----------- J3
Anu,
tS3jiTba" -
91
U S E T I* >
hqatla
U
1
0w ; u
KOLA
r \ o
N*'"
KL ARI it I . An IA(HA)NI
il r
y-vAIIOlVI f
l^*1 P o n a s ^ r l l
R.r .
^ 'v A x
/an 1 p
Mlkyan
r-P** *
jfcAnTANUjt,
4Aimsi
'
1 'Oarffl /Oat Man! P a i s

( I
'*'
/ J
D ID O ^TI
'A
x E n rwisita
is ii'" "<it*
a
11 Tboi'i
Tboi'i xtnrw
[>m
CUHtwJ AWKAlAKl]
. -.ruxAiust
/
- |Bn
jam n aiim o.t
.
a
oi/njbKeri
' ' A(
\ -
'Tfw J y
rR i r -^v-------
siym i
X 7
i
\< |aeA n
lfYi.iA
. A
1
X I } j / V )
iB A R b A V l'.,
)
V ..... , ,... '
/ /
- X>
, ------------------' 4 = e ? 2 ! i 4 ja d N L l- ___ -___________ J _______ .____ ______________________ ,o
1----------------- - 1 ^
. ^________ >t i*________________
M E D IE V A L K -A R T 'L I A N D ITS N EIGHBORS

E xtracted from R. W. T hom son. R ew riting C aucasian H istory. Used w ilh Ihc perm ission o f R.H. Hcwscn.
nobtnn l l n n n
.fA C A N IK O /T I
fryoffsnr'i
um\
Ftvtiru
%u
*JSA
r< j/
'V
4 'r \y -
/if*'
) 'I
//lintI I %
,.| .
MAGUQH1
(T - ~
* \
| l rvkf n '
Z G UA
MUMMlI itVitlII
* *. *
*****
* '''
*T /
KVASTE
tU- I
/\*
( B Y
I) A0 it l! V A N t> I
1/
(<\
''
/*
,1AR0IVI
' ' X ./A

RffA tJAG ANi
/ ,7
AST.AÎ ,
VYKIA)
.1
S t l W M . D M N ,
K I
I M T i S O I 1()l
tt H Ito w ttn
<J
C A U C A S IA ACC O RD IN G T O A' \ W H J S ("X O IR E /1 1

E M raclcd from R \V. Thom son, R ew riting C aucasian H istory. U sed w ith the perm ission o f R.H. H cn scn
4*
N>
EGR1SI
BLACK
UEMO
PONTUS
t
j(
K 'A RT'LI A N D ITS N E IG H B O R S

lst-4th Centuries
HHftMHH- A p p ro x im ate fro n tier b etw een
K a rt'li an d E grisi/C olchis

4-
Ul
44
PART ONE
THE PRE-BAGRATID PERIOD
46
Chapter One
Forging the Pre-Bagratid Historical Tradition1
/. THE DAWN OF GEORGIAN HISTORICAL WRITING

For the first millennium or so o f its existence, the K 'art'velian community ~ or really,
communities lacked its own alphabet and its own written historical traditions. Although the protoK 'art'velians, like the Meschoi/Mesxi-s, evolved from ancient Anatolian, Mesopotamian, and Caucasian
civilizations which themselves left behind a fragmentary written record, the earliest K'art'velians. for
whatever reason, did not develop their own alphabet nor did they write their language in existing ones.
The ancient K 'art'velians would seem to have transmitted their historical traditions orally. Accordingly,
for this shadowy period we must rely strongly upon the evidence unearthed and interpreted by
archaeologists.
The development o f a script, however, does not necessarily indicate the existence of historical
writing. In the case o f the K 'art'velians, hundreds o f years elapsed from the time that their alphabet was
invented until the production o f historiography. When a written Georgian historical tradition was finally
realized, the remote past was compressed since it was faintly remembered, if at all. A noteworthy feature
o f this compression is the enhancement o f the semi-mythical first K 'art'velian king, P'amavaz, so that he
became attributed with pouring the foundation o f subsequent K 'art'velian society', including the fraudulent
claim that he had invented the Georgian script But modem scholars have firmly established that a
specifically Georgian script was formulated, and deliberately so, only in conjunction with the
Christianization o f K 'a rt'li in the fourth century'. The impulse o f contemporary Christians to transmit
their texts (which, from the first century AO, had formed the basis o f their religion) to the newly
converted peoples o f Caucasia stimulated the invention of alphabetic systems not only for the
^"Forging" here is intended in the sense of production, although, as we shall see, much o f early
K 'art'velian history was interpolated by later writers and the sense o f making something false is also
applicable in certain instances. This chapter is, in some respects, awkward, for some of my hypotheses
are necessarily circular. As will become apparent, the redating o f several historical texts to the preBagratid period is paramount for the arguments that follow. This chapter seeks to present ample
information so as to validate my attempt at redating. Several o f the themes touched upon here will be
expanded later.
47
K'art'velians, but for their Armenian and Caucasian Albanian neighbors as well. By the early fifth
century a relatively standardized form o f the Georgian script existed. Its acceptance and currency among
contemporary K'art'velian clerics is attested not only by stone inscriptions (like those a t the Bolnisi
cathedral in southern K 'art'li and at Bir-al-Qutt in Palestine) but also by the earliest extant work of
Georgian literature, the hagiographic Martyrdom ofShushaniki by the priest Iakob C 'urtaveli .3
Hagiography was the earliest genre of original literature developed by. or perhaps for. the
K'art'velians. But its appearance did not imply the existence, or inevitable later development of
historical writing. In fact the historical genre was not developed until the seventh/eighth century. This
sharply contrasts with the experience o f Armenia, to which ancient and medieval K 'art' li was intimately
connected .3 The anonymous author o f The Epic Histories
Agatangeghos, Eghishe, an d the
hagiographer-historian Koriwn were all swept up in the literary cascade o f the fifth century. So great was
the legacy o f this period that the eighth-century Armenian historian Movses Xorenac'i (Moses of
Chorene) tendentiously claimed that he had lived in this literary g ra n d siecle? The frantic activity of
early Christian Armenian historians apparently had no parallel among the K'art'velians. This peculiar
circumstance may partly be explained by the fact that the clerics and prelates o f the early K'art'velian
Church - the learned circle o f the realm were primarily Greeks. Armenians, and Syrians, and
sometimes even Christian Persians.** These non-K'art'velians dedicated themselves fully to the
advancement o f the new religion and did not concentrate their precious energies and resources upon the
development o f a written Georgian historical tradition. The literary' focus o f the early Church in K 'art'li
was the translation of the Bible and related patristic, exegetical. hagiographical. and liturgical texts.
Historical writing had no early Kart'velian adherents and was simply not regarded as a priority during
the first two hundred years or so o f Christian K 'art' li.
It should be emphasized that the earliest extant MS containing this text was copied only in the eleventh
century; the original is lost.
3 Thomson, "The Writing of History: The Development o f the Armenian and Georgian Traditions." pp.
493-520.
^Garsoian in The Epic Histories, introduction, pp. 11-16. Garsolan has convincingly demonstrated that
the source should no longer be attributed to P'awstos Buzand. Rather, the Buzandaran Patmut'iwnk' is
the work of an anonymous author.
Âlthough many modem specialists now believe X orenac'i was a seventh-/eighth-century figure, many
specialists in Armenia still cling to the notion that he lived in the fifth century.
**But the Armenian Church also had significant numbers o f Greeks and Syrians within its ranks. But,
from the evidence o f extant histories, it would seem that the Armenians were more successful in
participating in their early Church than were their neighbors to the north.
48
The birth and efflorescence o f Georgian historical writing was made immediately possible by the
events o f the sixth century. Already at the end o f the fifth century, the Church in K 'art'li secured for itself
the higher rank o f kat'alikos (KA0OAIKOE, Latin catholicus) for its prelate, a reward for its intermittent
support o f Byzantium. The imperial recognition o f the importance of K 'a rt'li and its Church, and the
promotion of its prelate to a more esteemed status, gradually evolved into the Eastern Church's
recognition of defacto K 'art'velian ecclesiastical autocephaly (i.e., independence in local administrative
affairs). Yet, for the time being, the K 'art'velians did not control their own Church, for its hierarchs, as
they had been from the start, remained non-K'art'velians. Even the earliest kat'alikos-es were not native
K'art'velians. For example, the first, Petre, had been a resident of Pontus. Only during the sixth century
did the K'art'velians seize their Church for themselves (from which time we may speak o f a K'art 'velian
Church and not simply a Church in K 'art'li), and from this time we may surmise that an interest in
translating and in composing original Georgian texts was fostered. Simultaneously, the emboldened
K 'art'velian Church also liberated itself from Armenian domination; this was manifest in the K'art'velian
kat'alikos Kwrions refusal to accept Armenian Christology (which seems to have been a form o f
Monophysitism). As a result of the events surrounding the Third Council of Dwin (607/608). the
K 'art'velian and Armenian Churches officially separated from one another, with the K 'art'velians
eventually coming out in favor of the pronouncements o f the Fourth Ecumenical Council held at
Chalcedon back in 451.7 It would be an exaggeration to suggest that by this action the K 'art'velian
Church had thrown itself fully into the arm s o f Byzantium by accepting the imperial creed However, this
episode is emblematic o f a period of augmented Byzantine influence in K 'art'li. Although dogmatic
differences between the K'art'velians and the Armenians did exist, and real feelings about theology were
involved the schism ultimately represents the K 'art'velians aspiration to diminish Armenian influence
over their own ecclesiastical organization, as well as the desire of the K 'art'velian ruler Step'anoz 1 (ca.
590-627) to liberate K 'a rt'li from excessive external interference by balancing those which existed
Kwrion was stimulated by a complex web of considerations which is not altogether understood
even today, but a significant consequence was the realized potential of the K'art'velians to propagate, a n d
more importantly, to formulate, a distinct tradition for both their Church and community.** Moreover,
from the sixth century (by ca. 580), K 'art'velian royal authority was abolished by the Persian Great K ing
the shahanshah. As K 'a rt'lis earliest historians sifted through received traditions, they determined that
Kart'velian kingship, now unjustly interrupted could be plausibly traced to the Hellenistic period From
7For more on Dwin HI, see chs. 5-6.

**The dramatis personae o f the extant Georgian hagiographical sources which were composed before the
Third Council of Dwin are not K'art'velians. Thus, the martyrs Shushaniki and Evstat' i were Armenian
and Persian Christians respectively.
49
the start, Georgian historical writing was a mouthpiece for pro-monarchy supporters, and the
commemoration o f earlier K' art'velian kings originally served as a rallying cry for the re-establishment of
indigenous royal authority.
U. THE CORPUS OF MOK'C'EVA Y K A R T LISA Y
The Original Core
In the aftermath o f the Christologicai break with the Armenians, K' art'velian clerics, who were
the earliest native writers, set out to articulate in writing the story of the conversion of their community to
Christianity.^ Georgian historiography was initially an offshoot of hagiography, and it is far from
surprising that these cleric-historians chose to commence K 'art'velian history with the triumph o f the
faith of Christ in their land. An existing tradition o f the conversion of K 'a rt'li had already written down
in Latin by Rufinus in the late fourth century and recapitulated in the works o f the ecclesiastical historians
Gelasius. Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret. Rufinus' account may actually have served as the basis of
the written Nino Cycle that emerged in a written Georgian form only after the break with Armenia.
It
should be noted that the activities o f Nino and the events surrounding the Christianization o f the
K 'art'velian monarchy are not related in the vitae of Shushaniki and Evstat'i, the earliest extant
monuments o f Georgian literature. This may be an indication that the Nino tale was not then current
among the K 'art'velians, or that it was suppressed by the Armenians, or even that it was not deemed
accurate. Admittedly, the silence may merely represent the fact that Nino had nothing to do directly with
either Shushaniki or Evstat'i.
It was only in the seventh/eighth century that the oral traditions, if any, of the conversion of
K' art" li were transposed onto parchment as The Conversion o f K'art 'li (.Mok'c 'evay k 'art 'lisay. 3 0 1 ^ 0 3 360
îfim cjolw a). * * This brief text is the earliest extant Georgian account o f the activities o f Nino and is
9For a categorization o f written medieval Georgian sources, see G. Alasania, Klassifikatsiia gruzinskikh
pis'mennykh istoricheskikh istochnikov (1986), with summary-chart, pp. 197-198.
lT he "Nino Cycle" refers to those Georgian literary sources which relate the activities o f the holy woman
Nino. For a more detailed discussion, see ch. 4.
**The Georgian title o f this work isM ok'c'evay k'art'lisay, but I use this Georgian form to refer to the
corpus o f which Conv. K'art 'li proper is only a single text (see infra). On The Conversion o f K'art 'li, see,
e.g.: ToumanofF, "Medieval Georgian Historical Literature," pp. 149-153; Tarchnishvili, "Sources
armeno-georgiennes de rhistoire ancienne de leglise de Georgie," LeM 60/1-2 (1947), pp. 29-37; E.
Abashidze, "K'art 'lis c 'xovrebis" carmok'mnisa da ganvit arebis sakit xebi; L. Pataridze, C'xovrebay
cmidisa ninoysi (k'art'lisgak'ristianebis kulturul-istoriuli saldt'xebi) (1993); and S. Kakabadze,
50
intertwined w ith historical data about Mihran/Mirian III (284-361), the first local Christian king. It is
best characterized as an amalgamation o f historical and hagiographical traditions .12 The anonymous
author of The Conversion o f K'art'li almost certainly regarded his work in just those terms: as a
hagiographical account of the saintly Nino and, at the same time, as a historical narrative o f the early
Christian kingdom. Since subsequent Georgian historical works emphasize K 'art'velian kings and their
authority, I consider The Conversion o f K'art'li to be a historical work (at least in part) because it is
concerned with the conversion o f the dynast As such, this text is the earliest extant Georgian history.
The preexisting hagiographies had nothing to say about the K 'art'velian monarchs: the only rulers
mentioned in them were their Persian overlords. Still, since the Christian activities o f Nino constitute the
fulcrum o f the narrative, the text should be qualified as being historical hagiography. The first indigenous
historical works to be stripped o f these hagiographical trappings were produced only ca. 800.
Constituent Texts o f the Corpus
The compilation o f historical texts into corpora was a relatively common practice in medieval
K 'art'li. K'art'lis c'xovreba, or The Georgian Royal Annals, is a corpus o f several distinct texts. In fact,
even some o f its components are themselves mini-corpora. The "text" traditionally referred to as
Mok'c'evay k'art'Usay (lit "The Conversion of K 'art'li") is also a composite. Before examining each of
its constituent texts, we should first attempt to discern its original core.
Georgian historical works, unlike many o f their Armenian counterparts, incorporate few internal
references to their sources. However, "The Conversion o f K 'art'li" is cited as a source in The Life o f the
Kings, a history traditionally attributed to Leonti Mroveli:
...and Elioz M c'xet'eli and Longinoz Karsneli went [to Jerusalem], And at that place
they saw the crucifixion of the Lord, and from there Elioz M c'xet'eli and Longinoz
Karsneli brought the Lords tunic as is written clearly in The Conversion o f K'art'li
[Mok'c'evasa k'art'lisasa]...^ 3
This passage is found in all Georgian MSS of K'art'lis c'xovreba, both the pre-Vaxtangiseuli and
Vaxtangiseuli (eighteenth century' and later) recensions. In the latter this notice is followed by an
"Mok'c'evay k'art'lisay," in his Saistorio dziebani (1924), pp. 56-92.

^ C f. Ingoroqva, "K 'art'uli mcerlobis istoriis mokle mimoxilva," Mnat'obi 10-11 (1939). pp. 222-231.
1 3 7he Life o f the Kings, p. 362o.23- Cf. the corresponding passage o f Arm. Adapt. K 'C \ pp. 46-47 =
Thomson trans., p. 50, which knows Elios and Lunkinos but does not cite any authority on their retrieval
o f Christ's tunic.
51
inserted, embellished account o f the journey of Elioz and Longinoz. ^
It would seem that this reference
to "The Conversion o f K 'art'li" was part o f the original Life ofthe Kings. Should my dating o f The Life o f
the Kings to ca. 800 be accurate (argued infra), then some text by the name "Conversion o f K 'art'li" must
have existed by the beginning o f the ninth century.
But to which text does this title refer? Today, a medieval hagiographical-historical corpus is
attributed by modem specialists w ith an identical title, Mok'c'evay k'art'lisay. ^ A component of that
corpus actually relates the tradition that the Lord's tunic had been transported to M c'xet'a. the
K'art'velian royal seat by some Jews, but it does not identify them by name . 16 There may be no question
that the aforementioned passage from The Ufe o f the Kings refers to this component text which we shall
refer to as The Conversion o f K'art'li proper.
Mok'c'evay k'art'lisay is sim ilar to the separate, and much larger, historical corpus o f K'art'lis
c 'xovreba insofar as it is a collection o f several different texts which have been conjoined to engender a
sequential narrative. And like those o f its counterpart, the constituent texts o f Mok'c evav k'art'lisay are
not found independently of that corpus with the exception o f The Ufe o f Nino. The reader should again
note that in an attempt to confine confusion, I shall employ Georgian appellations for corpora while the
English ones will refer to a specific te x t The works which comprise the composite Mok'c'evay
k'art'lisay, in the order they appear in the extant MSS and with approximate dates o f composition, are: 17
1. The Primary History o f K'art'li,

entitled The Primary History o f Iberia by ToumanofF [eighth/ninth century];
2. Royal List I,
an enumeration o f the earliest kings o f K 'art'li down to the first Christian king. Mihran/
Mirian [by the tenth century];
3. The Conversion o f K'art'li proper,
the only portion o f the corpus that rightly bears this title. ToumanofF and others have
attributed this text to a certain Gregory the Deacon, although this is speculative at best
[seventh/eighth century];
l4This insert occurs only in some Vaxtangiseuli redactions of the text, notably Tpb and B.
^ T h a t is to say, in Georgian both the component text in question and the corpus are entitled Mok'c'evay
k'art'lisay (Alok'. k'art'.), and in Eng. The Conversion o f K'art'li. For an overview o f this corpus, see
introduction, # 1.
^Conv. K'art'li, p. 87.

17The best discussion of the relationship among these texts remains Toumanoffs "The Royal List and The
Conversion o f Iberia and Sumbats History of the Bagratids," in his Studies, excursus A, pp. 417-428; and
idem., "Medieval Georgian Historical Literature," pp. 149-152. Cf. Melik'ishvili, K istorii drevnei Gruzii
(1959), pp. 23-28; and Novolsel'tsev, Genezisfeodalizma v stranakh Zakavfcaz'ia (1980), pp. 39-40.
52
4. Royal List II,

an enumeration o f the fourth-century successors o f Mirian down to the time o f the
Byzantine emperor Heraclius's campaign in K 'art'li. Prelates o f the Church in
K 'art'li are also enumerated [by the tenth century];
5. Royal List III,
brings the rulers o f K 'a rt'li and the primates o f the K 'art'velian Church down through
the ninth century [by the tenth century]; and,
6.
The Ufe o f Nino,

a highly reworked and detailed version o f The Conversion o f K'art 'li; strictly
hagiographical. A related redaction o f this text was also appended to The Ufe
o f the Kings [ninth/tenth century].
Until recently, only two codicies o f the corpus were known to exist: Shatberdi *** (tenth century)
and Chelishi 19 (fourteenth/fifteenth century). These two redactions form the basis o f the critical edition
by Abuladze published in 1963.2 Two "newly" discovered incomplete redactions from the monastery of
S t Catherine's on M t Sinai have yet to be published (Sin-48 and Sin-50, new collection), though over
twenty years have elapsed since their initial discovery following a fire in 1975.2 * Regardless, some
sketchy information has reached the community of scholars according to which the Sinai redactions
apparently derive from the tenth/eleventh century. A brief but significant excerpt from The Conversion o f
K'art'li also was incorporated into the tenth-century K laijet'ian mravalt'avi (polycephalon).22 An early
version o f the corpus of Mok'c'evay k'art'lisay would seem to have been compiled already in first-half of
the tenth century, the terminus ad quern for the composition o f all o f its components. In any event, the
assembling o f the corpus itself and the majority o f its constituent texts are Bagratid-era productions.
The published version o f the Shatberdi codex bears the title Mok 'c evay k'art 'lisay. or literally
"The Conversion of K 'art' li."2^ Its components were likely conjoined by Bagratid-era clerics in the tenth
lSKek.Inst.MSif S-lUl.
19KekInst.MS # U-600.
2 0 Abuladze, e d ,
DzK'ALDz, vol. 1 (1963). pp. 81-163.
J|
Information on these redactions is extremely limited. I have made use of Z. Alek'sidze, "The New
Recensions o f the 'Conversion o f Georgia' and the "Lives o f the 13 Syrian Fathers' Recently Discovered on
M l Sinai," in SSC1SSM, vol. 43a (1996), pp. 409-426; and idem., "Recent Manuscript Discoveries on
Mount Sinai," lecture at the Oriental Institute, Oxford University, 29 Nov. 1994. MS Sin-50, which
includes texts other than Mok". k'art'., is being prepared for publication by Alek'sidze and J.-P. Mahe. I
wish to thank professors Alexidze and M ahe for providing some information on these new Sinai MSS.
2 2 K/aty.
Polyceph., p. 19.
The Chelishi codex (also published) is defective at the beginning while Sin-48 and Sin-50 remain
53
century in order to elucidate the stoiy o f the conversion o f K 'a rt'li and to commemorate the antiquit}' of
K 'art'velian royal authority. The third text, The Conversion o f K'art'li proper, describes the activities of
Nino and is probably the oldest, being composed as early as the seventh century, and in any event towards
the end of the pre-Bagratid period (eighth century). Other texts were adjoined to this core and arranged in
chronological order. In the process, the entire corpus came to be known by the title o f its original and
featured text.
The initial work, named The Primary History o f K'art 'li by ToumanofF. commences with an
account o f the alleged invasion o f K 'art'li by Alexander the Great. It is noteworthy that the corpus opens
with Alexanders conquest and makes no mention whatsoever o f Togarmah and K 'art'los. two o f the
prominent dramatis personae in the corresponding section o f The Ufe o f the Kings.2* Although other
texts within Mok'c'evay k'art'lisay are abridgments o f the ca. 800 Ufe o f the Kings, the relationship of
this latter text and The Primary History ofK 'art'li, which do contain similar accounts of Alexander,
remains a conundrum (the relationship is considered later). In any case, should The Primary History o f
K'art'li predate The Ufe o f the Kings, the text in its extant form was probably composed no earlier than
the seventh century. O f all the components o i Mok'c'evay k'art'lisay, only The Primary History o f
K'art'li was conceivably written before the seventh-century Conversion o f K'art'li.

The second text o f the corpus of Mok'c'evay k'art'lisay was ascribed with the title Royal Ust I by
ToumanofF. This succinct enumeration relates the order o f the earliest K 'art'velian monarchs,
highlighting their secular and idol-raising agenda .2 5 ToumanofF hypothesized that Royal Ust I is an
abridgment o f The Ufe o f the Kings since the former consists o f a concise, derivative chronology o f the
earliest kings, corrupting several o f their names / 0 I am tempted to concur with this observation,
although it is far from definitive. As is true o f The Ufe o f the Kings and other Georgian historical sources
unpublished.
7*1
The Ufe o f the Kings is the opening text o f K'C'. The Ufe o f the Kings opens with the claim that the
K 'art'velian community had arisen from the progeny o f Togarmah. But it does link the establishment of
K 'artvelian royal authority to the time o f Alexander.
2 5 T . Mgaloblishvili in Alexander of CyprusGeorgian, pp. 24-28 with Rus. sum., "Khronika Aleksandra
Kiprskogo (po rukopisiam X-XIV w .)," pp. 32-33, notes an affinity of these lists with those o f the
Chronicle of Alexander of Cyprus (sixth century). A medieval Georgian translation of this work is known
to have existed; extant MSS o f this translation date from the tenth-fourteenth centuries. Because o f this
emphasis on building projects, Melik' ishvili suggested that this portion o f the text be called the
Stroitel'naia letopis' (GrpoHTejibHaa JieTonncb), i.e., The Chronicle o f Construction (cf. Procopius' IIEPI
KTTEMATON, or On the Buildings). See Melik'ishvili, K drevnei istorii Gruzii, pp. 26-27.
2 <*ToumanofF, Studies, pp. 418-419.
54
composed prior to the Bagratid period (with one possible exception to be discussed later), calendrical dates
in any Georgian era are entirely ab se n t 2 7
The conversion of the Persian-born K 'art'velian king Mihran/Mirian to Christianity is the subject
o f The Conversion o f K'art'li, the third text o f Mok'c'evay k'art'lisay. It served as the original nucleus of
the corpus, perhaps along with The Primary History o f K'art'li. In its extant form. The Conversion o f
K'art'li provides a skeletal, rather unelaborate, account o f the activities o f Nino. The embellishments o f
the ninth-/tenth-century Life o f Nino (the sixth part o f the corpus) are absent.2** The Conversion o f
K'art'li represents the earliest extant written Georgian tradition of Nino.

Two further lists of secular and religious rulers, Royal Lists II and III. were appended to The
Conversion o f K'art 'li by the tenth century. These enumerations contrast with Royal List I insofar as they
are more lavishly detailed, and, notably, they incorporate brief notices on the prelates o f the Church. The
second list is based upon the late eighth-century Life o f Vaxtang and its slightly later continuation by Ps.Juansher. The notices of Royal Lists II and III on royal construction projects share an affinity with those
o f Royal Ust I. Generally speaking, considerably more detail is found in the latter two lists. Thus we
read about the ascendancy o f T p'ilisi as the royal seat, the establishment o f the first kat'alikos. the advent
o f monasticism in K 'art'li, and the invasion o f K 'a rt'li by the Byzantine emperor Heraclius (610-641).
Royal Ust III enumerates the secular rulers of K 'art'li, some o f whom, at the time, were adorned with
Byzantine dignities. This work also records their ecclesiastical counterparts. A sizable portion of this
final list is extremely brief, providing only names. The list o f secular rulers terminates with Guaram (d.
881 AD), the erist'avi of Javaxet'i and son of Ashot I kuropalates (813-830). The corresponding
enumeration o f kat'alikos-es ends with Arsen (mid-ninth century).2^
How may we explain the brevity of Royal Ust I in view of the relatively lengthier accounts o f
Royal Lists Il-IIT? Obviously, this circumstance might reflect a lack o f sources, either oral or written. Yet
The Ufe o f the Kings was composed, as I argue infra, ca. 800. and this text happens to transmit the
contemporary traditions of pre-Christian K 'art'li. Keeping in mind that the extant versions of Mok'c'evay
'O n relative chronologies and the chronologization o f the early dynasts o f K 'artli. see: ToumanofF,
"Chronology o f the Early Kings o f Iberia." Traditio 25 (1969), pp. 1-33; idem.. Manuel de genealogie et
de la chronologie (1976), pp. 543-544 etsqq: and A. Gugushvili. "The Chronological-Genealogical Table
o f the Kings o f Georgia," Georgica 1/2-3 (Oct. 1936). pp. 109-153.
2**Both the seventh-century Conv. K'art'li and the ninth-/tenth-century Life o f Nino are considered in
detail in ch. 4.
2^The chronological order o f the chief hierarchs o f the K'art'velian Church may be reliably surmised
from medieval sources, but the precise dating o f their tenures is an impossible task using existing sources.
A far from satisfactory attempt to assign regnal dates to K 'art'velian ecclesiastical hierarchs was
attempted by P. Karbelashvili, Ierark'ia sak'art'velos ekklesiisa kat'alikosni da mghvdelt'-mt 'avami, book
1 (1904), esp. pp. 16-78 (for the fourth through the thirteenth centuries). See also ch. 4.
55
k'art'lisay were found in monasteries, I would suggest that the corpus may have served as a sort o f text
book, or general history reference, for monks. Accordingly, the pre-Christian history o f K 'art'li might
have drawn little attention by these Christians, or, it may have been forbidden, save a very few details. In
fact, only one extant codex, the Shatberdi. contains the pre-Christian sections (The Primary History o f
K art 'li and Royal List I); in the other MSS these texts were either omitted or removed.
The corpus o f Mok'c'evay k'art'lisay is a complex document Although some o f its components
seem to be of considerable antiquity, the collection as a whole was not assembled until the ninth/tenth
century. Its earliest text and original core is The Conversion o f K'art'li, from which the entire corpus
later drew its title. This tradition o f the efforts o f the holy woman Nino was not written down until the
seventh century or so. The initial work o f the collection, The Primary History o f K'art'li, is more difficult
to date: it may represent an extremely early tradition (perhaps as early as the seventh century), but it is
conceivable that it was a reworking o f the initial passages o f The Life o f the Kings. Only The Conversion
o f K'art 'li, and perhaps The Primary History o f K'art 'li, is a vestige o f the earliest (pre-Bagratid)
Georgian historical writing Royal Lists /- /// and The Life o f Nino are later, Bagratid-era productions and
do not predate the ninth century.
III. THE CORPUS OF (TXOREBA K'ARTVELTA MEP'ETA TRADITIONALLY ATTRIBUTED

TO LEONTI MROVELl
The Conversion o f K'art'li. the third text o f M ok 'c'evay k'art'lisay, is the earliest extant
Georgian literary work which may be classified as historical. But the scheme of this text, with its
integration o f hagiography and history, was not adopted as an exemplar for subsequent medieval Georgian
historical writings, although some o f its approaches were later mimicked, especially that of interpolating
K 'art'velian history into existing traditions. In any event, almost two centuries elapsed before a local
interest in tracing the origin and development of the K 'art'velian community emerged.
The Life o f the Kings: Extant MSS and the Title o f the Text
The Life o f the K'art'velian Kings and of[Their] Forefathers and Progeny (C'xorebay
k'art'uelt'a mep'et'a dapirvelt'agant'a mamat'a da nat'esavt'a, Q bnfybsa ÂrtroâcpcDA
83330^
joa
3 o 6 3 apa)A&A6 cf)A 3a3aoja joa 6 A0 )abA30 )A), endeavors to reveal the ethnogenesis of the K 'art'velian
community and the establishment o f local kingship.^ The text describes the period from the alleged
In the Georgian title, the form k'art 'uelt'a (the genitive-plural form o f "Kart'velian") is found in some
56
origin o f the K 'art'velians (before Alexander's alleged invasion o f K 'art'li) through the early fourth
century AD. As its title suggests, it is first and foremost an account of the kings o f the pre-Christian
period. Monarchs, and not the nobility or the religious orders o r the other stratae o f society, are central to
the account and they are depicted as the very embodiment o f K 'art'li. This approach characterizes all
medieval Georgian historical works, although it is less pronounced in the earlier, partly hagiographical
Conversion ofK'art'li. The anonymous author o f The Life o f the Kings, therefore, was not only a
historian but also a royal eulogist and propagandist and he subscribed resolutely to the ideal o f dynastic
kingship and primogeniture. This is particularly striking since he wrote during the lengthy interregnum
extending from the sixth century until 8 8 8 . Therefore, his work must be regarded not only as a monument
to the past but as a call for the restoration o f indigenous royal authority in the future.
The original author was not particularly interested in things Christian. Although later editorial
work (especially in the eleventh century) provided for some Biblical and Christian references, the original
text, which is now lost, seems to have incorporated only a brief notice about Nino. Significantly, this
work ends precisely with the conversion ofM ihran/M irian. Thus, although composed well into the
Christian period, The Life o f the Kings is intended to be a summation of the pre-Christian K 'art'velian
p a st The Life o f the Kings, and perhaps The Primary History ofK 'art'li (which also addressed only preChristian history), therefore represents a radical break with the traditional Christian nature and context of
early Georgian historical writing.
The Life o f the Kings is part of a miniature corpus within the larger corpus o f K'art 'lis c 'xovreba.
The first three texts o f K'art'lis c'xovreba are customarily and collectively known as C'xorebay
k'art'velt'a mep'et'a, literally "The Life of the K 'art'velian Kings." But only the initial portion of
C'xorebay k'art 'velt'a mep 'et'a may properly be attributed with that titled * The remaining two The
life o f Nino and The Life o f the Successors ofMirian (my title) were appended in the Bagratid period,
probably in the eleventh century, and certainly no later than that time. Modem Georgian specialists
typically regard all three texts as a single work and attribute it to the eleventh-century archbishop Leonti
Mroveli. This argument will be challenged here.
Authorship, the content o f the original text, the nature and relationship o f the extant MSS, and
later textual manipulation by copyists have contributed to the intense controversy which envelops the
o f the earliest MSS; however, preference has been given in the remainder o f this study to the form
k'art'velt'a. The influence o f the older hagiographic tradition within Georgian literature is detectable in
the employment of the term c'xovreba, i.e., "life" or Latin vita, in the traditional titles o f medieval
Georgian historical texts. The text under examination is referred to in this study by the truncated title The
Life o f the Kings.

3 *Thus common characteristics of pre-Bagratid Georgian historical works include: (1) the joining o f
separate but related texts into corpora; and (2 ) the naming o f the corpora after their core texts.
57
introductory texts o f K'art 'lis c 'xovreba. The conflagration still eludes containment primarily because of
the fact th at The life o f the Kings represents the received pre-modem account of the origin of the
Georgian community, and its meaning and significance are esteemed as valuable commodities for
defining modem nationality and ethnicity. That considerable debate is associated with this text is far from
surprising, for even in the medieval period (especially under Bagratid rule) this text was sometimes
suppressed, rewritten, and ignored.
The three texts which constitute C'xorebay k'art'velt'a mep'et'a, like the other component
histories o f K'art'lis c 'xovreba, are not found independently o f that corpus. Four Georgian preVaxtangiseuli MSS, as well as the oldest extant variant appearing in the Armenian adaptation o f K'art'lis
c'xovreba, containing the text survive.
Pre-Vaxtangiseuli MSS Containing C'xorebay k'art'velt'a mep 'et'cP-
Date Copied
1279-1311
1479-1495
16th century
1633-1645/1646
1697
Redaction
Arm/A
A
C
M
Q
Traditional MS Name
Armenian adaptation, earliest MS
Anaseuli ("Queen Anna")
Chalashviliseuli. old section
Mariamiseuli ("Queen Mariam")
M c'xet'ian variant 33
Arm/A. the earliest MS o f the Armenian adaptation, is the oldest extant redaction of K'art'lis
c 'xovreba by more than a century, and it was ultimately copied from a now-lost Georgian MS. It mirrors
closely the earliest complete Georgian version of The Life o f the Kings found in the Mariamiseuli variant.
Arm/A served as the exemplar for the other surviving MSS o f the Armenian adaptation. It is noteworthy
that the Armenian documents provide neither a title nor an attribution of authorship for this text.
The Mariamiseuli3^ variant (M) o f K'art'lis c'xovreba is the only extant, fully pre-Vaxtangiseuli
MS not to commence with The Life o f the Kings. It begins with two apocryphal works, including the
33 Cf. Toumanoff. "The Oldest Manuscript of the Georgian Annals," pp. 340-344.
Not to be confrised with the M c'xet'ian recension (i.e., MS groupl of K'C' which is currently believed
to consist o f the MQm MSS; the other pre-Vaxtangiseuli recension consists o f the group AC. See G.
Araxamia, "'M ep'et'a c'xovtebis' tekstis dadgenis zogiert'i sakit'xi," Mac'ne 1 (1989). pp. 139-140; and
M. Shanidze in The Life o f Davit', introduction, esp. pp. 128-154, MSS stenuna at p. 140.
3<h h e O ld Georgian suffix -iseuli denotes "named after." Its usage with respect to the names o f MSS
enables proper names to be converted into adjectives. This Mariamiseuli is an adjective meaning "named
after [Queen] Mariam (Mary)."
58
medieval Georgian rendition o f The Book o f the Cave o f Treasures, a sixth-century (or later) text
originally written in Syriac.3^ The Life o f the Kings is the first historical work in the document.3** and its
opening is clearly distinguished with wavy, black and red borders .3 7 Following this break, in red ink. is a
heading introducing the work:
tabacpocoA 060ob6O)6 dob60)6 CS* b g c g o b ^ ^0ofoob6a>6 3 o ^ y m 0oo)b6ca&6o
gbn 6 a&^b6
660)ab 63 CD6
S agaoJibi g a 3 0 6 3 3 2 3 0 )65660)6 360606 06
Saxelit 'a mamisat 'a dzisat 'a da sulisa cmidisat 'a vicqo mit 'xrobad c 'xorebasa
k'art'uelt'a mep'et'asa da pirvelt'agant'a mamat'a da nat'esavt'a
In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit I shall begin to relate The Ufe o f
the K'art'velian Kings and the Forefathers and [Their] Progeny.
This title differs from the one offered in Qauxch'ishvili's critical edition in that it is prefixed with "In the
name o f the Father [and] o f the Son and o f the Holy S pirit" Qauxchishvili rightly discarded this phrase
from his reconstructed "original" text since it is a later addition. After all. The U fe o f the Kings is devoid
o f a sustained interest in things Christian.3** The prefixed phrase was added by a later scribe, perhaps the
eleventh-century archbishop Leonti Mroveli, or even by the scribe responsible for this particular MS.
The most ancient Georgian MS o f K'art'lis c'xovreba, the Anaseuli redaction (A), is defective.3^
The entire initial section o f The Ufe o f the Kings, which describes the origin of the K 'art' velians and the
establishment of local kingship, has been lost/removed. This document begins in mid-sentence with the
reign o f Arshak II (20 BC-1 AD ).4 0 The title o f the work as found in the A redaction is not indicated in
the extant folios.
3^The m MS (part of the MQm recension) also begins with an apocryphal work. See C . K'urcikidze.
"Kvlav Tcartlis c'xovrebis* xelnacerebis apokrip'ul t'xzulebat'a shesaxeb," Mac'neenisa 1 (1990). pp.
49-64, with Rus. sum., "Eshche raz ob apokrifakh v rukopisiakh Kartlis Tskhovreba,'" pp. 63-64.
3**Kek.Inst.KIS a S-30, ( 52r, includes a later marginal note in purple ink. written in Rus., noting that this
is the proper beginning of K'C' and that this MS was written under the direction o f Queen Mariam.
3 Îbid., (. 52r.
The Ufe o f the Kings occupies Cf. 52r-l00r.
The Ufe o f the Kings, p. 3. Following Qauxch'ishvili, this phrase is also absent in the trans. o f the
Georgian text in Arm. Adapt. K'C', Thomson trans., p. 2.
3^See also Toumanoff. "The Oldest Manuscript o f the Georgian Annals," pp. 340-344. The issue o f MSS
being defective for The Ufe o f the Kings is engaged in ch. 2.
40The Ufe o f the Kings as preserved in A begins at The Ufe o f the Kings, p.
3 5 3 , and
K'C'Queen Anna,
P -2 5 14.
59
None o f the oldest MSS o f K'art'lis c 'xovreba incorporate an authorship or even scribal/copyist
attribution w ithin the text o f The Life o f the Kings itself, and moreover, the earliest MSS are not furnished
with a title.
The Identification o f Leonti Mroveli, the Traditional Author of C'xorebay k'art'velt'a mep'et'a
So who were the authors o f the three texts which constitute C'xorebay k'art'velt'a mep'et'a? As
we have mentioned, authorship attributions occur nowhere within any o f the three works. However, a
subsequent text within K'art'lis c'xovreba associates an author, or perhaps editor, with them. That
passage is found in all of the earliest Georgian (pre-Vaxtangiseuli) redactions but not in the Armenian
adaptation^ and was appended to the continuation o f The Ufe ofVaxtang written by Ps.-Juansher. It is
argued infra that Ps.-Juansher's history was composed in the first decade o f the ninth century, but we do
not know whether the aforementioned authorship/scribal quotation was from his own pen. The passage as
it appears in the earliest extant Georgian MS, A, reads:
flbfl aftftocjob
g 6 83330)6 0 boi3<<)3&6, g 6 60601b 803(6 Ârocjob
801^0336 e 33 0 i 6 <J)O 8 (6 ^ 3 3 1 5 8 6 6 6 g ^ 3 (6 6 .4?
Ese arch 'ilis cameba, da mep 'et 'a c 'xovreba, da ninos mier k 'art 'lis mok 'c eva leonti
mruvelman aghcera.
This Martyrdom o f Arch'iI, and The Life o f the Kings, and The Conversion o f K'art'li by
Nino was <written/copied>^ by Leonti Mruveli [Mroveli].
The only significant deviation from this passage occurs in the Vaxtangiseuli T eimuraziseuli (T) MS.
copied in the first half of the eighteenth century. Written in the nusxuri script, this MS is deemed to have
Arm. Adapt. K'C', p. 199. Thomson, trans.. p. 251, footnote 55, offers the Georgian text in a footnote.
Strangely, he has separated it from the main text even though, by his own admission, it occurs in the
earliest Georgian MSS (i.e., AM).
^Ps.-Juansher, p. 244; in the unpublished Q variant the passage, in nusxuri, reads:"Ese arch 'ilis cameba
da mep'et'a c'xr~ba da ninos k'~rt'lismok'ceva leonti mrovl~mn dacerayf see Kek.Inst.MS# Q -1219, 1
71 r. The initial letter "e" o f the authorship passage in Q has been enlarged and placed in the margin for
effect (but in the characteristic black ink); five blank lines follow the passage. Again, it should be noted
that the
symbol in transliterated passages indicates the abbreviation o f words (e.g.. above k '~rt 'lis is
an abbreviation o f k'art'lis).
43The Georgian is ambiguous here; this term aghcera will be considered infra.
60
been a bridge between the earliest MSS and the Vaxtangiseuli ones.'*'* The authorship/scribal quotation
o f A is repeated, but appended to it is the statement that:
...cga ib c ji o~a c>33A6eib 8~6 aQâfti.4^

... da axla i~e dekcmozm-n aghcera.
...and now I[oan]e the Deacon has <written/copied> [this].
O n the basis o f the just quoted passage, modem scholars have almost unanimously associated
Leonti Mroveli with The Ufe o f the Kings, as well as with the two other named works: The Conversion o f
K'art'li by Nino (a close relative o f the Bagratid-era The Ufe o f Nino which was appended to The Ufe o f
the Kings) and The Martyrdom o f Arch 'il. Again, it should be emphasized that this authorship/scribal
claim does not appear in any o f the aforementioned works, but rather is appended to an entirely separate
text (though within the same historical corpus o f K'art'lis c'xovreba).
Is it possible to identify Leonti Mroveli? The received cognomen of the author suggests that he
was a clergyman at, and probably the bishop of, Ruisi: M-r[ovJ-eli (3 (*5oi3 gcpo), in which m- is a prefix of
agent4 6 a n d the suffix -eli denotes "of/from." The root of the episcopal/geographical designation Ruisi,
6 jobo, is
R[u]~, with -isi being an extended genitive ending common to toponyms (cf. Tp' ilisi,
K 'ut'at'isL BolnisD- The -u- in Ruisi is represented in some variants by the linguistically equivalent -ovin the attributive form.4^ Later usages of the term "Mroveli" confirm that it was utilized as the title o f the
bishop o f the cathedral of Ruisi.4**
T he contention that Leonti was the bishop o f Ruisi is undeniable. Should we expand our purview
o f inquiry beyond K'art'lis c'xovreba, we discover that a bishop o f Ruisi named Leonti is attested in other
medieval sources. Our clearest reference to him is an inscription discovered in a cave at T' rexvi in 1957.
That inscription was published by G. Gap'rindashvili in 1961:
"^Grigolia, Axali k'art'lis c'xovreba, pp. 155-168.

4 6 SPB.OrJnstMS # M24,
119r-v. A black-and-white photo-reproduction o f this MS is maintained by

the Kekelidze Institute of MSS (Rt-II, No. 18, 3 volumes).
^Cf. the bishop o f Tbet'i who was commonly referred to as Mlbevari: see Sumbat Davit'is-dze. p. 58 =
Qauxch'ishvili ed., p. 386; and Chron. K'art'li, pp. 263-264.
4^See also Kekelidze, K'art'uli literaturisistoria (1941 ed.), p. 14.
Cont. K 'C 3rd text, p. 494^ which refers to an early

sixteenth-century figure named Gedeon Mroveli. For the identification o f Leonti Mroveli as a bishop, see
also Tarchnishvili, "Sources armeno-georgiennes," p. 37.
4 % .g ., in Beri Egnatashvili, p. 3 8 5 and
61
[O] H olyM ik'el [i.e., Michael] th e Archangel! I, L[eo]nti Mr[ove]li. with great labor
built this cave for the icon o f the Lord God and against adverse tunes, to provide shelter
for the children o f the cathedral o f Ruis[i] in the time o f desolation wrought by Sultan
Alp-Arslan in k'r[oni]k[o]n 286 [i.e., 1066 A D ].^
On the basis o f this inscription, D.M. Lang was satisfied that Leonti Mroveli is an eleventh-century
author, and this seemed to corroborate the view that Mroveli is indeed a Bagratid-era historian.
Indeed, evidence had surfaced even prior to the T rexvi inscription which bolstered the opinion
that Leonti Mroveli flourished in the eleventh century. In an article published in 1943, ToumanofF was
convinced that Leonti Mroveli was an eleventh-century figure, dating his floruit to 1060-1080.^ In
support o f this hypothesis, he cited Georgian MS #61 from ML Alhos which was evidently copied in the
eleventh/twelfth century and refers to a mt 'avarepiskopozi (archbishop) Leonti Mroveli.^ * In fact
ToumanofF was drawing upon the even earlier work o f evidence o f N.Ia. M arr who published this excerpt
already in 1904.
A third independent source, from the eleventh century and now housed at the
Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris, was published by E . Taqafshvili in 1 9 3 3 .^ This passage is acquainted
4 ^G. Gap'rindashvili, "Leonti mrovelis 1066 c. samsheneblo carcera t'rexvis kvabebidan,"
Moambe
(1961). pp. 240, 247, a n d 254: "^ 3 ocS4 Q 8 0 ^ 32 ? 3 ooi3 i 6 i 6 aa c p a h o ! 8 3 , cjfa^lfy *)0 96[cn3olc?3[.i]6
B>0g[o]4 9ci3ofi33&[o]o)A 4 (3 3 4 8 3 6 3 36 3 ^ 4 6 0 b4(*)ob4CD[3lb Q[8 6 ]m[3 3 ]6 ob 04 eSQO^
3o6ob[4]b4 643cob4a393C3[4]co 6^)ob[o]b4 b4yeo6ot>4 33oe2[4](D3b <j[4]3a>4 8[o]64
4255346642546 bt")C5 (*)>i5 ob[4 ]a[ 4 ]5 pib6 cn6 ob[4 ]m 4 (3 6 fai5 o] 3 [cnl6 b 4 b3s."; and AMaladze. "K'art'lis
c'xovreba" da sak'art'velo-somxet'is urt'iert'oba, p. 53. See also Tarchnishvili, "La decouverte d'une
inscription georgienne de l'an 1066." BK 26-27 (1957), pp. 86-89 (text reprinted on p. 87). The Eng.
trans. here is based upon Lang, Landmarks, p. 10.
^^ToumanofF, "Medieval Georgian Historical Literature," p. 166. Kekelidze first took a broader view,
placing Leonti Mroveli in the period from the tenth century to 1072/1073 ("Leonti mrovelis literaturuli
cqaroebi." Tp 'ilisis universitetis moambe 1 11 [1923], p. 3) and later placed him in the era o f King Bagrat
IV (1027-1072) (K'art'uli literaturis istoria [1941 ed.], pp. 213-218). The recent survey o f Rayfield.
Literature o f Georgia, p. 38, largely recapitulates the hypotheses o f Kekelidze; likewise, I. Ant'elava, A7XIVss. k'art'uli saistorio cqaroebi (1988), pp. 5-9.
^ToumanofF, "Medieval Georgian Historical Literature, p. 166.
5 2 N.Ia. Marr, "Agiograficheskie materialy po gruzinskim rukopisiam Ivera,"
ZVOIRAO 13 (1904), p. 84.
See also Abdaladze, "K'art'lis c'xovreba" da sak'art'velo-somxet'is urt'iert'oba, p. 53.

aqalshvili, Parizis nac'ionaluri bibliot'ekis k'art'ulxelnacerebi da oc'i k'art'uli saidumlo
damcerlobis nicani (Paris, 1933), p. 42; and Abdaladze, "K'art'lis c 'xovreba" da sak'art'velo-somxet'is
urt'iert'oba, pp. 53-54.
62
with the ebiskoposi (bishop) ^ and the mt 'avar-ebiskoposi (archbishop) Leonti. In it Leonti is explicitly
referred to as MruelfiJ, which is likely the authentic medieval form o f the appellation Mroveli.
There may be no question that a Leonti Mroveli was the archbishop o f the Ruisi cathedral in the
second-half o f the eleventh century. But this begs the obvious question: did this particular Leonti Mroveli
compose The Life o f the Kings'!55 In order to dispense a solution, we should further contemplate the
aforementioned authorship/scribal quotation, for, as a result o f the possible ambiguity o f one o f its verbs, it
may be hypothesized that Leonti Mroveli was actually understood not to have composed the work at hand
O f course, we might also wish to disregard the notice as a later, and erroneous, addition. We shall return
to this question directly after offering a brief consideration o f the nature, and especially the dates o f the
composition o f the three parts, o f C'xorebay k'art'velt'a mep'et'a.
The Components o f the Corpus o f C'xorebay k'art'velt'a mep 'et'a and a Further Consideration o f the
Literary Activities o f Leonti Mroveli
Before attempting to link o r disassociate Leonti Mroveli from the components of C'xorebay
k 'art velt 'a mep 'et 'a, we should offer a fuller examination of that mini-corpus. The three constituent texts
may be identified (with approximate dates o f composition):
1. The Ufe o f the Kings proper.

describing the provenance o f the K 'art'velian community and their pre-Christian kings
from P 'am avaz to M irian [eighth/ninth century];
2. The Ufe o f Nino,
a ninth-/tenth-century work, clearly not written by the same author as that of The Life o f
the Kings. The vita o f the illuminatrix o f K 'art'li was attached to The Ufe o f the Kings
sometime between the ninth and eleventh centuries. In any event, this text is closely
related to The Ufe o f Nino which constitutes the terminating part of the corpus
Mok'c'evay k'art'lisay. This work is properly hagiography and not history [ninth/tenth
century]; a n d
3. The Ufe o f the Successors o f M irian5^
an untitled work commencing after The Ufe o f Nino. It is clearly a continuation o f The
Ufe o f the Kings [eighth/ninth to eleventh century].
^*In Old Georgian we find "bishop" rendered as both episkoposi and ebiskoposi, b and p being
linguistically equivalent
^T oum anoff later suggested that there had been two Leonti Mrovelis, one ca. 800 and one eleventhcentury. This is, in fact possible, though I think unlikely.
^ T h is title is mine; it is not found in any MS.
63
As is the case with the components o f Mok'c'evay k'art'lisay, those o f C'xorebay k'art 'velt 'a mep et 'a are
not delimited by separate titles or distinguished in any way (e.g., a border or page break) in extant MSS.
Rather, in cases where the MSS are not defective, a general title prefaces the entire corpus.
The ascription o f dates to the constituent texts o f C'xorebay k 'art 'velt 'a mep 'et 'a is a forbidding
affair. I should think it safe to assume that they are based upon some ancient materials which have not
come down to us. The dates offered for texts in this study refer to the era in which the works attained the
form by which we know them today. Accordingly, the initial portion o f The Ufe o f the Kings may itself be
a composite work incorporating a pre-existing independent vita o f P'arnavaz.
Owing to the relatively late MS tradition o f K'art'lis c'xovreba as well as the aforementioned fact
that the majority o f the pre-Vaxtangiseuli MSS lack the initial portion o f The Ufe o f the Kings. the
original organization of the w ork is a mystery. The earliest complete Georgian text in M incorporates two
subtitles, but this does not dictate that earlier MSS were organized in this m anner
1.
msso SatknligcpA iC ? a ^ j, 6 co6 abo

T'avi shemosula alek'sandresi
Chapter [no number], The Invasion o f Alexander*^
2.03630 aanba
SabgcjA b3A(*ibo3A coa 3agpi&A 0o(*3OA6obo q ~ odoi
6353(*>0363 GSOISâcjo 3o(*30a6 053036 3~a bo&fidobA 9obob6036. a3o6.
T'avi meot'xe k'art'lisa shesula sparst'a da mep'oba mirianisi g h t-o akurt'xe

dedop'ali miriam dghet'ash~a sigrdzisa misisat'a. Amin.
Chapter 4, The Persian Invasion of K 'a rt'li and the Reign o f Mirian; O God
bless Queen Mariam and increase her days. A m en .^
This is not the place to trace the development o f subtitles, and other forms of organization, within the MS
tradition o f K'art'lis c 'x o v r e b a But it should be said that these and similar subtitles play an extremely
57
K eklnstM S if S-30, f 6 8 v, missing in A; in Q (in nusxuri script) reads: t'av[ij shemoslva aleks-ndresi
(,Kek.Inst.MS if Q-1219, ( Iv); in T (also in nusxuri) reads: shemoslva alek'sandre makedonelisa
(SPB.Or.lnst.MS if M24, ( 9v).
CO
Keklnst-MS # S-30, ( 90r, in A reads: t'avi meot'xe shemosula sparst'a k'art'Is mep'oba mirianisi
k'asres dzisa (KeklnstM S if Q-795, p. 20); in Q (in nusxuri script) reads: t'avi meot'xe k'art'lisay
sheslvay sp~rst'a da mep~ba mirianisi (.KeklnstM S if Q-1219, t lOr); in T (in nusxuri) reads: shemosvlay
sparst'ay k'r-tls da mep'obay mirianisi (SPB.Or.InstMSif M24, t 27r).
^ E .g ., Grigolia, Axali k'art'lis c'xovreba, pp. 107-196. See also Javaxishvili, Dzveli k'art'uli saistorio
mcerloba, p. 177; and Araxamia, "'K 'art'lis c'xovrebs pirveli matianis moc'ulobis sakit'xisat'vis,"
Mac'ne 2 (1987), pp. 59-61.
64
limited role in surviving early MSS .6 0 In them, especially noteworthy events and characters are not
introduced with subtitles. This is true, e.g., for the alleged first K 'art'velian king P 'am avaz who in later
MSS is customarily afforded a distinguishing subtitle .6 1 The earliest extant version o f K'art 'lis
c'xovreba, the Armenian adaptation, in its extant forms does not incorporate subtitles in The Life o f the
Kings.
Although the language, syntax, and content o f The U fe o f the Kings is remarkably consistent
throughout, it is conceivable that earlier texts were reworked and incorporated into it to produce a
cohesive narrative .6 2 A possible example of this is the Alexander legend related in The Primary History
o f K'art'li. Should it have been composed before The Ufe o f the Kings, then the latter potentially
incorporated the former. But the chronology as to their respective compositions has yet to be
determined .6 2 R. Baramidze recently attempted to consign the account o f P'am avaz (299-234 BC). the
traditional first king of K 'art'li, to the second century BC!6** Although such a hypothesis is not
impossible, it is supersaturated with problems, the foremost o f which is the fact that a Georgian script did
not exist until the late fourth century AD .6 5 Showcasing his new "discovery," the author drew attention
^ C f . the subtitles offered in Qauxch'ishvili's critical ed. oiThe U fe o f the Kings within the main text:
T'avipirveli: ambavi rvat'a dzmat'a (p. 3); t'avi meore: ambavi k'art'lisa (p. 8 ); a n d gamoslva xazart a
(which does not appear in M but only in later MSS: p. 11).
6 % .g., in variant T (in
nusxuri): C'x~r~by p'~mavazisi r~li iqo p~li mep'e k'art'lisay (SPB.Or.Inst.MS if
M24. llr): and c (Chalashviliseuli - new): C'xovreba p'amavazisi romeli iqo pirveli mepe k'art'lisa
k'art'lisiani {Kek.Inst.MS# Q-207. 3r).
ozMelikishvili, K istorii drevnei Gruzii, pp. 34-47. delineates ten separate "parts" o f The Ufe o f the
Kings.
6^For a discussion o f their relationship, see ch. 2 .
P'amavazman dzlier hqo k'ueqana t'visi (1992), with Rus. sum. "Pamavaz i ego rol' v
usilenii mogushchestva strany," pp. 45-50; and idem., "Die Anfange der georgischen Literatur ('Das
Leben des Pamawas')," Georgica 10 (1987), pp. 39-43. For other, more sound attempts at isolating the
vita of P'arnavaz as an independent work, see: Kakabadze, Saistorio dziebani (1924), pp. 96-97. quoted in
A. Bogveradze, "TK'art'lis c'xovrebis 1pirveli matiane da misi avtori," in K'art'uli istoriograp'ia, vol. 1
(1968), pp. 10-11; Z. Alek'sidze, "Cxovreba p' amavazisi." Mnat obi 12 (1985), pp. 152-157 (unavailable
to the author): and N. Shoshiashvili, "Nekotorye voprosy istorii sozdaniia Kartlis Tskhovreba," in
Aktualnye problemy izucheniia i sozdaniia pis'mennykh istoricheskikh istochnikov (1985), p. 107.
6 ^R. Baramidze,
^B aram id ze does not address this issue solidly. One can imagine, however, that future arguments will
follow a sim ilar road as those enveloping the work traditionally attributed to the fourth-/fifih-century
Armenian writer Zenob Glak/Glakec'i. The older portion o f his history would have pre-dated the fifth
century (and the Armenian script); thus patriotic modem historians have maintained that it had originally
been rendered in Syriac, and was translated only later into Armenian. Happily, the work o f L. Avdoyan
has reattributed the work to Ps.-Yovhannes Mamikonean (with the title Patmut'iwn Taronoy) to the late
tenth century. See Avdoyan, "Ps. Yovhannes Mamikoneans Patmut'iwn Tardnoy: A Caveat Against its
65
to his theory that his so-called "The Life o f P'am avaz" was written seven centuries before the next earliest
work (The Martyrdom ofShushaniki) and that it was "a masterpiece o f Georgian prose." Although this
argument for such an early dating is fantastic a t best, the possibility that is raised regarding the composite
nature o f The Ufe o f the Kings is suggestive. In the final analysis, beyond minimal circumstantial
evidence, no persuasive argument has been advanced which conclusively demonstrates that The Ufe o f the
Kings was itself a composite.

Nino and her missionary activities in K 'art'li. and the ultimate conversion o f the K'art'velian
monarch Mihran/Mirian, are the subject of The Ufe o f Nino which comprises the second part of
C'xorebay k'art'velt'a mep'et'a. This ninth-/tenth-century work differs in tone, content syntax,
vocabulary, and style from The Ufe o f the Kings and was clearly appended to it at a later time. The Ufe o f
the Kings narrowly focuses on the early kings o f the K'art'velians and terminates with the acceptance of
Christianity by Mihran/Mirian whereas the hagiographical Ufe o f Nino is concerned with Nino's
missionary activity in K 'art'li. This version o f The Ufe o f Nino appended to The U fe o f the Kings closely
resembles that appearing in Mok'c 'evay k'artlisay and they are variations of the same text.
The third part o f the corpus is The Ufe o f the Successors ofMirian. This work is unnamed and
the title here is my own contrivance. It is possible that Leonti Mroveli himself wrote this brief account o f
the immediate Christian successors of Mirian. The Ufe o f the Kings, The Life o f I axtang. and the brief
continuation by Ps.-Juansher related K 'art'velian history from the era o f Noah down to the eighth century.
But a series of early Christian kings had been forgotten for their reigns fell between the end of The Life o f
the Kings and the beginning o f The Ufe ofVaxtang (that is. between Mirian [284-361 [ and Mihrdat IV
[409-411]). The Life o f the Successors o f Mirian was written to rectify this small rupture in narrative.
We possess no direct evidence that it was Leonti Mroveli who was responsible for composing The Life o f
the Successors o f Mirian, but we can be sure that this source was written between ca. 800 (the time of the
composition of The Ufe o f the Kings and The U fe o f I axtang. argued infra) and the eleventh century (the
floruit o f the archbishop Leonti Mroveli. who is associated with the entire corpus). O f the three
components o f C'xorebay k'art 'velt 'a mep 'et a. it is most logical to associate Leonti Mroveli (as an
author) with The Ufe o f the Successors o f Mirian, for, as we shall see. that archbishop effected a reediting of K'art'lis c'xovreba and was probably him self responsible for Christianizing The Life o f the
Kings.
So how may we account for the aforementioned passage attached to the narrative o f Ps.-Juansher
which associates Leonti Mroveli with "C'xorebay mep'et'a," which either refers to The Ufe o f the Kings
proper o r its entire corpus C'xorebay k'art'velt'a mep 'et'al Since no Georgian MSS predate the A
Use in Archaeological, Artistic and Historical Argumentation," inA tti del Quinto Simposio Intemazionale
di ArteArmena (1991), esp. pp. 742-743.
66
recension (end o f the fifteenth century), we cannot determine whether this authorship attribution was an
element o f the original text or was added later. It should be stressed that the passage does not appear in
the earlier Armenian adaptation o f K'art 'lis c 'xovreba. However, we may not automatically assume that
because the passage does not occur in the Armenian adaptation that it was not present in the now-lost
Georgian original, or other contemporary Georgian redactions.
The solution o f Leonti Mroveli's possible association with C'xorebay k'art'velt'a mep'et'a may
hinge partly on the meaning o f the verb aghcera (aqÂ ^), based upon the root -cer-, "to write."** which
occurs in the authorship/scribal quotation. In modem Georgian, the term aghcera has the meaning "to
describe" which does not fit exactly the context here. In Old Georgian the prefix agh- often modifies a
verb to yield the sense of either a completed action o r an action which has been repeated (i.e.. Eng. "re-").
Perhaps the most famous Old Georgian usage o f this prefix is in the sobriquet o f King Davit' II
(1089-1125), aghmashenebeli (a3 3 a 3 3 6 3 &3 C5 o). Confusion over the precise meaning o f this designation
is rampant: two popular English renderings of this participle are "the Builder" and "the Rebuilder." The
root o f the participle is the verbal -sheneb- which usually denotes "building" or "construction." The
translation o f this term has become an exercise in m odem politics, for present-day Georgian scholars often
wish to give the impression that Davit' was rebuilding the imagined unified kingdom o f the semi
legendary first king, P'am avaz. This contention is simply not borne out by contemporary historical
sources, which, in fact, never employed the term aghmashenebeli for Davit' ^
As recently demonstrated
by M. Shanidze, the term does not mean to rebuild but rather relates the sense that Davit' created a
kingdom and society for his subjects, provided for their welfare, and restored their security which
collapsed during frequent raids by the Turks.***
In an earlier source, the Royal List I (contained in the corpus Mok'c 'evay k'art'lisay). we
frequently encounter the perfective verb aghashena, or a related variant. In this context it has the
meaning "to start and finish building" or "to build completely." Thus, King Saurmag began building
Armazi. but his successor Mirvan "finished building [aghashena] Armazi."*^ In the earlier Martyrdom
o/Evstat'i. composed in the sixth century, we find the verb aghashena having the meaning of
66The term aghcera is also used in a similar authorship passage mentioning Juansher Juansheriani; see
infra. The significance of this word was also noted by: Araxamia, "K 'a rtlis c'xovrebis pirveli matianis
moc'ulobis sakit'xisat'vis," p. 62; and Melikishvili, "Istochniki," in the introduction to Melik'ishvili, ed..
Ocherla istorii Gruzii, vol. I (1989). pp. 22-23.
67
The designation aghmashenebeli does not appear within the text o f The Ufe o f Davit'. Rather we
encounter the term only in the title to the vita, in Vaxtangiseuli redactions o f K'C'.
M. Shanidze in The Ufe o f Davit', Eng. sum., p. 250.
^R o ya l U st /, p. 82.
67
"rebuilding," as in the case o f Christ declaring to the Jewish elders that he would overthrow the Temple
an d "rebuild" it within three days.7 0 But the sense o f the verb here is even more precise: "to rebuild
completely."
Therefore, in Old Georgian usage the prefix agh-, at least when attached to the verb "to build."
yielded two ideas: "to rebuild to completion" or "to build completely. Although the meaning of aghwhen used in tandem with the verb "to build" may be suggestive o f other O ld Georgian verbs, it cannot
provide a definitive answer for our query. However, in sixth century usage, the prefix agh-. at least when
used with the verb "to build," very often expresses a sense o f a completed action, or the bringing o f an act
to completion.
Does the verb aghcera signify that Leonti Mroveli composed the enumerated works, or might it
imply that he brought them to completion or that he merely copied or edited them or even retold them?
Usage o f the verb aghcera is relatively uncommon in early Georgian literature. However, it does arise in
the earliest extant work o f Georgian literature, the fifth-century Martyrdom o/Shushaniki. The saint's
father-confessor Iakob addressed Shushaniki concerning her impending torture at the hands of her
Mazdaizing husband Varsk'en:
... "3 0 0 5 4 6 a a a o E ja & o k , 8003 6 4 6 8 3 , 6 4 0 0 3 4

8 3 6 0 " ...71
g 4 4 2 3^3600 8601840
... "Vit'argegulebis, mit'xarme, rayt'a ucqodi daaghvcero shromay sheni ...

... "That which you desire, relate to me. so that I should be knowledgeable and [so that I
may] write down your w otkfs]."...
Thus, the verb aghcera in this context has the meaning "to write down," and really, the modem sense of
the verb "to describe." That is to say. in Old Georgian a saint's life was "described" (aghcera) in writing.
But the meaning here is clearly "written down ." 77 It is thus conceivable that Leonti Mroveli was believed
to have "written down" (aghcera) The Ufe o f the Kings (or C'xorebay k'art'velt'a mep'et'a). The Ufe o f
Nino, and The Martyrdom o f Arch'il?^
Mart. Evstat'i, pp. 40-41.

7 *C' urtaveli. Mart.
Shush., p.
143 ^ .
72
' But in the eleventh-century historical work o f Sumbat Davit'is-dze, the verb aghcera is employed to
identify its author. At worst, the verb aghcera is ambiguous and must be considered specially in each
case.
Georgian hagiographical works were known as c'xorebay-s (or, vitae, "lives") as were early Georgian
historical works. Thus, in this respect, the verb aghcera was likely applicable to both.
68
Should we transfer the m eaning o f re- upon the verb "to write," however, we are faced with the
possibility that aghcera means "to write down again" or "to copy." One pre-Vaxtangiseuli variant of
K'art'lis c'xovreba, the Q recension o f 1697 AD, substituted the form daceray ("to copy") in the
authorship quotation. Either the scribe had access to a previously unknown exemplar of K'art 'lis
c'xovreba, or more likely, he merely substituted the unambiguous dacera for the confusing aghcera.
In my view, Leonti Mroveli, the eleventh-century archbishop o f R uisi was responsible for editing
the early part of K'art 'lis c 'xovreba, an d perhaps even for bringing together the first version o f that
corpus. Accordingly, it was Leonti Mroveli who appended the ninth-/tenth-century Life o f Nino to The
Ufe o f the Kings. If I am correct, then Mroveli could have been regarded as having completed the earlier
Ufe o f the Kings7* I believe that this archbishop, a high-ranking member o f the K 'art'velian Church,
determined that The Ufe o f the Kings needed the missing details o f the conversion o f K' art' li by Nino. In
effect, Mroveli Christianized The Ufe o f the Kings, yet he left much of the work intact. Mroveli thus
affixed the blatantly Christian tale of N ino to the otherwise non-Christian history. In addition, it was
probably Mroveli who added various other Christian elements, such as the contention that Aderki was the
king o f the K'art'velians during the tim e o f C h rist It is known that some o f the insertions about Aderki
had been introduced already at the time o f the copying of the earliest extant MS o f the Armenian
adaptation o f K'art'lis c 'xovreba (1279-1311). In this lig h t The Ufe o f the Successors ofMirian, which
narrates the reigns of the immediate Christian successors o f Mirian, was almost certainly part o f this same
program to Christianize The Ufe o f the Kings. Through this effort The Ufe o f the Kings was transformed
into the corpus of C'xorebay k'art'velt'a mep'et'a. Therefore, the term aghcera in this authorship/scribal
quotation may tentatively be regarded as relating that Leonti Mroveli "finished writing" and "edited,
making [Christian] additions" to (and in a sense "retelling") The Ufe o f the Kings7^ After we have
carefully examined infra the internal evidence for dating The Life o f the Kings to ca. 800. this argument
will receive further validation.
We may now offer dates for the two final sections o f the corpus C'xorebay k'art'velt'a mep'et 'a.
The U fe o f Nino was written in the ninth-/tenth-century and attached to The Ufe o f the Kings by a later
^3y enjoining The Ufe ofthe Kings an d The Life o f Nino, Leonti Mroveli would have been responsible
for creating the corpus o f C'x. k'art'. mep'et'a. Perhaps Leonti Mroveli could therefore have been
envisaged as composing the corpus, w hich may from the start have been collectively known in Eng. trans.
as "The Life of the Kings." But owing to the lateness of the MS tradition, we do not know precisely when
the corpus was first called by the name o f its first text.
,J The precise meaning o f the aforementioned modified passage found only in the T recension o f K'C' is
far from clear. We do not know whether this deacon Ioane was responsible for adding anything to the
enumerated works. However, Ioane was probably not simply a copyist See Orbeli, Gnainskie rukopisi
Instituta Vostokovedeniia AN SSSR, vol. 1, pp. 15-18.
69
cleric, perhaps the archbishop Leonti Mroveli. Moreover, The Life o f the Successors o f Mirian may itself
have been written by the editor Leonti Mroveli, who relied on some ancient source o r sources which have
not come down to us. We cannot suggest a firm date for The Life o f the Successors o f Mirian. but in its
received form it was composed sometime between the composition o f The U fe o f the Kings (ca. 800) and
the time o f Leonti Mroveli (eleventh century), and in any event, almost certainly in the Bagratid period.
Before formally suggesting a date for The Ufe o f the Kings, we should first consider the wide
array of sources used by, and the influences upon, this history. The identification o f the anonymous
author's sources will provide an indication as to the era in which The Ufe o f the Kings was composed.
Sources and Influences

The anonymous author o f The Life o f the Kings acknowledges that he was familiar with, and
perhaps borrowed from, other written sources.7 6 But these works are cited in ambiguous terms, an d a
colorful debate has raged among modem scholars as to their precise identification. None of the nonKa rf velian sources named in The Ufe o f the Kings may be positively identified. Rather, they seem to
represent traditions (i.e., groups o f texts and oral reminiscences on a given theme). In any event,
medieval Georgian historians rarely cited by name the sources upon which they relied .7 7 Countless
scholars have engaged this question. Among the most effective efforts to date are those of Javaxishvili.
Kekelidze, Abuladze, Ingoroqva, Tarchnishvili, and A. Bogveradze.
7 Attempts to discern the sources o f The Ufe o f the Kings have been plentiful but not always original or
persuasive. See: Javaxishvili, Dzveli k'art'uli saistorio mcerloba, pp. 176-188; Kekelidze, "Leonti
mrovelis literaturuli cqaroebi," Tp'ilisis universitetismoambe 111 (1923). pp. 3-32, repr. in his Etiudebi.
vol. 12 (1973), pp. 10-31; idem.. K'art'uli literaturis istoria, vol. 1 (1941 ed.), pp. 209-220 and also vol. 2
(1958 ed.), pp. 252-259; idem., Dzveli k'art'uli mcerlobis istoria, 2 vols., 3rded. (1951-1952). pp. 212223; K. Kekelidze with A. Baramidze, Dzveli k'art'uli literaturis istoria (1969 ed.), pp. 128-132;
Tarchnishvili. Geschichte, pp. 91-94; G. Mamulia, "Leonti mrovelis da juansheris cqaroebi (p'alauri epos
leonti mrovelis da juansheris saistorio t'xzulebebshi cqaros struk'turuli analizi)," Mac'ne 4 (1964), pp.
241-275; N. Janashia, "'C'xovreba k 'a rtvelta mepe t'a -s cqaroebisat'vis," in his Istoriulcqarot'mc'odneobit'i narkvevebi (1986), pp. 92-111; A. Bogveradze, " K a rt'lis c'xovrebis 1pirveli
matiane da misi avtori," in K'art'uli istoriograp'ia, vol. 1, pp. 8-44; Kakabadze, Saistorio dziebani, pp.
96-97; Ingoroqva, "K 'art'uli mcerlobis istoriis mokle mimoxitva," Mnat'obi 10-11 (1939), pp. 199-207
(who dates "Leonti Mroveli to the eighth century, idem., "Leonti mroveli, k 'art'v eli istorikosi me -8
saukunisa," Moambe 10 (1941), pp. 94-95; and Abdaladze, "K'art'lis c'xovreba" da sak'art'velo-somxet'is
urt'iert'oba.
77
M.S. Ch'xartishvili, "Priemy ssylki na istochniki v drevnegruzinskoi istoricheskoi literature (po

materialam nacbalnoi chasti 'Kartlis Tskhovreba')," in Istochnikovedcheskie razyskaniia 1985 (1988), pp.
148 et sqq. Ch'xartishvili summarizes and translates into Rus. those passages mentioning sources.
70
a. Local Georgian Sources
Medieval Georgian histories infrequently make direct references to other Georgian texts. We
have already seen th at in The Life o f the Kings? narrative o f the reign o f Aderki (1-58 AD), it is related
that two Jews brought the Lord's tunic from Jerusalem to the K 'art'velian royal city o f M c'xet'a. In this
re g ard ."Mok'c'evay k'art'lisay" is cited.
I have already demonstrated that this reference m ust be to The
Conversion o f K'art'li, the core text o f the corpus Mok'c'evay k 'a r t 'l i s a y And it should be noted that
the anonymous author o f The Life o f the Kings exhibited a patent unfamiliarity with the ninth-/tenthcentury Ufe o f Nino which greatly embellished this legend. The silence o f The Ufe o f the Kings
compelled the eleventh-century Leonti Mroveli to append The Ufe o f Nino so as to account for the
Christianization o f K 'a rt'li within the pre-existing written historical tradition. Simply put, the author of
The U fe o f the Kings himself was unacquainted with the Bagratid-era U fe o f Nino and instead relied upon
the earlier Conversion o f K'art'li.
The Conversion o f K'art 'li is not the only constituent work o f Mok c 'evay k 'art iisay to have
affinities with certain passages in The U fe o f the Kings. The Primary History o f K'art'li. which relates
Alexander's mythical invasion of K 'a rt'li. has an analogue in opening account o f The Life o f the Kings.
However, the nature o f the surviving MSS prevent us from determining once and for all which account
was written first* It may be tempting to suggest that The Primary History o f K'art'li is of great
antiquity since it has come down to us on in MSS containing the relatively old Conversion o f K'art'li.
Moreover, we might wish to seek a comparison with the gradual evolution o f the Nino Cycle from a
skeletal outline (the seventh-century' Conversion o f K'art'li) to a fully developed tradition (the ninth/tenth-century Ufe o f Nino). The account o f Alexander in The Primary History o f K'art'li is more
70
The Life o f the Kings, p. ^20-23' ^ nf ra 3r a translation. The date o f this reference is uncertain for
it may not have been part of the original text. In any event, it was part of the text by the eleventh century.
A detailed account about Elioz and Longinoz was inserted only by the Vaxtang VI Commission. Most
modern Georgian scholars make the assumption that the corpus of Mok'. k 'art'. was an important source
for The Ufe o f the Kings: Araxamia, "M ep'et'a c'xovrebis tek'stis dadgenis zogiert'a sakit'xi," Mac'ne 1
(1989). pp. 138-150; E. Xoshtaria-Brose, "Leonti mrovelis cqaroebis da *k'artlis c'xovrebis dasacqisi
c'iklis shedgenilobis sakit'xisat'vis," Mravaltavi 16 (1991), pp. 181-188; idem.. "K art'lis c'xovrebis'
dasacqisi c'iklis shescavlis shedebebi da tek'stshi arsebuli minacerebis interpretac'iis c'da," in K'art'uli
cqarot'mc'odneoba, vol. 8 (1993), pp. 81-87; andM . Ch'xartishvili, K'art'lisk'ristianizac'iis
cqarot'mc'odneobit'iproblemi (1982).
*
yConv. K'art'li, pp. 86-87. The notice about the Lord's tunic appears in the later Chelishi redaction but
79
not in the tenth-century Shatberdi variant Since the new Sinai redaction is being withheld from the
community of scholars, we do not know i f and if so, how - it relates this tale.
*On the relationship o f these texts, see ch. 2.
71
succinct than that in The U fe o f the Kings. But more detailed accounts are not necessarily later
embellishments of earlier, less developed narratives.
We face a similar query with respect to Royal U st I. We do not know exactly when this concise
enumeration o f the pre-Christian kings o f K 'a rt'li was compiled The relative chronology and names of
dynasts corresponds to those o f The Ufe o f the Kings in most instances. Significantly. Royal U st I
commences with Azon and P'am avaz, though Azon is made the first K 'art'velian king to reside in the
city o f M c'xet'a whereas the honor of being the first K 'art'velian king is rendered to P'arnavaz in The
Ufe o f the Kings. But both The Ufe o f the Kings and Royal U st / are concerned only with the preChristian K'art'velian monarchs. On this question we may cite the detailed studies of ToumanofF. for he
has already hypothesized, I think convincingly, that Royal Ust I is an abridgment o f The Ufe o f the
Kings.81 O f great significance are the several careless corruptions o f royal names which occur in Royal
U st I, whereas they are accurately preserved in The Ufe o f the Kings. The Ufe o f the Kings almost
certainly served as the basis for the slightly later abridgment o f Royal Ust /,82
With respect to The Conversion o f K'art Ti and The Royal U st I, it is prudent to reconsider the
nature o f the corpus of Mok c 'evay k 'art Tisay. In essence, that corpus was a medieval outline, or even
textbook, o f early K'art'velian history' for tenth- and eleventh-century' monks. It also served to sum up
and propagate a homogenous but sanitized viewpoint favorable to Christianity. However, it did not seek
to obliterate the pre-Christian past but rather to describe only enough o f it so as to explain the triumph of
Christianity from the 330s. In Royal U st I we find the contentious "admission" o f the prominent role of
the Armenians (and even o f their eponymous ancestor Hayk) in early K'art'velian history', as found in its
major source The Ufe o f the Kings - completely elim inated From an ecclesiastical perspective, after
Dwin m (when Royal Ust I was composed), the Armenians might be regarded as heretics. Likewise, the
Persian context of early K 'art'velian history is also ignored After all. the Persians had been adherents of
Zoroastrianism, the antagonist of Christianity'. The Primary History o f K'art Ti. when contemplated in
this context could have been a (later Bagratid) abridgment o f The Ufe o f the Kings, although this has not
yet been definitively established
In sum. the reference in The Ufe o f the Kings to "Mok'c'evay k'art'lisay pertains only to the
third text o f that corpus. The Conversion o f K'art'li proper, for only it mentions the tradition o f Christ's
tunic as having been brought to M c'xet'a in the same terms. Should the author o f The Ufe o f the Kings
^T o u m an o ff Studies, pp. 418-419.

82
Should we envisage the eleventh-century Leonti Mroveli as the author of Ufe Succ. Mirian, it would
have been possible for him to have relied upon the Royal Usts in Mok'. k'art. This would suggest (as
does the inclusion of the tradition of Azon and his father as K 'art'velian kings predating P'arnavaz) that
the Royal Usts did not rely exclusively upon The Ufe o f the Kings.
72
had been familiar with the entire corpus o f Mok'c'evay k'art'lisay, he possibly could be referring to its
version o f The Life o f Nino, but this is unlikely since: (1) the author is unaware o f The Ufe o f Nino's
embellishments on this topic; and (2 ) this would suppose that our author flourished in the eleventh
century, a date which is much too late according to this study. The Royal Lists o f Mok'c 'evay k'art 'lisay
are largely derivative upon the initial works o f K'art'lis c'xovreba. and especially The Ufe o f the Kings-.
there is no reason to think that they were sources for The Ufe o f the Kings. The only remaining
component o f Mok'c 'evay k 'art'lisay that may have served as a source is The Primary History o f K'art 'li.
whose narrative about Alexander is doubtlessly related to that in The Ufe o f the Kings. This question will
be examined in the following chapter, but suffice it to say that The U fe o f the Kings does not refer to The
Primary History o f K'art'li or Mok 'c 'evay k art 'lisay on this subject
b. Persian Influences
The earliest Georgian historical works, with the exception o f the semi-hagiographical Conversion
o f K'art 'U, firmly situate early K 'art'li within the Persian cultural and political world. In The Ufe o f the
Kings, Persia was depicted as the first kingdom on the Earth, and its alleged first monarch. Nimrod
(Georgian Nebrot'i ),**3 is described as a hero-dynast. The pre-Bagratid kings o f K 'a rt'li mimicked the
Persian shahanshah-s, and their actions and the vocabulary of the sources emphasize the intimate
connection with Persia. The extreme antiquity o f the Persian kingdom and the K 'art'velians' ancient
connection with it are paramount, for The Ufe o f the Kings regarded antiquity as the ultimate basis of
legitimacy.
Two explicit references to Persian sources/traditions are afforded in The Ufe o f the Kings. The
first concerns a certain hero named Ap'ridon who had arisen among the Nebrot'iani-s (i.e.. the
Nimrodids, the progeny o f Nimrod/Nebroti):
There are many traditions about Nimrod, some o f which will be considered in this and the succeeding
chapter. In any event, Nimrod mentioned in Genesis and traditions about him have been traced to ca.
2000 BC according to G. Smith, Izdubar Legends = The Chaldean Account o f Genesis (1876), esp. ch.
11, pp. 167-192 (Smith equates Izdubar with Nimrod). At the same time as the composition o f The Ufe o f
the Kings, at the start o f the ninth century, the Byzantine chronographer Syncellus also reckoned Nimrod
as the first king o f the world. See W. Adler, Time Immemorial: Archaic History and its Sources in
Christian Chronography (1989), pp. 174-175.
73
... the Persians, the progeny o f Nimrod, grew strong on the dawning Sun.8"* And a
certain man, a hero named Ap'ridon, became exalted among the clans of Nimrod: "he
bound Bevrasp'i, Lord o f Serpents, in chains, and fastened him to an inaccessible
mountain."8^ Such things are written in The Ufe o f the Persians [C'xovrebasa
sparst'asaJ.8**
The medieval Armenian adaptation o f K'art'lis c'xovreba repeats this story and cites "the books o f the
Persians ." 8 7
Writing of a later successor to Nimrod named K'ekapos, who is said to have been a contemporary
of the Biblical Moses, the anonymous historian wrote:
A few years after this K'ekapos again dispatched his grandson, the son of Shiosh "the
Fortunate," who had been killed in T*urk'et'i [i.e., Turkestan], as is written in the book
of The Ufe o f the Persians [Sparst'a c'xovrebisasa].88
The precise identification of this so-called Ufe o f the Persians8^ remains enigmatic even today.
Modem specialists generally agree that this Persian source/tradition o f The U fe o f the Kings is connected
with Abu'l-Qasem Firdawsi's Shah-nama? Yet, had our anonymous historian relied upon Firdawsl
pi
On the dawning Sun," mier mzisa aghmosavlit'gan ( 8 0 3 6 9bob6 io3 ciljA3 C5 oo 3aiB). is almost
certainly a Georgian rendition o f the meaning o f Khurasan, from xvarasan. the Phi. word for "east" (the
Georgian word aghmosavlet'i similarly means both "dawn" and "east"). The Phi. phrase xvarasan zarnik
means "land o f the sunrise," hence Khurasan. This phrase in The Ufe o f the Kings suggests that some
K'art'velians understood correctly the etymology o f Khurasan, used here in the sense of Persia. See
Bailey in Jamasp-namag, pp. 581 and 586.
0
Bevrasp' i is the Biurasp Azhdahak of Movses Xorenac'i, "From the Fables o f the Persians," pp. 126128.
^T h e U fe o f the Kings, pp. I 2 2 3 - I 3 3 .

'Arm. Adapt. K'C', p. 1 7 ^ .^ (ev great e i mateansParsic') = Thomson trans., p. 16.
OO
The Ufe o f the Kings, p. 1^21-23Passa 8 e mentioning Corn. K'art'li, The Ufe o f the Persians
is not mentioned in Arm. Adapt. K C'. pp. 20-21 = Thomson trans.. pp. 19-20. although it is fam iliar with
Shiosh (Biuab "the handsome") whose son is named as K'ue-Xosrov.
on
The O ld Georgian designation for Persians is spars-ni and for Persia, Sparset'i. These terras are
derived from the root -fars- (cf. Farsi), but the s- prefix has not been satisfactorily explained.
.g.. R.P. Blake, "Georgian Secular Literature," pp. 26-38, who relies heavily upon the work o f
Kekelidze. A dissenting view is held by V. Gabashvili, "K'art'ul-sparsuli kulturuli urt'iert'obani (X s.)."
Mac'ne 4 (1983), pp. 38-40 and 45, considers The Ufe o f the Persians mentioned in Georgian sources "of
the tenth and eleventh centuries" to be Tabari or the Persian translation of him attempted by Balami in
963 AD. There is no direct evidence of borrowing from Tabari (and this is impossible according to my
74
directly, then the former could not have written before the beginning o f the eleventh century, that is. the
tim e o f the Shah-nama's composition. Furthermore, the stories about A p'ridon, K'ekapos, and Shiosh,
and those about other Persian rulers related in The Life o f the Kings were not extracted directly from the
Shah-nama. We possess no evidence to suggest that the Shah-nama itself served as a source for The Ufe
o f the Kings?*
The U fe o f the Kings is obviously dependent upon some Persian source/tradition, be it written
and/or oral. This is manifest by the fact that several o f the names of early Persian kings mentioned in The
U fe o f the Kings have analogues in the Shah-nama?^
The Ufe o f the Kings

A p'ridon
Bevrasp'i
K'ekapos
Shioshi
Shah-nama
Faridun9^
?94
Key Kavus9^
Siaush/Siyarosh9**
chronology).
^ A lth o u g h according to the Shah-nama K'ekapos, apparently the Keykhosrow o f Firdawsi, did initiate
military operations against Turkestan ( T urk'et'i): see Shah-nama, VII.8 , pp. 110-112.
92See Melik'ishvili, K istorii drevnei Gruzii, pp. 35-36; sad. Shah-nama. Darius is not known to The Ufe
o f the Kings. The earliest reference in original Georgian historical literature to Darius (Georgian:
Dariosi) seems to occur in the twelfth-century Ufe o f Davit', p. 217j = Qauxch'ishvili ed.. p. 358 j 9. In
the tenth-century Shat. Codex, pp. 199-200, a list o f Persian kings is incorporated into the Georgian trans.
o f portions of Hippolytus' Chron. The Persian kings provided in this list (e.g., Cyrus, Nebuchadnezzor,
Darius, Xerxes, and Artvan) do not correspond with those divulged in The Ufe o f the Kings. Therefore,
the Chron. o f Hippolytus was not the source; moreover, the same may be said o f the Chron. o f Eusebius
(which also exists in a medieval Arm. trans.).
9 Ândronikashvili, Narkvevebi iranul-k'art'uli enobrivi urt'iert'obidan (1966), pp. 35, 186, and esp. 437438, who associates the Georgian form Ap'ridon with the Av. Oraetaona, and the Persian forms Fretun,
Fredun, Faredun, Feridun, and Afridun. The Armenian historian Movses Xorenac' i. "From the Fables of
the Persians, pp. 126-128, is familiar with a Persian named Hruden, who corresponds to Faridun.
Thomson in Movses Xorenac'i, p. 126, footnote 2, equates Xorenac'is Hruden with the Shah-nama's
Feridun.
9* Andronikashvili, Narkvevebi, pp. 449-450. The author derives the Georgian Bevrasp'i from the Av.
Baevaraspa, the Arabic Baiwarasb/Baiwarasf, and the Syriac B[ew]arspag. This name does not occur in
the Georgian version o f the Shdh-ndma. Movses Xorenac' i, pp. 126-128, is aware of a Persian named
Biurasp Azhdahak. B.L. Chukaszyan, cited by Thomson, ibid., p. 126, footnote 1, compares the Biurasp
Azhdahak o f Xorenac* i and the Zohhak o f Firdawsi.
9 5 Andronikashvili. Narkvevebi, pp. 507-508, who links the Georgian form K'ekapos to Kaikavus, Kai
Kayos, and Kaikabus.
9<*Ibid., pp. 508-509, who connects the Georgian form Shioshi with the Pers. forms SySvarshan,
75
K.'aixosro
Vashtashabi
Spandiat-Rvali
Ba[h]ram
TKey Khusrau 9 7
Goshtasp 98
? (son o f Vashtashabisi in the Georgian tradition )9 9
? (son o f Spandiat-Rvali in the Georgian
tradition ) 100
It should be emphasized that the names o f these Persian rulers, and their heroic deeds, were not invented
by Firdawsi; he only refashioned, and in some cases formulated, a tradition about these kings. Therefore,
the mere fact that The U fe o f the Kings and the Shah-nama share a common Persian royal nomenclature
does not necessarily betray- a direct dependence, or even an imitation, o f our Georgian source upon
Firdawsi.
The Shah-nama was preceded by a now-lost work, the anonymous Khwaddy-namag. or The Book
o f Rulers. 101 The Khwaday-ndmag was composed in Pahlavi prior to the overthrow of the Sasanids . 107
The work was translated into Arabic by Ibn al-Muqaffa' in the first-half o f the eighth century. Although
the original Persian redactions and the Arabic translations/adaptations have been lost, several works based
upon them have come down to us. A great number o f these derivative works were written down in the
ninth to eleventh centuries. The beginning o f this period coincides precisely with the composition of The
U fe o f the Kings, but we may only conjecture whether the evidence about Persia in the initial part of that
work was derived directly from the lost Khwaddy-namag. 10^ We can be certain, however, that the Shah-
nama is a derivative o f that source.
Siyavaxsh, and the Arm. derivatives Shavarsh and Shiosh, respectively. Andronikashvili notes that the
form Siaosh appears in the late medieval Georgian trans. o f the Shah-nama. See also T '. Ch'xeidze,
"Iranuli carmomavlobis sakuf ari saxelebi k 'a rf ulshi," Mac'ne 4 (1987), p. 101.
Q7
'Andronikashvili, Narkvevebi, pp. 505-506. The nam e K'aixosro is clearly derived from Pers., but a
clear parallel between the K'aikosro o f The Ufe o f the Kings and that o f the Shah-nama has not been
established.
9 8 Ibid., p. 25, who links the Georgian form Vashtashabi with the O.Pers. form Wishtaspa.
9 9 Ibid ., pp. 494-495. Andronikashvili derives the Georgian form Spandiat from the Pers. forms
Spanddat, Spandiat, with related Arm. forms Spandarat and Spandiat respectively.
100Ibid., pp. 445-446.

101 An additional Persian influence on The Ufe o f the Kings may be detected in its very title; C'xorebay
mep 'et 'a is the Georgian equivalent for both Khwaday-ndmag and Shah-nama.
102 E. Yarshater, "Iranian National History," in
CHI, vol. 3/1 (1983), pp. 359-360.
102Some modem Georgian historians, such as G. Mamulia, "Leonti mrovelis da juansheris cqaroebi
(p'alauri epos leonti mrovelis da juansheris saistorio t'xzulebebshi cqaros struk'turuli analizi), Mac'ne 4
(1964), pp. 244-246, have identified The Ufe o f the Persians with the Khwaddy-namag.
76
Other identifications have been posited. Javaxishvili suggested that the reference to The Ufe o f
the Persians may in fact be an allusion to the enigmatic Book o f Nimrod. ^
Although this work is cited
by name in other Georgian historical sources, there is no explicit mention o f it in The U fe o f the Kings.
Moreover, other medieval Georgian references to The Book o f Nimrod do not imply that its contents were
sim ilar to that o f The Ufe o f the Persians. There is no basis to equate The Ufe o f the Persians with The
Book o f Nimrod. ^
During the past century, the nature o f Persian influences on Georgian literature has been the
focus o f considerable interest ^
M. Andronikashvili, the foremost specialist on Georgian-Iranian
linguistic contacts, has proposed four possible identifications for The U fe o f the Persians:
^Jav a x ish v ili, Dzveli k'art'uli saistorio mcerloba, p. 187. The Book o f Nimrod is not to be confused
with the Uber Nimrod, a later astronomical treatise that was popular in medieval Europe (on this see S.J.
Livesey and R.H. Rouse, "Nimrod the Astronomer," Traditio 37 [1981], pp. 203-266). On The Book o f
Nimrod, see ch. 2.
^ F r o m a reference in a MS from the sixteenth/seventeenth century (from the Monastery o f S t John the
Baptist not far from the village o f Xashmi), Xaxanashvili suggested that The Book o f Nimrod was the
Georgian version o f the apocryphal Book o f Enoch. See Xaxanashvili, "Ekspeditsii na Kavkaze 1892,
1893 i 1895 g.," MAX 7 (1898), p. 41.
Kobidze, K'art'uii-sparsuli literaturuli urt'iert'obani, vol. 2 (1969), esp. pp. 242-245 = "Zametki o
gruzinskikh versiiakh proizvedenii prodolzhatelei 'Shakh-name'," and pp. 101-104 (on the Amirandarejaniani); A. Gvaxaria, "K art'ul-sparsuli literaturuli urtiertobis sat'aveebfan." in Sparsul-k'art'uli
c'dcmi. e d by M. T'odua (1987). pp. 3-13; Kekelidze, "'Shakh-name* Firdousi v gruzinskoi literature." in
his Etiudebi, vol. 13 (1974), pp. 112-115; and A. Saroukhan, "Firdowci et l'influence iranienne dans la
litterature ggorgienne" (1936).
Modem scholarship has tended to emphasize the influence o f Persian literature on late medieval
and early modem Georgian works. Obviously, it is my contention that this influence may now be
extended back well into the pre-Bagratid period The influence of Persian works, like the Shah-nama. on
later Georgian literature is undeniable. An adaptation o f the Shah-nama became popularized in Georgia
in the late medieval period under the name o f the Rostomiani. Serapion Sabashvili is known to have
reworked the text o f Firdawsi in the fifteenth century. In the seventeenth century', Xosro[v] T'urmanidze
wrote the Bezhaniani, an episode from Firdawsi; it continued to be widely copied up through the
nineteenth century [see S. Mdivanov. Bezhaniani (1891)].
The influence o f Persian literature is vividly illustrated throughout Shot'a Rust aveli's Knight in
the Panther's Skin, now the "national" epic of the modem Georgians. That a Persian model was employed
for such a grand poem during the very apogee of the medieval Georgian kingdom is evidence o f the
syncretism - cultural, political, an d to a less extent, religious - extending throughout K 'art'velian
history. Precisely when the Visramiani was translated into Georgian is unknown, but the earliest extant
MS does not pre-date the seventeenth century. (Traditionally, the work is attributed to Sargis Tm ogweli
who flourished during the reign o f T a m a r [1184-1213]). The Eng. translator O. Wardrop found at least
twenty-five parallels between Vep'xistqaosani and the Georgian Visramiani (ibid., pp. vii and 409).
Finally, another work traditionally assigned to the late twelfth century (earliest extant MS from the
seventeenth century) is Xoneli, Amiran-Darejaniani, trans. by R.H. Stevenson (1958). Stevenson
describes Amirandarejaniani as a medieval Georgian production reflecting deep Persian influences (ibid.,
p. xxvii).
77
1. Firdawsfs Shah-nama',
2. A New Persian version o f the Khwaddy-namag,
3. An Arabic rendition o f the Khwaday-ndmag; and/or
4. Georgian adaptations o f Persian epics . 10 7
Because o f the traditional view that Leonti Mroveli composed The U fe o f the Kings in the
eleventh century, a great many scholars have voiced the opinion that the author must have relied upon the
Shah-nam a}^ However, there is no textual evidence that the anonymous historian of The Ufe o f the
Kings relied directly upon the Shah-ndma. It is more likely that he was familiar with the Khwaddyn a m a g and the Persian epos through oral traditions.
We should offer a few words on the Persian context and heritage o f early K 'art'li so as to
understand more fully the references to The Ufe o f the Persians. The author of The Ufe o f the Kings
himself, writing many centuries after the fact, understood that K 'art' li, up through the early Christian
period, had been firmly situated within the Persian cultural, and to a lesser degree, political, orbit *
In
my view, this is an indication that the Christianization o f K 'art'li. and Caucasia as a whole, did not entail
a sudden shift to a Late Roman/Early Byzantine culturo-political orientation. Even in his time i.e.. ca.
800, during the interregnum following the abolition o f K 'art'velian royal authority by the Persians in the
Â n d ro n ik ash v ili, Narkvevebi, pp. 570-571. To this enumeration we might add the possibility' of
intermediary texts which have not survived to this day.
l^ S u c h arguments are weakened by the fact that no early Georgian translations or adaptations of the
Shah-nama are known to have existed. Kobidze. in his K'art'uli-sparsuli literaturuli urt'iert'obani, vol.
2, pp. 242-245, contends that the majority o f the Georgian versions of the Shah-nama were attempted no
earlier than the fifteenth/sixteenth century. Kekelidze. "Leonti mrovelis literaturuli cqaroebi." Tp ilisis
universitetis moambe 111 (1923), pp. 15-17. makes a sim ilar assertion, but suggests that twelfth- and
thirteenth-century Georgian literary monuments - such as Shot'a Rust avelis Vep'xistqaosani.
Ch'axruxadze's T'amariani display a thorough knowledge o f the Shah-nama. For a general survey of
the Shah-nama in terms o f its influence on Georgian literature, see idem., K'art'uli literaturis istoria. vol.
2 (1958 ed.), pp. 323-364. Finally. A. Baramidze. P'irdousi da misi shah-name (mokle istoriulliteraturuli mimoxilva) (1934), part 2 = "Shah-names k 'a rt'u li versiebi," pp. 20-53. says that while the
earliest fragment o f a Georgian trans. o f the Shah-nama dates from the fifteenth century, a Georgian
version must have existed already in the eleventh/twelfth century.
109 Cf. ToumanofF Studies, p. 89, footnote 122, who too strongly contends that the author o f The Ufe o f
the Kings "on his own admission" relied upon the Khwaday-namag.
**That is not to say that K 'art'li was never came into contact with Roman civilization or that it never
fell under Roman political authority. But in terms of conceptualizing and ordering society and political
authority, K 'art'li remained firmly within the Persian world, even in those periods when Roman influence
was relatively strong in Caucasia. For the Roman view, see: ToumanofF, Studies: and, Braund, Georgia in
Antiquity.
78
sixth century the author conceptualized K' art'velian royal authority in Persian terms even centuries
after the fall o f the Sasanid Empire to the armies o f Islam and even during a time when Byzantine ideas
were infiltrating K 'a rt'li on an unprecedented scale.
Unmistakable signs within this text testify to the Persian orientation of early K 'art'li. Foremost
among them concerns royal K 'art'velian onomastics. *** The names o f the K 'art'velian kings, and their
nobles, are clearly Median, Avestan, Parthian, and Persian in form, even after Christianization. * ^ The
name o f the very first king in The Life o f the Kings, P'am avaz (299-234 BC), is itself the Georgian form
o f the Persian Famavazdah (Gk. 4APNABAZ0E), which in turn was based upon the term
famah/xwamah which denoted "divine fortune," or "glory." *^ To the Persians, fam ah distinguished a
legitimate ruler. That the very first K 'art'velian king, himself a semi-mythical figure, bore this particular
name was no accident, for what better name could the first king o f a Persian-type community possess?
The conduit o f Persian ideas into antique K 'art'li was a broad one, for some o f the K 'art'velian kings
were themselves Persians (like Mihran/Mirian) or had Persian spouses. Even the daughters o f Christian
K 'art'velian monarchs often bore names terminating in the Persian suffix -duxt (i.e.. daughter). *^
Caucasia was regarded as part o f the Persian commonwealth already in the time of
Herodotus. * 15 This memory was reflected, consciously or not, by pre-Bagratid Georgian sources ( The
Life o f the Kings, The U fe ofVaxtang, and the brief narrative of Ps.-Juansher) which were all written after
* * *Most o f the names o f K 'art'velian monarchs may be confirmed independently by Graeco-Roman

literature and Sasanid inscriptions, and thus they were not merely some later invention.
1 Â ndronikashvili, Narkvevebi. esp. "Iranuli carmomavlobis piris sakut'ari saxelebi." pp. 417-517. See
also E. Benveniste, Titres et noms propres en iranien ancien (1966 repr.). One might be tempted, after
reading Braund, Georgia in Antiquity, that the kings o f the K 'art'velians (whom he prefers, like
ToumanofF, to call "Iberians") bore names in Classical style. This is m ost certainly not the case. Whereas
ToumanofF preferred Classical forms o f names, he clearly placed K 'a rt'li within a pan-Mediterranean
context: such a context is less evident in Braund's work.
*^ .\v aranah, xwarrah, farrah. farr = "divine fortune." See Yarshater, "Iranian Common Beliefs and
World-View," CHI. vol. 3/1, pp. 345-346. Yarshater writes that the idea is variously translated as "divine
fortune," "-grace," or "-glory." It was "conceived as a blessing bestowed from above, usually by Ashi, the
goddess o f wealth and recompense... No king could rule successfully without it." It is not by chance that
the first K 'art'velian king is named P'am avaz, whose very name indicated his connection with, or even
possession of. xwamah. See also "$APNABAZOE" in F. Justi, Iranisches Namenbuch (1895), p. 92;
Andonikashvili, Narkvevebi, pp. 14-16; and Garsoian, "Prolegomena to a Study o f the Iranian Aspects in
Arsacid Armenia," HA 90 (1976), pp. 36-37. footnotes 66-67.
114Royal K 'art'velian onomastics, Persian titles current in K 'art'li, as well as the relationship o f the
Georgian and Pers. languages will be considered in more detail in the following chapter. The suffix -duxt
is common in feminine Pers. names; it is evident in the name Boranduxt, the penultimate and de facto
ruler o f the Sasanid Empire in 630-631.
^ H e ro d o tu s, 111.97, p. 125; and infra, ch. 2.
79
the collapse o f the Sasanid Empire. Moreover, the Persians themselves situated K 'art'li within the
Persian commonwealth. Three third-century Sasanid inscriptions place K 'a rt'li within the dominion o f
Persia. At that tim e the Sasanids claimed territory westwards extending to the Black Sea itself. 116 The
Sasanid presence, both cultural and political is corroborated by the Sasanid coins, silver dishes, jewelry,
seals, and other manifestations o f material culture excavated on the territory o f Georgia. * ^
But it should
be emphasized that the Persians d id not regard K 'art' li as part o f Persia proper, but as the fringe of
Persian influence and civilization. The K'art'velians were not Persians, even if the two communities had
much in common . 1
A great number o f modem historians have studied the fierce competition of Rome/Byzantium and
Persia for hegemony in Caucasia, an d it is true that K 'a rt'li periodically fell under Roman authority. Yet
it should be emphasized that Roman influence was considerably more potent in the western territories of
Colchis (Lazika/Egrisi), i.e., along the Black Sea rim and in northeastern Anatolia, than in K 'art'li
proper. Greek inscriptions (even in M c'xet'a, the K 'art'velian royal city), Roman coins, and other
artifacts testify to substantial Roman contacts with K 'a rt'li. However, the K'art'velian historical sources
themselves ignore Roman efforts to win over K 'art'li. They do not relate Pompeys invasion o f Caucasia,
or even P'arsman His triumphant visit to Rome ca. 141-144 AD. *^
The Ufe o f the Kings names only
two Roman emperors: Vespasian, in connection with the exodus o f Jews to Caucasia:
and Constantine
"the Great" during the account of M ih ra n /M iria n .^ This contrasts sharply with the numerous Persian
*^B raund, Georgia in Antiquity, p. 242. These Sasanid inscriptions, as well as Sasanid coins found in
K 'a rt'li will be examined in ch. 2.
117
E.g., Mtskheta: itogi arkheologicheskikh issledovanii, vol. 1 (1958), with Eng. sum.. "Archaeological
Excavations at Armazis-Khevi near Mzkhetha in 1937-1946." pp. 275-282.
* *8The nexus o f K 'a rt'li and Persia is demonstrated by the nature of early K 'artvelian art. The affinity
of K'art'velian and Persian art persisted into the early Christian period: N. Thierry. "Iconographie sacree
et profane en Transcaucasie: caracteres ponctuels des influences," in SSCISSKI. vol. 43b. pp. 963-980.
concludes that "Cette epoque [i.e., the fifth through seventh centuries ADJ se caracterise par la
predominance de la Perse..." and "Larcheologie confirme que dans liberie [i.e., K 'art'li] du haul Moyen
Age, ce qui etait du quotidien, c'est a dire, les vetements, l'ornamentation, la typologie generate de la
monnaie, etait du monde iranien et caucasien." The author is absolutely correct to describe the
K'art'velian art o f the period as both "Iranian" and "Caucasian," for it was not simply some slavish
imitation of Persian art but was adapted to fit local conditions.
*^ O n P'arsman's audience with the Roman emperor Antoninus Pius, see: Cassius Dio, LXDC. 15.3, pp.
470-471; and Braund, Georgia in Antiquity, pp. 232-234.
120
The Ufe o f the Kings, p. 4 4 2 - Vespasian is referred to as Uespasianos, hromt'a keisari ("Vespasian,
the caesar of the Romans").
m Ibid pp. 6 9 16_l7 and 705 lg .
80
kings named throughout the tex t *2 2 Hagiography further confirms this, for both the fifth-century
Martyrdom ofShushaniki and the sixth-century Martyrdom ofEvstati are ignorant o f the Roman Empire,
and in both "the king invariably refers to the Persian King o f Kings.
In fact only with Heraclius
(610-641) and his appearance in K 'art'li (en route to Persia) did native historical and hagiographical
works begin to integrate detailed information about the Romans/Byzantines. This event was considered so
portentous that three medieval Georgian historical sources relate Heraclius eastern campaign . 124 A nd it
should be noted that the contemporary Persian connection o f K 'a rt'li was known to the seventh-century
Byzantine historian Theophanes. for he relates that Heraclius incarcerated a certain Barsamouses
(TParsman), who was "the commander o f the Persians Iberian [i.e., K'art'velian] s u b je c ts ." ^
Although the Persian orientation o f early Armenia has already received the attention o f scholars
like N.G. GarsoEan and J. Russell, a comprehensive study o f K 'a rt'lis place within the Persian
commonwealth awaits its historian . 126 Yet we may confidently situate late antique and early medieval
K 'a rt'li within the Persian social and cultural sphere, and it was counted among the Sasanid domains by
Sasanids and Caucasians alike. The cultural, social, religious, linguistic, economic, and political
influence o f Persia upon Caucasia was enormous. The Christianization o f the K 'art'velian kings, and the
very collapse of the Sasanid Empire, did not engender a sudden and conscious denial by the K 'art'velians
o f their Persian heritage, at least in the pre-Bagratid period.
The influence of Persian oral and written historical traditions was overwhelming. Our author,
who was a Christian (but not necessarily a cleric) and who wrote considerably later than the events he
describes, believed it proper to describe early K 'a rt'li in a Persian framework. The K 'art'velian kings and
their realm are depicted by The Life o f the Kings as patently Persian, and this circumstance reflected not
1W
---But it should be said that some o f these Persian kings were legendary. For a more detailed
examination of the local Georgian sources' acquaintence with Roman/early Byzantine and Persian
(Achaemenid, Arsacid, Sasanid, etc.) rulers, see ch. 2.
*23Both Conv. K'art'li and The Life o f Nino assert that Constantine "the Great" was responsible for
dispatching clerics to the newly converted K 'art'velian kingdom. This need not be taken literally; rather,
this claim was likely a tendentious attempt to link K 'a rt'li with the first Christian Roman emperor.
*2 Î.e., Ps.-Juansher, Royal List II, and Sumbat Davit' is-dze, although it should be emphasized that only
Ps.-Juanshers account is original while the other two are dependent upon i t Heraclius activities in
Caucasia are also related by: Theophanes, Annus mundi 61 IS, pp. 18-19; Sebeos, chs. 24-30, pp. 91-128;
Constantine VII, DAI, cap. 45, pp. 206-207; Movses Dasxuranc'i, n. 10-12, pp. 76-90; Nikephoros, Brev.,
pp. 55-67; and Vardan Arewelc'i, #33, pp. 174-175. Cf. Siege o f Cple., pp. 48-53 (with little detail for
Heraclius invasion o f Caucasia).
*^T heophanes, Annus mundi 6118, pp. 23-29.
^ A lth o u g h we have the preliminary work o f Toumanoff, Studies, and idem., "Christian Caucasia
between Byzantium and Iran: New Light from O ld Sources," Traditio 10 (1954), pp. 109-189.
81
only the historical reality o f the time but also the preservation o f this Persian Weltanschauung among the
K 'art'velians even at the beginning o f the ninth century, when, as I shall argue, The Life o f the Kings was
composed.
c. Greek Sources/Traditions Explicitly Cited
Although early Georgian historical works are characterized by their intimate association of
K 'art'li with Persia, the K 'art'velians did not turn their backs to other existing traditions. No early
Persian historical works survive in their pristine form, and much o f what we know about pre-Islamic
Persia must be extracted from Roman and Byzantine literature. The K' art'velians were familiar with
some Roman and Byzantine works and traditions, particularly those composed in Greek. This is true
especially after the Christianization o f K 'art'li in the fourth century, from which time K 'art'velian clerics
maintained contacts with much o f the Eastern C hristian world.
In the Georgian redactions o f K'art'lis c'xovreba, the author o f The Life o f the Kings claims a
familiarity with the Greek traditions o f the conquests o f Alexander the G reat As we shall see. the alleged
K 'art'velian campaign of Alexander was perceived by later writers the moment when their community'
moved from being primitive to civilized. In fact The Primary History o f K'art'//. the initial text of
Mok'c'evay k'art'lisay, associates the very origin o f the K'art'velians with Alexander's expedition. This
campaign is also narrated in The Life o f the Kings, whose anonymous author refers to a written source
concerning the life and deeds o f the world conqueror:
This Alexander, son o f Nectanebus and an Egyptian, became prominent in the land o f
Greece, which is called Macedonia, the tale about whom is written in the book[s] o f the
Greeks [cignsa berdzent'asa\S^
The medieval Kart'velian Alexander tale, which is repeated in slightly divergent forms in The
Life o f the Kings and The Primary History ofK 'art 'li, relates only a few details from the traditions o f
Alexander attributed to Ps.-Callisthenes which were produced in several Near Eastern/Mediterranean
languages, including the original Greek. *2 8 The aforementioned quotation does not state that our author
The Life o f the Kings, p.
173 . 5 . The reference to "Greek books" is absent in the Arm. Adapt.
K 'C \ p.
2 4 2 . 5 : "A* tta t time Alexander the Great, son o f Nectanebus the Egyptian, arose in the land of Macedon
[and he] conquered the three ends o f the world." See also Thomson, trans., p. 23. It is possible that this
reference in the Georgian redactions was added considerably later than the composition o f The Life o f the
Kings. For a detailed analysis o f this Georgian tradition, see the following chapter.
1 2 8 Cf. Kekelidze, "Leonti mrovelis literaturuli cqaroebi," pp. 23-26.
82
directly relied upon some version o f Ps.-Callisthenes. Rather, we are told that he was only familiar with
the Alexander tradition as it existed in "the book[s] o f the Greeks." The author was cognizant that the
exploits o f Alexander had been recorded in Greek literature, although other important adaptations were
composed in Armenian, Syriac, and Ethiopian (and much later, in the Persian Iskandar-ndma).
The Georgian tradition o f Alexander is only vaguely familiar with those of any extant version of
Ps.-Caliisthenes, ^
and it does not closely imitate any o f the Eastern versions, including th e Armenian
text which itself has no knowledge o f Alexander invading K 'a rt'li . 130 Yet it must be said that in his
introductory statement on Alexander, the historian echoes the common tradition that Alexander was the
son of the last Egyptian king, Nectanebus, and thus Alexander could be identified as an Egyptian.
The assertion that Alexander had invaded K 'a rt'li potentially could have been interpolated from
an earlier tradition of one o f the Eastern versions o f Ps.-Callisthenes. For example, in the Syriac version
Alexander is said to have:
... departed thence, and [have come] to Kusitires and to Nutira. to the shore o f the river
Ustin, and he saw the lake which they call 'the second death.' and the country was a
place o f cannibals . . . 131
E.A.W. Budge, the translator o f this text, tentatively identified the shore o f the Ustin River with the Greek
O EYEEINOEIIONTOE, or the Black Sea. ^3 2 Following his foray into Caucasia, the source relates that
Alexander appeared at the Armenian city of Methone to quell an insurrection. *33
A medieval. Christianized version o f the Alexander legend contends that the world conqueror
reached "the great Musas" Mountain, which may be identified as the Caucasian M t Masis. Subsequently.
Cf. Blake, "Georgian Secular Literature," p. 31:"... Leonti Mroveli refers to and cites a considerable
passage o f the Alexander romance: and V. Vashakidze. "'M ep'et'a c'xovreba' da berdznuli
'alek'sandriani,' in Istoriul-cqarot'mc'odneobit'igamokvlevebi (1991). pp. 37-46, with Rus. sum.,
"Grecheskii Homan ov Aleksandre' i 'Zhizn' kartliiskikh tsarei,'" p. 46, who argues unconvincingly that a
Georgian version of Ps.-Callisthenes already existed in the seventh/eighth century, precisely at the time
when The Life o f the Kings was written.
^3 0 Ps.-CaIlisthenesArmenian = A.M. Wolohojian, trans.. The Romance o f Alexander the Great by
Pseudo Callisthenes: Translatedfrom the Armenian Version (1969).
^3 *Ps.-CallisthenesSyriac = Budge, trans. and commentary. The History o f Alexander the Great, Being
the Syriac Version o f the Pseudo-Callisthenes (1889), 1.44, pp. 55-56. Budge suggests that this Syriac
text was composed in the seventh-ninth centuries (pp. lvi-lvii).
l32Ibid p. 55, footnote 2.

133Ibid., 1.23, pp. 30-31.
83
Alexander penetrated Arm enia and "Azerbaijan." *34 The Ethiopian Ps.-Callisthenes also reports that
Alexander passed near ML Musas. ^
while the Armenian version states that Alexander "passed through"
Armenia . 136 The tradition that Alexander was responsible for constructing a gate in northern Caucasia
so as to contain various barbarian tribes was not incorporated into The Life o f the Kings:1*7 instead the
text relates a divergent tradition which did not associate this gate with Alexander.13**
The death o f Alexander, as narrated by The Life o f the Kings. is based upon an existing tradition,
though the version o f Ps.-Callisthenes (perhaps oral) that was employed by our anonymous author cannot
be precisely identified. According to The Life o f the Kings. Alexander conquered the world in twelve
years. This is a reflection o f the well established tradition in Ps.-Callisthenes that Alexander had reigned
for slightly less than thirteen years . 139
Moreover, The Life o f the Kings holds that Alexander returned to E gypt presumably to his city' of
Alexandria, where on his deathbed he entrusted the major areas o f his realm to his kinsmen Antiok'oz
(Antiochos), Hromos (Romos), Bizantios (Byzantios), and Platon (Ptolemy was likely intended). *40 The
names o f these mythical kinsm en are clearly eponyms for Syria/Antioch, Rome. Byzantium, and Egypt
("Ptolemy" indicates the Hellenistic Ptolemids). This tradition is unknown in extant versions o f Ps.Callisthenes, although they do relate Alexander's "testament" whereby the administration of his empire
was apportioned. Four figures are particularly prominent in all the major redactions of Ps.-Callisthenes:
Ptolemy (Egypt). Antigonos (western Anatolia), Eumenes (Cappadocia and Paphlagonia), and Lysimachos
*34/l Christian Legend Concerning Alexander in Ps.-CallisthenesSyriac, pp. 148-149.

*3 ^Ps.-CallisthenesEthiopian = Budge, ed.. trans.. and commentary.
The Life and Exploits o f Alexander
the Great, Being a Series o f Ethiopic Texts (1896). vol. 2. p. 228.

^P s.-C a llisth en esArmenian, pp. 87-88.
The evolution o f the tradition regarding Alexanders construction of a gate in northern Caucasia, and
the tribes imprisoned by iL is traced by A.R. Anderson. Alexander's Gate, Gog and.Magog, and the
Lnclosed Nations (1932). Anderson enumerates the peoples who were at various times believed to have
been incarcerated: some o f the progeny of Togarmah (an identification which potentially could be
extended to include the K 'art'velians), Gog and Magog, Scyths, Huns. Alans. Khazars. Turks. Magyars.
Parthians, Mongols, and the Ten Tribes of Israel (pp. 4-14 et sqq).
*3 **7%e Life o f the Kings, p. 13. See also Anderson, Alexander's Gate, p. 91.
I 3 9 A.B. Bosworth, "Alexander the Great Part I: The Events o f the Reign," CAH. vol. 6 , 2nd ed. (1994). p.
845.
*477je Life o f the Kings, pp. 19-20. The Georgian tradition has Alexander returning to Egypt where he
passed away, but Ps.-Callisthenes asserts that Alexander died while on campaign in Babylon and his body'
was transported to Egypt and finally interred at Alexandria.
84
(Thrace ) . 141 It should be emphasized that many other appanages were delimited by Alexander's will, but
none o f them correspond to those of The Life o f the Kings. The four prominent successors o f Alexander
according to Ps.-Callisthenes were Macedonian kinsmen o f Alexander with few exceptions, such as
Eumenes who himself was a Greek. The Life o f the Kings explicitly identified Alexander's successors as
his kinsmen and this is consistent with the received tradition. But the names o f the heirs o f the world
conqueror as enumerated in The Life o f the Kings is unique. The medieval K 'art'velian understanding of
Alexanders will was that civilized rule in Syria, Rome, Byzantium, and Egypt could be traced only to the
Hellenistic period, and coincidentally (but fortunately), K 'art'velian royal authority could also be traced to
the same era. Thus the author o f The Life o f the Kings has further associated K 'art' Ii with the civilized
world. Legitimacy and power in ancient K 'a rt'li thus was not only envisaged in Persian terms but in the
Hellenistic context as well.
Strikingly divergent from the various redactions o f Ps.-Callisthenes, The Life o f the Kings is for
the most part unconcerned with Alexander's agenda o f world conquest, though he is acknowledged to
have "conquered all the ends o f the world. The focus here is on Alexander's personal invasion o f K 'art'li
and his direct connection w ith the establishment o f indigenous kingship . 142 In short, the tradition o f
Alexander as related in The Life o f the Kings shares only minor affinities with the various redactions o f
Ps.-Callisthenes: that Alexander was related to the Egyptians, that he had ruled for twelve years, and that
he had apportioned his lands on his death. But The life o f the Kings knows Ps.-Callisthenes only vaguely
and perhaps second-hand o r even through some oral tradition, for its author confused the few elements of
Ps.-Callisthenes that were incorporated in his work. Moreover, the account o f The life o f the Kings is
principally concerned with Alexanders alleged invasion of K 'a rt'li and the rise of the K 'art'velian
monarchy in the Hellenistic period; the remainder o f Alexander's exploits are incidental.
The narrative o f Alexander as preserved in The life o f the Kings may not be identified as a
medieval Georgian version o f Ps.-Callisthenes. In fact a Georgian version of Ps.-Callisthenes was
produced only in the late medieval/early modem period. Reaching Georgian ultimately through a Serbian
redaction, the Georgian version o f Ps.-Callisthenes was widely circulated throughout Georgia from the
seventeenth through the nineteenth centuries. 143
141 E. Will, T h e Succession to Alexander," in CAH, vol. 7/1, 2nd ed. (1984), pp. 27-28. This tradition is
recapitulated in Ps.-CallisthenesArmenian, pp. 154-156.
142 77te Life
o f the Kings, p. 17.
143 Xaxanishvili, "Gruzinskaia povest' ob Aleksandre Makedonskom i serbskaia Aleksandriia." ZMNP

289/9 (1893), pp. 241-252. Khakhanov suggests that the trans. from Serbian occurred after the fourteenth
century and postulates that the Georgian version was attempted by the famous poet and rhetor, the
Georgian prince Arch'd, in the sixteenth/seventeenth century. A rch'il migrated to Russia, where he could
have gained access to the Serbian version.
85
The Alexander romance is not the only Greek source alluded to in The Life o f the Kings. A
second Greek work/tradition is named in connection with the Christianization o f the emperor Constantine
"the G reat" Constantine had been approached by some Christians about the virtue of Christianity:
But the emperor Constantine [came to] believe them, as is written clearly in The
Conversion o f the Greeks \Mok'cevasa berdzent'asa]. Constantine was baptized,
and he carried before him the sign o f the Cross, and he overcame the countless Persian
enemy with his few troops, and by the power of Christ their camp was put to flight and
a multitude o f them were annihilated . 144
The Conversion o f the Greeks (Mok'c'evay berdzent'a) must refer to the account o f the conversion of
Constantine "the Great" written by Eusebius o f Caesarea, or some tradition/text dependent upon it. It is a
curious fact that no Old Georgian translations of Eusebius, or the later Socrates and Sozomen. are known
to have existed. *4^ O f course, it is possible that our anonymous ninth-century historian could read Greek.
Important versions o f the works o f Eusebius and Socrates existed in Classical Armenian, and. as we shall
see, our author almost certainly could read that language. However, from the details given in the account
about Constantine there is no indication that this author was personally familiar with Eusebius' accounts
o f Constantine. Likewise, we have already seen that the author of The Life o f the Kings, while knowing
that the legend o f Alexander's conquests could be found in the book[s] o f the Greeks," was directly
unacquainted with them.
So we may characterize the references in The Life o f the Kings to "the book[s] of the Greeks"
(concerning Alexander the Great) and The Conversion o f the Greeks (concerning Constantine "the
Great) as allusions to grand traditions in Greek and nothing more. In both instances we have no reason
to think that the author had first-hand knowledge, let alone access, to the relevant Greek texts. Moreover,
we may not assume that our author knew Greek. While such a supposition may be true, we have no direct
evidence to support or deny it
The Life o f the Kings, pp.

Although this episode is repeated in Arm. Adapt. K 'C \ pp. 73-74
= Thomson trans., p. 82, The Conversion o f the Greeks is not cited. This version relates that Constantine
had a vision instructing him to convert
*4% o r an informative enumeration o f medieval Georgian translations o f foreign texts, see Kekelidze.
"Uc'xo avtorebi dzvel k 'art'u l mcerlobashi," in his K'art'uli literaturis istoria (1941 ed.), pp. 569-676. A
trans. o f Theodoret's Ecclesiastical History was made in the eleventh century. It is entirely possible that
this reference was added in the eleventh century when Leonti Mroveli, and/or others, attempted to
Christianize The Life o f the Kings.
86
d. Armenian Influences and Sources
Some modem scholars have commented upon the alleged "Armenophile" tendencies o f the
author o f The Life o f the Kings. 146 One o f the fascinating traits of this text, which was composed in the
wake o f the ecclesiastical schism between the K 'art'velians and the Armenians in 607/608. is the
prominent role o f the Armenians and Armenia. Accordingly, it is not surprising that the author claims
some familiarity with Armenian historical literature, which had emerged already in the fifth century.
Towards the end o f his narrative, the author o f The Life o f the Kings lauds the heroism and courage o f the
Armenian king T rdat. Yet the conversion o f T rdat, the first Christian Armenian king, is unknown to
him. Rather, T rdat is simply described in terms o f being a hero and a "giant, which, as we shall see,
was typical of the literary depiction o f Persian-type (including K'art'velian) monarchs.
In connection with T rdats service to the Roman emperor in overcoming the Goths, we read that:
And [T rdat] became renowned throughout the entire world, and he was victorious in all
o f his wars, as is written in his tale in The Life o f the Armenians [C'xorebasa
som ext'asa)}^
Like other direct references to non-Georgian works, the source/tradition represented tty the title Life o f the
Armenians [C'xo{v}rebay somext a\ is obscure. ^
For example, the extant Armenian version of
Agat'angeghos does associate T rdat with a campaign against the Goths. 1 4 9 But we should recall the
^ S e e Abdaladze, "'C 'xovrebak'art'velta mep et'as' armenop'iluri tendenc'iis mizezebisat'vis," Mac'ne

4 (1987), pp. 188-191. For parallels with Movses X orenac'i, see chs. 2-3.
^ T h e Life o f the Kings, p. 6 9 -7. 9 . ^ l s s011 * unacknowledged in Arm. Adapt. K 'C \ pp. 70-71 =
Thomson trans., pp. 80-81. The Conversion o f Armenia, pp. 25-26, rendered into Georgian tty the
eleventh century, also documents T 'rdat's connection with the Goths.
*4There may be a reference to the text The Conversion o f the Armenians in the Life o f Nino as inserted
into The life o f the Kings, p. 84$: " a *
dci^Qgs^ta 8 0 6 * bmdabojibi" = "...da sascauli
mok'c'evasa shina somext'asa." However, it seems to me that the passage in question merely refers to the
events surrounding the Christianization (i.e., the conversion) o f Armenia. See also M.S. Ch'xartishvili,
"Priemy ssylki na istochniki v drevnegruzinskoi istoricheskoi literature," in Istochnikovedcheskie
razyskaniia 1985, p. 148.
1 4 9 Agat'angeghos, para. 39-45. pp. 54-61. This w as also noticed by Thomson in his trans. o f Arm.
Adapt. K'C \ p. 80, footnote 78. See also: the outstanding study of Garitte, Documents pour Tetude du
Livre dAgathange (1946); ToumanafFs review o f in Traditio 5 (1947), pp. 373-383; and G. Winkler,
"Our Present Knowledge of the History o f Agat'angeghos and its Oriental Versions," REArm, n.s. 14
(1980), pp. 125-141 andstemma, p. 134.
87
purpose o f the Grigorian Cycle
was to describe the Christianization o f Armenia, exclusively
associating Gregory the Illuminator with the conversion o f T r d a t . ^ This theme is completely ignored
in The Life o f the Kings. But this does not preclude the Grigorian Cycle as being the indicated Armenian
source. Moreover, a fragment o f a medieval Georgian redaction o f Agat'angeghos is extant, but it docs
not predate the eleventh century. ^
Unfortunately, this so-called "Cambridge fragment" says nothing
about T rdat o r Gregory the Illuminator, but is instead concerned w ith the holy woman Rhipsime. a
companion o f Nino in the Georgian tradition.
In 1892/1893 T . Zhordania published a medieval Georgian text which he entitled Mok'c evav
somext'a (ck n ^Q îa bciSgbco^), or The Conversion o f the A rm en ia n s.^ He proposed that it was
copied in the eleventh century for King Davit' II (1089-1125). This Conversion o f the Armenians deals
with the early Armenian dynasty o f the Arshakuniani-s (Arsacids), who are said to have been the
offspring o f "Parthian clans [nat'esavit' part't'a].^
The reign o f King T rdat, his involvement in the
Gothic war, and the activities o f Gregory the Illuminator are also described. We do not know if a
prototype or even the original o f this Conversion o f the Armenians existed in the early ninth century7.
However, after the schism o f 607/608 the K'art'velians continued to receive translations and original
literature from the Armenians, albeit in a less amicable environment. Perhaps an prototype o f this
Conversion o f the Armenians, or a text similar to it, was employed by the author o f The Life o f the Kings.
The possible identification o f The Life o f the Armenians should not be confined to the Grigorian
Cycle, for the description o f King T rdat in The Life o f the Kings has a number o f correspondences with
the Armenian traditions preserved in the seventh-century Primary History o f Armenia and by the eighthcentury Movses Xorenac'i. The Armenian king is associated in each o f these texts with a Gothic war.
Moreover, T rdat is described tty Xorenac' i as an invincible hero, an adroit horseman, and a boxer/
champion duelist, reminiscent o f his depiction in The Life o f the Kings. ^
But no evidence exists to
^ T h e "Grigorian Cycle" refers to those texts (i.e., ascribed to Agat'angeghos) describing the missionary
endeavors o f Gregory the Illuminator.
^ *Winkler, "Our Present Knowledge o f the History o f Agat'angeghos," p. 125.
^ G a r itte , "Sur un fragment georgien d'Agathange," LeM 61 (1948), pp. 89-102; idem.. Documents pour
Tetude du Livre dAgathange, esp. "Les textes georgiens," pp. 10-16; and idem., "La Passion des saintes
Rhipsimiennes en georgien (Agathange, ch. Xm-X3X)," LeM 15 (1962), pp. 233-251.
^ C o n v . Armenians - Molc'c'evay somext'a in Zhordania, ed., K'ronikebi, vol. 1, pp. 19-27.

154Ibid., p. 19.
^ M o v s e s Xorenac'i, n.79, pp. 226-227, and H.82-83, pp. 231-235; as noted by Thomson, Xorenac'i
here is elaborating on the account o f Agat'angeghos and mentions him tty name in several instances.
88
imply that Xorenac'i's history was ever translated into Old Georgian. Some Georgian scribes, possibly
including the author o f The Life o f the Kings, were evidently fam iliar with it through the Armenian
original and/or pan-Caucasian oral traditions.
e. Unacknowledged Influences: The Deluge Universel
It is certain that the author o f The Life o f the Kings was acquainted, either first- or second-hand,
with traditions about the Armenian king T rd at But what was his source? Was it the Grigorian Cycle.
Movses Xorenac'i, another derivative lost text o r an oral tradition possibly based upon these sources? In
addition, can we establish whether the historian could read Armenian? For an answer to this last query,
we must consider the unacknowledged sources o f The Life o f the Kings.
Many works reached early Christian K 'art'li through translations and adaptations from the
Armenian language, such as the Bible and various patristic texts. Armenian translations, adaptations, and
original literature continued to be read by K'art'velian learned m en even posterior to the Christological
schism declared at Dwin III. For example, the historian who composed The life o f the Kings (writing
several centuries later) was familiar with the Armenian tradition o f T 'rdat and Gregory the Illuminator.
Although the two later terminating sections o f C'xorebay k'art'velt'a mep'et'a, which are
concerned with Christian K 'art'li, sought - or were later edited to limit the role o f the Armenians in
K 'art'velian history, the preceding Life o f the Kings did not. The initial portion o f that text, which
explains the ethnogenesis of the K'art'velians. both is highly dependent upon medieval Armenian
scholarship and testifies to the ancient and intimate links of K ' art' li and Armenia. The reasons for this
will be examined throughout this study. However, I would suggest that the author o f The Life o f the Kings
was not a cleric and did not seek to divorce K 'art' li from Armenia on the grounds o f obscure points of
dogma. The Christian sections o f C'xorebay k'art'velt'a mep'et'a were almost certainly Christianized by
clerics (like Leonti Mroveli), and they would have more reason to deny the Monophysite Armenians any
role in early K 'art'velian history.
The curiosity on the part o f the K'art'velians in the early ninth century concerning their
ethnogenesis occurred within the context of a similar interest among the Armenians, the Caucasian
Albanians (Movses Dasxuranc'i), and the Persians (Khwaddy-ndmag). About a century before the
composition o f The Life o f the Kings, the influential Armenian historian Movses Xorenac'i sought to trace
and summarize the origin of the Armenian community, but more specifically, the Bagratuni c l a n . ^
Xorenac'i him self drew upon the traditions of the seventh-century Primary History ofArmenia, which
l ^ I n this study I shall refer to the main core o f the family try the Armenian designation Bagratuni. The
term Bagratid will be employed for the family as a whole, or as an adjective. See infra, chs. 6-7.
89
sometimes is attributed erroneously to Sebeos, ^
and the Grigorian Cycle. Later, both the tenth-century
Yovhannes Drasxanakertc'i (John the Catholicus) and the tenth-/eleventh-centuiy history o f the
1SR
Caucasian Albanians by Movses Dasxuranc'i
exhibited a similar interest in origins. In Byzantium the
chronographer George Syncellus sought to reconcile the traditions o f the Greeks with those o f the ancient
world. ^ 9 In short, scholarship in eighth-/ninth-century Caucasia, and indeed the entire Near East and
even the Byzantine world, was characterized by an intense fascination in the subject o f ethnogenesis. and
The Life o f the Kings may be regarded as the K 'art'velian expression-of this interest.
Perhaps the most influential o f these tracts from the upper Near East, and certainly the best
known Caucasian example o f this genre, is The History o f the Armenians by Movses Xorenac'i.
Anticipating The Life o f the Kings by a century or so, Xorenac' i was conditioned by received traditions.
R. Thomson, who translated the text into English, described Xorenac' is work as:
... more than a nonce publication to satisfy the political need of the m om ent It is an
attempt to sum up the Armenian tradition, to present it in a coherent albeit
tendentious fashion, and to provide the Armenians with a history as respectable as
that o f other nations . 160
The Life o f the Kings, while not glorifying the K 'art'velian Bagratids (a branch of that same Bagratuni
family eulogized by Xorenac'i), had a common objective: to summarize the archaic traditions of the
community. Both The Life o f the Kings and Xorenac' i endeavored to formulate a specific image of the
past and a coherent tradition. But whereas Xorenac'i in several instances deliberately rewrote history by
tendentiously reshaping the past in broad strokes, the author o f The Life o f the Kings more carefully
respected the inviolability o f the received traditions, so long as the K'art'velians could be inserted
plausibly into them. This is not to suggest however, that the author o f The Life o f the Kings did not
consciously manipulate received traditions, for as an image-maker he was forced to emphasize some
traditions, deny or ignore others, and even invent some o f his own. But when contrasted with Xorenac i.
the author of The Life o f the Kings was more conscientious about the faithfulness of his account with
respect to the received traditions. Biblical and otherwise, and was considerably less willing to contort
them beyond immediate recognition.
^ Prim. Hist. Armenia, pp. 357-368.

1 CO
JOYovhannes Drasxanakertc'i, cap. I-II, pp. 66-70; and Movses Dasxuranc'i, 1.1-3, pp. 1-3 (and footnote
l.p - 1 ).
159 W. Adler,
Time Immemorial: Archaic History and its Sources in Christian Cosmography.
160rhomson in Movses Xorenac'i, introduction, p. 60.
90
One o f the fundamental differences between The life o f the Kings and Xorenac'i's history is the
willingness o f the former to admit the prominent role played by external agents. Xorenac'i does not exude
the nostalgia for the intimate relationship o f early Arm enia and K 'art'li, and the admission o f such a bond
was not a necessity, for received traditions already accounted for the provenance o f Armenia. Moreover.
Xorenac' i was concerned only with the ev olution o f the Arm enian community, and especially, the
ascendancy o f the Bagratuni clan. He is silent with regards to the K'art'velians. except to comment that
their conversion was ultimately the result o f the missionary activities o f Gregory the Illuminator (the
converter o f Armenia), that the first Christian dynast o f K 'a rt'li was a prince and not a king (after all. the
Armenian T rd a t was the king in the Caucasus region), an d that the Georgian script had been invented
through the labors of the Armenian cleric Mashtoc' (a tradition first articulated by Koriwn). 16 * In
addition, whereas the Georgian tradition admits early K 'a rt'li to have shared much in common with
Persia, Xorenac'i had no love for the Persians.
The author of The Life o f the Kings was faced w ith a serious dilemma: the K'art'velians were not
classified in the Biblical pedigree following the deluge, a tradition which no Christian genealogist could
conceivably avoid, so how could the K 'art'velians be traced directly to the post-diluvian dispersion o f
peoples? And this is important, for the Old Testament was the source par excellence for determining the
provenance o f communities. In searching for the vinculum which would explain the ethnogenesis o f his
community, the anonymous author was aided by the fact that some of the Caucasian peoples were believed
to have been the descendants o f Japheth, a son o f Noah. Already in the fifth century, Agat'angeghos
asserted that Togannah (Arm. I&npqnd, Gk. 0OPTOM A / 0OPTAM A / 0EPTAMA) was the ancestor o f
the Armenians. ^
In the seventh century or so, the anonymous Primary History o f Armenia recorded the
tradition that Hayk was the ancestor o f the Armenians. ^
This tradition was adopted and expanded upon
by the eighth-century Movses Xorenac' i. In diagramming the origin of the Armenians. Xorenac' i built
upon Agat'angeghos and The Primary History o f Armenia'.
Japheth -* Gamer -* Tiras Togarmah * Hayk -* Aramaneak... ^
^ X o r e n a c 'is History was highly influential upon subsequent Armenian historians. E.g.. several o f his
arguments are recapitulated in the tenth-century account o f Yovhannes Drasxanakertc'i, cap. I-II, pp. 6 6 70, and pp. 238 (note 11, cap. 1) and p. 239 (notes 19-20, cap. 2). Cf. Movses Xorenac'i, 1.14, pp. 94-96.
1^2Agat'angeghos, para. 16, pp. 28-29 ("the race o f T'orgom" = "qfifnpqmfujj ujqqhu"); para. 776, pp. 314315; and para. 796. pp. 334-335. Xorenac'i built upon the traditions o f Prim. Hist. Armenia and
Agat'angeghos as well as the work of earlier Christian genealogists.
163prim. Hist. Armenia, pp. 358-361.
l^ M o v ses Xorenac'i, 1.5, p. 74. On the Armenian traditions o f Togannah see also Garsoian, "T'orgom"
91
Hayk is a figure o f some gravity in Xorenac'i's account for he is identified as the eponym of the
Armenians, who called (and still call) themselves Hayk'. Xorenac'i grafted Hayk and the early Armenian
kings onto the received Biblical tradition, thus inserting them into "world" and Biblical history. ^
Xorenac' i did not deduce a Japhethic origin for the other peoples of Caucasia. Yet within a
century Xorenac' i's approach influenced, or perhaps was even adopted by. the author o f The Life o f the
Kings. He traced the origin o f not only the Armenians, but also o f his own K 'art'velian community and of
the other peoples of Caucasia, from Japheth, and more particularly, Togarraah. The Life o f the Kings
commences:
First we should explain that the Armenians and the Kart'velians. the Rani-s and the
Movakani-s, the Heri-s and the Leki-s. the Megreli-s and the Caucasians [all o f these]
had a single [fore-]father by the name o f Togannah \T'argamos\. This Togannah was
the son o f Tiras [T'arshiJ, the grandson o f Japheth [lap'et'i\, [who in turn was] the son
o f Noah. And Togannah was a heroic man... ^
The implications o f this passage will be examined in the following chapter. Suffice it to say here that The
Life o f the Kings subsequently developed an origin stemma which closely resembled that o f Movses
Xorenac'i:
Japheth -* T i r a s - Togannah - {Haos & K'art'los}...
Clearly, our historian adopted the tradition that Hayk (Georgian Haos) the eponymous ancestor o f the
Armenians, whose legend was classically articulated by Xorenac'i a century before was descended from
Togannah, in the line o f Japheth. But The Life o f the Kings makes one significant addition: the claimed
in The Epic Histories, p. 416.

^ T h o m s o n in Movses Xorenac'i, p. 75, footnote 4. The derivation o f Hayk' from the eponymous
praenomen Hayk is erroneous and will be considered infra.

^ The Ufa o f the Kings, p. 3^ : "3ofi3ac?6{g 3 . ^ 3 6 3I13, 6a33 q bm dab .* oj> j 6 6 co3 3 C?ODi,
6 i 5o)j> c0i 0ci3A36oc5O)A, J36coa
e?33^. 3flP>6 ,jg3A eoo> 3o>33J>boi66o>3i jb^ a6o
0 3 3i 3iO b ib a c j o r o i 6 & i 3 b . a b a A 6 & a8 b 0 3 d a ^ 63 o b o . d o b ^ g c M o i g a o b o ,
d o b o 6 a b o . g i 0 3 a b a i r t a i 3 b 3AQ0 &3o d )o ..."
167
Gamer has been removed from the K'art'velian genealogy.
92
eponym o f the K 'art'velians, K 'art'los, as well as his counterparts for other Caucasian communities. We
have no earlier (extant) references in medieval Georgian literature to this K 'art'los.
O f the sons o f Togannah, The Life o f the Kings renders the highest honor to Haos, the Hayk of
the Armenian tradition. Having defeated his sovereign, "the first king o f the world" Nimrod (Nebrof i).
Haos' position was solidified: "And the progeny o f Togannah were liberated, an d then Haos made himself
king over his brothers ..." 1 6 8 This admission that K'art'los was the junior o f his brother Haos has
confounded a great many m odem historians, some of whom, like Kekelidze. have branded the anonymous
historian as a n "Armenophile. 16^ But Kekelidze, and others, have over-emphasized the "progressive"
notion of "Caucasian brotherhood" found in The Life o f the Kings. Such assertions are best explained by
the influence o f the Soviet policy o f druzhba narodov OtpyxOa HapoROB), or "Friendship of the Peoples."
and the various successful and unsuccessful attempts to detea friendly contacts between Soviet peoples
from time immemorial. 17
^ the case o f The Life o f the Kings, its author merely linked the
K'art'velians with the Armenians insofar as such a relationship enabled him to interpolate the origin of
his own community from the received traditions o f the Old Testament, apocrypha, and related sources.
This association did not seem tendentious to the contemporary historian, for K 'a rt'li's past was
inextricably intertwined w ith that both of Armenia and Christendom. There is nothing particularly
"progressive" (in the m odem sense o f the word) about our author's intellectual labors. Rather, he
demonstrated himself to be thoroughly familiar with, and deeply respectful of, received traditions. And,
as I have noted, as a non-cleric the author was not interested in the dogmatic questions that arose in the
post-Dwin in milieu. The prom inent place o f the Armenians and their traditions with his work m ight
actually indicate that the author believed that the two communities need not be divorced over dogmatic
issues, and that the two communities had enjoyed a friendly and fruitful relationship from antiquity.
As we have said, existing traditions o f the deluge, like the tabula populorum of Genesis,
Hippolytus' Chronicle,171 also did not specify the K'art'velians as one of the peoples inhabiting the post
168The Life o f the Kings, p. 720-2V Nimrod is the Bel of Xorenac'i.

^ K e k e lid z e with Baramidze. Dzveli k'art'uli literaturis istoria, p. 130.
17 E.g, T.A. Karapetyan, Hayos ev K'art'los eghbaymere = Brat'iaAios i Kartlos (1990), Arm. text pp.
3-120 and Rus. pp. 121-235, which emphasizes the bonds of "brotherhood" which pervade Armenian and
Georgian history. Thus Karapetyan proclaims "the brotherhood o f the Armenian and the Georgian
peoples has a many-centuried history" (p. 122). The book begins with a modem rendition of the account
o f Haos/Hayk and K 'art'los.
171 Hippolytus, Chron. A dolf Bauer, Die Chronik des Hippolytos (1905), pp. 50-53, enumerates the
offspring o f Japheth. Although the K 'art'velians (Iberians) are not mentioned, the Armenians are said to
be descended from Japheths son Torgamah (pp. 52-53).
93
diluvian Earth. But a passage in the first-century AD Jewish Antiquities o f Josephus Flavius refers to one
o f the proto-K'art'velian peoples and linked them to the descendants of Japheth:
... and Theobal [founded] the Theobelians, nowadays called Iberians. The Meschenians.
founded by Mescbos, are today called Cappadocians .. . 172
It should be emphasized that pre-Bagratid K 'art'velian historians do not exhibit any direct familiarity
with this passage . 173 Josephus' eponym o f the Mesxi-s, Meschos (Mesxos), m ight be regarded as a model
for those of The Life o f the Kings, yet that source is completely unfamiliar with any Mesxos. Moreover,
one is reminded of Armenos o f Thessaly, the eponym o f Armenia and member o f the Argonautic
expedition led by Jason. *7 4 Strabo asserts that this Armenos visited K 'art'li. Armenia, and Caucasian
Albania. O f course, Greek mythology held that Jason had journied to Colchis (Egrisi) to retrieve the
Golden Fleece. Strabo definitely connects Armenos with the whole o f Caucasia, and he would be an
attractive figure upon which to base other eponyms. However, there is no mention o f Armenos and even
Jason an d the Argonauts in the pre-modem Georgian historical tradition . 175 Furthermore, there is no
indication that any medieval Georgian historian drew upon the Geography o f Strabo.
In view of this, the model o f eponyms was not necessarily or exclusively drawn from any single
foreign source. There is no compelling evidence that The life o f the Kings modeled its eponyms upon the
models o f Strabo or Josephus. However, Haos/Hayk was definitely borrowed from the Armenian tradition,
perhaps directly from The Primary History o f Armenia or Xorenac'i. I shall comment further upon the
parallels between Xorenac'i's History and The Life o f the Kings in the following chapter.
*7 2 Josephus. Jew. Antiq., 1.124-125. vol. 4. pp. 60-61. On the "nations" descended from Japheth. see
ibid., 1.122-129, pp. 58-63.
173 w e have no clear indication that Josephus served as a direct source for The Life o f the Kings.
However, his Jew. Antiq. was translated into Georgian by the twelfth century. See loseb P' Iaviosi
[Josephus Flavius], Mot'xrobani iudaebrivisa dzuelistquaobisani, ed. and comm, by N. Melik'ishvili. 2
vols. (1988), with Eng. sum., vol. 2, "The Georgian Translation o f Josephus Flavius' 'Jewish Antiquities,'"
pp. 545-548. Although the trans. o f this work was traditionally attributed to the renowned philosopher
Ioane Petrie i. Melik'ishvili has successfully disspeUed this notion.
174 Strabo, H.iv.8 , pp. 230-231 and H. 14.12, pp. 332-333.
l 7 % owever, Strabo, I.ii.39, pp. 166-167, relates that "memorials" o f this expedition still exist in
Caucasia. Braund, Georgia in Antiquity, is o f the opinion that the indigenous population o f "Georgia"
embraced the legend o f Jason. However, this argument is made primarily from the evidence of Greek
traditions.
94
The first problem confronting the author o f The Life o f the Kings was how to invent a plausible
K 'art'velian counterpart o f Hayk. Movses Xorenac'i, and the Armenian tradition after him. promoted the
following etymology:
' mujIi
huijbptli
'\uijp
' mujp, 'suijuuifuili
HAYK
Eponym
HAYEREN
Armenian
language
HAYK'
Armenians
HAYK', HAYASTAX
Armenia
This simplistic derivation has now been called into question, ^
but the significance here is not that these
correspondences were inaccurate, but that by the seventh/eighth century they were understood to be
authentic. In any event, it is obvious that each o f the aforementioned designations incorporated the root
hay-. Through this common root, Xorenac' i and the earlier Primary History o f Armenia connected the
name Hayk with the ethnym Hayk' and the toponym Hayastan as well as with the name o f the Armenian
language Hayeren.
Similarly, the anonymous author o f The Life o f the Kings devised a K'art'velian counterpart for
Hayk so as to explain the ultimate origin o f the K 'art'velian community:
K'ART'LOS
Eponym
3a(6o>v3C30
^60)332360
^60)230
K'ART'UU
Georgian
language
K'ART'VELNI
K'art'velians
K'ART'LI
K'art'li
K'art'- is the root o f each o f these designations. From the existing terms K'art'li, k'art'uli. and k'art'velni
our anonymous author interpolated the name o f the eponym o f the Kart'velians as K 'art' los. The
tradition o f Haos/Hayk was legitimizing in this regard.
The form K 'art'los, however, is an anomaly o f sorts, for the -os ending is not typical o f Georgian.
Persian. Armenian, or other Eastern languages. Rather, -os corresponds to the Greek -OE. the nominative
singular form o f Greek "0 -" declension nouns. ^
Why would the name o f the primogenitor o f the
l^ T h o m so n in Movses Xorenac'i, p. 80, footnote 6 an d cf. p. 80, footnote 19; and Garsoian, "Hayk'," in
The Epic Histories. p. 379. See also Adontz with Garsoian. Armenia in the Epoch o f Justinian. pp. 309310.
l ^ S e e also Toumanofif, Studies, p. 8 8 , footnote 120; and Javaxishvili, Dzveli k'art'uli saistorio mcerloba,
p. 180.
95
K'art'velians have been rendered in a Greek form? Perhaps there was an unacknowledged Greek work
exerting influence over the author o f The life o f the Kings. ^
Interest in the deluge universel pervaded
all eras o f pre-modem Christian history, and the genealogies and stemmae associated with this curiosity
were generically termed as Diamerismos o r Liber Generations. ^
That the author o f The Life o f the
Kings was strongly impressed by Greek (i.e.. early Christian and Biblical) writers is manifest by its
employment of ethnarchal names terminating in the Greek -os.
One of the most influential genealogical tracts o f the time was composed by Hippolytus o f Rome
ca. 235 AD. The Chronicle o f Hippolytus, originally written in Greek, was widely copied and imitated by
many writers, including Epiphanius o f Salamis (d. 403) and by various Syriac authors. ^
It served as
the basis o f an entire recension o f tabulae populorum, including Chronicon Paschale. George Monachos.
Symeon Logothetos, Syncellus, Skylitzes/Kedrenos, Michael the Syrian, Samuel o f Ani. and Bar
Hebraeus. 181 By the first-half o f the seventh century, Hippolytus' Chronicle had been translated, and
reworked, into Classical Armenian. No complete medieval Georgian translation o f Hippolytus' Chronicle
has come down to us. However, a brief excerpt o f a contemporary Georgian translation of it was
incorporated into the famous Shatberdi codex o f the late tenth century, the very MS that contains a variant
o f the corpus Mok 'c 'evay k 'art 'lisay. ^
Unfortunately, the excerpt is concerned only with the first
"patriarchs'' as well as the early judges o f Israel and the kings o f Judea. Persia. Egypt, and Rome:
It should be noted that Hayk's grandson. Kadmos, bore a name terminating in -os as well: e.g.. Prim.
Hist. Armenia, p. 361: and Movses Xorenac'i. 1.12. p. 8 8 . There is no reason to believe this example
directly influenced those in The Life o f the Kings. I wish to thank Prof. K. Bardakjian for bringing this to
my attention.
^ K e k e lid z e , "Ideia bratstva zakavkazskikh narodov po genealogicheskoi skheme gruzinskogo istorika
XI veka Leontiia Mroveli," in his Etiudebi. vol. 3 (1955). p. 95: cf. an edited Fr. trans.. "Chronique
dUippolyte et lhistorien georgien Leonti Mroveli," BK 45-46 (1964). p. 8 8 : and Abdaladze. "K'art'lis
c 'xovreba " da sak 'art 'velo-somxet 'is urt 'iert'oba. pp. 99-101.
^HippolytusofRome, ALAMEPIEMOE. in S. Qauxch' ishvili. e d , Georgika. vol. 1 (1961). pp. 19-20:
and the related text "Liber Generationis Chronicon a. 334," ibid.. pp. 11-18. Two such Syriac sources are
the post- sixth-century Cave o f Treasures, esp. pp. 133-135 (for a medieval Georgian trans. see Cave o f
TreasuresGeorgian); and the thirteenth-century work The Book o f the Bee. esp. cap. 22. p. 38. Neither
o f these Syriac accounts mention the K' art'velians. For works based upon Hippolytus that may have
influenced the K'art'velians, see Kekelidze, "Xalxt'a klasip'ikac'iisa da geograp'iuli ganrigebis sakit'xebi
dzvels k'art'ul mcerlobashi: Liber Generationis-s k'art'u li versia," in his Etiudebi, vol. 1 (1956), pp. 168182.
10 1
Chron., table 5, according to which the Josephus represents a tradition unrelated to that
later represented by Hippolytus.
1 0 Hippolytus,
^K ekln stJrfS # S-l 141; and Shat. Codex, pp. 196-202. See also S-Fond Catalog, vol. 2 (1961), pp. 3640.
96
Hippolytus' tabula populorum is missing. Abuladze was the first to identify this account as being an
extract from Hippolytus, and he hypothesized that a Georgian translation had been attempted from the
Greek in the first-half o f the eighth century, although this remains conjectural.
Kekelidze also studied extensively Hippolytus' influence upon C'xorebay k'art'velt'a mep 'et'a.
He suggested that in the late tenth century an acute interest in the deluge erupted among K 'art'velian
cleric-scholars. Indeed, it is precisely at this tim e that the translation and copying o f the Gospels in
Georgian f l o u r i s h e d ^ The renowned Georgian Athonite monk, Ep't'w m eM t'acm i[n]deli (d. 1028.
also known as Euthymius the Hagorite), displayed a keen interest in such things, and it is partly because
o f his fascination in the tabula populorum that Kekelidze relegated The Life o f the Kings to the eleventh
c e n t u r y . B u t an interest in these genealogies in the eleventh century does not preclude one at an
earlier time.
Kekelidze himself posited that the author o f The Life o f the Kings relied upon the Armenian
version of Hippolytus' Chronicle, or at the very least, was influenced by some o f its particular
embellishments and innovations. ^
The Armenian version o f the Chronicle of Hippolytus exists in
^ A b u la d z e , "Ipolite romaelis k'ronikonis dzveli k 'a rt'u li versia," Moambe-MSSInstitute 3 (1961). pp.
223-243, w ith brief Rus. sum.. "Dtevnegruzinskaia versiia Chronicon-a Ippolita Rimskogo." p. 243.
Other works o f Hippolytus are known to have been translated into Georgian. Kekelidze, K'art'uli
literaturis istoria, vol. 1 (1941 e d ), pp. 644-645, enumerates eight works of Hippolytus having Georgian
translations; his Chron. is not among them. Published eds. o f Hippolytus' work; in Georgian include;
Garitte, e d and trans., Traites d'Hippolyte sur David et Goliath sur le Cantique des Cantiques et sur
I'Antichrist: version giorgienne, CSCO. vols. 263-264 = Scriptores Iberici, vols. 15-16 (1965); and M.
Briere, L. Maries, and B-Ch. Metcier. eds. an d trans., Hippolyte de Rome sur les benedictions dTsaac, de
Jacob = PO 27/1-2 (1954).
^^B .M . Metzger, The Early Versions o f the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations
(1977), esp. ch. 4, "The Georgian Version," pp. 182-214; and Vddbus, Early Versions o f the New
Testament, vol. 6 o f Papers o f the Estonian Theological Society in Exile (1954), esp. ch. 5, "The Georgian
Version," pp. 173-209. One o f the tenth-century Gospels is specially considered in R.P. Blake and S. der
Nersessian, "The Gospels o f Bert'ay: An Old Georgian MS. of the Tenth Century," Bvzantion 16 (19421943). pp. 226-285.
^ K e k e lid z e , "Ideia bratstva zakavkazskikh narodov," p. 97 = "Chronique d'Hippolyte et llustorien
georgien Leonti Mroveli," p. 8 8 ; and idem., "X alxt'a klasip'ikac'iisa da geograp'iuli ganrigebis sakit'xebi
dzvels k 'a rt'u l mcerlobashi: Liber Generations-is k 'a rt'u li versia," in his Etiudebi, vol. I, pp. 168-182.
^^B iblical texts and the works o f the Church Fathers were initially transmitted into Old Georgian largely
from Classical Armenian. Even after the schism at Dwin HI in 607/608, the Georgians continued to
translate original Armenian literary works. Abuladze suggested that from the eighth/ninth century
Armenian hagiographical works reached Georgian through Armenian Chalcedonians in the southwestern
region o f Tao/Tayk-Klaijet' i. Contact also flowed the other way, the most obvious example being the
Armenian adaptation o f K'C'. See Abuladze, K'art'uli da somxuri literaturuli urt'iert'oba IX-Xss-shi:
gamofcvleva da tek'stebi (1944), with Rus. sum., "Gruzuisko-armianskie literatumye sviazi v EX-X v.v.,"
pp. 0200-0208.
97
several redactions, but only one MS has been published. The printed version is problematic, for only a
portion o f the MS was published and, moreover, the editor seems to have taken great liberties with the
te x t187
One fact is c le a r the Armenian version o f the Chronicle o f Hippolytus. unlike the Greek original,
specifically names the K 'art'velians as one o f the descendant-peoples o f Japheth.188 In both the Greek
original and the Armenian adaptation, the Armenians are likewise tied to Japheth. Thus, the two
communities are ultimately "related," as the author o f The Life o f the Kings would insist, but there is
neither any emphasis upon such a relationship nor a single mention o f the name K 'art'los. The Armenian
adaptation o f Hippolytus1Chronicle counts the following communities as descended from Japheth:
... and the sons of T iras [were]:

Ask'anas, and from him [were descended] the Sarm atk':
and R ip'at' from whom were [descended] the Savrom atk';
and T'orgom from whom were [descended] the Hayk' [Armenians].
And the sons o f Havan [were]: Eghisha, and from him were [descended] the
Sikeghec'ik' and the A l'enac'ik' ;
and T ashish from whom were [descended] the Virk' [Iberians] in Turenac'ik'.
And these nations were [descended] from Habet' [Japheth]... M ark', Aghuank'
[Albanians], Lp'ink'. Aghank', Amazonk'. Dzighbk', M ask'urk'. Hayk'
[Armenians], Virk' [K'art'velians], Egerac'ik' [Egr-s]...189
The original Greek account mentions "Iberians." but from context they are clearly the Iberians o f Europe
and not those o f Asia (Caucasia), as are those l irk' (Iberians) mentioned above in connection with
T ashish.^90 But both the Armenians and the K'art'velians {Virk") are thus listed with other Caucasian
tribes and communities as the offspring of the progeny of Japheth in the Armenian adaptation of
Hippolytus Chronicle (end of aforementioned quotation) whereas the original Greek text does not know
the K 'art'velians in this regard.
Xorenac' i himself employed, either directly or indirectly, the Chronicle o f Hippolytus. yet he
completely disregarded the origins o f the K 'art'velians in his history. This is not unexpected. On the one
hand. Xorenac'i was concerned first and foremost with relating a specifically Armenian histoiy, on the
107
I am deeply indebted to Prof. R.W. Thomson for his valuable insights into the Armenian version o f
Hippolytus.
*88The original names only the Armenians as the descendants o f Japheths son, Togarmah. See
Hippolytus, Chron., pp. 50-53 and 56-59.
*89i4rm. Anon. Chron., p. 5.
190Hippolytus, Chron., pp. 56-58. Cf. pp. 60-63.
98
other hand, in the few instances in which he refers to the K'art'velians, Xorenac'i is keen to make them
dependent, politically or otherwise, upon the Armenians. The Armenian version o f Hippolytus could
further advance these claims o f dominance.
Later Armenian historians also drew upon Hippolytus. The tenth-century history o f Yovhannes
Drasxanakertc'i exhibits a deep dependence upon the earlier work o f Xorenac'i. But this reliance was not
exclusive or blind, for in his account o f the progeny o f Noah, Drasxanakertc'i directly employed the
Armenian version o f Hippolytus' Chronicle. For unlike Xorenac'i, Drasxanakertc'i relates that:
... The sixth son was Tiras from whom were bom our very own Ashkenaz [Ask'anaz]
an d Togannah [ T orgom] who named the country that he possessed Thrace after
himself... From Javan [Yawan], the ancestor o f the Greeks, descended Elisha [Eghisha]
whose progeny are the Sicilians [Sikilac'ik'] and Athenians [A t'enac'ik'], andTarshish
[T arsis], the ancestor o f the Iberians [Virk'] and the Tyrrhenians fTiwrenacik']. and
Kitris [Kitiim] whose offspring are the Romans [Hrowmayec' ik]. 1
From context, it is clear that the Virk', i.e., Iberians, mentioned here are a European community'; this is
confirmed by the original text o f Hippolytus.192 Drasxanakertc'i's account lacks the subsequent notice of
the Armenian adaptation o f Hippolytus' Chronicle which enumerated several Caucasian peoples, the I irk'
(K'art'velians) among them, as ultimately descended from Japheth.
Also in the tenth century Uxtanes, the Armenian bishop of Sebastia. composed a history o f the
ecclesiastical schism between the Armenians and the K 'art'velians (condemning the latter), but the
introductory books o f that work were devoted to the early history of the Armenians. Being highly reliant
upon Xorenac' i. Uxtanes employed other works as well (especially The Book o f Letters). O f "The
Territories of Japheth," Uxtanes relates that:
From Marastan to Gadiron, going north, the following countries [were given to
Japheth]: Atropatene. Albania, Amazonia, Greater and Lesser Armenia. Iberia.
Cappadocia, Paphlagonia. Galatia, Gaul, Colchis, Greater Spain, and others.193
191 Yovhannes Drasxanakertc'i, I.6.8-9, p. 66.

192Hippolytus, Chron.. p. 52. where the context is Europe and not Asia.
193Uxtanes, vol. 1, para. 10, p. 27. The Classical Armenian geographical designations have been
rendered in recognizable Anglicized forms here. Uxtanes himself does not employ the Graeco-Latin term
"Iberia" but Virk'.
99
Thus Uxtanes has clearly enumerated K 'art'li. i.e., VoedaJVirk', within the domains o f Japheth. along with
Colchis (western "Georgia") and also "Greater Spain" (European Iberia). Uxtanes' account of the progeny
o f Japheth is not based upon The Primary History o f Armenia o r Movses Xorenac' i. but rather upon the
Armenian version o f Hippolytus Chronicle. Uxtanes him self probably interpreted the two references to
the Iberians in Hippolytus account to refer to both the Caucasian K'art'velians as well as the European
Iberians.
I have adapted the following table originally prepared by Kekelidze which compares the
"ethnyms" o f the Caucasian peoples mentioned in Hippolytus, the Armenian Hippolytus. and finally, The
Life o f the Kings. 19<1 We should recall that both The Primary History o f Armenia and Xorenac' i ignore
the tradition o f the origins o f the K'art'velians.
Armenian
Hippolytus195
Hippolytus
Ihe.LUe
of.lhe Kings
Armenians
[Iberians]196
Albanians
Enaioi
Amazonians
Sarmatians &
Savromatians
Colchians
Hayk' = Armenians
Virk' = K 'art'velians
Aghvank' = Albanians
LjTink'197
Amazonk'
Sarmatk' &
Savromatk'
Egerac'ik'
Somexi-s = Armenians
K'art'velians
Rani-s & Movakani-s
Heri-s
Leki-s
Kavkasiani-s = northern
Caucasians
Megreli-s
19*Kekelidze, "Ideia bratstva zakavkazskikh narodov," p. 99: the corresponding chart is not offered in the
Fr. trans.. See also idem., "X alxt'a klasip'ikac'iisa da geograp'iuli ganrigebis sakit'xebi dzveli k'art'ul
mcerlobashi: Liber Generationis-is k'art'uli versia," in his Etiudebi, vol. 1, esp. pp. 177-179.
I95These designations in the original are: APMENIOI, IBHPEE (see following note), AABANOI,
EPPAIOI, AMAZONEE, EAPMATAI/EAYPOMATAI, and KOAXOI (for the Colchians. see
Hippolytus, Chron., p. 60-61).
196The only Iberians mentioned by Hippolytus with respect to the post-diluvian population of the Earth
are those o f Europe (i.e., Spain).
197
The precise identification o f the Lp'ink', or the Lupenians, is still debated, although R.H. Hewsen,
"The Kingdom of the Lupenians: A Forgotten State o f Christian Caucasia," ASSC 1 (1989), pp. 13-20,
suggests that they were "probably the inhabitants o f Lp' in village, possibly a Lesgian tribe that may or
m a y not have entered into the formation of the Albanian federation, and who, if so, may have been one of
its twenty-six constituent elements" (p. 19). Hewsen refers to the omission o f the Lupenians in the tabula
of The Life o f the Kings and suggests that they were subsumed in the Lek-s (Lesgians), Heret'ians, or
Caucasians (pp. 16-17). In fact, it is clear that the author o f The Life o f the Kings, basing his tabula on
Hippolytus Chron., loosely associated the Lupenians with his Heret'ians.
100
There is a definite congruity between The life ofthe Kings and the Armenian version of
Hippolytus. First, the Armenian version enumerates the Virk'. i.e., the K 'art'velians, as the descendants
o f Japheth. This appears to have been the interpolation o f some Armenian scribe, for while the Greek
Hippolytus is familiar with the origins o f the Armenians, nothing about the provenance of the neighboring
K 'art'velians is reported. ^
Thus an Armenian bookman, perhaps the very translator of Hippolytus
Chronicle, was responsible for indicating the origin o f the K 'art'velians within the tradition of the tabula
populorum.
Both the Armenian version of Hippolytus Chronicle and The Life o f the Kings employ one
designation, Egerac'ik' and Megreli-s respectively, in place o f several terms in the Greek original of
Hippolytus, the main one being "Colchians" (Kolchoi). It is possible that the author o f The Life o f the
Kings was unable to identify the Colchians, the Tibarenians. and their immediate neighbors in western
"Georgia," but the choice o f "Megreli-s" strongly suggests that he was acquainted with the Armenian
rendition "Egerac'ik'," since both terms are based upon the stem Egr-, and both refer to communities in
the western domains.
As with his other sources, we do not know precisely how the author o f The life o f the Kings was
familiar with the Armenian version of Hippolytus. Part o f Hippolytus Chronicle was translated into
Georgian by the tenth century (i.e., the time when the Shatberdi codex, which includes the work, was
copied), but we do not know whether it was translated from the Greek original or the Armenian
adaptation. For the moment, the most likely scenario is that our anonymous author had a reading
knowledge o f Classical Armenian. This explains not only the parallels with the Armenian redaction of
Hippolytus Chronicle, but also the familiarity with the legend o f Hayk as contained in The Primary
History o f Armenia and Xorenac'i, and perhaps even the story o f Constantine "the G reafs conversion
through the Armenian version o f Socrates' Ecclesiastical History. Moreover, the recapitulation of the
tradition o f Hayk. and the insertion of K 'art'los into it, as well as the employment o f the Armenian
Hippolytus. allowed the author o f The life o f the Kings to explain the prominent role of the Armenians in
early K 'art'velian history. But this is not to suggest that the author indiscriminately accepted received
Armenian traditions. For Hayk was admitted to have had held the whole o f Caucasia under his
domination, the assertion o f the fifth-century author Koriwn that the Georgian script had been created at
the behest o f the Armenian cleric Mashtoc' was completely omitted.
The author of The Life o f the Kings also exploited Syriac texts. W ritten perhaps as early as the
fourth century AD. and reaching us in a sixth-century form. The Book o f the Cave o f Treasures was
198
170Although Hippolytus was not completely unfamiliar with the Caucasian Iberians, i.e., the
K 'art'velians: see Hippolytus, AIAMEPIEMOE, in Qauxch'ishvili, Georgika, vol. 1, #232, pp. 19-20.
101
adapted into Georgian in the medieval period.199 We should note that one pre-Vaxtangiseuli MS o f
K'art'lis c'xovreba, the Mariamiseuli variant, actually begins with the medieval Georgian adaptation o f
The Book o f the Cave o f Treasures, although w e have no indication that earlier MSS o f the corpus also
commenced with that work.^ In any event, the author o f The Life o f the Kings almost certainly was
familiar with this text, although it is not known i f the Georgian version existed in his own time. There
are several parallels with The Life o f the Kings. For example, The Book o f the Cave o f Treasures provides
substantial information about Nimrod^* and it cites by name The RevelatiowBook o f Nimrod, apparently
The Book o f Nimrod mentioned in the Bagratid-era Life ofNino (appended to The Life o f the Kings).20^
Moreover, both The Life o f the Kings and The Book o f the Cave o f Treasures echo the tradition that
Syriac/Aramaic was the original language o f all the world. ^
But The Book o f the Cave o f Treasures, in
both its original Syriac and adapted Georgian forms, relates nothing directly about the K 'art'velian
community, and the parallels with The Life o f the Kings are just that and nothing more.
Internal Textual Evidence fo r Dating The Life o f the Kings
An extensive array o f largely unidentifiable sources/traditions, both Georgian and non-Georgian,

were employed, or at least known second-hand, by the anonymous author o f T.ie life o f the Kings.
Significantly, none of these works necessarily postdate the eighth/ninth century . This fact in itself does
not definitively demonstrate that The Life o f the Kings was composed before the eleventh century', say
around the year 800 AD. However, internal textual evidence will confirm my view that The Life o f the
Kings is a monument precisely from that time.

The established view among modem Georgian historians was articulated by Javaxishvili in his
Old Georgian Historical Writing. He argued th at Leonti Mroveli composed The Life o f the Kings in the
^ " C a v e o f TreasuresGeorgian, ed. by C. Kourcikidze and Fr. trans. by J.-P. Mahe (1992-1993). The
MSS used by Kourcikidze are: (A) No. 128 of th e Kut'aisi Museum o f History; (B) A-153; (C) S-30 =
Mariamiseuli MS o f K'C': (D) No. 10 of the Saltykov-Shchedrin Museum in St. Petersburg; H-433; and
(K) H-1064.
200Kek.InstJHS# S-30, It. lr-48v.

^^C ave o f TreasuresGeorgian, XXIV.24. XXVII.1-23, and XL V. 7-11 (who knows Nimrod's name in
the form "Nebrot'i"); and the Syriac Cave o f Treasures, esp. pp. 135 and 171.
^ C a v e o f TreasuresGeorgian, XXVII. 19-21; and the Syriac Cave o f Treasures, p. 205.
^ C a v e ofTreasures-Georgian, XXIV.10-11; and the Syriac Cave o f Treasures, p. 132. This tradition
was incorporated into the twelfth-century Syriac Chronology o f Bar Hebraeus, part I, p. 8, who also relates
another tradition whereby Hebrew was the original language.
102
eleventh century.204 This hypothesis has been regarded as holy writ throughout the greater part o f this
century. Javaxishvili, and the successive ranks o f modem Georgian specialists, have based their
arguments on three fundamental points: (1) the author's direct reliance upon the Shah-nama (which has
been discounted above); (2) the name Leonti Mroveli that was associated with the text (but that reference
is in a later work and may be spurious, and it has been shown that Leonti Mroveli probably did not write
but only edited and completed the work); and (3) the oblique references to the political situation o f
eleventh-century Georgia throughout the work.
The scholarly ascription of a date to a historical work that survives only in MSS copied half a
millennium after its composition is a laborious task. Yet the evidence o f the identifiable sources o f and
influences upon The Life o f the Kings, when coupled with an objective consideration of the contents of the
text, strongly suggest a date o f composition ca. 800 AD.
Does any internal evidence suggest a later date? Eleventh-century Georgia, in several respects,
was fundamentally different from ninth-century K' art' l i 20^ In the early eleventh century the
K 'art'velian Bagratid ruler Bagrat in (978-1014) became the first king o f a unified Georgia, when
K 'art'li, Ap'xazet'i, and Tao/Tayk' were joined into a single political entity. To reflect this new reality, a
new designation was coined to describe the kingdom, Sak'art'velo (IwdiflxnggExn). The term
Sak'art'velo was not part o f the original text o f The Life o f the Kings and occurs as a variant reading in
only the M c'xet'ian recension for a single passage;206 otherwise the term K 'a rt'li is preferred by all MSS.
Although The Life o f the Kings is infected with the conception o f the lands constituting the K 'art'velian
domains under P'am avaz and the early kings i.e.. that Egrisi/Colchis (later western Georgia) were part
and parcel of the kingdom Tarchnishvili and Toumanoff have demonstrated this to be a reflection of the
authors own era.207 I concur wholeheartedly with them, and this circumstance, I should think, is a
K 'art'velian "myth o f settlement" whereby a "plan" for future expansion is expressed.208
204Javaxishvili, Dzveli k'art'uli saistorio mcerloba, pp. 176-188.

20Êarly Bagratid K'art'li/G eorgia is examined in chs. 6-7.
20677je Life o f the Kings, p. 66, apparatus criticus, line 7; cf. Tarchnishvili, "Sources arraenogeorgiennes," p. 38. and his other arguments, pp. 37-42.
207Tarchnishvili, "Sources armeno-georgiennes," pp. 29-50; and Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 103-104,
footnote 159. See also Hewsen, "Introduction to Armenian Historical Geography IV: The Vitaxates of
Arsacid Armenia. A Reexamination o fth eT em to rial Aspects o f the Institution (Part Two). IV. The
litaxate o f Moskhia: (The Iberian March)," REArm, n.s. 22 (1990-1991), pp. 150-152.
208For this phrase and its application to the Maori of Aotearoa (New Zealand), see J. Belich, Making
Peoples: A History o f the New Zealanders, pp. 62-64.
103
The inclusion o f Egrisi within the domains o f the early K 'art'velian kingdom, and the alleged
ancient unity o f Georgia, need not be taken literally, and there is no reason to do so.209 In fact, the
author himself states that Egrisi was not originally a dependency o f K 'a rt'li: both K 'art'li and Egrisi were
endowed with same-generation eponyms.210 Furthermore, the preference o f the author for the old term
Egrisi instead o f A p'xazet'i (current in the eleventh century) likewise is indicative of a relatively early
source. The fact that the term A p'xazet'i does occur infrequently suggests that it was written at the time
o f the establishment o f the Ap'xaz kingdom, ca. 790-ca. 800 211 It would seem that the anachronistic
projection o f political unity upon the earliest K 'art'velian monarchs is actually a reflection o f the authors
own time (in my view, ca. 800) when such a conception had just taken ro o t
In terms o f vocabulary, syntax, and style, The Life o f the Kings closely resembles the corpus of
C'xorebay vaxtang gorgaslisa, which in my estimation was also written around the year 800. Only these
Georgian sources clearly describe K 'art'velian monarchs as hero-kings in the Sasanid sense o f the idea,
regularly employing the terms bumberazi ("champion-duelist") andgoliat'i ("goliath," "giant").212
Bagratid-era historians never emphasized these terms for their rulers, nor did they portray them as
essentially Sasanid-type hero-kings.
From their inception Georgian historical works were written for kings, and as an endorsement of
K 'art'velian dynastic kingship. Should The Life o f the Kings have been written in the eleventh century,
we would expect some clear references to the ruling Bagratid dynasty. A strong argument in favor o f a ca.
800 date of composition is the fact that The Life o f the Kings is completely oblivious of the Bagratid
family.21^ That the text is ignorant of the famous presiding prince Ashot I "the Great" (813-830), the
first K 'art'velian Bagratid to rule, implies that the work was composed before his tenure.2 14 The silence
209E.g., O. Lordkipanidze, Georgian Civilization, p. 28.

210 77ze Life o f the Kings, pp. 3-5.
21 ^Toumanoff. Studies, p. 24. for similar arguments concerning The Life o f Vaxtang, and idem..
"Chronology of the Kings o f Abasgia and Other Problems," LeM 6 9 /1 -2 (1 9 5 6 ), pp. 73-90. esp. pp. 73-76.
Cf. Melik'ishvili, "Istochniki," in the introduction to Ocherki istorii Gruzii, vol. 1, pp. 2 3 -2 4 . The
contemporary corpus o f C'x. vox. gorg. also employs both terms.
212Tarchnishvili, "Sources armeno-georgiennes," pp. 39-10.
21În the contemporary C'x. vox. gorg., Toumanoff has shown that the name Bivridani refers to some
Bagratids though that corpus does not make this identification. On the Bivritiani-s, see infra.
21<1A s we shall see (chs. 6 -7). the K 'artvelian Bagratids were a branch o f the Bagratuni family which for
the most part may be identified as Armenian. Since the author of The Life o f the Kings did not hesitate to
admit the intimate bond o f K 'a rt'li and Armenia, had he been aware that the Bagratids had come from
Armenia he would have reported i t It should be noted that Ashot was not "king" since the K 'art'velian
monarchy had been abolished by the Persians in the second-half of the sixth century and was only
reestablished by the Bagratid Adaraase in 888.
104
o f The Life o f the Kings regarding the Bagratids may be juxtaposed with the History of Xorenac' i. One of
the principal aims o f Xorenac'i was to glorify the Bagratuni clan, to trace its alleged antique origins, and
to praise its contributions (some o f which were falsified) to the Armenian community from time
immemorial. The complete silence o f The Life o f the Kings on this point is extraordinary unless we may
consign the source to the era just prior to the consolidation o f the K 'art'velian Bagratids (especially
Ashot) in the early ninth century.
The ideological bases developed by the K 'art'velian Bagratids are entirely unknown to the author
o f The Life o f the Kings. This contrasts sharply with Xorenac'i who asserted that the Bagratids were
descended from the ancient Jews. This claim was later amplified, probably tty the K'art'velian branch of
the Bagratids, so as to demonstrate that the Bagratids, as kings, were the direct descendants o f the Old
Testament King-Prophet David. In K 'art'velian Bagratid literature we find no emphasis whatsoever on
the K 'art'velian predecessors of the Bagratids. In the eyes o f the K 'art'velian Bagratids, only they, as the
relatives o f King David, were legitimate monarchs. The Life o f the Kings contains no direct references to
the Bagratids and also fails to assert that legitimate kings must be related to King David.
Under the Bagratids The Life o f Nino was rewritten and popularized from the ninth/tenth
century. The Life o f the Kings, while it knows Nino's name and her connection with the conversion o f
Mihran/Mirian, is completely unaware o f the embellishments incorporated into the later vita. This
suggests that The Life o f the Kings was written prior to The Life o f Nino. To bring The Life o f the Kings
up-to-date with the new traditions o f Nino, The Life o f Nino was appended to it, probably in the eleventh
century Ity the archbishop Leonti Mroveli.
The interpolation of the origin o f the K'art'velians, as calculated by the author of The Life o f the
Kings, contrasts with the stemmae generated by eleventh-century Bagratid-era historians, like Sumbat
Davit' is-dze, who wrote the first tract explicitly glorifying the K 'art'velian Bagratids and delineating their
Davidic provenance. Davit'is-dze, in fact, is unconcerned with the provenance of the K'art'velian
community. Rather, he merely traces the evolution o f the K 'art'velian Bagratid clan. Proceeding from
Adam, through Noah and Shem, Davit'is-dze genetically links the K 'art'velian Bagratids to the KingProphets David and Solomon.2 *^ The origin of the K 'art'velian community, the tale of K 'art'los, the
establishment o f indigenous kingship by P'amavaz, and all o f the pre-Bagratid kings, except a few brief
references to Vaxtang Gorgasali (ca. 447-ca. 522), are entirely omitted.
Simply put, the K 'art'velian Bagratids, with a few exceptions to be discussed later, were
apathetic towards the K 'art'velian kings who preceded them, and moreover, they placed no emphasis
215Sumbat Davit'is-dze, pp. 39-40 = Qauxch'ishvili ed., pp. 372-373.
105
upon the origin o f either K 'art'li o r the K 'art'velian community. This renders an eleventh-century date o f
composition less attractive.
The favorable treatment o f Armenians and Armenia in The life o f the Kings is often raised as
evidence in favor o f an eleventh-century attribution. Several modern scholars have suggested that the
tract was composed during the reign o f Davit' H at a time when the K'art'velian/Georgian kingdom had
incorporated a large number o f Armenians within its domains, which coincided with the decline o f the
Bagratids in Greater Armenia.2 ^
Thus, The Life o f the Kings might be envisaged as "Armenophile," and
as both a concession to the Armenian community within Georgia and as an attempt to buy their loyalty,
especially against the common threat of the Seljuqs.217 The predominant modem view is that The Life o f
the Kings represents an effort to secure the allegiance o f these Armenians. Specialists promoting this
opinion often emphasize that The Life o f the Kings commences with a statement attesting the
"brotherhood" o f the Caucasian peoples. Clearly, the author o f The Life o f the Kings envisaged Caucasia
as a single socio-geographical unit, but this was necessary so th at he could interpolate the origin o f the
K'art'velians into the existing Biblical tradition as well as into that o f the Armenian adaptation of
Hippotytus1Chronicle. Moreover, the author, presumably a non-cleric, chose not to imbue his work with
contemporary dogmatic issues. Therefore, the fissure with the Armenians was ignored, and it would seem
that he believed that the religious differences of the two communities should not obscure their ancient
connections.
The author, of course, wrote in the afterglow o f the early seventh-century ecclesiastical schism
between K 'art'li and Armenia. Although the fissure provoked a stampede o f polemic from the Armenian
camp from an early date (e.g., the Book o f Letters and the dependent work o f Uxtanes), corresponding
tracts emerged among the K'art'velians only from the eleventh century.2 ^
The major polemical work
emanating from the K'art'velian side was composed tty Arsen Sap'areli not before the second-half of the
eleventh century.2 19 In this charged atmosphere o f the eleventh century, it is extremely unlikely that a
royal historian could have composed a tract which would have been seen as glorifying the Armenians,
while not mentioning the ruling K 'art'velian Bagratid family (and their origins and ancient claim to
legitimacy) whatsoever.
216This view' was recently adopted by Rayfield, Literature o f Georgia, p. 56.

217A. Abdaladze, "K'art'lisc'xovrebadasak'art'velo-somxet'is urt'iert'oba (1982), Rus. sum., p. 227.
2]Q
1Although I argue here that the development o f Georgian historiography was partly the result o f the
ecclesiastical schism, the attempt by the K' art' velians to shape their own distinct past may not be properly
regarded as polemic.
2 ^9Alek'sidze in Arsen Sap'areli, introduction, pp. 9-68.
106
Unlike any Bagratid-era historical text, The Life o f the Kings is replete with notices about nonK 'art'velians.220 Armenians, Persians, Romans/Byzantines, Jews. Ovsi-s (Alans), and others, are found
throughout its pages. The Life o f the Kings is extraordinary for its emphasis on the cultural plurality and
the heterogeneous nature of the K'art'velian community'. Medieval Bagratid historical literature has no
analogue.
It must be admitted, however, that several puzzling anachronisms occur in the text (even in the
earliest MSS),22* and we cannot simply attribute them to early modem scribes who were largely ignorant
o f the situation of late antique K'artli. The Life o f the Kings depicts the Khazars (Georgian A'azar-ni and
Armenian Xctzar-k ~) as active players in Caucasian politics even before the era o f Alexander o f
Macedon.222 We also encounter the term Turk'-, its meaning in relation to Xazar- in the context of
medieval Georgian history has not yet been determined. Regardless, the Khazar tribal confederation arose
only during the sixth century AD. By the seventh century the Khazars entertained close, but not always
amicable, relations w ith Caucasia. A large number o f Khazars were employed as mercenaries by the
Byzantine emperor Heraclius (610-641) during his invasion o f K 'art'li.223 The Khazar confederation
disappeared from the pages o f history following their defeat at the hands of Sviatoslav in 965. Clearly, the
Khazars were not active in Caucasia in the third century BC. This anachronism, which is present in the
early Armenian redaction of K'art'lis c'xovreba as well as in the history of Xorenac'i,22^ is a reflection of
the political situation o f the time of the composition o f The life o f the Kings, i.e.. ca. 800 AD. It is less
220Although the K 'art'velian Bagratids claimed descent from the Biblical King-Prophet David, an d thus
the Jews, Bagratid-era historical works do not dwell on this point
221
Melikishvili, K istorii drevnei Gruzii, p. 37, for the proposal that three separate waves o f invasion are
represented by the anachronisms: the Huns (fourth-sixth centuries); Khazars (seventh-eighth and ninth
centuries): and the Qipchaqs/PoIovtsi-s (eleventh century).
222On the Khazars, see: W. Barthold and P.B. Golden, "Khazar," El2, vol. 4 (1978), pp. 1172-1181; P.B.
Golden, "The Peoples o f the South Russian Steppes," in D. Sinor, ed.. The Cambridge History o f Early
Inner Asia (1990), esp. pp. 263-270; idem., Khazar Studies: An Historico-Philological Inquiry into the
Origins o f the Khazars, vols. 25/1-2 of BOH (1980); D.M. Dunlop, The History o f the Jewish Khazars
(1954); M.I. Artamonov, Istoriia Khazar (1962), with Eng. sum., "The History o f the Khazars," pp. 517521; A.P. Novosel'tsev, Khazars/coe gosudarstvo i ego roTv istorii Vostochnoi Evropyi Kavkaza (1990);
O. Pritsak, "The Turcophone Peoples in the Area o f the Caucasus from the Sixth to the Eleventh
Century," in SSCISSM, vol. 43a (19%), pp. 232-234 et sqq; and A.V. Gadlo, Etnicheskaia istoriia
sevemogo Kavkaza X-XIII w . (1994), pp. 8ff.
22^The Life o f the Kings, pp. 11-16; Royal List II. pp. 95-% ; andM ovses Dasxuranc i, 11.11, pp. 83-86,
who relates that the Khazars seized Partaw (Bardavi) in the 38th year of Xosrov, i.e. in 628 AD. See also
Barthold-Golden, "Khazar," p. 1172.
22<*Movses Xorenac'i, 11.65, p. 211. See also Ananias Shirakec'i, in . 10 (long recension), p. 48.
107
likely that an eleventh-centmy author, writing a century after the disappearance o f the Khazars. would
have projected that extinct tribe into antiquity.
A second set of anachronisms is not so easily deciphered Two indigenous communities are
enumerated w ith respect to Alexander of Macedon's mythical invasion o f K 'art'li: the enigmatic and
unidentified B unt'urk'-s as well as the Qivchaq-s.22^ Both peoples are mentioned only once in The Life
o f the Kings, which may suggest th at they were inserted at a later time. The B unt'urk'-s. who were
probably envisaged as being related to the Turks ( T urk'-s) and perhaps to the Huns (Georgian Hons).
are mentioned in a corresponding passage in The Primary History o f K'art'li while the Qivch'aq-s are
not.22** The Bunturk'-s are not known in any other medieval Georgian work. T hat they appear in the
seventh-century (or later) Primary History o f K'art'li does not necessarily imply that this designation is o f
great antiquity, for it could have been inserted (and invented?) by a later scribe. In any event the
Bunturk'-s were imagined to be a barbarian tribe inhabiting parts o f central Caucasia. The "Turks" were
a real concern both in ca. 800 (Khazars and other Turkic tribes) and in the eleventh century (Seljuqs). and
thus this anachronism could have been introduced either by the original author or by an eleventh-century
editor or scribe.
The Qivch'aq-s are to be identified as the Cumani Qipchaqs. a great many o f whom were settled
near Georgia as mercenaries under Davit' n a n d T a m a r (1184-1213).227 While the Qivch aq-ni are
mentioned in all extant redactions o f The Life o f the Kings, they are not enumerated in the Armenian
adaptation o f K'art 'lis cxovreba ,22^ In the twelfth-century Life o f Davit' as found in the Armenian
adaptation, the Qipchaqs are equated with the Honk' /Huns 229 The Qipchaqs are anachronistic for late
antique and early medieval K 'a rt'li and were active in K'art'velian history only from the eleventh century.
It should be emphasized that the term "Qipchaq" appears only once in The Life o f the Kings. Either it was
a later addition or represents a tribe other than, but somehow related to. the Qipchaqs proper. The
22^The Life o f the Kings, p. 17

2 Prim. Hist. K'art 'li, p. 81. Bunt 'urk'- might represent a conflation o f the designations Hun (Hon-i)
and Turk (J'urk'-i). The initial letter in Hon-i would have had to have been transformed into B: these
letters were not easily confused in any o f the three Georgian scripts. Moreover, bun- might also be
explained by the meaning "nature" or "original." Thus the Bunt'uric'-s may have been regarded as the
"original T urk'-s." In his trans. o f Arm. Adapt. K'C', p. 23, Thomson renders the term as "'real' Turk."
Pritsak, "Turcophone Peoples, p. 236, places the first Turks in the Black Sea region ca. 575.
227P.B. Golden, "Cumanica I: T he Qipchaqs in Georgia," AEMA 4 (1984), pp. 45-87. See also Pritsak,
"Turcophone Peoples," pp. 240-241; and Gaidlo, Etnicheskaia istoriia sevemogo Kavkaza, pp. 138#!
22*Arm. Adapt. K'C', pp. 24-25 = Thomson trans., pp. 23-24.

229Ibid p. 244.
108
Qipchaqs were almost certainly inserted into the story when the text was reedited in the eleventh century.
In any event, these anachronisms existed already in the pre-modem period for they occur in all extant
Georgian MSS of K 'art'lis c'xovreba.
The Qipchaqs are not the only eleventh-/twelfth-century tribal confederation which appear
anachronistically in pre-Bagratid Georgian historical works. The Pechenegs. like the Cumani Qipchaqs.
were prominent in eleventh-century Byzantine history. The Byzantine emperor Romanos IV Diogenes
(1068-1071), who was captured a t Manzikert in 1071, gained notoriety for his struggles against them. In
conjunction with his successes in the Balkans, John II Komnenos (1118-1143) seems to have defeated the
Pechenegs once and for all. Regardless, after his reign we no longer hear o f a Pecheneg threat to
Byzantium. It is not surprising that we find references to the Pechenegs in Georgian historical literature,
since it is clear that the Pechenegs posed a palpable threat to the Byzantines, and moreover, some of their
numbers were settled in the environs o f northern Caucasia. But how may we explain their appearance in
The Life o f the Kings'? The Pechenegs are specified in a single instance in which they are associated with
several tribes, including the Ovsi-s (Alans) and Jik'i-s, assembled by the supposed K 'art'velian dyarchs
Azork and Armazeli in the first/second century AD for their raid upon Armenia.23 The Pecheneg tribe
is also known to the author o f The Life ofVaxtang (ca. 800), in which their homeland. Pachiniket'i. is
attested.231 Significantly, the biography of Vaxtang also links the Pechenegs with the Ovsi-s and the
Jik'i-s, and states that "at that time Pachaniket'i bordered Ovset'i along the Ovset'ian River."232
Pachaniket'i was evidently regarded as part o f "Caucasia," and more precisely, northern Caucasia. But
instead o f being the allies of the K 'art'velians, Vaxtang ravaged the land o f the Pechenegs as part o f his
campaign against the Ovsi-s.
There can be no question that the references to the Pechenegs in both The Life o f the Kings and
The Life ofVaxtang are anachronistic and were introduced by a later scribe. The familiarity of both
sources with the Pechenegs is evidence that both were likely reworked by the same editor, probably in the
era o f the Pechenegs and the Qipchaqs (and. of course, reedited by the K ing Vaxtang Commission in the
*jyjThe Life o f the Kings, p. 45 jq (where the A variant has Pachanak-ni and M has Pachanig-ni).
231The Life ofVaxtang, pp. 156-157.
232An eighteenth-century insertion in The Life ofVaxtang, appearing in only two MSS (Tk), occurs
within the just-mentioned account the Pechenegs and refers to the Qipchaqs. This insertion enumerates
the Qipchaqs and the Ovsi-s (Alans) as among those tribes imprisoned by the Darial Gate (on the
development of this tradition, see Anderson, Alexanders Gate). Beyond this brief notice, the author of
The Life ofVaxtang is completely unfamiliar with the Qipchaqs. It is noteworthy that this anachronism
about the Qipchaqs was placed within an eleventh-/twelfth-century insertion itself mentioning the
Pechenegs. But this association o f the Pechenegs with the Qipchaqs is an eighteenth-century
interpolation. See The Life ofVaxtang, p. 156 j 9 . 2 2 -
109
eighteenth century)- This fact suggests that these works were edited in the late eleventh/early twelfth
century, the era o f archbishop Leonti Mroveli. The anachronistic references to the Khazars. however,
were made by the original author o f The life o f the Kings ca. 800 AD, when the Khazars were a known
tribal confederation in the region.
An indirect argument in favor o f an eleventh-century date might be advanced on the basis o f the
prominence o f Jews in The Life o f the Kings. O n the one hand, the Jewish community in K 'art'li was
ancient, and the anonymous author was anxious to explain their origin and their role in K'art'velian
history. Alternately, should The Life o f the Kings be an eleventh-century text, the prominence of the Jews
in it m ight be regarded as an echo of the Bagratid claim that they were descended from the Jews, and the
K 'art'velian Bagratids1own innovation that their branch was the biological continuation o f the line o f the
King-Prophet David. But this view must be discarded, for the Bagratids are not mentioned in any context
within The Life o f the Kings. Its author was well aware of Biblical traditions, and the Jews were basic to
them. Linking the K 'art'velians with the ancient Jews exuded the impression that the K'art'velians were
a very old community. Significantly, we find no attempt on behalf o f the author to associate any
Caucasian cfynasty, including the unnamed Bagratids, with the Jews.
The aforementioned anachronisms represent three levels in the evolution o f The Life o f the
Kings. The original author attempted to explain the presence o f the Khazars in Caucasia, who were active
in his own time (eighth/ninth century), tty projecting their confederation into remote antiquity,
demonstrating that they were among those barbarians found by Alexander. The second level represents
the reedition o f The Life o f the Kings (and the existing section o f K'art iis c 'xovreba) in the eleventh
century. In this phase anachronistic references to the Qipchaqs (Cumanis) and the Pechenegs were
inserted. These tribes were actors in eleventh-century Caucasia and thus could be interpolated into The
Life o f the Kings so as to explain their presence. The Qipchaqs and Pechenegs were associated with the
various barbarian peoples o f Caucasia. Finally, the King Vaxtang VI Commission in the eighteenth
century inserted additional information on the Qipchaqs. specifically associating them with Alexanders
Gate. It is not clear how the Bunt' urk' -s fit into this scheme. But the Jews had settled in Caucasia
already in antiquity, and references are an accurate memory o f their presence. There is no justification to
understand the K'art'velian Jews as a manifestation of Bagratid ideology, for there is absolutely no
indication that our author rendered any significance to the nascent K 'art'velian branch o f that family.
The Date o f The life o f the Kings
The Life o f the Kings was composed Ity an anonymous author in the period ca. 790-ca. 800 (i.e..
the era o f the establishment o f the Ap' xaz kingdom), and certainly before the ascendancy of the Bagratid
Ashot I in 813. The work itself along with the corpus C'xorebay k'art velt'a mep 'et'a in which it is
found, does not distinguish its author. Rather, a certain Leonti Mroveli is associated with it only in a later
110
notice appended to the brief history of Ps.-Juansher. It is noteworthy that this "authorship passage was
not incorporated into the Armenian adaptation o f K'art'lis c 'xovreba, a text which constitutes the earliest
extant version o f that corpus. This suggests that the passage was a later addition. As has been shown, the
verb aghcera almost certainly indicates, at least in this particular instance, that Leonti Mroveli edited and
"finished" the text. This Leonti Mroveli was unquestionably the eleventh-century archbishop o f the Ruisi
cathedral whose tenure witnessed Seljfiq raids upon K 'art'li. Leonti Mroveli was responsible for injecting
Christian elements into The Life o f the Kings, for affixing the ninth-/tenth-century Life o f Nino to it so as
to explain the rise o f the Christian K 'art'velian monarchy, and possibly for composing the short
continuation o f The Life o f the Successors ofM irian.
The original author o f The Life o f the Kings plundered a myriad of existing traditions. Biblical
and otherwise, so as to elucidate the origin o f the K 'art'velians and the establishment of local kingship.
These widely varying sources, both Georgian and non-Georgian (Persian, Greek. Armenian, and Syriac
works), are a testimony to the marriage of cultures which characterized antique and medieval K 'art' li.
The anonymous author integrated evidence from The Conversion o f K'art'li but he exhibited a patent
unfamiliarity with the later Life o f Nino. He may have been acquainted with the Armenian history o f
Xorenac' i, but beyond their common interest in ethnogenesis there is no evidence to imply that Xorenac' i
served as a direct source for The Life o f the Kings. Yet its author almost certainly possessed a reading
knowledge o f Armenian, for he incorporated some o f the embellishments of the Armenian version o f
Hippolytus Chronicle in order to demonstrate the ancient provenance of the K'art'velians. One o f the
principal aim s o f the author o f The life o f the Kings was to interpolate the K 'art'velians into received
traditions o f the deluge. In his effort to maximize the plausibility o f his creative narrative he depicted
K 'art'los (the eponym o f the K'art'velians) as ultimately subordinate to Haos/Hayk (the eponym o f the
Armenians). It should again be emphasized that the eighth and ninth centuries witnessed an interest
throughout the Near East and even Byzantium in tracing the origins o f communities. Thus The Life o f the
Kings fits squarely within this intellectual environment. Finally, none of the identifiable sources o f The
Life o f the Kings necessarily postdates ca. 800 AD.
The Ufe o f the Kings situates K 'art'li within the Persian world, and K 'art'velian society and
kingship are described in Persian terms (this contention will be elaborated in succeeding chapters).
Moreover, as the very nature o f The Ufe o f the Kings suggests, pre-Bagratid K 'a rt'li is characterized by
the fusion o f Biblical/Christian and Persian traditions, as is evident in its interpolation of K 'art'velian
origins. The prevalent view that the image o f K 'a rt'li as an outpost o f Persian civilization is merely an
imposition o f later Persian literary models is misguided and is partly fueled by a blind sense of patriotism.
Achaemenid and Sasanid inscriptions, as well as Graeco-Roman, Armenian, and Georgian sources firmly
place K 'a rt'li within the Persian world (we shall offer a fuller consideration of this question in the
successive chapters). It should be restated that there is no indication that our anonymous author was
directly fam iliar with Firdawsfs Shah-nama. The Ufe o f the Kings and the contemporary C'xorebay
I ll
vaxtanggorgaslisa routinely employ the term bumberazi ("duelist-champion") to describe K 'art'velian

kings as Sasanid king-heroes, whereas this image is extremely' rare in later Bagratid-era historical works
(and never applied to B agratid monarchs). Thus, instead o f im itating Persian epics that became popular
at the Georgian court in the thirteenth century, The Ufe o f the Kings accurately recalled the Persian nature
o f early K 'art'velian society, as it still was in the era o f its author ca. 800.
Several internal textual concerns are also suggestive in the matter o f dating The Ufe o f the Kings.
In the oldest MSS of K'art'lis c'xovreba, we encounter no use o f the designation Sak'art'velo. or "allGeorgia, a term politically relevant only after 1008. The author's indiscriminate usage o f the
designations Egrisi and A p 'x azet'i as synonyms suggests that he flourished in the last decade of the
eighth century during which the kingdom o f A p'xazet'i was established. In explicating the origins o f the
major communities o f Caucasia, the anonymous author did not fashion the eponym o f Egrisi/Ap'xazet'i as
a son (i.e a direct dependent) o f K 'art'los. Instead, Egros is made to be his younger brother, which was
indicative o f Egrisis essential autonomy. These are perhaps the most revealing clues that The Ufe o f the
Kings was composed ca. 800, and certainly well before the apogee o f the K 'art'velian Bagratid monarchy
in the eleventh and twelfth centuries.
Significantly, we find no reference whatsoever in The U fe o f the Kings to the K'art'velian
Bagratids, the family which rose to power in the early ninth century and ruled Georgia until the Russian
conquest in the nineteenth century. Although the Jews play a conspicuous role in The Ufe o f the Kings, in
no way were they linked to the unnamed Bagratids. Rather, the inclusion o f the Jews in this narrative is
both part and parcel o f the heterogeneous nature o f K 'art'velian society so readily admitted by the author
as well as indicative o f an attem pt to implant an unmistakable sense o f antiquity. I have already
demonstrated that the anachronistic presence o f the Khazars, Qipchaqs. and Pechenegs within the text
testify to three distinct periods o f composition and then subsequent reediting. That is to say', although the
interpolation o f these tribes are anachronistic for the narrative, they were contemporaries o f the author
and then editors o f The U fe o f the Kings.
The Ufe o f the Kings was the first attempt to provide a comprehensive, detailed pre-Christian
history for the K 'art'velians and was written in the period of the rise o f the Ap'xaz kingdom, ca. 790-ca.
800. Later, the ninth-/tenth-century Ufe o f Nino was grafted onto the text, perhaps tty Leonti Mroveli in
the eleventh century. Leonti Mroveli himself was responsible for editing the composite text o f C'xorebay
k'art velt'a mep 'et'a, and perhaps he added, o r even composed, The Ufe o f the Successors ofMirian, a
short account o f the Christian dynasts who reigned between the accounts of The Ufe o f the Kings and The
Ufe ofVaxtang. This eleventh-century archbishop traditionally has been credited with writing the
composite work o f C'xorebay k'art'velt'a mep'et'a. However, The Ufe o f the Kings and the biography of
Nino clearly predate him, an d his association with the corpus may be regarded as a reflection of his
activity in editing and assembling the corpus.
112
IV. THE CORPUS OF C'XORERA Y VAXTANG GORGASLISA TRADITIONALLYA TTRIBUTED

TO JUANSHER JUANSHERIANI
The reign ofV axtang I Gorgasali (ca. 447-ca. 522) is described in the anonymous U fe o f
Vaxtang, which is traditionally ascribed to the eleventh century. This text is one o f the most colorful in all
o f medieval Georgian historiography, being invested with witty dialogue, brilliant description, and scene
after scene of valiant struggle against the ill-intending neighbors o f K 'art'li. Vaxtang is portrayed as a
great king who not only negotiated a peace between the warring Persians and Byzantines but also won for
his community a status equal with them. While The Ufe ofVaxtang is a semi-mythical account,
nevertheless it masterfully coalesces a fifth-century historical figure with actual, verifiable events. The
legends preserved in Vaxtang's biography have tenaciously persisted to this very day precisely because this
text is an exciting and memorable story, saturated with effulgent description and intense drama.
The Title o f C'xorebay vaxtanggorgaslisa
The biography ofVaxtang Gorgasali and its brief continuation were almost certainly a part of the
now-lost prototype o f K'art'lis c'xovreba. Though originally they likely existed in independent MSS, both
are now extant only in K'art 'lis c 'xovreba. Moreover, both The Ufe o f Vaxtang and its continuation,
together known as the corpus C'xorebay vaxtanggorgaslisa. are now always found conjoined. No
redaction of K'art'lis c'xovreba supplies one without the other.
Each extant Georgian pre-Vaxtangiseuli redaction of the corpus C'xorebay vaxtang gorgaslisa
commences with a title233 followed by a notice on the exile and death o f Mihrdat IV (409-411), and the
reigns o f his successors Arch'il (411-435), Mihrdat V (435-447), and finally Vaxtang I. The title in
oldest extant Georgian variant. A (Anaseuli). is written in distinctive red ink and is defective for the end:
gbcififlbA OS*
3*b(J),b65 [aPijejaalwcjobA 93cn&ac50Ji 9* C030J
d o b o b g3E>obj> jo a Q ~ < n o b -3 c iy Q [4 ]6 o b i d a g o b i 6 c i3 3 ? o ) 3a(J)Qb
bibac5&46a>^3350 as3nh6jos ypi[3 3 xz>i>
8 3 3 3 0 )6
îthmcjobioji]23^
C'xoreba da mok'alak'oba vaxtang [gojrgasalisa mshobelt'a da t'w t'm isis dedisa da

gh~t'is-moqu[a]risa mep 'isa romeli umetes saxelgant'k'muli gamoch 'nda qofvelt'a
mep'et'a k'art'lisat'a]
233The title is absent in the Arm. Adapt. K'C', p. 139 = Thomson trans., p. 153, even though each
published version inserts the title and supposed author into the main tex t
234Kek.Inst.MS #Q-795, p. 125.
113
The Ufe and Agenda ofVaxtang Gorgasali [and] ofH is Parents and o f the Great
and God-Serving King Himself, Who Manifested HimselfMore Glorious than All [the
Other Kings o f K'art'li].
The form o f this title varies quite a lo t but that o f A constitutes the earliest extant one as no title was
incorporated into the Armenian adaptation.
Because only the first text o f this mini-corpus relates the
history ofV axtang and his immediate descendants, the title Ufe ofVaxtang is rightly to be associated
exclusively with i t The brief, untitled continuation, which was not composed by the same author, is
concerned solely with Vaxtang's immediate successors. I shall argue infra that its author should be
identified as Ps.-Juansher. In any event, The U fe ofVaxtang proper was regarded as a c'xorebay {vita.
i.e.. "life") describing the accomplishments o f Vaxtang. This text differs with the contemporary Ufe o f
the Kings and the continuation o f Vaxtangs biography, both o f which tracked a sequence o f rulers rather
than converging upon a single monarch. The U fe ofVaxtang is the earliest Georgian history to be
devoted to a single king (excluding the semi-historical Conversion o f K'art'li). This model was adopted
again by the great Bagratids Davit' n and T am a r. That Davit' and T a m a r were commemorated in their
own vitae amplified the image ofVaxtang in the Bagratid period, since he too enjoyed his own biography.
The Author, Date, and Composite Nature o f the Text
In all extant Georgian MSS, the corpus C'xorebay vaxtang gorgaslisa commences with the
aforementioned title which, significantly, fails to identify its author. Reminiscent o f the oblique
association o f Leonti Mroveli with The Ufe o f the Kings, a certain Juansher Juansheriani was connected
with C'xorebay vaxtang gorgaslisa. In an appendix to the Bagratid-era Martyrdom o f Arch 'il. a
subsequent text in K'art'lis c'xovreba itself traditionally attributed to Leonti Mroveli. it is declared that:
This book o f his [i.e., Arch'ils] martyrdom was found in this abridged form [mc'ired
aghcerili, lit. "written {in a) short {form}"], since in the time of disturbances it could
not be <written down/finished/copied> [aghecera] properly.
And this book of K'art'lis c'xovreba was <written down/finished/copied>
[aghicereboda] to [the account of] Vaxtang from time to time.23^ And from [the
233QauxchishviIi deduced five major variants o f the title: (1) A; (2) Mm; (3) C; (4) ERTbps and B; and
(5) d. The last two are Vaxtangiseuli variants. See S. Qauxch'ishvili in The Ufe ofVaxtang, p. 139,
apparatus criticus, ft 1-4. The unpublished pre-Vaxtangiseuli Q variant reads (in nusxuri, in red ink):
C 'xorebay vaxtng gorgslisa mep 'isa mshbt 'a da sh~d t 'wt' mis didisa da gh~is msx-risa mep 'isa ri
umetesads~xot'agnt'k'm-ladg~moch nda q~t'a mep'et'a {Kek.InstMS # Q-1219, ft. 37v-38r).
236I.e., the corpus o f K'C' (L it The Ufe o f K'art'li). The form K'art'velt'a c'xovreba {The Ufe o f the
K'art velians) must be the original name of that corpus, for such a form would be consistent with
medieval K 'art'velian royal titulature (king o f the K'art'velians instead of king o f K'art'li). Of. infra the
114
account of] King Vaxtang to here [i.e., The Martyrdom o f Arch 7/] was <written down/
finished/copied> [aghcera] by Juansher Juansheriani, husband o f the niece o f the holy
Arch'il, [who was] o f the clan o f Rev, [who was] the son o f Mirian. After this the
coming generations will describe [aghceron] [their history] as they witness it. and the
future tune will make them known to their God-given wise understanding...237
This passage is found in all the Georgian pre-Vaxtangiseuli variants (ACMQ) w ith only minor variations,
though the unpublished Q variant lacks the familial identification o f Juansher Juansheriani as the husband
o f the niece o f Arch'il and a descendant o f Rev.23** The Armenian adaptation gives a slightly different
reading:
And this abbreviated history was found in the time o f trouble and placed in this book
called K'art'lis c'xavrepa, which is the Patmut'iwn K'art'lay [i.e.. The History o f
K'art'li], And Juanber found it written until [the reign of] King Vaxt'ang, and [from
there] until this point was added by Juanber himself, and that which follows he entrusted
to those eyewitnesses and contemporaries.23^
So all o f the earliest extant MSS o f K'art'lis c'xovreba contain a notice associating Juansher/Juanber with
C'xorebay vaxtang gorgaslisa. However, this does not necessarily evince the authorship of the texts.
Rather, it merely demonstrates that by the time that Arm /A was copied (1279-1311), Juansher/Juanber
was understood to have written, copied, or edited depending upon the meaning o f the verb aghcera.
which we explored supra C'xorebay vaxtang gorgaslisa.
We should pause to ponder the different, but related, forms o f the alleged author's/editor's name.
The major variations are:
Armenian transliteration of K'art'lis c'xovreba.

7^7
Mart. Arch'il, p. 248 jq.^: "^0360 363 ^6836066 806066 o3 ei36 366301 b^jc? 83063(0
625^360250. 6018325 3680)6 82502501600)6 3536066366 30630b 6253^366. 6012501 ^0360 obo
^660133250)6 36013636066 302563 366(*)66&ob6d2>3 6(50^363601(06 36800)0-3686(5. 6012501
366<*)66& 8330600)366 30(563 6^68018(03 6(3^366
35366836o65366, d8ob^325ob
<3866866 ^8ooob6 66602506866, 660)3663866 63306866, 8060660b dob6866. 803600)366
838(930130)6 801863625006 660)3663006 6(5^36016 300)6636 06025016 (06 ^06682536663866 368866
0^3366(5 8016336 301636666 860)66 2586003 36666d6oi6oEob6."
23*Kek.Inst.MS # Q-1219, 11 72v-73r.
5*)g
" Mm.
np
Adapt K 'C \
pp. 2 0 7 ^9-2 0 8 7 : Ti qtpbtuL ujuipJnipfclju huifuiiuiip |i diufuriiujlju ztfvipJuilili, li bqun [i qfaipu,
ftjuppihu StunpbujuJ, np t' ''Vupdmpbi'li ftujppituj. U bqhip quui SnuuUpbp, qpbui ifbhjli gd.(u)âuihq pwquinp, (i
iffthjh guijwJwji fihph juib( Sntuikpfap, li qqmnjli juiliAhbujg ipbunquigli h ujuipuhbingli [t diufiukul|ili"; cf. Thomson
trans., p. 255. At footnote 97 Thomson remarks that a later expandedversion of Arch'il's martyrdomis
known.
115
Redaction
Form
A nn/A
A
C
M
C^-RDEPbd
m
Juanber
Jonber Jonberiani
Jonsher Jonsheriani
Juanbar Juanberiani
Juansher Juansheriani
Junber Junberiani
In the earliest MSS, Ann/A and AMm, we find the variants Juanber and Jonber Jonberiani respectively,
whereas the pre-Vaxtangiseuli variants CQ have Jonsher Jonsheriani and Juansher Juansheriani.
Medieval scribes often confused the letters sh and "b" in the Georgian nusxuri script, and this accounts
for the divergence. But which form is the authentic rendition? O f all o f the pre-Vaxtangiseuli MSS. only
Q variant is in the nusxuri script (the script in which K'art'lis c'xovreba was first composed): Q gives the
form Juansher Juansheriani. This form was adopted for the Vaxtangiseuli redaction, and it seems likely
that the Vaxtang Commission had Q at its disposal. The name itself is of Persian derivation and is based
upon the form Juwansher.240 The form Juansher, as preserved in the nusxuri Q redaction is therefore
almost certainly authentic inasmuch as the earliest redactions Arm/A and A were likely based upon
intermediate Georgian mxedruli MSS which had misread the nusxuri"sh" as "b ." This implies that the
original version of the corpus o f C'xorebay vaxtang gorgaslisa was written in nusxuri.
Was this Juansher Juansheriani the author o f the corpus C'xorebay vaxtang gorgaslisa or either
o f its components? We should first consider more thoroughly the composite nature o f this text which is
alluded in the very authorship/scribal quotation appended to The Martyrdom o f Arch V/.2"*2 C'xorebay
vaxtang gorgaslisa is a composite consisting o f two texts written by different anonymous authors. The
initial and longest portion. The Life ofVaxtang proper, limits its description to Vaxtang and his
2*T\ Ch'xeidze, "Iranuli carmomavlobis sakut'are saxelebi k'art'ulshi," Mac ne 4 (1987), p. 103; see
also Justi. Iranisches Namenbuch, p. 123.
2<^ I shall argue infra that C'x. vox. gorg., like The Life o f the Kings, was composed ca. 800. If this
hypothesis is correct then these texts must have been composed originally in nusxuri, for the mxedruli
script was invented only in the Bagratid period (tenth/eleventh century). O f course, nusxuri was still
employed in the Bagratid period, so a MS in nusxuri does not guarantee its antiquity. E.g., Q was copied
in the late seventeenth century; it may indeed transm it an early redaction o f K'C', but this is not
necessarily the case.
242For an overview of the source, see: Kakabadze, Vaxtang gorgasali da misi xana (1994 ed.), pp. 15-36;
Toumanoff, "Medieval Georgian Historical Literature," pp. 169-171; and idem., Studies, pp. 419-421 et
sqq.
116
immediate predecessors. Only this section o f the corpus is legendary and epical, although it was built
around a reasonably sound historical basis. The brief continuation o f this work is concerned with the preBagratid successors ofVaxtang, from his son D ach'i I (522-S34) through the eighth century. Unlike the
half-mythical account ofVaxtang, the continuation (which I attribute to Ps.-Juansher. see infra) is nearcontemporary with the events it describes and is devoid of the legendary trappings o f The Ufe ofVaxtang.
Moreover, the continuation is strikingly sim ilar in style, vocabulary, organization, content, and
description to The Ufe o f the Kings.
Considerable controversy surrounds C'xorebay vaxtang gorgaslisa. Groundbreaking research
was published by the Georgian scholars M. Janashvili, Ingoroqva. and Javaxishvili. Janashvili proposed
that the authorship/scribal passage mentioning Juansher should be accepted literally, so that he should be
regarded as a historical compiler o f the eighth century. Accordingly, Juansher was made to be the relative
of Arch' il II (d. 785/786), whom The Martyrdom o f Arch'1/, the text which associates Juansher with
C'xorebay vaxtang gorgaslisa, e u lo g iz e s .^ But as Toumanoff has shown, Janashvilis arguments are
flawed, partly because he relied upon an erroneous chronology for Arch' il's martyrdom.^'*1*' Ingoroqva.
having relegated C'xorebay k'art'velt'a mep'et'a to the eighth century, posited that C'xorebay vaxtang
gorgaslisa had been written within a century.^^ For his part Javaxishvili looked to internal textual
evidence, and calculated that C'xorebay vaxtang gorgaslisa is a literary monument o f the eleventh
c e n tu r y .^ He theorized that an eleventh-century monk named Darion Juansher, who is mentioned in a
MS from the Iveron monastery on Mt. Athos, was the author. But no contemporary source associates
nation with the biography of V a x ta n g .^ Javaxishvili's argument on dating rest on two other unsound
points: a reference to the tenth-century Ufe o f Iovane Zedadzneli, the leader o f the Thirteen Syrian clerics
who are traditionaUy believed to have introduced monasticism to K 'art'li: and references to the Turks
which he consigned to the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries. This theory is far from convincing
because o f the relatively late MS tradition o f K'art 'lis c 'xavreba. That is. these references cited by
^ J a n a s h v ili, "Kartlis-Tskhovreba Zhizri Gruzii," SMOMPK 35 (1905), pp. 120 and 133.
2MToumanoff, "Medieval Georgian Historical Literature," p. 169 and footnote 22.
^ In g o ro q v a , "K'art'uli mcerlobis istoriis mokle mimoxilva, pp. 207-210; cf. the ninth-century dating
o f Tarchnishvili, "Sources armeno-gdorgiennes." p. 42.
Javaxishvili, Dzveli k'art'uli saistorio mcerloba, pp. 189-194; and summary o f his views in
Toumanoff "Medieval Georgian Historical Literature," p. 170.
Javaxishvili, Dzveli k'art'uli saistorio mcerloba, p. 191. For a criticism o f this view, see Toumanoff
"Medieval Georgian Historical Literature," p. 171, footnote 33, who writes that Javaxishvilis argument
fails because "he does not give the date, or even epoch, of the Ms. and also because the name Juansher
alone is not sufficient for an identification, as it was rather popular in old Georgia."
117
Javaxishvili might been added by a later scribe o r editor. We simply do not know what the original
version o f K'art'lis c 'xavreba said.
In any event, Javaxishvili's eleventh-century dating for C'xovreba vaxtang gorgaslisa was
accepted by subsequent specialists, like S. Kakabadze,248 G. Tsulaia.249 and D. Rayfield.250 and it
remains the dominant view today. Javaxishvili work, much o f which is perfectly trustworthy, has usually
been treated as a sacred truth by the successive generations o f Georgian scholars. Thus, when Kekelidze
wrote his monumental study o f medieval Georgian literature, he instinctively consigned Juansher and his
work to the eleventh century. However, Kekelidze also conjectured that, based upon their stylistic
commonalities, The Ufe o f the Kings and C'xorebay vaxtang gorgaslisa were written by the same
author!251 Although this hypothesis can hardly be entertained, Kekelidze's argument does imply that the
two histories share much in common and represent a single stage o f pre-Bagratid historical writing.252
The Ufe o f the Kings and C'xorebay vaxtang gorgaslisa are, in my view, contemporaries o f one another.
They describe similar social and political realities and employ a common vocabulary. Both The Ufe o f the
Kings and C'xorebay vaxtang gorgaslisa (and especially The Ufe ofVaxtang) describe K 'art'velian
society and indigenous kingship as essentially Persian in character.255 As this portrayal is unusual in
Georgian historical writing, it is understandable how a scholar might suggest that these texts were
composed by a single historian.
ToumanofFcarefully weighed the various scholarly opinions about Juansher and C'xorebay
vaxtang gorgaslisa in formulating a more balanced and sensible theory. Expanding upon the insightful
work of Tarchnishvili254 and others, he convincingly proposed that the initial work of the corpus. The
Ufe ofVaxtang, had been written by an anonymous author around the year 800. about the same time as
The Ufe o f the Kings.255 Indeed, the syntax and style of the two works are alike, and he found the
248Kakabadze, Vaxtang gorgasali da misi xana, pp. 18-19.

249G.V. Tsulaia, trans. and comm., Zhizn' Vakhtanga Gorgasala (1976) (the Rus. trans. o f C'x. vox.
gorg.], introduction.
25Rayfield, The Uterature o f Georgia, pp. 55-56.
251
Kekelidze with Baramidze, Dzveli k'art'uli literaturis istoria, pp. 132-134; and Kekelidze, "Vaxtang
gorgaslanis istorikosi da misi istoria, Ch'veni mec'niereba 4 (1923), pp. 17-47.
252
See also Tarchnishvili, "Sources arm&io-gtorgiennes, p. 42.
251
The common description found in these sources is discussed throughout chs. 2-5 and esp. 5.
254Ibid., pp. 37-42.

255
Additional evidence for this dating is the fact that like The Ufe o f the Kings, C'x. vox. gorg. employs
the term Egrisi along with the later Ap'xazet'i. See also ToumanofF, Studies, pp. 418-419. Cf. the recent
118
indiscriminate application in both texts o f the terms Egrisi and Ap'xazet'i significant Their use as
synonyms suggested to him that the date o f composition coincided with the rise of the A p'xaz kingdom
(ca. 790-ca. 800), for the toponym A p'xazet'i was probably coined, or at least entered general usage- at
that time. The unknown author, ToumanofF postulated, was "an anonymous chronicler from Ujanna" in
the eastern region o f K axet'i.2^* In his opinion, Juansher Juansheriani had merely composed the brief
continuation shortly after the completion o f The Ufe ofVaxtang2*7
In the period o f and following the disintegration o f the Soviet Union and of overt and often
extreme expressions o f patriotic sentiments, several extreme reworkings o f Georgia's past were, and still
are being, published. In 1991 V. Goiladze published Vaxtang Gorgasali and His Historian (Vaxtang
gorgasali da misi istorikosi). The author endeavored to equate the A rch'il o f the authorship/scribal
passage not with the m artyr Arch'il II (about whom The Martyrdom o f Arch'il is itself concerned), but
rather with Arch'il I (411-435), a historical figure who is attested both in The Ufe ofVaxtang and by the
fifth-century Armenian Koriwn.2^8 Seeking to ascertain that The Ufe ofVaxtang was an extremely old
fifth-century source composed by a contemporary ofVaxtang, Goiladze posited that the work was
subjected to a major re-edition, perhaps by the hand o f the eleventh-century Leonti Mroveli.2^9 While the
author successfully debunked the notion that a historian named Juansher Juansheriani wrote in the
eighth/ninth century, he floundered in his venture to relegate C'xorebay vaxtang gorgaslisa to the fifth
century. The foundation o f his argument, the rereading o f authorship/scribal quotation from The
Martyrdom o f Arch 'il, is groundless. There is no justification whatsoever to identify its A rch'il with any
one other than A rch'il II whose murder is eulogized in the source. Moreover. Goiladze also makes the
dangerous assumption that the authorship/scribal quotation is authentic. While soundly-based challenges
to, an d defenses of, the traditional theories are sorely needed, both Goiladze and Baramidze (who
suggest the existence o f an early "Life o f P'amavaz") before him - have embarked on a mission to win
view o f M. Lort'kip'anidze, "Georgia in the 4th-10th Centuries: The Spread o f Christianity in Georgia."
in her Essays on Georgian History, pp. 12-13, where she states: "The work shows evident traces of
considerable elaboration and redaction in the 11th century. According to a number o f researchers,
Juansher lived at the turn o f the 8th and 9th centuries. However, it is not ruled out that a comparatively
short work devoted to the life and activities o f one o f the major representatives o f Georgia was written
soon after the death o f the King, and was subsequently supplemented and enlarged."
^^Toum anoff, Studies, pp. 24-25.
257Ibid., pp. 419-421.

2^K o riw n , Abeghianed., cap. 18, p. I2O25, for "Arjigh": "UpA|xi\... puiquinpkut d.puig..."
V.
Goiladze, Vaxtang gorgasali da misi istorikosi (1991), pp. 42-61, with Rus. sum., "Vakhtang
Gorgasali i ego istorik," pp. 205-207.
119
both the vociferous consent o f the all-too-numerous nationalists who are avid for promoting and
solidifying their particular reinterpretations o f the past so as to justify the present and predetermine the
future.
These are only some o f the more prominent views on the authorship o f C'xorebay vaxtang
gorgaslisa. On m ost points I concur with the outstanding work ofToumanofF. For example. C'xorebay
vaxtang gorgaslisa unquestionably consists o f two separate texts. The presence o f two distinct texts
within the corpus o f C'xorebay vaxtang gorgaslisa is actually testified in the enigmatic authorship/scribal
quotation appearing at the end o f the separate and later Martyrdom o f Arch 'il, for it speaks o f the
biography ofV axtang being completed at one time while the account o f his successors was composed
later. But was ToumanofF right to identify Juansher as the author o f the continuation? At first glance, the
authorship/scribal passage does seem make this assertion. Should we assume that the passage is
authentic, then we must again consider the problematic and ambiguous verb aghcera?* A literal
reading would have Juansher Juansheriani "writing," "editing," or simply "appending" a brief
continuation to The U fe ofVaxtang.
May we further identify this Juansher? It so happens that a Juansher Juansheriani is mentioned
in the continuation itself for the late seventh century. He is said to have been an erist'avi (a regional
governor) "from the clan o f King M irian. a descendant o f Rev," who had been entrusted with M t'iulet'i,
the region of Manglisi, Xerti, Juari, and the royal seat Tpilisi.261 The authorship/scribal passage in The
Martyrdom o f Arch 'il endows its Juansher with precisely the same descent Nevertheless, it should be
emphasized that not in a single variant o f Ps.-Juanshers history is its Juansher Juansheriani credited with
the composition o f the continuation o f The Life ofVaxtang. The author never refers to him self in the firstperson, and no special identification o f Juansher is made within the extant versions of the continuation.
The authorship/scribal passage o f The Martyrdom o f Arch 'il would seem to have the erist 'avi
Juansher Juansheriani in mind. But it has not yet been determined why the authorship/scribal passage,
which mentions Juansher in connection with C'xorebay vaxtang gorgaslisa. is situated in the subsequent
Martyrdom o f Arch 'il. The most obvious answer is that the Arch'il named in the passage is actually to be
identified as Arch' il II, the subject o f The Martyrdom o f Arch 'il. But this does not lay to rest the question
as to why the author is not identified in his own work. Moreover, it is odd that an authorship claim does
appear at the end o f the continuation, but not in connection with its own author. Instead, it concerns the
literary activities o f Leonti Mroveli! Here, as we have seen, Mroveli is associated with three works: The
960
See also: Araxamia, "'K art lis c'xovrebis pirveli matianis moc ulobis sakit'xisat'vis," Mac'ne 2
(1987), p. 62; and M elik'ishvili, "Istochniki," in the introduction to G.A. Melik'ishvili, ed., Ocherla
istorii Gruzii, vol. 1, pp. 22-23.
2 6 1Ps.-Juansher, p. 242.
120
Life o f the Kings, The Ufe ofNino, and even The Martyrdom ofArch il itself. The circle o f confusion is
complete, for Leonti Mroveli is not mentioned in the corresponding passage in The Martyrdom o f Arch 'il.
W e possess no credible evidence demonstrating that Juansher Juansheriani wrote either section of
C'xorebay vaxtang gorgaslisa. Therefore, the continuation should not be attributed to Juansher. Since
Juansher him self was a historical figure and because, for the moment at least, we are unable to identify the
original author o f the untitled continuation, it is ascribed to Ps.-Juansher.
As for the name Juansher Juansheriani, it may have been associated with the corpus for effect.
The name Juansher is based upon the Persian Juwansher and denotes "young lion." 2 6 2 Thus the semilegendary tale o f an alleged great king, Vaxtang Gorgasali ("wolfs head"), was purported to have been
written by a certain Juansher ("young lion"). In m y opinion, the nam e Juansher (found within the
continuation itself) was attached to the story, at a later time, to enhance the heroic deeds, and the Persian
setting, o f the era ofVaxtang. This is perfectly tenable, for pre-Bagratid K 'art'velian nomenclature was
based upon Persian, and it is altogether possible th at a contemporary would have understood the Persian
meaning o f Juansher.
The Sources o f C'xorebay vaxtang gorgaslisa
The corpus o f C'xorebay vaxtang gorgaslisa, like its contemporary Life o f the Kings, rarely
acknowledges its sources and influences.26^ In fact, the half-mythical Life ofVaxtang. at least in its
extant shape, does not directly refer to another text/tradition. Ps.-Juansher. writing in a style reminiscent
o f that o f The Life o f the Kings, mentions only two sources by name, one Persian and one Greek.
2 6 2 AndronikashviIi, Narkvevebi, pp. 418.452,476, and 510; H. Acharyan. Havoc ' anjnanunneri
bararan, vol. 4 (1972 repr.), p. 306 cited by Avdoyan in Ps.-Yovhannes Mamikonean. p. 186. Avdoyan
postulates that "the core of the story as found in the Georgian Chronicle [i.e., A"C'| is taken from the fifth
century Armenian historian, Ghazar P'arpec'i; the rest is added fiction." There is no reason to believe
that any portion o f C'x. vox. gorg. was based directly upon Ghazar P'arpec' i's History o f Armenia. As for
much of the biography ofV axtang being "fiction," its author was attempting to fashion an image, yet as
Toumanoff and others have demonstrated the core o f The Life ofVaxtang is, in fact, based upon
historically verifiable events and personae.
2 6 ^JavaxishviIi, Dzveli k'art'uli saistorio mcerloba. pp. 189-194; Janashvili, "Kartlis-Tskhovreba Zhizn' Gruzii," pp. 120 and 131; Kekelidze, "Vaxtang gorgaslanis istorikosi da misi istoria," pp. 17-47;
Kekelidze with Baramidze, Dzveli k'art'uli lileraturis istoria, pp. 132-134; Toumanofif, "Medieval
Georgian Historical Literature," pp. 169-171; and G. A xvlediani,"K'art'lis c'xovrebis"p'olkloriuli
cqaroebi (1990), pp. 74-90.
121
a. TheJLife of Persia
Ps.-Juansher refers to a Persian source in connection with the Persian Bahrain Chobin (Baram
Ch'ubini), whose rise to power is documented during the reign o f the K 'art'velian kuropalates Guaram I
(588-ca. 590). Guaram, the first representative o f the so-called Guaramid dynasty, having been granted
the dignity o f kuropalates by the Byzantine emperor, launched an offensive against the Persians:
Then a certain man, who was named Bahrain Chobin, appeared in Persia. He fought
against the "Turks," who had invaded Persia, as is written clearly in The Ufe o f the
Persians [C'xovrebasa sparst'asa]: he killed Saba, the king o f the "Turks." and he put
their camp to flight.2 6 4
Ps.-Juansher then relates that Bahrain Chobin raised a rebellion in Persia. The shahanshah Khusrau II
(K'asre):
... was put to flight by Chobin, and he went to Greece. And the caesar Maurice [keisari
Mavrilti] gave to Khusrau his [own] daughter as a wife, and he gave him his arm y and
dispatched it against Chobin. Chobin was driven out of Persia and Khusrau
[rejoccupied Persia.26^
Toumanoff identified this Life o f the Persians as a redaction o f the lost Khwadqy-namag2^
If
Toumanoff is right, then The U fe o f the Persians, as cited both in The Ufe o f the Kings and by Ps.Juansher, may be identified as the now-lost Khwaday-namag or a related, now-lost work. But we must
still ask whether this source was written or oral. We do know this much: like The Ufe o f the Kings, there
is no evidence to suggest that Ps.-Juansher used the Shah-nama directly. Should Ps.-Juansher be an
eleventh-century historian (and I do not think that he is), then it is possible that he was inspired by that
work and related contemporary Georgian ones like the Amiran-darejaniani attributed to Mose Xoneli .2 6 7
2 6 4 Ps.-Juansher, p. 2 2 0 ^ . The Armenian adaptation does not include this passage or reference to this
Persian source.
265Ibid., p.
2 2 1 2^ .
" 6 6 Toumanoff, "Medieval Georgian Historical Literature," p. 171 and footnote 37; cf. Javaxishvili, Dzveli
k'art'uli saistorio mcerloba, p. 192.

2 6 7 E.g., Kekelidze, "Vaxtang gorgaslanis istorikosi da misi istoria," pp. 35-43 and 46-47. The Eng.
translator o f Amiran-darejaniani has conclusively demonstrated that the work was not written before the
122
W hat is crucial, however, is the deep influence o f the Persian epos upon early Georgian historical works,
a n d the fact that its application in Georgian historical writing does not necessarily signify a dependence
upon the famous Shah-ndma.
It is conceivable, although unlikely, that the reference to The Life o f the Persians is. in this
particular instance, inaccurate. In the mid eleventh century the renowned Georgian monk Giorgi
M t'acmideli, who resided on M t Athos, translated into Georgian a Byzantine history' describing
"Scythian" raids on Constantinople and Heraclius1invasion o f Persia. This text provides information
about the rebellion and rule o f Bahrain Chobin. Maurice, Khusrau. and Heraclius .2 **8 Should Ps.Juansher actually be an eleventh-century historian, then it is possible that this Siege o f Constantinople
and the Campaign o f Heraclius served as his source. O f course, it is also possible that the account o f Ps.Juansher, written before its rendition into Georgian, was embellished with its evidence by a later scribe.
In any event, it is unknown whether this translated Byzantine text served as a source for Ps.-Juansher in
either its original or later redactions. If so, it is possible, though I think unlikely, that it was
misrepresented as The Life o f the Persians.
b. The Hermetica
The invasion o f K 'art'li by the Byzantine emperor Heraclius is addressed with unusual detail by
Ps.-Juansher. In his account o f the reign o f Step'anoz II (637/642-ca. 650), Ps.-Juansher offers a brief
notice o f the rise o f Islam,2**^ and then o f Heraclius expulsion from the Near East at the hands o f the
M uslims ("Hagarites"):
They told the emperor [lit. "king"] Heraclius that the Hagarites had invaded Shami and
Jaziret'i, which is Mesopotamia. And Heraclius set out for Palestine in order to wage
war there. But there [he found] a certain monk, a man o f God. and he said to the
emperor: "Flee, because the Lord has given the East and the South to the Saracens, who
in translation are called the dogs o f Sarah." And these words o f the monk were
explained to the emperor Heraclius by the astrologers and by all the prophets.
Accepting the validity of this prophecy, Heraclius prepared to withdraw from the Near East:
twelfth century, which would place its composition a century later than even the erroneous eleventhcentury dating o f C'x. vox. gorg. Stevenson himself noted that we should concern ourselves with "a
common indebtedness to a popular tradition rather than one writer exert[ing] influence over the other."
See Xoneli, Amiran-darejaniani, p. 239 and the introduction.
268For Chobin, see Siege o f Cple., pp. 40-41 ("Bahram ch'ubini").
2 6 9 Ps.-Juansher, p. 229.
123
... The emperor Heraclius raised a pillar and inscribed on it: "O Mesopotamia and
Palestine, farewell, be until the seven weeks p it th e seventh seven'] has passed" The
limits of th[at] interval o f time had been found in the books o f the philosopher Hermi
Trismejistoni with regard to the Saracens, which is 250 years.27 0
This last passage is deliberately obscure. However, its Hermi Trism ejistoni^ is to be identified
as EPMHE O TPIEMEriETOE. Hermes Trismegistos is the Greek appellation for Thoth, the Egyptian
god o f wisdom. Numerous spiritual and mystical texts were attributed to him by the Greeks from the first
century AD and were known collectively as the Hermetica. It fused a wide range o f ideas, from astrology
and alchemy to philosophy and theology, and was a synthesis of Greek and Egyptian thought The
Hermetica was widely known in the fourth century, but from the sixth to the eleventh century it almost
completely vanished from the Byzantine scene. With Psellus it resurfaced in Byzantium, but a more
sustained interest in it may be traced only from the fourteenth century .2 7 2 The reference to Hermes in
Ps.-Juansher might suggest that he wrote in the eleventh century, at the time o f Psellus. However, should
Ps.-Juansher have written at the time o f the composition o f The Ufe o f the Kings (i.e., ca. 800). then this
reference, if authentic, is striking. But we must remember that the mere reference to Hermes does not
necessarily insinuate that Ps.-Juansher relied directly upon him .272 Because o f the relatively late MS
tradition we may not discount the possibility that the reference was added by a later scribe, perhaps
himself from the time of Psellus, which happened to coincide with the editorial labors of Leonti Mroveli.
270Ibid., p. 2301_10. This event occurred in 638, therefore the prophecy was to materialize in
638+250=888 AD; see Tsulaia in The Ufe ofVaxtang, Rus. trans., introduction, pp. 52-53.
271
This form is Qauxch' ishvili's reconstruction based on the work o f Kekelidze. Cf. variants Rmistorman
ijistonis and Hirmistosman Ijintones (C). The Armenian adaptation (Arm/A) attributes the prophecy to
the works o f "Hermitron and Ijintos" (Arm. Adapt. K'C', p. 194 = Thomson trans., pp. 238-239):
"Prognostications about them are found in the books o f the philosophers Hermitron and Ijintos: On the
great date 5814 appeared the son o f the handmaid from the righteous nation in 615, and he will endure
five times seven sevens minus five, which is 240 years. Thomson, footnote 69, remarks that these dates
do not coincide.
2 7 2 G. Fowden, The Egyptian Hermes: A Historical Approach to the Late Pagan Mind (1993 [1986]); and
A. Kazhdan, "Hermes Trismegistos," in ODB, vol. 2 (1991), p. 920, who also notes that some references
to the Hermetica are found in the Byzantine historian Nikephoras Gregoras. Some works attributed to
Hermes are preserved in Armenian MSS, the earliest o f which was copied in the second-half o f the
thirteenth century. On this Georgian reference, see also G. Alasania. "Ric'xvi da mistika dzvel k'art'ul
saistorio mcerlobashi," Mac'ne 4 (1984), pp. 28-29.
27^
Prof. J.-P. M ahe has suggested to me that this type o f prophecy was most common throught all o f the
versions o f the Hermetica (private correspondence dated 23 Apr. 1996).
124
In any event, it seems certain that either ca. 800 o r in the eleventh century some Georgian writers were
familiar with the Hermetica.
c. Armenian Influences
No Armenian sources are directly cited in the corpus o f C'xorebay vaxtang gorgaslisa. Both of
its authors exhibit a diminished interest in things Armenian as compared that o f The Ufe o f the Kings.
The Ufe ofVaxtang does recollect the Armenian dynasty o f the Arshakuniani-s (Arsacids) through the
tale o f the Christianization of the Armenian monarch T rdat at the hands o f Gregory the Illuminator
0Grigol Part'eveli, lit "Grigol the Parthian"). This story was reportedly retold by Vaxtang:
... do you not recollect [you] the Arshakuniani [i.e., Arsacid] inhabitants o f Armenia,
the patiaxshi-s [descended from] Bivritiani, the deeds of Gregory the Parthian [i.e.,
"the niuminator"] and his adversary T r d a t the Arshakuniani king - how [the latter]
fell from his arrogance and was turned into a boar? However, Gregory converted him
and from that time he became a toiler o f the Church, and T 'rd at built a great church
with his own back, thus he was a h e r o . . . ^
This episode is ultimately based upon the Grigorian Cycle, according to which T rd a t had been divinely
transformed into a wild boar just prior to his conversion. It should be noted that the Armenian tradition
considered Gregory to have been descended ultimately from the Parthians, a further testament to the
Persian heritage o f Caucasia.
T rdat was a figure o f immense historical stature throughout Christian Caucasia. The imagined
Vaxtang is not ashamed to admit that he was descended from T rd a t through his mother. But he is also
said to have been descended through Mirian on his father's side, making him related to the first Christian
dynasts o f both Armenia and K 'a r t 'l i . ^ This genealogy, accurate or not, reflects the prestige associated
with T rdats name, even in the author's time of ca. 800. I should think that this suggests Vaxtang's
biographer, like the contemporary author o f The U fe o f the Kings, was a non-cleric, and that he chose not
to make an issue o f the schism with Armenia at the beginning o f the seventh century.
*The U fe ofVaxtang, p. 161g_jQ- The A variant inserts "Bagratids" after "Bivritiani" (Toumanoff has
demonstrated that these Bivritiani-s were, in fact, Bagratids; however, only the A o f all the Georgian MSS
o f K'C' makes this identification. Moreover, the Bagratids referred to here are not the K 'art'velian ones).
Cf. Arm. Adapt. K'C', pp. 154-155 = Thomson trans., p. 176.
275jbid., p. 169. We should remember here that Vaxtang was a king well before the 607/608 schism with
the Armenians, and the source was written after that event.
125
d. The Book o f Nimrod
The so-called Book o f Nimrod seems to have been an important source for early K 'art'velian
historians .2 7 6 Although it is cited by name only in the ninth-/tenth-century Ufe o f Nino,277 its influence
is particularly evident in The U fe ofVaxtang.278 As we have seen. Javaxishvili hypothesized that The
Ufe o f the Persians, which not infrequently was cited in early Georgian historical writing, represented
The Book o f Nimrod?79 But this identification was formulated without historical proof and it now seems
dubious. Scholars have not yet identified any extant text as the late antique Book o f Nimrod. Although
the existence o f a text entitled The History o f Nimrod, Son o f Canaan (A IETOPIA NEBPOA YIOI
XANAAN) at ML Sinai was claimed a century ago. its actual identification, contents, and even existence
have yet to be determ ined28 In any evenu assuming that The Book o f Nimrod as known to the
K'art'velians did exist, we do not even know its original language (Greek, Persian, Syriac, Aramaic.
Armenian, Georgian, etc.).28 *
According to his biographer, Vaxtang addressed his troops during a campaign in Anatolia,
warning them that the mistreatment o f the local Christian population would provoke certain disaster. The
king alluded to some famous miracles, notably the conversion o f Constantine "the Great and the triumph
o f Jovian (363-364) over the pagan resurgence that had been spearheaded by Julian (361-363). Vaxtang
also recounted the marvels o f the Christianization of the Armenian king T rdat at the hands o f Gregory
the Illuminator.
276This Book o f Nimrod is not to be equated with the Uber Nimrod, an astronomical treatise popular in
medieval Europe.
777The Ufe o f Nino in C'x. k'art'. mep'et'a. pp. 105-106.

2 7 8 However, in Vaxushti's eighteenth-century reworking o f The Ufe ofVaxtang, The Book o f Nimrod is
expressly mentioned in connection with Vaxtang. See Vaxushti. p. 105g.
2 7 Javaxishvili,
Dzveli k'art'uli saistorio mcerloba, p. 187; his argument was recapitulated by Kekelidze,
"Leonti mrovelis literaturuli cqaroebi," p. 14.

28See The Ufe o f NinoWardrop trans.. p. 33, note 1. The MS in question is given as Sinai "Cod Arab.
No. 456."
On The Book o f Nimrod see: Janashvili, "Izgnanie Adama iz Raia, Nimrod i sem' poslepotopnykh
narodov: Kniga Nimroda." SKiOMPK 29/2 (1901), pp. 19-44; Kekelidze. "Vaxtang gorgaslanis istorikosi
da misi istoria" pp. 34-35; Bogveradze, "Leonti mrovelis ert'i istoriul-politikuri konc'ep'c'iis shesaxeb
(leonti-juansheris identip'ikac'iisat'vis)," Mac'ne 4 (1987), pp. 176-177; and E. Bammel, "Das Buch
Nim rod" Augustinianum 32/2 (Dec. 1992), pp. 217-221. Kekelidze, "Leonti mrovelis literaturis
cqaroebi," pp. 18-23, believes that the Cigni nebrot'isa (The Book o f Nimrod) was a Gk. source.
126
Subsequently, Vaxtang turned to the K 'art'velian predicam ent He declared that the kings of
K 'art'li were the direct descendants o f the first king o f the world, Nimrod (Nebroti). and that even
Nimrod had not been immune to divine punishm ent Genesis is familiar with Nimrod although he is not
explicitly identified there as the first king o f the world. As the son o f Cush. Nimrod is described as a
mighty warrior and a hunter; the main centers o f his kingdom were Babylon. Erech. Akkad, and Calneh.
He also gained possession o f Assyria, where he established the cities o f Ninevah, Rehobah. Ir. Calah. and
Resen.2 **2 King Vaxtang him self reportedly recounted a non-Biblical tale about Nimrod which
attributing him with the building o f a tower to the heavens, the Tower o f Babel. With the abandonment of
Nimrod's capital, Vaxtang explained that the various peoples of the world took up residence in their
respective lands with their own languages.2*^ This is not exactly the Biblical tradition as preserved in
Genesis, but an independent one that was apparently related in The Book o f Nimrod. As such, it would
seem that the latter should be characterized as Old Testament apocrypha. Moreover, the tradition
depicting Nimrod as a giant and associating him with the Tower of Babel was not an unfamiliar one. for it
was also known to Josephus. We possess no evidence that the Georgian author directly used Josephus,
and works dependent upon him, as a source.2**
Recently, S. Livesey and R. Rouse co-authored an intriguing study of the evolution o f the
tradition o f Nimrod as an astronomer. The authors posited that the identification o f Nimrod as a giant
was an innovation o f Augustine, and, that Augustine him self had first associated Nimrod with the
tower.2*^ ft is possible, though still not definitively proven, that the traditionally-held "eastern" tradition
of Nimrod in fact originated from the pen o f Augustine. Moreover, the authors also attempted to
dismantle the notion that Nimrod's depiction as an astronomer had emanated from some ancient Near
**Genesis X.8-12. Verse nine describes Nimrod as "a mighty hunter before the Lord." Again. Nimrod
is the Bel o f Xorenac'i.
2*^The Life ofVaxtang, pp. 160-163; and Arm. Adapt. K 'C \ pp. 155-159. Cf. Genesis XI. 1-9.
2**Perhaps The Book o f Nimrod itself served as a source for Josephus since that historian, breaking with
the Biblical tradition, is also acquainted with the building o f a great tower by Nimrod. If so. The Book o f
Nimrod is a text of extreme antiquity. It should be emphasized that The U fe o f The Kings. though it also
associates Nimrod with the tower, exhibits no direct dependences upon Josephus. See Josephus. Jew.
Antiq., 1.113-121, pp. 54-59. The association of Nimrod with the tower is also made by Teaching o f St.
Gregory, para. 297, pp. 55-56 and paras. 577-586, pp. 139-142 (which is part o f the Grigorian Cycle and
was conceivably known to our Georgian author), and in the twelfth-century Syriac Chronography of Bar
Hebraeus, p. 8 . M.E. Stone, "The Armenian Apocryphal Literature: Translation and Creadon," in
SSCISSM, vol. 43b (1996), p. 639, reports Armenian apocryphal works titled Exegesis on the Tower and
Concerning the Tower o f Babel. Their traditions may have been known to our ca. 800 K'art'velian
historians.
285Livesey and Rouse, "Nimrod the Astronomer," Traditio 37 (1981), pp. 203-216. The authors are
unfamiliar with the Georgian tradition o f Nimrod.
127
Eastern tradition. Rather, Livesey and Rouse suggested that it was formulated largely in Europe. This
contention is noteworthy in light o f the fact that The Ufe ofVaxtang relates that, having climbed the
tower, Nimrod "entered the realm o f the stars." 2 8 6 Could it be that the Georgian tradition o f Nimrod,
which serves as part of the "Persian" backdrop o f early K 'art'velian history, was ultimately based upon
innovations made by Augustine (in the West), which in turn had been introduced into Georgian literature
perhaps via Syriac or Armenian? Or are the Syriac, Georgian, and Armenian traditions themselves based
upon a considerably older story which was seized upon by Augustine? For the moment, answers to these
questions remain elusive, although it should be said that the potency and transmission o f ideas should not
be underestimated .2 8 7
Among medieval Georgian written sources only The Ufe o f Nino preserves an explicit reference
to The Book o f Nimrod. After Nino cured the queen consort Nana, her husband Mihran/Mirian:
... was filled with wonder and he began to inquire about the faith o f Christ, and he asked
Abiat'ar, the former Jew, about the old and the new books [i.e., the O ld and the New
Testaments], and [Abiat'ar] explained everything And Mirian possessed The Book o f
Nimrod [cignic'a romeli hk'onda mirian mep'esa nebrot'isi] ...
Then the account summarizes the contents o f The Book o f Nimrod, which is quite clearly the same text
described in The Ufe ofVaxtang. We find exact parallels with Nimrod's building o f the tower, the
abandonment o f his city, and the triumph of God's will. The hagiographer who reworked the biography of
Nino in the ninth-/tenth-century may have used The Book o f Nimrod directly, although it seems more
likely to me that he merely paraphrased the corresponding passage in The Ufe ofVaxtang.
Syriac literature also has preserved a reference to a mystical work about Nimrod. The Syriac
Book o f the Cave o f Treasures was written as early as the fourth century AD, but survives in an form
composed no earlier than the sixth century. It is extant in several divergent Syriac recensions and was
translated, with major modifications, into Georgian by the eleventh century. Nimrod is a figure of some
gravity and is described not only as a mighty warrior and a giant, but also as the introducer o f fire-worship
2 8 6 77ie Life ofVaxtang, p. 162.

2 8 7 0 n the tradition o f Nimrod as the first king (and his identification as the Assyrian king Ninus) see W.
Adler, Time Immemorial, pp. 15-19,113 (and footnote 35), 128-129, and 174-175.
2 8 8 77/e Life o f Nino in C'x. k'art'. mep'eta, pp. 105-106:"... {3i3o6 3 o 6 o i6 3 3 3 3 } 50.6336056 02*
o^yoi a^dcidogbAQ b x sjE jb i
02* 9 6 i 3iC5afcob 3300)6636 Jgfioi-ym gocsbA Sib
*bo*a>i6 b d)3CPA C* *b*ff?fl)* ô&Boibi, 09* 0 5 0 *3^y3&02* bOi3 3 C?bi. jg i ^ 0 5 6 0 3 0 .
dfcnSscpo 3 ^cn6 fi0 i So 6 o a 6 8353366 6 3 6 6 ma)obo..." Cf. Arm. Adapt. K 'C \ p. 101 = TTiomson trans.,
p. 115, which does not offer the name of the book consulted by Mirian ("Mirian possessed a book which
related the history o f the race ofNebrot' and o f the building ofK 'aghan.")
128
(Zoroastrianism) to the Persians. He built several eastern cities, including B a b e l Nineveh. Seleucia, and
Ktesiphon .2 9 In The Book o f the Cave o f Treasures we are told o f some Chaldean magis who consulted
The Revelation o f Nimrod (Gelyana dhe Nemrddh). In this work they' discovered that a mighty king was
to be bom in Judea, and so the prophecy o f Christ's coming was revealed .2 9 0 This is in accordance with
the contents o f the Book o f Nimrod as described in The Ufe o f Nino, for after consulting it Mihran/Mirian
became informed about the Son o f God.
The Revelation o f Nimrod and The Book ofNimrod are almost certainly represent one and the
same source/tradition. Probably written and transmitted originally in Syriac, th e text may have been
translated into G reek and perhaps into Georgian and Armenian. But all o f this, for the moment at least, is
firmly consigned to the realm o f scholarly speculation. Regardless. The Book o f Nimrod, in some
capacity, served as a source for The Ufe ofVaxtang, and later for The U fe o f Nino.
e. Georgian Sources
A preponderance o f modem specialists consider the corpus o f C'xorebay vaxtang gorgaslisa to be
an eleventh-century te x t Too often scholars have failed to identify the corpus' composite nature, and the
entire work is often attributed to Juansher Juansheriani. These erroneous opinions have obscured the
relationship o f the corpus to the Royal Usts and The Ufe o f the Kings, all o f which contain certain similar
passages. The path o f textual interdependence must now be reconsidered.
The Georgian scholar A. Bogveradze has demonstrated that at least nine passages o f The Ufe o f
the Kings were based upon, or formed the basis for, similar accounts in The U fe ofVaxtang.29 *
Therefore, it has become evident that one of the authors had access to the other's work, assuming, of
course, that a later scribe had not effected the parallels. Yet Bogveradze did not discern a single
correspondence between The Ufe o f the Kings and Ps.-Juansher. We might have expected to find parallels
between The Ufe o f the Kings and Ps.-Juansher since both works are strikingly sim ilar in terms of
vocabulary, style, syntax, and content .2 9 2 This paucity o f repetition may be a n indication that both works
2^9Cave o f Treasures, pp. 135-144; and Cave o f TreasuresGeorgian, cap. 24-27.

290Cave o f Treasures, pp. 203-205, and Budge in the introduction, p. 38; cf. Cave o f Treasures
Georgian, cap. 27.
2 9 *Bogveradze, '"Kart'lis c'xovrebis' pirveli matiane da misi avtori," pp. 26-27.
2 9 2 E. Xoshtaria-Brosse has theorized that "the opening cycle" of K'C' i.e., the works traditionally
ascribed to Leonti M roveli and Juansher Juansheriani are similar because they were reworked by the
same editor in the eleventh century. See his: "Terminologicheskaia osnova istochnikovedcheskogo
izucheniia nachal'nogo tsikla K artlis Tskhovreba,'" in Istochnikovedcheskie razyskaniia (1985), pp. 157162; "*K'art'lis c'xovrebis dasacqisi ciklis kompozic'iis shesaxeb," pp. 180-183; "Leonti mrovelis
129
were composed by the sam e author who regarded it unnecessary to repeat information. Should these
works have been written by different authors, we cannot state with any certainty which source was
composed first
Another w ork exhibiting parallels with C'xorebay vaxtang gorgaslisa is the legitimist tract of the
eleventh-century Bagratid historian Sumbat Davit'is-dze. This text has been dated to ca. 1030 by
Toumanoff2 9 3 and more recently to the 1050s-1060s by G. Araxatnia.29* Notwithstanding, it is
unquestionably a literary monument o f the eleventh century. Its close parallels w ith Ps.-Juansher.
especially with regards to Heraclius* invasion o f K 'art'li, must be regarded in terms o f Davit'is-dze's
unacknowledged plundering o f Ps.-Juansher and/or the dependent Royal Lists. It should be emphasized
that the early, legendary section29^ 0f Sumbat Davitis-dze's tract is deeply dependent upon pre-existing
Georgian texts, like the Royal Lists o f Mok'c 'evay k'art 'lisay.
Toumanoff has demonstrated that the Royal List II, and possibly Royal List I, was derived from
C'xorebay vaxtang gorgaslisa at some point between the composition o f that corpus (ca. 790-ca. 800) and
the tenth century, when the earliest MSS containing the Royal Lists (i.e., within the corpus Mok'c'evay
k'art'lisay) were copied.29** This is reminescent of the Royal List Ts abridgment o f The Ufe o f the Kings.
One o f the strongest proofs indicating the reliance o f the Royal U st II upon Ps.-Juansher is its repetition
of the tatter's erroneous assignment o f the martyrdom o f Shushaniki to the reign o f Bakur III (7-580).
That climacteric event actually occurred during the reign ofVaxtang Gorgasali, 2 9 7 though not a single
K'art'velian ruler is attested in Shushaniki's fifth-century vita. Ps.-Juansher offers this description of
Shushaniki's demise:
cqaroebis da k 'a rt'lis c'xovrebis' dasacqisi c'iklis shedgenilobis sakitxisat'vis." pp. 181-188; and
"K'art'lis c'xovrebis' dasacqisi c'iklis shescavlis shedegebi da tek'stshi arsebuli minacerebis
interpretac'iis c'da," in K'art'uli cqarot'mc'odneoba, vol. 8 , pp. 81-87.
293 Toumanofif. "Medieval Georgian Historical Literature," pp. 154-156.
29*Araxamia in Sumbat Davit'is-dze. introduction, pp. 10-32.

293It is noteworthy that both works representing the two traditions o f origins ( The Ufe o f the Kings for
the pre-Bagratid period and that o f Sumbat Davit'is-dze for the Bagratid era) commence with highly
legendary tales and are followed by information that is more historically accurate.
29 ^Toumanoflf, Studies, pp. 262-263 and 418-421. Toumanoff wrote before the discovery in 1975 at Mt.
Sinai o f two new tenth-century recensions o f Mok'. k'art'.
297The fifth-century Arm enian historian Ghazar P'arpec'i, 111.66, pp. 171-172, relates that "Vaxt'ang
killed the impious bdeashx Vazgen in the twenty-fifth year of king Peroz." Peroz was the successor of
Hurmazd III and ruled from 459 to 484.
130
At this time in Armenia there was a man, the son o f a mt'avari [i.e.. head o f a
noble house], nam ed Vask' en. And his spouse, the child o f a mt'avari, was named
Shushaniki, the daughter o f Vardan. But the Devil dominated Vask'en and he decided
to convert to fire-worship; he appeared before the king o f the Persians, and he renounced
the faith o f Christ, and he became a fire-worshipper. And the king of the Persians made
him the erist'avi o f Rani [giving him] great gifts. When he had returned his wife
realized that he had abandoned the faith o f Christ, she repudiated him as [her] spouse.
And she forgot [her] love for her spouse, and with all her heart she adhered to the
precepts of C hrist
Then V ask'en pressured [her in] many [ways]: at first by hypocrisy and
entreaties, and by giving o f gifts; then he subjected her to a great torture, so greatly that
it is more that I can describe [that] feat o f the holy Shushaniki. And her spouse
Vask'en, the erist'avi o f Rani, [thus] murdered her.
Then Bakur, the king o f the K 'art'velians, summoned all the erist'avi-s, and
secretly he gathered an army, and clandestinely he attacked Vask'en. Vask'en was
on the plain along the bank o f the M tkuari [River], where the Anakerti River flows
into the Mtkuari, [and] they fell upon V ask'en and seized him. They dismembered him
and hung [his] limbs on a tree. But w ith great honor they retrieved the body o f the holy
Shushaniki, and they buried her at C ortavi .2 9 8
Royal List II gives a more succinct notice:
A n d ... [then]... Bakur reigned, and the kat'alikoz was Makari, and during his [reign]
Varsk'en was the pitiaxshi, and Shushaniki was martyred in C'urtavi.29 9
Although Ps.-Juansher fails to acknowledge his source, he had at his disposal the fifth-century
Martyrdom o f Shushaniki. As already mentioned, this vita does not name any ruler of K 'art'li. The only
kings documented are the shahanshah-s o f Persia. This confused Ps.-Juansher. for he was forced to
interpolate the identity o f the K 'art'velian king at the time o f Shushaniki and Va[r]sk'en. Toumanoff
demonstrated that the misplacement o f the martyrdom o f Shushaniki by Ps.-Juansher was the result o f the
reference to the shahanshah Hurmazd in Shushaniki's vita. Ps.-Juansher understood "Hurmazd." who was
not identified with an ordinal, to be Hurmazd IV (579-590), a contemporary o f Bakur m , instead o f
Hurmazd HI (457-7459), a contemporary o f Vaxtang.-*^ The Royal List II indiscriminately abridged
C'xorebay vaxtang gorgaslisa, and confronting the name o f the famous Shushaniki, it restated the error of
Ps.-Juansher.
2 9 8 Ps.-Juansher, p. 216.
299'Royal List II, p. 94; this account appears in both the Shatberdi and Chelishi codicies. C'urtavi is
rendered C'ortavi in the Chelishi variant
300roumanof Studies, p. 262-263 and419; andL.-N. Janashia, Lazarp'arpec'isc'nobebi sak'art'velos
shesaxeb (1962), pp. 117-119,131-143, and 174.
131
Ps.-Juansher was evidently acquainted with another hagiographicai work, a collection o f vitae
relating the activities o f the Thirteen Syrian Monks. These monks, who established themselves K 'a rt'li
during the reign o f P'arsm an VI (561-?), were led by the "Mesopotamian cleric Iovane Zedadzneli. Ps.Juansher relates that:
Their live[s] [c'xovreba] were written down Idiacera], [as well as] their miracles, and
they were placed in the churches ofK 'artTi.
This passage is found in the Armenian adaptation o f K'art'lis c'xovreba as well as the pre-Vaxtangiseuli
Georgian redactions. Therefore, it has been a part o f Ps.-Juansher from at least the end of the thirteenth
century. Of course, it is possible that this notice was added by a later scribe and did not constitute part of
the original te x t We have no direct evidence that written Georgian vitae of these monks existed ca. 800.
but we do know that some existed by the time o f Leonti Mroveli. It is widely accepted that the vitae o f
these monks, in their received forms, were written (or edited) in the tenth century. Yet Ps.-Juansher
himself does not allude to the content o f these vitae, or even the names o f Iovanes disciples, although the
Vaxtang VI Commission inserted extensive excerpts from these vitae into its official redaction o f K'art'lis
c xovreba in the early eighteenth century .3 0 2 The earliest Georgian version o f K art lis c 'xovreba. A,
does not include the considerably later Vaxtangiseuli insertion about the monks, yet its scribe did exhibit
an interest in them: to the end o f K'art'lis c 'xovreba proper he appended - or the original MS from which
he copied itself contained a version o f the vitae o f the thirteen Syrian monks.3 0 3 The other preVaxtangiseuli MSS do not include this work. In fact, the A redaction including the vitae of the Syrian
monks is one of its earliest extant versions, with the oldest o f them being copied in the thirteenth
century .30 4 In the final analysis, although we have a clear reference to vitae o f the Syrian monks (should
the passage be part o f the original text), we need not assume, as Javaxishvili had. that Ps.-Juansher
possessed the tenth-century version o f those vitae, a circumstance which consequently might relegate him
to the eleventh century.
3 0 ^Ps.-Juansher, p. 207; and^frm.
Adapt. K 'C '. p. 188 = Thomson trans., p. 227.
302For these insertions, see Ps.-Juansher, pp. 208-215; Eng. trans. in Arm. Adapt. K'C' by Thomson, pp.
363-369.
303KeUnstuVIS if Q-795, pp. 425-470.

3^K ekInstM S if A-199 (thirteenth/fourteenth century) and if H-136 (71366 AD); as well as a Georgian
MS from Jerusalem (Ier-36).
132
In addition, The life ofVaxtang is acquainted with the martyrdom o f Razhden/Razhdan. who
was tortured to death by the Persians during the reign ofVaxtang. But The Life ofVaxtang is ignorant o f
the vita for this sain t 3 3 It is well established that a Life o f Razhden was written down only in the early
Bagratid period3** Although the author o f The Life ofVaxtang was not in the habit o f naming his
sources, the omission o f a reference to this later vita may be evidence that the biography ofVaxtang was
composed before i t B ut this argument ex silentio is far from compelling and the discovery o f new MSS
would be required to validate i t
Finally, The Life ofVaxtang is better apprised about Nino than the contemporaneous life o f the
Kings. However, in both works the details o f Nino's activities, as elaborated in the ninth-/tenth-century
Life o f Nino, are absent Whereas The Life o f the Kings is aware only that Nino was responsible for
Mihran/Mirian's conversion, the biography ofV axtang makes more references to her. though without
offering additional details o f the conversion episode itself. Nino was understood not only to be the
spiritual teacher of Mihran/M irian , 3 ^ but she was a central figure in the mystical dream o f Vaxtang
Gorgasali.
The Earliest Georgian Reference to the K'art'velian Bagratids
As we have seen, the entire corpus of C'xorebay k'art'velt'a mep'et'a is unaware of the
K 'art'velian Bagradd clan, and relates absolutely no information about them.3** Similarly. The Life o f
Vaxtang is oblivious to their existence. Ps.-Juansher. at the very end o f his narrative, provides the first
definite reference in K'art'lis c'xovreba to the K 'art'velian Bagratid family :39
3 3 77jc Life
ofVaxtang, p. 199.
3**For the text, see The Life o f Razhden. The same argument may be applied for the Syrian monk Abibos
who is known to Ps.-Juansher, p. 229. but that author does not mention his vita.
3^The Life ofVaxtang, p. 163.

38On the Bagratids, see chs. 6-7.
3 0 9 Cf. the much earlier references to the Bagratuni in Armenian historical literature; already in the fifth
century AD, the anonymous author o f The Epic Histories refers to them, but his tract champions the rival
Mamikonean clan. Toum anoff Studies, pp. 335 (footnote 143) and 344 (footnote 16). identified the
Bivritiani-s o f The Life o f the Kings (pp. 47-49) and The life ofVaxtang (p. 161) as Bagratids. In fact, for
the instance in The Life ofVaxtang, the A redaction adds after Bivritiani-s "Bagratids" (see apparatus
criticus, il 6-7). With the exception o f A, no early text in any extant version o f K'C ' makes this
identification. To be sure, medieval Georgian historians themselves do not seem to have equated the
Bivritiani-s with the K 'art'velian Bagratids.
133
Then there came to [A rchil II] a mt'avari, who was from the clan o f David the Prophet,
by the name o f Adamase. grandson o f Adamase "the Blind, whose father was related to
the Bagratids.3 10
Nothing else about the K 'art'velian Bagratids is related here, and nothing more is said about
their activities, prominent members o f their clan, o r their origin. Adamase has been identified by
Toumanoff as a Bagratid prince who removed him self to southwestern K 'art'li following the disastrous
Armenian uprising against the Caliphate in 771/772. His emigration to K'art'velian lands marks the
historical beginning o f the K 'art'velian branch o f the Bagratid clan .3 ** By the time o f Ps.-Juansher. the
K 'art'velian Bagratids already seem to have been advancing the claim that they were the direct
descendants o f the Old Testament King-Prophet David. But the claim is known here only in general
terms; other details about the Bagratids are lacking. It is possible that the Davidic claim as articulated in
the aforementioned account was inserted by a later (Bagratid-era) historian, yet it is conceivable that the
K 'art'velian Bagratids developed such a legitimist claim relatively early, and this theory is plausible since
such an innovation was the logical conclusion to the received tradition (from the eighth-century Movses
Xorenac'i) that the Armenian Bagratids were descended from the Jews. The K 'art'velian Bagratids
merely extended this Judaic origins claim to its logical conclusion: as rulers, and as Jews, they sought to
trace their provenance to the archetypical king, David. Only in the eleventh century would a Bagratid-era
historian encapsulate the claim in a special Bagratid history, elucidating not only the origins of the clan
but also its earliest (tendentious) members. Once the Bagratids assumed royal power, their origin - and
thus. legitimacy - myth emerged as the ideological pillar o f K 'art'velian kingship.
Still. K'art'velian royal legitimacy remained fundamentally unchanged, for it had been linked
from the earliest Georgian historians to remote antiquity. While the hero-giant Nimrod (a Persian) was
regarded as Vaxtang Gorgasali's ultimate ancestor, the Bagratids claimed another Old Testament figure,
the King-Prophet David (a Jew), as theirs. The implication was cle a r while the pre-Bagratid K'art'velian
kings were an integral part of the Persian cultural world and their historians readily admitted this fact, the
3 1^Ps.-Juansher, p. 243q.jj. On this passage see Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 343-347 et sqq. It should be
noted that the A redaction inserts the Bagratids into a passage in The Life ofVaxtang, p. 161 and
apparatus criticus:"... [the] Arshakuniani inhabitants o f Armenia, the patiaxshis [descended from]
Bivritiani Bagratids... The meaning o f this statement is unclear and occurs in no other variant. It is
almost certainly a later scribal error/insertion and was also detected by Thomson in his trans. of Arm.
Adapt. K'C', p. 176, footnote 21.
31 Âdamases relocation into lands bordering the K 'art'velian kingdom did not represent the first
Bagratid holdings in the area which later became known as "Georgia:" Toumanoff has demonstrated that
a Bagratid branch was established in Odzrq'e (m odem form Odzrxe) from the second to the fifth centuries
AD. On these early "K'art'velian" Bagratids as well as Adamase see Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 192,202,
315-354, 357-360, 407-416, 453-456,466,485, et sqq.
134
Bagratids were the heirs o f the ancient Judaic world from which had emerged the prevailing Christian
religion.
The Dates o f the Constituent Texts
Unfortunately, there are precious few "smoking guns" testifying to the precise dates and the
identification o f the very authors o f the earliest works of Georgian historical writing. In the absence o f
explicit statements relating authorship, we must scrutinize the texts themselves so as to deduce their age.
As we have seen, even this laborious task is compounded, for the original texts are not extant and the
earliest MSS are centuries removed from them. We have a adequately good idea o f K'art'lis c'xovreba's
structure and contents in the thirteenth century since we possess a copy o f its Armenian adaptation
(Arm/A) from that time. B ut we may only speculate as to the nature and contents o f the corpus prior to
that time. It is worth repeating that not a single pre-Bagratid version o f K'art'lis c'xovreba survives. The
consequences o f this plethora of uncertainty are that in many cases we may only suggest the most tenable
scenarios.
It is possible that the corpus C'xorebay vaxtang gorgaslisa is, as popular belief holds, an
eleventh-century production. However, it seems to me that internal evidence, as well as comparisons with
other Georgian historical texts, demands that we strongly consider an earlier, pre-Bagratid date. No
known source o f the corpus, either acknowledged or unacknowledged, necessarily postdates ca. 800. I
have not selected this date a t random, for a number o f similarities between this corpus and The Life o f the
Kings begs a common date o f ca. 800. All three texts use the toponyms Egrisi and Ap" xazeti as
synonyms. This may reflect the situation at the time o f the establishment o f the A p'xaz kingdom ca. 790ca. 800. None o f the texts are aware o f the elaborations of the ninth-/tenth-century Life o f Nino, but rather
are acquainted only with the skeletal tradition of the pre-Bagratid Conversion o f K'art 'li. All these
sources employ a similar vocabulary, syntax, and description. As we shall see, all three works depict the
K 'art'velian community and its kingship in inherently Persian terms. Historical works which are soundly
dated to the Bagratid era never portrayed local kings in this manner. Moreover, none of the texts is
familiar with the rule of the Bagratids in K 'art'Ii. In fret, of them only Ps.-Juansher mentions them in
any regard.
The Life o f the Kings, The Life ofVaxtang, and the untitled continuation by Ps.-Juansher were,
in my view, written ca. 800, and certainly before the elevation o f Ashot I in 813, the first Bagratid to rule
the K 'art'velians, an event w ith which none o f the aforementioned texts reports. A further proof for this
hypothesis is the prominent place of the patriarchate o f Antioch and the admission of the K 'art'velian
Church's subordinate status to it in Vaxtang's biography. As we shall see in chapter five, this is
indicative o f a pre-Bagratid date, and certainly not o f the eleventh century when Georgia claimed full
ecclesiastical independence from Antioch. These three texts almost certainly constituted the original core
135
of K'art'lis c'xovreba, though we do not know precisely when that corpus was first assembled. The
original versions o f all o f these texts are now lost and we may only hope to approximate them with the
relatively late extant MSS now at our disposal.
The authors o f the two components o f C'xorebay vaxtang gorgaslisa did not identify themselves
within their respective works. Reminescent of The Life o f the Kings, the authorship/scribal passage
concerned with C'xorebay vaxtang gorgaslisa was appended to a subsequent history in K'art'lis
c 'xovreba. Annexed to The Martyrdom o f Arch 'il is a passage which associates Juansher Juansheriani
with C'xovreba vaxtang gorgaslisa. It should be noted that this account was incorporated into the earliest
extant version o f K'art'lis c'xovreba, the medieval Armenian adaptation, which demonstrates that
Juansher was associated w ith that corpus at least by the thirteenth century. Owing to the ambiguity of the
verb aghcera, this association might not identify Juansher as the author but rather as the editor.
Alternately, the entire passage may be spurious. In any event, The Life ofVaxtang was composed by' an
anonymous author, and its continuation, although linked by the thirteenth century to Juansher
Juansheriani, could not have been written by the erist'avi by that very name who is mentioned in the very
text Therefore, the brief continuation is attributed here to Ps.-Juansher.
In conjunction with the K 'art'velian Bagratids, Ps.-Juansher was already aware that they
claimed to be the descendants o f the Old Testament King-Prophet David. The authenticity o f this passage
is probable since the Armenian Bagratids, from at least the eighth century, had claimed to be of Jewish
origins. The K 'art'velian branch, from an early time, took this claim to its logical conclusion: as rulers,
they extended their Jewish origins claims back to the prototypical king, David. And this is significant, for
it marks a tangible ideological break with the pre-Bagratid K 'art'velian past. Whereas The Life o f
Vaxtang portrayed the ultimate ancestor ofVaxtang Gorgasali as Nimrod, who him self was associated in
Georgian sources with Persia, the K'art'velian Bagratids. from their establishment in southwestern
K'artTi, claimed a biological connection not with Persia but with the Judeo-Christian w orld This change
in ideology had not yet affected historical writing at the time of Ps.-Juansher, although we may observe
the transformation incubating in The Life ofVaxtang. In this latter source K 'artTi is indeed placed within
a Persian milieu but its author, nevertheless, aspires to demonstrate the progression o f Vaxtang's ultimate
loyalties from the Persians to the Byzantines.
We may confidently say that the constituent texts of C'xorebay vaxtang gorgaslisa were
composed prior to the solidification o f Bagratid rule. The nature of subsequent Bagratid-era Georgian
historical sources contrasts sharply, for in them the K'art'velian connection with Persia was consciously
and conveniently overlooked, whereas the bond with Christian Byzantium was emphasized and sometimes
praised
136
Chapter Two
The Algebra o f Origins
I. THE ORIGIN OF THE F A R 7" VELIANS AND POST-DILUVIAN F A R T L I
The received tradition o f the provenance o f the K'art'velian community is enshrined in The Life
o f the Kings, which was composed tty an anonymous author ca. 800. Christian historians customarily
calculated the origins o f peoples from the story o f the post-diluvian dispersion preserved in the Old
Testament and related works. O ur historian's point o f departure was no different However, the tradition
o f Genesis was incomplete from the K 'art'velian perspective, and the author of The Life o f the Kings
labored to rectify its oversight * Seeking to place his community within the established framework o f the
tabula populorum, he proceeded from the assumptions that the K 'art'velians were both ancient and
ultimately related to the neighboring Armenians, whose antiquity was confirmed in the Bible and whose
origin was explained in the genealogical tract o f Hippolytus of Rome. Accordingly, the Georgian
historian invented an eponym for the K'art'velians, K'art'Ios, and interpolated him into existing. largely
non-Georgian, traditions. Once he demonstrated the provenance o f the K'art'velian community, he
embarked on a description of the evolution of local royal authority and the place o f K 'a rt'li within the
purview of "world" history.
^There is no evidence to suggest that the eponymous ancestors known to The Life o f the Kings Oust like
those of Genesis) were historical persons. Old Testament and related genealogies are characteristically
ahistorical, and their primary function was not to present a coherent and accurate historical record.
Rather, their intentions were varied: to demonstrate the actual or desired relationships am ong various
communities, to provide contexts for narratives, to establish a sense o f continuity, and to serve as a basis
o f legitimation to an office or dignity. In short, genealogies were made and remade according to the
political demands o f the moment See: R.R. Wilson, Genealogy and History in the Biblical World (1977);
and M. J. Johnson, The Purpose o f the Biblical Genealogies, 2nd ed. (1988), esp. pp. 77-82. It should be
noted that no complete ancient version of the Georgian Old Testament survives; complete versions o f the
text, including Genesis, survive only from the late medieval period.
137
The Sons ofTogarmah and the Origin o f Caucasia
Two conspicuous themes are introduced in the initial passage o f The Life o f the Kings: the
assumed genetic relationship of all peoples o f Caucasia as well as the strict principle o f primogeniture
(i.e., ultimate authority resting with the eldest son). The Life o f the Kings, the opening text o f the corpus
o f K'art'lis c'xovreba. commences:
First we should recall that the Armenians [Somexi-s] an d the K 'art'velians. the
Heret'i-ans and the Leki-s. the Megreli-s and the Caucasians [all] had a single
[forejfather by the nam e ofTogarm ah [ T argamos]. This Togarmah was the son of
Tiras [Tarshi], [who was the] grandson o f Japheth [Iap'eti]. [who. in turn, was the]
son o f Noah. And this Togarmah was a heroic man.^
^The Life o f the Kings, p. 3 5 _g: "3o633E34o 343636010 ) 3 6 3 , 64830313 6018311034 {54
64&034 04 8 0 3 4 3 4 6 0 3 4 , 36034 04 333034, 8aafiac?034 CSS 34334 6 04 60 34 40403 0 3 6 0 3 4 qAcOO
0 3 0 8 4 8 4 , b4b3C3003 0346348016 . 3 6 3 034634801 b 0301 8 3 0 3 4 6 8 0 6 0 , dob^QEjo 0 4 3 3 0 3 0 6 0 , dob4
6 0 1 3 6 0 . 04 oyoi 3 6 3 0346348016 3 4 3 0 3 8 0 6 0 ." The designation "Caucasians" in medieval Georgian
historiography usually refers to the various tribes of northern Caucasia. Arm. Adapt. K'C', p. 5, reads:
"Bfctujuii ufujugmp uijuT qh 'Mujtg li d.puig It fkilwjg li LTmlliuuliujg li 'sbfiuiliujg li Ltlnug li bmlljujufcujg li bqbptug huip dji
tp ungui2 l&npqntf Ijnjbgbm..." [Hishatak arasc'uk'aysm, zr Hayoc'ev Vrac'evRanac evM ovkanac'ev
Heranac' ev Lekac' ev Kovkaseac' ev Egerac' hayr mi er soc 'ash T'orgom kochec 'eal... ] Hayoc' denotes
the Somexi-s (i.e., the Armenians) and Vrac' corresponds to the K'art'velians.
Even much later Georgian legends o f the Flood remember Noah as the father o f all peoples. For
example, in unpublished notes of M. Wardrop. I have found a translation o f an undated (probably late
nineteenth century) Georgian folk tale entitled "The Origin o f Princes, Nobles, and Peasants":
Having received from God a revelation that a universal flood was about to take place,
Noah hastened to build a ship to save himself. But the work went on slowly, and the
deluge was approaching fast. Noah sent for a carpenter, to whom he promised his
daughter in exchange for help. Soon he had to get another carpenter, and to him also he
promised his daughter. Finally, he had to seek the aid o f a third carpenter, with whom
he made the same agreem ent When the work was finished, the carpenters demaded the
fulfilment of the promises... But Noah only had one daughter! What was to be done?
He prayed to God for help. Then God created one daughter from a dog, an d another
from an ass-, thus Noah had three daughters, whom he m arried to the three carpenters.
From the first (original) daughter proceeded the princes, from the second (the dog)
nobles, from the third (the ass) issued peasants.
This tale does not seek to explain the origin o f ethnic groups o r nations, but rather classes o f people:
princes, nobles, and peasants. See M Wardrop, "Georgian Folk Tales," Oxf.Wardr. # MS.Wardr.c.22 (ca.
1893).
138
The communities named here represent the major peoples o f Caucasia ca. 800. the time in which The Life
o f the Kings was composed It is remarkable that the Armenians (Somexi-s) are the initial community
m entioned while the K 'art'velians are relegated to second position. I shall return to this circumstance
directly.
Having declared that the major communities o f Caucasia were biologically related through one
son o f Noah, The Life o f the Kings immediately moves to associate the post-diluvian dispersion o f peoples
with the erection of the Tower o f Babel (called the T o w e r o f Babylon" in the Georgian tradition):
And the languages became divided after the Tower o f Babylon had been raised the
languages being differentiated and diffused throughout the entire w orld 3
The contemporary Life ofVaxtang offers a similar but considerably more detailed account about the
Tower, apparently based upon the now-lost Book o f Nimrod. King Vaxtang (ca. 447-ca. 522) is made to
address his troops during a campaign in Byzantine Anatolia (lit "Greece), during which he joyfully
proclaimed that K 'art'velian royal lineage extended directly from N im rod "the first king of the w orld
Nimrod was understood to have erected
... a city, the stones o f which were made o f g o ld and the foundation [of which] was
made o f silver, and he encircled it with bricks and lime, but the arches over the doors
and windows were made from jacinth and emeralds; even the night could not overcome
their brilliance. And inside [the city] he erected temples and towers, which are difficult
to imagine: the skill devoted to every detail is incomprehensible. He raised it to a
height o f [a] three days [walk], he built a stairway in the walls for the ascent, for he
wanted to ascend to heaven in order to see the beings o f the clouds. But as soon as he
transgressed the realm o f the atmosphere and entered the realm o f the stars, the
workmen were no longer able to build, for the gold and the silver melted since fire ruled
over the ether so that it flamed up vehemently owing to the rotation of the firmament.
[And] he heard at that place the conversation o f the seven heavenly assemblies, o f which
the Adamiani-s [i.e.. the progeny o f Adam, "humankind"] were frightened And all the
men with their clans began to speak in their own languages, and no longer could anyone
understand the language o f their neighbors, and they took leave [of one another].
But to Nimrod was said in the Persian tongue: "I am the angel Michael, who
has been established by God to rule over the E a st Abandon this city, for God will
conceal this city until the appearance o f Paradise, which is located close to this
construction o f yours, between which extends this mountain, from which rises the Sun
and [from which] flows two rivers: the Nile [Nilos] and the Gehon [Geoni], For the
The Life o f the Kings, p. 3g_j0. Cf. Genesis XI. 1: "And all the world was o f a single language and
speech."
^The tradition that Nimrod was the first king o f the world is expressed in Genesis X.8 .
139
Gehon brings from Paradise a fragrant tree and a herb which mixes with musk. Now go
forth. And settle between the two rivers, the Euphrates [Evp'rati] and the Tigris [Jila].
and let these kindred dwell [where] each one desires, for they have been sent by the
Lord. But your kingdom will reign over all [other] kings, and at the end of time the
Lord o f Heaven, Whom you desire to see, will come among a despised people. Fear of
Him will annul the pleasures o f life. Kings will abandon [their] kingdoms and will seek
poverty. And then He will see you in misfortune and He will save you.
And everyone abandoned the city and departed. And [those] departing who
spoke Indian went to Hindoeti, 5 the Sinds to Sindef i, the Romans to Rome, the Greeks
to Greece,6 Ag and Magug to Maguget'i ,7 the Persians to Persia: but the original
language was "Assyrian [?Syriac, ?Aramaic, ?Semitic], and these were the seven
languages which were spoken until [the time of] Nimrod. I shall relate to you that our
[forejfathers secretly kept this book, and I have been compelled by [my] zeal for God to
speak about this, by which our [forejfather Mirian came to accept the Gospel o f Christ
through Nino.**
The corresponding passage o f the Armenian adaptation o f K'art'lis c 'xovreba adds that at the end o f the
world Christ would find Nimrod in Hell and resurrect him. Subsequently, Christ Him self would erect a
new Tower and a stairway to Heaven upon which Nimrod and others would finally ascend to God.^ It
should be noted that Genesis X.8-14 specifically relates that Nimrod - who is not specifically called a
Âll o f the Georgian MSS have Indian/Hindoet'i here; cf. Arm. Adapt. K'C', p. 159
"fanpqndiuu' h
f&npqmfbuiluti" [T'orgomavs i T'orgomeansn], "the Targam osiani-s to [the land/lot] ofTogarmah" =

Thomson trans.. p. 180.
6 Alternately, this passage could be anachronistically read as "the Byzantines to Byzantium."
7 I.e., the Gog and Magog. For the "region o f Gog" being counted among the domains o f Japheth and his
sons, see The Book o f Jubilees, VIII.25. p. 26.
The Life o f the Kings, pp. 161 j^-1635. I wish to thank Prof. G. Alasania for illuminating certain
phrases in this mystical account Cf. Arm. Adapt. K'C', pp. 155-159 = Thomson trans., pp. 177-180: and
Vardan Arewelc'i, p. 147. Nimrod is not directly associated with the Tower of Babel in most extant
contemporary sources, e.g.: Genesis XI; Book o f Jubilees, X. 18-26, pp. 28-29; Sibylline Oracles, ID. 97104, pp. 380-381; and Teaching o f Saint Gregory, para. 297, pp. 55-56. But Augustine, City o f God,
XVI.4, pp. 24-31, does associate Nimrod with the Tower and the confusion of languages. For the recent
suggestion that this association was an innovation o f Augustine and not a recapitulation o f some
preexisting Syriac o r Eastern tradition, see Livesey and Rouse, "Nimrod the Astronomer, Traditio 37
(1981), pp. 203-266. For the view that these traditions about Nimrod were first fashioned in the Near
East, see C.H. Haskins, "Nimrod the Astronomer," in his Studies in the History o f Mediaeval Science
(1927), pp. 336-345. For the role o f Nimrod in the works o f Dante, see P. Dronke, Dante and Medieval
Latin Traditions (1986), esp. ch. 2, "Giants in Hell," pp. 32-54 and excursus 2, "Nimrod: His character,
ambitions and thoughts about God The evidence o f the Liber Nemroth," pp. 112-124 (and pp. 146-147,
note 9, for the place o f the account o f "Leonti Mroveli). NB: The medieval European Liber Nemroth
should not be equated with the Georgian Book o f Nimrod.
Ârm. Adapt. K'C', p. 158 = Thomson trans, p. 179.
140
king but a "mighty hunter" who ruled in some capacity was the son o f Cush, who him self was the son of
Noah's son Ham. The K 'art'velians, as we shall see, customarily referred to the Persians, o r at least their
rulers, as Nebrotiani-s, or "the progeny o f Nimrod." The implication is that Nimrod, his descendants,
and the Persians were, according to the medieval K 'art'velian reckoning, the progem' o f Noah's son Ham
while the K'art'velians themselves were descended from Hams brother Japheth. That is to say. the
Persian and the K 'art'velian communities were not immediately related to one another. This is
noteworthy in light of the Persian context o f K ' art'velian history in The Ufe o f the Kings. However, the
ca. 800 author recognized the genetic relationship o f the contemporary Persian and K 'art'velian rulers,
and thus he made Vaxtang extol his Nebrot' iani ancestry.
Subsequently, The Ufe o f the Kings shifts its focus to the dispersion of peoples, inserting the
foundation o f K 'art'li and all o f Caucasia into the received tradition. The anonymous historian derived
the names o f the eponyms from the names o f the various communities. The sons ofTogarm ah allegedly
established in the region o f Caucasia are (see mapV 10
Eponym
Region
Community
Haos (Arm. Hayk)
Som xit'i (Arm. Hayk').

i.e., (Greater) Armenia
K 'a rt'li
Bardavi (Arm. Partaw)
Movakani
Leki
Heret'i
Northern Caucasia
Egrisi
Somexi-s
(Armenians)
K'art'velians
Rani-s
Movakani-s
Leki-s
Heret'i-ans
Caucasians
Mggieli-s
Kart'Ios
Bardos
Movakan
Lekan
Heros
Kavkas
Egros
^The Ufe o f the Kings, pp. 3-4. Arm. Adapt. K'C', p. 6 = Thomson trans.. pp. 3-4, gives the sons as:
suijll (Hayk), fiuw inu (K 'art'los), Pufqnu (Bardos), lTm|ljuili (Movkan), LUjiuli (Lekan), ^bpnu (Heros). Mrallnuu
(Kovkas), bqpfcu (Egres). Cf. the thirteenth-century Armenian author Vardan Arewelec'i, Arm. ed., p. 14,
who himself employed the Armenian adaptation o f K'C': "... li (Dnnqml dlui q'vuj/te li qtopli bqpqu tmpuj2
qPuflJinuj qMmlljuu (i qiu|uU -" = "... and T orgom begat Hayk, and his seven brothers, K 'art'los, Kovkas, and
the others..." It is noteworthy that although Vardan prefers the Armenian version of the name "Hayk" in
this passage, he employs the Georgianized (i.e., The U fe o f the Kings via the Armenian redaction o f K'C~)
"Hayos" later, as ibid., p. 91.
W.E.D. Allen, and others, have stressed the commonality in the Near East and Caucasia of the
roots K-T (cf. K 'art'li, Kurd, Karduchoi [of Xenophon]), M S (cf. M c'xet'a, Masis, Samcxe, Mesxi), P/BL (cf. Uplisc'ixe, Tubal, Tibarenoi), S-N (cf. Suanet'i, Sindi, Tzan/Tsan), etc. On this see Allen, "The
Ancient Caucasus and the Origin o f the Georgians," The Asiatic Review (Oct. 1928), pp. 544-557.
DISTRIBUTION OF THF
CAUCASIAN T'ARGAMOSIANI-S
141
Reproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission
142
T he influence o f Greek-language Biblical traditions on this K 'art'velian narrative is apparent from the
non-Georgian, Greek -OB suffixes o f five o f the eponyms' names. Each o f the names obviously
corresponds to the designations for the regions and inhabitants with two exceptions:
Haos/Somxit' i/Somexi-s* * and Bardos/Bardavi/Rani-s. Bardavi (Partav. Partaw) was a major center in
Caucasian Albania, and was later (in the time of the author) the center for Muslim administration over
Caucasia. Rani and Movakani together were the broader, medieval Georgian designations for far eastern
Caucasia (Caucasian Albania, in the area o f modem Azerbaijan). The related terms
Haos/Somxit' i/Somexi-s are particularly significant, for they conclusively demonstrate that the writer of
The Life o f the Kings, in some capacity, was acquainted with the Armenian tradition that Hayk (Haos) had
founded Armenia. ^
As we have seen, the ultimate derivation o f the Armenian forms for "Armenia."
Hayk' and Hayastan, from the personal name Hayk has been discounted by modem specialists.
Nevertheless, this interpretation was accepted as truth by, and found its classical expression in. the early
eighth-century History o f the Armenians by Mbvses Xorenac' i. There is no compelling evidence that the
anonymous author o f The Life o f the Kings learned of this tradition directly from Xorenaci. and we
should remember that the latter did not invent the story ofHayk/Haos but merely produced a retelling of
it. ^
Had the Georgian historian rendered the name o f Haos in the form "Somexos" (or something
similar), we might have assumed that he was unfamiliar with the Armenian tradition. The Georgianized /
Grecified form Haos betrays his familiarity with the Armenian legend o f Hayk.
Togarmah, as a result of the dispersion of peoples following the overthrow of the Tower, is
reported by The Life o f the Kings to have migrated with his clan (nat'esavi, 6 ^0131^ 3 0 ) ^ to Caucasia.
* The etymology o f the Georgian terms Somxit'i/Somxet'i and Somexi is undetermined. L. MeliksetBek, "NeskolTco slov o termine somex,'" in XT'6/1 (1917), pp. 93-94, suggested that the root o f these
designations is mex-i. Who these Mexi-s were is unknown. Some authors have attempted to link
Somxit'i/Somexi with samxret'i, "south." Although from the K 'art'velian perspective the Armenia is
indeed to the south, this derivation is speculative at best
1^<suijp. Hayk', the plural o f Hay, denoted both "Armenians" and "Armenia." Another term, used less
frequently in early Armenian literary works, is Hayastan, 'ûijuupuili (i.e., "the land o f the Hayk'").
Throughout this study I prefer the form "Haos" when referring to the Georgian tradition of the Armenian
eponym and "Hayk" for the Armenian tradition. In view o f this indigenous terminology, the Greek
provenance o f Strabo's Armenus (the Greek for Armenia is precisely "Armenia") is evident.
^ T h a t is to say, the stories ofHayk/Haos in Xorenac'i and The Life o f the Kings are clearly based upon
common traditions, but there is absolutely no evidence to prove that the former served directly as a source
for the latter. However, there are several important parallels: Hayks journey north with his clan; Hayk as
the father o f indigenous communities; the naming of regions; the dispersal o f Hayk's children; and the
role o f Nimrod (the Bel o f Xorenac'i).
14T he term nat'esavi in O ld Georgian has the following meanings: clan, family, tribe, community.
143
"between two inaccessible mountains, Ararati and Masisi." ^ The lands they settled extended east from
the Gurgeni Sea up to the Sea o f Pontus in the west that is to say. the Caspian Sea to the Black Sea
and north from the Greater Caucasus mountains and south up to the O ret'i Sea. 16 This passage is a
Georgian interpolation, but one that was plausibly deduced from Biblical and related apocryphal texts. In
Genesis X.2-5 it is said that "the coastland peoples" were descended from Japheth and his progeny'. The
Book o f Jubilees (also called The Little Genesis), a second-century BC apocryphal version of the canonical
Genesis, further alleges that the sons o f Noah Shem, Ham, and Japheth divided the world between
themselves. 1 7 For Japheth we read that: "And all that is towards the north [i.e., from the point of
reference of the Levant] is Japheth's, and all that is towards the south belongs to Shem ; " 18 and:
... for Japheth came for the third portion beyond the river Tina to the north of the
outflow o f its waters, and it extends northeasterly to the whole region o f Gog and to all
the country east thereof. A nd it extends northerly to the north, and it extends to the
mountains o f Q elt [identified by the translator as the Celts] towards the north, and
towards the sea o f Ma'uk, an d it goes forth to the east o f G M r as far as the region o f the
waters o f the sea. And it extends until it approaches the west of Fara and it returns
towards 'Aferag. and it extends easterly to the waters o f the sea o f M e'at And it extends
to the region o f the river T ina in a northeasterly direction until it approaches the
boundary o f its waters towards the mountain Rafa, and it turns round towards the north.
This is the land which came forth for Japheth and his sons as the portion o f his
inheritance which he should possess for himself and his sons, for their generations for
even five great islands, and a great land in the north... ^
Caucasia, as well as parts o f m odem Iran. Turkey, and the southern Russian Federation, fall within these
confines.
progeny, generation, and nation (Biblical).

Â rarati is apparently the modern Mt. Ararat while Masis[i] is the Nekh Masik' to the west of Lake Van.
16 77ie Ufe o f the Kings, pp. 3-4. I have yet to identify the Oret'i Sea or the Oreti Mountains mentioned
in the initial portion o f The U fe o f the Kings, although Brosset reports that M.S.-Martin suggested a
connection with the Greek OPOE. "mountain": Brosset, Hist, de la Georgie, Fr. tians. (1849), p. 17,
footnote 1. Prof. R. Hewsen (private correspondence, 31 Jan. 1996) tentatively identified the Oret'i
mountains as the Armenian Taurus range or even the northern part o f the Zagros. As for a sea of that
name, Hewsen suggested the possibility of Lake Urmia.
1^Book o f Jubilees, VIII. 10-30, pp. 25-27. T he account of Hippolytus is considered separately
l%Ibid Vm .12. p. 26.

19Ibid., Vm.25-29, pp. 26-27.
infra.
144
According to The Ufe o f the Kings, Togarmah apportioned his Caucasian possessions among
eight o f his hero-sons.
These sons gave their own names to the lands they occupied, and. in a sense, the
dispersion following the destruction o f the Tower o f Babel was duplicated, albeit on a local. Caucasian
scale. However, it should be emphasized that the author does not comment on the possibility that each
eponym was regarded as the patriarch of a distinct linguistic community. The land was divided among
the sons ofTogarmah as follows:2 *
Appanage
Haos/Hayk
K 'art'los
Bardos
Movakan
Heros
Egros
Lekan
Kavkas
Received half o f the clan and h alf o f the "best" land (by virtue
o f being the senior brother)
Heret'i and Berduji River in the east; Black Sea in the west;
the mountains reaching the source o f the Berduji River in
the south; and M t Ghado in the north
Lands south o f the Mtkuari River, from the Berduji River up
to the confluence o f the Mtkuari and Araxes rivers
Lands north o f the Mtkuari, from the mouth o f the Little
Alazani River up to the [Caspian] Sea
Lands north o f the Mtkuari. from the mouth o f the Little
Alazani River to Tqetba ("which is now called Gulgula")
Lands near the Black Sea littoral: east from Mt. Lixi; Black
Sea in the west; the Small River o f Khazaria in the north
[i.e.. the Don]
Lands from the Daruband (Caspian) Sea to Lomeki River.
north up to the Great River o f Khazaria [i.e.. the Volga]
Lands from Lomeki River to "the end o f Caucasia in the
west"
The author of The Life o f the Kings qualifies the holdings of Lekan and Kavkas:
But [the land] o f northern Caucasia was not the lot of Togarmah. and there were no
men to the north of Caucasia; and the land was uninhabited from Caucasia to the Great
[Volga] River, which empties into the Daruband [Caspian] Sea. Consequently.
[Togarmah] selected from the multihide o f heroes the two heroes Lekan and Kavkas [to
be allotted the lands o f northern Caucasia]...22
20Invented ancestor-heroes are common in medieval European genealogies; see R.H. Bloch. Etymologies
and Genealogies: A Uterary Anthropology o f the French Middle Ages (1983), pp. 80 et sqq.
11
AThis enumeration o f boundaries has several Biblical and apocryphal parallels: e.g., throughout Joshua
(for the division of land among the Israelites); and Book o f Jubilees, VIII, pp. 25-27.
2 2 77re Ufe
o f the Kings, p. 5 15 . 19 .
145
Togarmah is said to have seized the opportunity' to annex the uninhabited land o f northern Caucasia,
sending two o f his sons to govern there. This connection o f northern Caucasia and the Targam osiani-s the progeny ofTogarm ah (Georgian T argamos) foreshadows the prominent role of the tribes of
northern Caucasia throughout The Ufe o f the Kings, and is a reflection o f the importance o f the region in
the authors own time.
The sons ofTogarm ah symbolized the eight major communities o f Caucasia, at least as they
existed ca. 800. Although Haos is depicted as the superior of his brothers, each o f the Caucasian
T'argamosiani eponyms was the ultimate ruler o f his respective domain . 23 However, when the whole of
Caucasia was threatened, Haos stepped forward as the primus inter pares by virtue of being the eldest
sibling. K 'art'los is portrayed as no more than an older brother o f Bardos, Movakan. Heros. Egros.
Lekan, and Kavkas. That is to say, K 'art'los is afforded no explicit dominance over them and, in any
case, it is not proposed that he was the equal of his older brother Haos. Nevertheless, the sons of
K 'art'los, and the eponymous communities, regions, and cities represented by them are unambiguously
subordinated to K 'art'los.
In sum, K 'art'los, the mythical eponym o f the K 'art'velian community, is specifically identified
as the younger brother o f Haos/Hayk. himself the ultimate chief of the Targamosiani-s. The Ufe o f the
Kings admits that the K 'art'velian community loyally abided by the wishes o f Haos on the basis of
primogeniture. But, K 'art'los is made to act independently in the internal administration o f his domains
(K 'art'li). and The Ufe o f the Kings immediately subordinates the lands o f K 'art'li to the progeny of
K 'art'los (the K'art'losiani-s). That is to say, Haos/Hayk is not afforded any authority in internal
K 'art'velian affairs, but when the whole of Caucasia was threatened, he is considered the commander-inchief. Other regions annexed later to the Georgian kingdom, like Caucasian Albania, northern Caucasia,
and especially Egrisi/Ap'xazet'i, are not counted among the possessions o f K 'art'los. Therefore. The Ufe
o f the Kings does not claim that any of these regions were original, integral provinces of K 'art'li. This
would seem to reflect the fact th a t even in the author's time, these areas did not form integral parts of
K 'art'li. Though, as we shall see. he desired that they should, and later in the account, attempting to
historically justify any future unification, he suggests that the western domains actually fell under the rule
o f early K 'art'velian kings. Regardless, the author him self admits that the western regions were not
originally part o f K 'art'li.
If the complexion of these relationships is one of confusion, it is because we are grappling with
an imagined, mythical past. The ca. 800 author endeavored to plausibly interpolate the existence of
23On the expression o f subordination in genealogical works, see D.N. Dumville, "Kingship, Genealogies
and Regnal Lists," in P.H. Sawyer and I.N. Wood, eds., Early Medieval Kingship (1977), pp. 81-82.
146
K 'art'los, but having engaging Armenian and Biblical traditions faithfully, he was forced to fashion
K' art' los as the younger son o f Haos. The pre-existing an d probably well-known traditions about Hayk
dictated that the Georgian author give precedence to the Armenian eponym. Therefore, according to the
norms o f primogeniture, he is made to be the eldest sibling ofTogarmah. Nevertheless. K 'art'los is
portrayed as being independent in his own possessions, K 'art'li. The desired consequence is. of course,
that K ' art' li should be understood to have been a legitimate political and social entity from Old Testament
times. That is to say, the K 'art'velians could claim as great an antiquity' as any other community.
Conversely, it is, and was, also possible to regard the ancient relationship o f K 'a rt'li and Armenia as the
domination of the latter over the former, and this accounts for the later suppression o f the account
especially in the early modern period.
Haos
A peculiar feature o f fifth-century Armenian historical literature is its unfamiliarity with Hayk.
the Haos of The Ufe o f the Kings. However, a solitary reference to Hayk may be found in the Aa redaction
o f the Grigorian Cycle, in which the Christianized King T rdat is said to have "giant strength like
Hayks."2^ This passage is absent in the Ag redaction (the Greek text related to the Armenian Aa).2^
Therefore, I would suggest that the reference to Hayk may have been added by a later s c r i b e . O t h e r
contemporary Armenian historians, like Eghishe, Ghazar P 'arpec'i, Koriwn, and the anonymous author of
The Epic Histories ("P'awstos Buzand") are unacquainted with Hayk. Only The Primary History o f
Armenia and the eighth-century History by Xorenac' i relate the exploits o f Hayk and his mythical
foundation of Armenia. That is not to suggest, necessarily, that the tale of Hayk was created by either of
these two authors. At the very least they were responsible for setting to parchment the received oral
traditions about Hayk, and in Xorenac' is case, elaborating the story. Numerous successive Armenian
historians, like the tenth-century Uxtanes,2 7 recapitulated the Hayk tale, and their narratives are usually
dependent upon Xorenac'i.
2 <*Agat'angeghos, para. 767, pp. 306-307.
25Thomson in Agat'angeghos, p. 482 = notes for para. 767, note 5.

2 Âs pointed out to me by Prof. K Bardakjian, the absence o f references to Hayk in fifth-century
literature does not necessarily imply that the myth had not yet been produced (after all, nascent
Christianity was the overpowering concern).
2 7 Uxtanes, vol. 1, para. 14-16, pp. 28-30.
147
According to the Georgian tradition, Haos assumed the private estate (saqop 'eli. biycngacjo; lit.
"dwelling place") o f his father Togarmah. He was granted half o f both the clan and the best land: the
remainder was apportioned among his seven younger brothers. While Haos served as the ultimate
superior o f his brothers, all o f them are said to have been the vassals o f Nimrod, the alleged first king of
the w orld2*
When the tim e came for the progeny ofTogarm ah to free themselves from the tyranny o f
Nimrod, it was Haos who assembled his brothers and spearheaded the rebellion against their overlord.
Haos boldly withheld further tribute and Nimrod responded by launching a massive attack on Caucasia.
The T argamosiani-s ultimately defeated Nimrod's sixty powerful heroes in a struggle "which raged like
the elements." Then, an embittered Nim rod personally engaged Haos in single com bat It should be said
that the motif of hand-to-hand combat between two heroes permeates pre-Bagratid Georgian histories,
particularly The Ufe ofVaxtang. A king's worthiness and legitimacy is proven by his success in an armed
duel.2 9 In the end, Haos felled his opponent by penetrating his breastplate with an arrow'. Nimrod's
troops immediately broke rank and fled, and "the clans ofTogarm ah were liberated."
Thus Haos is credited with defeating the first king o f the world, Nimrod, and the T'argam osiani
army, including his brothers, subsequently routed Nimrod's mighty army .-*0 The implication is that Haos1
victory over Nimrod had been ordained by God Himself; for Nimrod is assumed to have been divinely
confirmed/chosen as king. Consequently, the status o f Haos is reconsidered. Before his trium ph over
Nimrod. Haos had been simply the "ruler" (ganmglebeli, 566051 *3 3 6 3 2 3 0 ) and "lord" (up'ali. 3 3 6 2 3 0 ) o f
the T argamosiani-s, this by virtue o f being their senior. But after vanquishing the mighty Nimrod. "Haos
made himself king [mep e. 8 3 3 3 ] over his brothers and over the other communities which were near his
borders."^ * Accordingly, the historian acknowledges that the first local king in Caucasia, who himself
2 *77re Life
o f the Kings, pp. 6-7.
29RuIers are often described in the pre-Bagratid K 'art'velian tradition, like that o f the Old Testament and
o f Persia, in terms o f being "giants" and "warriors." For Nimrod as such see the Syriac Cave o f
Treasures, pp. 135 and 171. The medieval Georgian adaptation o f that text. Cave ofTreasures
Georgian, XXTV.24; XX V II.l, refers to Nimrod as "a hero [gm/ri]" and as "the first king o f Babylon
[pirveli mep'e babilovnisay]

*The Armenian historian Movses X orenac'i also credits Hayk with defeating Bel (identified by
Xorenac'i as Nimrod) in battle. See Movses Xorenac'i, 1.7, p. 81, and 1.10-11, pp. 85-86; see also the
discussion in ch. 1 on the relationship o f The Ufe o f the Kings and Xorenac' i.
^f
3 l The Ufe o f the Kings, p. 121. 22 06 bb<g6 a>6 Q6 660036630)6 ba06 ,
8 * 8 0 6 .Jamb Jycn. 0 * 3 0 m jbo 830335s d 06<6

bats*
bib 23 6 <ba36 9oboi6bi [da mashin haos hqo t'avi
t wsi mep ed dzmat 'a t wst 'a zeda da sxuat 'ac 'a nat 'esavt 'a zeda, maxlobelt a sazghvart 'a mist asa]" The
anonymous historian does not state that Haos assumed the literal place o f Nimrod, although both o f them
are accorded the same title, mep'e. The late thirteenth-century Armenian compiler/historian M xit'ar
Ayrivanec'i lists Hayk (and even Azon) among the "princes" o f the K'art'velians. One o f his sources was
148
bad defeated the powerful Nimrod, was the Armenian eponym. and, in any event, not some K'art'velian.
This indicates that our ca. 800 Georgian historian was no nationalist, and that he faithfully re-transmitted
the received Armenian traditions, though reworking them for a K 'art'velian audience .3 2 This story in
The U fe o f the Kings is in general accordance with Xorenac' i, except for the conspicuous fact that
Armenian historian does not specifically name Hayk as king .33
K'art'los
Following the promotion o f Haos as mep 'e, The Ufe o f the Kings directs its full attention to
K 'art'los and the establishment o f the K 'art'velian monarchy. K 'art'los is neither styled as a king
{mep'e), nor is he explicitly afforded any other title designating rulership, even in later MSS which input
various embellishments. Nevertheless, the author projects upon him some of the royal attributes which
are typical in pre-Bagratid historical literature (Le., in The Ufe o f the Kings, The U fe ofVaxtang, and Ps.Juansher). In addition, the mythical K 'art'los is identified as a contemporary of Nimrod, who according
to the Georgian tradition was the first king o f the world. Thus, the origin of the K 'art'velian community
could be traced directly to both the time o f Noah and the very era that royal authority was first instituted
on Earth.
K 'art'los is said to have established him self "where the Aragwi [River] empties into the Mtkuari
[River],"3'* that is, precisely at the site o f M c'xet'a-Armazi, the ancient capital o f K 'a rt'li.3^ Although
M c'xet'os, the senior son o f K 'art'los, is credited with the establishment of the city o f M c'xet'a proper.
The U fe o f the Kings clearly connects K 'art'los with its site. Having settled there, K 'art'los immediately
the Armenian adaptation o f K'C'. See M xit'ar A yrivaneci, Rus. trans.. p. 346.
3 2 Again. this circumstance is noteworthy in light o f the schism between the Armenian and K 'art'velian
Churches in 607/608.
33Movses Xorenac'i, 1.21, p. 108, for the first king o f Armenia. Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 294-297,
includes Hayk within his Armenian king lists. Although Hayk may not have been styled specifically as
"king," he certainly is portrayed and behaves as one. Cf. Prim. Hist. Armenia, p. 360, where Hayk is
called "the patriarch of the nations" (see also Thomson's note 22). The thirteenth-century Armenian
historian/compiler M xit'ar Airivanec'i, who was heavily dependent upon earlier Armenian historians as
well as the Armenian adaptation o f K'C', enumerates Hayk as the first "K'art'velian prince" (fcluuiti J.pujg)
(p. 246) while his list of "Armenian princes" (fcluuilip 'mujkj) begins "Japheth, Gamer, T ira s, Togarmah,
and Hayk I" (p. 241). Thus Hayk is not afforded the title o f king, but prince.
3<*The U fe o f the Kings, p.
87.
33Armazi appears to be the older settlement. See: A. Boltunov, "K voprosu ob Armazi," VDI2 (1949),
pp. 228-240; and D M Lang, "Armazi," in Elran, vol. 2 (1987), pp. 416-417.
149
constructed a fortress on ML Armazi, just upstream on the right bank o f the M tkuari renaming it M l
K 'a rt'li after himself. The mountain is reputed to have emerged as the locus o f religious devotion, and
really the axis mundi, for the K 'art'velians following the erection of the idol Armazi by K'art'los. After
his death. K 'art'los was reportedly interred within the mountain and his tomb was worshipped: "And at
this time [the K'art'velians] forgot God, their Creator, and they served the Sun and the Moon and the Five
Stars, and the primary and most important sacred site [sap'ic'ari] was the tomb [sap'lavi] o f K 'art'los."3^
This sacred peak, The Mountain o f K 'art'li. allegedly gave its name to "all o f K 'art'li... from
Xunani up to the Speri [Black] Sea.3 7 K 'art'li is defined rather broadly here, for the author regards
K 'a rt'li as the heartland of all o f central Caucasia, even from the time o f K 'art'los. This assertion is a
reflection o f the author's era and is anachronistic for the Caucasia o f antiquity. I should think this and
other vague claims to an all-K 'art'velian "state" in central Caucasia represents a plea by the author that
this region should be united in the future. The legitimation for this ensuing unification was therefore
grounded in remote antiquity.
The connection of K ' art' los with Me' xet'a was emphasized by his alleged building projects there.
He is said to have mandated the building there o f an idol dedicated to Armazi (probably the K 'art'velian
counterpart to the Persian Ahura-Mazda). His construction agenda, however, was not limited to things
sacred. K 'art'los is understood to have raised two fortresses to the south o f M e'xet'a: the Orbi/Orbet'i
The Life o f the Kings, p. 1 17 . 9 : "e4 3ib

S>4 0 3 0 ^y 3 b 5 8 3 6 0 1 0 . 5 i 3 &ACS3 &3 C5 o 6 no, gi
0 ,33 6 3 b 3bAbj6 3bobi 54 3 mcn3 i 6 o b i 54 3 4 6 b3 )e?43 o >4 b)coo54, 04 3 (*)3 oq 3 oa g grtm bo
b ig o Q i 6 o Siojo oyca ^ 5 3 2 3 4 3 0 îrtencjcibobo." Cf. Thomson's Eng. trans., p. 13, where he gives
"oath" for sap 'ic 'ari. Sap 'ic 'ari literally designates "a place for an oath [p 'ic /]"; here, I should think it
refers to a place where the K'art'velians placed their trust in the sacred. Toumanoff. Studies, p. 8 8 .
footnote 120, deduces that K 'art'los was himself divine, and that Mt. K 'art'li became the K'art'velians'
axis mundi. This mountain undoubtedly had a special significance to the early K'art'velians, but we
simply do not know the antiquity o f its association with K art' los. On the connection o f distant ancestors
with pre-Christian deities, see Dumville, "Kingship, Genealogies and Regnal Lists," p. 77. In connection
o f the Germanic pagan god Woden in an apparently eighth-century Anglican royal genealogy. Dumville
writes: "When we recall that the collection is probably the work o f a cleric, a number o f questions comes
to mind. For example, did Woden no longer hold any terror for the Anglo-Saxon churchman? Or did he
represent something other than Germanic heathenism?" Apparently the deified K 'art'los did not pose a
threat to the anonymous writer (?cleric) o f the ca. 800 Life o f the Kings.
37
The Ufe o f the Kings, p. 8 jq -i l* This wide definition o f K 'art'li, stretching westwards to the Black
Sea (and thus encompassing Egrisi/Ap'xazet' i/Colchis), is a projection o f the potential K 'art'velian
kingdom o f the author's time (i.e., the eighth/ninth century) onto the remote past. This definition actually
contradicts the stenuna of the progeny ofTogarm ah in Caucasia, for many of the regions included in this
extended conception o f K 'art'li had their own founders, i.e., younger brothers (or even sons) of K 'art'los,
and (in the case o f his brothers) were at this tim e relatively independent, despite the fact that K 'art'los
was their older brother and commanded respect/loyalty (just as in K 'art'los' relationship with his older
brother Haos).
150
fortress in Samshwlde and the Mtueri fortress in X u n a n i.^ Samshwlde is located chiefly between the
rivers Alget'i and K 'c'ia, while Xunani is found just south o f the city o f Rust'avi. at the confluence o f the
Kc 'ia and the Mtkuari rivers. The alleged building projects o f K 'art'lo s in M e'xet'a. Samshwlde. and
Xunani coincide with the major rivers o f the region in this case the Aragwi. Mtkuari. Alget'i. and
K 'c 'ia the control o f which was customarily sought and guarded by the rulers o f K 'a rtli. It is
noteworthy that K 'art'los is not credited with any building projects further to the west (i.e., towards the
Black Sea littoral), even though the author anachronistically claimed that ancient K 'a rt'li had extended to
the coast.
Upon the death of K 'art' los, his eldest son M c'xet'os assumed rule over the K'artTosiani-s. As
K 'art'los had not divided his lands among his sons prior to his death, his wife distributed his possessions
among their sons. K 'art'los unnamed spouse is also reported to have ordered the raising o f Deda-c'ixe
(lit "Mother-Fortress") and Bostan-k'alak' i, the latter of which was subsequently renamed R u st'av i.^
This is one o f the exceedingly rare instances in which a woman is reported to have directly participated in
the political life of ancient K 'art'li.
The account of K 'art'los is exceedingly brief and provides few details about the early K'art'velian
community. This is not surprising, for the story, as written down and as it have come down to us. was
largely interpolated from non-Georgian traditions. Significantly, K 'art'los is entirely unknown in
successive medieval Georgian texts.-* This might suggest that the legend did not enter the discourse o f
the K 'art'velian shared past. However, The Ufe o f the Kings, with its account o f K 'art'los. was
transmitted in K'art'lis c'xovreba throughout the medieval period, so we must assume that at least some
contemporaries were familiar with it. The Primary History o f K'art 'li, the only other extant medieval
Georgian source to touch upon the origin o f the K 'artvelians. is entirely unacquainted with K'art'los. It
commences with the mythical conquest of Alexander the Great, tracing K 'art'lis existence only from the
early Hellenistic period. Significantly. The Primary History o f K'art 'li completely ignores/is unfamiliar
with K 'art'los. his sons, and the Biblical tabulapopulorum. As we shall see. it may represent a distinct
historical tradition, or it may constitute a deliberate refashioning o f The Ufe o f the Kings.
1 0
JOIbid p. 8 . Orbi in Old Georgian means "eagle." Later the Orbi/Orbeti fortress was believed to be the
original possession o f the Orbeliani-s/Orbeliank'; see Arzoumanian in Uxtanes. p. 129. note a.
^ Ibid., p. 8 . Bostani is derived from the Av. baody and the Phi. bod//boy, with the suffix -stan
(indicating a place) and denotes "fragrant place; see Andronikashvili, Narkvevebi, p. 294.
^The brothers and progeny o f K 'art'los are likewise unattested, with the exception o f a passage in the
thirteenth-century Hist, andEuL, p. 2 ^ (Haos) and 585^ (Heros, Bardos). These references suggest that
the author was fhmiliar with The Ufe o f the Kings. It would seem that the medieval Bagratids, who
calculated their origin from the Old Testament K ing David, completely ignored K 'art'los (who himself
was interpolated into Old Testament legends).
151
The Immediate Progeny o f K'art'los
The Ufe o f the Kings also allocates eponyms in the successive generations o f K 'art' los for the
remaining communities, regions, and major settlements o f central Caucasia. The implication is that these
areas, all part o f the late antique and medieval K ' art'li, were dependencies o f the domains o f the first
generation, and accordingly, o f K 'a rt'li :-* 1
Eponym
Community. Region. Settlement
SONS OF K'ART'LOS:
M c'xetos
Gardabos
Kaxos
Kuxos
Gach'ios
Me'xeta (city)
Gardabani (city)
Kaxet'i
Kuxet'i
Gachiani (city)
SONS OFMC'XET'OS:
Uplos
Odzrq'os
Javaxos
M cxet'os
Up'lis-c'ixe (fortress-city)
Qdzrq'e
Javaxet'i
was the eldest son o f K 'art'los, and in accordance with the norms o f primogeniture
his mother bestowed upon him the personal holdings o f his deceased father, just as the Haos had assumed
those o f his own father Togarmah. In the words o f the anonymous author o f The Ufe o f the Kings:
And M c'xet'os, who was the most heroic among the brothers, took possession of the lot
of his father K 'art'los, which now is called Armazi. A nd he built a city near the
confluence of the Mtkuari and the Aragwi [rivers], and he named it Me' xet'a after
himself. And he held the land from Tp'ilisi and Aragwet'i up to the Speri [i.e.. Black]
Sea in the west.*'*
41177/e Ufe
*^Cf. the Meschos (MEEXOE) o f Josephus, Jew. Antiq., 1.124-125, pp. 60-61. Josephus' Meschos was
the alleged primogenitor o f the Meschi-s (cf. Georgian Mesx-ni), one of the proto-K art" velian tribes who
resided in southwestern K 'art'li.
a>_
The Ufe o f the Kings, p. 9 j

Tp'ilisi is probably an anachronism here, for that city's foundation is
traditionally ascribed to the first-half o f the sixth century. However, the author may be referring to a
smaller settlement/fortress on the same site before the foundation of that city. Cf. the site o f Byzantium
and the subsequent raising o f Constantinople by Constantine "the Great" Arm. Adapt. K'C', p. 14fi_, ] =
152
M c'xet'os took possession o f his father's estates and like K 'art'los he did not adopt the title o f king.
Instead, "he was ruler [ganmge] and lord [up'ali] over his four brothers. And all four were loyal to
him."44
The K'art'losiani-s, the progeny o f K 'a rtlos,4^ reportedly maintained their eponym's legacy of
building projects. Mc'xetos erected the future royal seat o f M e'xet'a near the site where K 'art'los had
originally settled. Kaxos, a younger brother o f M c'xet'os, built C h'elet'i with the aid o f their sibling
Kuxos. As for the sons o f M c'xet'os: Odzrq'os built two fortress-cities (c'ixe-k'alak'ni) O dzrq'e and
Tuxarisi; and Javaxos erected the fortress-cities o f Cunda and Artani. Up'los, the eldest son and
appointed successor o f M c'xet'os, raised the fortresses o f Up'lis-c'ixe,4^ Urbnisi. and Kaspi. All o f these
were, by the author's time, extremely old settlements.
U p'los was appointed by his father, M c'xet'os, to administer the progen) of K 'art'los.
Nonetheless, once M c'xet'os passed away civil w ar erupted:
And for a long time [civil war] existed among them, and among them no one was more
distinguished or renowned [than the others], but each one considered [himself] the
t'avadi ["chief"] in [his own] place. But whoever was established at M e'xet'a became
the [defacto] t'avadi over all the others. And he neither took the name o f mep 'e
["king"], nor erist'avi ["regional governor"], but he was called mamasaxlisi ["father of
the house"], and he was peacemaker and judge [mazavebel da mche] o f the other
K'art'losiani-s, for the city o f M e'xet'a became greater than all [the other cities and
regions], and [thus] it was called the Mother-City [deda-k'alaki]*7
Thomson trans., p. 13, gives a slightly different account: "At that time the city o f Me' xet' [a] grew larger,
and it was called the mother city o f the house o f K 'art'l[i]; and the prince [ishxan] who lived there was
called the mamasaxlisi [tanutir] o f the entire land. They afforded him neither [the name] o f king
[t'agawor] nor erist'avi [naxarar] nor any other such honor." Thus the Armenian redaction names
Mexet'a specifically as the M other City o f K a rt'li already in the second generation following K 'artlos.
^T h e Ufe o f the Kings, p. 9 15- Cf. supra, for Haos being the ruler (ganmglebeli) and lord (up 'ali) o f the
T argamosiani-s.
4^ln The Ufe o f the Kings, the designation "K'art'losiani" is usually employed as a dynastic tag whereas
"K'art'veli" (i.e., K 'art'velian) usually represents the entire community. Thus the K 'art'losiani-s were
K'art'velians. In a strict sense, the K 'art'velians were imagined as the progeny o f K 'art'los but the tag
"K'art'losiani" is usually reserved for their own ruling strata.
46Up'lis-c'ixe may be explained either by the inference o f The Ufe o f the Kings that it was "Uplos
fortress," or by the equation o f up 'lis with the genitive form o f up 'ali, "lord/Lord." to designation "the
Lords fortress."
The Ufe o f the Kings, p. 1 1 ^ . Mamasaxlisi is a rulership position in early K 'art' li. Before the advent
o f indigenous royal authority, mamasaxlisi-s apparently ruled in Armazi-Mc'xet'a.
153
The Ufe o f the Kings does not disclose that any o f the early K ' art' losiani-s, even by the third
generation, had adopted the title o f king. The generic term t'avadi (<d*3 *5 0 ), literally "head" or "chief*
(of a house/clan), was employed by each o f the brothers, yet the possessor of M e'xet'a is depicted as
occupying an esteemed position. This status, however, did not thwart the intensifying sibling rivalry and
the subsequent outbreak o f open dissension against the rule of Up'los.
We m ight ask why the early K'art'losiani-s are not portrayed as kings, and why in-fighting
should be reported. Any answer, to be sure, is conjectural at b est It seems to me that the ca. 800 author,
who him self probably invented the K'art'losiani-s, was all too aware that there were no existing oral
traditions about them. Therefore, K 'art'losiani authority needed to wane so that Alexanders supposed
conquest could be easily explained, and especially to account for the rather large lacuna between the time
ofTogarm ah and K 'art'los to the establishment o f royal authority in K 'a rt'li in the Hellenistic period.
Stemma o f the Eponymous Ancestors o f Caucasia
The initial section o f The Ufe o f the Kings has two principal goals: to diagram the provenance o f
the K 'art'velians and their neighbors as well as to promulgate a model o f ideal K 'art'velian rulership. As
we have mentioned, this ancient past was invented, o r at least first consigned to parchment, ca. 800 by the
anonymous author o f The Ufe o f the Kings. but it was based upon old Biblical (and Perso-Armenian)
traditions. In any case, its dramatis personae are largely mythical in nature. But the key point is that
these Old Testament myths were intended to be considered, and were often held, as truth. As Christians,
the K 'art'velians had to look to Genesis for the explanation of the origin o f their community' (and all other
communities as well). Contemporary "plausibility" denoted faithfulness to the traditions, understood to be
trustworthy, o f the Old Testament
Essentially, the author o f The Ufe o f the Kings generated a miniature K 'art'velian version of
Genesis, with a genealogy extending from Noah up to the establishment o f the communities o f Caucasia.
The stemma o f The Ufe o f the Kings for the provenance o f Caucasia may be summarized a s : ^
4*Ibid pp. 3-10.
Japheth
Tiias
TOGARMAH
I
Haos
KA R T LOS
Bardos
Mcxet'os
Gardabos
Uplos
Odzrq'os
M ovakani
Lekani
Kaxos
Kuxos
Heros
Kavkas
Egros
Gachios
1
Javaxos
The issue o f when The Life o f the Kings was composed resurfaces after only a cursory glance at
this stemma. Should the author have lived in the eleventh century, we would have expected to find the
western region o f Egrisi represented by a son or grandson of K 'art'los. thus indicating the subordination
o f Egrisi/Ap'xazeti to K 'art'li. mimicking the contemporary political situation. Instead, the historian
identified Egros a younger brother o f K 'art'los. Therefore Egros was merely the junior o f K 'art'los, just
as K 'art'los was to Haos. K 'art'los is described as being independent in his lot, and there is no
justification to assume that the other brothers o f K 'art'lo s did not enjoy the same standing. The author
simply does not represent Egros as subordinate to, o r even dominated by, K'art'los.
Furthermore, we do not encounter any brother or son o f K 'art'los named "Ap'xazos." The
kingdom o f Ap'xazet' i (Gk. Abasgia) arose in the last decade o f the eighth century and held dominion
over the tribes o f the western Black Sea littoral, including that o f the Egri-s/Megreli-s. As previously
demonstrated, our author is familiar with the term A p'xazet'i and he applied it and Egrisi as synonyms.
But it must be admitted that he seems to have preferred Egrisi and the initial part of his history illustrates
155
this point: the eponym o f that western region is named E g ro s .^ The absence o f any eponym bearing the
name Ap'xazos is additional evidence in favor o f a pre-Bagratid dating for The Life o f the Kings.
The Roman Empire in Pre-Bagratid Georgian Historical Texts
Before plunging into a discussion o f the Persian context o f early K'art'velian history, we should
first offer a brief consideration o f the knowledge and role o f Rome in pre-Bagratid historical texts .30
Georgian historical and hagiographical works composed in that period relate exceedingly little about the
Roman and early Byzantine Empires .3 * Their unfamiliarity w ith the prominent accomplishments and
failures, and even the very names, of the Roman emperors is immediately evident.32 In those instances
when a Roman emperor is named, they are usually not references contemporaneous with the accounts at
hand, but rather, vague recollections.
49We possess a king list for A p'xazet'i composed in the eleventh century. Divan, p. 23, gives the first
mep 'e o f A p'xazet'i as a certain Anos: " 3 0 6 3 3 2 3 0 8 3 3 3 AgbAtyjmob* ogcn o.5nb" = "The first king o f
A p'xazet'i was Anos." The term Egrisi is not found here. Furthermore, there is no mention o f Egros. To
be fair, K 'art'los was not considered a king by The Life o f the Kings, so this is not altogether surprising.
Moreover, the Divan is attributed to King Bagrat in (r. 1008-1014), the first king of a united Georgia
(,Sa/c'art'velo):; if such an attribution is correct, Bagrat would not have wanted to draw attention to the
tradition in The Life o f the Kings that Egrisi/Apxazet'i had originally not been a dependency o f K 'art'li.
30The purpose o f this section is to comment upon the role o f Rome/Byzantium in early Georgian
historical texts. This is not to suggest that Rome was not an im portant player in Caucasian politics, and
that Roman civilization did not exert a palpable influence upon the K'art'velians. But according to the
historical memory o f the Georgians (itself written down in the early medieval period), Persia exerted a
considerably greater influence on K 'art'li than did Rome. For K 'art'velian-Rom an contacts, see esp.
{passim): Toumanoff. Studies, Braund, Georgia in Antiquity, Javaxishvili. K'art'veli eris istoria. vol. 1;
and Ocherki istorii Gruzii. vol. 1.
3 ^B. Martin-Hisard, "Continuite et changement dans Ie bassin oriental du Pont Euxin (IV6- ^ s.)," in
From Late Antiquity to Early Byzantium, ed. by V. Vavrinek (1985), pp. 143-147. examines Georgian and
Roman sources for the history o f coastal Caucasia for the fourth an d fifth centuries. She notes that one of
the most concrete early references to the Roman Empire in Georgian literature occurs in The Life o f
Vaxtang, p. 177; in the passage, the border between K 'art'li and Rome/Byzantium (also called "Greece"
here) is mentioned. Martin-Hisard, p. 143, begins with the comment: "Daprts le corpus des sources
narratives georgiennes intitule Kartlis Cxovreba, les Romains sont absents des rives orientates du Pont
Euxin jusqu'au milieu du Ves. Absence etrange puisque Rome a ldgue k Constantinople ce territoire
detache du monde georgien que les textes grecs et latins appeUent Colchide [i.e., Colchis]."
52
The earliest Georgian list o f Roman emperors with which I am familiar appears in the tenth-century
(Bagratid-era) Shatberdi codex. It appears in a translation o f part o f Hippolytus' Chron. but was brought
down to the second-half o f the tenth century. It is a confused list, even for contemporary emperors; e.g., it
ends with Theophilus, Michael, Basil, Leon, Romanos, Constantine, Romanos, and Nikephoros (which
does not correspond to reality). See KekJnstM S # S -l 141, "[Keisami hromt'ani]," 11 125r-125v = Shat.
Codex, pp. 201-202.
The following table summarizes direct references to Roman emperors in pre-Bagratid historical
literature .53
Roman/Byzantine Emperor
Editio dials?
[Hromos]5*
[Bizantios]
Vespasian (Uespasianos)
Julian (Ivliani)
Ufe o f the Kings, p. 19

Life o f the Kings. pp. 19-20
Life o f the Kings. p. +4 2 .3
Life ofVaxtang, p. 1 6 4 2 j
Life ofVaxtang. p. 164
Life o f Nino in C'x. k'art'. mep'et'a. p. 72 jq
Life o f the Kings, pp. 69-70
Life ofVaxtang, pp. 160 and 165
Conv. K'art'li. pp. 85-905^
Life o f Nino in C'x. k'art'. mep'et'a. passim
U feofVaxtang.pp. 160.
Jovian (Ivbimianos)
U feofVaxtang.pp. 140. 160-
Zeno (Zenoni)
Maurice (Mavriki)
Phokas (P'okas)
Heraclius (Erekle)
Ufe ofVaxtang. p. 203
Titus (Tito)
Maximian (M ak'simiane ) 5 5
Constantine "the Great"
(Kostantine)
165, and 171

161. 165. 171-172, and 183
Ps.-Juansher. pp. 221 and 223
Ps.-Juansher. p. 223
Ps.-Juansher, pp. 223-224
Royal List II. pp. 95-96
Mart. Arch 'il. pp. 246-247
The Life o f the Kings knows only Vespasian and Constantine "the Great." as well as the mythical eponyms
Hromos and Bizantios. The Life ofVaxtang is acquainted with Vespasian and Constantine, as well as
Titus, Julian, Jovian, and Zeno. It should be noted that with the exception of Zeno. The Ufe ofVaxtang
refers to these emperors in a purely reminiscent sense. Only Zeno is contemporary w ith events described
in the work. Ps.-Juansher may be distinguished from his contemporaries in that he was relatively familiar
with events in Byzantium. He documents Maurice's intervention in the Persian rebellion of Bahrain
Chobin, the ascendancies o f Phokas and Heraclius. and Heraclius' invasion o f Caucasia (en route to
Persia).
53Theodosius H ( T eodosi) is named in two later insertions appearing in V&xtangiseuli MSS of Ufe Succ.
Mirian, pp. 133-134.

54Hromos and Bizantios are the mythical successors appointed by Alexander the Great in the medieval
Georgian tradition.
55 Maximian's name appears only in the later Vaxtangiseuli MSS.
S6Conv. K'art'li relates that Constantine is the son o f "Kostay" and Helena.
157
It is precisely for the reign o f Heraclius that Georgian historical works begin to evince a deeper
acquaintance with events transpiring in Byzantium. We should recall that in Ps.-Juansher's continuation
we encounter the earliest extant Georgian reference to the K 'art'velian Bagratids. It is well known that
this clan rose to prominence with Byzantine assistance, and we find an increasing fascination in
Byzantium in this text However, no Roman emperors are attested in The Ufe o f the Successors o f
Miricm, The Primary History o f K'art'li, and Royal Usts I and III (which were dependent upon The Ufe o f
the Kings and C'xorebay vaxtang gorgaslisa, and may be later compilations).
Pre-Bagratid Georgian historians did not set early K 'a rt'li within a Roman/Byzantine context.
Rome and Constantinople are virtually unknown in medieval Georgian historical texts until the very
appearance at Tp' ilisi o f the Byzantine em peror Heraclius at the head o f an army in the seventh century.
Although the local historical tradition does not relate any significant contacts with the Romans before this
time (excluding the legendary sending o f priests to K 'art'li by Constantine "the Great"), the Romans were
nevertheless active in Caucasian politics from the first century BC. Episodes like Pompey's conquest of
Caucasia (by which Rome gained political superiority over K 'a rt'li in 65 BC) and the K 'art'velian king
57
P'arsm an Ill's visit to Rome ' are unknown in local histories, and we may only speculate as to why this
should be the case. However, the lengthy passage o f time from these events to the composition o f The Ufe
o f the Kings, and the lack o f intermediate texts (should they have existed), are contributing factors.
Georgian sources divulge little information about the clash o f Persia and Rome for hegemony over
Caucasia. Today we know about the treaties o f Rhandeia (in 63 AD, according to which Persian Arsacids
were elevated as Caucasian kings who were technically the vassals o f the Roman emperor) and Nisibis (in
298, by which Persia withdrew its claims over large parts o f Caucasia. The former situation was
reestablished following the defeat o f Julian in 363), as well as the struggles over Colchis/Egrisi. largely
through Classical texts.
Although Rome ostensibly held legal political sway over K 'artli during the larger part o f the
first four centuries AD, this influence was relatively weak (especially in the socio-cultural sphere) and
many K 'art'velians continued to share more in common with Persia, which was, after all, adjacent to their
land. To be sure, some Romanesque buildings were raised in K 'art'li, Greek inscriptions were
occasionally cut in M c'xet'a in honor o f the Roman emperors, and under indirect Roman influence the
K 'art'velian monarchy was converted to Christianity. But the fact remains that even in the early ninth
century local historians continued to conceive o f their society, royal authority, and their own shared
history in Persian terms.5 8
5 ^Braund,
Georgia in Antiquity, pp. 232-233.
58That is to say, by the time of the composition o f the three ca. 800 Georgian histories, the local
historians themselves tapped Persian and Near Eastern traditions instead of Roman/Byzantine ones so as
to describe the K'art'velian past. Roman-K'art'velian relations were recorded in Classical literature, yet
158
Later Georgian copyists may have edited out references to the Romans (though, it should be said,
the extant references could have likewise been added by them). I think this improbable. Rather, the
scarce ancient records which presumably reached our ca. 800 historians were incomplete and likely
inaccurate. In addition, K 'art' li had experienced relatively little direct contact with the Romans, being
more fully a part of the Persian/Near Eastern world, at least socially. Early Georgian historians not only
recorded historical events and personae, when these were known, but also fashioned a homogeneous
collective past for their community when the past was unknown, or perhaps, undesirable. The image of
the K 'art'velian past was painted as one bound from tim e immemorial with that o f Persia and was cast
essentially in Persian terms precisely because K 'art' Iis ancient heritage was still easily discernible ca.
800. The open admission o f a Persian past was probably also influenced by the contemporary praise
heaped upon ancient Persia at t h e ' Abbasid court. ^
The Persian Context Admitted: K'art'li as Part o f the Persian Commonwealth
... socially, the Caucasian polities were sim ilar to the Iranian and utterly unlike the
Romano-Byzantine. Armenia and Iberia [read: K 'art'li] were even more aristocratic in
character than Iran, being, in fact, federations o f dynastic princes each the overlord of
a body o f lesser nobility presided over by kings ...60
Toumanoff
As we have seen, The Ufe o f the Kings is concerned with the ethnogensis of the K 'art'velians
and the establishment o f an indigenous monarchy. This text, along with the contemporary Life o f
Vaxtang and its continuation by Ps.-Juansher and the entire pre-Bagratid Georgian historical tradition - consciously and explicitly situated early K 'art'li within the Persian cultural and even political world,
something which should be expected in light o f Toumanoff s observation on the social affinity o f Caucasia
and Persia.
Pre-Bagratid histories are punctuated by both mythical and historical events in Persia.
Accordingly, Nimrod (the first king o f the world in The U fe o f the Kings)^ and his progeny, the
ca. 800 K'art'velian historians do not seem to have plundered these texts in an attempt to construct the
history o f their community.
^See C.E. Bosworth, "The Heritage o f Rulership in Early Islamic Iran and the Search for Dynastic
Connections with the Past," Iran 11 (1973), pp. 51-62.
6 0 Toumanoff, "Christian Caucasia Between Byzantium an d Iran: New Light from Old Sources." pp. 123
124. Toumanoff carefully studied the social structures o f early Caucasia and thus noted their affinity to
that o f Persia. See also idem., Studies.
6 ^The Ufe o f the Kings, pp. 6-7.
159
Nebrot' iani-s, are equated with the Persians. Nimrod's authority was extensive, and among his vassals
were counted the Caucasian T argamosiani-s. But the defeat o f Nimrod by Haos did not m ark the end of
the Persian domination o f Caucasia, for The Ufe o f the Kings subsequently portrays K 'art'li as part and
parcel o f the Persian world, and Persian affairs are routinely reported. Moreover, the Persian monarchy
was only temporarily crippled by the T*argamosiani-s. for we soon hear about the hero-king Ap' ridon
Nebrot' iani.6^ He is credited with founding the Persian administration based on erist 'avi-s (regional
governors). This action was later replicated by P'am avaz, the traditional first king of the K'art'velians.
Ardami, one o f Ap'ridon's erist'avi-s, led an army to K 'a rt'li where he is said to have battled "Khazar"
forces. Having subdued K 'art'li, Ardami built Daruband/Derbent in northeastern Caucasia near the
Caspian Sea. He reportedly introduced masonry to K 'art'li when he constructed a stone wall around
M c'xet'a and reinforced the Armazi fortress. Thus, the Persians are understood to have reasserted
sovereignty over all o f Caucasia.
At the end o f his life, Ap* ridon divided his possessions among his sons, and one o f them. lared.
received K 'a rt'li as his lo t But a Persian civil war ensued, and lared was murdered by his brothers. It is
in the context o f disturbances within Persia, and o f various external threats to Persia, that the
K 'art'velians and the Armenians are said to have routinely defected from Persian rule. So during the civil
war following the death o f Ap'ridon, the K'art'velians, with the participation o f the northern Caucasian
tribe o f the Ovsi-s, "liberated" themselves, though the eastern regions o f Rani and Heret'i remained under
Persian control.6-^
Persia again demonstrated its resilience and dominance in the region. The new king. K'ekapos.
brought K 'art'li again under the Persian hegemony .6 4 But the appearance o f "Turks" in the East
compelled K'ekapos to commit Persian troops to confront this new threat, and as a result the Caucasian
occupation force was diminished. This provided the K 'art'velians and the Armenians with the
opportunity to forsake the Persians. K'ekapos dispatched P'araboroti, his son, to battle the
T argamosiani-s in eastern Caucasia. But reminiscent o f the failure o f Nimrod, the Persians were
defeated. The next shahanshah, K'aixosro, the son o f Shiosi "the Fortunate and the grandson of
K'ekapos, managed to subjugate K 'art'li yet again. Persian erist'avis were appointed to administer
Caucasia, and Zoroastrian altars are said to have been erected.
62Ibid., pp. 12-13.

^ 2Ibid pp. 13-14.
MIbid pp. 14-15.
160
K'aixosro then turned his forces against the "Turks" so as to avenge his fathers death .6 5 The
K 'art'velians and the Armenians united against the Persians once again, and the local Persian erist'avi-s
were assassinated. In the meantime, K'aixosros troops put to flight a multitude o f "Turks." Twenty-eight
"houses" o f "Turks" migrated to M c'xef a, whose ruler, the mamasaxlisi, settled them nearby at
Sarkine .6 6 These Turks allegedly entered into an alliance with the K 'art'velians and jointly they engaged
the Persians.
Persian dominance over Caucasia had still not been permanently eradicated by the alliance of the
K'art'velians, the Armenians, and "Turks." It is reported that the Persian king Vashtashabisi dispatched
his son Spandiat-Rvali. a "giant," to recover K 'art'li and Armenia. Reaching Caucasia, Spandiat-Rvali
received news that the "Turks" had invaded Persia, and he withdrew leaving the K 'art'velians and the
Armenians "free." But his son, Baram, who was also called Ardashir (later the shahanshah), conquered
Babylonia, Syria, and northern Mesopotamia, and is said to have m ade the Greeks, Romans, and the
K 'art'velians his vassals.6^
We should pause to consider why the K'art'velians, if they were part o f the Persian
commonwealth, were customarily believed to have defected whenever Persian authority waned. It seems
to me that the author, writing considerably later than the period he describes, wished to demonstrate that
K 'art'li was not simply an appendage of Persia, and that it was a viable kingdom in its own right.
Therefore, K 'a rt'li is painted in Persian colors in terms o f social organization, conceptualization of royal
authority, and the like, but linguistically and religiously K 'art'li is m ade to be distinct from Persia. The
desired relationship, from the inception of the T argamosiani-s, is c le a r while K 'art' li shared much in
common with Persia on the social front, it was not rightly a political dependency' upon Persia, and its
language and religion guaranteed that the K 'art'velians were not merely corrupted Persians.
Baram is the last Persian king attested prior to the establishment of local K 'art'velian kingship.
According to The Ufe o f the Kings, the K'art'velian monarchy is said to have arisen at the time of
Alexander the Great, precisely in the period following Baram when Persian dominance in the Near East
was reputedly in decline. The Georgian historical tradition rightly notes the abeyance of Persian kingship
in the years following the conquests of Alexander. But Persian influence in K 'art'li did not evaporate
completely with the translatio imperii. In the absence o f a king in Persia the erist 'avis ruled and are said
to have masterminded several incursions into Caucasia.6** During this period, K 'art'li recognized the
65Ibid., p. 15.
Îb id ., pp. 15-16.
67Ibid., p. 16.
6 **Ibid., pp. 30 and 43.
161
Seleucids, the successors o f Alexander in the Near East, as its overlords. This circumstance may be
inferred from Georgian texts. Nevertheless, the recollections o f early K 'art'velian rulers reflect the
intimate ties with Persia: the first king, P'arnavaz, was bom o f a Persian mother, his son and successor,
Saunnag, married a Persian wife; and the first Christian dynast o f K 'art'li. Mihran/Mirian. was a Persian
by b ir th .^ Should these images not echo the actual contemporary situation, they nevertheless incorporate
the memory that early K 'a rt'li was part o f the Persian commonwealth.
It is worth emphasizing that later Georgian historians writing about the period often link the
K 'art'velian royal family with its counterpart in Sasanid Iran. Thus Mihran/Mirian, the first Christian
monarch o f K 'art'li, is tendentiously depicted as the eldest son o f the founder o f the Sasanids7
However, Toumanoff has shown that the K 'art'velian Chosroid dynasty, founded by Mihran/Mirian, was
actually descended from the Persian Mihranids, one o f the Seven Great Houses o f P e rsia .^ The historical
M ihran/Mirian was descended from noble Persians, though later Georgian historians inflated this bloodlink to be one with royalty. In any event, according to The U fe o f the Kings, when his father died, a
leadership struggle ensued, and Mihran/Mirians younger brother, Bartam, emerged as successor. Having
been accused o f being the son o f a concubine. Mihran/Mirian relaxed his claims and accepted a package
o f concessions while retaining his hold over K 'art' li. Whether or not this episode is historically accurate,
the imagined association o f K 'art'velian kings with the Persian monarchy' is an sound reflection of the
close ties binding the ruling strata and Elites o f Persia and K 'art'li.
During the reign o f Aderki, who is supposed to have ruled K 'art'li at the time of the birth o f
C h rist the Persian erist'avi-s are said to have assembled and chose a certain Azhghalan "the Wise" to be
k in g .^ His heirs, the "A zhghalaniani"^ (Arsacid/Parthian) monarchs, reigned until their overthrow by
^ Ib id ., pp. 20 and 27 for P'arnavaz and Saunnag respectively. For the Persian connections of the early
K 'art'velian kings, see also ch. 3.
The Ufe o f the Kings, pp. 67-68.

^T oum anoff, Studies, pp. 83 et sqq.
^T h e Ufe o f the Kings, p. 43.

^ I .e ., "the progeny o f Azhghalan." Ibid, p. 59, notes that the Azhghalaniani were also known as the
"Ardabiroba." In the older nusxuri script *V was often confused with "sh"; applying this to "Ardabiroba"
we may read it as "Ardashiroba." The suffix -oba denotes an abstract or collective noun. The root
Ardashir- is an Iranian name; Ardashiroba is essentially the equivalent oiArdashiriani (i.e., "the progeny
o f Ardashir). This is probably a confusion with the traditional founder o f the Sasanids, Ardashir (see
following note). "Azhghalaniani" doubtlessly refers to the Arsacid kings o f Persia. But how may we
explain this strange form? Probably it is a corruption o f Ashghanian/Ashkaniyan, terms which are used to
denote the Arsacids as in the later eleventh-century historian Albiruni, cap. 4, pp. 127 and 116-122
respectively. He reports (pp. 116-122) that the Ashkanians held Iraq and M ah in the Hellenistic era and
that the first prince o f this dynasty was a certain Ashk ben Ashkan (cf. Azhghalan).
162
"K'asre Anusharvan Sasaniani," who is identified as the founder o f the Sasanid dynasty.7* The Ufe o f
the Kings fails to relate the names o f other Azghalaniani-s.

Georgian historical works are silent about the names o f Sasanid rulers from the early Sasanid
rulers "K'asre" and "Bartam" until the fifth century.7^ The Ufe ofVaxtang knows an "Urmizd." who is
Hurmazd IQ (457-458 AD) .7 6 the first historical Sasanid ruler featured in Georgian historical writing.
Khusrau I (531-579), Hurmazd IV (579-590), and Khusrau II (590-628) are named in Ps.-Juansher, 7 7 the
same historian who relates the names and activities o f several Roman emperors. It should be said that
Roman and Persian competition in Caucasia in this period was particularly fierce, and local sources
display a greater familiarity with Rome and Persia at this time, though their clashes in the region are
usually left undocumented. Ps.-Juanshers interest in these particular shahanshah-s coincides with the
striking o f Sasanid coins in K 'a rt'li, a further testimony o f the Sasanid presence there. As should be
expected, The Primary History o f K'art'li, The Conversion o f K'art'li. and Royal U stsI a n d ///g iv e no
indication o f the social, cultural, and political affinities o f K 'art'li and Persia since they are probably
Bagradd-era productions and their Bagradd sponsors wished to obscure K 'art'lis ancient Persian
heritage. While Royal U st II does accurately describe a K 'art' li administered ty Persian overlords
0marzpan-s and pitiaxshis ), it fails to situate K 'art'li within the Persian social orbit: any connection with
Persia is depicted as purely political and certainly disadvantageous.
7 *77re Ufe o f the Kings, pp. 43-59. The mythical figure o f K'asre, the alleged founder o f the Sasanid
dynasty, seems to be a K 'art'velian innovation. The first Sasanid Great King was Ardashir who reigned
from 224 to 240 AD. The royal name K'asre (Persian: Khusrau) is not to be found until the sixth century.
The Georgian tradition often referred to the Sasanid rulers by the generic name Xosro/Xuasro/K'asre.
With K 'asre Sasaniani we seem to have a confusion o f Ardashir. although the account is muddled with
anachronisms. M irian ascended the K'art'velian throne in 284. during the reign of Bahram II (274-293).
The other shahanshah-s o f his reign were Bahram III (293), Narseh (293-302), Hurmazd II (302-309).
and Shapur II (309-379). Clearly, there was no Great King bearing a name similar to K'asre. and there
was no "Bartam" who took control o f the empire, unless Bahram III is meant. In short, the connection o f
Mirian with the Great Kings o f Persia is tendentious, although it is likely that Mirian was himself related
to a Persian noble family. NB: Thomson in his trans. o f Arm. Adapt. K'C'. p. 70, footnote 51. suggests
that the Armenian K'arse-Sharvan and the Georgian K 'asre Anusharvan are corruptions o f Khusrau
Anushirwan (531-579), "whose fame eclipsed in popular tradition the renown of all other Sasanian
rulers."
7^This is not altogether surprising since a specifically Georgian script was not invented until the late
fourth/early fifth century. Therefore, the memory o f Sasanid monarchs from the fifth century may be an
indication that some contemporary written source had reached our pre-Bagratid historians o f ca. 800.
The Ufe ofVaxtang, p. 158 14 .

77
'Khusrau - Old Georgian Xuasro/Xosro/K'asre: Hurmazd = Old Georgian Urmizd. Ps.-Juansher, pp.
213 (Khusrau I), 215,217, 221 (Hurmazd IV), and 217. 221,223, and 227 (Khusrau II). Khusrau II is
also named in connection with the Persian conquests o f Heraclius by The Royal U st II, p. 96: and
Sumbat Davitis-dze, p. 43g = Qauxch'ishvili ed.. p. 3 7 5 ^ .
163
The author o f The Life o f the Kings, writing four centuries after the Christianization o f the
K 'art'velian kings, was cognizant o f K 'a rt'lis ancient Persian heritage- In my view, this is an indication
that the Christianization o f K 'a rt'li, and Caucasia as a whole, did not entail a sudden and complete shift
to a Late Roman/Early Byzantine cultural-political orientation, for the ca. 800 author found it
accurate/plausible to describe K 'a rt'li in Persian terms. Overtly Christian texts, like The Conversion o f
K'art'li (seventh-century) and the ninth-/tenth-centuiy Life o f Nino, do not emphasize, and certainly do
not praise, the legacy of Persia. Being historical-hagiographical accounts o f the Christianization of
K 'art'li, both o f these works are more concerned with demonstrating early Christian K 'art'lis association
with the first Christian Roman emperor Constantine "the G reat" This does not reflect the reality o f the
fourth century. Since the K 'art'velian monarchy had indeed been Christianized during the time o f
Constantine, these authors invented a link between K 'art'li and the first Christian Roman emperor. The
silence o f these Christianization narratives concerning Persia is not characteristic o f the earliest Georgian
hagiographical accounts. Like The Life o f the Kings, the fifth-century Martyrdom ofShushaniki and the
sixth-century Martyrdom ofEvstat'i both place K 'art'li within the Persian political world (both actually
and conceptually), though this circumstance is loathed in them. Moreover, in both o f them the
designation "king invariably refers not to some local ruler or even the Roman emperor but to the Persian
King of Kings.
K 'art'lis position in the Persian world is clear enough, and it did not abate following the
establishment o f an indigenous kingship. This is not surprising since the K 'art'velian dynasty was itself
o f royal Persian extraction or a t least believed itself to be. Onomastics testify that the very names o f the
pre-Bagratid K 'art'velian kings are based upon some form of Persian, although some of the names may
have entered Georgian via an intermediary, like Armenian. Even the semi-legendary first K 'art'velian
king, P'arnavaz, bears a Persian name. Significantly, it is based upon the Persian term famah, the "divine
grace which the Sasanids deemed to designate a legitimate monarch.7* The following enumeration of
K'art'velian royal names, although not exhaustive, is representative of the period:
78The name P'arnavaz was not exclusive to kings in early K 'art'li: thus we find a spaspeti (i.e., "second
to the king" and head of the erist'avi-s) bearing that name during the reign o f P'arsm an K'ueli. See The
Ufe o f the Kings, pp. 51-52. It should be noted that the spaspeti was a high noble and we have no
indication that the name P'arnavaz (or a derivative) was current outside the royal and high noble clans.
164
K'art'velian
royal name
p'arnavaz
Saunnag
Mirvan
P'arnajora. P'arnajob
Arshak
Aderki. Rok
P'arsm an
Amazasp
Rev
Vach'e
Bakur
Asp'agur
Persian root/form
Jamah. Av. xwamah = "divine fortune." "grace"^ 9

cf. Sawarmag > saw = "black" and arm-ag= "hand"**
cf. O.Ir. Miflrapana = "protector"8 *
Jamah, Av. xwamah (cf. P'arnavaz)8^

O.Pers. arshaka < Av. ar&ha- = "male 1.83
O.Ir. raucha = "light" Av. raochah "light" "day"8-*
fam ah, Av. xwamah (cf. P'arnavaz, P'amajom/b)
cf. O.Pers. Hamazaspa- > hamaza = "multitude." "gathering"
+ aspa- "horse"; cf. Phi. bevarasp = "10,000 horses"8'
cf. Rdwniz > rev = "lie, falsehood" + niz< Av. nvanchah
= "to put/lie down "8 6
cf. Phi. Wachak = "boy, youth" < vach(ch)al7
cf. O.Ir. Bagapufra = "son of God"8 8
cf. Aspa rug > aspar/asvar = "warrior." "horseman."
"cavalry"8 9
79
Andronikashvili, Narkvevebi. pp. 496-499; and T. Ch'xeidze, Narkvevebi iranuli onomastikidan

(1984). pp. 32-33 and 47.
on
Andronikashvili, Narkvevebi, pp. 492-493.
%lIbid., pp. 482-484.

i2 Ibid.. pp. 500-502.
0*5
Ibid., p. 434; and Garsoidn, "Arshak II," in prosopography in The Epic Histories. pp. 352-353. Cf. T'.
Ch'xeidze, "Iranuli carmomavlobis sakut'ari saxelebi k'art'ulshi," Mac'ne 4 (1987). p. 94.
Andronikashvili. Narkvevebi, pp. 491-492.
Of
Ibid., pp. 422-423; and Ch'xeidze, Narkvevebi iranuli onomastikidan, pp. 34-37 and 78.
8 6 Andronikashvili,
Narkvevebi, pp. 489-491.
S7Ibid., pp. 466-467.

S*Ibid pp. 443-445.
on
Ibid., pp. 425-426; and Ch'xeidze, "Iranuli carmomavlobis sakut'ari saxelebi k 'a rtulshi," pp. 102-103
(on asp-).
165
Mihran/Mirian
T rdat
Archil
cf.O.Ir. Mi0rana > Mitfra9 0 (cf. M irvan above)

cf. O.Pers. Tiridata = "given by Tir"9 *
cf. Artashir9^
Persian titles and names for offices were also adopted by the Kartvelians .9 3 In The Ufe o f the Kings we
often encounter the title spaspeti (b3o>b3Q(*)o), the second-person o f the realm after the king .9 4 The
designation pitiaxshi (3a<Joib8a; variant patiaxshi) was also current in late antique K 'art'li.
This brings us to the larger question o f potential linguistic affinities between Persian and
Georgian. We must ask whether Persian was spoken in ancient, pre-Christian K 'art'li. In the course of
the brief account of Baram's reign, the anonymous author o f The U fe o f the Kings asserts that six
languages were spoken in K 'artli:9^
1. Somxuri
2. K'art'uli
h.Xazaruli
4. Asuruli
5. Ebrauli
6.Berdzuli
= Arm enian (cf. Somxit'i/Somxeti, or "Armenia")

= Georgian (i.e., "K'art'velian")
= Khazar
= Assyrian (i.e ?Syriac, ?Aramaic, ?Semitic)
= Hebrew
= Greek (cf. Saberdznet'i "Greece/Byzantium")
The languages enumerated in this passage do not explicitly include Persian (i.e.. sparsidi. cf. Sparset'i.
"Persia"). Nevertheless, a local version o f Aramaic. Armazic. was employed as a written language in
Kart' li prior to the development o f a specifically Georgian script in the fifth century AD. As is well
known, a form o f Aramaic was the "official" language of Achaemenid Persia. Aramaic is a Semitic
language and is closely related to Syriac. The term asuruli, literally "[the language] o f the Assyrians."
refers to Syriac, Aramaic, and/or Semitic. Could it be that asuruli here was understood as some form of
onAndronikashvili, Narkvevebi, pp. 478-481; and Ch'xeidze. Narkvevebi iranuli onomastikidan. pp. 2224.
9 Ândronikashvili, Narkvevebi, pp. 470-472; Ch'xeidze, Narkvevebi iranuli onomastikidan. p. 21; and
Garsolan in The Epic Histories, prosopography. pp. 416-417.
^ Andronikashvili, Narkvevebi, pp. 435-437 and Georgian variant Darchil. pp. 462-463.
93On Persian titles and offices in neighboring Armenia, see Garsolan, "Prolegomena to a Study o f the
Iranian Aspects in Arsacid Armenia," HA 90 (1976), pp. 20-24 and footnote 44.
9 4 7he
Ufe o f the Kings, pp. 24-25.
95 / 6/d., p. 1621 . 2 3 - Cf. Arm. Adapt. K 'C \ p. 23 = Thomson trans.. p. 23 (which makes Georgian a
mixture o f the other five!). The suffix -uli typically is used to denote the name o f a language and
corresponds to the Eng. "-ian."
166
Persian? This is indeed a possibility, but a rather remote one in my opinion since the language o f the
Persians is referred to both in a later passage in The Ufe o f the Kings and in The U fe ofVaxtang
specifically as s p a r s u l i Moreover, Persia is not identified as "Assyria" in medieval Georgian historical
texts. Therefore, local histories imply that spoken Persian was not current among the indigenous
population o f K 'art'li. This is somewhat odd in the light of the Persian context o f early K' art'li so
prominently featured in The Ufe o f the Kings. The soundness o f this memory is debatable, yet we should
recall that our text was written considerably later than the time it describes. In any event, we have
evidence for the linguistic influence o f written Persian, for the Armazic form o f Aramaic was commonly
used, sometimes appearing with Greek in the same inscription (e.g., the "Armazic B ilingual").^
There are an abundance of words borrowed from the various forms o f Persian (including Old
Persian, Middle Persian, New Persian, etc.), as well as Avestan, and Parthian. Several modem studies
have been devoted to the ties between the Persian language and Old Georgian.
Andronikashvili
summed up these connections by noting that:
... some o f the earliest Iranian elements recorded in the Georgian language ought not
[to] be regarded as mere borrowings; for they form an integral part o f the Georgian
language, being comprised in its basic lexical c o r e .^
This is not the place to recapitulate the complex research of Andronikashvili and others. Suffice it to say
that basic "cultic" words, used by the early K 'art'velian Church (even today), are usually not based upon
^T h e Ufe o f the Kings, p. 64; and The Ufe ofVaxtang, pp. 143 and 158.
^ O n Armazic, see ch. 3.
^^The best study is Andronikashvili, Narkvevebi, with detailed Eng. sum., "Studies in Iranian-Georgian
Linguistic Contacts: I," pp. 545*571. Unfortunately. Andronikashvili's second volume remains
unpublished See also: Ch'xeidze, Narkvevebi', ibid., "Iranuli carmomavlobis sakut'ari saxelebi
k'art'ulshi." pp. 95-105, with Rus. sum., "Iranskie antroponimy v gruzinskom,"pp. 104-105; and J.
Gippert, Iranica Armeno-Iberica: Studien zu den Iranischen Lehnwdrtem im Armenischen und
Georgischen (1993), 2 vols.
Â ndronikashvili, Narkvevebi, Eng. sum., p. 547.
167
Greek but rather Parthian and other forms o f Persian. 1 0 0 Christian religious terminology, derived from
some form o f Persian (including Parthian and Avestan), includes: 101
Georgian
Persian fo rm
English
cmi[n]da
eshmaki
beri
netari
anderdzi,102
iadgari,103
Av. sp&ita
Av. aeshma
M.Pers. pir
Pers. nettar/nektar
O.Pers. han-dardz
Manichaean vat
holy, saint
demon. Devil
monk, old m an
blessed (adj.)
will, testament
tropologion
100That is to say, religious conceptual ideas more usually have Persian, Avestan, or Parthian roots.
However, terms for ecclesiastical officials and religious material objects were often borrowed from the
Greek (with the -os suffix being represented as either -osi or -ozi): e.g., "church" (<eklesia). "bishop"
(episkoposi, ebiskoposi), "catholicus" (kat'alikosi).
pp. 549,566-568 et sqq. In The Ufe o f Nino as found in the hagiographical-historical
compilation o f Mok'. k'art'. we likewise find deep Persian linguistic influences, the most obvious one
being the transcription o f an entire sentence in (corrupted) Persian: "rast' megoi xojast'a banu[va]
rasulfe] p'asarfej izaeT (In the Shatberdi codex [Shat, codex] of Mok'. k'art'., p. 336j, this phrase is
rendered as: "rayt 'meboy xojat' st 'abanub rasul p 'sarzad"). This statement, made by Mihran/M irian
following the destruction o f the K'art'velian idols by a divinely-dispatched storm, was correctly translated
in Georgian (within this text) as "You speak the truth, O fortunate Queen [i.e., Nino] and apostle o f the
Sun o f God" (see Shat, codex, p. 336j_-j). See: Gvaxaria, "K'art'ul-sporsuli literaturuli urt'iert'obis
sataveebt'an," in M. T*odua, ed., Sparsul-k'art'uli c'dani (1987), pp. 10-12 (with full quotation from the
ed. o f Abuladze); V. Gabashvili, "K'art'ul-sparsuli kulturuli urt'iert'obani (X s.), Mac'neenisa 4
(1983), p. 37; andRayfield, Uterature o f Georgia, p. 52. In The Ufe ofVaxtang, p. 180, Vaxtang's
sobriquet is said to be derived from the Pers. phrase *Dur az gorgasaT or Flee the head o f the wolf."
Rayfield notes two possibilities: either Persian was actually used by the early K 'art'velian kings and/or
this was a later interpolation and Persian was presumably still understood by many elites in the time o f the
author.
10^The O.Pers. han-dardza ("to fasten to, to bind together") is connected to the Av. handarza ("knot,
chain). These terms entered into Georgian, however, through the related Manichee term ndrz ("will")
and the Armenian andarj (ufaiufiA, "will," "testament"). I am grateful to Prof. T . Mgaloblishvili for this
information. Particularly useful is her unpub. "The Ideological Situation in 3rd-4th Century Iberia and
How it is Expressed in Georgian Literature" (ca. 1995), pp. 4 and 41-42 (note 14). (Mgaloblishvili
suggests that words such as anderdzi and iadgari entered O ld Georgian through the Manichees). See
also, Andronikashvili, Narkvevebi, pp. 282-283.
1 0 3 Andronikashvili, Narkvevebi, p. 333. Mgaloblishvili, "The Ideological Situation in 3rd-4th Century
Iberia" (unpub., ca. 1995), pp. 4 and 45 (note 15), who notes that Marr was the first to suggest that
iadgari was a Manichaean term; P. Ingoroqva and G. Ceret'eli later concurred. In Manichaean, iadgari
denotes a "cultic hymn" o r a psalm in memory o f a saint.
168
From this b rief enumeration it is clear that a considerable number o f the most basic o f Christian
terminology was based upon Persian o r even Manichaean roots. These conceptual terms were not purged
from Georgian and were not replaced by Greek equivalents. To the medieval K 'art'velians. and then
Georgians, these words were perfectly Georgian.
W hat was the Persian attitude towards K 'art'li? The Persians themselves regarded K 'art'li as a
part, however peripheral, o f their empire. The connection of the proto-K' art' velians with the Achaemenid
world was already noted by Herodotus in the fifth century BC. Although Herodotus was unfamiliar with
the Iberians and Iberia (the Greek appellations for K 'art'velians and K 'a rt'li respectively ) . 104 he did
know the Tibarenoi, the Mossynoikoi, and the Moschoi (Mesxi-s). These tribes are now recognized as
being proto-K'art'velians.
The latter designation Moschi is related to Mesxi/Mesxet'i (a region in
southern "Georgia"), and the sixth-century Byzantine historian Procopius states that the Meschians
(Mesxi-s, i.e., Herodotus' Moschoi) had been subjected to the K 'art'velians "from ancient times . " 106
Herodotus, drawing upon the evidence o f Hecataeus (early fifth century BC). relates that the nineteenth
satrapy of the Persian king Darius consisted of the Moschoi, the Tibareni. the Makrdes, the Mossynoikoi.
and the Mares.
These are proto-K'art'velians, and so the nexus o f Caucasia and the Persian world
pre-dated even the formation of the K 'art'velian community. Herodotus reports that these protoK 'art'velians were exceedingly similar, being nearly indistinguishable in terms o f the weapons and armor
they employed in warfare.*0** This already suggests the potential for a "unified" K 'art'velian community.
In Herodotus view, this part of Caucasia was:
*^H erodotus wrote at a time before the K'art'velians proper could be regarded as a community. In any
event, he certainly wrote before the establishment o f the K 'art'velian monarchy in the Hellenistic period.
*% .g.: Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 56-57;AUen, "The Ancient Caucasus and the Origin o f the Georgians,"
pp. 544-557; idem., "Ex Ponto V: Heniochi-Aea-Hayasa," BK 8-9 (1960), pp. 79-92; C.F. LehmannHaupt, "On the Origin o f the Georgians." Georgica 1/4-5 (Autumn 1937), pp. 43-79; and N. Xazaradze.
Ocherki drevnei istorii Meskhov (1992), with Eng. sum., "Essay o f the Meskhians Ancient History," pp.
179-181. The Moschoi/Mesxi-s are an extremely ancient community, for they are attested by the form
Mushki in the prologue o f the Anu-Adad prisms o f Tiglath Pileser I ca. 1110 BC and they were also
known to Hecataeus, frag. 288. See E. Herzfeld The Persian Empire, ed. by G. Walser (1968), pp. 124125.
*0 6 Procopius, Wars, VIII.2.24, pp. 70-71.
*^Herodotus, m .94, p. 123. For the notice of Hecataeus, see E. Herzfeld, The Persian Empire, e d by G.
Walser (1968), pp. 288-349 and esp. 313-317.
***Herodotus, VII.78, pp. 386-387. Moreover, the weapons of these proto-K'artvelians were similar to
those of the neighboring Colchians. He reports (VII.78, pp. 388-389) that the Colchian and Marian
troops were under a certain Pharandates (farr + dat - "given by divine grace"; cf. P'arnavaz this
confirms that names based upon p 'ar- were current in ancient Caucasia).
169
... as far as the Persian rule reaches, the country north of the Caucasus paying no regard
to the P ersian s .. . 109
Thus, already in the fifth century BC, Herodotus positioned central Caucasia, including the lands
inhabited by the proto-K'art'velians, w ithin the Persian commonwealth.
The absence o f contemporary Persian historical sources is well documented, yet the few Sasanid
monumental inscriptions that have come down to us impart significant, though scattered, evidence about
the relationship of K 'a rt'li and Persia . 1 1 0 Two such inscriptions, that of Shapur I (240-270) on the
Ka'ba-yi Zardusht and that o f the high-priest Kartir (about a generation after Shapur). count Armenia and
IVyrshnA'lrchcm (Kart'li) among the Persian domains. The Ka'ba-yi Zardusht inscription, also known as
the Great Inscription o f Shapur (the mis-named Res Gestae DM Saporis), carved near Persepolis ca. 262.
preserves the earliest extant Sasanid reference to K 'art'li:
... O n the Aryan Empire [Sasanid Iran] the principalities and the provinces are these:
Pars,
P arth ia,...
Alrupatkan [Azerbaijan],
Armenia [Armny],
K 'a rt'li [Virchan],
Sikan,
Albania \Ardan\,
Balaskan, until forward to the Kap mountains fi.e.. the
Caucasus] and the Alans' gate [i.e., pass]... *
When W.B. Henning described the Shapur inscription in 1939. only its Middle Persian text had been
unearthed. The identification o f the term Wyrshn remained uncertain until the corresponding Greek was
excavated. A comparison o f the texts demonstrates that Wyrshn corresponds to the Greek IBHPIA. i.e..
m lbid., m.97, p. 125.

l l 0 Kart'li is not mentioned in extant Achaemenid and Parthian sources; see Ch'eidze, "Sakart'velos da
k'art'velebis aghmnishvneli terminebi sashualo sparsulsa da part'ul enebshi," in Paichadze, ed.,
Sak'artvelosa da k'art'velebis aghmnishvneli (1993), pp. 118-119.
^
Gestae DM Saporis = ed. by A. M aricq in his Classica et Orientalia (1965), pp. 47-49 and 78;
M. Sprengling, Third Century Iran: Sapor and Kartir (1953), p. 14 and note 2, pp. 21-22; Garsolan, "The
Locus o f the Death o f Kings" (1981), pp. 32-34; and W.B. H enning "The Great Inscription o f Shapur I,"
BSOAS 9/4 (1939), pp. 823-849. See also Braund, Georgia in Antiquity, pp. 239-240.
170
K 'a rt'li.11^ The related Persian designations iVlwch'n, Wyrshn, Waruchan, Virchan were therefore
positively identified as K 'a rt'li . 113 The medieval Armenian designation for K 'art'li. Vlrk' (dfipp). is
probably derived from these Persian forms, although the possibility that it is based upon the Greek Iberia
(cf. Vlrk'and I-bir-ia.) may not be completely discounted11* The inscription's knowledge o f K 'art'li is
not limited a simple toponym. for the Greek part of the inscription mentions to AMAZAEIIOY TOY
BAEIAEQE THE IBHPIAE, or "Amazasp the king o f the Iberians [K 'art'velians ] ." 1 13 This passage
actually refers to the anti-king Amazasp m (260-265), who. with Persian backing, contested the
legitimate king Mirdat II (249-265).116
In the late third/early fourth century, the Sasanid high magus K artir commissioned an inscription
to commemorate his Zoroastrian proselytizing activities. The text enumerates the areas in which
Zoroastrianism had been established and strengthened:
And by me many fires and magi in the empire of Iran were made prosperous. And by
me also for the territory o f non-Iran fires and magi, which were to be for the territoiy o f
non-Iran, wherever the horses and men o f the Kings o f K ings arrived, the city of
Antioch and the country o f Syria and what beyond Syria [is] on [down]ward the city of
Tarsus and the country o f Cilicia and w hat beyond Cilicia is on [downjward the city of
Caesarea and the country o f Cappadocia and way beyond Cappadocia is on [down]ward
until forward to Galatia, and the country o f Armenia, and K 'a rt' li [Vrvcan], and
Albania, and Balaskan until forward to the Alans' pass... there also I by command of
the King of Kings those magi and fires which were put in order. And I did not permit
damage and pillaging to be made, and whatsoever pillaging by any person had been
made, those [things] also by me were taken away, and by m e again to their own country
they were left. 11
1 ^ G . Cereteli's unpub. Iveria mesame saukunis (a.c.) iranul cqaroebshi (1964) is cited by
Mgaloblishvili throughout her "The Ideological Situation in 3rd-4th Century Iberia" (ca. 1995).
1 13 G. Ceret'eli, "Sak'art'velos iranul saxelcodebat'a istoriisatvis," in Paichadze, e d , Sak'art'velosa da
k 'art 'velebis aghmnishvneli. pp. 92-106. with Eng. sum., "Towards the Iranian Designations o f Georgia."
pp. 105-106; and Ch'xeidze. "Sak'art'velos aghmnishvneli terminebi sashualo sparsulsa da part'ul
enebshi." in ibid.. pp. 107-120 with Eng. sum.. "The Terms Designating Georgia and the Georgians in
Middle Persian and Parthian," pp. 118-120. who suggests Waruchan ("K 'art'li") is derived from the
Persian "the country o f wolves."
11*Hewsen in Ananias Shirakec'i, commentary, p. 128; and Garsolan, "V irk'," in The Epic Histories,
toponymy, pp. 500-501. See also the following discussion o f the accounts o f both the Armenian e d of
Hippolytus and Yovhannes Drasxanakertc' i for their use o f Virk' (Iberia) a n d its identification as either
Caucasian, or perhaps, European Iberia.
1 13/?es
Gestae Divi Saporis. para. 60. p. 69.
116Amazasp HI is not recorded in the Georgian historical tradition. See Toumanoff, "The Chronology of
the Early Kings of K 'art'li,"pp. 18-19.
117
1
Sprengling, Third Century Iran, pp. 51-52. I have changed Sprenglings "magimen" to "magi." The
171
This inscription differs from that o f Shapur in that K 'a rt'li is specifically identified as part o f non-Iran
(non-Eran). Braund recently suggested that "non-Iran" as employed in the inscription o f K artir is
"evidently not so much political as ethnic . " 118 The term "ethnic," with all of its modem baggage, is not
easily applied to the pre-modem era. Braund seems to be proposing that while K 'a rt'li could be
considered as a political outpost o f the Sasanid enterprise, the K'art'velian community was not regarded
by the Zoroastrian priest Kartir as being Persian. To be sure, we have no evidence that contemporary
K 'art'velians in any numbers spoke Persian though they occasionally used a local form o f Aramaic, along
with Greek, as their written languages . 119 Perhaps Kartir here was alluding to the slow penetration of
Zoroastrianism among the K 'art'velians, even though he had succeeded in establishing a fire-altar in
K 'art'li. The later Georgian historical tradition does not regard Zoroastrianism as the main religion of
contemporary K 'art'li. Non-Iran in the context o f Kartrrs inscription is likely a designation o f religious
affiliation, and perhaps also reflects the linguistic divergence. But should we abandon the issues of
Zoroastrianism and language for the moment, we have already seen how both the K 'art'velians and
Persians regarded K 'a rt'li as a part o f the Persian world. Palpable differences existed between the two
communities (and to the Sasanids, to be Persian meant to be Zoroastrian). but to exaggerate the social and
cultural divide between the Persians and the K 'art'velians is to obscure their numerous intimate
connections. To be sure, pre-modem identity entailed more than language and religion. But these
elements were, nevertheless, central pillars, and it would seem they were deemed to be the principal diride
between the Persians and K'art'velians. Ultimately, the identification o f K 'art'li as part o f non-Iran
signified that the bulk o f its inhabitants neither spoke Persian nor were Zoroastrians. But this does not
preclude a wide range o f other affinities which intimately bonded K'artli to the Persian world (like social
organization and conceptions o f royal authority).
Also inscribed in the late third century, probably in the period 293-296. the so-called Paikuli
inscription mentions the 'BYR'NK4LKA. or "the king o f Iberia." The fragmentary nature o f this text does
not make it clear whether or not the K 'art'velians are identified as subjects o f the King o f Kings .* 0
parenthetical additions are Sprengling's. Also, in the transliteration of Georgia (Vrvcan). "v" is
linguistically equivalent to "w." Cf. the less obscure rendition of Garsolan. "The Locus o f the Death of
Kings," pp. 32-34.
* *8 Braund, Georgia in Antiquity, pp. 243-244.
* *9 0 n the use o f Aramaic throughout the Near East see J.C. Greenfield, "Aramaic in the Achaemenian
Empire," in CHI, vol. 2 (1985), pp. 698-713 (p. 702 notes the use of Aramaic in Caucasia), and ch. 3.
Paikuli Inscr. = P.O. Skjaervo, The Sassanian Inscription o f Paikuli, parts 3.1-3.2 (1983), text = para.
92, p. 71 (part 3.1) and commentary = p. 126 (part 3.2). Other central Caucasian rulers are named in the
passage: the king o f MSKYT'N, who has been identified as the king of the Albanians. Moreover, a minor
172
What is clear from all three Sasanid inscriptions is that the Persians claimed territories extending at least
to the littoral o f the Black Sea. ^
Though the Persians did not regard the K 'art'velians as part o f their
own community, nevertheless the land o f K 'art'li was believed to be in inherent p a n o f the Empire.
In the first-half of the seventh century, the erudite Armenian geographer Ananias Shirakec' i
composed his Geography (Ashxarhac 'oyc ~). Apart from yielding a wealth of information on Caucasia.
Shirakec'i's treatise constitutes the most detailed extant description o f the Sasanid domains (found only in
the "Long Recension''). He divided Persia into four sectors: K'usti Xorbaran ("the Western region).
K'usti Nmroj ("the Meridional region"), K'usti Xorascm ("the Eastern region"), and K'usti Kapkoh ("the
region o f the Caucasus Mountains"). This last zone is described in the following m anner
{iv.} K'usti Kapkoh, i.e., the 'region o f the Caucasus Mountains' in

which are thirteen provinces:
Atrapatakan;
Armn, [i.e.,] Armenia;
Vagan, i.e., Iberia [K 'art'li];
Ran, i.e., Albania;
Balasakan;
Sisakan;
Are;
Gegham
Shanchan;
Dlmunk';
Dmbawand;
Taprestan;
Rwan;
and Ami,
o f all o f which we are going to speak. ^ 2
Thus a large part o f Caucasia, including K 'art'li. Armenia, and Caucasian Albania, is enumerated in
contemporary written monuments as integral to the fourth region o f the kingdom o f Persia.
The canonical Bible does not refer explicitly to K'art'li/Iberia, so no connection o f K 'art'li with
the Persian world is suggested there. However, in The Sibylline Oracles, an Old Testament apocryphal
ruler, the MWSHK'NMROHY, o r the Lord of the M oshk (cf. Gk. MOEXOI and Georgian Mesxi-s) is
mentioned; M esxet'i is a southern region in modem Georgia.
^ B r a u n d , Georgia in Antiquity, p. 242.
*22Ananias Shirakeci, V.29 (Long Recension only), p. 72. Although Shirakec'i promises to return to
this topic, he does n o t
173
work written down in Greek between ca. 160 BC and the fifth century AD, K 'art'li is associated with
Persia in a prophecy which foretold o f the destruction o f both:
... Go to the E a st to the senseless Persian tribes, and signify to them the present and that
which is to be. The stream o f the Euphrates shall bring on a flood and it shall destroy
Persians and Iberians and Babylonians, and Massagetae lovers o f w a r . . . 123
We possess no evidence that medieval K 'art'velians were familiar with this tex t
The economic integration o f K 'art'li within the Persian world is attested by numismatic
evidence. ^
T . Abramishvili studied the Parthian/Arsarid coins unearthed on Georgian territory, 125
documenting a total o f fifty-five separate finds, forty-six o f which are situated in eastern Georgia (i.e..
K 'art'li and Kaxet'i). Most o f these were found in the basin o f the Mtkuari River, the transport and trade
artery extending through the length o f K 'art'li. The vast majority o f the Parthian coins analyzed by
Abramishvili were excavated in the context o f elite burial sites. The chronological distribution o f the 274
Parthian coins, all o f which are silver drachms with the exception o f a solitary copper coin discovered
near Gori, found in K 'artli (up to 1974) is:
Centurv o f minting
Number o f specimens and ruler
2nd century BC
1st century BC
5
no
1st century AD
157
2nd century AD
(4 o f Mithridates H [ca. 124/3 BC])

(76 of Orodes I [between ca. 9078/77 BC]; 10 o f Phraates IV [ca. 40 BCD
(150 o f Gotarzes II [43/4-50/1 AD] and
one copper coin)
(both o f Mithridates IV [ca. 130-147])
Abramishvili noted that many o f the Parthian coins discovered in Georgia were buried together with
Roman aurei and denarii, and it is very probable that they circulated side-by-side in K 'art'li (see further).
Moreover, the syncretism o f Greek and Persian culture typical o f Arsacid Iran was manifest on coinage.
^S ib yllin e Oracles, V. 113-117, p. 399.

l 2 4 0 n Sasanid numismatics see: R. Gdbl, Sasanidische Numismatik (1968); R.N. Frye, e d , Sasanian
Remainsfrom Oasr-i Abu Nasr: Seals, Sealings, and Coins (1973); and F.D.J. Paruck, Sasanian Coins
(1976).
125
T . Abramishvili, Sak'art'velossaxelmcip'o muzeumispart'uli monetebiskatalogi (1974), with

extensive Rus. sum., "Katalog parfianskikh monet Gosudarstvennogo muzeia Gruzii," pp. 109-141, and
Eng. sum , pp. 142-145.
174
since up to the first century AD they bore only Greek titles and epithets; *2<* it is only from Vologeses I
(51-80 AD) that Parthian inscriptions were employed. Before the first century AD, the coins routinely
bear only the throne name o f the dynasty in Greek, BAEIAEQE MErAAOY APEAKOY.1 2 7 These coins
are a testament to the intimate contact o f the Arsacids and the K'art'velians. Ironically, through the
intermediary o f the Arsacids, the K 'art'velians were surely introduced to some aspects o f Greek
civilization, though Georgian texts do not enlighten this point
Numismatic evidence confirms that the successors of the Arsacids. the Sasanids. m aintained the
economic and political tie with K 'art'li an d Caucasia. Over fifteen separate hoards o f Sasanid coins have
been unearthed on the territory o f m odem Georgia . 128 All of them were discovered in eastern and
southeastern Georgia, that historical region o f K 'a rt'li described as a part o f the Sasanid Em pire by the
contemporary sources. There have also been numerous accidental finds o f loose Sasanid coinage in
K 'art'li. Sasanid coins found in Georgia have been the subject o f several studies, the most significant o f
which were authored by M. Tsotselia, T . Abramishvili, and I. Jalagania. The earliest documented
specimens were minted during the reign o f Shapur I (240-270). However, large numbers o f Sasanid coins
date only from the fifth century, 129 being predominately silver, suggesting intermediate-distance trade
^ Iro n ic a lly , some Greek influences were almost certainly transmitted to early K 'art'li through the
intermediary o f the Iranian Arsacids.
12 7
Abramishvili, Sak'art velossaxelmcip'o muzeumispart'uli monetebis katalogi: and V. Lukonin, "The

King o f Kings o f Iran: The Conception o f Royal Authority," in his "Political, Social and Administrative
Institutions, Taxes and Trade," in CHI, vol. 3/2 (1983), pp. 684-692. The syncretism o f Greek and
Persian culture in neighboring Pontic society is discussed by B.C. McGing, The Foreign Policy o f
Mithridates VI Eupator, King o f Pontus (1986), pp. 168-169 et sqq. Ironically, some Greek influence
almost certainly penetrated K 'art' li from Arsacid Iran.
*28Important hoards were recorded at Katexi, Baisubani, and Ibrahim-Hajida (in Kaxet'i-Kuxet'i),
Bolnisi. Ujarma, Ghulelebi, Urbnisi, Sach'xere, and M c'xeta. That is to say, all Sasanid hoards found in
Georgia were found within the extent o f the ancient kingdom and not within the western domains (a fewchance finds are recorded from there, as a t C' ixisdziri, Qvirila, and Chiat'ura). Roman and Byzantine
coinage is considerably more common in the western domains and in Armenia. For a map o f these finds,
see Musxelishvili, Sak'art'velosistoriuligeograp'iis dzirit'adi sakit'xebi, vol. 1, map 1 entitled
"Kavkasiashi V-VII ss. sasanuri da bizantiuri ok'rosa da verc'xlis monetebis aghm och'enat'a."
150
We do possess Achaemenid, Parthian, and Sasanid artifacts (found in Georgia) predating the fifth
century, including silver bowls, jewelry, and seals. See: P.O. Harper with P. Meyers, Silver Vessels o f the
Sasanian Period, vol. 1 = Royal Imagery (1981), esp. pp. 24-31,36-39, and 124-127 with plates 1-2; K'.
Javaxishvili, Urbnisis nak'alak'arisgliptikuri dzeglebi (1972); K.G. Mach'abeli, "Neskofko pamiatnikov
sasanidskoi torevtiki v Gruzii," Mac'ne 3 (1972), pp. 48-72; and Braund, Georgia in Antiquity, pp. 236267 et sqq.
Several o f the silver bowls found in Georgia both Sasanid and Roman are pictured in
Jewellery and Metalwork in the Museums o f Georgia (1986), esp. A. Javaxishvili, "Jewellery and
Metalwork in Pre-Christian Georgia," pp. 14-23 and plates 52 (w/Antinous, second century AD), 53
(w/Fortune, second century), 57 (w/Persian ruler [unnamed], third century), 58 (w/horse, fourth century),
62 (w/Marcus Aurelius, second-third centuries), 63 (w/horse, third-fourth centuries), 64 (w/dog and bear,
175
between Persia and K 'a rt'li.
A hoard o f fifth-century Sasanid drachms were found in 1970 at Bolnisi.
the location of a late fifth century church, upon which is carved an inscription mentioning the shahanshah
Peroz (459-484).
T he Bolnisi find consisted o f twenty-eight drachms that were minted under the same
Peroz. A wide array o f Sasanid mints are represented by these coins: Khorasan, Fars. Media. Suristan.
Kerman, and M ah . 132
Sometimes Sasanid coins were buried together with Roman/Byzantine ones. These hoards
include those discovered at T b ilisi, M agranet'i (just north o f T bilisi), and Cit'eli-cqaro .* 3 3 Although
only ten coins from the C'iteli-cqaro hoard are Byzantine (from the period o f Heraclius), 1268 are
Sasanid. The Sasanid coins o f the Cit'eli-cqaro hoard represent the reigns o f three sha ha n sha h s:^
Shahanshah
Number of specimens
Khusrau I (531-579)
Hurmazd IV (579-590)
Khusrau II (590-628)
96
743
429
These Sasanid coins bear various mint marks, the great majority o f them from western Persia (the part of
the empire closest to K 'a rt'li). ^3 3 Although the Sasanids operated m ints in many major cities, including
third century), 6 8 (w/abstract design, third century), 69 (fragment, third century). 74 (w/unidentified
monogram, third century), 75 (w/horse, third-fourth centuries), and 78 (w/eagle. third-fourth centuries).
These bowls were found at Armazis-q'evi (near M c'xet'a) (4), B aginet'i (1). Zguderi (2). Xvashxieti (1).
C'xinvali (1), M agranet'i-Erco (1), and Aragvis-piri (2). The presence o f both Sasanid and Roman silver
bowls in antique K 'art'velian burials testifies to the competition of Rome and Persia.
130Only four copper Sasanid coins have been discovered in K 'art'li; see M. Tsotselia, Katalog
sasanidskikh monet Gruzii (1981). Eng. sum., pp. 265-266.

Ill
On Bolnisi, see infra. O n its inscriptions see V. Silogava, Bolnisis udzvelesi k'art'uli carcerebi
(1994), with Eng. sum., "The Oldest Georgian Inscriptions o f Bolnisi," pp. 93-109.
113
T . Abramishvili and M.V. Tsotseliia, "Klad sasanidskikh drakhm iz Bolnisi," in Numizmaticheskii

sbomikposviashchaetsiapamiati D.G. Kapanadze (1977), pp. 150-158. Those coins which may be
positively dated were m inted in the period 464-466.
111
Another such hoard is that found in M agranet'i, in the region o f T ia n e t'i, in 1967. The find
consisted of eleven Sasanid drachms (Khusrau 1 2; Hurmazd IV 7; and Khusrau n 2) as well as
eight Byzantine coins from the period o f Heraclius. See T . Abramishvili, "Klad monet iz Magraneti," in
Numizmaticheskii sbomik posviashchaetsia pamiati D.G. Kapanadze, pp. 73-82.
I
I.
Dzhalagania, Monetnye klady Gruzii: klad sasanidskikh i vizantiiskikh monet iz Tsiteli Tskaro
(pervaia chast) (1980), pp. 5-6 and 135 and part 2 (1982), pp. 129 and 132.
^ E . g . , Dzhalagania, Monetnye klady Gruzii (1980), p. 135; and Tsotseliia, "O monetnykh dvorakh
sasanidskogo Irana," Soobshcheniia AN GSSR 77/1 (1975), pp. 233-236, with Eng. stun., "Concerning the
176
within Armenia (whose mints employed the marie "ARM"), we do not know o f any mint-marks that
designate a location within K 'a r t'li.* ^ However, there was probably a Sasanid mint in K 'art'li. perhaps
in Tp'ilisi and/or M c'xet'a, by the sixth century. From that time we possess a few exceptional examples
o f Sasanid coins with Georgian-Christian inscriptions . 1 3 7 These crudely-cut coins are exceedingly rare,
however, and their original numbers, the extent of their circulation, and whether their minting was
authorized by Seleucia-Ktesiphon are mysteries. It should be noted that no Roman/Byzantine coins
bearing Georgian inscriptions are known to have existed.
Cosmopolitanism Admitted and Explained
In the aftermath o f the civil war which erupted following UpTos' accession as ruler of the
K'art'losiani-s, all o f the T argam osiani-s*^ were immediately faced w ith the prospect o f external
domination. In describing this situation. The Ufe o f the Kings introduces several non-K'art'velian
communities which were to play a conspicuous part in subsequent K 'art'velian history. This overt
admission, and rather positive interpretation, of the cosmopolitan nature o f K 'art'velian culture and
society is characteristic o f pre-Bagratid Georgian historical writing and contrasts sharply with later
(especially Bagratid-era) works.
The author o f The Ufe o f the Kings was fully cognizant of the marriage o f cultures which
characterized K 'art'li, and in his attempt to explain how this situation had evolved, he anachronistically
projected some communities into remote antiquity. The "Khazars," the.Yazar-s (b ib i6 -5 o ). are perhaps
the most prominent example, for in the initial pages of The Ufe o f the Kings the T*argamosiani-s were
compelled to pool their resources so as to confront the mounting threat o f Khazar consolidation. For their
part, the Khazars elected a king and marched on Daruband. one o f the most important north/south passes
through the rugged Greater Caucasus range. The Khazars routed the T'argamosiani forces and the latter
Mints o f Sasanian Iran," p. 236.

*Ê .A . Pakhomov, Monety Gruzii (1970), pp. 17-36; D.G. Kapanadze, Gruzinskaia numizmatika (1955),
pp. 46-48; and Tsotseliia, "O monetnykh dvorakh sasanidskogo Irana," (1975), pp. 233-236.
**^Considered infra, chapter five.
*^8The T argamosiani-s included the K art'losiani clan.
177
were reduced into tributaries . 1 3 9 (It should be emphasized that the Khazars are confined to the opening
section o f The Ufe o f the Kings).
In reality, the Khazars could not have intimidated the T argamosiani-s (assuming the}'
themselves existed) since a Khazar confederation was established only in the course of the sixth century
AD . 1"*1 But in the author's time, that is to say at the beginning o f the ninth century, the Khazars were
well-known to the K'art'velians. In the seventh century the Byzantine emperor Heraclius had marched
against the Persians and himself had led raids into K 'art'li. The siege o f Tp'ilisi was spearheaded by a
reliable core o f Khazar mercenaries, and the emperor even installed a Khazar leader to administer the
city once it had been sacked.
Immediately prior to the composition o f The U fe o f the Kings, the eighth-century Martyrdom o f
Habo related how the K 'art'velian erist'avi Nerse fled in the face o f Muslim raids to Khazaria:
And the Lord saved him from the hands [of the Saracens], and he passed through the
pass of Ovset'i, which is called Darieli [Darial Pass]. Among the 300 men o f his escort
[err] was Habo, the blessed slave o f C hrist But Nerse came as a refugee from his own
land to the land o f the north, where is the station [sabanako: cf. banaki. "camp"] and
abode [sadguri\ o f the sons o f Magog, who are called the Khazars. [They are] wild men.
fearsome of face, savage in character, drinkers o f blood: [they] do not hav e a religion,
except that they recognize a god the creator. And when the erist'avi Nerse entered the
presence of the King o f the Heathens [mep'isa mis carmart't'asa\. the latter greeted him
graciously, as a stranger and a refugee from his enemies, and he gave [Nerse] and all
o f his entourage food and drink.
Unlike the account in The Ufe o f the Kings, this one describes a contemporary event. The Khazars o f The
Martyrdom o f Habo are, in fact, the historical ones.

At the moment when the Khazars disappear from the pages o f The Ufe o f the Kings, the rise of
the Ovsi-s (cn3 b-6 o) is reported. 1-13 Uobos. the son of an unnamed Khazar king, is identified as the
1 3 9 77re Life o f the Kings, pp. 11-12. The Old Georgian term moxarke designates a tributary: cf. xarki. or
"tribute/tax."
140-rhe influence of the Khazar, and other Turkic languages (including Qipchaq but especially the later
Oghuz dialect), on Georgian is considered by P.B. Golden, "The Oghuz Turkic (Ottoman/Safavid)
Elements in Georgian: Background and Patterns," in A. Ascher, T. Halasi-Kun, and B.K. Kiraly. eds..
The Mutual Effects o f the Islamic and Judeo-Christian Worlds: The East European Pattern (1979). pp.
183-208. With respect to language, it should be noted that The Ufe o f the Kings itself asserts that several
languages, including Khazar, were spoken in early K 'art'li.
141On this anachronism of the Khazars see ch. 1.
^ M a r t. Habo, pp. 58 = Lang trans., p. 118. See also P. Peeters, "Les Khazars dans la Passion de S. Abo
de Tiflis," AB 52 (1934), pp. 21-56.
178
eponym of the Ovsi tribe (Uobos//Uob. b o v , u o o v , Ov[s]i). This is noteworthy, for the author did not
place the Ovsi-s o f northern Caucasia directly in the stenuna o f the K 'art'velians or even the larger
T argamosiani-s, and did not imply their political subordination. Thus, the Ovsi-s were conceived as
having a distinct origin.
That is not to say that the K 'art'velians and the Ovsi-s did not entertain intimate associations.
When the "Khazar" hegemony over the T argamosiani-s waned, the Persian king Ap'ridon invaded
K 'art'li and installed Ardami as erist'avi. ^
In their attempt to repel the domination o f the Persians, the
K'art'velians solicited Ovsi assistance. The K'art'velians, as noted above, had become emboldened on
account of a civil war among the sons o f the deceased Ap'ridon that was being waged in Persia:
And all [those] Persians who were found by the Ovsi-s a n d the K 'art'velians were put to
death, and the K 'art'velians were liberated, but Rani an d Heret' i remained [in the
possession of] the Persians.
The Ovsi-s figure prominently in the pre-Bagratid histories o f K'art'lis c'xovreba. They could
produce goliath-kings, such as the brothers and duel-kings Bazuk and Abazuk .146 The existence o f Ovsi
bumberazi-s (duelist-champions) demonstrates that The Ufe o f the Kings regards that tribe, like the
K'art'velians themselves, as part o f the Persian world. Other Ovsi-s distinguished themselves in battle,
like a certain Xuanxua who opposed the K 'art'velian king Amazasp H (185-189 AD) in single
combat. ^
Furthermore, the Ovsi-s, like the Khazars, possessed their own kings (and often dual kings as
was common among other Turkic peoples), who were afforded the same title (mep'e) as the K'art'velian.
Persian, and Roman/Byzantine monarchs.
^ T h e medieval geographical designation O vset'i is mirrored in the m odem Oset'i (or the Anglicized
Ossetia). Byzantine literature usually refered to the Ovsi-s, and nearby tribes, as the Alans and their
homeland as Alania. Cf. the modem Ossetia/Oset' i.
^ 7 7 r e Ufe o f the Kings, p. 13, which relates that Ardami was made erist'avi "for [Apridon's] army."
This reflects the early meaning o f err. i.e.. army (later the word came to designate "people" or the Biblical
"throng, masses"). Thus, erist'avi literally means "head of the army." In later contexts it is better
rendered as "regional governor" (cf. Toumanoff s translation o f the term, "duke"). For a brief discussion
o f the term, see E. Xoshtaria-Brosse, "Dzveli k 'a rt'u li mcerlobis dzeglebshi gamoqenebuli terminebis 'eris*
da misgan nacarmoebi 'erisaganis,' eriskac'is da 'saeros' soc ialur-samart'lebrivi aspek'tebi," Mac'ne 2
(1990), pp. 123-129.
The Ufe o f the Kings, p.

Heret' i is situated east o f K 'art'li.
Rani corresponds to Caucasian Albania (part o f modem Azerbaijan);
l46Ibid., pp. 45-46.

147Ibid., p. 56.
179
The Ovsi-s could be both the trusted ally and abhorred enemy o f the early K 'art'velian kings.
P'arnavaz allegedly employed Ovsi-s in his rebellion against Alexander's representative Azon. As a token
of his appreciation, he gave his own sister in marriage to their m e p 'e } ^ In contrast, the Ovsi threat
served as the backdrop for the accession ofVaxtang Gorgasali: he initiated his reign with a campaign
against the Ovsi-s, but this did not rid K 'a rt'li o f the danger, and later he was compelled to offer great
concessions so as to liberate his sister MiranduxL 149 An eighteenth-century Vaxtangiseuli insertion into
The Ufe o f the Kings, the so-called Wandering and Preaching o f the Apostle Andrew , recounts th a t"... the
great Andrew, accompanied by Simon [the Canaanite], came to the land o f O vset'i and entered the city
which was called F ostap' ori, in which they performed great miracles and they converted a multitude o f
people..."
Ovsi power waxed and waned, but the durability of that tribe (or at least its name) is
attested even in the eleventh century and later. ^

The Turk'-s (oj^jthJ-So) are initially mentioned in the context o f posing a threat to the eastern
frontier o f Persia. But some o f these "Turks" eventually are thought to have settled in Caucasia.
Following a successful Persian offensive. The Ufe o f the Kings reports that twenty-eight "houses" o f Turks
sought refuge in M c'xet'a. Having petitioned for aid, the mamasaxlisi o f M c'xet'a settled these Turks to
the west o f the city at a place called Sarkine. Consequently they regrouped and confronted the Persians
with K 'art'velian considerable backing, the anonymous author reporting that "these Turks voluntarily
allied with the K 'a r t'v e lia n s ." ^
Later in The U fe o f the Kings we find the enigmatic Bunt'uric' -s (&)603136 ,3 -6 0 ; perhaps "the
original T uric' -s") residing in Sarkine.
The Primary History o f K'art 'li is fam iliar with "the savage
^ I b id pp. 21 and 24. P'arnavaz himself married a Dirdzuki, another northern Caucasian tribe {ibid.,
p. 25).
^ 9The Ufe ofVaxtang, p. 157, for the release of his sister. K. Gamsaxurdia suggested that this episode
was patterned upon the Persian epos', see ch. 5.
^ T h e Ufe o f the Kings, p. 42; cf. the trans. o f the Georgian text in.4rm. Adapt. K'C', Thomson trans.,
p. 359. Chi the alleged apostolic mission o f Andrew in Caucasia, see ch. 4.
^ T h e Ufe o f Davit', pp. 218-219 = Qauxch'ishvili ed., p. 360.
^ T h e Ufe o f the Kings, p. 15 9 .
^ T h e Ufe o f the Kings, p. 18. Andronikashvili, Narkvevebi, pp. 296-297, links the prefix "bun-" with
the Georgian buneba, "nature." Buneba is based upon the Av. buna and Phi. bun; cf. the Armenian bun
and bnut'iwn. Perhaps Bunt'uric'-s designated the proto-Turks. Cf. Brosset, Hist, de la Georgie, p. 33,
footnote 33, who identifies them as "Turks primitifs." See also Gvasalia, Istoricheskaia geografiia vost.
Gruzii (1991), pp. 154-155. Mamula, cited ibid., contends that the legend o f the B unt'urk'-s cannot
predate the sixth century AD, for their memory represents the consolidation o f the Huns and the "Turks"
in the fourth through sixth centuries.
180
tribes o f the Bunt'urk'-s who lived along the course o f the Mtkuari [River] in four cities and their
environs." These four cities are identified as Sarkine, Kaspi, Urbnisi, and Odzrq'e. all situated just to the
west o f M c'xet'a/Tp'ilisi. The Bunt'uric'-s allegedly ate every sort o f animal indiscriminately, and did not
bury their dead, even consuming the deceased. This description emphasizes that these tribes were
uncivilized According to The Primary History o f K'art'li, Alexander the Great regarded the Bunt'urk'-s
as the ancient tribe o f the "Iebosi-s" (oa&cnb-5o). 15* These Iebosi-s should be equated with the Biblical
Jebusite tribe which inhabited Jerusalem before David's conquest Joshua XVQI.28 equated "Jehus" with
early Jerusalem while I Chronicles XI. 4-5 related that "David and all Israel went to Jerusalem, which is
Jebus, where the Jebusites were, the inhabitants o f [that] land.." 1 5 5 The Primary History o f K'art 'li thus
identifies the Bunt'uric'-s residing in K 'art'li at the time o f Alexander's alleged invasion as the
descendants o f the Jebusites. The B unt'urk'-s seem to be forerunners o f the K 'art'velians in The Primary
History o f K'art'li, but the precise connection o f the two is extremely vague. In any event, the author
depicts the Bunt'urk'-s as a tribe which had migrated to Caucasia. But instead o f tracing their origin to
Inner Asia (which would be logical should we associate the B unt'urk'-s with the Turkic peoples). The
Primary History ofK'art'li portrays them as the descendants o f the pre-Davidic inhabitants o f Jerusalem,
thus linking K 'a rt'li with the Holy Land and Biblical antiquity.
The Ufe o f the Kings also calculates an ancient origin for Jewish settlements in K 'a rt'li . 156 The
Georgian term for the Jews is Uria-ni/Huria-ni (g6oA-6oA3g6oA-6o). Judea is usually rendered as
Uriastani (g ( 6o 4 b<$,j6 o ),15^ while some texts, especially hagiographical ones, favor IsraeliiIsraeli
154Prim. Hist. K 'art 'li, p. 81.

1 5 5 77ie Old Testament in Greek According to the Septuagint, e d by H.B. Swete, vols. 1-2 (1925 and
1930), v. 1, p. 458 ( Joshua) and v. 2, p. 25 (I Chronicles). The Georgian version o f The Cave o f
Treasures is familiar with the Jebusites but does not equate them with the B unt'urk'-s or even place them
in K 'artli: Cave ofTreasures-Georgian, XXVIII.8 ; XXDC3; and XXXI.7. The Jebusites are included in
a Tthirteenth-century Georgian enumeration o f the peoples of the w o rld see K. Kekelidze, "Xalxt a
klasip'ikaciisa da geograp'iuli ganrigebis sakit'xebi dzvels k'art'ul mcerlobashi: Liber Generationis-is
k 'a rt'u li versia," his Etiudebi, vol. 1, p. 179.
156For a general account o f Jewish communities in K 'a rt'li and then Georgia, see "Georgia," in
Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 7 (1971), pp. 423-427; an d Z . Chichinadze, K'art'veli ebraelebi

sak'art'veloshi (1990, repr. 1904), w ith a new endnote by V. Ch'flcovani. See also Kakabadze, Vaxtang
gorgasali da misi xana, pp. 64-66.
15 Ûriastani, i.e., Judea, is found once in the early histories of K'C': "But in the first year o f the reign [of
K ing Aderid] O ur Lord Jesus Christ was bom in Bethlehem in Judea [Bet'Iems uriastanisasa]." See The
U fe o f the Kings, p. 35 14 . 15 . The O ld Georgian version oL4c/s XVII. 1 and .5 gives the form
(Howria) (see Garritte, e d , p. 112 = 10th century MS). Some Georgian texts prefer the term Ebrael-ni,
i.e., Hebrews, for the Jews; see, for example, K. Kekelidze, "Xalxt'a klasip'ikaciisa da geograp'iuli
ganrigebis sakit'xebi dzvels k 'art'u l mcerlobashi: Uber Generationis-is k 'art'u li versia," in his Etiudebi,
vol. 1, p. 179 (as quoted from MS 1469, M 10v-l lv [fond A], Georgian State Museum). The term Ebraeli
is also encountered in The Ufe o f Davit', in which we find references to Josephus the Hebrew (Iosipos
181
(ob 6 6 3 go/ob<i)tGK)). The Life o f the Kings accurately, but perhaps coincidentally, maintains that these
Jewish communities, like the one in M c'xet'a, were very old:
And from that tim e [when the Turks settled a t Saridne] many [years] passed. Then
King Nebuchadnezzar [Nabukodonosori] seized Jerusalem, and Jews [Uriani] fled from
there and came to K 'art'li. and they asked the mamasaxlisi of M c'xet'a for [a parcel] o f
tributary land. He gave them [a place] and settled them on the Aragui [River], at [its]
source, which is called Zanavi. And the land which he gave them under tribute is now
called X eriri.^*
This account ultimately may be traced to Jeremiah LII, which records Nebuchadnezzar's capture of
Jerusalem and the enslavement o f the Jews. *5 9 Howev er, no Biblical passage mentions the K'art'velians
or K 'art'li. According to the Georgian historical tradition, this initial migration o f Jews to K 'art'li was
followed by another during the time o f Vespasian. Two related accounts have survived to this day. F irst
that o f The Ufe o f the Kings asserts that:
... during the reigns o f [the diarchs Bartom and K 'art'am ] Vespasian, the caesar o f the
Romans [hromt'a keisari] seized Jerusalem, an d from there Jews [ Uriani] came as
exiles to M c'xet'a, and they settled with the Jews [who had settled there] earlier, [and]
among these [newly arrived Jews] were the sons o f Bar-Abbas, whom the Jews had
released at the Crucifixion o f the Lord in the place o f our Lord Jesus . . . 160
And second, in the Royal U st I, we find a corrupted and condensed version of the aforementioned
account:
ebraeli; p. 192 = Qauxch'ishvili e d . p. 342) and Mosimaxos the Hebrew (ibid., p. 202 = Qauxch'ishvili
e d , pp. 348-349). The same source also makes use o f the word "Hellene" (elini) as opposed to "Greek"
(berda). Thus we have Aristobulus o f the Hellenes (Aristavli elint'a, ibid., p. 102 = Qauxch'ishvili e d , p.
342) and Achilles the Hellene (ibid., p. 202 = Qauxch'ishvili e d , p. 348). The Armenian adaptation of
K'C' offers the terms <ytujjp (H reayk = "Jews") and 'ftuupuili (Hreastan = "Judea").
The U fe o f the Kings, pp. I 5 2 3 - I 6 3 . Xerki, cf. xarld or "tribute."
1 59 Cf. Movses Xorenac'i, 1.22, pp. 110-111, who counts the Bagratuni-s among the Jews seized by
Nebuchadnezzar (i.e the famous Babylonian Captivity). It is signifcant that The U fe o f the Kings made
no such attempt to explain the antiquity or the Jewish connection o f the Bagratids, and in fact, does not
know the Bagratids in any connection whatsoever.
^ I b id ., p. 4 4 2 . 5 . The line indicators in Qauxch' ishvilis e d are misaligned for this page. Cf. Arm.
Adapt. K 'C \ p. 48 = Thomson trans., p. 52, which refers to Bar-Abbas as a "brigand" and mentions Pilate
with regards to the Crucifixion.
182
And in Armazi K 'arram reigned, and in M c'xet'a Bratman, and during their reigns
Jews [Huriani] arrived and settled in M c'xet'a . 161
Although the Georgian historical tradition accurately recollects, perhaps by accident, that Jewish
communities had been established in K 'a rt'li already in antiquity, the details given o f this colonization are
both meager and legendary. T . Mgaloblishvili and Yu. Gagoshidze have successfully proven that a great
many Jews actually migrated to K 'a rt'li and Caucasia following the Jewish Wars in the Levant from the
end of the first and throughout the second centuries AD . 162 The recollection by The Life o f the Kings and
Royal List I about early Jewish colonies seems to be based on a sound historical recollection.
Armenian and Jewish sources attest an early Jewish presence in neighboring Armenia, and this
supports the theory o f early Jewish migrations to Caucasia. J. Neusner traced Jewish settlements in
Armenia to at least the first century BC. ^
The major Armenian source for such a presence is Movses
Xorenac'i. Xorenac'i, like the author o f The Ufe o f the Kings, was an image-maker. His exposition o f
early Jewish colonies in Armenia was part and parcel o f his argument that the Bagratuni-s were originally
Jews and that they had been among the very first Armenians to convert to Christianity. The presence o f
Jews throughout Armenia, it was hoped, would lend credence to Xorenac'is claim o f Bagratid origin. The
Ufe o f the Kings, it should be noted, makes no such pronouncement on behalf o f the K'art'velian
Bagratids (who are not mentioned in that text).
The K 'art'velian Jews16* were understood by later historians to have m aintained regular
communications with Jews throughout the Near East, and particularly at Antioch and Jerusalem. At the
time of Christ's birth, the Jews o f Ka rt'li reportedly received information from their brethren in
^ Royal U st I, p. 82.
^ 2 T. Mgaloblishvili and Yu. Gagoshidze, "The Jewish Diaspora and Early Christianity in Georgia,"
unpub. paper from the Early Christianity and Georgia Symposium (Tbilisi. Oct. 1991). t.b.p. in the
forthcoming initial vol. o f Iberica-Caucasica.
*2 J. Neusner, "The Jews in Pagan Armenia," JAOS 84 (1964), pp. 230-240. The Jewish sources o f the
Talmudic period mentioning Jews in Armenia include the Targum and the Midrash (pp. 232-234). A
later medieval Jewish source links the Armenians and the Old Testament figure Japheth (see ch. 1).
Neusner also notes that the Jews of Armenia, like their brethren in K 'art'li, were am ong the early converts
to Christianity, some even Christianizing under the hand o f Gregory the Illuminator (p. 235). See also:
Movses Xorenac'i, III.35, pp. 292-294; T o m v a Arcrani, 1.9, pp. 120-121; and N.O. Emin, "Evreiskie
pereselentsy v drevnei Armenii," in his Izsledovaniia i stat'i (1896), pp. 117-121.
1 ^ 1 usually avoid the term "K art'velian Jew." This term denotes Jews living within the confines o f
K 'art'li, but it might also imply the acculturation o f Jews residing there. The degree and type of this
acculturation, should it have existed (and it probably did), is unknown since we lack contemporary
historical evidence.
183
Jerusalem . 1 6 5 In The Life o f Nino, Abiat'ar, the Jewish priest o f Mcxeta who him self became a
Christian under the hand o f Nino, remarked that he maintained a regular exchange o f letters with the
Jews o f Antioch . 166 But these are considerably later traditions so we must question whether these alleged
contacts actually existed in antiquity.
The Jews of K 'a rt'li are not mentioned in the earliest surviving works o f Georgian literature.
Jews are completely absent from the hagiographical accounts o f The Martyrdom o f Shushaniki (fifthcentury) and The Martyrdom o f Habo (eighth-century). But the sixth-century Martyrdom o f Evstat 7
asserts that Evstat'i, the son o f a Zoroastrian magus, resolved to convert to either Judaism or Christianity.
In the end Evstat'i was baptized as a Christian, but only after being informed by the Christian priest
Samoel about how God cam e to disfavor the Jews . 16 7 In any event, this text does not report on Jews
living within the confines o f K 'art'li. O f course, these texts were overtly Christian and in no way sought
to praise Judaism.
A more "positive" view emerged in the early Bagratid period by which Jews could be praised so
long as they became Christians. According to the ninth-/tenth-century Ufe o f Nino, both M c'xet'a and
Urbnisi had Jewish districts, and the illuminatrix herself frequented Jewish temples throughout
K 'art'li . 1 6 8 Nino is said to have known some Hebrew, having studied it in Jerusalem, and she conversed
freely with the Jews about the location of the Lords Tunic. Medieval K 'art'velians believed that the tunic
had been brought by Jews from Jerusalem, at the time of Christs crucifixion, to M c'xet'a . 169 This legend
not only reflected to the early settlement of Jews in M c'xet'a, but served to link K 'a rt'li with Jerusalem as
well as to demonstrate that K 'art' li had a special connection with Christ. Among the first converts of
Nino was a Jewish priest from M c'xet'a by the name of A biat'ar (Abiathar) . 176 It is no coincidence that
165 77e Life
166 77je Life
o f Nino in C'x. k'art'. mep'et'a, p. 95.
167
101Mart. Evstat'i, pp. 35-42. In his recollection o f the Judaic past, the priest Samoel enumerates an
interesting version of the Ten Commandments {ibid., p. 37).
168 7he Life o f Nino in C'x. k'art'. mep'et'a, p. 95 (for M c'xet'a) and pp. 87-88(for Urbnisi and Jewish
temples in K 'art'li). In addition, when Alexander invaded K 'art'li. he found "Zanavi.the district o f the
Jews [ubani u r ia t'a \ see The Ufe o f the Kings, pp. 17-18. The Life o f the Kings gives us another
indication that Hebrew was spoken in K 'art'li. Prior to the rise o f Alexander we are told that six tongues
were spoken there: Armenian, Georgian. Khazar. Syriac, Hebrew, and Greek (p. 16).
169 77re U fe o f Nino in C'x. k'art'. mep'et'a, pp. 97-108. An earlier notice was inserted into The Ufe o f
the Kings under the reign o f King Aderki (1-58 AD), i.e.. the monarch at the tim e the tunic was allegedly
brought to M c'xeta; see The Ufe o f the Kings, pp. 36-38.
170 77ie U fe o f Nino in C'x. k'art'. mep'et'a, p. 95. Nino is said to have converted the priest Abiat'ar, his
daughter Sidonia, and six other Jewish women.
184
Abiat'ar's namesake was the priest who consecrated the O ld Testament K ing David, for The Life o f Nino
attained its received form at the time that the Bagratids (who themselves claimed descent from David; see
chapter six) were ascending to power.
Jews are mentioned throughout The Life o f Nino. Still. K 'art'velian Jews (huriat'a k'art'velt'a.
JigrtoiOA 3 a6 o )3 3 2 M )a)^ are not explicitly referred to outside the corpus o f C xorebav k'art 'veil a
mep et a. Allusions to the Jews in other works o f medieval Georgian historical literature are rather
uncommon, although occasional notices about the "disgrace" o f the Jews and the like are made .* 7 7 It is
clear that Jewish communities, especially in M c'xet'a and Ujarma, were established from a very early time
and continued to exist well into the later medieval period. For example, Marco Polo noted a small
community o f Jews in T b ilisi in the second-half o f the thirteenth century . 173 Among the possessions of
the kat alikos o f Me' xet' a granted immunity by a royal charter of 1392 are "the Jews o f Eliozidze with his
land." The same document also mentions Jewish merchants in Bazari.*7* Even today a beautiful
synagogue, surrounded by Armenian and Georgian churches (and former mosque), functions at the base of
the ruins o f the Nariqala fortress in "Old T bilisi."
One o f the most striking characteristics o f The Ufe o f the Kings is its sense of the heterogeneous
character of early K 'art'li. Not only do we read o f the various communities inhabiting K 'art' li. but also of
their variegated religions, especially the local conventions o f idolatry, Judaism, and Zoroastrianism/FireWorship .* 73 Had its author been a nationalist, he could have easily denied the existence in K 'a rt'li of
other peoples until after the establishment o f local royal authority. Instead, he was mindful o f the ancient
contact o f the K'art'velians with their neighbors, and o f the existence o f other communities residing in the
land which eventually became known as K 'art'li. Advancing from the supposition that the peoples in
Caucasia in his own time had been settled there for an exceedingly long time, the author anachronistically
projects back some of these communities into remote antiquity (e.g., the Turks and Khazars).
Furthermore, he does not deny the intimate relations o f the K'art'velians with the Jews, not to mention the
*7 *This phrase is found in ibid., p. 9 8 3 ^ , where we are told that news came that the three wise men had
presented gifts to Christ "And all the K 'art'velian Jews [huriat'a zeda k'art'velt'a ] were overjoyed"
*7 7 E.g., in The Ufe ofVaxtang, p. 164.
*73Marco Polo, p. 25.
I"74"i392 Charter o f Immunity to the Kat'alikos o f M c'xet'a," in Georgian Charters, # 23, pp. 104-105.
"Eliozidze" is a surname while "Bazari" is a geographical designation.
17Â n d later, we find Christian and Manichean missionaries in K 'art'li. O n the plurality o f religions in
early K 'art'li: Mgaloblishvili, "The Ideological Situation in 3rd-4th Century Iberia and How it is
Expressed in Georgian Literature," who bases her study on the unpub. work o f G. Ceret'eli, Iveria
mesame saukunis (a.c.) iranul cqaroebshi (1964).
185
Armenians. Had the author wished to depict ancient Colchis as an integral component o f K 'art'li, he
m ight have affixed the influence o f Greek colonies along the Blade Sea littoral to demonstrate that he was
fam iliar with the history and peoples o f that western region.
In sum, the author o f The U fe o f the Kings contends that the heterogeneous, cosmopolitan nature
o f K 'a rt'li so prevalent in his own era had persisted since the very provenance o f the K 'art'velian
community. He commences from the assumption that the K'art'velians were an ancient people and that
they could be plausibly inserted into the Biblical tabula populorum though absent in i t But the
anonymous author was convinced that K 'art'li, from its very origin, had emerged and evolved within the
context o f the Persia, the dominant contemporary force in that part o f the Near E ast In the meantime, the
K 'art'velians allegedly maintained intimate contacts with a wide range o f other communities, including
the Armenians, Syrians, "Turks," "Khazars," Jews, Ovsi-s, and even the Romans. The ca. 800 author o f
The U fe o f the Kings was immune to the modem poison o f nationalism, and he evinced no distaste for the
heterogeneous nature o f the K 'art'velian lands. But subsequent patriotic scribes and editors would find
this cosmopolitan account of the provenance o f K 'a rt'li contemptible, and we should now turn our
attention to their sinister attempts to rewrite and even obliterate this tale.
Intellectual Vandalism: Scribes, Patriotism, and the Legend ofHaos and K'art'los
The tale o f the foundation o f K 'a rt'li by its eponym K'art'los, and the superior position o f his
older brother Haos, was well-known among the early modem Georgian elite, a result o f the popularization
and, really, the nationalization o f K'artTis c'xovreba. But although the King Vaxtang VI
Commission itself did not purge this account, and its text, from its eighteenth-century edition of K'artTis
c'xovreba (the so-called Vaxtangiseuli recension), certain early-modern scribes looked upon the K 'art'los
legend with an incontestable abhorrence.
O f the three extant Georgian pre-Vaxtangiseuli redactions o f The Ufe o f the Kings, only the
Mariamiseuli (M) variant of 1633-1645/1646 is complete. ^
The Anaseuli (A; 1479-1495) and
M c'xet'ian (Q; 1697) variants are defective for this text, each one missing its initial folios. ^
It so
happens that AQ are missing the account ofHaos and K 'art'los, with its inferences that K 'art'los was
ultimately the subordinate ofHaos.
*^*The MSS o f the A nn. adaptation o f K'C' are complete and uncorrupted on this point
177
'A begins in midsentence with the reign o f the second king Saurmagi {KeklnstM S # Q-795, f. 2 =
K 'C '1, p. 3 8 2 3 ); while Q begins in midsentence with the conquest o f Alexander o f Macedon (Kek-InstMS
# Q-1219, ? lv = The Ufe o f the Kings, p. 15jy_jg).
186
Was the account ofH aos and K 'art'los purposefully removed from these MSS? It is significant
that several o f the Vaxtangiseuli MSS show signs o f corruption.17* O f the major redactions, only the
Teim uraziseuli (T; first-quarter eighteenth century), Dadianiseuli (d; eighteenth century),
Barat'ashviliseuli (b; 1761), and Broseseuli (B: 1839)179 are complete and show' no flagrant signs of
damage. In addition to these MSS, three considerably later ones o f the late-eighteenth and nineteenth
ixo
centuries are intact.lou
One o f these, Kek.Inst.MS # S-S316, was copied in 1822, well after the Russian annexation o f
eastern Georgia. It commences with a unique miniature o f Togarmah (who is placed in the center) and
his sons (see photograph!. *** To his right is Haos, and to his left, curiously enough, is Lekos and not
K'art'los. K 'art'los is placed to the right hand ofHaos, clearly implying both his subordination to the
Armenian eponym. The fart that so many Vaxtangiseuli MSS are complete is conclusive evidence that
the King Vaxtang VI Commission did not effect the removal o f the Haos/K 'art'los legend from K'art 'lis
c'xovreba. That is to say, all strictly copied Vaxtangiseuli MSS contain this account and its absence
indicates accidental or intentional damage to a particular docum ent
Two Vaxtangiseuli MSS, the Chalashviliseuli (C/c) and P'alavanishviliseuii (P/p) codices,
actually consist o f multiple MSS that have been joined together. The older portion o f the Chalashviliseuli
codex, C, was copied in the sixteenth century and is pre-Vaxtangiseuli (ff 43-213, 217-261) whereas the
new section, c, derives from 1731. ^
The Ufe o f the Kings, up to the account o f Mihran/Mirian (284-
361), is represented only by the new folios (i.e., the c variant). T hat is to say, the older folios of C have
been lost/removed and replaced with the corresponding Vaxtangiseuli text. Likewise, the
P'alavandishviliseuli redaction includes an old section. P. written in the ecclesiastical nusxuri script, and
17*I have considered here all o f the Vaxtangiseuli MSS available to me: the only major MS not
considered here is the Sxvitoruli (s) variant o f the late eighteenth century. Very late MSS not considered
here from the Kekelidze Institute are: S-1738 (of Nikoloz Dadiani, 1823-1824): Q-354 (1876): and H-717
(Shemoklezuli redaction, nineteenth-century): as well as the "K 'ut'aisi" (k) MS o f the nineteenth century
(K 'ut'aisi State Museum # 441).
179 SPB.OrJnstMS # M-18: see also Orbeli,
Gruzinskie rukopisi Instituta Vostokovedeniia, vol. 1, pp. 1819. B was made from Vaxtangiseuli MSS by Brosset/Ch'ubinashvili and was published in Georgian and
Fr. as Hist, de la Georgie.
m KekInst.MSS ## Q-383, S-5314, and S-5316.
m K ekInstM S# S-5316, f. 1.
^ G r ig o lia ,
Axali k'art'lis c'xovreba, pp. 108-114: and Qauxch'ishvili in K'C'^, introduction, esp. pp.
015-016 and 019-020.
187
Kek./nst^\/S ft S-5316. p. 1 = Vaxtangiseuli redaction of K'art'lis c'xovreba. Riazan' recension. Opening

oCThe Ufe o f the Kings. With Vaxtangiseuli preamble and miniature of Togantuh and his sons (from left
to right: Movakan, Bardos. K'art'los. Haos. Togarmah. Lek. Heros. Kavfcas. Egros).
3ft-
% ^ 1 ^ 7 ) * * * " "
3 * -o ij r
f 5 j j . 6 < / l 3 j " s i 3 A - .
TJ w i (g J %
I w y J < ii3
6 " ^ ^
<^Wk >3y&<j0i4sd6a TijijjwMoi^lrjin* |4
l/b y o T f t ^ ! < ^ m 6 2 i
L ja ^ L o tJ
^ L-vty
y in a n oij^>- 3 j3 j , Li&<j{mno> Q}o^y>3e*-l>; <jtj 0 } d ^ jj3 rv l/ a^<- ij O i j ^ o l>d .
. jtf& d *|a>eâ<A><>- Â>d
; 5 *
'j&owLd .
^T
^rv^V'
7.
3 -j^ y f y f i k t f r d i n - y
< h rj^ *
nm~dcn iAtoen
<nj *31
*3l
J ty O iJ
< 3 f d l < A d . ^
ijtoj ^
-yjdqno&o
3 ^ IW 0 ;
(M jr*.
si/ot^jiona jrtln- **.*^4 '/.^ .
rt^y. 3 ^ jL^< ,
^ Qjbtftdl/: i^y632j<* r? po.

A 01
188
copied in the period 1719-1744 (tl 5-16, 19-59,61-66). *8^ The new section, p, was copied in 1761, and
is written in the civil, mxedruli, script It is significant that all the folios o f P, written in the nt/sxuri
script fall within The U fe o f the Kings. However, the initial section o f that text is part o f p and was
appended later. Yet the Vaxtangiseuli texts o f c and p have not been edited further, and conforms with
the official version o f the King V&xtang VI Commission. The point is that the account ofH aos and
K 'art'los in both C/c an d P/p each o f which comprise old and new sections is transm itted the new
sections o f those MSS. In my opinion, this suggests that the older folios (c and p) had been subject to the
same vandalism as the pre-Vaxtangisueli AQ.
Only two non-hybrid Vaxtangiseuli MSS, the Janashviliseuli (D) and Saeklesio muzeumisa (E)
variants, are defective for the initial portion o f The Ufe o f the Kings. The mid-eighteenth-century D
redaction lacks the entire account of K 'art' los and Haos. However, E, copied in 1748. commences in mid
sentence at the end o f that account, but not before admitting that the brothers ofHaos. including K'art'los.
declared their loyalty to him . 184
The remaining two major recensions o f the Vaxtangiseuli redaction are modified. The
Mach'abliseuli (m) variant, copied in 1736, belongs to the same recension as the pre-Vaxtangiseuli MQ.
MQm together constitute the M c'xet'ian recension o f K'artTis c'xovreba}^ In the m variant, the
opening o f The Ufe o f the Kings is embellished:
But this was [the stemma] o f the descendants o f Noah... Avnan was bom o f Japheth
the son o f Noah. And Avnan begat T ar[i]shi. And T ar[i]shi begat Togarmah
[T argamoz]. And this Togarmah was the father of the Armenians and the
K 'art'velians...*8*
Other than a modified opening passage. The U fe o f the Kings as found in m is in accordance with the
Vaxtangiseuli recension. The other modification is encountered in the Rumianceviseuli (R) variant
copied in 1699-1703. The R variant was used by M.-F. Brosset in his edition (B) and translation of
*8 ^Grigolia, Axali k'a rtiis c'xovreba, pp. 168-170 (P) and 180-185 (p); cf. Qauxch'ishvili in K'C'^,
introduction.
Kek.Inst.KIS # A-131, f. 1 = The Ufe o f the Kings, p.
623.
*8 % .g., see M Shanidze in The Ufe o f Davit', introduction, pp. 128-144.
^K ekJn stM S # H-2135, f. 36:
"b [c n ]2 3 ci
36b
6 3 8 6 6 0 3 3 6 3 6 3 3 0 2 3 0 b 3 3 0 2 3 0 ) 6 5 6 6 0 6 01360)6:
0 6 5 6 8 0 1 6 6 6 (5 3 6 5 8 0 6 6 0 065016366 8 6 ( 3 6 2 3 6 0 8 3 6 6 3 8 566 3 6 6 0 1 0 ).
60136.
6 3 6 6 6 6 0 1 8 3 2 3 6 0 8 3 6 O6033m 8 3 8 6 6 6 0 1 3 6 8 6 6 .
3636
text proceeding the colon is in red ink, the remainder in black.
o )6 6 [o ]8 o 6 8 3 6 0 6 6 5 6 8 0 1 % .
56 3 6 3 0 )6 6 5 6 8 0 1 % 0301
b o ifc jo i] 0301 bb36Q 6 d o b d s
(5 6 6 3 6 6 6 8 3 6 o ) 6 6 [ o ] 8 o 6 .
56
6 (1 8 3 6 0 )6 06 ^ 6 6 0 3 3 2 3 0 1 6 . .. "
The
189
K'art'lis c'xovreba published in 1849. Although none o f the leaves were removed (as in other MSS), R
shows considerable signs o f patriotic vandalism. In this variant, the opening of The Ufe o f the Kings
reads (see photograph):
First we should recall that the K 'art'velians and the Armenians... had a single
father ...* * 7
The sequence o f the K'art'velians and the Armenians has been transposed. This was not a scribal
oversight, for K 'art'los was also enumerated first in the list of the sons o f Togarmah, and Haos was
relegated to second place.
too
In describing the battle ofHaos against Nimrod, the R variant prefers to
enumerate K 'art'los, Haos. and their brothers together though the medieval text usually has only Haos. 189
In fact, the entire Rumianc'eviseuli MS was tainted by its chauvinistic scribe(s) and readers. For
example, regnal titles that once admitted the Armenian provenance o f some of the kings o f the
K 'art'velians have been defaced.*9
181Kek.Inst.MS if H-2080, ( lr.

l88Ibid I 2 v.
l89Ibid f 3v. In the same passage, the patriotic scribe anachronistically inserts the word "Sak'art'uelo"
(i.e.. Sak'art'velo = "Georgia") for "K 'art'li." "Sak'art'uelo" is also found at 5r.
*9 E.g., King Bartom's name is followed by the dynastic tag "Arshakuniani" (i.e.. and Arsacid), but
Arshakuniani was written later over the phrase somext' mep 'isa [sic] ("king of the Armenians). Thus the
clear indication that Bartom was an Armenian was concealed in favor o f the more neutral dynastic label.
Ibid., < 23r.
KeklnstM S If H-2080.12r Ruraianc'cviseuli codex of K'art'Us c'xovreba. Opening o f The Ufe o f the
Kings with Vaxtangiseuli preamble.
h g ljlC '
jl>0>^ (*
iH'ijjffV t^Jovjyi )^~~
9
2*^11^
B -^jllfij^n jo *
*$*. ^
ijq i/w
j^ * i
e*^g/}-L yfy>~
^ ^ C <', / v
>
p fy -y L
W C ^'
/#*^ *"^*
ty " * ^
V A jy p r
<pjirt<n
V'*
J A -I
rr-
JyijfJl* > )A* /veyyeiJLj
*' ~ ^
}Ju Si^-^jUt
^ r jr y
%c
' t y ^ j r 0* d
^
i
**~*
C ^<n,<rv
* $ > " ? / f/A 1 y y * - i y i y - f -7i j {4*Aj peX
- r /V ~ " 4 y *
191
The status o f the initial account o f the anonymous The Life o f the Kings in the extant MSS o f
K'artTis c'xovreba may be summarized as:*9 *
MS redaction
Date o f MS
Status of initial account
PRE-VAXTANGISEULl MSS:
Armenian adaptation
1279-1311
(Arm/A)
Anaseuli (A)
1479-1495
Chalashviliseuli old (C) 16th century
Mariamiseuli (M)
M c'xet'-ian (Q)
1633-1645/1646
1697
Complete
Defective; text begins in midsentence at
p .3 5 3
Defective: replaced by new folios (c): begins
in midsentence at p. 18
Complete (earliest complete Georgian text)
Defective; text begins in midsentence at
P -1517_18
VAXTANGISEULI MSS:
Rumianc'eviseuli (R)
1699-1703
Janashviliseuli (D)
mid 18th century
P'alavandishviliseuli
new(p)
Barat'ashviliseuli (b)
Q-383
S-5316
S-5314
Broseseuli (B)
1761
Complete but w ith substantial patriotic

re-editing
Complete
Defective up to account o f Mirian; replaced
by new folios (p)
Complete but replaces older text o f C
Complete but modified opening
Complete
Defective to the end o f the Haos account;
text begins in midsentence at p. 6 2 3
Defective throughout: text begins in
midsentence at p. 2 4 j7
Complete but replaces older text o f P
1761
late 18th centurv
1822
1833-1834
1839
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
T eimuraziseuli (T)
1st quarter 18th century
Palavandishviliseuli 1719-1744
old = Urbnisi MS (P)
Chalashviliseuli new (c) 1731
Mach'abliseuli (m)
1736
Dadianiseuli (d)
18th century
Saeklesio muzeumisa (E) 1748
191The page references in this chart refer to the critical text o f Qauxch'ishvili, i.e.. The Ufe o f the Kings.
Asterisks denote components o f a hybrid MSS (i.e documents composed of multiple MSS, especially P/p
and C/c).
192
The cosmopolitan nature o f The U fe o f the Kings was suppressed not by the royal (pro-Bagratid)
Vaxtang VI Commission, but by renegade scribes, clergymen, and/or nobles who wished to divorce
themselves from this inclusive ninth-century tradition. Ironically, it is the earliest extant version o f
K'art'lis c'xovreba, the Armenian adaptation extant from the late thirteenth century, which has allowed
scholars to determine that the only complete pre-Vaxtangiseuli Georgian text (M) is relatively
unblemished by early m odem patriotic corruption. Although our extant evidence o f intellectual vandalism
is limited to the literal re-writing o f history at its best and the removal of entire leaves and folios at its
worst, we must wonder if entire pre-Vaxtangiseuli MSS were intentionally destroyed by Georgian patriotic
Elites. Regardless, the text o f The Ufe o f the Kings, though it in no way promoted Bagratid legitimacy
during the millennium o f their rule, was never entirely removed from the royal corpus of K'art'lis
c'xovreba.
A similar phenomenon may be detected in the Bagratid-era corpus o f Mok'c'evay k'art'lisay.
Until recently, only two redactions were known to have survived; the Shatberdi codex (tenth century) and
the Chelishi codex (fourteenth/fifteenth century). These two MS have been published. Following a fire at
St. Catharine's monastery on M t Sinai in 1975, two additional redactions, apparently copied in the
tenth/eleventh century, were discovered (new collection, Sin-48 and Sin-50). Sadly, they remain
unpublished. In any event, only the Shatberdi codex is complete for the initial texts of Mok'c'evay
k'art'lisay. The Chelishi document lacks The Primary History o f K'art'li and Royal List I. The two new
Sinai redactions both are reportedly wanting for these texts (Sin-48 lacks the same two texts while Sin-50
seems to contain only a story about Nino, probably The Ufe o f Nino).* 92 Thus, only one extant redaction,
the Shatberdi codex, contains the introductory texts which describe the pre-Christian K 'art'velian past.
Assuming that the remaining MSS originally commenced with these same works, then they have been
damaged. Should they not have been originally included, we must consider whether they were
intentionally omitted. All o f the redactions include at least one text about the conversion o f K 'a rt' li by
Nino (and thus the corpus is called by the nam e Mok'c'evay k'art'lisay, lit. "The Conversion o f K 'a rtli").
I should think that this is not a case of coincidence, but rather the later manipulation of these texts - by
literally ripping away folios so as to eliminate their record o f the pre-Christian past. At least three of
the MSS (Shatberdi, Sin-48, Sin-50) were found in monasteries, and two o f them are defective. It should
be noted that the vandalism afflicting The U fe o f the Kings did not infect the other accounts o f preChristian K 'art'velian history but rather was limited to the narrative about Haos/Hayk. Therefore, we
possess two separate incidents o f vandalism: one was an attempt to obliterate the tradition o f Haos/Hayk
(The Ufe o f the Kings) while the other sought to conceal the entire pre-Christian past of the K 'a rtvelian
19 2 Alek' sidze, "The New Recensions o f the 'Conversion of Georgia' and the 'Lives o f the 13 Syrian
Fathers' Recently Discovered on ML Sinai," pp. 414-418.
193
community.
But it should be emphasized that we may only speculate as to when this vandalism was
executed. However, the available evidence seems to suggest the early modem period.
The Legacy ofK'art'los mid His Progeny in Later Literature
K 'art'los and his immediate progeny, the K'art'losiani-s, were largely forgotten, o r at least
ignored, by medieval historians writing after the appearance o f The life o f the Kings.194 It is particularly
noteworthy that The Primary History o f K'art'li, whose date o f composition has yet to be definitively
established, does not know o f K 'art'los or his progeny, or even o f the dynastic tags "K'art' losiani" and
" T argamosiani. The Primary History o f K'art'li, like The Ufe o f the Kings, is concerned with the
earliest period o f K 'art'velian history. But instead o f interpolating K 'art'li's provenance within the
Biblical tabula populorum, it traced the origin o f K 'a rt'li from the era o f Alexander the Great. It is true
that the Jebusites, the pre-Davidic inhabitants o f Jerusalem, are mentioned in connection with the
B unt'urk'-s (whom Alexander found residing in K 'art'li), but no further connection with Biblical history
is attempted. The Primary History might represent an independent tradition o f the establishment of
K 'a rtli. But two scenarios are more likely. O n the one hand, should The Primary History o f K'art'li
have been written prior to The Ufe o f the Kings, it constitutes evidence that the latter author himself
created the legend o f K 'art'los. On the other hand, should The Primary History be later than its
counterpart, then it represents a tacit rejection o f the K 'art'los legend. In the absence o f the original MSS
o f both The Ufe o f the Kings and The Primary History o f K'art'li, we may only speculate as to their
relationship.
On this point, we should consider the eleventh-century metaphrastic version of The Ufe o f Nino
written by the monk Arsen Iqalt'oeli (lit. "of Iqalt'o"). At the end of this work. Iqalt'oeli attached a
summation o f early K 'art'velian history. W hile the author acknowledges to have employed K'art iis
c 'xovreba and even The Ufe o f the K in g s ,^ he ignored the tatters account o f the origin o f K 'artli and
substituted that o f The Primary History o f K'art ii. He does not refer to K' art' los or his progeny and
commences K 'art'velian history with Alexander the Great and the Bunt'urk'-s. *9** Iqalt'oeli entirely
^ s i m i l a r patriotic vandalism may be detected in other MSS. E.g., KetInst.M S # Q-964, copied in
158S, the so-called Nikorcmida king-list, seems to be missing its initial passages (no pre-Christian
monarchs are related in it).
194As was Haos; the only reference to him in medieval Georgian historical literature outside o f The Ufe
o f the Kings is in the thirteenth-century Hist, and Eul., p. 2 = Kekelidze Rus. trans., p. 171.
^ A r s e n Iqalt'oeli, Metaphr. Nino, p. 395.
106
l Ibid., p. 390. In giving preference to Prim. Hist. K'art'li for early K 'art'velian history, Arsen also
identifies "Azove" (Azoy/Azon) as the first king o f K 'art'li {ibid., p. 391) whereas P'am avaz is rendered
194
dismisses the origin account o f The Ufe o f the Kings though he certainly knew about i t It is not clear
why this should have been the case, except that The U fe ofthe Kings with its account o f K 'art'los
represents a carefully fashioned tradition o f pre-Bagratid kingship, a tradition which was considerably
more developed than that in The Primary History o f K'art'li, and one which could be construed as
"pagan" (its Persian overtones probably contributed to this attitude).
While occasional references to "the house o f Togarmah" (i.e., Targamosiani-s. o f which the
K 'art'losiani-s were a part) are found in twelfih-/thirteenth-century Georgian sources, 1 9 7 no significant
allusions to K 'art'los and his foundation o f K 'a rt'li are to be detected before the early modern period.
Thus, Iqalt'oeli's distaste for the opening account of The U fe o f the Kings may not have been an isolated
one. K 'art'los reemerges on the historiographical scene only from the fifteenth century or so. but the
solitary reference from that time is obscure and clearly dependent upon The Ufe o f the Kings. Named in it
are T argam oys (Togarmah), T a rsh i (Tiras), Iap'eti (Japheth), Noe (Noah). andT'argam oy's son
K 'art' Ioys (K 'art'los), the last o f whom settled at the confluence o f the Aragwi and Mtkuari rivers.
M c'xet'os, the son o f K'art'loys, built a city there and named it M c'xet'a after himself. The account
continues to paraphrase The Ufe o f the Kings, mentioning Nebuchadnezzar's capture o f Jerusalem.
Alexander the Great's invasion o f K 'art'li, and the establishment o f local kingship . 198
It was not until the eighteenth century that the tale o f K 'art'los was resurrected and introduced as
an integral part o f Georgian self-identity. Vaxushti's account is directly based upon that o f The Ufe o f the
Kings and did not incorporate any additional (now lost) Georgian material:
But K 'art'los was [descended from] the son o f Noah Japheth. for Japheth begat Avanani.
Avanani begat T arshi, T arshi begat T argam os. Targam os begat these eight heroes:
Haos. K 'art'los, Bardos. Movakanos. Lekanos, Heros, Kavkasos. and Egros. 199
This particular account displays an affinity not only with the Mach'abliseuli (m) variant quoted above, but
also with Vaxtangiseuli MSS generally, for all have inserted Avnan[i]/Avanani into the stemma.
Vaxushti followed the Vaxtangiseuli version o f The Ufe o f the Kings for this passage.
in this fashion in The Ufe o f the Kings.

197 E.g.,
Hist, and Eul., pp. 84 and 87.
198"Cesi da gangebay da darbazobisa, romeli alesrulebis m c'xet'as kurt'xevasa m ep'et'asa," in

Zhordania, K'ronikebi, vol. 1, pp. 10-11.
19 9 Vaxushti, p. 4 7 4 . 7 ; ^ PVaxushti added the Greek suffix -OE to all the names o f the
eponyms whereas the original account in The Ufe o f the Kings applied it to only some o f the names.
195
Vaxushti is deeply dependent upon K'art'lis c'xovreba for his history o f ancient and medieval
K 'art'li, and this section o f his work is, in many respects, an early-modern reworking o f that corpus.
Vaxushti does not deny that Haos was the senior o f the eponym-brothers. but his role is diminished . 2 0 0
Instead o f reporting that Haos assumed Togarmahs possessions upon his death, Vaxushti emphasizes that
his lands were divided among all the brothers. Haos' leadership in the revolt against Nimrod is likewise
downplayed. In short, Vaxushti does not deny the received tradition that Haos was the senior brother of
K'art'los, but he surgically removed the details ofHaos' courage, heroism, and leadership. Thus,
Vaxushti's reworking o f the initial portion o f The Life o f the King was more extensive and more
blatantly patriotic - than that o f the contemporary King Vaxtang Commission.
The reedition o f K'art'lis c 'xovreba by the Vaxtang VI Commission in the first decade o f the
eighteenth century and the reworking o f that corpus by Vaxushti introduced K 'art'los. and the whole cast
of pre-Bagratid historical figures, to the Georgian literate public. Their knowledge o f P'araavaz must
have palpably increased w ith the first publication of K'art'lis c'xovreba in the mid nineteenth century.
K 'art'los. it would seem, having been portrayed as a unifier o f K 'art'velian lands ca. 800. was largely
forgotten thereafter, he became a figure o f national proportions only from the eighteenth century. This is
particularly evident from the Short Life o f K'art ii (Me'ire k'art 'lis c 'xovreba) written by the kat 'alikos
Anton (survives in a MS written in 1839). Anton described K 'art'los as being "the father of K 'art'li" and
having ruled not only over the K 'art'velians but also over the Imeret' ians, Kaxet' ians. Javaxet' ians. that is
over all o f "Georgia." Anton is careful to say that all o f these peoples were considered "K'art'velians."
although this is clearly a reflection of his own time.20*
K 'art'los was not an attractive figure to Bagratid historians because in no way did he advance
Bagratid legitimacy.2 0 2 The K 'art'velian Bagratids piqued themselves upon being Christians and the
direct descendants of the Old Testament King David. Sumbat Davit' is-dze's eleventh-century exposition
100Ibid., pp. 47-49.

20 *Cen/.Hist-4rch.MS, f. 1446, #713: "3 0 6 3 3 2 ?* 3 0 (0 6 3 6 3 0*3* ,3*6c?ob* eg* 3 <n3 3 2 ?* 3*oj
j*633C?* 3 b 3 0 5 0 ^*6332?*, 0 6 3 6 *, 3 *b* 06 x * 3 *bm*. 6cn332?o6Q* 301332 ?* 3*
3 ôieg3 &ob ^*6<30e?o. 0 3 ^* 6 c?mb." See also Kekelidze. ed., C'entraluri saxelmc'ipo saistorio
ark'ivi: k'art'ulxelnacert'a kolek'c'iis aghceriloba, vol. 2 (1949), #713. pp. 211-212. This Short History
ends with Shah Nadir.
202Not only did Bagratid-era sources routinely ignore the tradition about K 'art'los. but I am unaware of
any pre-modem Bagratid bearing the name "K'art'los." Moreover, I know o f only one pre-modem
Bagratid figure (in the sixteenth century) having the name Targam os (Togarmah). See the
prosopographical study o f D. Kldiashvili, M. Surguladze, E. C'agareishvili, and G. Jandieri, eds., Pirt'a
anotirebuli lek'sikoni: XI-XVIss. k'art'uli istoriuli sabut'ebis mixedvit', vol. 1 (1991), p. 306, and for
Bagratid nomenclature for the eleventh-sixteenth centuries, pp. 212-371. It should be emphasized that
pre-Bagratid kings and nobles are not known to have had the aforementioned names.
196
of that origin does not mention, even in passing, K 'art'los, his progeny, or any pre-Christian K 'art'velian
king. Davit' is-dze largely ignored even the Christian pre-Bagratid kings, although he did impart Vaxtang
Gorgasali and the subsequent Guaramid princely dynasty (whom he identified as proto-Bagratids) to his
readers. Since the pre-Bagratid kings could not, and did not, claim to be the descendants of David, in
Bagratid eyes they were not true kings. The association o f the establishment o f the K 'art'velian monarchy
with Nimrod was replaced by the Bagratid historians with a connection to David, the prototypical Old
Testament king who had been chosen and anointed tty God. Though connections were made with
different rulers o f antiquity, the bases for these associations are very much the s a m e . ^
K 'art'los was also largely ignored in Armenian historical writing. With a solitary exception, all
o f the extant histories composed in the fifth century, the works through and including The Primary
History o f Armenia, as well as the eighth-century narrative o f X orenac'i that is, all extant Armenian
sources written before the Armenian adaptation o f K'art'lis c'xovreba was completed - do not know him.
The possible exception, depending upon the original date o f the aforementioned adaptation, is the
thirteenth-century historian Step'anos Orbelean. He used K'art'lis c'xovreba in its Georgian version and
repeats its origin stemma including K'art'los, but no new information is provided.7** Only after the
adaptation o f K'art'lis c'xovreba into Armenian was completed do we find a number o f references (wholly
dependent upon that work) to K 'art'los. The thirteenth-century Vardan Arewelc'i is familiar with the
tradition that the progeny of Japheth settled "as far as the mountains o f the Caspian and the Caucasus, and
they filled the islands."7^ Arewelc' i fashions the K 'art'velians as the descendants o f Japheth and
Togarmah and, paraphrasing The Ufe o f the Kings, he states that "T'orgom begat Hayk and his seven
brothers: K 'art'los, Kovkas, and the others, who inherited the North. "7^
Another thirteenth-century Armenian historical compilation, that of the archbishop and vardapet
M xit'ar Ayrivanec'i, gives an enumeration of "the K 'art'velian princes:"
Hayk and his seven brothers: K 'art'los, Bardos. Movkan, Lekan. Heros. Kovkas, Egris.
Mcxit'a. Up'los, Ap'ridon, Azon. [during whose reign] was Alexander [of
Macedon], 7
K 'art' Ios and his descendants were not emphasized in subsequent Georgian historical literature,
although The Ufe o f the Kings as a component o f K'C' was not entirely forgotten, as is testified Ity the
later derivative references to K 'art'los.
7 "*Step'anos Orbelean, LXVL, pp. 209-210.
7^Vardan Arewelc'i, p. 146.
206Ibid., p. 148.
7 7 M xit'ar A yrivanec'i Arm. ed., cap. 15, p. 246.
197
So not only K 'art' los, but Hayk an d the other seven brothers, are styled as princes o f K'art 'li by this
Armenian historian! Ayrivanec'i also provides a list o f "K 'art'velian kings." the first o f whom is
P'am avaz.20** T he contents o f the accounts o f Arewelc'i and Ayrivanec'i are clearly based upon The Ufe
o f the Kings, which would have been available to both of these historical compilers in its Armenian
adaptation .2 0 9 Significantly, neither o f the historians had at his disposal sources other than the
Armenian adaptation o f K'art iis c 'xovreba.
II. THE MYTHICAL CONQUEST OF K 'A R T U BY ALEXANDER THE GREATAND THE

ESTABLISHMENT OF INDIGENOUS ROYAL AUTHORITY
Georgian Sources on Alexanders Invasion o f K'art'li
The medieval Georgian historical tradition couches the establishment o f K 'art'velian royal
authority within the framework o f "world" history.2 *0 In doing so, both The Life o f the Kings and The
Primary History o f K'art'li link the accession of the first K 'artvelian king with the renowned Alexander
o f Macedon, around whom countless later traditions were b u ilt2 * *
It is not clear which Georgian source was composed firs t 2 *2 Nevertheless, these two medieval
accounts o f Alexanders invasion o f K 'a rt'li are related and correspond on a number of points. The
Primary History o f K'art'li is not necessarily earlier owing to its unfatniliarity with the interpolated tale of
K 'art'los, which itself was consigned to parchment in its received form ca. 800. On the other hand, we
may not suppose that The Primary History o f K'art'li is simply a modified abridgment of The U fe o f the
Kings simply because its appended Royal Usts are dependent upon C'xorebav k 'art'velt'a mep et 'a and
20%Ibid.. cap. 16, p. 246.

2 0 9 Cf. the tenth- to thirteenth-century work of Movses Dasxuranc'i
{The History o f the Caucasian
Albanians) which is not aware of K 'art'los.

210
It should be emphasized that although modern Georgian nationalists often speak of "Georgian" kings
during the time o f Jason and the Argonauts, that this myth is completely unknown in medieval Georgian
historical literature.
211
1A.P. Novoseltsev, "K vorposu o makedonskom vladychestve v drevnei Gruzii," in Ivane javaxishvilis
dabadebis 100 clist'avisadmi midzghvnili saiubileo krebuli, pp. 104-109.

212
i l T h e later, derivative account o f Vaxushti is based upon the known medieval sources and does not offer
additional information; see Vaxushti, pp. 54-55.
198
C'xorebay vaxtang gorgaslisa,2 13 In short, the relationship o f The Primary History o f K'art li and The
Ufe o f the Kings cannot be definitively ascertained by extant MSS. I shall however, offer additional
comments upon the relationship o f the texts as their contents are examined.
The Narrative o f the Mythical Conquest o f K'art'li by Alexander ofMacedon
The various non-Georgian biographies o f Alexander, especially the Greek written tradition
attributed to Ps.-Callisthenes (originally composed ca. 2 0 0 AD)21"* and its Eastern renditions, do not
explicitly state that Alexander or his arm ies penetrated K 'a rt'li .2 1 5 But as is the case with the mythical
establishment o f K 'art'li narrated by The U fe ofthe Kings, it is the imagined collective past o f the
K'art'velians and its plausibility with regards to received traditions and not historical veracity as
determined by modem specialists that is param ount
The Ufe o f the Kings, drawing upon some written or oral version o f Ps. -Callisthenes. reports that
Alexander was the son o f Nectanebus (Georgian Niktanebi); accordingly, he is said to have been an
Egyptian by birth. Having subdued Greece and Macedonia, Alexander conquered "all the ends o f the
213As shown in the previous ch., M ok\ k'art'. is actually composed o f several distinct texts: Prim. Hist.
K'art'li, Royal UstsI-HI, Conv. K'art'li, and The Ufe o f Nino. The earliest texts in this compilation (i.e..
Prim. Hist, and that of Giorgi) are perhaps as early as the seventh/eighth century.
21<1Budge in Ps.-CallisthenesSyriac, introduction, p. lii.
215In Plutarch's vita of Pompey, we find the following statement: "For the Iberians [i.e., K'art'velians]
had not been subject either to the Medes o r the Persians, and they escaped the Macedonian dominion also,
since Alexander departed from Hyrcania in haste. See "Pompey" in Plutarch, Uves, pp. 206-207. The
first-century geographer Strabo already noted the embellishment o f the traditions o f Alexander's
conquests: "The stories that have been spread far and wide with a view to glorifying Alexander are not
accepted by all; and their fabricators were men who cared for flattery rather than truth. For instance: they
transferred the Caucasus into the region o f the Indian mountains and o f the eastern sea which lies near
those mountains from the mountains which lie above Colchis and the Euxine; for these are the mountains
which the Greeks named Caucasus, which is more than thirty thousand stadia distant from India; and here
it was that they laid the scene o f the story o f Prometheus and o f his being put in bonds; for these were the
farthermost mountains towards the east that were known to writers o f that time... See Strabo, XI.5.5, pp.
238-241. Pliny the Elder, IV. 10.39 and Solinus DC 19 are familiar with some Macedonian activity in
Caucasia. For Alexandrine coins found in modem Georgia, see G. Dundua, "Sak'arf veloshi gavrc'elebuli
alek'sandre makedonelisa da lisimak'es saxelit' mochrili monetebi," Mac'ne 1 (1973), pp. 51-65, with
Rus. sum., "Monety Aleksandra Makedonskogo i Lizimakha, rasprostranennye v Gruzii," pp. 64-65 (373
staters struck in Alexander's name have been found, and only 6 for Lysimachus). Some modem scholars
have surmised that Alexander o f Macedon did not invade K 'art'li: see A. Gugushvili, "The
Chronological-Genealogical Table of the Kings o f Georgia," Georgica 1/2-3 (O ct 1936), p. 109; L.
Sanikidze, Alek'sandre makedoneli (1984), esp. "Alek'sandre makedoneli da V a rt'lis c'xovreba,'" pp.
346-363; and C. Burney and D.M. Lang, The Peoples o f the Hills (1971), p. 195. O n Alexander's
invasion of Iran see E. Badian, "Alexander in Iran," in CHI, vol. 2 (1985), pp. 420-501.
199
world ."2 1 6 During his Eastern campaign, A lexander allegedly invaded K 'art'li where he found the
"Bunt'urk'-s" and the "Qipchaqs" residing along the course o f the Mtkuari River. The identification of
the Bunt'urk'-s remains an enigma, but The Life o f the Kings may be suggesting that the B unt'urk'-s and
the Qipchaqs were uncivilized proto-K' art' velians .2 1 2 As we have seen, Alexander is said to have
believed that the B unt'urk'-s represented the remnants o f the tribes o f the Jebusites. So are we to equate
the K'art'velians found by Alexander with them ? W ere these Bunt'urk' -s the ancestors o f the
K'art'velians, or perhaps the original inhabitants o f K 'artli?21* Could it be that the confusion is a result
o f The Ufe o f the Kings and The Primary History o f K'art'li both being based upon an earlier, and now
lost, source? These questions, sadly, must rem ain unanswered.
The behavior of the peoples inhabiting K 'art' li astounded Alexander. The Primary History o f
K'art'li relates that the B unt'urk'-s were a "savage" tribe who "consumed every sort o f meat
[indiscriminately], they did not employ graves for they consumed [even] the dead. While The Ufe o f the
Kings asserts that the K 'art'velians were "adulterers, and they did not observe kinship when marrying;
they consumed every sort o f creature, they consumed the dead as if [they were] stupid animals there are
not sufficient words for these deeds."21^ In any event. Alexander reportedly resolved to rid Caucasia of
this barbarism and to introduce the norms o f civilization to the area.
These accounts have a parallel in the sixth-century Syriac Book o f the Cave o f Treasures. That
source does not expressly mention K 'art'li but states that Alexander
... saw in the confines o f the East those men who are the children o f Japhet[h], They
were more wicked and unclean than all [other] dwellers in the world; filthy people of
hideous appearance, who ate mice and the creeping things o f the earth, and snakes and
scorpions. They never buried the bodies of their dead [but consumed theml ...2 2 0
The Ufe o f the Kings, p. 17. My trans. "all the ends o f the world," i.e., qovelni kideni k'ueqanisani,
literally means "all the edges o f the land."
2 1 Îbid., p. 17, reports that Alexander "found all the Kart'velians to be worse than all [the other] clans
[and their faith worse than all other] faith[s]... And seeing these settlers along the Mtkuari River, these
very heathen clans, which we call the B unt'urk'-s and the Qivch'aqi-s, Alexander was astonished..."
2 1 %anikidze, Alek'sandre makedoneli, pp. 347- 354, finds that "it is erroneous and completely
anachronistic for that time (4th c. BC) that in Georgia lived the Bunt'urk'-s, Huns, and Qipchaqs."
510
4,1:7Prim. Hist. K'art'li, p. 81; and The Ufe o f the Kings, p. 17. Braund, Georgia in Antiquity, pp. 16-17
and 96, notes that the Greek document Constitution o f the Phasians (forth/third century BC) relates that
"In the beginning the Heniochi inhabited Phasis. They were cannibals and stripped the skin off men..."
The Heniochi were a proto-K'art'velian tribe.
Cave o f Treasures, p. 265. Notably, the medieval Georgian version o f this text lacks any account of
Alexander. It was widely understood that the harharians o f the northeast (i.e., in the region
near/comprising Caucasia) behaved in this deplorable fashion. Multiple Old Testament passages
200
M ortified by that which he had seen, Alexander confined the twenty-two Eastern tribes within the
"northern gate" (later identified with Derbend). None o f these tribes exactly corresponds with the
K 'art'velians, although it is possible that the Thaubelaye could have been mistaken by a K 'art'velian
historian (like the author o f The Ufe o f the Kings who seems to have been familiar with various traditions
contained in The Book o f the Cave o f Treasures) for the Biblical Tubal-ians, a proto-K' art* velian
tribe .2 2 1 But no medieval K 'art'velian historian is known to have made this connection. Other
Caucasian peoples are mentioned in the list, including the Eshkenaz (?Armenians )2 2 2 and Alanaye
(Alans/Ovsi-s), while Kawkebaye would seem to refer to the tribes of northern Caucasia. Although the
K 'art'velians are not explicitly enumerated in this tradition, that community could have been plausibly
interpolated into i t 2 2 3
It is odd that the medieval Georgian version o f The Book o f the Cave o f Treasures lacks any
account o f Alexander, for both The Ufe o f the Kings and The Primary History ofK'art'li seem to have
relied upon it, or an intermediary'. Perhaps this is an indication that The Book o f the Cave o f Treasures
was not the direct source, or that it was not used in its extant Syriac version. Perhaps the contents of the
Mariamiseuli (M) variant o f K'art'lis c'xovreba explains the paucity in the Georgian rendition o f The
Book o f the Cave o f Treasures, for it actually commences w ith that work; The Ufe ofthe Kings follows it.
Could it be that the earliest Georgian version o f The Book o f the Cave o f Treasures was the initial text of
constitute the basis for this account: e.g.. Leviticus XI.41-42; and Deuteronomy XTV. 1-21. The sixthcentury Syrian writer M ar Jacob (Jacob o f Serugh) wrote an account of Alexander's gate in which he
described the barbarians bounded by it as the eaters of flesh, the drinkers o f blood, and bathers in blood
M ir Jacob specifically referred to these tribes as "more ferocious and have more wars than all other
nations and as the "cursed children o f the great family o f Japhet[h]." See "A Discourse Composed by
M ar Jacob upon Alexander, the Believing King, and Upon the Gate Which he Made Against Agog and
Magog." in Ps.-CallisthenesSyriac, pp. 178 and 197.
?? 1
Tubal is explicitly associated with K 'art'li (Iberia) by Josepheus, Jew. Antiq., 1.124-125, vol. 4, pp. 6061.
The opening words in Koriwn, p. 70. refer to Armenia as the "Azk'anazean nation," that is, the
progeny o f Ashkenaz. Cf. Jeremiah LI.27. which associates the kingdoms a f Ararat, Minni, and
Ashkenaz.
*yyi
Cave o f Treasures was a very popular work and was apparently written in the fourth century AD; its
extant version derives from the sixth century. There are two other parallels which draw our attention.
First, both sources mention a work associated with Nimrod (i.e., The Book/Revelation o f Nimrod, see:
Cave o f Treasures, p. 205; and Cave o f TreasuresGeorgian, XLV. 11). Second, both texts contend that
Syriac/Aramaic was the original language o f the world ( Cave o f Treasures, p. 132; and Cave o f
TreasuresGeorgian, XXTV. 9-1 1, which identifies Syriac as the language o f the Japhethites). This
contention is ultimately based upon Genesis XI. 1: "And the entire world was o f a single language and
speech."
201
a recension of K'art'lis c'xovreba, and because Alexander had been incorporated into The Life o f the
Kings, the corresponding passage was removed (after all, it did not explicitly mention the
K'art'velians)?22* This, I should think, is an. attractive possibility, but the fact remains that no other
extant MS, including the Armenian adaptation, commences with The Book o f the Cave o f Treasures.
Both The Primary History ofK 'art'li and The Ufe o f the Kings relate that in the wake of
Alexander's initial, and unsuccessful, foray into Caucasia, the Chaldeans (K'aldevel-ni, ^ ? ! 333 C?-6 o).
also identified by the former with the Huns (Hon-ni, 3ci6-6o), entered KartIi.22^ The Primary History
o f K'art'li, but not The Ufe o f the Kings, asserts that they settled in Zanavi and paid tribute to the ruler of
the Bunt'urk'-s. Zanavi is, as we have already seen, the locale where the Jews who were fleeing from the
persecution of Nebuchadnezzar had allegedly settled,2 2 6 so the Chaldeans seem to have been understood
to have displaced, o r perhaps coexisted with, the Jews already residing there. In fa c t the author o f The
U fe o f the Kings states that the environs o f Saridne included Zanavi, the district o f the Jews. The original
inhabitants of Saridne were allegedly o f Bunt'urk' origin .2 2 2 The arrival of the Chaldeans at Zanavi. and
their payment of tribute, resulted in the site being renamed Xerid (cf. xarki, "tribute").
After the settlement o f the Chaldeans, Alexander returned to Caucasia so as to subdue the d u es
o f K 'art'li. But what were "dties" in the K 'art'velian context?22** The Georgian designation "dty,"
k'alak'i
was borrowed from Syriac via the Armenian k'aghak' (puipp). We must not read
Graeco-Roman and Byzantine conceptions of the IIOAIE into the Georgian k 'alak 7. Generally speaking.
k'alak'i designated a fortified, usually walled, military, political, economic, and religious settlement. We
also find the term c ixe-k 'alak 7 ("fortress-city").22^ It is evident that the vast majority o f K'art'velians,
through the late nineteenth century, had a great aversion to urban dwelling. While there were few
k'alak'i-s, however, there seem to have been numerous villages (sop'eli-s. daha-s). R.W. Edwards
22*This hypothesis is extremely unlikely, the earliest extant MS o f K'C' the Arm/A MS o f the
Armenian adaptation does not include Cave o f Treasures. However, it should also be said that except
for M the other pre-Vaxtangiseuli Georgian MSS (i.e., AQC) are all defective for the beginning of K'C'
and it is possible however unlikely that Cave o f Treasures had been incorporated into them.
22^
The designation K'aldevel-ni (but not Hon-ni) is also known in Cave o f TreasuresGeorgian. XLV.9.
22f%
**The Ufe o f the Kings, pp. 15-16. This passage is quoted supra (this ch.). For the settlement of the
Bunt'uric'-s at Zanavi, see Prim. Hist. K'art'li, p. 81.
2 2 2 77ie Ufe o f the Kings, p. 17-18.
2 2 8 Cf. N. Garsoian, "The Early-Medieval Armenian City: An Alien Element?," JANES 16-17 (1984-
1985), pp. 67-83.
229
The Arm. equivalent o f c'ixe-k'alak'i, pbpfnupuipp (berdak'agh'ak), is extremely rare; see, e.g, Movses
Dasxuranc'i, 1.14, p. 23.
remarked that "the vulnerability of the lowlands, especially along the banks o f the rivers, explains in part
why Georgian and Armenian society was not urbanized in the medieval period "2 3 0 In any event,
Alexander reportedly found the following cities in K 'a rt'li (see maps at the end o f the introductionY
The Life o f the Kings
Arm. Adapt. K'C'231
Prim. Hist
Cunda
Xert'wsi mtkuarisa
Odzrq'e
Tuxarisi
Urbnisi
Kaspi
Up'lis-c'Lxe
Mcxet'a
Saridne & Zanavi
C'unda
Xertvis 2 3 2
U n jn i 2 3 3
_____
----Rust'avi
-----
T u g h ars 2 3 4
Urbnis
Kasb
U p'lisc'ixe 2 3 5
Mcxet'a
T aghk'e = Sarldna
and Zawan 2 3 0
C'ixedid 2 3 7
TRisha
Mayraberd23
2 3 0 r . w . Edwards, "The Fortifications o f Artvin."

23
_____
Odzrq'e
----Urbnisi
Kaspi
--------Sarkine
----_____
-----
DOP 40 (1986), p. 182.
Ârm. Adapt. K 'C \ pp. 24-25 = Thomson trans., p. 24.
232Armenian MSS BD have the variant Xert 'is.

233The Armenian adds liunntgfcutli qIh] pwp(ili Luituunj," "made o f the rock of Ladas.
23^The Armenian adds "fi tlbpuij qbtpnjli Uujbpnj, np unti &npn|u," "[which is] on the Sper River, which is [also]
called Chorox."
235 A rm en ia n MSS ABCD have Ublisc'ixe. The Armenian adds "np iuu|i Stunlrpbpn," "which is called the
Fortress o f the Lord" (this is the literal translation o f the Old Georgian).
236The Armenian gives Zawan (i.e., Zanavi) further in the enumeration and adds "punli 'Cptfig," "the
Jewish quarter."
237The Armenian adds "np t pfcpn dbb," "which is the G reat Fortress" (the l i t trans. of the Georgian).
23*The Old Georgian for this term would be Deda-c' ixe, or "Mother Fortress;" the Georgian redactions
associate Deda-c'ixe with Samshwlde.
203
Samshwlde and Deda-cixe

Samshufllde 2
Mtueris-c' Lxe= Xunani
Xunan 2
the cities o f Kaxet'i (unspecified) -----
Alexander's return to Kart'li is said to have been a success, although eleven months elapsed
before Saridne was sacked. During the siege the Bunt'uric' inhabitants o f the city verbally abused
Alexander, who in turn proclaimed that he would "annihilate them."24* Alexander strangled the city
with a blockade until its inhabitants could endure no more: they tunneled under the wall and fled by
nightfall into the mountains.2 4 2
Azon/Azoy and the Two Georgian Traditions o f the Establishment o f Kingship in K'art'li
Upon the capitulation o f Saridne, Alexander is said to have rapidly conquered the whole o f
K 'art'li. He became disturbed by the uncivilized behavior o f the indigenous population, and in retaliation
Alexander reportedly initiated an ancient version o f ethnic cleansing. The Life o f the Kings asserts that
Alexander "destroyed all traces o f the mixed tribes in K 'art'li, and he slaughtered and imprisoned all of
the foreign tribes, [including] women, and young children less than fifteen years old ." 2 4 3 Thus it was
through Alexander that the "barbarian elements that had risen to prominence in K 'a rt'li ware
extirpated .2 4 4
According to the medieval Georgian historical tradition, Alexander appointed a certain Azon to
administer K 'art'li .2 4 3 Our sources disagree as to the identity o f this Azon. The Life o f the Kings
239Armenian MSS BCD have the variant Samshute.

24The Armenian has "U qMmp qfarnj phfuih* tumhuilj," "and the fortress on the Kur [Mtkuari] River. Xunan."
2 4 *Cf. the K 'artvelians' insult of Heraclius during his siege of T pilisi.
2 4 2 7%e Life o f the Kings, p. 18. Cf. the brief account o f Prim. Hist. K'art'li, p. 81: "And then Alexander
captured Saridne: the very [Bunt'urk'-s] abandoned it and retreated."
2 4 3 77e Life
o f the Kings, p. 18. Cf. Arm. Adapt. K'C', p. 25 = Thomson trans., p. 25: "But he [i.e.,
Alexander] slaughtered many o f the others, and took captive women and innocent children under twelve
years o ld "
244But as suggested earlier the ascendency o f these foreign elements is not explained in our sources.
243Cf. Movses Xorenac'i, n.8, p. 140, for Alexander appointing a prince to rule over the K'art'velians. It
is not known whether this account was invented by Xorenac'i or whether he is simply repeating an
established tradition.
204
describes him as a member o f Alexander's Macedonian clan and the son o f a certain Iaredos.
Furthermore, this text asserts that Azon held the Roman honor o f patridan (patrUd).2^
The Primary
History ofK'art'li, however, relates that "King Alexander brought forth Azoy. son o f the king o f Aryan
K 'art'li" and enthroned Azoy the Azon o f The Life o f the Kings - as king .2 4 2
The Primary History o f K'art'li thus claims that a king o f "Aryan K 'art'li" was already
established at the time o f Alexander's appearance in Caucasia.24** The term "Aryan" (spelled "Arian" in
Georgian) is almost certainly related to the Persian designation Aran, i.e.. Iran/Persia.24^ Thus we have a
further indication of the connection o f early Kart'li to the Persian world The second component of the
corpus Mok'c'evay k'art'lisay, the Royal List 1 which itself relied upon the preceding text. The Primary
History commences w ith the statement "And this Azoy, son o f the king o f the Ar[y]an K'art'velians,
was the first king in M c'xet'a..."2^
The Primary History and Royal List I identify Azoy's father as a
monarch o f "Aryan K 'art'li" but he did not reign from M c'xet'a. That is to say. although K 'art'velian
24^The Life o f the Kings, p. 18.

^ P r im . Hist. K'art'li, p. 81.
24**This alternate tradition o f the establishment o f royal authority among the K'art'velians was not
incorporated into K'C' and has come down to us only in the corpus of Mok'. k'art'. Many modem
historians have completely overlooked this alternate tradition; see, e.g., Allen, History o f the Georgian
People, p. 41; and R. Metreveli, Georgia: Overview ( 1993), pp. 5-6.
24^See also Melik' ishvili, "Obrazovanie kartliiskogo (iberiiskogo) gosudarstva," in Ocherld istorii Gruzii.
vol. 1, pp. 252-254. Guram Mamulia, Klasobrivi sazogadoebisa da saxelmcip 'os ch amoqalibeba dzvel
k'art'lshi, ch. 4, "K 'art'lis (iberiis) samep'os carmokmna," pp. 93-113 (Eng., p. 189), places the
ascendancy o f K 'art'li within the context o f the decay of the Achaemenid empire. Within that enterprise,
the eighteenth satrapy was "Sasperoi" which Mamulia has convincingly equated with Persian K 'art'li, i.e..
"Aryan K 'art'li." Coincidentally, Mamulia derives the Greek Iberia from Speri (cf. Sa-sper-oi).
Toumanoff, Studies, p. 90 (footnote 124), suggests that "Ayran K 'art'li" is the equivalent o f Ptolemy's
Arane (V.vi. 18) or the H ariana of the Hittites. Salia, History o f the Georgian Nation, p. 42, links it to the
kingdom o f Hurri, the southern part o f Subartu. Peeters, "Jeremie. eveque de l'lberie Perse (431)," AB 51
(1933), pp. 5-33, refers to the acts of the Council o f Ephesus in which a certain "Ieremia Iberos parttium
Persidis" is mentioned. After the treaty o f 422, K 'artli and much of Armenian fell under Persian rule;
Lazika (western "Georgia) was under Roman hegemony. In the acts o f Ephesus "Persian Iberia," i.e.,
"Persian K 'art'li," refers to the fact that K 'a rt'li was under Persian administration; Peeters suggests that at
the end o f the fourth century competing K 'art'velian monarchs had been established by the Persians and
Romans (p. 13; perhaps a similar situation is reflected in the isochronal dyarchs [first and second
centuries AD] o f The Life o f the Kings and Royal List I). There is no reason to think that the term "Aryan
K 'art'li" was devised in the fifth century AD, though, should it be a later invention, then we must ask why
part of K 'a rt'li was afforded this association with Persia. I should think that the designation was coined
in the Islamic period; the inventor was cognizant o f K 'art'li's ancient Persian heritage, and for whatever
reason he traced K 'art'velian kingship back to Persian K 'art'li. Should the term be ancient, then it would
seem that the contemporary K'art'velians counted themselves as part of Iran.
250RoyalListJ, p. 82.
205
kingship (and specifically, this particular dynasty) was made to predate Alexanders invasion, it was only
as a result o f Alexander's conquest that local kings sat in M c'xeta. The Primary History and Royal List I
provide no clue as to the ultimate origin and antiquity o f kingship among the K'art'velians. Moreover,
neither source was acquainted with the K 'art'los legend nor even the designation "K'art'Iosiani." Azov
was unambiguously depicted as native K 'art'velian, and some modem scholars have suggested that his
very name might be a corruption o f "Jason" who had come to neighboring Colchis with the Argonauts in
search o f the Golden Fleece.2 5 1 This conjecture, however, is extremely unlikely, for we possess
absolutely no evidence that the tale of Jason and the Argonauts, and their voyage to neighboring Colchis,
was current among the K'art'velians. We should also note that The Primary History o f K'art 'li does not
specifically call Azon king, while the initial passage o f the dependent Royal List I does.2 5 2
For its part The Life o f the Kings is entirely unacquainted with both the region o f "Aryan
K 'art'li" and the existence o f a K 'art'velian monarchy before Alexanders alleged invasion.2 5 2 In it Azon
is styled as a patrician and not mep'e (king). This is significant, for Azon is afforded a specifically nonK 'ait'velian title. The Ufe o f the Kings does refer once to Azon as the erist'avi o f K 'art'li. but erist'avi
was not an exclusively K 'art'velian position, and our historian ascribes the establishment erist 'av~dXes in
the service o f the K 'art'velian Crown only to the subsequent reign o f its first king P'am avaz. Also, The
Life o f the Kings emphasizes that Azon was Alexander's kinsm an (a Macedonian) and not a native
K 'art'velian. According to The Ufe o f the Kings, the first king o f the K 'art'velians was established when
he rebelled against Azon. The form of the name o f Alexander's appointee is itself suggestive: in The Ufe
o f the Kings we encounter Azon. where -on is a Greek (-ON), i.e., foreign, suffix (cf. Platon). The Azov of
The Primary History o f K'art'li lacks this allochthonous ending.25^
2 5 *Melik' ishvili, "Obrazovanie kartliiskogo (iberiiskogo) gosudarstvo, in
Ocher/d istorii Gruzii, vol. 1.
p. 255; and Burney and Lang. The Peoples o f the Hills, p. 195.
2 5 2 / >nni. Hist. K'art'li and Royal Ust I constitute the first two works of the composite M ok\ k'art'. and
that neither work has been found independently o f this corpus. Both works, therefore, were subject to
later (esp. ninth-Ztenth-century) editorial changes.
252"Aryan K 'artli" is once mentioned in The Ufe o f Nino in M ok\ k'art'. =Shat. Codex, p. 335^: "...
q36o)6cs JjciBcsab 3a3ao>a co^gaB oi a 6 o 4 B-â<6o9eso" = "[the idols G ac'i and Ga] are the gods of
our [forefathers from Aryan K 'art'li." It is probably not a coincidence that this source was found together
with The Primary History o f K'art'li and Royal U st I. Later, Arsen Iqalt'oeli, Metaphr. Nino, p. 391,
refers to "Aryan K 'art'li" in connection with Azo(y]; but his source w as Mok'. k'art'.
25*The Ufe o f the Kings does not suggest that the P'am avaziani-s were related to this Azon. Cf. the
attempt o f several medieval Welsh genealogies to connect their royalty with the last Roman ruler o f
Britain, Magnus Maximus (d. 388 AD). The prestige of Rome was overwhelming in Europe, but, as is
argued throughout this study, royal legitimacy in pre-Bagratid K 'a rt'li was conceived in Persian terms.
See Dumville, "Kingship, Genealogies and Regnal Lists," pp. 81-82.
206
The anonymous author o f The U fe o f the Kings not only contends that Azon was an outsider, but
he underscored that Azon retained his position only w ith the assistance o f foreign troops. After all,
Alexander had buttressed Azon's governorship with some 100,000 soldiers from Protat" os in "the land o f
R o m e ." ^ With outside backing, Azon's hegemony extended over "all the borders/frontiers o f Kart' li.
from H eret'i and the Berduji River up to the Speri [i.e.. Black] Sea. And [having subdued] K 'art'li he
conquered Egrisi and made the 0[v]si*s, Leki-s, and Kbazars [his] v a s s a ls ." ^ Azoy's dominion is less
grand in The Primary History o f K'art'li: "the borders/frontiers o f Heret'i, Egris- cqali [lit. "the
water/river o f Egrisi"], Somxif i [i.e., Armenia], and ML C 'r o l i . " ^
According to The Ufe o f the Kings, Alexander also established a new faith for K 'a rt'li, and
entrusted its propagation and maintenance to Azon. The early K 'art'velian kings and their relationship to
pre-Christian religion are the subject o f a special discussion in the following chapter.
Once Alexander departed from Caucasia, The U fe o f the Kings imparts that he went to Egypt
where he was stricken with some illness. On his deathbed he apportioned his possessions among four
esteemed kinspeople: Antiok'oz (Syria and Mesopotamia), Hromos (Rome). Bizantios ("Greece" and
A n ato lia),^* and Platon ( E g y p t) .^ It is extremely curious that the Georgian historical tradition
ascribes the eponyras o f Rome and Byzantium to the tim e o f Alexander, and this further testifies to the
relative contemporary K'art'velian ignorance about the Roman Empire. Significantly, the great
civilizations o f Rome and Byzantium seem to be (mistakenly) depicted as having been established in the
Hellenistic period, precisely at the time when K 'art'velian royal authority had emerged! This contention
is extremely important, for it made K' art' li to be o f the same antiquity' as Rome and Byzantium.
Cf. the variant "Protiatos" for the island of Proteus in the printed version of Venice MS 424 of Ps.CallisthenesArmenian, p. 48. note 2. Thomson in his trans. o fArm. Adapt. K'C', p. 25. footnote 6 ,
notes that "The Georgian [text] applies the term p 'rotat 'os to the city o f Rome, and uses the adj.
p'rotat'oselni for the soldiers." This is not altogether true, for the Georgian makes P*rotat'os to be in "the
land o f Rome" (k'ueqanit' hromit') which might refer to any part o f the Roman domains. Thomson also
notes the curious usage of P'romni for "Romans in the Georgian version o f Acts XVI.21.
The Ufe o f the Kings, p. 19.

^ P r im . Hist. K'art'li, p. 82.
250
Byzas, the founder o f Byzantium, is mentioned by Procopius, On the Buildings, I.v.l. Some of
Procopius works were known to Bagratid-era historians, but this need not imply that he served as a source
for pre-Bagratid ones.
2^0
See also Vashakidze, "M ep'et'a c'xovreba' da berdznuli 'alek'sandriani,'" in Istoriul-
cqarot'mc'odneobit'igamokvlevebi, esp. pp. 4lff.
207
Bizantios is said to have received "Greece."2 6 6 "Greece," Saberdznet'i (iM&artdbgojo),26*

denotes the Byzantine Empire ,2 6 2 and its area comprises not only Greece proper but also Constantinople
and Anatolia. The Ufe o f the Kings contends that the patrician and erist'avi Azon fell under the authority'
o f Bizantios after the death o f Alexander. This is significant for it is one o f the fen- instances in this text
that the Romans/Byzantines are afforded hegemony over K 'art'li, and it is striking that the neighboring
Armenians are subordinated to the ruler o f the East, Antiok'oz (who must represent the Seleucids).
Indeed the Romans/Byzantines are m inor characters throughout the work, for the K 'art'velians are placed
firmly within the Persian world and not w ithin the sphere o f the Byzantine commonwealth. Meanwhile.
Azon legislated that any K 'art'velian found to possess property or to be armed should be executed. The
Ufe o f the Kings sums up the situation by reporting that "there was great turmoil within the clan[s] of the
K 'artvelians ."26 2 It was in this context that P'arnavaz, a native of K 'art'li and himself related to the
mamasaxlisi-s o f Mc'xeta. rebelled against Azon and established royal authority' in K 'art'li.
Did K'art'velian kingship precede Alexander? Was Azoy/Azon the son of the king o f Aryan
K 'art'li? Guram Mamulia, in his insightful study of social and political structures in early K 'art'li.
theorized that the account o f The Ufe o f the Kings (his "Leonti Mroveli") was inaccurate .2 6 4 Mamulia
based his argument on the premise that P'arnavaz. the first native king in The Ufe o f the Kings, had built
an idol next to those erected by Azon himself. This, the author suggested, was impossible, since
P'arnavaz would have presumably destroyed the idols o f his predecessor upon his ascendancy. Rather.
Mamulia found the episode to symbolize P'am avazs "adoption" of Azon's relatives in an attempt to
2 6 6 77re Ufe
Saberdznet'i is a curious word. It consists o f the root brdzeni. a very old word meaning "sage." "wise
man," and the circumfix Sa-...-o which is a generic geographical marker denoting "the land where x live."
Thus Saberdznet'i literally means "land where the wise men live." possibly referring to the philosophers of
ancient Greece. The Sa-...-o circumfix is rather common, cf. Sak'art'velo (^ 6 ^ 601332501 ) and
Samegrelo (biSgafiflcpci). But N.Ia. M arr in Agat'angeghosArabic, commentary. pp. 167-170. suggests
that the term beri represents not "old men" or "philosophers" but "son." He postulates that the root -br- is
essentially geographical and may be detected in Abasgia, Iberia. Isper. Eger (Egrisi). Guria. and the
Armenian designation for K ' art' li, Virk. M arr also found the -br- root in the praenomen o f Ibir-b-zxua.
the metropolitan of K 'art'li allegedly appointed by Gregory the Illuminator {ibid.. pp. 171-172).
262This is evident in the/Inn. Adapt. K 'C \ p. 27 = Thomson trans., p. 27, which designates Hromos*
holdings as the area inhabited by "die western Greeks."
2 6 2 7%e Ufe
a x
Guram Mamulia, Klasobrivi sazogadoebisa da saxelmcip'os ch'amoqalibebisa dzvel k'art'ulshi

(1979), with extensive Eng. sum., "The Emergence of a Class Society and State in Ancient Kartli
(Iberia)," pp. 184-191, esp. pp. 184-185 and 189-191.
208
engender a "social synthesis" o f their two houses.2 6 5 The defect Mamulia's clever thesis is that he treated
the text o f "Leonti Mroveli" as an organic whole: the portion from which he quoted, regarding the idols, is
actually from The Ufe o f Nino which was inserted sometime after the ninth century. And the aim o f The
U fe o f Nino w as not to offer an accurate royal history o f K 'art'li, but rather to describe the triumph of
Christianity over idolatry. Significantly, by incorporating some o f the elements o f the earlier Life o f the
Kings and The Primary History o f K'art'li, The Ufe o f Nino did not nam e the builders o f the idols.
Mamulia has taken these earlier accounts, and interpolated Azon/Azoy and P'arnavaz into this vita. In
short, Mamulia's hypothesis fails because he did not distinguish the composite nature o f C'xorebay
k'art'velt'a mep'et'a. Moreover, we should also emphasize that Mamulia took at face value the account of
The Ufe o f the Kings and The Primary History ofK 'art'li, and he failed to recognize that the importance
o f these texts lies in the image they project and not necessarily in their alleged historical veracity .2 6 6
Mamulia spun out other intriguing theories, but they are similarly based upon his
misunderstanding o f the nature o f C'xorebay k'art'velt'a mep'et'a. He conjectured that the "Aryan
K ' art' li" o f The Primary History o f K'art 'li and o f the dependent Royal U st I corresponds to Sasperoi
(Speri), the eighteenth satrapy o f the Achaemenid Empire. Sasperoi is equated with Persian K 'art' li. and
thus Aryan K 'art'li. Moreover, Mamulia associated the Greek Iberia w ith Speri (cf. Sa-sper-oi) based on
their common root which was noticed already by M arr (I-bet-ia/Sa-sper-oi).2 6 7 Therefore, the territorial
extent of Aryan K 'art'li could be equated with the holdings o f Odzrq'os o f The Ufe o f the Kings. But this
argument is far from convincing, for The Ufe o f the Kings says only that Odzrq'os, a grandson o f
K 'art'los, ruled "from Tasiskari to the Speri [i.e., Black] Sea." 2 6 8 The designation "Aryan K 'art'li" is
not found in The Ufe o f the Kings. But, based upon these findings, Mamulia proposed that Azon's father
reigned over a small kingdom located in the southern "Georgian" region o f Mesxet' i. It should be
A similar argument was advanced by Vashakidze, Elinisturi xanis k 'art 'lis samep 'os soc ialuri
istoriidan (1991), with Rus. sum., "Iz sotsial'noi istorii kartliiskogo tsarstva ellinisticheskoi epokhi," pp.
141-149, esp. pp. 147-148.
266I do not deny that these texts may have been based upon some old oral traditions, but any such
evidence was certainly fragmentary and legendary in nature.
commentary, pp. 167-172. Such an identification has extremely

important nationalistic overtones, for the Bagratids' original homeland appears to be Speri. Thus, should
Mamulia's hypothesis be accurate, a direct link between the P'am avaziani-s and the early Bagratids might
be invented. But we should emphasize that the Bagratids are not mentioned in either The U fe o f the
Kings, The U fe ofVaxtang, or the derivative (but Bagratid-era!) compilation M ok'. k'art'.; the earliest
reference to them occurs at the end o f the brief continuation o f Ps.-Juansher. On the rise o f the Bagratids,
seech. 6 .
2 6 7 Cf. Marr in Agat'angeghosArabic,
2 6 8 7fte Ufe
209
emphasized that a direct statement to this effect is not found in any medieval Georgian source, including
The Primary History o f K'art'li.

Following the demise o f Darius' empire, Alexander o f Macedon appointed a satrap for Armenia,
a certain M ihr from the Ervandid clan. Mamulia suggested that Azon declared himself a vassal o f this
Armenian satrap, and that under Muir's protection Azon was able to initiate a conquest o f central
Caucasia. Assuming that the K 'art'velians (Mamulia's K 'art'-s) enjoyed a higher social organization than
Azon's Mesxi-s, Azon was accordingly unable to subjugate the K'art'velians. and after twenty-four years
be was ousted by P'arnavaz. According to Mamulia, P'arnavaz adopted many o f the features of Azon's
kingdom, including the institution o f the erist'avi-s, and that P'arnavaz's incorporation o f these features
was symbolically remembered in his raising o f an idol between those o f Azon .2 6 9
Reviewing his findings, Mamulia proposed his explanation o f the two traditions o f the
establishment o f K 'art'velian kingship. Thus, The Ufe o f the Kings represents the official, albeit distorted
view at the behest o f the descendants of P'arnavaz. Thus, the status o f kingship was denied to Azon/Azoy
and his fanuly, as well as the very fact that they were K 'art'velians. For its part. The Primary History o f
K'art'li preserves accurately the fact that Azon/Azoy and his clan represented a pre-P'am avaziani royal
dynasty in K 'a rt' li. But in its support of Azon/Azoy, it om itted any mention o f the assumed cruelty that
occurred during his reign. The Primary History o f K'art'li could be regarded as expressing the view of the
erist'avi-s o f O dzrq'e and K larjet'i, those regions from where, Mamulia surmised. Azon/Azoy came.
Mamulia's study is exceedingly important for it recognized, and contemplated in a creative,
scholarly fashion, the divergent traditions of the provenance o f K 'art'velian kingship. Mamulia's remains
the most cogent Georgian attempt to reconcile the two traditions of the establishment o f indigenous royal
authority among the K'art'velians, and he was right to differentiate them. Nevertheless, too man} o f his
arguments were launched from a purely sociological and anthropological point o f view, and, while
intriguing, they do not rest upon ancient and medieval evidence. While his connection o f Azon with
Mesxet'i and Javaxet'i is enticing, his argument was made principally ex silentio. In addition, it is
difficult to regard The Primary History o f K'art'li as a history o f the erist'avi-s o f M esxet'i and Javaxet'i
since the source itself offers no information whatsoever on that region and only the barest o f details about
non-royal figures. Mamulia has simply deduced, partly through his misguided assumption that The Ufe
o f Nino constitutes an integral part o f The Ufe o f the Kings, that Azon/Azoy represents a pre-Hellenistic
royal line in Aryan K 'art'li. Finally, Mamulia's study often obscured the division o f history and image. It
is entirely possible that a pre-P"amavaziani dynasty was established in K 'a rt'li and that the author o f The
Ufe o f the Kings, as an advocate for P' aroavaz and his successors, chose to deny the monarchs of "Aryan
269Guram Mamulia, Klasobrivi sazogadoebisa, pp. 93-113, and Eng. sum., pp. 189-190.
210
K 'a rt'li the status of kingship, essentially delegitiniizing them .7 7 0 But for the moment, the issue o f the
identification o f Azon/Azoy and his connection with the establishment o f royal authority in K 'art'li
remains unresolved.7 7 *
A Further Consideration o f the Dates o f the Medieval Georgian Traditions ofAlexander
Now that the two Georgian accounts of Alexanders invasion o f K 'a rt'li and his consequent
appointment o f Azon/Azoy have been described and compared, the question o f which o f our relevant
Georgian sources is o f greater antiquity merits a re-examination. Unfortunately, the imbroglio of early
Georgian historical writing renders it impossible, at least with the MSS currently at our disposal, to offer
any firm conclusions; we may only point out the most tenable explanations.
The more detailed o f the two traditions is that o f The Life o f the Kings which stresses that Azon
was an outsider and that he was not a king o f the K 'art'velians but only a patrician (a rank) and erist 'avi
(a functional title) appointed by Alexander. The first king o f the K 'art'velians. according to The Life o f
the Kings, was P'arnavaz who is said to have rebelled against the very Azon. This P'arnavaz is explicitly
identified as a native K'art'velian, although he was also Persian through his mother.
The alternate tradition enshrined in The Primary History ofK 'art 'li maintains that K 'art'velian
royal authority had been established before Alexander's appearance in Caucasia. It contends that Azoy
was a native and himself the scion o f an existing K 'art'velian king. However, Azqys family is depicted as
holding the reins o f power in Aryan K 'art'li, or Persian K 'art'li. Although Azoy and his clan are not
made to be Persians, nevertheless the attributive "Ayran" almost certainly denotes "Persian" K 'art'li. and
thus both traditions link the K 'art'velian royal clan with Persia. Royal U st /. which is dependent upon
The Primary History o f K'art'li (both of which occur in the corpus o f Mok'c'evay k'art'lisay).
acknowledges Azoy as the first king o f the K 'art'velians to sit in Me 'xet a .7 7 7
7 On the ancient development o f the southwestern regions o f "Georgia." see G.G. Cheishvili, "Samxretdasavlet' sak'art'velos (mesxet'is) istoriuli geograp'iis sakit'xebi antikur xanashi," summary o f doctoral
thesis (1994), with Rus. sum., "Voprosy istoricheskoi geografii Iugo-Zapadnoi Gruzii (Meskheti) v
antichnuiu epokhy," pp. 2 1 -2 2 .
1 Although the vast majority o f modem scholars have chosen to either ignore the alternate tradition of
Azoy or to prefer one over the other, happily there have been other scholars who admit that a solution is
not within the purview o f scholarship using only the MSS presently at hand. E.g., A. Gugushvili, "The
Chronological-Genealogical Table o f the Kings o f Georgia," Georgica 1/2-3 (O ct 1936), pp. 109-114,
and this even though Gugushvili declares that Prim. Hist. K'art'li is earlier than The Ufe o f the Kings (p.
110).
7 7 7 Gugushvili, "Chronological-Genealogical Table," pp. 109-110, suggests that Prim. His. K'art'li
actually speaks o f a migration under Azqy/Azon o f K 'art'velians from their homeland in Ayran K 'art'li to
K 'a rt'li (with its center at M e'xet'a) proper.
211
It might be tempting to hypothesize that The Primary History o f K'art'li is of greater antiquity
than The Ufe o f the fangs, for the former is now found attached to the relatively early seventh-century
Conversion o f K'art'li.272 However, there is no justification for this argument other than the fact that
The Primary History o f K'art'li and The Conversion o f K'art'li are preserved in the same corpus of
Mok'c'evay k'art'lisay. Internal evidence, while demonstrating the existence o f two traditions, does not
assist us in dating the original texts. The Primary History o f K'art'li admits to a royal authority in
K 'a rt'li predating Alexander whereas the latter ignored it, potentially out o f convenience .2 7 4 It should be
said that The Primary History o f K 'art'li does not name Azoy as king. Only his unnamed father was
afforded that title. But the dependent Royal U st I designates Azoy king, and it is entirely possible that
this text merely interpolated the status. The Ufe o f the Kings is unacquainted with any K 'art'velian
monarchs before P'arnavaz.
How may we account for the discrepancies o f content between the two traditions? It is quite
likely that Royal U st I is dependent upon The U fe o f the Kings,27^ Accordingly, the initial Royal Ust
must postdate The Ufe o f the Kings, an d according to my periodization, Royal U st I could not have been
compiled before the ninth century. B ut Royal U st I did not extract its information on "King" Azoy from
The Ufe o f the Kings', this was presumably appropriated from The Primary History ofK'art 'li. So it
seems probable that the anonymous compiler o f Royal U st I relied upon both The Ufe o f the Kings and
The Primary History ofK'art'li, unless, o f course, he employed a now-lost intermediate source (or
sources).
The author o f The Ufe o f the Kings was an image-maker and it was important for him to
demonstrate that the first king o f K 'a rt'li was a native K 'art'velian. In his P'arnavaz we have a king that
weaved together many o f the threads which binded the K 'art'velian community: a common (albeit
imagined) historical tradition, language, alphabet, and religion. The very name P'arnavaz was intended
to magnify K 'art'velian royal legitimacy, being based upon the Persian word fam ah, demonstrating that
from the beginning the K 'art'velian monarchs possessed the "divine grace" understood by the Persians
and presumably the K 'art'velians as well to be an unmistakable sign o f rulership. It is entirely possible
that P'arnavaz was not a historical figure at all, but rather the invention o f the anonymous author of The
273Ibid'., describes Prim. Hist. K'art'li as an earlier text than The Ufe o f the Kings.
274Such a chronology was most recently proposed by Araxamia, "'M ok'c'evay k'art'lisay da c'xovreba
k 'art'velt'a mepet'a.'" inlstoriul-cqarot'mc'odneobit'i gamokvlevebi, pp. 49-56, with Rus. sum.,
"'Obrashchenie Kartli' i 'Zhizn' kartliiskikh tsarei," p. 69. As with many o f the arguments o f modern
Georgian scholars, Araxamia has failed to identify Mok'. k'art'. as a coprus o f several distinct texts.
2 7 5 Seech. 1 .
212
Ufe o f the Kings. H ad the author been familiar with the tradition that Azoy/Azon was a king, he might
have simply ignored it bad it not imparted the glorious dawn o f indigenous royal authority. And had he
been familiar with Azoy's/Azon's potential identification with the Jason o f Argonautic fame (as some
modem specialists have suggested), he might have played this card, for it dripped with antiquity. But we
may not dismiss the account o f The Ufe o f the Kings on these hypothetical points, for. as we have seen,
with his description o f the deluge universal, the author was faithful to received tradition, and we have no
reason to believe that he would have been any less faithful to any received K 'art'velian traditions.
Two divergent accounts o f the establishment o f royal authority in K 'a rt'li have come down to us.
yet both are in accord on three fundamental points: from the start the king {mep e) was the pinnacle o f
K 'art'velian society. K 'art'velian kingship, at least one based in M e'xet'a. was established in the
Hellenistic period; and indigenous royal authority is depicted as uniform throughout K 'art'li. and the
coherence and legitimacy of the K ' art'velian polity was never called into question.
Since the
historical Alexander never invaded K 'art'li, both accounts may be envisioned as creative attempts to link
K'art'velian kingship with the renowned world-conqueror, whose history was known to all the civilized
Mediterranean world.
Moreover, both The Life o f the Kings and The Primary History ofK 'art'li claimed to represent
the tradition o f the origin o f K 'art'li. This is manifested by the initial word o f each text, pirvelad
(3 ofi 3 3 E?icg), or "[at] first," "in the beginning.
But while The Ufe o f the Kings proceeds from a
hybrid Old Testament-Persian framework, grafting the provenance o f the K 'art'velians upon the progeny
of Noah but in a clearly Persian social context. The Primary History o f K'art'li is unfamiliar with any
tradition o f the foundation of the K 'art'velian community.
778
Rather, it merely commences with
Alexander's mythical conquest o f K 'art'li, and this event becomes the point o f departure for all recorded
K 'artvelian history
It is significant that The Primary History o f K'art 'li did not incorporate/know
97
It is extremely unlikely that early K 'art'li was a unified enterprise throughout its existence. On this
theme (for neighboring Armenia), see Garsoian. "Armenia in the Fourth Century: An Attempt to ReDefine the Concepts 'Armenia' and 'Loyalty,'" REArm, n.s. 8 (1971), pp. 341-352.
277
The Ufe o f Nino in C'x. k'art'. mep'et'a also begins with this word, signifying that its Christian author
believed that K 'art'velian history began only with the missionary activities o f Nino; to him. the only
K 'art'velian history worthy of documentation was Christian. Cf. usages in the medieval Georgian Bible,
as John 1.1: "3 o 6 3 3 2 2 O0 )&a6 0 3 m b o ^ g -jQ \pirvelit'gan iqo sitquay]" = "In the beginning was the
Word"; but Genesis 1.1, "co.)bA&A3 AG9
gdstimdAB qaq q a ^)3 3 a 6 a," "In the beginning God
created the Heaven and the Earth (the word dasabamad expresses here "in the beginning.")
^ ^ T h e origin o f the Bagratids. and not the K'art'velian/Georgian community, are similiarly described in
the eleventh-century history o f Sumbat Davit' is-dze. Davit' is-dze is known to have used The Royal Usts
as sources.
27Q
In this regard, it should be said that the apocryphal first Book o f the Maccabees also commences with
Alexander. / Maccabee^ 1.1-9, pp. 67-68, does not link Alexander to Nectanebus although it does state
213
the legend o f Haos and K 'art' los. The Alexander tale o f The Primary History o f K'art 'li. however, is
clearly related to that in The Ufe o f the Kings, for both accounts correspond on several points.
Owing to the late MS tradition o f both texts, we are not in a position to offer even a relative
chronology w ith respect to those works. However, we may advance the most likely scenarios:
1. The Ufe o f the Kings was composed before The Primary History o f K'art 'li.
Therefore, The Primary History o f K'art'li, like its appended Royal Lists.
is a later paraphrasing o f The U fe o f the Kings. The Primary History would
have been compiled in the ninth/tenth century (when our earliest MSS
were copied), i.e., in the Bagratid period. The tale o f Haos and K 'art'los was
consciously edited out o f the account, owing to the prominence rendered to the
Armenians in i t Moreover, the Persian flavor o f early K 'art'velian society
would not have appealed to the Bagratids, who had risen to power under
Byzantine influence; however, a memory o f K 'art'li's connection with Persia is
retained by the word "Aryan." I am tempted to adopt the view that a Bagratidera cleric effectively denied the tradition presented by The Ufe o f the Kings.
2. The Primary History o f K'art'li represents the earliest extant Georgian historical
source, and the subsequent U fe o f the Kings exploited it as a source. Since The
Primary History does not specifically explain the origin o f the K'art'velians.
the anonymous author o f The Ufe o f the Kings sought to place his community
within a Biblical framework, and the most plausible way to accomplish this was
to use the Armenian version o f Hippolytus. The earlier tradition that Azoy had
been the son o f an existing K 'art'velian king was consciously re-written by the
author o f The Ufe o f the Kings in order to make a prototypical monarch out of
P'arnavaz. The brief account o f The Primary History was greatly embellished
by the later historian.
3. The Ufe o f the Kings and The Primary History o f K'art'li are independent o f one
another. Accordingly, both anonymous historians relied upon a now lost,
common or intermediary' source/sources and oral traditions.
Alexander in Succeeding Georgian Historiography
Like the account o f K 'art'los in The Ufe o f the Kings, that o f Alexander was neglected by
ensuing medieval Georgian historians. The pre-Bagratid kings of K 'art'li offered no ideological or
historical justification for Bagratid rule. We must wonder whether the existence o f K'art 'lis c 'xovreba, of
that the world-conqueror "pressed forward to the ends o f the earth" and that he reigned for twelve years.
Moreover, it also relates the oft encountered tradition that Alexander divided his territories among his
chief ministers while on his deathbed The apportionment o f his empire, and the evil which is alleged to
have ensued set the context for the consequent Jewish struggle. A common tradition is thus expressed in
both IMaccabees and Prim. Hist. K'art'li. It should be emphasized that there is no evidence that the
latter used the former (and even The Ufe o f the Kings) as a source; this is in contradistinction to
Xorenaci.
214
which The U fe o f the Kings occupied the initial position within th at corpus, enabled later authors not to
repeat material from i t Yet The Ufe o f the Kingsf inclusion in toto within that corpus o f Georgian
historical writing compiled in, and transmitted throughout, the Bagratid period must draw our attention.
This circumstance may be explained partly by the fact that it had formed the original core o f K'art'iis
c xovreba. Moreover, no Bagratid-era historian attempted to account for the ethnogenesis o f the
K 'art'velian community, and no pre-Bagratid text could deny the ideological bases later developed by the
Bagratids. It should be recalled that The Primary History o f K'art 'li, with its version o f Alexander's
invasion, was not a constituent work o f K'art'iis c'xovreba. In any event, it was likewise largely
ignored.2** Although we possess no clear references in later medieval Georgian historical literature to
Alexander's activity in K 'art'li, that king of the then-known world did not go entirely unnoticed by later
writers.
The U fe ofVaxtang, a text contemporary with The Ufe o f the Kings, is acquainted with
Alexander, but it did not relate that he had invaded K 'art'li. However, in it Alexander is reported to have
established the border between the Roman Empire/Byzantium ("Greece") and Kartli .2 8 1 A later (but yet
undated) synchronism inserted into the contemporary Ps.-Juansher states that "from the year [that]
Alexander [died in] Alexandria to the appearance o f Muhammad were 927 years."2 8 2
The Georgian tradition o f Alexander was known to some K 'art'velian clerics from the tenth
century. After all, The Primary History o f K'art'li formed the initial part o f Mok'c'evay k 'art lisay which
was compiled at that time. Not only did this text circulate within K 'art'velian domains (the tenth-century'
Shatberdi codex) but also abroad (the unpublished tenth-/eleventh-century Mt. Sinai variants from St.
Catharine's Monastery. This assumes that their accounts o f Alexander, now wanting, were originally part
o f these MSS).
280We have no indication that the constituents o f Mok'. k'art'. were ever inserted into K'C ' in order to
replace the pre-Bagratid texts. The Georgian tradition o f Alexander are briefly recalled by the twelfthcentury Arsen Iqalt'oeli, Metapr. Nino, pp. 390-391, though his information is taken completely from The
Ufe o f the Kings and Prim. Hist. K'art'li.
28*The Ufe ofVaxtang, p. 177.

2 8 2 Ps.-Juansher, p. 230^
"3oa33.soob &.s3 eibo 6 a&i0 O3 6 ? 0 ^ l 6 cg6 <)b
oyci
n.($&sd$soo âC5 iCMjbj.bcgtfi'jbo." The m eaning o f this passage is not altogether clear, Thomson, in
his trans. of the Georgian text in^4rm. Adapt. K'C', pp. 238-239, rendered it as "From the year of
Alexander down to the appearance o f Mahamad was 927 years o f the Alexandrian [era]." He notes in
footnote 23 that the year 927 o f the Seleucid era corresponds with 615/616 AD, and this year is only one
removed for a date given in the Armenian text for the propecy o f Hermes Trismegistos. Qauxch'ishvili
(and footnote 2 ) considers this to be a later insertion (i.e., post-eighth/ninth century) although it does
appear in the earliest Georgian MSS (from the late fifteenth century).
215
Comparisons of K 'art'velian rulers with Alexander were articulated only from the twelfth
century. Davit' n (1089-1125) was proclaimed to be a "new Alexander," and even surpassing him owing
to his adherence to Christianity. T he following passage from The Ufe o f Davit' is reminiscent o f Psellus
comparison o f Alexander and the Byzantine emperor Constantine DC Monomachos ( 1042-1055):283
For although a w riting compares the Macedonian to a winged panther because o f the
speed of his attack and his rapid march over the world, and for the tremendous variety of
his movements and plans; yet our crowned [king] and new Alexander, though later in
time was not inferior in deeds, o r counsel, or valor, in those very deeds for which
Alexander was said to be a conqueror, [Davit'] was not inferior, but I think him superior
for [their] number. And as much as [Alexander] was superior and pre-eminent among
all his equals o f his time in temporal and material ways, so did [Davit'] exceed all the
best around him in the commandments of God and Christ, as well as in material ways.
For he allowed his eyes no sleep, nor his eyelids any repose, nor his body any rest: he
did not turn to pleasures or the desires o f the flesh, nor did he concentrate his mind on
feasting [lit "eating-drinking"], o r on indecent songs, or on the inconsequential affairs
o f the body, but rather on all divine and spiritual matters in order to ov ercome and tame
the inclinations o f the will.28 4
D av it's military successes were also measured against those o f Alexander the Great:
Did he not struggle until among his troops there was not found any cowardly intention,
so that so many victories were gained or so many kingdoms were overcome? Was this
by sleeping or by carousing on grassy spots, by enjoyment and engaging in indecent
behavior? This is not so, no, [for] Alexander never acted in this way! For first he
gathered the [forces] o f his fatherland [mamuli], and with them captured the West[:]
Europe, Italy, Rome, and Africa, and having overcome these he seized Egypt, marching
from Carthage, and then from Egypt [to] Palestine and Phoenicia; and after he made
Cilicia his, he attacked Darius. And when he had gained Persia, then he conquered
Poros the Indian. And in this way' he covered the whole world and he accomplished
what he did; except that with Georgian [k'art'velt'a] troops Alexander could not have
attained [such a] good [result]. So if Davit' had controlled the kingdom of the Persians
or the force o f the Greeks and Romans, or of other great kingdoms, then you would have
seen his accomplishments superior to those o f other famous men!28^
2 8 2 Psellus, VI.173, Renaulded., vol. 2, pp. 51-52 = Sewtertrans., pp. 241-242.

2 8 4 77e Ufe o f Davit', pp. 185-186 = Qauxchishvili ed., pp. 337-338. The trans. here is based upon that
o f Thomson (Georgian text) in Arm. Adapt. K'C', p. 329. Cf. Vivian trans., p. 21.
2 8 ^77ie Ufe o f Davit' , pp. 216-217 = Qauxch' ishvili ed., pp. 358-359. The trans. here is based upon that
o f Thomson (Georgian text) in Arm. Adapt. K'C', pp. 348-349. Cf. Vivian trans., pp. 41-42.
216
Nowhere in these passages do we encounter any allusions to the traditions o f The Ufe o f the Kings or The
Primary History o f K'art 'li?*6 This is particularly striking in the second passage, where the author is
obviously unfamiliar with, o r himself did not accept, the local tradition that Alexander had invaded
K 'art'li. The biographer o f Davit' IL however, does mention Aristobulos (Aristovli). who "described the
conquests o f Alexander, his heroic exploits [and] triumphs ."2 8 2 The Greek w riter Aristobulos is not
attested in The Ufe o f the Kings, and it should be recalled that Ps.-Callisthenes is not directly named.
We encounter other comparisons w ith Alexander in the two histories o f T 'am ar (1184-1213).
T amar was the first woman to rule the unified Georgian kingdom (and the first native ruling queen in
K 'art'li). Notwithstanding her gender, she is likened to Alexander.2 8 8 In any case, neither o f her
historians exhibit a familiarity with the local tradition of Alexander.
M uch later, in the fifteenth/sixteenth century, the second text of the so-called Axali k'art'iis
c'xovreba (lit "The New K'art'iis c'xovreba) i.e., the late medieval and early m odem continuation to
the earlier histories of K'art'iis c'xovreba compares the destruction inflicted by Tim ur (Tamerlane) with
that by Alexander.28^ But again, the anonymous author provides absolutely no indication that he was
acquainted with the native traditions o f Alexander. At about the same time, the name Alek'sandre.
almost certainly taken in honor o f Alexander o f Macedon, was introduced into Georgian Bagratid
nomenclature.2^ Yet there is no indication in the contemporary literature that the pre-Bagratid tradition
o f Alexander subduing K 'a rt'li was popular am ong late medieval K'art'velians. And we do not know
precisely why the name Alek'sandre suddenly became current in the fifteenth century.
In the sixteenth/seventeenth century the Alexander romance of Ps.-Callisthenes. first written
down in Greek ca. 200 AD, was finally translated into Georgian.2^ The account o f Ps.-Callisthenes
28**In fact, Alexanders exploits were apparently known to the author o f Hist, and Eul., p. 2 ^2-13 not
through a version o f Ps.-Callisthenes (as was the case with The Ufe o f the Kings) but through Plutarch
(Plutarxos). I noted infra the familiarity o f the twelfth-century Arsen Iqalt'oeli w ith the Georgian
traditions o f Alexander, this may have influenced the references to Alexander in this period.
787
The U fe o f Davit' , p. 192

= Qauxch'ishvili ed., p. 342; a certain Mosimaxos, a Hebrew general
in Alexander's army, is mentioned on ibid., p. 348.
2**Hist. and Eul., pp. 34,63, and 76; and The U fe o f T'amar, pp. 128-130 = Vivian trans., pp. 6 8 and 74.
2 8 Co/r/.
K'C'2nd Text, p. 448.
2 E.g., Alek'sandre I "the Great" (1412-1442/1443), last king o f a united Sak-art' velo/Georgia;
Alek'sandre I, lord of K axet'i (1476-1490/1511); Alek'sandre n , lordofK axet'i (1574-1605);
Alek'sandre n , sovereign o f Im eret'i (1478-1510); Alek'sandre ID, sovereign of Imereti (1639-1661);
etc. See Pirt'a anotirebuli lek'sifconi, pp. 212-228 (for the Bagratids).
^ lTheAlek sandriani was extremely popular in Georgian and exists in many M SS, especially from the
eighteenth/nineteenth century. One such MS is "Istoria alek'sandres mep'isa makedoniisa," Oxf.Wardr. #
MS.Wardr.e.18.
217
(both in Greek and its various Oriental renditions) should not be confused with the account o f Alexanders
conquest o f K 'a rt'li as found in The Life o f the Kings and The Primary History o f K'art'li. Xaxanashvili
first suggested that the A lek 'sandriani. as the Ps.-Callisthenes Cycle in Georgian is called, had been
rendered into Georgian from a Serbian original.2 9 2 Xaxanashvili's views were further elucidated by
Kekelidze, L. Menabde, and others, who postulated that the Georgian translator employed a Russian
translation o f a Serbian te x t 2 9 3 Although Xaxanashvili him self had posited that the Bagratid prince
Arch'il (1647-1713) had translated the work, this opinion was definitively established only by R.
Mirianashvili in 1980. Mirianashvili determined that Arch' il translated the Alek 'sandriani directly from
a Russian rendition during the years 1699-1713 when he resided in Moscow.29* Scholarly activity
among the Georgians was not unique in the period, for the translation of Ps. -Callisthenes into Georgian
coincides w ith the patriotic-literary exploits ofV axtang VI, Sulxan-Saba Orbeliani, and Vaxushti.
In term s o f historical literature, after the notices oTThe U fe o f the Kings and The Primary
History ofK 'art'li, and a brief retelling in the twelfth-century by Arsen Iqalt'oeli in his metaphrastic vita
o f Nino, Alexanders alleged conquest of K 'a rt'li was not featured again until the eighteenth-century'
Description o f the Kingdom o f Georgia by Vaxushti.2 9 5 Vaxushti drew heavily from K'art'iis c'xovreba
(edited under the authority of his father, Vaxtang VI), and he produced not a new version of Alexander's
exploits in Caucasia but rather an early modem retelling and elaboration of the tradition articulated in The
Ufe o f the Kings. Vaxushti did not have access to other sources. His account begins:
But when Alexander the Greek Macedonian came forth and had conquered the West,
then he conquered Egypt and he crossed into the East; he overpowered the Persians and
2 9 2 Xaxanashvili, "Gruzinskaia povest' ob Aleksandre Makedonskom i serbskaia Aleksandriia,"
ZhMKP
289/9 (1893). pp. 241-252.

293For a historiographical review o f the problem, see R. Mirianashvili, Alek'sandriani (1980), Rus. sum.,
pp. 197-202.
194Ibid., p. 2 0 1 .
2 9 5 Alexander, his invasion o f K 'art'li, and his establishment o f Azon over it are known to a fifteenth/sixteenth-century paraphrasing o f the initial portion o f The U fe o f the Kings: see "Cesi da gangebay da
darbazobisa, romeli alesrulebis m e'xet'as kurt'xevasa m ep'et'asa," in T . Zhordania, K'ronikebi, vol. 1,
pp. 10-11. Such later paraphrasings o f The Ufe o f the Kings, while an indication o f the text's continued
transmission as part o f K'C', is not in itself a manifestation o f that work's popularity under the Bagratids.
Vaxushti's account is clearly dependent upon The U fe o f the Kings and does not offer additional
information; Vaxushti, pp. 54-55. It is beyond the scope of this study to compare the texts of K'C' and the
dependent, comprehensive history o f Vaxushti, although it is noteworthy that Vaxushti omits the
Bunt'urk'-s and anachronistically credits Alexander with conquering Sak'art'velo (read: Georgia) where
The Ufe o f the Kings uses the term K 'artli.
218
their kings. Then he came to K 'art'li [in the year] from Creation 3623, [in the]
Georgian [year] 490, and he found th[ese] tribe[s to be] the worst among all the
heathens. But this Alexander destroyed all the mixed tribes, except the K'art'Iosiani-s
and the Jews, and he conquered Georgia and he established [there] 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 soldiers, and
over them [as] mt'avari [he appointed] Azon. son oflared the Macedonian ...2 9 6
This brief account further paraphrases The Ufe o f the Kings, so that Azon rejected the religion prescribed
by Alexander himself and established idolatry in K 'art'li. It is evident from the account that Vaxushti
relied solely upon The U fe o f the Kings, and did not accept, o r did not know about, the tradition o f The
Primary History o f K'art'li (and its dependent Royal Ust I) that Azoy was the scion o f some existing king
o f "Aryan" K 'a rt'li Thus, Vaxushti renders preference to the form "Azon." Likewise, no major
interpolations are incorporated into the Georgian Alexander legend from the Alek'sandriani. Yet certain
alterations are made: e.g., the addition o f dates, and a claim that the Jews, along with the K'art'velians,
had been favored by Alexander. In the final analysis, Vaxushti's account constitutes a paraphrased
version o f the account o f The Ufe o f the Kings.
2 9 6 Vaxushti, p. 5 4 ] , . ^ .
219
Chapter Three
Representations o f Pre-Christian Kingship
This chapter is concerned with the recollection o f the unbroken sequence of pre-Christian
K'art'velian kings descended from P'arnavaz. The tradition that Azoy/Azon was the scion o f a pre
existing local dynast, as preserved in The Primary History o f K'art'li and echoed in Royal List I (which
constitute the two initial texts o f the composite Mok 'c evay k 'art iisay). was not incorporated into the
royal historical corpus o f K'art'iis c'xovreba. Royal List / subsequently divulges the names o f P'arnavaz
and his successors (the P'arnavaziani-s), which for the most part correspond to those preserved in The Life
o f the Kings. But in this tradition, P'arnavaz is not made to be the first K 'art'velian monarch. Although
the principal focus o f this chapter is the "official" memory o f pre-Christian K 'a rt' li as documented in
K'art'iis c'xovreba, it should be borne in m ind that at least one divergent written tradition o f early
kingship had gained currency in medieval K 'art'li.
We shall first briefly investigate the outstanding royal attributes o f P'arnavaz. the alleged first
king o f K 'art'li according to The Ufe o f the Kings, the opening text of K'art'iis c'xovreba. The
examination will then be extended to encompass all of the pre-Christian K 'art'velian monarchs. who are
described by that text in a sim ilar manner. Over 600 years o f allegedly unbroken kingship is traced here.
At first glance, this approach may appear overblown and inappropriate. But the expanse of tim e is not so
much of a concern, for each o f these kings is described in a common Sasanid-inspired light by a single ca.
800 author. Although the relative sequence and names of the early K 'art'velian kings documented in The
Life o f the Kings is reasonably accurate many o f them are confirmed in contemporary' Graeco-Roman
and Armenian literature the details of their activities would seem to be formulaic and nothing more
than the figment of the later author's imagination. That historian presumed it fitting to depict
K'art'velian kingship in Persian terms, and to situate K 'art'li firmly within the Persian cultural and
political world. This is noteworthy, for the Sasanids had long been extinct at the time of the composition
o f The Ufe o f the Kings, and moreover, K 'art'velian kingship had itself fallen into abeyance in the course
of the sixth century and was not to be revived until 8 8 8 under the Bagratids. This approach m ay partly be
a reflection of the fascination in Sasanid history displayed at the contemporary'' Abbasid court
The "facts" about pre-Christian K 'art'velian kingship are nearly impossible to discern by means
o f the extant texts and MSS. Again, the evidence o f Graeco-Roman and Armenian literature does confirm
the existence o f the K 'art'velian monarchy already in the Hellenistic period B ut the scattered details of
K'art'velian kings in non-Georgian texts, especially ones touching upon Rom an-K'art'velian relations,
220
were not incorporated into medieval Georgian historical literature, and this alone probably refutes any
notion that Georgian authors derived the names and sequence o f early K 'art'velian monarchs from these
non-Georgian sources. More likely is the existence o f an ancient, now-lost Georgian regnal list. And we
cannot overlook the possible persistence o f oral traditions. The place an d understanding o f K 'art'li in
Classical sources have appeared elsewhere, 1 so here we shall be concerned with the medieval, ca. 800.
K 'art'velian effort to formulate an anciently-rooted shared past describing over half a millennium of early
indigenous kingship.
It may seem that the emphasis on kingship o f this and the succeeding chapters yields a skewed
picture o f ancient and medieval K 'art'velian society. Indeed, it does. However, this image mirrors the
bias and intent of the medieval authors themselves. For them, the very embodiment o f the K 'art'velian
community was its monarchs. This is particularly evident in the aptly named Life o f the Kings, which
relates that an unbroken chain of K 'art'velian hero-kings ruled from the Hellenistic period until the fourth
century AO. We may wonder if this were actually the case, and we should scrutinize the assertion that a
strong and unified K 'art'velian realm existed at the tim e (the only serious challenges to the kings
authority come from men who subsequently became monarchs). The extant pre-Bagratid histories are
legitimistic in the extreme. Ironically, they all seem to have been composed during the long interregnum.
Finally, another feature o f pre-Bagratid histories is that they conceal any substantial activity by the various
noble houses. We know considerably more about the noble naxarar houses in neighboring Armenia
because they often commissioned their own historical works. Yes, the image is greatly distorted, but it
served an ideological purpose: the king was K 'art' li.
/ .
P'ARNAVAZ
P amavaz Becomes King
The attributes o f pre-Christian kingship, as imagined and articulated by the author o f The Ufe o f
the Kings, will be considered in detail in the following section. In the meantime, we shall examine some
o f the elements o f the description o f P'arnavaz, the alleged founder o f K 'art'velian royal authority .2 His
*I.e., the numerous works o f Toumanofif and the recent study of Braund, Georgia in Antiquity. See also:
A. Giardina, "Roma e il Caucaso, in SSCISSM, vol. 43a, pp. 85-141; and A. Carile, "II Caucaso e
lTmpero Bizantino (Secoli VI-XI)," in SSCISSM, vol. 43a, pp. 9-83.
2T he reign o f P'arnavaz is addressed in The Ufe o f the Kings, pp. 20-26. For an overview, see G.
M elik'ishvili, "Obrazovanie kartliiskogo (iberiiskogo) gosudarstva," in Ocherki istorii Gruzii, vol. 1
(1989), pp. 245-270.
221
portrayal became a model for those o f subsequent pre-Christian K 'art'velian monarchs. who, in all o f
K'art'iis c'xovreba, are featured only in The Life o f the Kings.

The Life o f the Kings emphasizes that P'arnavaz was a strong, brave youth, an intelligent man.
and a skillful hunter. He was said to be a K 'art'velian (through the preeminent K 'art' losiani line of
Up'los/M c'xet'os/K'art'los) through his father and a Persian through his mother. His uncle. Samari. had
been the mamasaxlisi G it "Father o f the House," i.e., "patriarch") o f Me* xet'a when Alexander allegedly
invaded Caucasia. Together, the father of P'arnavaz along with Samari were murdered by Alexander, and
the remainder o f the family, including P'arnavaz him self (at age three), sought refuge in the defiles o f the
Caucasus mountains.
In exile the orphan P'arnavaz grew into a man and never forgot his hatred for Azon. Ultimately,
he resolved to spearhead a revolt against the tyrannical Azon, the foreign "Macedonian" governor of
K 'a rt'li installed by Alexander the Great.^ P'arnavaz is said to have secured the loyalty o f Kuji.* the
ruler o f Egrisi (Colchis), and he also added a mercenary force o f Ovsi-s and Leki-s. A thousand o f Azon's
own Roman troops, the so-called aznauri-s,5 defected to P'am avaz's camp. Emboldened by the force he
had assembled, P'arnavaz inaugurated his insurrection with a successful attack on M e'xet'a.
Subsequently, he allegedly conquered all of K 'a rt'li with the exception o f the southern region ofK larjet'i.
His position was further solidified by an alliance with the Seleucids, and the reference to them seems to be
an accurate memory that the P'amavaziani-s were actually vassals o f these Mesopotamian successors of
Alexander. In any event, Azon's bid to reclaim his position failed, and he eventually fell in battle. It
^The Life o f the Kings thus emphasizes that P'arnavaz represented the K'art'velians whereas Azon was an
agent o f foreign domination. Cf. Allen, History o f the Georgian People, p. 41: "That the rule of
Farnavazi [i.e., P'arnavaz] represented the imposed control of a foreign element - partly Iranian and
partly Hellenistic in character - is again indicated by the fact that his death was signalized by a
sanguinary revolt against his heir, Saurmagi..." It is possible that the K 'art'velians were opposed to the
prominent position o f Azon's defected Roman troops in the service o f P'arnavaz and Saurmag. But the
local sources provide no indication that P'arnavaz was perceived as representing foreign domination
though they do admit that P' arnavaz was a vassal o f the Seleucids. Now Saurmag, after quashing the
revolt did in feet demote the K'art'losiani-s in favor o f the Roman aznauri-s. It should be said that
Allen's brilliantly written account is tainted by two defects: first he often confuses image and history
proper, and second, he was forced to rely solely upon the later, Vaxtangiseuli variant o f K'C' published by
Brosset
* According to Andronikashvili, Narkvevebi, pp. 138-139 and 556, the name K 'uji is based upon the Os
word kuz, "dog," and is equivalent to the Os name Kuzaeg and the Scythian Kuzaios. Lang, The
Georgians, p. 84, identifies K'uji as the king o f Colchis though he is not styled as a king (mep'e) in
medieval Georgian literature.
5Aznauri is defined in this instance as "the [men] o f Azon." However, this etymology is false, for the term
is actually based upon the Persian-Armenian term for "free [men]." Usually, aznauri refers to a high
noble.
222
should be noted that the Persian custom of the blood-feud seems to have been projected upon P'arnavaz
and his desire to seek revenge for the murder o f his father and uncle .6
P'arnavaz immediately consolidated his control over the eastern frontier and assumed the title o f
"king o f all K ' art' li and Egurisi." His right to be king was amplified by his own nam e which was based
upon the Persian famah, the "divine grace" signifying the right to rule . 7 It seems to me to be too much a
coincidence that the first K 'art'velian king happened to be named P'arnavaz (this remark is strengthened
by the fact that P'arnavaz. unlike his successors, was left unrecorded in Classical sources).* In my view,
by inventing the name P'arnavaz, or at least by applying it to the supposed first monarch, the author o f
The Life o f the Kings (or his source) clearly designated that his right and destiny to be king.^ Through
P'arnavazs imagined behavior, the author also demonstrated his right to be monarch. Parnavaz is said to
have established a military bureaucracy to administer the kingdom, to have carefully organized his army
into defined units, and to have fortified his royal-city o f M e'xet'a (all o f these actions are considered
infra). He assumed a position akin to the pontifex maximus insofar as he alone, as king, possessed the
authority to erect idols. In this regard, he reportedly raised a statue to Armazi. who was understood to
have been the chief deify o f the K'art'velians.
The Life o f the Kings emphasizes that P'arnavaz "was the first king o f K 'a rt'li from the clan of
K'art'los," which in itself does not deny that an earlier non-K'art'Iosiani (i.e., foreign) dynasty may have
existed. Such a dynasty may, in fact, be commemorated in the initial texts o f Mok'c'evay k'art'lisay (i.e.,
Azoy his predecessors). The Life o f the Kings identifies P'arnavaz as a K 'art'velian. and reports that he
had promoted the use o f the Georgian language and had even fashioned a script O n his death, the first
K'art'velian king was buried at the foot of the Armazi idol. This a c t it would seem, had the effect o f
deifying P'arnavaz.
6 Cf. Garsoian, "Prolegomena to a Study' of the Iranian Aspects in Arsacid Armenia," p. 2. Garsoian
detected this theme (for Armenia) in the anti-Persian, Christian tract o f Agat'angeghos.
7For the K 'art'velian kings' possession of famah, see infra.
O
However, information about Caucasia in Classical texts is meager at b e st The rise o f a relatively
insignificant (from the Roman perspective) kingdom o f K 'art'li was not likely to have attracted
contemporary historians. The silence o f Graeco-Roman sources does not yield a sound indication by itself
that P'arnavaz was simply a later invention.
Ît should be said that the derivation o f P'am avazs name is not explained. The implication that the very
name P'arnavaz and the details o f his reign may have been invented by a later author is that the first king
of K 'art'li was not P'arnavaz. Should this be the case, it is impossible to discern from extant texts who
was the first K 'art'velian king. In any event, K 'art'velian kingship does seem to have originated in the
early Hellenistic period.
223
It is worth repeating that P'arnavaz is one o f the few pre-Christian K 'art'velian kings who is not
attested in any pre-modem foreign (i.e., Graeco-Roman, Persian, Armenian, Syriac) source. In fact,
beyond The Ufe o f the Kings and Royal List I, there is no direct reference to P'arnavaz in other medieval
Georgian literary works. ^
The medieval Armenian historical tradition is acquainted with the
"P'ar[n]awazean" dynasty, which is first attested in the fifth-century Epic Histories. *1 This reference
proves that by the fifth century AD the K 'art'velian ruling dynasty was conceived as having been
established by a certain P'amawaz, the Armenian form o f P'arnavaz. But the fact remains that no near
contemporary evidence about this P'arnavaz, or even his name, is extant ^
Thus we may question
whether P'arnavaz was the first K 'art'losiani king o f K 'a rt'li, and whether P'arnavaz was ever more than
an image. Nevertheless, it is precisely his medieval image as the first K 'art'velian king that is significant
for us, as well as how the early K 'art'velian monarchy was remembered by a ca. 800 author.
P'arnavaz as the Patron o f the Georgian Language and Inventor o f the Georgian Script
In the style o f a Sasanid king, P'arnavaz and his pre-Christian successors were the initiators of
great projects for their realm. These activities included, as we shall see. monumental, strategic, and
religious buildings. But royal undertakings were not limited to stone and mortar. The king also
embarked upon other projects benefiting his administration and the population at large. P'arnavaz is
credited by The Ufe o f the Kings as having been a patron and propagator o f the Georgian {k'art 'uli) ^
10Although it may7be tempting to suggest that the very name P'arnavaz was a medieval invention, we
must recall the reference in Cassius Dio, XLIX.24. to a later K 'art'velian king bearing the same name
(Gk. Pharnabazos) (63-30 BC). Strangely, Dios king is known by the name Bartom in the Georgian
historical tradition. See Toumanoff, "The Chronology o f the Early Kings of Iberia," p. 11.
^ T h e Epic Histories, V. 15, p. 201 (for Mushegh Mamikoneans supposed triumph over K 'a rt'li [Virk' 1
and his consequent massacre of the P'ar[n]awazean"). Later references occur in Prim. Hist. Armenia, p.
362; and Movses Xorenac'i, 1.22, p. 111. See also Garsoian in The Epic Histories, technical terms,
"P'amawazean/P'arawazean," p. 400. For the possible connection o f the P'amavaziani-s an d the
Bagratids as early as the second century AD, see ch. 6 .
iy
In the Persian cultural world the name P'arnavaz (Gk. Pharnabazos) was known already by Thucydides
(fifth century BC), who is familiar with Pharnabazos I, son o f Artabazos n , both of whom occupied the
satrapy of Daskyleion. Other early praenomina related to the name P'arnavaz include Pharandates,
Phamakes, Phamaspes, Phamazathes, and Pharaouchos. See Balcer, A Prosopographical Study o f the
Ancient Persians Royal and Noble c. 550-450 BC (1993), #56, pp. 85-86 (for Pharnabazos I)11
Throughout this study I employ the term "Georgian" to describe the language o f pre-modem
K 'art'velians. However, such a usage is misleading and technically anachronistic for it injects a non
existent, or at least exaggerated, sense o f linguistic unity. The K'art'velians (and modem Georgians for
that matter) used the term k'art'uli (or, "of K 'art'li/of the K'art'velians") to describe their language. It
should be noted that we do not know the precise meaning o f k'art'uli, at least linguistically, in pre-modem
texts. Did medieval authors have in m ind only the dialect o f K 'art'li proper, or were sim iliar dialects
224
language and the inventor of a specifically Georgian script . 14 underscoring the contention that he was the
first native king to reign over the K 'art'velian community.
This is not the place to present a detailed account o f the genesis o f the Georgian language as
understood by modem linguists. ^
H ow ever, we are interested in how its provenance was imagined by
the author o f The Ufe o f the Kings, since his account forms the basis for the Georgian tradition o f the
invention o f the native script. No subsequent pre-modem Georgian source attributes a different origin for
the Georgian script.
On the eve o f Alexander's invasion of K 'art'li, the anonymous historian reports that:
Until now the K 'art'losiani-s had spoken in the Armenian language. But when these
countless clans/tribes had settled [together] in K 'art'li, at that time the K 'art'velians
abandoned the Armenian language. And from all o f these clans/tribes the Georgian
language [ena k'art'uli] was created... [In the time o f Baram. the king o f the Persians]
... all o f these clans/tribes in K 'art'li became so commingled that six languages were
spoken in K 'art'li: Armenian, Georgian, Khazar, Syrian/Syriac, 16 Hebrew, and Greek.
And all the kings o f K 'a rt'li, [and all the] men and women, knew these languages. ^
The Armenian Adaptation o f K'art'iis c 'xovreba diverges from the received Georgian account. Indeed.
Armenian is said to have been the original language o f the K 'art'velians. but the Georgian language is
explicitly described as a mixture o f the six other tongues in contrast to the Georgian account's vague
assertion that Georgian had been created from all o f the clans and tribes residing in K 'art' li:
Up to this moment Armenian was the language o f the K'art'velians. But then they
began to grow different from the peoples who dwelt among them. There occurred a
mixture o f all [the languages], and they came together in this which is now called [the]
Georgian [language]... [At the time o f Baram/Vahram]... they spoke in K 'a rt'li six
subsumed within it?

^ o r modem popular conceptions o f P'am avaz's alleged introduction of the Georgian script, see the
entertaining historical novel o fK 'art'los Kasradze, P'arnavaz (1986), especially "Anbani," pp. 497-511.
It is fitting that the author o f this novel should himself bear the name K'art'los.
^ E .g ., Rayfield, The Uterature o f Georgia, pp. 1-2.
l**The K 'art'velians seem to have meant more than Syriac proper by their word asuruli. This term
likewise denoted other Semitic languages and dialects including Aramaic. On the Georgian designations
for Syria/Assyria and its language, see K. Ceret'eli, "'Sirielisa 1 da 'asurelis' aghmnishvneli et'nikuri
terminebi k 'a rtulshi," in Ivane javaxishvilis dabadebis 100 clist'avisadmi midzghvnili saiubileo krebuli,
pp. 177-188.
17The Life o f the Kings, p.
164 .^+ 2 1 - 2 3 -
225
languages: Armenian and Khazar. Syriac/Syrian and Hebrew. Greek and the
combination o f their mixture Georgian.1
As we have already seen, the Vaxtangiseuli Rumianceviseuli (R) variant (copied ca. 1703) includes
numerous patriotic re-writings o f early K 'art'velian history. Its scribe changed this passage completely.
Its account is not based upon some ancient or medieval tradition, but rather constitutes a conscious
attempt to obscure the medieval Georgian traditions o f the Armenians substantial role in early
K 'art'velian history, and to devise a more "pure" Georgian past:
Until now the language o f the K'art'Iosiani-s was only Georgian, which they spoke, but
when these countless clans/tribes had settled [together] in K 'art'li, at that time the
K'art'velians [allowed] their language to become corrupted, and from all o f these clans/
tribes was created a hybrid language [ena mort' //].19
Thus, this later tradition asserts that the K 'art'losiani-s had always spoken Georgian, but that their
language was corrupted Igarqvnes) by the foreigners who settled in K 'art'li. Georgian was believed to
have survived the onslaught, but its purity was forever compromised.
P'arnavaz, as the first native king o f the K 'art'velians. was expected at least by his later
biographer to have promoted the use o f the Georgian language. The Life o f the Kings starkly asserts
that:
And this P'arnavaz was the first (ring in K 'art'li from the progeny o f K 'art'los. He
extended [the use of] the Georgian language [ena k'art 'uli]. and no other language was
spoken in K 'art'li except Georgian. And he invented the/a Georgian script
[mcignobroba k'art'ulij.^
^ Arm. Adapt. K'C', pp. 22-23 = Thomson trans.. pp. 21 and 23. See also Thomson. "The Armenian
Version o f the Georgian Chronicles," JSAS 5 (1990/1991). p. 8 6 .
^"îCSCSa î6o)C3cil>oj>5o)6 366 oym 860125015 jirtcoacjo, 601832566 1366630536. 6012501

01536 8380136636 363 <36036360 6603366360 ^66032566 8066. 86806 ^660330005^0* 5-1633636
366 033060, 06 60603 30133250)6 660336630)6566 830386-1 366 8ci6 o3<3 e?o." Quoted in M.
Janashvili, K'art'uli mcerloba, pt. 2 (1909), p. 171. Janashvili erroneously believed the R variant to be
pro-Vaxtangiseuli. From that misguided assumption, the author posited that this was an early account
and that it demonstrated that K' art'velian was not originally devised from other languages (p. 172).
The Life o f the Kings. p. 26g_10: " 6 3 6 3 3 6 6 6 6 3 6 b 0 3 0 1 8 0 6 3 3 2 5 0 8 3 3 3 ^ 6 6 0 3 2 5 6 6 8 0 6 6

^ 6 6 oD2 5 m 6 0 6 6 6 6 0 3 3 6 6 3 0 )6 5 6 6 0 . 60 6 0 5 6 6 6 3 6 3 m 3 6 6 J 6603<32 ? 0 , 6 6 6 Q 6 6 6 0 ^ ) 6 6 6 3 8 0 1 5 6
6 b<Q6 3 0 6 ^ 6 6 0 ) 2 5 6 6 8 0 6 6 0 ) 5 6 0 3 6 3 6 6 0 ) 3 2 5 0 6 6 . 6 6 0 6 0 8 3 3 8 6 6 8 ^ 0 5 6 m & 6 m & 6 3 6 6 0 3 3 2 5 0 ."
Cf. the thirteenth-century Armenian historian/compiler M xit'ar Ayrivaneci: "the first K 'art'velian king
P'arnavaz created the K 'art'uli (Georgian) script from [those of] six languages. He invented writing for
his people;" see M xit'ar Ayrivanec'i, p. 384. Ayrivanec'i employed the Armenian adaptation o f K'C', and
226
The earliest extant redaction o f K'art'iis c'xovreba, the Armenian adaptation, incorporates a similar
passage:
Now P'am aw az was the first king from the clan o f K 'art'los. He commanded the
entire land to speak Georgian. And he created Georgian letters \gir lezuin Vrac'].^
So P'arnavaz, in the eyes o f his later biographer, established Georgian as the spoken and written language
o f his administration and subjects (at least noble ones).
But The Life o f the Kings admits that other languages continued to be current in K 'art'li. even
among the very kings. Some o f the successive monarchs were not natives. Thus, Mihran/Mirian III (284361 AD) who is depicted as the son o f the Great King o f Iran and who later in his reign accepted the
Christian God is said to have spoken Persian as his first language. But once ruling over the
K 'art'velians, the author of The Ufe o f the Kings (who is concerned primarily with the reign of
M ihran/M irian prior to his conversion) reports that he forgot Persian and spoke G eorgian.^ In the
appended Ufe o f Nino, Mihran/Mirian, having heard o f the miracles that had been performed at the hands
o f that holy woman, allegedly sought an explanation for these events in the so-called Book o f Nimrod.
But there is no indication in what language this book was composed, and should this episode be an
accurate memory, we cannot assume that text was written in G eorgian.^
From an early time, linguistic considerations constituted a prominent pillar in the selfidentification o f the K 'art'velian community. They certainly emerged as overriding factors in the early
Bagratid period, but before this period we may only speculate. In the late tenth century, the monk loane
Zosime wrote his famous Praise and Exaltation o f the Georgian Language (K'ebay da didebay k'art'ulisa
it is noteworthy that he repeated the claims o f K'C' instead o f the Armenian tradition that the Caucasian
scripts had been fashioned by the fifth-century (AD) Armenian cleric Mashtoc' (see infra).
01
*lArm. Adapt. K'C', p. 3 7 5 .9 = Thomson trans., p. 37: "U tp (huntuiuiq tunuiglili pwqiunn juiqatb ftuppinuujj.
uui bcp hpuiJurii uiTbtuijli bptjptilj (uu.ubi qibqmli Mjiuig. li u|up qfip [bqrajilj ^.puig." It is extraordinary that the
Armenian adaptation does not mention the Armenian tradition that Mashtoc' (Mesrop) invented the
Armenian, Georgian, and Caucasian Albanian scripts.
^ T h e Ufe o f the Kings, p. 65.

The Ufe o f Nino in C'x. k'art'. mep'et'a, p. 105; cf. Wardrop trans., pp. 32-33. If this book was in the
Georgian script the account could be an indication of the existence o f a pre-Christian script, but it should
be borne in mind that The Life o f Nino, in its extant form, is no earlier than the ninth century. Moreover,
The Ufe o f Nino says nothing about the language(s) which M ihran/Mirian spoke.
227
enisay, ja& ia 0 i joooa&ifl ^(boj^jcjob.s gBobiQ). Although this work is a Bagratid-era

production , 2 4 it demonstrates the importance o f language to the community just after the era o f the author
o f The Ufe o f the Kings. Moreover, it is also an attempt to justify Georgian as a specifically Christian and
sacred language, an idea not incorporated into K'art'iis c'xovreba:
548466325 *60 364 4 4 6 0 3 2 5 0
JSOOffSfK) 3a 6 gS 8216233064 8360064
1 Buried in the Georgian language
A m u 3013325064 36464
228360)846 486025016 4 8 0 0 36004.
As a m artyr until th e day o f th e Second Com ing

o f th e Messiah.
So th at G od m ay look upon every language
Through th is U n g u g p .
5* 3 6 3 3 6 4
2. And this language
64^43g6g254o.
3do5iAg 466 5223648oid5g;

Q4 6464636464 8064 484b 36464
2 5 46463 8643046.
04
Is sleeping until today;

And in the Gospels this language
Is called Lazarus.
4 6 4 2 5 8 4 6 60 601 8 0 1 4 4 3 0 4
2 And the new Nm o converted [it]
04 J 3 2 5 3 6 3 o g o p ig 4 C 5 3 4 6 .
And [so did] th e Empress H d o i[a ] [Helene],

T hese tw o [wornm] are sisters.
Like M ary [Mariam] an d M artha [Mart a].
gbg 4 6 0 4 6 01660 9460,

3 0 0 4 6 3 4 846043 (54 346014.
54 83501660164
43o b o g o b 0 4 3 4 [3464636300846].
6 4 8 3 0 ) 3 3 0 1 3 3 2 5 0 6 4 0 5 3 8 2 5 01
484b 36464 8064 543466325 4 6 b .

04 0106064 52>ob4 833546o
43aba>30b 0 4 3 4 54300) ^ o 6 4 b ^ 4 6 -
1 And frioidship
It spoke because.
For every secret
Is buried m this language.
And [it was] dead for four days
Thus David th e Prophet spoke,
ag<533gc?a46,
6 4 8 3 0 )3 : 40)4b 0 ^3250
300)4634 3 6 0 0 S2>3 ",
Thus. "A thousand years

[is] like one day."
54 b 4646g 64l >4 8064 4 4 6 0 )3 2 5 b 4 boi25 ou

094364 340>gbb4, ^0250 6 0 6 0 6 0 8 3 2 5
4boi 4 6 b ,
94 0 3 3 3 0 b 30132545
010)6 40)4bb 4 8 4 6 4 3 6 4 ,
And in the Gospels in Georgian.

In th e book oTM atthew. sits a part,
which is a letter.
And it will say to everyone
T he four thousand secrets, -
54 gbg 4 6 b oicobo 053

54 oia) 6ob 4 Scob 4 8,3320460.
480609306 8060046433 5 4 3 4 6 3 2 5
603320025004 6402506-2536064 80606400)4.
2 And these are th e four days
54 gbg 364 -
8 3 8 3 3 2 3 0 54 3 3 6 0 6 3 3 2 5 0 64632500)4
33250640094.
3 046 4 2 5 0
54 0 4 ^ 3 6 3 6 3 2 5 0
80132506 515364 84b 83016325 8016253464

3 g 2?o b 4b 4 .
154 6 4 6 ^ 4 3 2 5 4 5 gbg 4^36:
46-010160 ^ 3 2 5 0 -
And [the man] who w as dead for four days.

For this [it is] buried with him
Through th e death o f its baptism.
And this language
Beautiful and blessed by th e nam e
o f th e Lord,
Humble and afflicted
Awaits th e day o f th e second com ing o f
the Lord.
2 And it has this wondrous sign:

A hundred and four years -
2 4 Cf. the failed attempt to push the date o f the poem back to at least the sixth century o f G. Abramashvili
and Z. Alek'sidze, "A National M otif in the Iconographic Programme Depicted in the Davati Stela," LeM
103/3-4 (1990), pp. 283-292 (an article which is almost as cryptic as Zosime himself). The authors
suggest that the Daviti stela (a sixth century artefact by their calculation; but this date is controversial)
proves that the "idea" o f Zosimes poem was current already in the sixth century. Abramashvili and
Alek'sidze also open the possibility that P'arnavaz and Mihran/Mirian are depicted on the stela, although
this is presently improvable.
228
gagftgb bbgaou g&Mu
jttabggb 3mbQgoo>6 gaÂg

G>c;glan8 |gg.
gbg ymgacgo, Awanwo faAocj iAb,
3nô8gQ ^jA8ngo<Db4A:
ib-nmbo gbg jfgcjo
jo* ôjjjo i6bi6oUi.
More than the other languages

From the Coming of Christ until
today.
UL And all this which is written.
I have told you as a witness:
A hundred and four years
A nd a p art o fth e alphabet.^**
Zosime was convinced o f a special status within Christendom for his native tongue. But noteworthy also
is the fact that Zosime, an exceptionally learned monk, does not mention P'arnavaz in connection with the
Georgian language or script Rather, he completely subsumed the Georgian language within a Biblical*
Christian context The Life o f the Kings had been written a few centuries prior to this poem. So Zosime
was either ignorant o f the tradition as enshrined in The Life o f the Kings, o r he consciously chose to
neglect i t maybe because that tradition was imbued with pre-Christian overtones. In addition, Zosime
may have known that the Georgian script had been a Christian creation, perhaps intensifying further his
disdain o f the traditional account o f P'arnavaz. A sim ilar attitude seems to have shaped the works written
by the eleventh-century (and Bagratid-era) writer Arsen o f Iqalt'o. who, in a brief summary o f
K 'art'velian history attached to his metaphrastic version o f The Life o f Nino, completely ignores
P'arnavaz .2 2 The unwillingness to attach any credence to P'arnavaz's association with the Georgian
script is prevalent in works o f Georgian literature up through the eighteenth century. It would seem, then,
that the ca. 800 contention that P'arnavaz had created the Georgian script was not widely accepted by
successive local medieval authors.
The medieval Armenian historical tradition proposes an alternate view, which is contested
vigorously by many modem Georgian specialists, many o f them arguing from the perspective o f
patriotism.2* The fifth-century biography o f Mashtoc' (Mesrop), written by his pupil Koriwn, relates
that:
<yc
Ioane Zosime, Praise o f the Georgian Lang., pp. 457-458. For an important MS containing this work,
see Garitte, Catalogue des manuscrits georgiens litteraires du Mont SinaT, CSCO vol. 165 = subsidia 9
(1956). codex 6/10, pp. 21-26. Zosime resided for a while on M t Sinai. O n his activities see
Tarchnishvili, Geschichte, s.v. "Johannes Zosime," pp. 109-114. For an analysis o f the poem, see B.
Martin-Hisard, "Le langue slave, le langue georgienne et Byzance au Xeme siecle, Byzantinoslavica 50/1
(1989), pp. 33-45, with Fr. trans. on pp. 36-37.
26T he trans. here is based upon that o f Rayfield, Literature o f Georgia, pp. 19-20.
22Arsen Iqalt'oeli, Metaphr. Nino, pp. 390-391. The example o f Arsen is even more striking than
Zosime since the former admits a knowledge o f K'C' and even The Life o f the Kings specifically.
Incidentally, we know that this account o f P'arnavaz was part o f K'C' by at least the twelfth-century since
it is incorporated within the Armenian adaptation o f that corpus.
2*For a summary o f the positions, see ToumanoCf Studies, pp. 105-106, footnote 160. The role of
M ashtoc' has been denied by many Georgian scholars, including: Tarchnishvili, "Quelques remarques sur
lage de lalphabet georgien," BK 30-31 (1958), pp. 21-28; K. Salia, "Note sur l'origine et l'age de
Reproduced with perm ission o fth e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
229
... after the passage o f some time, the beloved o f Christ thought o f taking care o f the
barbarian regions, and by the grace o f God he undertook to create an alphabet for the
Georgian language. He wrote, arranged, and put it in order, and taking a few o f his
pupils, he arrived in the regions o f K 'artIi/Iberia [Vtrk'\. A nd he went and presented
him self to K ing Bakur, and the bishop o f the land. Movses. He placed his skill at their
disposal, he advised and urged them, and they consented to do that which he requested
And he found a Georgian translator by the nam e o f Jaghay, a literate and
devout man. The Georgian king then ordered that youths be gathered from various parts
and regions o f his realm and brought to the vardapet. Taking them he put them through
the forge o f education, and w ith spiritual love and energy he removed [from them] the
purulent uncleanliness of the worship o f spirits and false idols, and he separated and
purged them from their native [traditions], and he made them lose their recollection
to such an extent that they said, "I forgot my people and my father's house."
A nd thus they, who had been gathered from am ong so many distinct and
dissimilar tongues, he bound together with one [set of] divine commandments,
transforming them into one nation and glorifiers o f one God. There were found among
them men worthy o f attaining the honor o f bishop, first am ong whom was a saintly and
devout man by the name of Samuel, who became the bishop o f the royal court [episkopos
kaceal tarn ark'unakani].
And when he had organized the work o f God's worship in all parts of Georgia,
taking leave o f them, he returned to Armenia .. . 29
According to Koriwn, Mashtoc' fashioned an alphabet for the Caucasian Albanians, and indeed an
Albanian alphabet is known to have existed 3 0 This event, whose Armenian recollection has no analogue
in Georgian, documents the transformation Caucasian traditions from one orally- to one literary-based
But while the Armenian historian Ghazar P'arpec'i, a contemporary o f Koriwn who used his work, was
1'alphabet georgien," BK 43-44 (1963), pp. 5-18; and ibid.. History o f the Georgian Nation, Vivian trans.,
pp. 65-67. O n the creation o f Armenian letters, see J.R. Russell, "On the Origins and Invention o f the
Armenian Script," LeM 107/3-4 (1994), pp. 316-333. Russell, pp. 327-328, assumed that Mashtoc'
invented the Georgian script, but states that: "It seems likely from Koriwn's account, in which the
Armenian saint demonstrates his art and counsels the Georgians, then placing the work in the hands o f a
skilled translator o fth e Georgian language named Jaghay, that Mashtoc' explained the principles o f his
system and left it to the Georgians to apply it to their own tongue, which he him self is unlikely to have
known." This is an attractive scenario; however, Russell does not raise the issue that this account may be
a later interpolation o r simply incorrect.
2 9 Koriwn. Abeghyan e d , cap. 15, pp. 62-64 = Norehad trans., p. 37.
30On the Caucasian Albanian alphabet see: A Shanidze, "Novootkrytyi alfavit kavkazskikh albantsev i
ego znacheniie dliia nauki," Moambe IV/1 (1938), pp. 1-62 (Georgian sum., pp. 63-65; Fr. sum., pp. 6 6 6 8 ); idem., Iazyk ip is mo kavkazskikh albantsev (1960); I. Abuladze, "K otkrytiiu alfavita kavkazskikh
albantsev," Moambe IV/1 (1938), pp. 69-71; R. Hewsen, "On the Alphabet o f the Caucasian Albanians,"
REArm, n.s. 1 (1964), pp. 427-432; and H. Kurdian, "The Newly Dikxwered Alphabet o f the Caucasian
Albanians," JRAS (1956), pp. 81-83. The existence o f an Albanian script does not in itself prove that
Mashtoc' created it.
R eproduced with perm ission o fth e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
230
acquainted with the tradition that Mashtoc had fashioned Armenian letters, he said nothing about his
alleged invention o f the Georgian script This is significant because P'arpec'i, alone among the fifthcentury Armenian historians, exhibits a fascination in K 'art'li, and we might have expected him to have
recounted Mashtoc' 's work, especially if it had included the Georgian alphabet Since Koriwn's account
has reached us only in considerably later MSS. it is entirely possible that the tradition concerning
Mashtoc s invention of the Georgian and Albanian scripts may, in fact be a later, post-schism
interpolation. But for the moment we may only raise the possibility, because we cannot base an argument
solely on Ghazar F arpecis silence.
We may be sure that by the eighth century, the era of Movses Xorenac'i, the Armenian tradition
that Mashtoc' had created scripts for the three major communities o f Caucasia was firmly entrenched.
Xorenac'i's brief account is based upon that o f Koriwn and refers to the cleric Mashtoc' by the later name
Mesrop:
Mesrop also went to the land o f Georgia and fashioned letters for [it] through the grace
given from above with a certain Jaghay. a translator o f the Greek and Armenian
tongues, and with the help o f their king Bakur and the bishop Moses. After selecting
children and dividing them into two groups, he left as teachers for them Ter of
Xordzean and Mushe o f Tarawn from among his own disciples . 3 1
Koriwn, and Xorenac'i following him, attribute the invention o f the Georgian script to Mashtoc'/
Mesrop. who in turn was aided by a certain Georgian translator named Jaghay. That is to say. the
Armenian historical tradition does not assert that the Armenian cleric was solely responsible for
fashioning an alphabet for the K'art'velians. Rather. Mashtoc' supervised a pan-Caucasian assembly of
clerics, including K 'art'velian ones, who devised scripts not only for the K 'art'velians, but the Armenians
and Albanians as well.3^ No extant medieval Georgian source knows o f M ashtoc'; he is simply not part
o f the received Georgian tradition. 1 do not think that we may confidently assert that it was precisely
Mashtoc' who invented the Georgian script, but since the Georgian, Armenian, and Caucasian Albanian
scripts were all deliberately developed in the course o f the fourth/fifth century, an all-Caucasian Christian
interest in developing local scripts almost certainly existed. It is indeed possible that Mashtoc' and his
3 Movses Xorenac'i, m .54, p. 322 = Arm. text, p. 328. This King Bakur seems to be the source o f
Rufinus' account o f the conversion o f K 'art'li (see ch. 4). It is noteworthy that Movses Dasxuranc'i,
author of the History o f the Caucasian Albanians, is unaware of the Mashtoc' tale, and insteads relies
upon an enumeration in Hippolytus' Chron. of the peoples acquainted with scripts. Hippolytus himself
included the Armenians within the list, while Dasxuranc i added the Albanians, but not the K'art'velians.
See Movses Dasxuranc'i, 1.3, p. 3.
Jaghay is not expressly said to have assisted in the fashioning of the Armenian and Albanian scripts.
231
colleagues worked together on the three scripts, for the Armenian Church was the best organized and the
most literate Caucasian Church o f the period. The Armenian historical tradition's memory o f Mashtoc'
may not be rejected out o f hand, for it is based upon the likely premise that the fashioning o f scripts for
the three major communities o f early Christian Caucasia was the product of a Christian pan-Caucasian
effort led by Armenian clerics .3 3 With o r without Mashtoc''s participation, this is. I think, a reasonable
interpretation.
While the Georgian tradition asserts that the Georgian language had grown out of existing
languages, the script is said to have been a purely K 'art'velian. and royal, invention. But the reference to
P'am avaz's fashioning o f the Georgian script in The Life o f the Kings is ambiguous, since Old Georgian
routinely lacks both definite and indefinite articles:3'* did P'arnavaz create the Georgian script, or a
Georgian script? I think the answer is obvious from the context: it was asserted that P'arnavaz had
fashioned the Georgian script, and he has nothing else to say about the script even after the fifth century
AD when it was in feet invented to accommodate Christianity. Therefore, according to the Georgian
tradition, as a result of the intellectual and organizational labors o f the first king P'arnavaz, the Georgian
characters were introduced, and not some script that had since fallen from use.
Be that as it may, three related but distinct scripts have been employed by the K 'art'velians/
Georgians at various times (see charts). Neither the Georgian nor the Armenian historical tradition
relates explicitly which Georgian script was the first to be allegedly fashioned. 3 3 The earliest attested
33The vast majority of modem Georgian refutations o f the Armenian tradition o f Mashtoc' have been
conditioned tty patriotic emotions. However, scholarly dismissals of Mashtoc' alleged invention o f the
Georgian script are possible. E.g., Javaxishvili, Dzveli somxuri saistorio mcerloba (1935). pp. 158-160.
who suggests that Mashtoc''s connection with the Georgian and Albanian alphabets is an interpolation.
The Armenian A. Perixanian wrote that "The creation o f a new script to serve any language cannot be
limited to the invention o f letters; it is a question o f a vast and complex process, which includes in the
first place the separation o f the phonemes o f the given language and presumes a detailed knowledge of its
phonetics as well as its grammar. Mashtotz knew' neither Georgian nor Albanian, and Koriuns statement
that Mashtoz has collected in situ information relating to the phonetic structure o f these languages cannot
be taken very seriously, since the data collected in such a way could not be considered sufficient for such
an undertaking." See Perixanian, "La question de 1origine de lecriture armenienne." in Recueil dA sie
anterieure, vol. 2 (1966), pp. 126-127, quoted in Salia, History o f the Georgian Nation. Vivian trans.. p.
65.
Ê se (<)bQ) and igi (og,o) were sometimes employed in Old Georgian as definite articles.
33Should the accounts in question be contemporary, then, o f course, only one script existed; but the
accounts, a t least in their extant forms, are considerably later. O n the origin of the Georgian script, see
the outstanding study o f T . Gamqrelidze, Ceris anbanuri sistema da dzveli k'art'uli damcerloba:
anbanuri ceris tipologia da carmomavloba (1989), with extensive Rus. sum., "Alfavitnoe pis'mo i
drevnegruz inskaia pis'mennost': tipologiia i proiskhozhdenie alfavitnykh sistem pis'ma," pp. 207-306.
Although beyond the scope of the present study, Gamqrelidze considers the influence o f existing scripts
upon Georgian and finds a close affinity with the order and structure o f the Greek script. The author
builds his arguments around the similar developments o f the Armenian, Coptic, Gothic, and Slavic
232
J*
&
x:
d*
Li
H.
q .
T-
CM
C L 'I
O QA
rj
T1
<p
+
T
Tr
lt>
4.H.
b
e
Z5
at
+
T
q
0 -
To
^
R
0
a
O
!s
c
e fi
a-
"b
&
3*
'< S
R
e
bf
a
U
0-
n
ti
'b
&
a-
it
t-
TJ
Tj
SOURCES: I. Bolrusi Siam (late fifth century): 2. Juan (sixth/seventh century): 3. Xanmet 'i Lectionaty
(seventh centuty): and 4. Sinai mravalt'avi (864). Reproduced from I. Abuladze, K'art'uli cens
mmushehi, p. x.
alphabets. See also: H. Junker, "Das Awestaalphabet und d er Ursprung der armenischen und georgischen
Schrift," Caucasia: Zeitschriftftir die Erforschung der Sprachen und Kulturen des Kaukasus 2 (1925), pp.
1-91 and 3 (1926), pp. 82-121, for the connection of the Arm. and Georgian scripts with Hebrew, Syriac,
Pers., and Gk.; and Ocherki istorii Gruzii, vol. 2, pp. 467-477.
10
TT
V
it
e
%>
%
nr
Jt
14^
&
uy
a*
4i4f
n?
*7
+
Tl
**P
tt
>
-n
rtf
'b
M
b
*#
t'
*1
k
~rr
*n/
if
*1
J,
k
w
4
nt
K
u
4U
th
/*
p
a
fi
**
$
t
*T
IU
nr
*V
*
Wf
tf
n
*e
-f
M
UT
-I
-ru
C.
A
i
it
HJ
Xu
tf
3r
n
*tp
f?
fr
Jt
k
70
Jr
r
xri
dr
*c
u t{
7,
13
*2T
*2,
11
Of
tf
ft
<h
c
th
IT
c
4>
ul
If
V
*a
*t*t
SOURCES 7. Athonitc Collection (1074); 8. T ranslation of the Gospels (eleventh century); 9. Vitae of the
Fathers (eleventh century); 10. Vani Gospels (thirteenth century); 11. Shio M ghvimc Gospels (1304); 12.
Acalhist (1681); and 13. Me'Net'a Bible (eighteenth century). Reproduced from I. Abuladze, K 'art'uli
ceris nimushehi, p. xiii.
Tfl
234
u
a
eh
b
eh
b
a.
Jl
b
T,
O a n
qm
a<i
T.
+
n
n
Hi
r
+
n
h-
+
b
h
ih
b
Or
u.
a ii
OH
T1
+
b
h
*b
h
ft
iV
i
3
h
Ch
1
y
h
a
n
O'
*i
1
o
h
ii
tl
th
"b ch
*b
di
Tj
di
*b
di
a-
F
s
a*
<h
ch
9*
T> 5
<3
Fi
5
a
u
a
u
(L Y
1
11 *
O
a
u
V
>E
7j
*
a.
1
^
>
Ch <1
0-
*b
i 936,: 7' Oospe,s
*u
*b.
t
* M tt - *
*b
235
'
Ir
& t &
0
&
&
}(
1 f
<*
]
03
1
9
<
r "
1$
4
fP
"
i*
1
SOURCES: I. Charter of Bagrat IV (1060-1065); 2. Donation Letter o f Chiaberi (1184/1185); and 3.

Translation o f the Song of Songs (1188-1210). Reproduced from I. Abuladze. K'art'uli ceris nimushebi.
p. xiv.
236
script is called asomt'avruli (alxnctaigrtgE jo; see photograph). It consisted o f thirty-eight majuscule
letters3**and its use has been definitely traced back to the fifth-century AD (stone inscriptions at the
Bolnisi cathedral [just south o f T b ilisi] and at the Palestinian monastery at Bir-al-Qutt. as well in
palimpsest parchment fragments). Without exception, the earliest specimens o f the asomt'avruli script are
ecclesiastical in nature (i.e.. translations o f the Gospels and Church Fathers, or dedicatory inscriptions for
churches). This in itself may be evidence that a pre-Christian king did not invent this particular script,
for its earliest usages are conspicuously Christian. However, we may not discount the possibility of the
systematic destruction o f "pagan books by Christians. By the ninth century (and, in any event, probably
under Bagratid rule), another script, called nusxuri (6 igbb)6 o), was developed.3^ Nusxuri is an angular,
miniscule script and consists o f thirty-eight letters, all having direct asomt'avruli correspondences.3*
Modem specialists refer to asomt'avruli and nusxuri collectively as xuc'uri (b)Q)6 o). or the
"priestly" (Le.. ecclesiastical) hands. This is to distinguish them from the mxedruli (dbgcofi^cjo:
"knightly, i.e., civil/secular)3 ^ script which was developed under the K 'art'velian Bagratids in the
tenth/eleventh centuries. A form o f mxedruli is the script still employed today.4 0 The mxedruli script
contains only miniscules, and like its xuc'uri antecedents it consists o f thirty-eight characters (at least
before the twentieth-century orthographic changes). It is a rounded script and could be written more
expeditiously than the others. Mxedruli was employed especially by royal and "secular" scribes. Bagratid
royal charters were usually written in mxedruli.
S.N. Mouraviev, "Page dhistoire de la phonetique ancienne: la forme exteme de l'alphabet asomt'avruli
en tant que modele graphique de la structure difierentielle des phonemes du vieux-georgien." Proceedings
o f the Eleventh International Congress o f Phonetic Sciences (1987), pp. 2.1.1-2.1.4 (repr. in the
Newsletter o f the Societyfor the Study o f Caucasia 2/1 (1989).
J 'T h e development o f nusxuri roughly corresponds with the ascendancy o f the Bagratids in Kart'li. The
mxedruli script was a Bagratid-era invention.
3*The forms o f the nusxuri letters, in most cases, are clearly derived from asomt 'avruli.
The Old Georgian rendering is mq'edruli.
<*The xuc 'uri scripts are employed by the Georgian Church even today.
| r
Ivffbc
*.")i; c.ci1 <,:yn; r.fi:

|iK:6 'hxfci i.itn
crc
ffi #
* r t
m :
4 ff
8 i|
u n ; c
. M b ^ w
r u K
.j.
W X ! M W
u t ; . j : c ; o *
..,
V(V -
;.* ,
wi 'biHi-cid. niM<Cdr
m a
.
i -*aJ.
.\a n n w t i Lcctionaiy (seventh century), reproduced from I. Abuladze, K 'art'uli ceris nimushebi, p. 21.
i-j
"4
238
The identification and relationship o f these three Georgian scripts may be classified as:'**
Ecclesiastical
( xuc'uri)
Secular
{mxedruli)
1. ASOMTAVRUU (majuscules)
2. NUSXURI (miniscules)
3. MXEDRULI (modem)
When was a specifically Georgian script invented? There may be no question that it was
conceived in conjunction with the Christianization of K 'art'li. A script was required so that the clergy
could employ the local language (and being able to read ecclesiastical texts, especially the Bible and the
works o f the Church Fathers) and propagate the faith among the K 'art'velian community. Asomt'avruli.
the earliest form of the Georgian script, was invented perhaps as early as the first-half of the fifth century
AD. This we know for Georgian inscriptions have been positively dated from that century at the Bolnisi
Sioni cathedral (494 AD), and apparently even earlier in that century at Urbnisi Sioni (near Gori) and in
Jerusalem.4^ If N. Shoshiashvili has dated the earliest Urbnisi Sioni inscriptions correctly (first-half of
the fifth century) then his assertion that the Georgian script was developed as early as the late fourth
century is tenable .43
Could a different but specifically (now-lost) Georgian script have been introduced during the
reign o f P'arnavaz? W.E.D. Allen, drawing upon the work of Xaxanashvili, suggested that the Zend (i.e..
Avestan) script, employed tty the Persians until their adoption o f the Pahlavi script after the invasion of
Alexander, may have been adopted ity P'arnavaz .4 4 Allen rightly noted that many o f the peoples with
4 *The earliest historical sources (seventh/eighth century), therefore, must have been composed in xuc 'uri.
But most o f our texts have come down to us in mxedruli MSS, owing to their relatively late date (i.e., well
after the invention o f mxedruli). Three MSS o f K'C' are in nusxuri: QTP. It is not known whether any of
these MSS, especially the pre-Vaxtangiseuli Q variant, is derived directly from a nusxuri original; rather,
a scribe could have converted a mxedruli text to nusxuri. In any case, it should be emphasized that not all
ecclesiastical texts and inscriptions were composed in xuc'uri. Likewise, some royal documents
especially ones which dealt with the ecclesiastical affairs were written in xuc 'uri (either asomt 'avruli or
nusxuri).
43 N. Shoshiashvili, Aghmosavlet' da samxret'sak'art'velo
(V-Xss.) (1980), with Rus. sum., pp. 349-355:

Urbnisi Sioni (#1, pp. 62-63), Bolnisi Sioni (#2, pp. 64-66), and Rus. sum., p. 349. On the early Georgian
inscriptions in Jerusalem see: G. Ceret'eli, Udzvelesi k'art'uli carcerebipalestinidan (1960), with Eng.
"The Most Ancient Georgian Inscriptions from Palestine," pp. 75-94; see also idem.. "The Most Ancient
Georgian Inscriptions in Palestine, BK 36-37 (1961), pp. 111-130.
4 3 Shoshiashvili, Aghmosavlet' da samxret ' sak'art
4 4 Allen,
veto. Rus. sum., p. 349.
History o f the Georgian People, pp. 309-311; and Xaxanashvili, Ocherki po istorii gruzinskoi
239
whom the K 'art'velians entertained close relations "were becoming accustomed to alphabetical systems of
writing" including the Persians, Greeks, and S yrians.^ Allen and Xaxanashvili demonstrated that of the
thirty-five characters o f the Zend alphabet, no fewer than twenty-five o f them are identifiable in the
mxedruli script of the K'art'velians. In the end, Allen concluded that had Zend been employed by the
K'art'velians, it would have been introduced around the time o f P'arnavaz. Yet no specimens of the Zend
alphabet have been detected in Georgia, nor do we possess any direct reference to it in medieval Georgian
literature.
We do, however, possess ample evidence for the use o f two scripts in ancient K 'art'li: Greek and
a local variant of Aramaic termed "Armazic.
G. Ceret'eli, the foremost researcher on the subject,
suggested that the Armazic-Aramaic script may indeed have influenced the creation of the Georgian
alphabet, but that at the time of Christianization Greek (especially for the order of characters) was the
preferred m o d e l.^ Mo text written in the Georgian language, but transposed in these scripts, has been
found.
One of the most famous ancient Georgian monuments is the so-called "Armazi Bilingual. a
stone inscribed in both Greek and Armazic. The second-century AD bilingual inscription, as translated
by B. Metzger, reads:
slovesnosti, vol. 2 (1897), pp. 14 et sqq.

Allen, History o f the Georgian People, p. 309.
^^There has been considerable interest in the Armazic (local Aramaic) script even among Western
specialists. See: G. Ceret'eli, A Bilingual Inscription from Armazi near Mtskheta in Georgia (1941);
idem.. "Armazskoe pis'mo i problema proiskhozhdeniia gruzinskogo alfavita," Epigrafika Vostoka 2
(1948), pp. 90-101 and 3 (1949). pp. 59-71; K. Ceret'eli, Shenishvnebi armazis bilingvis aramuli tek'stze
= Zamechaniia k arameiskomu tekstu armazskoi bilingvy (1992); idem., "Armazian Script." unpub. paper
from the Early Christianity and Georgia Symposium (T b ilisi, Oct. 1991). Lb.p. in vol. 1 o f IbericaCaucasica; idem., "Aramaic Amulet from Mtskheta." unpub. typescript (ca. 1995) (the 29-line inscription
of this protection amulet mentions its owner Abraham, son o f Sarah); R.N. Frye, "Pahlevi Heterographv in
Ancient Georgia?," in G.C. Miles, ed.. Archaeological Orientalia in Memoriam Ernst Herzfeld (1952),
pp. 89-101 + plate XX; B.M. Metzger. "A Greek and Aramaic Inscription Discovered at Armazi in
Georgia." JN E S 15/1 (Jan. 1956), pp. 18-26; and H.W. Bailey, "Caucasica, JRAS (1943), pp. 1-5.
^ G . Ceret'eli, "Armazskoe pis'mo i problema proiskhozhdeniia gruzinskogo alfavita." Epigrafika
Vostoka 2 (1948), pp. 90-101 and 3 (1949). pp. 59-71. A chart comparing the Hebrew, Armazic variants,
Farsi, and Pahlavi scripts is provided in part 1, p. 100. Rayfield, The Literature o f Georgia, p. 1, notes
that while both the Georgian and Arm. alphabets are generally ordered after the Gk., Georgian follows the
Classical Gk. order (with digamma in sixth position) and Arm. follows that o f Christian Gk. (digamma in
thirtieth position). See also Gamqrelidze, Ceris anbanuri sistema da dzveli k'art'uli damcerloba:
anbanuri ceris tipologia da carmomavloba. The characters o f the oldest script, asomt'avruli, display a
number o f similarities with their Gk. counterparts: e.g., d (both have an enclosed area); e (Georgian
resembles 17); /; p 'ph. O ther similiarities may be detected in the nusxuri script: e.g., z\ and o (Georgian
inverts o>).
240
{Greek}
Serapitis, daughter o f Zeuachos the younger, pitiax, wife o f the son o f pitiax Publicius
Agrippa, Iodmangan, he who has gained many victories as steward o f the great king of
the Iberians, Xephamugos [ZH$APNOYTOE| she died too young, [being] twentyone years [of age], she who had inimitable beauty'.
{Armazic-Aratruric}
I am Serapit, daughter o f Zewah the younger, bitahsh o f P'arsm an the king, wife o f
Yodmangan both victorious and having wrought many victories [as] chief o f the
court o f Hsepharnug the king son o f Agrippa, chief o f the court o f P'arsman the king.
Woe, woe [for her] who did not reach full age, incomplete, and so good and beautiful
that no one was like her in goodness - she died in [her] twenty-first year .49
There are three pre-Christian K 'art'velian kings named P'arsman, i.e., P'arsm an I (1-58 AD).
P'arsm an II K'ueli ("the Valiant," 116-132), and P'arsm an m (135-185).^ But a king named
Hsephamug/Xepharnugos (which perhaps would be rendered in Georgian as K 'sep'am ugi) is not
mentioned in any extant Georgian text. It would seem at first glance that P'arsm an and
Hsephamug/Xephamugos are to be identified as two separate individuals, but it should be noted that the
latter is probably built upon the Georgian root p 'ar- (here rendered -pham-), which is the Persian /amah.
Therefore, both P'arsm an and HsephamugPLephamagos are based upon the same Persian root Is it
possible that Hsephamug/Xephamugos was another name, o r nickname, for the aforementioned (or even
another) king named P'arsm an? If this is the case, then it would seem that Hsephamug/Xephamugos
would refer to P'arsm an II (116-132) while the inscription's P'arsm an would refer to P'arsman m (135185). Significantly, the names mentioned in the inscription are not based upon Greek (except for
"Publicius Agrippa," although "Publicius" is omitted from the Armazic text), but are local ones based
upon Persian and Aramaic. Moreover, the Armazic-Aramaic inscription is given in first person, while the
48The Greek here reads EHPAHEmE ZHOYAXOY TOY NEQTEPONIHTIAZOY 0YTATHP. I

concur with Metzger's translation o f "Zeuachos the younger* and cannot accept Tsereteli's "Zeuachos, the
junior pitiax' for no such title is anywhere attested in Caucasian texts.
4 9 Metzger, "A Greek and Aramaic Inscription Discovered a t Armazi in Georgia," pp. 20-21; cf. the trans.
o f Frye, "Pahlevi Heterography in Ancient Georgia?," p. 91. A line by line analysis and reinterpretation
o f these inscriptions was made by K. Ceret'eli, Shenishvnebi armazis bilingvis aramuli tek'stze. Ceret'eli
(pp. 89-93) suggests that the last reference to P'arsman, rendered as PRNWSh in Armazic, should actually
be read as "P'arnavaz" (having equated the terminating zsh. o f the Armazic with the Georgian -z); thus,
"... chief o f the court o f P'arsm an the king, who vanquished the powerful, as P'arnavaz had not managed
to do." I f this rereading is correct, then this inscription would seem to testify to the existence o f a king
P'arnavaz, perhaps the P'arnavaz o f The Life o f the Kings.
Bilingual as P'arsman I, also known as Aderki (1-58

AD). See ToumanofF, "Chronology of the Early Kings o f Iberia," pp. 11-12.
5 0 Toumanof identifies the P'arsm an o f the Armazi
241
Greek inscription, which is not exactly identical to the Armazic, is n o t I believe that this is evidence that
Aramaic was more common than Greek among these particular K 'art'velian elites in M c'xeta. if not
others. Finally, the title pitiax (i.e., IIITIAEOE, the Latin vitaxa) is not Greek but Persian, denotes a high
office, perhaps to be associated with the defense o f the frontier as it came to be known in Persia and
Armenia.^ * The Georgian equivalent pitiaxshi (3o<*>ooib3o; var. patiaxshi) is rather common in early
Georgian texts. The Armenian form bdeashx (pibuglu) is employed in contemporary Armenian so u rc es.^
A few ancient Greek-only inscriptions have been excavated in the region o f K 'artI i .^ Perhaps
the most fascinating o f them is the now-damaged first-century monumental inscription mentioning the
Roman emperors Vespasian (AD 69-79), Titus (79-81), and Domitian (81-96). The inscription
commemorated the fortification o f Armazi-M c'xet'a fay Vespasian in the year 75.^* The "Iberian"
(K'art'velian) monarchs specified in it may be identified as MI6 PIAATHE = M ihrdat I (58-106 AD).
$APAEMANO = A derki-P'arsm an (1-58), and IAMAEAEIIOE = Amazasp I (106-116).^ Each o f
these rulers was styled as BAEIAEYE (basileus), or king. Furthermore, they were called
#IAOKAIAPO and #IAOPOMAIOE, that is, friend ofcaesar and friend o f the Romans respectively.
K'art'velian interaction w ith the Romans had existed from an early time, but intensified only with
Pompeys Caucasian campaign and the defeat o f King Artog (78-63 BC) in 65 BC. This episode, as well
as others involving the Romans, like the visit to Rome o f P'arsman HI (135-185) under Antoninus Pius
ca. 141-144,^ curiously were left unrecorded in Georgian historical literature. This circumstance lends
Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 154-192 et sqq (who notes, p. 156, that "a clear distinction should be made
between the provenance o f the terms used to designate it and the provenance of the office itself);
Metzger, "A Greek and Aramaic Inscription Discovered at Armazi in Georgia." pp. 21-22; and GarsoTan
in The Epic Histories, s.v. "Bdeashx," pp. 516-517. Forerunners o f pitiaxshi-s, at least in the Persian
sense, may be traced back to the bevarapaitish-s (toparchs) of the Achaemenids.
^GarsoTan in The Epic Histories, technical terms, s.v. "bdeashx," pp. 516-517; and M.-L. Chaumont.
"Armenia and Iran." in E lran, vol. 2 (1987), p. 437.
JJLatin inscriptions are rare for any region o f modern Georgia. For two fragments from the west, see
M.P. Speidel and T.T. Todua, "Three Inscriptions from Pityus on the Caucasus Frontier," SJ 44 (1988).
pp. 56-58.
^ G . Ceret'eli, M c'xet'is berdznuli carcera vespasianesxanisa (1958), p. 9.
^Toum anoff, "Chronology o f the Early Kings o f Iberia," pp. 11-16.
56Cassius Dio, LXDC15.3, pp. 470-471, gives the only account o f a K'art'velian monarch being received
at Rome:
When Pharasamanes the Iberian came to Rome with his wife, [Antoninus] increased his
domain, allowed him to offer sacrifice on the Capitol, set up an equestrian statue in the
temple o f Bel Iona, and viewed an exercise in arms in which this chieftain, his son, and
the other prom inent Iberians took part.
242
credence to the supposition that many o f the episodes o f The Ufe o f the Kings were interpolated later and
not based upon ancient materials. In any event, from the perspective o f medieval Georgian historical
writing, K 'art'velian contacts with the Romans usually remained secondary to those with Persia, no
m atter what the Roman sources might have us believe .5 7 But the influence o f the Roman/Byzantine
empire was never entirely absent in early K 'art' Ii. Indeed Greek civilization penetrated K 'art' li largely
from the south, i.e from the Seleucids, Arsacids, and then Christians.
The Armazi Bilingual conclusively shows that the K 'art'velians, well before the official adoption
o f Christianity in the first-half o f the fourth century, were familiar with alphabetic writing, and in more
than one form. This is much like the ca. 800 local tradition that several languages were spoken in ancient
K 'art'li. The Aramaic portion o f the inscription is more detailed and, unlike the Greek, is rendered in
first-person. This, I should think, demonstrates that the more fam iliar script for the K'art'velians named
in it (and perhaps other K 'art'velian Elites as well) was Aramaic-Armazic. It should be said, however,
that both Aramaic and Greek inscriptions which have been unearthed in K 'art'li, like all pre-Christian
inscriptions found there, are rare, and any parallel argument on the basis o f frequency cannot be seriously
entertained. H ad the K 'art'velians possessed their own script we m ight have expected it on a monument
like the Armazi Bilingual. More importantly, no specimens of a pre-Christian Georgian alphabet have
surfaced.5** Therefore, the K 'art'velian elite, until the fashioning o f a specifically Georgian script after
the Christianization o f the K 'art'velian monarchy, utilized other alphabets in their corresponding
languages, particularly Aramaic-Armazic and Greek. Both script an d language are thus further
indications o f the heterogeneous character of K 'art'velian society an d culture recalled in pre-Bagratid
historical writing. It should also be noted that in neighboring Armenia the Arsacid kings, prior to the
invention o f the Armenian script, cut inscriptions in Aramaic.5^ Although no Aramaic inscriptions cut
specifically in the name o f K 'art'velian rulers have been discovered, it seems quite likely that Aramaic
was the written language o f the Caucasian elite in the early part o f the common era .**0
The context o f this visit is discussed bv Braund, "Hadrian and Pharasmanes." Klio 73/1 (1991), pp. 208219.
57
See the overview o f E. Dabrowa, "Roman Policy in Transcaucasia from Pompey to Domitian," in
French and Lightfoot. eds.. The Eastern Frontier o f the Roman Empire (1989), pp. 67-76.
58That is to say, no extant Georgian literary evidence predates Christianization.
5 9 Russell, "Origins and Invention o f the Armenian Script," pp. 319-320. Two Greek stone inscriptions
are attested for T rd a t; see SEG, vol. 20 (1964), ##110-111, p. 34.
^ F o r the translation o f the brief Armazic "monolingual" inscription (first century AD), see Braund,
Georgia in Antiquity, p. 214.
243
The ca. 800 Life o f the Kings fashions its first K 'art'velian king as being uniquely worthy o f that
esteemed status. In order to depict that king as archetypal, and as specifically K'art'velian, it provides
fabulous attributes for him, essentially encapsulating the prominent features of the later K 'art'velian
rulership and his community w ithin his reign. That is to say, P'arnavaz is made to be the originator not
only K 'art'velian realm, but a kingdom which was well-organized and unified. Thus, the gradual
development o f royal institutions and social structure, as well as the assumed periodic weakness o f the
monarchy, were obscured. P'am avaz's very name (as applied to the first king) is almost certainly a
figment o f the author's imagination, although it must be admitted that the dynastic tag "P'araavaziani" is
known to fifth-century Armenian sources. According to our author, the first K 'art'velian king, as the
founder o f local royal authority, should logically be depicted as the creator of the K'art'velian
administrative machine. Therefore, P'arnavaz is said to have instituted a set o f military governors
( erist'avi-s) to adm inister the realm and effected a military reorganization. Part and parcel o f this
administrative project was the establishment o f Georgian as the language of government. Moreover, our
author incorrectly assumed that the Georgian script should be attributed to P'arnavaz, for without one how
could such an allegedly powerful monarch have adequately governed his extensive realm? But, as we
have seen, although the K 'art'velians were familiar with various scripts in the Hellenistic period, a
specifically Georgian script was created only at the impulse o f the needs o f Christian missionaries and
clerics. Later (Bagratid-era) writer-clerics, like Ioane Zosime and Arsen Iqalt'oeli. apparently refused to
accept the tradition that P'arnavaz, a "heathen" king, had fashioned the Georgian script, and discarded
these claims o f The Life o f the Kings.
II. THE SECULAR IMAGE OF PRE-CHRISTIAN K'ART VELIAN KINGSHIP
We should now consider the characteristics o f pre-Christian K'art'velian kingship as conceived

by the author o f The Life o f the Kings. As we have seen, he depicts P'arnavaz as the prototypical first
king o f the K 'art'velians, and his successors are similarly described. But unlike P'arnavaz, the names and
reigns o f the successive P'am avaziani-s are verified in foreign, especially Classical texts. Thus, they were
historical figures and not the complete figment o f some later author's imagination (as may have been the
case with P'arnavaz). The details provided in the Georgian historical tradition, consigned to paper only
ca. 800 but perhaps tempered by oral history, are not corroborated in Graceo-Roman literature. The fact
that the early kings o f K 'art'li are all described in much the same terms as one another leads us to the
prospect that the descriptions o f their reigns were invented at a considerably later time. Nearly six
hundred years o f kingship, from the time of P'arnavaz, are considered here, yet K 'artvelian royal
authority over this extended period is presented as a rather static, conservative, institution.
244
Intitulatio
As a consequence o f the overthrow and murder o f Azon, P'arnavaz is said to have assumed the
title of mep'e, or king, the most obvious sign of distinguishing his status from other K'art'velians :6 1
At that time P'arnavaz was no longer afraid o f any o f his enemies and he became mep 'e
over all K 'a rt'li and Egurisi...6^
The term mep'e (8 3 3 3 ), "monarch" or "king ,"63 is not allochthonous. but is related to the Georgian word
up 'ali (3 3 *0
0 ), or "lord." Occasionally the form meup 'e (8 3 ^)3 3 ) is employed.6** although this is an
emphatic usage (often referring to Jesus Christ). All of the monarchs o f K 'a rt'li , 6 6 and later Georgia.
6 *On the title o f mep'e and royal authority among the K'art'velians, see the brief studies o f Javaxishvili,
Sak'art'velo mep'e da misi up'lebis istoria (1905), and Xaxanashvili, "K 'art'velt'a m ep'et'a tituli.
kurt'xeva da regaliebi," Moambe i n (1895), pp. 75-88.
^ T h e Life o f the Kings, p. 24g_^: "8i9o6 g ^ B ^ h g 3 o 8 o^86i jjcn3 3 E?CD6 3<*)3(!xnj>

coi 8 3 3 3 0 ^ 8 6 * aci 3 3 C3 b i JitB m cjbi tg i s a g f ib i tyjgA..." Egurisi almost certainly represents
Egrisi, the western domains that were only later incorporated into a unified Georgia. Thomson, in his
trans. ofArm. Adapt. K 'C \ p. 34, footnote 16, remarks that "Eguri is a river south o f the Egrisi" (after
Vaxushti).
63Georgian lacks a formal grammatical gender and therefore the rendition o f mep e as "king" is
imprecise. Mep 'e actually denotes the ruling monarch, be it a man or woman, lliis point is demonstrated
later with the reign o f T a m a r (1184-1213), the first woman to rule over K 'art'li/G eorgia. In the medieval
sources she is often referred to as both mep'e ("ruling monarch") and dedop'ali ("queen," usually
employed for the spouse o f a king). See S.-S. Orbeliani, vol. 1, p. 467.
^ S e e also Allen, History o f the Georgian People, p. 34, footnote 1, who dissects the designation meup'e:
me = designates a noun o f agent: up'ali = "lord" > up'lilup'Ieba = "the right [or prerogative)"; therefore.
meup 'e= "the holder o f the rig h t the highest." See also Ocherki istorii Gruzii. vol. 2, pp. 99-100. Mart.
Evstat 'i, p. 45, employs the phrase k 'ristesa meup 'esa which denotes "Christ the King." The eleventhcentury Giorgi Meire in his Life o f Giorgi Mt'acmideli, pp. 152jq, 153
et sqq, calls the Patriarch of
Antioch meup'e.
66 With the exception o f the alleged dyarchy reported in The Life o f the Kings sad Royal List I.
According to these two sources, following the reign of Aderiri (1-58 AD), K 'art'velian kingship was
divided by his successors between the twin-cities of Armazi and M c'xet'a; this situation was believed to
have existed down to Adami (132-135), who is known as the sole king o f the K 'art'velians. The Life o f
the Kings (along with its medieval Armenian adaptation) reports five isochronal (!) pairs o f kings
(Bartom/K'art'am, P'arsman/Kaos, Azork/Armazeli, Amazasp/Derok, and P'arsm an k ue/z/Mirdat) while
Royal List I gives six (Bratm an/K'arram , P'arsman/Kaoz, Arsok/Armazaer. Amazasp/Deruk, P'arsman
'ue///P'arsman avaz, and Rok/Mirdat). The fact that both sources claim that each dyarchal pair ruled
isochronally betrays the corruption, or perhaps the complete fabrication, o f this memory. For his part,
ToumanofF dismissed the tradition o f the dyarchy on much these same grounds, and suggested the
following "real" kings for the period o f the alleged rule of dual kings in K 'a rt'li: Mihrdat (58-106),
Amazasp (106-116), and P'arsm an k'ueli (116-132). Toumanoff "Caucasia and Byzantine Studies,"
245
apparently took this title, both before and after Christianization down to the Russian occupation o f the
Georgian polities in the nineteenth century.** The customary style o f intitulatio. or royal titulature. in the
pre-Bagratid period was reportedly in the form k'art velt'a mep'e
8 3 3 3 ). that is "king of
the K 'artvelians," and not king ofK'art'li (i.e., a monarch o f a community rather than o f a territory, cf.
the Carolingian Rex Francorum).
Medieval Georgian historiography employs the term mep 'e indiscriminately for a wide range of
rulers other than the kings o f K 'art' Ii. Thus Nimrod, Nebuchadnezzar, and Alexander, Roman and
Byzantine emperors (imperator, augustus, caesar, and BAEIAEYE);*^ shahanshahs (i.e., "Shah of
shahs" = King o f Kings, o r the Great King) o f the Sasanids; Jesus Christ and God (but not Muhammad):
Khazar/Turidc qaghans;
chieftains o f the Ovsi-s (Alans); kings (t'agawor, pmquinp) and princes
(ishxan, tefurAi) o f the Armenians; and princes and grand-princes ( kniaz', k h jo l ) and tsars (naps) o f the
Rus/Russians; all of these were afforded the title of mep'e. The following table demonstrates the
medieval Georgian equation o f mep'e as "monarch."
Selected Mep 'e s According to C'xorebav k'art 'velt 'a mep 'et a
Editio citato
Figure
Title
p. 6
p .7
pp. 11-12
p. 14
p. 15
p. 17
p. 23
p. 24
p. 24
p. 28
Nebrot' i/Nimrod
Haos/Hayk
The first mep 'e o f all the Earth

Mep'e [of the Targamosiani-s]
M ep'e o f the Khazars
Mep 'e o f the Persians
Mep'e
Mep 'e o f all the Earth
Mep'e of Syria (Seleucids)
Mep'e o f the Ovsi-s (Alans)
Mep'e o f the K'art'velians
Mep 'e o f the Armenians
K'ekapos
Nebuchadnezzar
Alexander
Antiochos
P'arnavaz
Arshak
Traditio 12 (1956), p. 415, footnote 30. remarks that the reported dyarchy is usually regarded as a
projection to a later period o f the division o f K 'a rt'li between Persia and Rome in the first century.
(Moreover, Toumanoff convincingly demonstrated that Royal List I was dependent upon The Life o f the
Kings [or at least upon a common source]).
^ W ith the exception of the principate (ca. 580 through the Bagratid reestablishment o f royal authority in
the ninth century); see ch. 6 .
*^Molitor, Altgeorgisches Glossar zu Ausgewdhlten Bibeltexten (1952), p. 102, who points out that the
Biblical use o f mep e often corresponds to BAEIAEYE and APXQN.
*În the anonymous eleventh-century Chron. K'art'li, pp. 249-250, the ruler o f the Khazars is called both
king-qaghan (mep'esa xakans xazart'a) and ju st qaghan (xakani).
246
p. 45
p. 45
p. 59
p. 6 8
p. 69
p. 73 (.Life o f Nino)
throughout Life o f Nino
p. 95 {Life o f Nino)
p. I l l {Life o f Nino)
Bazuk and Abazuk
Constantine
Dual mep e-s o f the Ovsi-s

Mep e o f the Leki-s
Azhghalaniani mep e-s
Mep 'e o f the Goths
Mep e o f the Greeks69
Mep e of the B ran ji-s^
Mep 'e of the Romans
Mep 'e of the Jews
Mep'e o f H eaven^
Selected Mep e-s In Othe r Early Georgian Sources
Editio citato
C'urtaveli. Mart. Shush.
Mep'e in this source invariably
Father o f Azoy & Azoy

T rdat
David
Christ
Mep'e of the Heathens

Mep e of the North (Khazars)
Mep e of the Io n ian s^
Mep'e o f A iyan-K'art'li
Mep'e of Armenia
Mep'e -Prophet o f Israel
Christ the mep e ^
Mep'e-s o f [northern] Caucasia
Mep 'e of Persia = King of all
kings; King Vaxtang = mep'e
Mep e of Israel: mep 'e of
refers to the Persians
Mart, ffabo, p. 58
Mart. Habo, p. 59
Mart. Habo, p. 59
Prim. Hist., pp. 81-2
Conv. K'art'li, p. 84
Mart. Evstat'i, p. 38
Mart. Evstat'i, p. 45
Life ofVaxtang, p. 151
o f the Ten Kings
Christendom
9"King of the Greeks," i.e., mep'e berdzent'a, refers to the Byzantine emperor. Byzantium was
conceived by the Georgians as "Greece;" thus in the Georgian mind Greece included not only classical
Greece but also Anatolia extending eastwards into Greater Armenia.
^The Branji-s have not been positively identified, although is it generally agreed that the desigantion is
connected with the Franks (i.e., P rangis). The EPRbd Vaxtangiseuli variants o f The Life o f Nino in C'x.
k'art'. mep'et'a, p. 73, footnote 1, have the explanatory insertion "6 6 ^ 6 5 5 6 0 3 6 6 6 3 6 0 sdmsB, or "The
Branji-s are the P'rangi-s [i.e.. Franks]." But S. Eremian suggested that at least in the Armenian history o f
Matthew of Edessa the term "P'rang" m ight be a corruption o f "Vrang" and might therefore denote
"Varangian." Eremian as cited in P.B. Golden, "Cumanica I: The Qipchaqs in Georgia," AEMA 4 (1984).
p. 73, footnote 90.
71
1 I.e
meup 'esa c'at'asa, l i t "the Lord o f the Sky."
72
I.e., the Byzantine emperor. This is the only reference to the Ionian king known to me in medieval
Georgian historical and hagiographical literature.
79
I.e., k ristesa meup'ese.
247
Mep e o f Heaven and mep e-s of

Earth

etsqq
Life ofVaxtang, pp. 172 &
179
Life ofVaxtang, p. 173 Ipajaji
Life ofVaxtang, p. 174 Borzo
Ps.-Juansher, pp. 217, 220
M ep 'e-caesaP *
Mep'e o f Darubandi (Derbend)
Mep e o f the Leki-s
Mep 'e o f th e Movakani-s
Mep e o f the Hindo-s (?Indians)
Mep e o f the Sindi-s
Mep e o f the Turks
We should recall that although Haos/Hayk is named as king in The Life o f the Kings, K 'art'los was not
However, that text allocates two titles denoting rulership to the immediate descendants o f K 'art'los: up'ali
O3 3 A2 3 0 , "lord") and ganmge (&A6 8 3 3 , "ruler").75 Even in the heyday o f the medieval Georgian
kingdom under Davit' II and T a m a r, the term mep'e is not treated as the prerogative o f the K'art'velian
monarch, although by that time special attributives modifying mep'e magnified the official royal
K'art'velian titulature (see chapter seven).
According to The Life o f the Kings, once Azon had been vanquished, P'arnavaz immediately
assumed the mantle o f kingship. P'arnavaz was aided in his elevation as king by the fact that:
... he was by descent through his father a K 'art'velian,7^ from the clan of Up'los, son of
M c'xet'os, and through his mother a Persian o f the Aspani clan [i.e from ?Isfahan).
He was the nephew of Samari, who formerly had been the mamasaxlisi [lit., "father of
the house"] of M c'xet'a [when] Alexander had appeared in K 'a rtli .7 7
As demonstrated by Toumanoff, medieval Georgian historians at times referred generically to their

overlords. Thus "Antiochos king o f the Syrians" refers to Seleucid rulers regardless o f their individual
names (although seven o f the Seleucid rulers bore that name). In The Life ofVaxtang "caesar" is the
generic rendering o f the Byzantine emperor.
7C
/J M c'xet'os is styled as ganmge a n d up'ali over his brothers {The Life o f the Kings, p. 9 ^ : "a 363
oyoi ^ 6 8 ^ 3 a jsa23 S*05 caoobo>A33 dSAOJA tyjgi."). In the civil war that ensued upon the death
of M c'xet'os, the brothers o f Up'los are said to have refused to acknowledge him as up'ali {ibid., p. 10).
For later conceptions ganmge and related terms, see Charachidz, Introduction a Iitude de la Jeodalite
georgienne, pp. 121-124.
76The odd form k 'art'leli appears only in M; this passage is absent from the pre-Vaxtangiseuli AQ
redactions. Vaxtangiseuli variants unanimously give the correct form k'art'veli preferred by
Qauxch'ishvili.
77
The Life o f the Kings, p. 2 0 18 _2 o : " 0 an 9a90C5AJS J*(6o)C5 aC5 0 , 6 *0 )3 ^ 3 0 QSepoibo,

d o b i , a 3325 *C2 b 3 A(6b o Ab3 A63c p o . oa 0301 0 5 0 d S o b ^ j c j o bA dA thobo,
3(jb 3<oibob
(60183230 3cib c3 3 A b A
3Ab
A g 3 3 jb A 6 { o 6 3 b b A 836300323
3A3AbAb23o b o
3 0 1 3 0 2 5 0 3 0 1 ."
248
This passage was essential in fashioning the image o f the establishment o f the local monarchy, for it
alleged that P'arnavaz. the first king o f K 'art'li, was:
(1) a native K 'art'velian and his descent could be traced to K 'art'los through Up'los and
M c'xet'os (thus he was a K'art'losiani);
(2) related, by blood, to the Persians, which is indicative o f the tremendous Persian
social and political influence throughout Caucasia at the time (thus he was a
Nebrot'iani);
(3) related to the previous local rulers o f M c'xet'a. P'am avaz's uncle had been the
mamasaxlisi ofM c'xet'a, that ruler o f the inhabitants o f M c'xet'a before native
royal authority was established.
The Life o f the Kings offers very little information on the position/title o f mamasaxlisi
(0 i 9 ib ib c 5 ol3O). "father of the house" (cf. Arm. tanuter, major-domo). The term mamasaxlisi is a
compound consisting o f mama ("father") and the extended genitive form o f saxli ("house"). In this early
period, the mamasaxlisi was remembered to have served as the mayor ofM c'xet'a. This "memory" has
conditioned modern inquiry, and whatever is now asserted about the office/title is squarely based upon
speculation and/or the generic application of sociological and anthropological n o rm s.^ In any event, it
seems to have been an ancient institution/title in Caucasia, and the author o f The Life o f the Kings was
probably right to project its existence to antiquity. It should be emphasized that K 'art' los and his
immediate progeny were not styled as mamasaxlisi-s, so this institution/title was imagined to have arisen
only after K 'art'los. Moreover, up until P'arnavaz the K 'art'losiani-s, as noted, were not called mep'e-s.
During the civil w ar that ensued upon the elevation o f Up'los, son o f M c'xet'os:
...there was no [brother] more distinguished and renowned [than his siblings], but each
one in his place was considered the t'avadi [lit "head"]. But whoever [sat] in M c'xet'a
was considered the [de facto] t'avadi over all the others. And he neither took the name
o f mep e, nor erist 'avi. but he was called mamasaxlisi, and he was the peacemaker and
the judge of the other K'art'losiani-s, for the city o fM c'x et'a became greater than all
[the other cities], and [thus] it was called the Mother-City ^ 9 [deda-k'alak'i].*
^ O n the mamasaxlisi, see Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 91 (footnote 128) and 114-115 (and footnote 185. all
for its relationship to the Armenian tanuter [ifUilntiitji]). He notes (p. 91, footnote 128) that "As with its
Armenian equivalent [i.e., tanuter]... the use o f the term in historical times was somewhat archaistic and,
whatever may have been its pre-historic, tribal uses, o f which we have no record, decidedly princely." A
mamasaxlisi named Grigoli is attested in Mart. Evstat'i, p. 34). The title, at least later in the Christian
period, came to refer to a Father Superior of a monastery.
^ 9 Today, T b ilisi as the capital city is called deda-k'alak'i. See also Garsofan in The Epic Histories, s.v.
"M ayrak'aghak'," p. 545. Mayrak'aghak', i.e., "Mother-City," was used in the fifth-century The Epic
249
So the ca. 800 author o f The Life o f the Kings places the origin o f the office/title of mamasaxlisi in the
generations immediately following K 'art'los. In addition, from its alleged inception, he associates the
mamasaxlisi with M c'xet'a. which subsequently emerged as the royal city. No list of ancient
mamasaxlisi-s has come down to us.
A Seleucid connection with the rise o f K 'art'velian royal authority is hinted in The Life o f the
Kings. In the course o f his battle with Azon, P'arnavaz initiated contact with those Near Eastern
successors of Alexander, and the Seleucid king is said to have provided aid and a crown Igwrgwni.
5 3 6 3 3 6 0 ), a universal symbol of kingship .81 It would seem, then, that
The Life o f the Kings has
incorporated some long-standing memory that the monarchy was established under Seleucid
sponsorship.8^ Seleucid suzerainty is insinuated for the reigns o f P'arnavaz. Saurmag. and Mirvan I. the
alleged first three kings o f K 'art'li. Moreover, the overthrow o f the Seleucids by the Arsacids in 141 BC
is obliquely reported.8-* But The Life o f the Kings does not explicitly state that the Seleucids were solely
responsible for the establishment o f K 'art'velian royal authority, this would have admitted a foreign
connection which the text attempts to eliminate, or at least diminish. It is entirely possible that the
K 'art'velian monarchy was propped up by the Selecuids. The memory of this episode was later confused
and transformed, but the era in which it had occurred was not forgotten.
We possess only sketchy indications of K 'art'velian insignia in the pre-Bagratid period, but
neither describes pre-Christian kings. In The Life o f Nino, composed in its extant form in the Bagratid
era, the transfer o f royal authority from Mihran/Mirian (after his Christianization) to his son B ak'ar is
described in the following terms:
Histories only for Caesarea in Cappadocia. apparently refering to that city 's ecclesiastical status (and upon
which the Armenian Church was dependent at the time). Garsoian says that The Epic Histories never
applies the term to Artashat, the "secular capital of Armenia; but later mayrak 'aghak' is employed for the
capital city Dwin.
8 7he Life
o f the Kings, p. 11
Cf. Arm. Adapt. K 'C \ pp. 13-14 = Thomson trans.. pp. 12-13.
The Life o f the Kings, p. 23. On crowns see C.J. Gadd, Ideas ofDivine Rule in the Ancient East
(1948), pp. 48-49. According to him in the ancient period crowns were not only the symbols o f kingship
but were themselves amulets exuding magical powers. We have no indication in medieval Georgian
historical sources that crowns were considered magical; nor do we have any- descriptions or surviving
examples o f pre-Christian K'art'velian crowns.
8 ^Toumanoff,
8 *77?e Life
Studies, pp. 80-81, thinks this to be the case from the inception of the P'amavaziani-s.
250
And the Cross o f the holy Nino was brought, [the Cross] which she possessed [when she
had] first [arrived in K 'art'li], and the king hung the royal crown \gwrgwni samep o] on
this Cross. A nd his son B ak 'ar came forth. A nd [Mirian] made the sign o f the Cross on
his head; an d he took the crown from the Cross and placed it on his sons head .8 4
This event may be based upon the earlier, pre-Bagratid account o f The Ufe ofVaxtang in which Vaxtang
(already the king), during a dream, was offered a crown by the Byzantine emperor, a certain S t Gregory,
and Nino. The crown had been placed on the arms o f the Cross, and in return for i t Vaxtang was asked
for his unconditional support for Christendom and for his ultimate loyalty to the Christian Byzantine
emperor.8^ In the same te x t the Persian shahanshah is said to have granted the Christian Vaxtang a
crown of rubies and 1000 royal garments.8** Ps.-Juansher relates that the crowns o f the first Christian
king Mirian and of Vaxtang were made o f gold and carbuncle.8 7 This early ninth-century author believed
that crowns had been part o f K 'art'velian royal insignia from the time of the Seleucids. But the fact
remains that we know virtually nothing about pre-Christian (and even pre-Bagratid) regalia and
coronation ceremonial. The lack o f artistic evidence from this period only compounds the enigma.
Likewise, we know extremely little about the royal court in the pre-Bagratid, and especially in the
pre-Christian, period. We possess absolutely no references to the holding o f court in pre-Christian times.
The earliest extant reference is in The Ufe ofVaxtang. The Christian Vaxtang, a contemporary o f Zeno,
at the age o f fifteen, is said to have summoned the grandees o f K 'a rt'li to the royal city. The king
mounted a throne elevated above the others. Vaxtangs chief minister, the spaspeti, and the bishops sat
also on thrones, while the erist'avi-s sat on less ornate chairs. The assembly' was also attended by' the eri
(3 6 0 ), a term which designates either the arm y o r the "people." and we are told that "hundreds and
thousands o f them stood there at attention." 8 8
Significant evidence on K'art'velian royal vestments,8^ coronations,^ court ceremonial,
palaces, and the like, dates only from the ninth century and later. Particularly important for that time is
8 4 7%e Ufe
o f Nino in C'x. k'art'. mep'et'a, p. I30jq-I3-
^T h e Ufe ofVaxtang, pp. 167-168.

8<* Ib id pp. 181 and 183.
8 7 Ps.-Juansher, p. 236.
88TAe Ufe ofVaxtang, p. 147.

8Âlthough Strabo does not address the issue o f royal vestments, he did comment upon the style o f
clothing typical o f the K 'art'velian community: "Now the plain o f the Iberians is inhabited by people who
are rather inclined to farming and to peace, and they dress after both the Armenian and the Median
fashion..." (Strabo, XI.3.3, pp. 218-219). T hat is to say, the K 'art'velians living on the plains dressed in
the Persian maimer, and owing to the Persian context of our sources, we may assume that the kings of the
251
the non-historiographic evidence o f Bagratid-era frescoes.9 * Texts describing court ceremonial survive
only from the thirteenth century, but these should not be taken as representative o f the pre-Bagratid period
since they mimicked, but did not always accurately reflect, Byzantine paradigms.9^
O ne characteristic o f K 'art'velian kingship of all eras (pre-Bagratid and Bagratid, pre-Christian
and Christian) is emphasized by The Ufe o f the Kings to have been implemented already from the time of
K 'art'los: the principle o f strict dynastic legitimacy' and primogeniture. In tracing the provenance o f the
K 'art'velian community. The U fe o f the Kings exploits Biblical models of paternal genealogies. This
dynastic ideal, which permeated not only the royal but also the noble segments o f society, was much like
that o f the Persians and only indirectly indicative o f the social patterns of Rome/Byzantium . 93
Significantly:
The concept o f the hereditary transmission o f the kingship, as characteristic o f Arsacid

Armenia as it was of the Sasanian realm [as well as in K 'art' liSR], was o f course
entirely foreign to the Roman empire, where, even in the Byzantine period, the popular
mandate to the new ruler, symbolized by acclamations and the raising on a shield, was
an indispensable part of the coronation ceremony. This dichotomy' which serves as a
watershed between the Classical and Oriental concepts o f the transmission o f power
within the State can simultaneously serve as another indication that, in this crucial
domain as well, Armenia [and K 'art'Ii-S R ] was on the Iranian side.9'*
Even for mythical pre-P'arnavaziani K 'art'li we read of a strict sense of dynastic legitimacy with K 'art'los
and his descendants (i.e., the K'art'losiani-s), and this almost certainly reflects its persistence (or at least
existence) in the authors own time, and may o r may not be true for the era in question. Anterior to the
K 'art'velians likewise were clothed in Persian garb.

9 No contemporary representations or specimens of the crowns used by the early kings of K' art' li have
come down to us. However, it is likely that they were similar to the crowns used by their contemporaries
in Armenia. On the latter see H. Ter Ghewondean, Ardashesean Ark'ayatohmi t'akere ewAnonc' Takume
= Die Kronen der Artaxiaten und ihre Entstehung (1989).
91A Eastmond, Royal Imagery in Medieval Georgia, unpub. typescript, (to be published 1997).
QJ
E.g., the mid-thirteenth-century Rank and Order o f the Consecration Ceremony ofKings in Georgian
ChartersSPB, pp. 74-79. As I shall argue infra , the consolidation of the Bagratids over the kingship of
K' art' li an d indeed Georgia corresponded with their conscious turn to Byzantine models of rulership,
ceremonial, and art, while distancing themselves almost completely with the pre-Bagratid, i.e., effectively
Iranian, kings o f K 'art'li.
93 As so brilliantly demonstrated by ToumanofF,
Studies.
9 *Garsoian, "Prolegomena to a Study of the Iranian Aspects in Arsacid Armenia, "HA (1976), repr. in her
Armenia between Byzantium and the Sasanians (1985), p. 24, footnote 45.
252
establishment o f royal authority in K 'art'li, it was possible for the ruler to crown his successor before his
death, as was the case with M c'xet'os establishing his oldest son U p'los upon the throne ofM c'xet'a; this
appears to have actually been the custom later on.9^ Yet even this was not always an adequate deterrent
to the outbreak o f civil war, as is signified in the legendary account o f Up'los.
The presumed naturalness and durability o f dynasties is a theme common throughout the
component histories of K'art'lis c'xovreba. This notion was most simply expressed in the frequent use o f
dynastic tags in The Ufe o f the Kings. The most prominent o f them are;
T argamosiani-s
K'art'losiani-s
P'am avaziani-s 96
Nebrot'iani-s
Arshakuniani-s
Azhghalaniani-s 9 7
Sasaniani-s 98
X uasrovani-s"
Bak'ariani-s 100
Reviani-s
progeny o f Togarmah ( T argamos)

progeny o f K 'art'los
progeny o f P'arnavaz
progeny o f Nim rod (Nebrof i), often equated
with the Persians
progeny o f Arshak, Le.. the Arsacids.
usually associated with the royal clan of the
Armenians
progeny o f Azhghalan "the Wise," king
o f Persia following the conquest o f Alexander
progeny o f Sasan; Le., the Sasanids
progeny of Khusrau (K'asre, Xuasro), royal
Persian clan, and also for the related K'art'velian
dynasty o f Mihran/Mirian and V axtang i.e.. the
Chosroids
progeny o f Bak'ar, son o f Mihran/Mirian
progeny of Rev, son o f Mihran/Mirian
O ur author is keen to point out those instances in which a ruler could be genetically linked to
multiple dynasties both inside and outside of K 'a rt' li. For example, the same Mirvan (the son of
P'am ajom who usurped the crown from Bartom) m arried the widow o f his opponent. The Life o f the
9^The Ufe o f the Kings, p. 10.

9<The form P'amavazianobay (gj>6 6 6 3 ihoc6 ci&6 Q) is found in an single instance in ibid., p. 32 j j . The
suffix -oba denotes an abstract or collective noun.
9 7 Ibid ., p.
59g, relates that this dynasty was also called the Ardashiroba ("the progeny o f Ardashir").
"Azhghalaniani" seems to be the equivalent o f "Arsacid" but its etymology remains unknown (see also ch.
2).
9SIbid pp. 59g and 623.
" U fe Succ. Mirian, p. 136 jg.
*%or the Bakariani-s and Reviani-s, see ibid., p. 1 3 8 7 .
253
Kings identified her as an Arshakuniani princess, that is to say, as a member o f the Arsacid royal house.
Their son, the later King Aisbak n (20 BC-1 AD), is described as "an Arshakuniani through his mother,
and through his father a Nebrot'iani and a Pa rn a v a z ia n i." ^ Being related to all o f these dynasties was
worth emphasizing, for it added an even greater sense o f royal legitimacy . 102 The royal activity of
marrying ones daughters to foreign kings and princes will be discussed infra, b u t needless to say. this
often had the deliberate effect o f amending further claims o f legitimacy to the K 'art'velian kings. Thus
the son and successor of P'arnavaz, Saurmag (234-159 BC) gave his daughter to a Nebrot' iani and
him self married a daughter o f the ruler o f Bardavi, the chief settlement o f Caucasian Albania . 103 It
should be emphasized that claims o f dynastic linkage o f the Romans/Byzantines with the early kings o f
K 'a rt'li are rarely mentioned, while connections with the Near Eastern world (especially Persia and
Armenia) are prominently featured. Moreover, dynastic tags are not afforded to the rulers o f
Rome/Byzantium, and this is an accurate reflection o f Roman and Byzantine imperial authority where the
dynasties that were established were relatively short-lived. Thus, dynastic tags, at least as employed in
medieval Georgian historiography, were part and parcel o f the Persian w orld
When a Kart'velian king fell from favor e.g., P'amajom (109-90 BC), who disavowed the
local idols in favor o f Zoroastrianism resulting in the erist'avi-s of K 'a rt'li petitioning the Armenian king
for assistance - the nobility are alleged to have made no demand for a change in dynast}', but just o f the
individual monarch. P'arnajoms erist'avi-s requested that the king o f the Armenians send his son who
had been married to a P'arnavaziani:
... Our king has abandoned the faith o f our fathers: no longer does he serve the gods
who preside over K 'a rt'li; he has introduced the faith o f his father and he has renounced
the faith o f his mother. Now he is no longer worthy to be our king. Send us your son
Arshak, who is related through his wife to the P'arnavaziani clan, our kings. Help [us
with] your [military] might and we shall put P'am ajom to flight, the advocate of the new
faith, and your son Arshak will become our king, and his wife, the scion o f our kings,
will become queen [dedop'ali]}^
Îbid., p. 3 3 9 . jg. See also Toumanoff, "Chronology o f the Early Kings o f Iberia," p. 11.
109
Consanguinous marriages within the P'arnavaziani-s are not emphasized However, its persistence in
Persia and Armenia would suggest that it was also prevalent in K 'art'li. See Garsolan, "Prolegomena to a
Study o f the Iranian Aspects in Arsacid Armenia," p. 31. It should be noted that intramarriage was
extremely common among the later K'art'velian/Georgian Bagratids.
The Life o f the Kings, p. 27.

1 0 4 77je Life o f the Kings, p. 2910_15. Erist'avi-s, o r regional governors, are said to have been first
established in K 'art'li by P'arnavaz. But already in the reign o f P'am avazs son, Saurmag, the erist'avi-s
were engaged in plots against royal authority, often seeking the aid o f the Persian king. The struggle
between central (royal) and local (erist'av-al) power culminated in the abolition of the K 'art'velian
kingship under the Persians by 580 AD (K 'art'li had come under Persian jurisdiction after the Persian-
254
P'amajom was eventually murdered and his place was assumed by a son of the Arm enian king. This is an
excellent case o f a ruling king having lost his right to rule through his own sinful behavior. This accords
with the Persian notion, current also in Armenia, that a reigning m onarch was absolved from acting
responsibly and justly, and fam ah (or "divine favor") could abandon him. ^
In any event, subsequently,
during the narrative o f the rebellion against - and ultimate dethronement of - Bartom (63-30 BC) by
Mirvan II (30-20 BC), the son o f P'amajom, the author of The Life o f the Kings emphasizes that "the
K'art'velians were well-disposed towards the P'amavaziani-s; and they did not desire that a clan other
than the P'am avaziani-s should r e i g n . " I t would seem that fam ah, though lost by one P'arnavaziani.
was immediately and necessarily inherited by another.
The autum n o f the P'arnavaziani line was a monumental incident for the author of The Life o f
the Kings. As understood by him, its extinction coincided precisely with the reign o f the first Christian
K 'art'velian king. Mihran/Mirian, the founder o f the Kart'velian Chosroid dynasty . 1 0 7 Mihran/Mirian
is said to be a son o f the Persian shahanshah (though he was actually related to the Mihranids. one o f the
Seven Great Houses o f Persia), and he became king as a result o f his marriage to Abeshura. the daughter
o f the previous K 'art'velian monarch. Asp'agur. The main P'arnavaziani line was understood to have
funneled to this Abeshura, and upon her death the lineage was assumed to have ended. Our anonymous
historian tells us that she was at once P'arnavaziani, Arshakuniani, and Nebrot'iani. and that with her
death "the kingship [mep obay] and queenship [dedop'lobay] o f the P'arnavaziani monarchs came to an
end in K 'a r t 'l i . " ^ Yet following the demise o f his K 'art'velian spouse, the local elites confirmed
Byzantine treaty o f 532). This was the first instance in which wre know that the erist 'avi~s called for the
elimination o f the K 'art'velian monarchy. In any event, the Persians quickly checked the authority o f the
local kings, for Persian viceroys (marzpani-s) were established in T p'ilisi already' in 517/518. On this see
Toumanoff, "Chronology of the Early Kings of Iberia." pp. 29-31.
^ G a rs o ia n ," Prolegomena to a Study of the Iranian Aspects in Arsacid Armenia." pp. 35-39, and esp.
pp. 36-37, footnote 6 6 (for evidence from Persian sources); and idem., "The Locus o f the Death of Kings:
Iranian ArmeniaThe Inverted Image," in R. Hovanissian, The Armenian Image (1981), pp. 42-45. and
esp. p. 45, footnote 62, where she quotes from the Zamyad Yasht, VII.34, and the Shah-nama, cap. 3.
1^77/e Life o f the Kings, p. 32jg. Cf. Arm. Adapt. K'C', pp. 42-43 = Thomson trans., p. 46.
*7Recent work suggests otherwise; see V. Goiladze, P'amavaziant'a saxlisk'ristian mep'et'a
k'ronologia (1990), with Rus. sum., "Khronologiia khristianskikh tsarei roda Farnavazianov," pp. 158160. I am also grateful for my stimulating conversations on this m atter with Dr. D. Ninidze of T b ilisi
University.
1AO
lKJOIhe Life o f the Kings, pp. 62-66, quotation from p. 6 6 2 . 3 : "... coa
bacoa giab 6 3C5 i
3 o 6 i 0aojei&A jg* p a g c u g g y ib a
6 3 3 3 0 )^." Mep 'obay and dedop 'lobay literally
refer to the authority o f the ruling monarch (mep e) and the spouse o f the monarch (dedop 'ali). But only
the designation dedop 'ali is inherently gendered, consisting of the root deda ("mother" or "woman").
255
Mihran/Mirian as king. Subsequently, he took a second spouse, the "Greek" Nana, who was to anticipate
him in accepting the Christian God. This act, though giving K 'a rt'li a king and consort that were not
native K'art'velians, further strengthened his dynastic and legitimist claims, since he could profess both a
legal and religious connection with the Romans/Byzantines.
Divine Fortune: The Persian Conception o fFamah
Prior to his ascendancy as king, P'am avaz is said to have lived in unmitigated fear o f the
despotic Azon, who not only terrorized the K 'art'velians, but who may have had a hand in the murder of
P'amavaz's father and uncle. Accordingly, P'am avaz was compelled to abandon his ancestral holdings so
as to escape the oppression o f Alexander's governor. But the fortunes of the orphan P'am avaz soon
changed. Having fled from K 'art'li, P'am avaz had a dream which incontestably demonstrated his
possession o f "divine fortune," the famah o f the Persians (xwarrah/famah/farr) ^
and the basis o f his
very name:
Then P'am avaz dreamed that he was in a vacant house, and he wanted to leave but he
was unable. Then the light o f the Sun [shuk'i mzisa\ entered the window and it took
hold o f him by the waist, and it raised him up and it led him beyond the window. And
when he [found himself] out on a plain he saw the Sun low [on the horizon], he raised
his hand, wiped dew from the surface o f the Sun [pirsa mzisasa] and he anointed his
[own] face [da ic xo pirsa missa],*^
P'amavaz awoke and resolved to set off for Aspani (?Isfahan). the homeland of his Persian
mother. En route, P'am avaz went on a hunt a favorite activity' of Sasanid kings in the plain o f
Dighomi not far from the site o f the later city o f Tp'ilisi. Pursuing a group o f deer. P'amavaz struck one
On the charisma o f the Sasanid shahanshah-s, see: R.N. Frye, "The Charisma o f Kingship in Ancient
Iran," Iranica Antiqua 4 (1964), pp. 36-54: and C.E. Bosworth. "The Heritage o f Rulership in Early
Islamic Iran and the Search for Dynastic Connections with the Past, Iran 11 (1973). pp. 51-62. The
concept o f the divine origin o f kings was current under both the Parthians and the Sasanids. but found
considerably greater development under the latter. Moreover, it should be recalled that such a concept
was also embraced by the Seleucids and the Greeks. See V.G. Lukonin, "Political, Social and
Administrative Institutions: Taxes and Trade," CHI, vol. 3/2 (1983), pp. 694-695.
* ^The Life o f the Kings, p. 2112-16- Ingoroqva. Giorgi merch'ule, p. 727, believes that this passage was
originally a poem of three stanzas (along with two others also from The Ufe o f the Kings). Cf. the trans.
o f this passage by Rayfield, Literature o f Georgia, pp. 55-56. In most cases, unfortunately, Rayfield does
not provide references to the specific passages which he translates or cites. Also cf. Arm. Adapt. K 'C \ p.
29 = Thomson trans., pp. 29-30.
256
o f them with an a r r o w . T h e wounded anim al staggered to the foot of a cliff where P'am avaz overtook
it and subsequently decided to encamp nearby for the evening. A t that place, P 'am avaz discovered a cave
whose entrance had been concealed by an enormous stone. A storm gathered strength overhead, and as
the rain pelted down P'am avaz rolled away the stone and sought shelter within the cave. Insid; he was
astonished to find an incomprehensible quantity o f gold and silver. P'am avaz cam e to the realization that
he was fated to rule K 'a rt'li, and he "was filled with joy [when] he [also] recalled the dream." ^
He led
his family to the cave and they carried away the hoard.
The entire story is imbued with Sasanid and Parthian overtones, as suggested by Z. Kiknadze . 113
The Sun, a principal element o f the Sasanid devotion to fire, is prominent in the story, and P'am avaz
anointed himself with its very essence. This suggests that P'am avaz was a king in his own right and
ultimately did not depend upon any other monarch for his status. It should again be noted that we knownothing o f K'art'velian royal consecration rituals (assuming they existed) in the pre-Bagratid period.
Consecration was an extremely important act for the later Bagratids. who emulated the Biblical model,
and claimed to be the direct descendants, o f the Old Testament King David. But some sort of
consecration was common throughout the ancient Near East, so this imagery7 is probably not anachronistic
* I *Deer are often depicted in ancient Georgian art; such portrayals are known in Central Caucasia
already in the fifth millennium BC. M. Xadashvili, C'entraluri amier-kavkasiisgrap'ikuli xelovneba
adreuli rkinis xcmashi (1982), suggests that "devotion" to deer was intensified in the fifteenth through the
seventh centuries BC. Deer were sometimes depicted on early K 'art'velian churches, like over the
doorway o f Ateni Sioni near Gori. See: N. Urushadze, Drevnegruzinskoe plasticheskoe iskusstvo (1988).
pp. 147-165 etsqq; and I. Surguladze, "Zoomorp'uli simbolikis shescavlisat'vis (iremi-lomi)," in T'bilisis
shromi cit'eli droshis ordenoscmi saxelmcip'o universitetisshromebi 244 (1983), pp. 121-134. I am
indebted to the comments o f Dr. G. Cheishvili.
* ^The Life o f the Kings, p. 22.
l l 3 Z. Kiknadze, "Pam avazis sizmare," Mac'neenisa 1 (1984), pp. 112-120, with Rus. sum., "Son
Paraavaza," p. 120; and cited by Rayfield, Literature o f Georgia, p. 55. It should be said that this
episode, and others like it, does not necessarily denote a reliance upon Persian motifs, but rather K 'art'li's
membership in the Persian world; we have here a case of common expressions. As we have seen, deer
were depicted on art in the territories which would later become K 'art'li by the fifth millennium BC;
therefore, an ancient inhabitant o f this region would have probably regarded deer as inherent to the
traditions o f his tribe and not a Persian borrowing (and rightly so). Nevertheless, Persia became the great
power in the region, and this imagery is typical o f that enterprise. The legend o f P'am avaz and the deer
was examined specially by I. Surguladze, "E rt'i sak'orcili cesis mit'osuni da soc'ialuri bunebisat'vis,"
Mac'ne 1 (1989), pp. 30-49, esp. p. 44 (pointed out to me by Dr. Cheishvili). Surguladze believes the
episode to be more emblematic o f "Georgian" traditions than o f a Persian borrowing; in this I agree with
him, but only insofar as it m ust be recognized that Persia and K 'a rt'li shared this, and related, literary and
artistic motifs. Although the context o f The Life o f the Kings is thoroughly Sasanid, that the earliest
K'art'velian kings reigned ju st after the dissolution o f the Achaemenid Empire. This circumstance may
be explained by the relative late date o f the text's composition (when Sasanid notions were still strong).
Kiknadze (in file article cited here) also suggests a parallel between P'amavazAzon and DavidSaul.
Scenes from the Bolnisi Sioni cathedral.
258
for the era o f P'arnavaz . 11 4 Moreover, P'arnavaz's vision occurred while he was hunting, a fav orite
pastime o f Persian rulers and a topos o f Persian epics.
Moreover, "hunting was a noble privilege in
the Iranian world from which the base bom were excluded, and this would seem to further amplify
P'arnavaz's esteemed l o t 1 ^
The significance o f P'arnavaz's discovery o f the treasure is not explained in
the text and has not been definitively determined by modem specialists, but kings were the political and
economic fulcrum o f their realms, and P'arnavaz's discovery o f the hoard was almost certainly intended to
magnify his royal legitimacy (in terms o f both potential allies and the readers o f the tale) while also
demonstrating his possession o f famah. *
Kings as Sasanid Royal Heroes
Another element o f early K 'art'velian kingship, according to The Life o f the Kings, is the
monarch's depiction as a ruler-hero. This image, like the possession o f famah by the P'aroavaziani-s and
their founder, is specifically Sasanid in inspiration.
Several elements o f K 'art'velian royal authority and behavior, at least the way it is portrayed in
The Ufe o f the Kings, emulate the Sasanid model of the shahanshah. The K 'art'velian monarchs. like
their Sasanid counterparts, initiated great projects: they erected buildings, fostered the local religion
(albeit not orthodox Zoroastrianism), created administration, provided for defense, and devised an
alphabet The very structure o f K 'artvelian society, with its dynastic ruler-hero king and its intensely
aristocratic nobility, likewise connected K 'art'li with Persia. We shall see that The Life o f the Kings itself
* ^G ad d , Ideas o f Divine Rule in the Ancient East, pp. 48-49.

*^ C f. P'arnavaz's discovery o f this treasure trove with the story o f Bahrain Chobin finding a mysterious
castle while hunting (in the Shah-nama) and the story o f an Indian king chasing an antelope with golden
horns and subsequently coming upon a stone toner (in the Georgian Amiran-Darejaniani). See Stevenson
in Amiran-Darejaniani, p. 2. footnote 4. According to the Georgian historical tradition. King
Mihran/Mirian became an adherent of Christianity during a hunting expedition, and as suggested to me
by Prof. J. Fine. Mirian's salvation might be regarded as "treasure" (see ch. 4).
1 ^G arsoian. "Prolegomena to a Study o f the Iranian Aspects in Arsacid Armenia," p. 28.
117On later conceptions of famah (but excluding an examination o f the example of K 'art'li), see H.W.
Bailey, Zoroastrian Problems in the Ninth-Century Books: Ratanbai Katrak Lectures (1943), pp. 1-77.
Bailey demonstrates that the notion o f famah permeated Near Eastern literature well after the dissolution
of the Sasanid Empire, but that it came to be associated not only with kings but could simply designate
"good things" and "[good] fortune." In any event, the term fam ah was understood throughout the Near
East at this time, precisely when The Ufe o f the Kings was composed. We might ask whether its author
merely deduced a Persian-style past for K 'a rt'li since that approach was en vogue. The details o f his
account may very well be accounted in this way, however, we have already seen that non-Georgian
sources clearly associated K 'art'li from the Persian world even well before the Hellenistic period.
259
contends that P'amavaz based the K 'art'velian administration on that of Persia. Moreover, we should not
forget that The Ufe o f the Kings itself sets the origin o f K 'a rt'li firmly within the context o f Persian, and
not Roman/Byzantine, history.
The portrayal o f rulers as hero-kings was not unique in Caucasia to K 'art'li. The Armenians also
adopted this Sasanid tradition, as is evident in the history o f Xorenac'i, which, it should be said, is overtly
anti-Persian. The Armenian expressions o f Persian notions o f kingship, although more concealed than
those o f the K' art'velians, were a reflection o f Armenia's membership in the Persian world. Garsoian has
demonstrated that Armenia was "invariably viewed as close and honorable by the Persians." *
This
insight, it will be argued here, must now be extended to encompass neighboring K 'art'li as well.
The ruler-hero in K 'art'li, just like that in Persia and Armenia, was a giant (goliat'i, &oic?oj>03o;
cf. "goliath"), being uniquely courageous, valiant, and strong, not to mention having superior intellect . 119
The Sasanids believed that their king possessed fam ah. This was the case with the early K 'art'velian
monarchs as well, for P'am avaz, with divine favor, had allegedly been anointed with essence o f the Sun
itself, and his very name is based upon the root p or-/<gi6 -> Median fam ah, M.Ir. xwarrah, Av.
xwarenah, Ir. farr and Arm. p ar-. Other Georgian royal names, e.g., P'arsm an and P'am ajob. are based
upon the same Iranian root. Although it is likely that the recorded activities o f P'amavaz, and even his
name, are the creation o f the ca. 800 author o f The U fe o f the Kings, several references to kings named
fcAPAEAMANHE (Pharsamanes = P'arsm an), are found in Classical literature.
Thus, early
K 'art'velian royal onomastics included names built upon the Persian root fam ah . 121 Although The Ufe
*^G arsoian, "The Locus o f the Death o f Kings: Iranian Armenia - The Inverted Image," p. 35.
1 *9 Garsolan, "The Locus o f the Death o f Kings," p. 41. It should be noted that in his trans. o f the early
histories o f K 'C \ Thomson often renders the term gmiri as "giant" although it is better trans. as "hero."
Although Bagratid kings are not portrayed as ruler-heroes in the Parthian/Sasanid sense, their memory
persisted (via Georgian and Persian literature and especially through the popularization of the Shah-nama
in Georgia). The biographer o f Davit' II (r. 1089-1125) compared his subject to those kings o f old: "And
I shall say briefly that the very first kings, [those] giants and heroes of age-old renown, courageous and
powerful, whatever their famous deeds he outshone all [of them], as though they had been brute beasts in
all their exploits." See The Ufe o f Davit', pp. 205-206 = Qauxch'ishvili e d , pp. 351-352: cf. Vivian
trans., p. 35.
*2For references in Classical literature, see Toum anoff "Chronology o f the Early Kings o f Iberia," pp.
11-12 (for P'arsman I/Adeiki), p. 16 (for P'arsm an II), and pp. 16-17 (for P'arsman III). Cassius Dio
mentions all three o f these kings.
*2 *But it appears that the royal family did not monopolize names based upon p ar-. See, e.g., the
damaged late fifth-century AD inscription from Bolnisi mentioning a male name beginning P 'a m - (most
scholars have reconstructed it as P'araevan). We can be certain that he was a Christian, but we do not
know whether he was a scion of the Chosroid royal house; see Silogava, Bolnisis udzvelesi k'art'uli
carcerebi (1994), Eng. text, pp. 103-104. In twelfth- and thirteenth-century Georgian historical sources,
the following names are mentioned: P'aradavla, P aravana, P'arajaniani, Parejan, P'arstnanis-shvili.
The onomastic root p ar persisted to the end of the Bagratid monarchy, thus a son of Erekle II was named
260
o f the Kings does not explain the derivation of P'arnavaz's name, in term s o f image the very first king o f
the K 'art'velians was made to possess "royal glory." This identified him as a legitimate ruler according to
the Sasanid understanding o f kingship . 12 2
Being a "goIiath"-king entailed considerably more than just possessing divine favor. A goiiat'i
enjoyed extreme physical prowess, was well-trained in the art o f warfare, and possessed supreme courage.
P'arnavaz, the first K 'art'velian king in The Ufe o f the Kings, is said to have been intelligent an excellent
warrior, and a skilled hunter.12^ Hunting (nadirobay, 6 igo6 ca6 i a ) was a favorite activity of the Persian
and Near Eastern monarchs. and their K'art'velian counterparts also devoted much tim e and attention to
it. Hunting entailed more than simply the chase itself; for exercise, practice, training, and cooperation
were necessary not only for success in hunting but also for success in warfare. A Sasanid topos has the
king undergoing a significant transformation or reorientation while on a hunt. It is not surprising that the
first Christian K ' art'velian monarch, Mihran/Mirian, was on a hunt w hen his conversion occurred. The
torture o f Shushaniki by her husband Varsken, a K 'art'velian noble and convert to Zoroastrianism, is the
subject o f the earliest Georgian te x t This Varsk'en occupied his time while Shushaniki was wasting
away in confinement by going to w ar and tty hunting . 12 4 It is noteworthy, however, that the royal
banquet often held after a hunt and an integral part o f the description o f Sasanid and Armenian kings, is
absent in The Ufe o f the Kings.
Sufficient weapons, training and experience contributed to the success of the royal hunter. The
activity o f hunting was accurately remembered by the author of The U fe o f the Kings as having kept the
kings themselves adept with their varied weaponry'. Being a skilled fighter was conceived as a necessary
attribute of the king himself. Thus King Amazasp II (185-189 AD) is said to have been proficient not
P'am aoz (a corruption o f P'amavaz). See Kek.Inst.MS # S-37, (158r, cited by E. C'agareishvili in Papuna
Orbeliani, introduction, p. 27 and footnote 47.
122There can be little question that the K'art'velians, like the Persians, subscribed to the concept of
fam ah. However, it is striking that the word itself was not incorporated into the earliest extant texts
(except as part o f a name); rather didebuli (coocgo&ocno; from didi, "great"), was used to express "glory"
or "greatness" (under the Bagratids it also denoted the high nobility). This contrasts w ith Classical
Armenian where words based upon fam ah (e.g.. p a rk' [ijunp])were used to express "glory." Thus in Arm.
Adapt. K 'C \ p.
'ars (tjunu). Ibid., p.

93 = Thomson trans., p. 107, the verb "honor" is rendered by p'aravorec'in (ijiunutnpbgtili); and ibid., p.
116 = Thomson trans., p. 128, the verb "praise" by p armor. See also Garsotan in The Epic Histories,
technical terms, p. 552.
122 The Ufe
8 8 = Thomson trans.. p. 103, Gods glory is rendered by the word p
124 Curtaveli,
Mart. Shush., cap. 7. p. 18.
261
only with a bow, but was equally adept with a sword and spear. ^
W hile repelling an Ovsi raid upon
K 'art'li, Amazasp:
appeared with a bow. and he began to shoot it with fieriness in his heart and by means
o f his mighty arm; he shot from [such a] distance that the Ovsi-s, from where they stood,
neither realized nor saw anything, [and] whether he held his bow [at all]. The strength
o f [the enemy's] armor could not repel [Amazasp's] arrows...
Mirvan I (159-109 BC) personally led his army into battle to opposed the invading Durdzuki tribe from
northern Caucasia. The U fe o f the Kings describes him as a "panther" and "tiger" in com bat ^
Perhaps the most important element o f being a hero-king, at least in the medieval K 'art'velian
understanding, was to be a bumberazi (b<n)d&<)6 6 %o), or a "champion-duelist" and to possess others of
their numbers within the army. ^
According to D. Ch'ubinashvili (Chubinov), the Old Georgian term
bumberazi is based upon the Arabic muberiz. We should bear in mind that The Ufe o f the Kings was
written ca. 800, at a tim e when the Arab occupation of K 'art'li had manifested itself by a large number of
Arabic words entering Georgian and Armenian. ^
Bumberazi is not based upon some Persian word, and
there is no obvious equivalent for Sasanid Iran. Therefore, the concept possibly could have been the
creation o f the Arabic-era composer o f The Ufe o f the Kings and not some remnant carried down from
antiquity via oral history. O f course, the ancient designation (had one existed) might have been forgotten
and the ca. 800 author merely substituted a plausible equivalent Arabic word. The most likely scenario, in
my view, is that our author was fully aware o f the Sasanid notion o f the hero-king and rightly applied it to
ancient K 'art'li. But, he did not know of an appropriate term, and he coined, from Arabic, the
designation bumberazi.
*2%or medieval K 'art'velian armaments, see ch. 5.
^ T h e Ufe o f the Kings, pp. 55-56.

121Ibid.. p. 28.
^^T here is no direct Eng. trans. for the term. This rendering was suggested to me by Prof. R. Thomson.
Ch'ubinashvili, K'art'uli-rusuli lek'sikoni, ed. by A Shanidze, 2nd ed. (1984). col. 123, who
equates the term with gmiri, "hero." See also: S.-S. Oibeliani, vol. 1, s.v. "b u m b era zipp. 119-120 and
"muberazi," p. 526; Abuladze, Dzveli k'art'uli enis lek'sikoni (1973), p. 37. s.v. "bumberezi'. a n d M .A
Gafiarov, PersidsIco-russJai slovar', vol. 2 (1974), p. 729. Bumberazi-s are not attested in Georgian
historical literature prior to ca. 800. The term is common in later texts, especially those of the early
modem period when Persian influence over the Georgian kingdoms was particularly intense. It is
noteworthy that no bumberazi-s appear in Rust'aveli's Knight in the Panther's Skin.
262
The authentic Old Georgian rendering is unclear. The M variant of K'art 'lis c xovreba prefers
bumberezi (SgSbgrtgbo) while the older A gives the form mumbarez (3 g 9&4 6 gh). which is obviously
closer to the Arabic muberiz. The medieval Armenian adaptation o f K'art'lis c 'xovreba employed several
terms for bumberazi: the literal transposition mumberiz (ifmifpbp^; which is closest to the mumbarez o f the
A redaction), *3 as well as the Armenian embish (nifpfc), ^
(riblMiTuroi),
menamartik (iffakuTuwi)!)), *3 3 menamart
and axoyean (idunjburij)-^ Qauxch'ishvili, for his part, preferred the form bumberazi. and it
is this variant which is the most widely accepted and recognized. As such, the form bumberazi reluctantly
has been afforded precedence in this study, even though the form mumbarez/mumberiz is clearly o f greater
age and is closer to the original rendering, or represents the original rendition.
Bumberazi-s were giants and heroes, the most powerful o f men.*3* For honor, entertainment,
and the morale o f their armies, the bumberazi-s o f opposing sides battled one another in violent, single
com bat The pre-Christian K 'art'velian king is portrayed as singularly physical, and he was expected not
only to lead his troops into combat but to demonstrate his legitimacy by proving his worth in the same
fashion as a bumberazi. But it should be stressed that kings were not the only bumberazi-s. for monarchs
were expected to have bumberazi-s under their command. Typically, warring sides are described as being
encamped on opposite sides o f a river or plain. Then duels between members of each side would erupt.
Eventually, the king himself was expected to engage in the bumberazi contests.
It is curious that P'am avaz himself was not specifically called a bumberazi. Actually, The Ufe o f
the Kings often does not specifically attach this term to the king, although it is absolutely clear that the
monarchs (from P'amavaz) are being described in precisely that manner. The first king to be counted
among the numbers of the bumberazi-s was M irvan n (30-20 BC). *3 3 The most vivid (and fanciful)
accounts o f bumberazi combat are found in connection with the Christian king Vaxtang 1. 136 It should
*3The Armenian mumberiz was not used in other Classical Arm. texts.
*3 *"Athlete" or "wrestler" according to M. Bedrossian, New DictonarvArmenian-English (1985 repr.), p.
196.
*-^"Gladiator," "wrestler," "gymnast," and "athlete" in ibid., p. 467.

^ " A n ta g o n ist," "adversary," "opponent," "rival." "competitor," "champion," "hero," and "triumpher" in
ibid., p. 5. For all these Armenian equivalents for bumberazi, see Abuladze in Arm. Adapt. K 'C \ index,
p. 301.
^ G e o r g ia n historical literature is not acquainted with a single woman who is afforded the honor o f
bumberazi.
*33The Ufe o f the Kings, pp. 31-32.
*3<*For Christian K 'art'velian kings described as bumberazis, see chs. 4-5.
263
be emphasized that both pre-Christian and Christian K 'art'velian kings but only pre-Bagratid ones!
were reckoned as bumberazi-s. However, while The Ufe ofthe Kings and The Ufe ofVaxtang are filled
with bumberazi contests, The U fe o f the Successors ofMirian is completely unfamiliar with them. This is
probably an indication that the last source was not written ca. 800. It is. in fa ct a stylistic imitation o f the
aforementioned sources and was written in the tenth/eleventh century', at a time when the Bagratids
consciously sought conceal K 'a rtli's ancient Persian heritage.
In those cases in which a K 'art'velian participated in bumberazi warfare, his opponent need not
be a non-K'art'velian. That is to say, bumberazi combat could be conducted among two K 'art'velian
participants. King Bartom (63-30 BC) refused to enter into single combat against the future M irvan II.
Bartom was consequently demonstrated to be unfit to rule and he was subsequently killed in battle:
But King Bartom gathered all o f his K 'art'velian troops, and he summoned a force of
Somexi-s. and he set out for Xunani... Mirvan came and stood along the Berduji River.
And they began to battle, a n d from both sides bumberazi-s distinguished themselves.
Each day for a month there were duels among the bumberazi-s. At one time those of
one side were victorious, and on another - those o f the other side. But in a single
month M irvan himself slew thirteen K 'art'velian and Armenian bumberazi-s. And
there was no one from among the K'art'velians and the Armenians who could worst
Mirvan; and King Bartom him self did not battle him, for Bartom did not have [the
attributes o f a] goliat'i [goliat'oba]
This is another instance of a ruling king, through his own sinful behavior, losing the right to be king, and
by implication, being stripped o f famah. Ironically, Arshak II (20 BC-1 AD) removed from the throne
through having been killed in a bumberazi duel with Aderki (1-S8 AD), his own successor. ^
It is noteworthy that while we encounter bumberazi-s from among the K'art'velians, Armenians
(Somexi-s), Persians, O v s i - s , ^ and the like, Georgian historical literature is completely unaware o f any
bumberazi-s among the Romans and Byzantines. 140 The status of bumberazi was restricted, consciously
^ T h e Ufe o f the Kings, pp. 31 jg-32^.

l oIbid., pp. 34-35. The account o f the duel o f Arshak II and Bartom includes a dialogue between the
two contestants.
l 3 9 E.g., the Ovsi dyarchs Bazuki and Abazuki. Both of them are styled as "goliaths" and are described as
bumberazi as well. See The U fe o f the Kings, pp. 45-47.

140 Braunds statement about a Gk. epitaph o f the K 'art'velian Amazasp (written during the time of
Trajan) is somewhat exaggerated: "Both language and content evoke heroism in terms familiar to the
Graeco-Roman world to which Iberia belonged." (Georgia in Antiquity, pp. 230-231). I am not
suggesting that the Romans lacked heroism or valor. Rather, the fundamental historical veracity o f K'C'
and the inclusion o f K 'art'li by K'art'velian historians within the Persian commonwealth seems to
have eluded the author (though the Roman author may have depicted K 'art'velian valor in Roman terms
264
or not, to the Persian world and to the pre-Bagratid history o f K 'art'li. Indeed, the notion o f a hero-ruler,
so tightly embraced even by the Christian K 'art'velians and Armenians, was not inspired by the Romans
but by theSasanids.
It should be emphasized that the description o f the early K 'art'velian kings in Persian terms is
limited to the initial texts o f K'art 'lis c 'xovreba. The alternate tradition preserved in The Primary History
o f K'art'li and the Royal Lists (i.e., the initial portion o f Mok'c'evay k'art'lisay ) provides only a skeletal
outline o f early indigenous kingship. They do not depict K 'art'velian kingship in Persian terms: but
lacking details of any land, they do not suggest that it was not Persian. I believe that this is an indication
that eith er (1) the original authors, perhaps in the Bagratid era (when Persian depictions o f local kingship
were discouraged), stripped the texts o f Persian trappings; or, (2) the Bagratid-era compiler/editor carried
out this intentional attempt to obscure the Persian heritage o f K 'art'li. In short, the local historical
evidence that has come down to us about the Persian nature o f early K 'art'velian society was largely
preserved only within K'art'lis c 'xovreba.
M c'xet'a and the Mobility o f Kings
The earliest kings o f K 'art'li were all associated with the city o f M c'xet'a (Rus. Mtskheta) and its
oldest quarter Armazi, situated at the confluence o f the M tkuari and Aragwi rivers. The U fe o f the Kings
projects the importance o f M c'xet'a back into the pre-P'amavaziani era, asserting that it had been
established by and named for M c'xet'os, the eldest son o f K 'art'los. ^
settlement. Ptolemy knew it as MEETAETA. ^
acquainted with MEEXI0A. ^
M c'xet'a is indeed a very old
Later, in the sixth century AD. Agathias was
The root o f the designation, mc'x-, is commonly found in Georgian
toponyms (cf. Same'.re andA/exret'i). Although the position o f M c'xet'os chosen successor and son.
in this particular instance). The institution o f bumberazi. so fundamental to the Persian world and largely
alien to Roman civilization, demonstrates that K 'art'velian heroism was conceived, even ca. 800.
principally in Persian terms. O f course, my historical approach contrasts with Braunds; while he
examines the history o f K 'art'li and Colchis based upon Roman and Byzantine sources, I focus upon the
image and tradition being promulgated by the K 'art'velians themselves.
^ T h e Ufe o f the Kings, p. 9: "And [Mc'xet'os] built a city [k'alak'i\ near the confluence o f the Mtkuari
and the Aragwi [rivers], and he named it M c'xet'a after him self"
142Ptolemy mentions other Iberian, i.e., K'art'velian, centers: AOYBION KQMH, AHNNA,
OYAEAIAA, OYAPKA, EOYPA, APTANIEEA, ZAAIEEA, and APMAKTIKA. See Claudii
Ptolemaei Geographica, ed. by C. M uller (1901), pp. 926-927, reprinted in Adontz/Garsoian, Armenia in
the Period o f Justinian, appendix 4, p. 109.
^ A g a th ia s , H22, pp. 69-70. The Persian general Mermeroes is said to have died at M c'xet'a.
2to
266
Up'los, was said to have been violently contested, The Ufe o f the Kings contends that Up'los nevertheless
retained a privileged position, since he occupied M c'xet'a, which had "become greater than all [the other
cities o f K 'art'li], and [thus] it was called the Mother-City [deda-kalak'i]."*44
Both Azon and P'arnavaz are associated w ith the city o f M c'xet'a by The Ufe o f the Kings.
Alexander the Great reportedly established Azon as his permanent representative in M c 'x e t'a 14^
whereas P'arnavaz is said to have been a native o f th at city and his uncle reportedly served as its
mamasaxlisi. One o f the initial objectives of P'arnavaz's insurrection was to secure Mcxet'a and its
citadels. 14<* The author o f The Ufe o f the Kings often emphasizes that the kings who succeeded
P'arnavaz, and his own son Saurmag, "sat at M c'xet'a as king . " 1 4 7 Usurpers, like Aderid, immediately
took up residence in M c'xeta . 148
Y et the early K 'art'velian kings were not m ade to take up residence in M c'xet'a and confine
themselves within its ramparts. The monarchs were expected to personally escort their troops into battle
and to affirm their military prowess in bumberazi contests. Thus, they are often said to have been distant
from the royal seat. Even P'arnavaz was depicted as not exclusively basing himself in M c'xet'a. though it
was his most important possession. He is supposed to have established a series o f seasonal residences:
But he spent the months o f spring an d o f the vintage [i.e., autumn] in M c'xet'a, the
royal city [sameup'osa k'alak'i]; and the months o f winter he spent in Gach'iani; but in
the months o f summer - in Cunda. And from time to time he went to Egrisi and
Klaijet'i, [on which occasion] he would visit the Megreli-s and Klarji-s so as to put into
order all the affairs [which had fallen into] disarray.
M c'xet'a expanded to become the largest settlement in central Caucasia. It served not only as the
political, economic, and cultural center of the K 'art'velians. but apparently also as their religious axis.
The Ufe o f the Kings paints pre-Christian Mcxet'a as an open-air. living museum o f idols. However, as
will be demonstrated infra, this is likely an exaggeration. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that from an
extremely early time M c'xet'a commanded an esteemed position as a major center of spiritual devotion in
144 77e Life
o f the Kings, p. 11 ^ .
l45Ibid., p. 19.
l46Ibid., p. 23.
147Ibid., p. 27.
l4%Ibid p. 34.
14 ^/h/W., p. 25j<7_20-
267
central Caucasia. Later, M c'xet'a was the seat o f the prelates o f the K 'art'velian Church. Even after the
translation o f the political capital downriver to Tp'ilisi (mod. T b i l is i also Tiflis) in the sixth century AD.
M c'xet'a and its chief cathedral o f Sueti-c'xoveli (lit T h e Living Pillar") remained the headquarters o f
the Christian prelacy.
Kings as the Creators and Pinnacles o f Administration
A realm even the size o f K 'art'li (which in the time o f P'arnavaz was probably about the size of
modem Northern Ireland), as a consequence o f its remote mountainous provinces, was impossible for one
person to administer effectively. Ca. 800, in the era o f the anonymous author o f The Ufe o f the Kings,
and for a number o f centuries before him, the kings appointed regional governors, or erist 'avi-s
(3 6 0 b *3 -6 0 ), to govern the provinces in their stead . 150 The designation erist'avi is derived from two
Georgian words: the genitive form o f eri (3 (6 0 ), which came to mean the mass o r multitude of "people,"
but its earliest meaning was "army" or "troops"; and t 'avi (cos3 0 ) denoting "head." Erist'avi literally
indicates "the head o f the people but originally had the militaristic sense o f "head o f the army ." 151 In
the Bagratid period, erist'avis were further divided into the regular erist'avis and one chief erist'avi, the
erist'avi o f erist'avis (erist'avt a-erist'avi [3 6 0 1 x1)^30 )j>-3 fiobooi3 o ]).15^ It should be noted that erist'avi
was roughly the equivalent o f the Armenian naxarar (Uuluqxqi), and in Biblical texts it often corresponds
to ETPATHTOE (strategos), thus reflecting its military function. 155 A variant form eris-mt'avari
(3 6 ob- 9 ms3 i 6 o), "the chief o f the army/people." usually associated with the principate. w as functionally
equivalent to the erist 'avi. 15^
1 0 Melik'ishvili, "Gosudarstvenny stroi," in Ocherki istorii Gruzii, vol. 1, pp. 384-385. suggests that
three high social stratae existed in the era o f P'am avaz: the sep 'uculis (the royal family/princes); the
erist'avi-s; and the aznauri-s (who the author takes at this time to have been free landowner-soldiers).
15l Toumanoff prefers to call erist'avis "dukes." I do not follow this convention here, for employing the
designation "duke" may entice the reader to assume that the erist'avis bore equivalent European features.
152
Erist avi o f erist'avis may be found throughout the pages o f the eleventh-century history of Sumbat
Davitis-dze. The form erist 'avt 'a-erist 'avi is parallel to mep'et'a-mep'e. or "king o f kings" (cf. the
Sasanid designation shahanshdh).
153 Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 96-98 (footnotes 143 and 147) and 115-117. See also Molitor, Glossarium
Ibericum in quattuor Evangelica et Actes Apostolorum Antiquioris versionis etiam textus Chanmeti et
Haemeti complectens (1962-1964), p. 117 (stratigos in Luke XXH.52 and Acts XVI.20). In Royal List II,
p. 92, a certain Glonk'or held both the offices o f erist'avi and archbishop during the reign o f Mirdat V
(435-447 AD), the father o f Vaxtang I.

15 Ê.g., Nerse the eris-mt'avari o fK 'artli (son o f the kuropalates and erist'avi Nerse), in Mart. Habo, p.
56, also p. 6 6 (Lang trans., p. 125, renders the term simply as "prince). This usage is considerably later
(late eighth century).
268
Although we do not know precisely when and how the institution o f the erist'av-ate was first
established in K ' artli, 1 5 5 The Life o f the Kings predictably attributes its establishment to the first
K 'art'velian monarch. But the earliest erist'avis mentioned in that te x t in preceding passages, are not
K 'art'velian but rather are erist'avi-s in the service of the shahanshah. 15<* The U fe o f the Kings starkly
concedes that P'arnavaz was inspired with the idea o f K'art'velian erist av-ates from the Persian model of
satraps: 1 5 7
In this way P'arnavaz ordered [his] entire [kingdom] like the Persian kingdom [read:
Empire ] . 158
Our historian, writing ca. 800. did not attempt to obscure his conviction that the K 'art'velian
administration, from its very inception, had been based solidly upon that of the Persian Empire and that
his first K 'art'velian king P'am avaz, a Persian-type of ruler, had introduced the institution o f the erist'avate.
Once P' amavaz bad defeated Azon, himself an "erist 'avi appointed by Alexander,15^ that
K 'art'velian king appointed his adjutant K 'uji as erist'avi over the western domains o f Egrisi and
Suanet'i. ^
There is no reason to believe that P'amavaz, assuming he is a historical figure, actually held
sway over these distant regions. Rather, this passage may be attributed to the imagination of the author of
The Ufe o f the Kings and his desire to propagate and legitimize the then-nascent idea that those western
155In both the earliest work of Georgian literature. Mart. Shush., and another early work of Georgian
hagiography, Mart. Evstat'i, the office o f erist'avi is not found.
15^77ie Life o f the Kings, p. 13 this erist'avi. Ardami Nebrot'iani, is said to have encircled Mcxet'a
with a stone wall and p. 15 (for a Persian erist'avi in Kart'li). Ibid., p. 43, for the gathering o f the
Persian erist'avis and their election o f Azhghalani "the Wise" to be shahanshah. In these instances, the
Georgian word erist'avi was believed to represent accurately some Persian post(s).
157 0 n the erist'av-ates being modeled on the satraps o f Persia, see Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 96-97 (and
footnote 143).
158 7fte Life o f the Kings, p. 25+: "3 1 1 6 3 0
3 I13 3 0 3 3 2 5 0 g a 6 6 i 3 i b 9o0bai3b36Q25*ES
b i 33 gobj> b3j>6b<nibi." Arm. Adapt. K'C', p. 3 5 j 2 - i 3 = Thomson trans., pp. 35-36, offers a similar
statement: "U Ijufiqbgui. uijluqihli bfurii pux}uinpmpbuiMi 'Hufwiig" = "And the [K'art'velian] land was organized
like the kingdom of the Persians."
15^The Ufe o f the Kings, p. 18.

l60Ibid p. 24.
269
regions were part o f the K 'art'velian realm . 161 P'am avaz is portrayed as having created seven erist 'avates (saerist'avo [b ^ ^ o b m ^ n ] ) , and we may take their combined domains as being what our medieval
author imagined to be the rightful extent o f K 'a rt'li in his own time (ca. 800).
One o f the prerogatives o f kings, according to The U fe o f the Kings, was the granting o f land to
their most prominent and loyal subjects. K 'art'Ios is made to behave in this way even though he was not
specifically a king. As P'amavaz expanded and organized his realm, carving it into provinces governed
by erist'avi-s, he assigned each regional governor with a specific tract o f land. The erist'av-ates
established by P'amavaz, in the sequence enumerated in The U fe o f the Kings, are (see m ap):
K'art'velian erist'avi-ates
Specific regions delimited bv P'am avaz
1. Margwi
"from the Little Mountain, which is Lixi. up to

the [Black] Sea. above the Rioni River. A nd
P'arnavaz built two fortresses [there],
Shorapani and Dimna"
"from the Aragwi [River] up to Heret'i. which is
Kaxet'i and Kuxet'i"
"from the Berduji River up to Tp'ilisi and
Gach'iani, which is Gardabani"
"from the Skwret'i River up to the m ountain^].'
which is Tashiri and Aboc' i"
"from Panavari up to the sources of the Mtkuari
[Kura River], which is Javaxet'i and Kola
and Artani"
"from Tasiskari up to [the] Arsiani [mountain],
from the sources of the TNoste [River] up to
the [BlacklSea, which is Samc'xe and
Achara"
2. Kaxet'i and Kuxet'i

3. Xunani
4. Samshwlde
5. Cunda
6 . Odzrq'e
^ * A s we have seen. The Life o f the Kings relates that after Pamavaz defeated Azon he "was no longer
afraid of his enemies and he became mep'e o f all K 'art'li and Egurisi..." The rendering o f Egrisi as
Egurisi is unique in medieval Georgian historiography and is either the genuine archaic form or a
conflation o f Egrisi with the later appelation Guria (which itself is based on the former).
1f t )
Parnavaz's foundation o f the erist ov-ates found in The Ufe o f the Kings, p. 24. See also Toumanoff,
Studies, pp. 103-104. and footnote 159 (Toumanoff calls the erist'avis "dukes" and their lands "duchies"
whereas I give preference to the local terminology); and R.H. Hewsen, "Introduction to Arm enian
Historical Geography IV: The Vitaxates o f Arsacid Armenia. A Reexamination o f the Territorial Aspects
o f the Institution (Part Two). IV. The Vitaxate o f Moskhia: (The Iberian March)," REArm n.s. 22 (19901991), pp. 150-152.
163O n the problems o f this association o f the erist'av-ate o f O dzrq'e with Sam c'xe see G.G. Cheishvili,
Samxret'-dasavlet'sak'art'velos (mesxet'is) istoriuligeograp'iissaldt'xebi antikur xanashi, synopsis of
doctral dissertation (1994), with Rus. sum., "Voprosy istoricheskoi geografii iugo-vostochnoi Gruzii
(Meskheti) v antichnuiu epokhu," pp. 21-22.
270
7. Klarjet'i, Egrisi, and

S uanet'i16*
"from Arsiani up to the [Black] Sea"
The Ufe o f the Kings divides the erist'av-ates into two categories: erist'av-ates "of the East" and
those "of the West." The m s f ov-ates o f the East comprise those of Kaxet' i. Xunani. and Samshwide.
while the erist'av-ates o f the West are those o f Odzrqe, Klarjeti, Cunda. and two (!?) erist av-ates of
Egrisi . 165
Toumanoff suggested that the seven erist'av-ates are a historical memory of the seven "planet
like vassals o f the Sun-like Great King" o f Persia. Indeed, The Ufe o f the Kings also remembers seven
idols o f the K 'art'velian pre-Christian pantheon. I concur with Toumanoff on this point, as well as with
his observation that the spaspeti (the second-in-command; see infra) was effectively an eighth erist'avi.
In this case, the cosmologically significance o f the seven vassals has been muddled. In any event.
Toumanoff has determined that there were, in fret, only seven original erist'av-ates:
1. Kaxet'i
2. Xunani
3. Samshwide
4. Cunda
5. Odzrq'e
6 . Klarjet'i
7. Shida (Inner) K 'art'li
H e removed the far-western erist'av-ates from the enumeration o f The U fe o f the Kings. since the notion
that the territories o f Egrisi and Ap'xazet'i were part o f the K'art'velian realm was most likely a
16 ^Suanet'i, modem Svanet'i, is not specifically mentioned in this particular account, but is cited
previously at the moment that K'uji was appointed as P'arnavazs first erist'avi: "And [P'amavaz]
bestowed upon K 'uji the land between the Egris Cqali and the Rioni [rivers], from the [Black] Sea to the
mountains, in which is situated Egrisi and Suanet'i, and he made him erist'avi over these places. And he.
K 'uji, built C'ixe-goji" (see The Ufe o f the Kings, p. 24). C'ixe-goji remained an important center for
some time, being referred to later as Nok'alak'evi and by the Greeks as Archaeopolis. On this city, see
th e trilingual (Georgian, Rus., and Eng.) work of P. Zak' aria and N. Lomouri, C'ixegoji, ark'eopolisi,
nok'alak'evi = Tsikhegoji, Archaeopolis, Nolalakevi (1988).
1 6 5 77re Ufe o f the Kings, pp. 55-57. These same erist 'av-ates are delimited (without many o f the
geographical details) in Arm. Adapt. K'C', pp. 34-35. But this work enumerated eight regional
governors. Notably, the seventh erist'avi o f The Ufe o f the Kings was made into two separate governors
of: (1) Klarjet'i and (2) K'uchaet' and Eger. K 'uchaet' (ftm&rtp) seems to be based upon the name K'uji
(we might reconstruct the Georgian equivalent K 'ujaet'i, or "the land o f K 'uji"), later the erist'avi of
Egrisi (in the west). To the erist av-ate o f OdzTq'e the Arm enian version attaches Tayk'. The Eng. trans.
o f Bedrosian (pp. 16-17) is defective here, lacking the seventh erist'avi and omitting certain details found
in Abuladze's critical ed.
E R I S T 'A V - A T E S
ESTABLISHED
BY P'ARNAVAZ
271
272
considerably later development (i.e., after P'arnavaz ) . 16 6 It seems to me that the vague "memory" of The
Life o f the Kings and The Life ofVaxtang is actually evidence that the K 'art'velians were only beginning
to entertain serious claims over these western lands ca. 800.167 We should recall that this was precisely
the time that the K 'art'velian branch o f the Bagratids were rising to power, and from the very beginning
they seem to have entertained some hope o f ruling a united Georgia. Moreover, the K 'art'velian
Bagratids' base in the ninth century was the southwestern regions of Tao/Tayk'. Klarjet'i. and Shavshet'i:
Klarjet'i is named as one o f the areas ruled by the erist'avi K'uji, the other being Egrisi. In fact K'uji is
the only alleged local erist 'avi to be explicitly named, and this may have been a way to emphasize that
region's position in Bagratid times (if this is correct then the original text must have been modified by a
Bagratid-era scribe).
Neither ToumanofFs corrected lis t nor that o f The Life o f the Kings, corresponds in any
meaningful way to the holdings o f the progeny o f Togarmah. That is to say, the author o f The Ufe o f the
Kings did not merely transfer the lands and cities established by the progeny o f Togarmah upon
P'amavaz. O f course, Egros was not a son o f K art' los, but rather a younger brother. This suggests that
the author attributed to P 'am avaz an expansionistic agenda, making him subdue regions which had
originally not been allotted to K'art'Ios. And this may have been the case, for P'am avaz (or at least the
early K 'art'velian kings) m ay have actually ruled as an agent o f the Seleucids in checking the advances
and consolidation of the Orontid dynasty o f neighboring Armenia. ^
The Ufe o f the Kings does not state whether all o f these erista vis were K'art'velians. Only later
do we have a clear indication that an erist'avi in the service o f the K 'art'velian king could be a nonK'art'velian: the first Christian king Mihran/Mirian (himself a Persian by birth) gave his daughter to
P'eroz, a Persian prince, appointing him erist avi from Xunani to Bardavi.
O f course, this eastern
^^Toum anoff, Studies, pp. 103-104, footnote 159. Cf. the historical novel o f K '. Kasradze. P'amavaz.
which stresses the popular modem view that Egrisi and K 'art'li. the western and eastern cores o f Georgia,
were closely connected even in antiquity. However, some Classical authors (e.g., Plutarch. Arrian, and
Pliny) assert that the kings o f K 'art' li held sway over a small region just to the south o f Colchis/Egrisi; see
Braund, Georgia in Antiquity, p. 45. This region evidently served as a major point o f contact between
Colchis/Egrisi and K 'art'li. Much later the K 'art'velian Bagratids would rise to prominence in the
neighboring territories o f southwestern "Georgia."
167w e possess no archaeological evidence which unequivocably demonstrates that P'am avaz
administered Egrisi. In fact, the study of Z. Bragvadze, "P'araavazis politika kolxet'is mimart' da sairxis
nak'alak'aris istoriis zogiert'i sakit'xi," Mac'ne 3 (1991), pp. 86-96 with Eng. sum. "Pamavaz's Policy in
Colches [sic] and Problems Relevant to the History of the Ancient Town o f Sairkhe, p. 96. suggests that
P'am avaz did not actually establish an erist'avi over the region o f Argvet'i (including the city o f Sairxe).
^^Toum anofif Studies, pp. 80-81.
^ T h e Ufe o f the Kings, pp. 68-69.
273
region was not part o f K 'art'li proper and had traditionally been part o f Alropatene (roughly modem
Azerbaijan) in which Persian political influence had always been prominent.
A rigid hierarchy o f support staff for each erist'avi was also reportedly developed at this time.
Immediately below the erist'avi-s were appointed subordinate spasaiaris (U3 i(jiC5 i 6 -5 o. "generals") and
at'asist 'avi-s (6aubob<6 3 -6 o, "heads o f a thousand"; cf. chiliarch). T he military function o f the erist avates is obvious from the titles o f these subordinates. However, we know virtually nothing about the
prerogatives o f the pre-Bagratid erist 'avis. We do not even know, assuming that the relevant passages
are accurate, if the erist'avis appointed their own subordinates, or if this remained the right o f the king.
The erist'avis do seem to have possessed the right, an d the duty, to solicit both local and royal
taxes/tribute (xarki, 6 ^ 6 3 0 ; cf. Arabic haraf)P
The rigid administrative system reportedly created by P'am avaz ensured an intermediary'
between the king and the erist'avis. The spaspeti (b3ab3g()o; older variant b3j>a3g(J)o, spaypeti), not to
be confused with the numerous spasalaris, was charged with overseeing the erist 'av-ates. The Georgian
designation spaspeti is related to the Classical Armenian sparapet (uupnmubiji), and both are based upon
the O.Pers. spadapati-, "general" or "commander. " 171 Like the erist'avis, the spaspeti was conferred
with his own particular land, the central region o f Shida, or Inner, K 'art'li: "from T p'ilisi *7 7 and from
the Aragwi [River] up to Tasiskari and P'anavari, which is Shida K 'art'li." The Life o f the Kings
explicitly relates the relationship o f the spaspeti to the monarch: "And this spaspeti was second to the
king, [and] he stood over all the erist 'avi-s." *7^ The first spaspeti mentioned by name is Maezhan, who
110Ibid., p. 25.
*7 *Andronikashvili, Narkvevebi, pp. 211, 215, and 371-372; Garsoian in The Epic Histories, technical
terms, s.v. "sparapet/sparapetut'iwn," pp. 560-561. Spaspeti was rendered by Toumanoff as "high
constable." See also R. Bedrosian, "The Sparapetut'iwn in Armenia in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries,"
AR 36/2 (1983), pp. 6-46. The Georgian variant spaypeti is extremely old and appears in C urtaveli.
Mart. Shush., cap. 1, p. 11 (for Shushaniki's father. Vardan the spaypeti). In fourth-century Armenia, the
sparapet was second only to the king. And we have the example of the famous Manuel Mamikonean,
whose family had held the sparapet-ate hereditarily but whose family was removed from the honor by
King Varazdat Manuel seized the sparapet-ate and deposed the king after dueling him. He executed
Varazdat's sparapet, Bat Saharuni. We are told that "the sparapet and commander-in-chief Manuel
conquered the realm... He wielded authority and gave orders to the realm in the place of the king, and he
kept the realm prosperous." Thus the sparapet could act in the place o f an inept king, and the
Mamikonean sparapet-s did not always depend upon the favor o f the Armenian kings. We have no such
episodes o f boldness among the K 'art'velian spaspeti-s, but it is clear th at they wielded much authority
and influence. See The Epic Histories. V.37, p. 221.
172
1 Tp'ilisi is probably a gross anachronism here, for it was not founded (and did not become an
important center) until the fifth century AD. It is possible, however unlikely, that the reference here is to
an earlier settlement of the same name (cf. Byzantium/Constantinople).
^ T h e Life o f the Kings, pp. 24-25.
274
held that position during the reign o f Asp'agur I (265-284), the father o f Mihran/Mirian. 17"^ The "second
to the K 'art'velian king" appears to be, in actuality, an ancient institution, for Strabo mentioned a "second
in line [who] administers justice and commands the army." 175
The administrative machine, with its clear lines o f command, attributed to P'am avaz by The Ufe
o f the Kings, may be summarized as follows: 176
MEP'E
(king)
SPASPETI
7 ERIST'AVI-s
SPASALARI-s
AT'ASIST'AVI-s
The Georgian historical tradition gives us few other details about the erist'av-ates into which the
early K 'art'velian kingdom was allegedly divided. This circumstance may be explained by the relative
lateness o f our extant sources. The anonymous author o f The Ufe ofVaxtang provides a list o f erist'avi-s
who had been entrusted to raise Vaxtangs son D ach'i. The source makes it clear that this was the
prerogative o f the noble, and especially erist'av-ial, families . 17 7 The erist'avi-ates named here do not
m Ibid., p. 62.
175 Strabo, XI.3.6, pp. 220-221.
176See also Qauxch'ishvili in K 'C '7, p. 439; and G. Charachidz 6 , Introduction a Tetude de la jeodalite
georgienne, esp. "Le prince," pp. 95-109. Qauxch'ishvili finds eight erist'avi-s, evidently counting the
spaspeti functionally as an erist'avi.
177
Vaxtang himself had been entrusted by his m other Sagduxt to the spaspeti and all the erist'avis: see
The Ufe ofVaxtang, p. 144. The first Christian king Mirian himself had been educated by a certain noble
named Mirvanoz {The Ufe o f the Kings, pp. 64-65). The upbringing of royal childera by noble families
was also practiced in contemporary Persia and Armenia.
275
correspond exactly with those o f The Ufe o f the Kings, and they also differ in that we are given the names
o f the office holders:
F irs t the spaspeti Juansher, the proprietor [mpqrobeli} o f Shida [i.e.. Inner] K 'art'li
an d the chief [mp'lobeli] o f all the erist'avi-s;
and Demetre, the erist'avi o f Kaxet'i and Kuxet'i;
and Grigol, the erist'avi o f Heret'i;
and Nersarani, the erist'avi o f Xunani;
and Adamase, the erist'avi o f Samshwide;
an d Samnaghari, the erist'avi o f Shida (Inner) Egrisi and Suanet'i;
and Bakur, the erist'avi o f Margwi and T ak u e ri
Three other erist'avi-s, not enumerated among those above to whom were entrusted the king's son. are
also mentioned:
Artavazi, the erist'avi o f K laqeti;

and Nasar, the erist'avi o f Cunda;
17R
and Bivritiani, the erist'avi o f Odzrq'e...
So some of the erist avr-ates mentioned in The Ufe o f the Kings seem to have been subsequently carved,
resulting in a larger number o f smaller units. The erist'av-ates common to both The U fe o f the Kings and
The U fe ofVaxtang are:
1. spaspeti Shida Kart'li

2. Margwi (C'xorebay vaxtanggorgaslisa adds to it T'akueri)
3. K axet'i and Kuxet'i
4. Xunani
5. Samshwide
6 . Cunda
7. Odzrq'e.
Certain o f P'arnavaz's erist'av-ates had apparently been broken up by the late fifth century AD, and in any
case by ca. 800: notably, K laijet'i had been detached from Egrisi and Suanet'i. This m ight reflect that
Egrisi and Suanet'i had never been part o f the K 'art'velian realm. Some authors may have wished to
portray Klarjet'i as its own erist'av-ate whereas the author of The Ufe o f the Kings, wanting to project an
178
The Ufe ofVaxtang, p. 185. Bivritiani may, in fact, signify the presence o f early Bagratids in K 'art'li
(see infra).
276
anachronistic sense o f unity, conjoined K laget'i with the neighboring region o f Egrisi. The erist'avi of
Heret'i in The Life ofVaxtang is unknown in The Ufe o f the Kings. Finally, Ps.-Juansher mentions an
erist'avi named Abuxuasro who ruled over the T u sh i and Xuzni mountain peoples who remained
heathens . 179 That author also knows a certain Leon, the erist'avi o f Apxazet'i. who had apparently been
appointed by the Byzantine emperor. 18 Significantly, the erist'av-al lists of C'xorebay vaxtang
gorgaslisa differ from those o f The Life o f the Kings in that the names o f the holders of each post are
provided. The reasons for this difference is uncertain, but I should think that it represents the fact that the
author o f The Ufe ofVaxtang and Ps.-Juansher had access to more detailed sources owing to the fact that
they lived closer to the periods they described than was the case with the antiquarian author o f The Ufe o f
the Kings.
The Ufe ofVaxtang also introduces a new office for the fifth/sixth century. A certain Saurmag is
identified as the chief ejibi (3 Xho), the "gatekeeper" or perhaps "the master o f ceremonies." The precise
function o f the ejibi has yet to be determined for the pre-Bagratid era, although the word is clearly derived
from Arabic and was no doubt introduced after the Arab invasions o f Caucasia in the seventh and eighth
centuries . 181 Other than the institution o f the ejibi. no further introductions to the administrative
structure from the time o f P'arnavaz were reportedly made. This static situation is unlikely and probably
represents the fact that our later authors had little contemporary evidence for the evolution o f the early
K 'art'velian administrative system. Conversely, it may testify to the conservative nature o f the ancient
Caucasian political machine (precisely the image which the authors wished to portray).
A word should be said about the erist'avi o f Rani and Movakani (i.e., Caucasian Albania,
roughly corresponding to later Azerbaijan). He was not an appointee o f the K'art'velian king but a
functionary o f the Sasanid Empire and technically fell outside the K'art'velian administration. From his
base at Bardavi (Partaw, Barda'a), the erist'avi o f Rani and Movakani was sometimes charged by the
Persians with governing K 'a rt'li . 182 Bardavi evolved into a prominent trading center during the
Armenian Bagratid period; trading routes linked it to Derbend in the north, to Tp'ilisi/K 'art'li. to
Dwin/Armenia in the northwest and southwest, and to Ardabil in the south . 182 A few o f the names of the
erist'avi-s o f Rani-Movakani have come down to us in The U fe o f the Kings, The Ufe ofVaxtang and in
179 Ps.-Juansher, p. 243.

18 /6/</., p. 239; cf. Leon the erist'avi o f the caesar, ibid., p. 235. The name "Leon" shows his nonK 'art'velian (probably Byzantine) origin.
181 0 n
ejibi see: Qauxch'ishvili in K'C'1, p. 439; and S.-S. Orbeliani. vol. 1, p. 251.
182 77re Life
ofVaxtang, p. 140.
109
Manandian, The Trade and Cities o f Armenia, Garsoian trans. pp. 159-167.
Ill
the continuation o f Ps.-Juansher: e.g., P'eroz , 1 8 4 Borzabod, Varaz-Bakur, Varsk'en (husband and
murderer o f Shushaniki), Dareli, and K 'asre Ambarvezi (son o f the shahanshah Hurmazd).
T he author o f The U fe o f the Kings unambiguously declares that it was the king who appointed
the K 'art'velian erist'avi-s, although from a very early time some o f the erist'av-ates appear to have
evolved into hereditary domains, or mamuli (SaSgcno, l i t "of [our fore-Jfathers"; cf. mama, "father").
We must bear in mind that medieval Georgian historical sources were written to glorify the Crown, and
did not seek to exalt or exaggerate in any way the position o f the erist 'avi-s, who were likely the real
power outside o f M c'xet'a and then Tp'ilisi. ^
That the erist'av-ates were hereditary in nature from an
early period is a reasonable supposition, for similar positions (and titles) in the Persian and Armenian
domains were customarily held in this manner by powerful families. The hereditary nature of
K 'art'velian offices, including the kingship, persisted into and throughout the later Bagratid period. We
may be certain that ca. 800 these offices were held hereditarily.
Ps.-Juansher seems to pin the blame for the transformation o f the erist'av-ates into hereditary
possessions upon K'asre (Khusrau) Ambarvez, the Persian governor o f Rani and Movakani and the son o f
the shahanshah Hurmazd IV (579-590). So as to secure the allegiance o f the K 'art'velian erist'avi-s.
K'asre confirmed their provinces as their "hereditary rights [mamuloba] from sons to sons [shvilit'i-
shvilamde] . B*86
^ not altogether clear if K 'asre him self converted the erist'av-ates into hereditary
appanages, o r whether he was simply confirming the status quo. In return, the erist'avi-s o f K 'art'li
withdrew their support o f the K 'art'velian king in favor o f that of Persia and they commenced payment o f
tribute directly to K'asre. The hereditary nature o f their domains was ratified by written charters from
both the Persian king and the Byzantine emperor. ^
Although they were originally (and theoretically) appointed directly by the king, from the start
the erist'avi-s o f the K 'art'velian kingdom opposed excessive royal authority and the centralization that
accompanied i t Toumanoff suggested that while the crown gravitated towards Rome/Byzantium with its
strong monarch, the nobility (and erist'avi-s) often found their savior against the K 'art'velian monarchy
^ T h e Ufe o f the Kings, pp. 68-69. P'eroz actually had been appointed by the K 'artvelian king and
apparently did not serve the Persian king (directly). Thus, The Ufe o f the Kings seems to attribute the
ultimate foundation o f the erist'av-ate o f Rani and Movakani to the K'art'velians.
^ O n e exception, Mon. Erist'., is not part o f K'C'. It was compiled in the early fifteenth century as a
commemoration o f the erist'avi-s o f K'sani.
186ps.-Juansher, p. 217g_9^ Ib id ., p. 221. Ps.-Juansher later speaks o f an erist'avi o f A p'xazet'i whose domains were proclaimed
as hereditary for all time {ibid., p. 240).
278
in the person o f the Persian shahanshah. 188 Although this view is in some ways valid, the fact remains
that the pre-Bagratid K 'art'velian monarchs, only in the most generic o f ways, may be said to have
imitated the Byzantine emperors (at least according to local sources). Only the later Bagratid kings
emulated the basileus. But an attachment, no matter how limited, to either the Byzantine or Persian
monarch could be politically expedient. The Christianization o f the K 'art'velian monarchy, which
occurred on the watch o f the Persian-born Mihran/Mirian, may be regarded in part as a K'art'velian
attempt to limit Persian interference. The benefits o f an allegiance to a great power is particularly evident
during the struggles o f K 'art'velian kings with the nobility. The most graphic example is the rebellion of
the erist'avis against their king in (or before) S80 AD. At that time the K 'art'velian erist'avi-s provoked
the Persians to dissolve the monarchy and to establish the principate (rule by presiding princes) in its
place.
The seemingly permanent rebellious behavior o f the K 'art'velian nobility was well-known to the
twelfth-century biographer o f Davit' II:
... from the [very] beginning the K 'art'velian people [read: nobles] have rebelled against
their lords; when they become rich, grow fat. and win renown and [a life of] ease, they
begin to plot evil [things], as the old chronicle o f K 'a rt'li [dzveli matiane k'art'Iisay]
tells us ...1 8 9
Likewise, The Life o f the Kings implies that from the inception of indigenous kingship the erist'avi-s often
plotted against their overlords. It reports that the son o f P'am avaz and second king. Saurmag, was
immediately confronted with an insurrection engineered by the erist'avi-s o f K ' artli. He and his family
were driven into exile and resided with the Durdzuki tribe. The aznauri-s lent their support to the king,
and the conspiracy was quashed. As a result, an embittered Saurmag:
... conquered K 'art'li. and he exterminated the opposition; and he pardoned some, but
he demoted the K'art'losiani-s [i.e.. the progeny o f K 'art'los] and he elevated the
aznauri-s... Then this Saurmag took half o f all the tribes o f Caucasia, and some he
made into nobles [carch'inebul], and others he settled in M t'iulet'i. from Didoet'i up to
Egrisi, which is Suanet'i...^9
*88ToumanofT "Christian Caucasia Between Byzantium and Iran," pp. 124-125; and ibid.. Studies, pp.
151,360-361 etsqq.
*89The Ufe o f King o f Kings Davit', p. 2l7g _l2 = Qauxch'ishvili ed.. p. 3 5 9 ^ .

^ T h e Ufe o f the Kings, p. 27. Thus Saurmag allegedly raised the status o f these non-K'art'velian
aznauris, those troops from Roman lands who had assisted P'am avaz in his revolt against Azon.
Moreover some o f the K 'art'velian subjects of Saurmag, the K'art'Iosiani-s (lit. the progeny of K'artlos
although its m eaning here is not altogether obvious), were demoted. Thomson, trans., p. 39, renders
279
Thus, already in the reign o f the second king o f K 'art'li (the very son o f P'arnavaz), the Crown was
remembered to have faced a massive revolt, and upon quashing i t a new nobility was apparently created.
These new men, it was hoped, would prove to be more loyal than the erist'avi-s. When P'am ajom (10990 BC) aroused the indignation o f the populace by dismantling the local idols and introducing Persian
fire-worship, the erist'avis assumed the leading role in securing his ouster.*9 *
Although the early K'art'velian kings may have elevated new' men into the ranks o f the nobility
(whose fortunes were tied more directly to the Crown), the monarchs also reportedly attempted to bind the
existing erist'avis more closely to themselves. Oaths, p 'ic 'is (gog- 6 o), are attested already during the
reign o f King Bartom (63-30 BC). *9^ although this may actually reflect the author's era. We have no
indication as to the nature o f these oaths, whether they were oral or written. Allegedly, the kings also
made oaths to the erist 'avis. *9:* Furthermore, rulers could offer princesses as wives to the erist 'avis as a
means o f gaining some amount o f access, control, or loyalty; this occurred w ith A rch'd I (411-435). *9<*
The erist'avis as a group often are said to wield considerable, but not unbounded, influence over
the monarchy. For example, the erist'avis and nobles o f K 'a rt'li periodically selected and confirmed new
kings from the established royal dynasty. The Life o f the Kings informs us that T rdat (394-406 AD) was
chosen from an assembly o f the nobility. *9^ Later the aznauri-s o f K' art' li brought forth Archil I.
brother o f King M irdat IV (409-411) who had been executed by the Persians, and confirmed him as king
o f the K 'art'velians . 19 6 But these monarchs were members o f the ruling P'am avaziani dynasty, and the
nobles are never said to have offered a candidate from outside that family.
In sum, the erist'avis and the spaspeti were first and foremost military leaders who served the
Crown. In order to support themselves, and the king, they were charged with local tax collection, but of
the nature o f these taxes in the antique and early medieval period we know nothing. The spaspeti and the
erist'avis were also responsible for the education o f royal princes, as is evident from The Ufe ofVaxtang.
M t'iulet'i by its literal trans. "mountainland."
m Ibid p. 29.
m Ibid., p. 33.
*9 Îbid ., p. 33, as with Mirvan II (30-20 BC) to the K 'art'velian erist'avis.
*9 <*Ps.-Juansher, pp. 241-242. The princesses need not be the actual daughters o f the king but could be
any female member of the royal family.
*9Ûfe Succ. Mirian, p. 137.

*96 Ps.-Juansher, pp. 139-140.
280
These representatives o f the king had the right, and the obligation, to attend from time to tim e the king's
court The court o f Vaxtang's father was reportedly attended by the spaspeti, the erist'avi-s, the bishops,
and the eri (army). *9 7 Holding regular court would have allowed the king to set out policy and
instructions, seek advice, collect provincial taxes from the erist'avi-s, bestow gifts, prescribe punishments,
and to foster a sense o f inclusion and community among his men. But all o f these inducements did not
always secure the absolute loyalty of the erist'avis to the king, and the not infrequent clashes between the
two remained a recurrent theme throughout K 'art'velian and Georgian history.
Kings as Alliance Makers and the Utility o f Marriages
The K 'art'velian homeland was situated on an isthmus of great strategic import to the empires of
Parthia/Persia and Rome/Byzantium. This area was inhabited not only by the K 'a rf velians but also by
the peoples of the other "Georgian" regions (such as Kaxet'i), Armenians, and a number o f other
communities and tribes. The cosmopolitanism of the region, as should be expected, spilled over into the
sphere o f alliances and the related arena o f "diplomatic" marriages between ruling dynasties.
As we have seen, the K 'art'velian monarchy from its inception is said to have solicited alliances
with nearby peoples. P'arnavaz himself secured the support o f the Ovsi-s and the Leki-s in his struggle
against Azon. ^
In addition, P'arnavaz dispatched emissaries to Antiochos, "the king o f Syria," who in
turn sent material support and a crown. *9 9 By associating P'arnavaz and his immediate successors with
"the king o f Syria," The Life o f the Kings echoes the memory that the early K'art'velian monarchs had, in
fact, been the vassals o f the Hellenistic Seleucids.
The Ovsi-s o f northern Caucasia vacillated between being the friend and foe o f the K'art'velians.
Saurmag relied upon Ovsi assistance to quash the rebellion o f the erist'avi-s when he succeeded his father
P'arnavaz. Some of the Ovsi-s were rewarded by being elevated to noble status by Saurmag. evidently an
attempt to create a new. loyal aristocracy .7 0 Amazasp II was among the kings who faced the Ovsi-s as
an adversary. He required Armenian troops to secure victory .7 0 *
*97The Ufe ofVaxtang, p. 147.

^ T h e Life o f the Kings, p. 23.
199 Ibid., p. 25. Seleucid overlordship is also mentioned under Saurmag (p. 27) and M irvan I (159-109
BC) (p. 28), but during the reign of the latter "the kingship o f Antiok'os [the Seleucids] passed away in
Babylon." Toumanoff, "Chronology o f the Early Kings o f Iberia," p. 10, takes this to refer to the Arsacid
triumph over the Seleucids in Mesopotamia in 141 BC.
200lh e Ufe o f the Kings, pp. 26-27.

201Ibid., pp. 55-57.
281
An important characteristic and prerogative o f K 'art'velian royal authority, and indeed o f

kingship generally, is the so-called "diplomatic marriage. While Georgian sources say little about the
love of the kings for their wives, they do underscore the foreign identity of a great many royal spouses.
The diplomatic link which a marriage might forge was o f the utmost significance to medieval Georgian
historians and their kings. While the origin o f a spouse is emphasized, we rarely learn anything more
about these women.
Diplomatic marriages both testify to the cosmopolitan nature of K 'artvelian society and reflect
the alliances which concerned the K 'art'velian kings, at least as imagined and understood by the author.
P'arnavaz, the first king, is supposed to have married a woman from among the Durdzuki-s. a northern
Caucasian tribe .2 0 2 Moreover, having overcome his opponent Azon, P'arnavaz presented his sister in
marriage to the king of the Ovsi-s .20 3 Both o f these examples highlight the importance o f northern
Caucasia, especially, it would seem, in the tim e of the pre-Bagratid historians. In reward for his
assistance, K 'uji (later the erist'avi of Egrisi) was given another sister o f P'arnavaz. This marriage would
have provided P'arnavaz a foothold in the western lands, but P'arnavaz's link to Egrisi is suspect.
Saurmag married the daughter o f the Persian erist'avi o f Bardavi. Two daughters were produced
from that union, one of them was given to M irvan Nebrotiani (a Persian) while the other was married to
the son o f K 'uji .2 0 4 Other marriage connections with the Persians included Mirdat, the dyarchical
counterpart o f P'arsm an K'ueli, wedding a Persian ;2 0 5 and the first Christian king M irian gave his
daughter to P'eroz, who M irian had installed as erist'avi aver the land extending from Xunani to
Bardavi.20* As for alleged later links with Egrisi, King Bartom sent his only daughter to K 'art'am of
Egrisi.2 0 2
There are numerous cases o f high-level marriages being arranged between the K 'art'velians and
the Armenians. For example, Mirvan I gave his daughter in marriage to "Arshak," king o f Armenia;20*
and Aderki married a daughter o f the Armenian monarch .2 0 0
202Ibid.. p. 255.
203Ibid, p. 24.
204Ibid p. 27.
70S
Ibid., p. 50; after taking a Persian wife, M irdat became the first of the dual kings to plot against his
counterpart (P'arsman).
2 0 */&/d., pp. 68-69; this is not in the inserted Life
o f Nino but in the initial text o f C'x. k'art'. mep'et'a.
2 0 7 Ibid., p. 32.
20SIbid p. 28.
282
We know of two pre-Christian K 'art'velian kings who allegedly married themselves to "Greeks."
Rev "the Just" wed Sep'elia (?Sephelia), the daughter o f a certain Loghot'etos 2 1 0 The second wife o f
Mihran/Mirian, Nana, who became a Christian before her husband, was the daughter o f a certain
Olighotos from the Pdntus .2 ** Sep' elia and Nana are the only queen-consorts (sing, dedop 'ali.
CSaSPtgiffio) referred to by name in The Ufe o f the Kings.
In sum, the author o f The Ufe o f the Kings believed it only natural for kings to seek out
marriages so that they might harvest the political fruits o f such a connection with neighboring leaders. It
should be recapitulated that The Ufe o f the Kings does not emphasize intramarriage within the
P'arnavaziani clan. This phenomena almost certainly existed, and it was a characteristic o f the ruling
classes o f Persia and Armenia. In any event, a wide range of potential alliances are represented by these
alleged unions between the P'am avaziani-s and outsiders, including Rome/Byzantium. Persia. Armenia,
and the various tribal entities in northern Caucasia.
Kings As Builders
One o f the chief activities o f Sasanid and Roman/Byzantine rulers was the building of
monumental structures, fortresses, settlements, and the like. The early Kart'velian kings were apparently
no different We shall consider here the building projects, documented by local sources, which were
largely secular in nature. The religious aspect of reported royal building initiatives is specifically
considered in the following section.
Although the Royal Usts were derived principally from the component histories of C'xorebav
k'art'velt'a mep'et'a and C'xorebav vaxtanggorgaslisa. their contents are still significant. For although
the compilers o f the Royal Usts offer little that is new for the periods they describe, the events and topics
they regard as worthy o f recording interest us. In this light The Royal Usts have two major concerns: (1)
the relative chronology and the names of the earliest kings of K 'art'li; and (2) royal building projects.
The latter point is probably explained by the fact that at the time o f the compilation o f the Royal Usts. the
K 'art'velian Bagratids were just coming to power. One o f their primary interests was the raising and
restoration of churches and fortresses.
209Ibid, p. 35.
2Îbid, p. 58. The name Loghot'et'os has been the subject of considerable conjecture by modem
historians. It is doubtlessly related to the Greek term AOrOQETHE, logothetefsj. This Sep'elia is said
to have brought with her an idol o f Aphrodite.
211Ibid, p. 6 6 .
283
The Royal Lists are extremely brief, and their notices on royal building projects are no more than
stark statements. Thus P'arnavaz is simply said to have erected the Armazi fortress.2 1 2 The
corresponding account o f The Ufe o f the Kings is only slightly more detailed. Its anonymous author
contends that P'arnavaz rebuilt the wall encircling M c'xet'a, and reinforced the fortresses (c'ixe-s) and
cities {k'alak'i-s) o f K 'art'li.2 ^
Incidentally, we should recollect that Azon is styled as rnep'e in Royal
U st I. It is odd that be is not credited with any secular building projects, and in fact he is accused of
leveling the walls o f the fortresses o f M c'xet'a. Yet he is supposed to have fashioned the idols Gac'i and
G alm (which were apparently not rejected after his ouster), even in the hostile account o f The Ufe o f the
Kings.2U
The Ufe o f the Kings says little about the evolution and level o f construction technolog}- in
K 'art'Ii. It does, however, relate that in pre-Pam avaziani times masonry had been introduced in K 'art'li
by the Persians .2 1 5 Remarkably, there is absolutely no reference to the activities o f Roman engineers in
K 'a rt'li though it is known from archaeological evidence that they were present even in M c'xet'a. as was
the case o f the builders sent there by Vespasian.
Up to the reign o f the first Christian king M ihran/M irian m , both The Ufe o f the Kings and
Royal U st I detail several royal building undertakings. Those examples o f a "secular" nature may be
summarized as follows:
King
Edifo-Cilato
Building Project
P'arnavaz
The Ufe o f the Kings, p. 25

Royal Ust I, p. 82
Rebuilt wall o f Mc'xet'a. reinforced

fortresses and cities o f K 'art'li
Built Armazi fortress
Saurmag
Royal Ust I, p. 82
Continued building Armazi
Mirvan I
Royal Ust I, p. 82
Finished building Armazi
P'amajom/
P'amajob

Royal U st I, p. 82
Built Zadeni fortress, began to build

Nelk'ari (Nekresi) in Kaxet'i
Built Zadeni fortress
Reinforced walls of Cunda in Javaxet'i
Arshak I
Royal U st I, p. 82.
2 1 5 77ie U fe
2Îbid pp. 19-20; sod Prim. Hist. K'art'li, p. 82.

2 1 5 77ie U fe
284
Royal Ust I, p. 82
Encircled the city (TMc'xet'a) with

walls
Arik/Artag
Royal U st I, p. 82
Built an ?acropolis (shida-c'ixe) within

Armazi
Bratman/
Bartom
Royal U st I, p. 82
Under him. "Mcxet'a became a city"
M irvan II2 ^
Royal U st /. p. 82
Finished the city o f M e' xet' a
Arshak II
The U fe o f the Kings, p. 33
Embellished Nelk'ari in Kaxet' i;

augmented fortress o f Up' lis-cixe
Aderki
Increased fortresses & cities.

reinforced walls
A sp'agur
The U fe o f the Kings, p. 59
Built city-fortress (c'ixe-k'alak'i) o f

Ujarma 2 1 7
M ihran/
M irian HI2 1 8
Reinforced city-fortresses since they

had been weakened by the "Greeks"
in retaliation of M irian's and the
Persians' raid on Anatolia
The kings were reportedly preoccupied with raising defensive structures, and if w e are to believ e
the histories o f K 'artiis c 'xovreba (which themselves were composed from the royal perspective), then
they were the only element in K 'art'velian society that could mobilize the necessary' resources for their
construction. This is almost certainly not the case, because the alleged royal monopoly over construction
projects is surely' part o f the later attempt to eulogize the K 'art'velian kingship to the fullest possible
extent 2 19 The same texts do concede that nobles and even soldiers and commoners might assist in or
even sponsor the erection of churches .2 2 0 In any event the historical monarchs were responsible for
raising a number of public buildings in ancient and medieval K 'art'li.
216This is the last mention o f building activity in Royal Ust I.

2 *7Under King Mihran/Mirian (284-361) his son Rev and his wife, the daughter o f King T rdat of
Armenia, were established at Ujarma, symbolizing the city's importance. See ibid., p. 71.
218This reference is not to the activities o f Mihran/Mirian described in the inserted U fe o f Nino but is
rather from the main text o f The Ufe o f the Kings.
21^We should recall that the ca. 800 Ufe o f the Kings was written during the lengthy interregnum. As
such, this text was a plea that the kingship should be re-established. In this light, it would seem that the
author was proclaiming that a king was needed so that grand buildings could again adom K 'art'li.
220 E.g.,
Royal Ust II, pp. 92 and 95.
285
The early K 'art'velian kings were not believed to have confined their building activities to
M c'xet'a-Armazi, the chief settlement o f the kingdom. T heir building operations, which certainly began
and were concentrated there, rapidly fanned out throughout K 'art' li, to the adjacent regions o f Kaxet' i (to
the east), and even reaching into Javaxet'i (to the south and west). This is in marked contrast to the
erection o f idols which, according to The U fe o f the Kings, occurred only within the area o f greater
M c'xeta.
The construction projects of the K 'art'velian kings were not confined to walls and castles.
Presumably the pre-Christian kings initiated and supported other building projects like canals, as their
early Christian counterparts did.22^ The extensive complex o f public baths (ca. second century AD) at
Armazi-M c'xet'a, now threatened by crumbling protective structures, was almost certainly built with royal
assistance. Although we are primarily interested in the self-image provided by indigenous historical texts
o f the early kings o f K 'art'li. the evidence o f Strabo for this early period o f K 'art'velian history is
contemporary and o f unsurpassed detail:
... the greater part of Iberia [i.e., K 'art'li] is so well built up in respect to cities and
farmsteads that their roofs are tiled, and their houses as well as their market-places and
other public buildings are constructed with architectural skill .2 2 2
Although Strabo did not directly attribute the construction o f buildings to the king, his reference to "public
buildings (which would have included such structures as bath-houses) implies royal involvement
The memory o f the building activities o f the early kings of K 'art' li was uneven at best. By the
tim e o f the author o f The Life o f the Kings, ca. 800, it would seem that the pre-Christian structures still
standing were nevertheless in ruins. Though our historian recognized that a worthy king was the initiator
an d director o f grand building projects, limited information had come down to him. Other than a handful
o f sites which were known to have been o f some antiquity, the author o f The Ufe o f the Kings was largely
ignorant on the specifics. This circumstance demonstrates the paucity o f reliable ancient evidence that
was at the disposal of medieval Georgian historians.
2 2 1 Ibid., p. 91.
2 2 2 Strabo, XL3.1, pp. 216-217.
286
III. THE TRADITIONS OF PRE-CHRISTIAN RELIGIOUS DEVOTION
The intensely debated nature o f pre-Christian religion ("paganism) in K 'art'li is fueled by the
rather late and vague character o f the sources, and is compounded by the paucity o f substantial
archaeological evidence.223 The earliest account o f the Christianization of K 'art'li in any language,
incorporated into the Ecclesiastical History o f Rufinus (late fourth/early fifth century), does not hint at the
religious situation in the pre-Christian period. The ecclesiastical historians Socrates. Sozomen. and
Theodoret, themselves relying upon Rufinus, imprecisely suggest that the K'art'velians were polytheistic,
but do not elaborate on the point
The Conversion o f K'art'li, the earliest w ritten Georgian tradition of the Christianization of the
K 'art'velian monarchy, was composed no earlier than the seventh century. It is, in its extant form at least
entirely unacquainted with the pre-Christian religious habits o f the K'art'velians. The earliest extant
works o f Georgian literature, the hagiographical accounts honoring the martyrs Shushaniki and Evstat'i.
likewise provide no details whatsoever about pre-Christian religion .2 2 4 To them, the only history worth
remembering was Christian. But since these works exist only in considerably later MSS (in both cases,
eleventh century), it is possible that explicit references to the pre-Christian religious practices o f the
K'art'velians were purged by pious scribes. O f course, we must also entertain the possibility that the
received descriptions o f pre-Christian religion in K 'a rt'li may have been, in fact, an invention o f the
2 2 3 "Pre-Christian religion" and "paganism" are problematic terms, for they imply that a uniform,
coherent system existed. This is, in fact, the image projected by the Georgian sources. However, this was
probably not the case, at least on a large scale. Until recently, no pre-Christian religious sites had been
identified in Georgia. At the Dzalisa site in K 'art' li a so-called "Temple o f Dionysius" has been
excavated; it contains a large mosaic "pavement (approx. 500 ft2) depicting Dionysius and Ariadne. The
building and mosaic have been dated, to the second century BC. Considerably more about pre-Christian
religion is known for the area which now comprises western Georgia; most remarkable is the site at Vani
which was occupied already in the seventh century BC. Evidence for the reverence o f Dionysius has also
been detected there. See: V. Beridze, "The Art o f Pre-Christian Georgia," in Beridze, et al The
Treasures o f Georgia (1984), p. 19; O. Lort'k'ip'anidze, "Vani: An Ancient City o f Colchis." GRBS 32/2
(Summer 1991), pp. 151-195; ibid., Gorod-khram Kolkhidy (1984); and Braund Georgia in Antiquity, pp.
256-258.
It should be said that this section is concerned primarily with the textual image o f pre-Christian
practices according to Georgian sources. Though these texts do not depict the K 'art'velian gods and
goddesses as foreign borrowings, we shall see that their own evidence suggests a large degree of
syncretism with Near Eastern and Anatolian religion. The Georgian sources say nothing about the native
worship o f Greek deities. However, archaeology, esp. at sites like Vani, suggests otherwise, though the
evidence is stronger for the western domains (whose coastal area had been colonized by Greeks already in
the seventh century BC). The focus here is on the evidence and purpose o f the Georgian texts.
224 Mzrf. Child. Kola. Lang trans., p. 40, refers to the majority o f the inhabitants of Kola as "idolaters."
This text is probably quite early, but its earliest extant form dates only from the tenth century.
287
medieval period and therefore constitute a later attempt to understand the and even to consciously shape
a desired "pagan" past o f the K 'art'velian community, fashioning "paganism" an organized and
formidable foe o f Christianity.22^ Accordingly, the author o f The Conversion o f K'art 'li might himself
have been unacquainted with the nature o f pre-Christian religion, or. had he known about it. he may have
wished pass over "paganism" in silence because it was still considered a palpable threat to the Church .2 2 6
The Alleged "Pagan" Pantheon o f Pre-Christian K'art'li
According to three texts The Life o f the Kings, Royal List I, an d The Life o f Nino only the
kings o f K 'art' li could mandate the raising of idols and their shrines.2 2 7 These texts represent sev eral
different historical traditions: The Life o f the Kings is a history o f pre-Christian K 'a rt'li and constitutes an
original, integral component o f K'art'lis c 'xovreba', Royal List I is partly dependent upon The Life o f the
Kings and is transm itted in the Bagratid-era compilation of Mok'c'evay k'art'lisay, and The Ufe o f Nino
is an early Bagratid-era text which is uniquely incorporated into both K'art'lis c'xovreba and Mok'c'evay
k'art'lisay.
We should clearly distinguish the traditions o f pre-Christian religious devotion related by these
three texts. The Ufe o f the Kings, composed ca. 800, attributes the introduction o f idolatry in K 'artli to
Azon, the Macedonian governor of Alexander. Having overthrown Azon, P'arnavaz is said to have
retained the established form o f idolatry, himself adding to it an idol to the god o f gods Armazi. The early
P'arnavaziani kings reportedly continued to set up idols down to P'arnajom (109-90 BC). The Primary
History o f K'art'li, whose date is uncertain, reports only that King Azoy who is described here as a
2 2 5 R.A. Markus, The End o f Ancient Christianity (1990), p. 28: "Unlike Christianity, with its growing
world-wide cohesiveness, 'paganism' was a varied group o f cults and observances. It never constituted a
single coherent religious movement analogous to either Christianity o r Judaism."
226We must ask why the author of The Life o f the Kings felt it necessary to describe the pre-Christian
religion of K 'art'li. He was, presumably, a Christian, although probably not a cleric. Baramidze,
P'amavazman dzlierhqo k'ueqana t'visi, Rus. sum., pp. 44-45, conjectures that since the author does not
attack idolatry (from a Christian perspective), then he must have him self lived in the pre-Christian period.
This need not be the case, and, in any event, I demonstrated inch. 1 that internal evidence suggests that
The Ufe o f the Kings was composed ca. 800. In fact, the entire account is devoid o f things Christian; and,
this is not necessarily surprising since this was a history specifically o f the pre-Christian K 'art'velian p ast
We may only speculate as to why the Christian author did not polemicize his account o f indigenous
idolatry.
kerpi (3 3 <*r3 o), from the Av. kehrp-, "form," "image" (cf. Ph. karp and the Arm. (fbpui). See
Andronikashvili, Narkvevebi, pp. 334-335. The Life o f Vaxtang and Ps.-Juansher have absolutely no
knowledge of idol-worship in K' art' li, although it must be said that neither source specifically deals with
K'art* li's pre-Christian p ast
2 2 7 "Idol" =
288
native K 'art'velian held two idols as gods; Royal U st I, which follows it in M ok'c'evay k'art'lisay,
gives a stark relative chronology o f the successive P'amavaziani-s, although it does mention the erection
o f several idols. Royal U st I and The Ufe o f the Kings concur that P'aroajom was the last king to erect
idols, the implication being that K 'art'velian idolatry had already reached its zenith before the birth o f
C hrist T he aforementioned texts do not elaborate upon the defeat o f these idols by the Christian God.
although this is precisely one o f the themes of the ninth-/tenth-century Ufe o f Nino. In fa ct the authors of
these three texts, who never address the reader in the first-person, do not make any overtly negative
judgments about idolatry. O f all the works, only The Ufe o f Nino, the one farthest removed from the
period, furnishes substantial details about pre-Christian K 'art'velian religious behavior.
Vehement modem scholarly debate has engendered three principal opinions regarding the proper
interpretation o f the extant Georgian accounts o f pre-Christian religion in K 'art'li:22^
( 1 ) the description o f "paganism" in the local sources is accurate, and the idols described
are "purely" K'art'velian (this view has been discounted by most notable
specialists working during the past h alf century);
(2 ) the local sources mention the actual gods and goddesses worshipped by the
K'art'velians, but they are not strictly local deities. For example. K 'art'velian
"paganism" adopted, and adapted, many o f the deities o f Anatolia. This
posture was assumed by M. Cereteli and then W.E.D. Allen ; 2 2 9 and.
228The chief works about pre-Christian religion in Kart'li are: N.Ia. Marr. "Bogi iazycheskoi Gruzii po
drevne-gruzinskim istochnikam." ZVOIRAO 14/1 (1902). pp. 1-29; M. Tseretheli. "The Asianic (Asia
Minor) Elements in National Georgian Paganism," Georgica 1/1 (October 1935). pp. 28-66; Toumanoff.
Studies, pp. 100-101 especially footnote 151; J. Karst, Alythologie armeno-caucasienne et hetitoasianique (1948), esp. pp. 103-152; Allen, "Ex Ponto. Ill and IV: Some Notes," BK 6-7 (1959). pp. 29-47,
who relies heavily upon the influential study by V.V. Bardavelidze, Drevneishie religioznye verovaniia i
obriadovoe graftcheskoe iskusstvo gruzinsfdkh piemen (1957); O.G. von Wesendonk. "Uber georgisches
Heidentum." Caucasia: Zeitschriftflkr die Erforschung der Sprachen und Kulturen des Kaukasus I
(1924), pp. 1-102; idem, "Nachtrdge zum georgischen Heidentum. Caucasia 2 (1925). pp. 121-130; and
M. van Esbroeck, "La religion georgienne pre-chrdtienne," in .4AT?IF, vol. 18 (1990). pp. 2694-2725.
Javaxishvili benefited from earlier studies to present the most coherent discussion in his K'art veli eris
istoria, vol. 1 (1928), pp. 91-115 ( 14-16), with the relevant sections being trans. into E n g by M.
Tseretheli a n d published as J. Javakhishvili, "The Folk-Tales and Ancient Pagan Religion of the
Georgians," The Quest 3/2 (Jan. 1912), pp. 225-Til and "St. George the Moon-God." The Quest 3/3 (Apr.
1912), pp. 528-545. The little we know about pre-Christian religion in Colchis/Lazika have to do more
with the religion of the Greek colonists rather than the local population. G. Lordkipanidze. Kolkhida v
VI-ll w do n.e. (1978), esp. pp. 119-136 and pp. 142-143 (E ng), suggests that the "Colchian" gods were
anthropomorphic (cf. those of K 'art'li). The chief god was Mother Earth; solar and fertility cults were
also popular. The Georgian historical tradition gives us no indication that the Greek pantheon had a
significant influence upon the pre-Christian K 'art'velians (the only Greek deity mentioned is Aphrodite).
On the ancient religion o f the "Georgian" mountaineers, see Zh. Eriashvili, Udzvelesi soc'ialur-religiuri
institutebi sak'art'velos mt'ianet'shi (1982), Rus. sum., "Drevneishie sotsial'no-religioznye instituty v
gomykh raionakh Gruzii," pp. 191-196. For a modem consideration, see A. Grigolia, Custom and Justice
in the Caucasus: The Georgian Highlanders (1939), esp. ch. 3, pp. 19-52.
289
(3) the "pagan pantheon" as described by the local historians and hagiographers is, for
the most part, a creative endeavor by (much) later Christian writers to explain
the systematic triumph o f Christianity in K 'a rt'li .2 3 0 This view was first
articulated by N. Marr, expanded upon by Javaxishvili. and accepted by me in
this study'.
Although it is intellectually' stimulating to debate whether or not pre-Christian K 'art'velian

religion was actually centered on a royally sanctioned pantheon o f anthropomorphic deities and their idols
(as is claimed in this later Georgian tradition), we are interested here in the textual image formulated by
later historians.
The pre-Christian deities and sacred sites recorded in medieval Georgian sources are:
Deity/site
King
Editio citato
Tomb o f K 'art'los
[after K 'artlos' death]
The Life o f the Kings, p. 1 1
Sun, Moon, S Stars
[pre-Alexander]
Sun, Moon, S Stars and

the Creator-God
[Alexander]
The Ufe o f the Kings, pp. 18-19
Gac'i
Azon/Azoy 2 3 *

Prim. Hist. K'art'li, p. 82
Galm
Azon/Azoy

Prim. Hist. K'art'li. p. 82
See the brief survey of Allen in his History o f the Georgian People, pp. 36-39. G. Giorgadze, "Xet'urarmazuli triadebi,'" Mnat'obi 7 (1985). pp. 147-157, suggests that the "triad" of idols at Armazi-Mcxeta
was based upon Hittite deities.
230
And, as I would add, might be a later K 'art'velian adaptation o f the Sasanid Great Kings' fostering o f
the "official Zoroastrian belief. But as will become evident the later recollection of pre-Christian religion
in K 'a rt'li seeks to limit Zoroastrianism's role in the alleged K 'art'velian pantheon although the name
Armazi is likely connected to Ahura-Mazda. In my opinion, Zoroastrianism probably was established in
M c'xet'a but later authors envisaged this Sasanid faith as patently foreign and therefore inappropriate for
the local kings. Nevertheless, the later author contradicts himself for many of the names o f the alleged
K 'art'velian idols are in fact foreign borrowings although the idols themselves are described as inherently
Kart'velian.
231
As mentioned supra. The Ufe o f the Kings does not style Azon as king. And although emphasizing
that Azon destroyed the walls and fortresses o f M c'xet'a, it does credit him with a royal activity: the
fashioning o f the idols G ac'i and Gafm, the first idols encountered in The Ufe o f the Kings.
290
Armazi
Parnavaz

Royal U st I, p. 82
Aynina/Ainina
Saurmag

Royal U st I, p. 82
Danana
Saurmag
Danina
Mirvan
Royal U st I, p. 82
Zadeni
P am ajom/P'amajob

Royal U st I, p. 82
[Aphrodite]
[Rev/Sepe lia ]^ 2
Deities Found in Kartli hv Nino at the Tim e o f

the Conversion o f K ing Mihran/Mirian
Armazi
Mihran/Mirian
Ufe o f Nino in C'x. k'art'. mep'et'a.

and 89
Zadeni
Mirian
ibid., p. 85
Gac'i
Mirian
ibid., p. 89
Galm
Mirian
ibid., p. 89
Fire, stones, w o o d ^
Mirian
ibid., p. 87
[It' r a j a m ] ^
Mirian
ibid., pp. 91-92

*******
Aramazd, God of
Thunder
Mihran/Mirian
Movses Xorenac'i. 11.86. p. 239
^ ^ S e p 'e lia (Gk. ?Sephelia) was not a reigning queen but the consort o f the nineteenth king Rev, son of
the king o f the Armenians and nephew' o f the previous K 'art'velian king Amazasp. The Life o f the Kings,
p. 58, relates that Sep'elia was "from Greece, daughter o f Loghot'et'os..."
4JJNino is said to have witnessed the worship o f stones, fire, and wood not in the royal city o f M c'xet'a
but in the nearby city o f Urbnisi.
^ ^ I t rujani is not mentioned as a specifically K 'art'velian god but rather as "god of the Chaldeans" and
a n arch-rival o f the K 'art'velian chief deity Armazi. O n It' rujani see Kekelidze, "Shenishvnebi dzveli
k 'a rt'u li literaturis istoriidan, in his Etiudebi, vol. 1, esp. part B, "It'rujani," pp. 266-270, where he
equates It'rujani with the Iranian god Atar-Atrushani. See also Marr, "Bogi iazycheskoi Gruzii po
drevne-gruzinsldm istochnikam," p. 29.
291
An obvious point o f departure is the names o f the supposed idols. M arr demonstrated that none
o f the names mentioned by the local sources are specifically K'art'velian. Rather, they are all based upon
those o f the deities o f other Near Eastern communities, including Armazi (>O.Ir. Aramazd. M.Pers.
Onnuzd/Ormizd, cf. Ahura-Mazda), Aynina-Danana (>Ir. Anahit),2 3 5 G ac'i (Semitic), and Galm
(Semitic). Ceret'eli hypothesized that the K 'art'velians 1gods and goddesses directly correspond to those
o f various Anatolian and Mesopotamian peoples. Recently, Giorgadze found intriguing parallels linking
the "triad" o f idols in M c'xet'a with Hittite counterparts .2 3 6 It is clear that at least the names o f the idols
betray a deep Anatolian/Hurrian/Semitic influence, and this is particularly fascinating in the light o f the
overwhelming evidence that early K 'art'li was part o f the Persian world. If the names o f these idols are
an accurate memory, then it seems that while K 'a rt'li had much in common with Persia both politically
and socially, it also looked towards Anatolia for its conceptions of the sacred. Be that as it may. Armazi.
the main deity, unquestionably represents the Persian Ahura-Mazda, and Aynina-Danana corresponds to
the Persian A nahit These originally Persian deities were two o f the elements o f the dominant "pagan"
trinity in neighboring Armenia . 2 3 2
Medieval Georgian sources address the subject o f pre-Christian religion in K 'art'li only
incidentally and, for the most p a rt merely recollect the names o f the idols and the kings who erected
them. The solitary lengthy description o f the ceremonial associated with idols forms a part o f the
Bagratid-era Ufe o f Nino, precisely the source which commemorates the triumph o f Christianity in
K 'art'li. Quite obviously, its author accepted at face value, and magnified, the tradition that idolatry had
dominated pre-Christian K 'a rt'li so as to impart Christianity with a tangible, dangerous enemy to
vanquish. For its part, The Ufe o f the Kings imparts extremely little information about the religion of the
T argamosiani-s and the early K'art'losiani-s. The most prominent exception with regards to the earliest
K'art'losiani-s is the statement that the grave (sap'lavi) o f K 'art'los, on the mountain known as both ML
K 'artli and M l Armazi, became the most sacred site o f the K'art'velians.23** This notice, whether it is
based upon historical "fact" or not, is likely a reflection o f the supposed existence of a cult o f a divine
235Should the idols o f Aynina/Ainina, Danana, and D anina (the last two o f which are usually considered
by modem specialists to represent one and the same idol) actually reflect early K'art'velian deities, then
we must wonder whether the names Nino and Nana (the queen-consort o f Mihran/Mirian) were derived
from, or based upon, them.
2 3 6 Giorgadze, "Xet'ur-armazuli 'triadebi,'" pp. 147-157.
2 3 2 GarsoIan, "Prolegomena to a Study o f the Iranian Aspects in Arsacid Armenia," pp. 14-19; cf.
Toumanoff Studies, esp. pp. 108-109 (footnote 168) an d 215 (footnote 246).
2 3 **7fte Ufe
o f the Kings, p. 1lg_g.
292
ancestor.2 3 9 The author o f The U fe o f the Kings relates that this cult persisted for some time. The first
Christian king (but before his acceptance o f the faith o f Christ) is reported to have adorned the grave o f
P'arnavaz, some five hundred years posterior to his death.24^ The veneration o f a divine ancestor is
characteristic of both the Parthians and the Sasanids, and may be detected throughout the entire Near
East, and it is not extraordinary that it should be associated with the K 'art'velians .2 4 1
The Image o f K'art'velian Religious Practices at the Time o f Alexander
When Alexander invaded K 'art'li, he is said to have been appalled to find savage, heathen tribes
who ate every sort o f animal a n d did not bury their dead.2 4 2 As part o f his attem pt to civilize barbarian
K 'art'li, he decreed that its inhabitants venerate the Sun, Moon, "the Five Stars ," 2 4 3 and the CreatorGod. Throughout the pre-P'am avaziani section of this history are multiple references to God the Creator.
But they disappear, implying th at the K'art'velians had abandoned or simply forgotten the Creator before
the appearance o f Alexander.
The prominent role o f God the Creator may very well be an attempt by the anonymous author of
The Ufe o f the Kings to equate the early K'art'velians with the Israelites.2 4 4 A nd we should recall that
the related account o f The Primary History o f K'art'li alleges some o f the indigenous tribes o f K 'art'li
239 V.G. Lukonin, "Political, Social and Administrative Institutions: Taxes and Trade," in
CHI, vol. 3/2
(1983), p. 696.
2 4 0 77/e Ufe o f the Kings, p. 65 j g . ^ . P'arnavaz seems to have been considered a deity, at least after his
death. No other pre-K 'art'velian king is afforded such a status. On the interaction o f royal authority and
the sacred, C.J. Gadd, Ideas o f Divine Rule in the Ancient East, p. 33, writes: "God and king are two
conceptions so nearly coupled in the oriental mind that the distinction is constantly blurred. We are told
that among primitive peoples the god may be projected out o f the king, and the king him self out of the
supposed wielder o f a particular power."
241 Lukonin, "The King o f Kings o f Iran: The Conception o f Royal Authority," in his "Political Social
and Administrative Institutions," in CHlr, vol. 3/2, p. 696.
2 4 2 7he Ufe o f the Kings, p. 17; and Prim. Hist. K'art'li, p. 81. Cf. the account o f the Cave o f Treasures,
p. 265, which might have served as a source for this K 'art'velian version.
Cave o f Treasures, pp. 137-138, where idols were said to have been introduced to the Earth by
Serug, but some people revered the stars, the Moon, the Sun, animals, and inanimate objects. The notion
of worshipping these seven celestial objects is an ancient one. The third-century BC author Berossus in
his Babyloniaca reports that Bel (equated with Nimrod in the Armenian tradition) was responsible for
creating "the stars and the sun an d the moon and the five planets." See Berossus, book 1,B. 2.4, p. 15.
243 Cf.
244But Ahura-Mazda may be regarded as the Creator-God in Zoroastrianism. O n this, and Vaxtang's
contention that Zoroastrianism w as essentially monotheistic (possibly because o f this identification), see
ch. 5.
293
were the descendants o f the Jebusites, the pre-Davidic inhabitants o f Jerusalem. In its opening leaves. The
Ufe o f the Kings emphatically situates the first K'art'velians within the framework o f the Old Testament
and the Biblical tabula populorum, although with a specifically Persian (or Near Eastern) flavor.
Likewise, in explaining K 'art'velian pre-Christian religion, the author strives to demonstrate that the
K'art'velians, before becoming Christians, came to know God the Creator, just as the Hebrews had.
The Ufe o f the Kings supplies sporadic information about the Jews o f Caucasia, emphasizing
their ongoing connection with the L evant It was through the Jews, after all. that Christ's tunic is said to
have reached Mcxet'a. The earliest K 'art'velian converts o f Nino are understood to be Jews; Nino herself
is thought by later medieval writers to have spoken Hebrew. The author occasionally alludes to other
tidbits from Jewish antiquity; e.g.:
Some years after this the news came that Moses [Mose] had passed through the sea with
the Israelites, and [his people] had been nourished in the wilderness by the manna.
Everyone was amazed and all the heathens [began] to praise the God of Israel.24 5
We must consider the possibility that if the author o f The Ufe o f the Kings were writing in the
eleventh century, then he might have sought to compose a tract favorable to the Jews so as to enhance the
K'art'velian Bagratids' claim to be the direct descendants o f the King-Prophet David (and consequently,
the Jews). In my opinion, however, this is tenuous, for the Bagratids are no-where explicitly mentioned in
The Ufe o f the Kings.24^ Should this have been the author's intent, then he easily could have inserted
them, mimicking the manipulation o f the Armenian Xorenaci. In sum. while The Life o f the Kings
mentions the Jews and their plight it supplies no information directly about the Bagratids, even
allegorically.
On the eve o f the establishment o f local royal authority in K 'art' li. The Ufe o f the Kings asserts
that the K 'art'velians worshipped God the Creator, the Sun, the Moon, and the Five Stars, and
presumably the grave o f the deified K 'art'los. The introduction o f idols to K 'a rt'li allegedly occurred
considerably later. According to The Ufe o f the Kings, the first idols in K 'a rt'li were raised by Azon.
That text reports that "Azon forgot the faith prescribed by Alexander, idolatry [kerpt'msaxureba. lit.
"service to idols"] ensued, and he fashioned two idols of silver; Gac'i an d Gaxm." 2 4 2 The tone here is
2 4 5 77ie Ufe o f the Kings, p. 14-j 0-12- ^ rm- Adapt. K'C\ p. 20 = Thomson trans., p. 18, slightly expands
this account
24<*Although Toum anoff Studies, pp. 202, 306,316-317, and 344 (footnote 16) has demonstrated that the
Sumbat Bivritiani o f The U fe o f the Kings is, in fact a Bagratid, the author himself makes no such
identification.
^ T h e Ufe o f the Kings, p. 2 O7 _g.
294
negative. Alexander had ordered the worship o f seven celestial bodies, and most importantly, he had re
acquainted the K.' art'velians with their forgotten Creator. Azon not only acted disloyally before his
master, but he specifically rejected the Creator. Beyond their names, we know very little about these idols
set up by Azon and about their possible connection with foreign deities.24** On the basis o f etymology.
M arr associated both o f them with Semitic gods, and suggested that they became part o f the Georgian
historical tradition only in the medieval period .2 4 9 Archaeological evidence does not help us. for we do
not possess any proof whether any idols were ever raised on the peaks o f the picturesque chain of
mountains overlooking Armazi-M c'xet'a. or anywhere else in Georgia for that matter.
Royally Sanctioned Idol Worship
P'arnavaz, the first king o f the K 'art'velians (according to The Ufe o f the Kings), is credited with
adding another idol, Armazi, to the two established by Azon: "P'arnavaz fashioned a great idol and [gave
it] his own name: that is Armazi, for in Persian P'arnavaz was called Armazi."2 5 0 This is significant, for
although Azon had introduced idolatiy to the K 'art'velians, Parnavaz is credited with the introduction o f
the god of gods Armazi, almost certainly the local analogue to the Persian Creator-God. Ahura-Mazda.
Should this correspondence be correct, then, in a sense, P'arnavaz may be regarded as having set up an
idol to the Creator. However, our author does not make this identification, and, in fact, the K'art'velian
worship of the Creator is understood to have dissipated. In addition, it is not suggested that the idols
erected by Azon were demolished and replaced by his successor. The implications of the maintenance o f
the idols established by P'am avazs antagonist are not explored by the medieval author .25 *
The idol Armazi was reputedly erected on the summit o f Mt. K 'art'li and a great festival was
held to honor its establishment A god named Armazi very well may have been worshipped in antique
K 'art'li, for the royal capital's earliest settlement was called Armazi Oust upriver on the Mtkuari from the
2 4 **Tseretheli, "The Asianic (Asia Minor) Elements in National Georgian Paganism." pp. 50-54. Marr,
"Bogi i iazycheskoi Gruzii po drevne-gruzinskim istochnikam." p. 23. footnote 1. suggests that Gac'i may
be related to the Georgian word kac 7. or "man," "person."
2 4 9 Marr, "Bogi iazycheskoi Gruzii po drevne-gruzinskim istochnikam," p. 29.
2 5 0 77ie Ufe o f the Kings, p. 25. Touraanoff, Studies, p. 100, footnote 151, notes that "P'arnavaz" is
derived from the Av. xwarinahvant, or "brilliant," "splendid." This, he observes, is precisely the epithet
o f the Hittite god Teshub, which archaeological evidence suggests was worshipped in Caucasia.
Tarchnishvili, "Le dieu lune Armazi," BK 36-37 (1961), pp. 36-40, links Armazi with the worship o f the
Moon.
2 5 *For a recent, creative attempt to decipher this situation, see ch. 2.
295
modem site o f M c'xet'a), and corruptions o f this name are encountered in a number o f classical sources:
e.g., APMOZIKH (Strabo XI.3.5), Harmastus (Pliny VI. 11.29), and APMATIKA (Ptolemy X. 10.2).2 5 2
T he most intriguing form is theArmozike o f Strabo which is obviously related to the Georgian Armazis-
c ixe (lit "Armazi's fortress"). Although the designation Armazi was known to classical authors, it must
be stressed that they do not necessarily indicate that a god by that name was worshipped there. It is
entirely possible that The Life o f the Kings is merely explaining how the locale o f Armazi had supposedly
received its name. It should also be noted that "Armazi is close in form to the Zoroastrian Ahura-A/azda.
Although Armazi and Ahura-Mazda are almost certainly related (where Armazi is the Georgian version
o f the latter), it is worth repeating that medieval Georgian literature does not equate, or even explicitly
link, the two.2 5 3
The idols raised by the K 'art'velian kings are said to have been planted in highly visible places.
Thus Armazi was placed on the peak o f the mountain above the royal city. The later Ufe o f Nino relates
that Gac'i stood to the right of Armazi and Gai'm to the left, thus forming a triad o f principal gods.2 5 4
Aynina/Ainina and Danana were situated along the M c'xet'-ian Road. Zadeni was erected at the Zadeni
fortress.
The Ufe o f the Kings itself does not propose that any of the K 'art'velian idols were connected to
foreign gods (or that they had foreign equivalents), although there is a single instance o f a nonK 'art'velian monument being raised. A statue of Aphrodite (Ap'roditos), according to the text, was
brought to K 'a rt'li by Sep'elia, the Greek wife o f Rev I (189-216 AD). But The Ufe o f the Kings does not
state that Aphrodite was inducted into the K 'art'velian pantheon, or that she gained any' K'art'velian
adherents .2 5 5 Indeed, the Georgian historical tradition never connects its own deities with the Greek
pantheon. This contrasts with Xorenac'i who explicitly equated seven Armenian gods and goddesses with
their Greek counterparts .2 5 6
2 5 2 Toumanoff,
Studies, p. 89, footnote 121.
253Such an identification, however, may have been inherent On the Aramazd o f the Armenian tradition,
see Russell, Zoroastrianism in Armenia, pp. 153-187. See also idem., "Pre-Christian Armenian Religion."
ANRIV, vol. 18 (1990), pp. 2679-2692. The identification o f a Temple to the Sun in M c'xet'a
(third/fourth century AD) suggests that such Persian/Parthian cults had penetrated K 'a rt'li, and even its
capital. See V. Nikolaishvili, G. Giunashvili, and K. Ximshiashvili, "Mzis tadzris gamosaxulebis
aghmoch'ena m c'xet'ashi," Moambe 132/1 (1988), pp. 209-212, with Eng. sum., "Discovery of the
Temple o f the Sun in Mtskheta," p. 2 1 2 .
2 5 ^77re Ufe
o f Nino, a hagiographic work, does not mention Azon/Azoy, P'arnavaz, o r the other kings
responsible for building the idols.
2 5 5 77e Ufe
256Thomson in Movses Xorenac'i, p. 149, footnote 7. Xorenac'i equated: Anahit with Artemis; Vahagn
with Heracles; T ir with Apollo; Aramazd with Zeus; Nane with Athena; M ihr with Hephaistos; and
296
With Rev I we find a further telescoping o f the impending Christianization o f the K 'art'velian
kings. Rev is called mart'ali, or "the Just," in medieval Georgian historiography, because he is
understood to be the first K 'art'velian king to become familiar with the Christian message .2 ^ 7 As a
result, youth sacrifice, which The Life o f the Kings reckons to have been an integral part o f pre-Christian
religious practice in K 'art'li, was reportedly prohibited by Rev "the Just" in the late second/early third
century. This proscription, we are assured, was instigated by Rev's acquaintance - but not outright
acceptance of the Christian message. Owing to the late MS tradition o f K'art'lis c xovreba. it is not
altogether clear whether this passage existed in the original text or whether it was added by a later pious
scribe (perhaps the eleventh-century archbishop Leonti Mroveli). It should be said that animal sacrifice
continued, and was still observed in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in Svanet' i (medieval
Suanet'i), where piles o f antlers, jaws, and horns were seen in numerous churches.2-**
Thus we arrive at the eve o f the conversion o f King Mihran/Mirian m (284-361) in the first-half
of the fourth century. This event will be considered in the following chapter, but here I shall examine
how the ninth-/tenth-century life o f Nino, which contains our most detailed account o f K 'art'velian
"paganism" and religious ceremonial, describes pre-Christian K 'art'velian religion.
On her way to M c'xet'a, where her example would ultimately effect the conversion o f the K ing
Nino reportedly stopped in the city o f Urbnisi where "she saw a multitude [eri] worshipping [their] gods
o f unknown origins [uc'xot'a t'eslt'a ghmert't'a]; they worshipped as gods fire, stones, and wood."2^
There Nino also observed a procession preparing to march to M c'xet'a in order to pay reverence to the
triad2*o f idols perched on the mountains overlooking the royal city:
Astghik with Aphrodite. Such an equating also occurred in Roman Egypt: see G. Fowden. The Egyptian
Hermes: A Historical Approach to the Late Pagan Mind (1993 [1986]). esp. part 1, "Modes o f Cultural
Interaction." pp. 13-74. Even earlier, in the third century BC Berossus. in his Babyloniaca, identified
Babylonian deities with their closest Greek counterparts: see S.M. Burstein in Berossus, introduction, pp.
9 et sqq (e.g, Bel is equated with Zeus at B.2.3b, p. 15).
957
The Life o f the Kings, p. 58. For the text and a trans. o f this passage, see ch. 4.
2 ^**Grigolia,
Custom and Justice, pp. 34-35.
jy The Ufe o f Nino in C'x. k'art'. mep'et'a, p. 87

"...oboffja 3 6 0 Qgbciroi roabcjoiJ. 3636030)6
6 b ib g 6 o: 66830313 G 3Q bE )l)6, 3 3 6 0 )6 g6 d3CpcD6 3 6 3 6 0 6 2 ) O 6 3 Q 6 6 o b -Q 3 0 O 3 b ." The phrase
"unknown [origins]," i.e., uc'xo, denotes both "strange" and "foreign." Thomson, trans., p. 97, renders
the phrase in question as "... gods o f unknown origins..."
260xhe supposed existence o f a triad o f major idols, if an accurate memory, may help to explain the
Christianization of K 'art'li. In this case, the triad o f Christianity may have been made to replace the
"pagan" triad.
297
Then one day a great [number of] people set out from that city, they went to the great
royal city, Mc'xet'a, to purchase the goods necessary to worship their god Armazi. And
the holy [woman] accompanied them. When they had reached the city o f M c'xet'a.
they stopped at the Moguet' i Bridge. The holy Nino witnessed them worshipping fire...
And behold, on the following day there was the sound of trumpets and
shouting; and countless host issued forth... [and] they awaited the appearance o f the
king... then the queen-consort [dedop ali] Nana arrived, and quietly the host
reappeared... And all the people began to praise the king. Then King Mirian came
forth, terrible and unbearable to the eye in appearance.
And the holy Nino asked a certain Jewish woman, "What is this?" But she
said: "The god of gods Armazi \ghmert'i ghmert't'a armazi summons [them]; there is no
other idol like him." Then the holy Nino ascended to see Armazi. And the mountains
were decorated with banners/flags [droshebi] and people...
But the holy Nino reached the fortress o f Armazi, and she stood near the idol
on a steep wall and witnessed the incomprehensible wonder, inexpressible in words,
the fear and terror of the kings, m t'avaris, and all the people standing before their idols.
And the holy Nino witnessed [an idol in the form of] a man standing [there, made] of
copper, and whose body was covered with a golden armor, and on his head was a strong
helmet, and for his eyes were an em erald and a beryl, and in his hands was a sword as
bright as a flash of lightning...
And to [Armazi's] right was [another idol in the form of a] man, [made] of
gold, and his name was Gac'i; and at [Armazi's] left was [an idol in the form of a] man.
[made] o f silver, and its name was Galm, [all of] which comprised the gods of the
people o fK 'a rf li [romelni-igi ghmrt'ad uch 'ndes ersa mas k'art lisasa].^ *
In all o f medieval Georgian historiography, this is the only passage which provides any
substantial description of the idols themselves or the ceremony associated with their reverence .2 6 2
Although it is conceivable that the author of The Life o f Nino had at his disposal a now lost text (or texts)
concerning pre-Christian religious practices, this scenario is highly improbable .263 The Ufe o f Nino
itself was composed no earlier than the ninth century, five hundred years or so after the fact The
tradition that there had been K'art'velian idolatry did, in fact, ju st predate that source, for we possess
2 6 ^/hrd., pp. 88-90; the trans. here is based on some points upon that o f Thomson (Georgian text) infirm .
Adapt. K 'C \ p. 98 and Wardrop trans., pp. 18-19.

Medieval Armenian literature likewise does not offer any significant (and historically based)
information about pre-Christian Armenian religion, the only details o f which were produced by Xorenac' i
in the eighth century. Xorenac'i took the sites known to the fifth-century Agat'angeghos and explained
their location. Cf. Agat'angeghos who explained how Christian churches came to be situated on pagan
sites. We do not find such discussions in medieval Georgian literature. On Armenian paganism, see N.O.
Emin, "Ocherk religii i verovanii iazycheskikh armian, in his Izsledovaniia i stat'i (18% ), pp. 7-60. I
wish to thank Prof. R. Thomson for his insights into Armenian "paganism."
It is possible (though I think unlikely) that some document(s) describing K'art'velian "paganism" had
come down to the ninth century. Perhaps such texts were supressed and could only be inserted into the
Georgian tradition centuries later when "paganism" was no longer deemed to be a threat to the Christian
Church.
298
corresponding references to idols in The Life o f the Kings and the initial texts of Mok'c 'evay k'art'lisay.
Thus The Ufe o f Nino, on this point at least, is almost certainly an embellishment upon this pre-existing,
but not necessarily old, tradition. The U fe o f Nino depicts apposition to Christianity as being a wellorganized and dangerous cult and to make the king and his subjects rushing to be "swallowed alive in
Hell, having abandoned the Creator and they worshipped gods o f stone and wood, o f copper and thick
brass; [and] these [gods] had sinned against the Creator o f everything ."2 6 4
We possess no contemporary account o f the alleged worship o f idols in K 'art'li. But the
Armenian Xorenac' i includes such a notice in his tract which was written a century7or so before The Life
o f the Kings. Xorenac' i is acquainted w ith only one K' art'velian idol, Aramazd (cf. Armazi). whom he
identifies as "the god o f thunder." After Nino (Xorenac'i's "Nune") had secured the conversion of
Mihran/Mirian, she set her sights upon the idol o f Aramazd:
So straightway7 [Nune] destroyed the image o f Aramazd, god of thunder, which stood
outside the city; between the city and the image flowed the powerful river [i.e., Mtkuari].
Everyone had been accustomed to worship this in the mornings from their roofs, for it
faced them. But if anyone wished to sacrifice, he crossed the river and sacrificed in
front o f the temples.2 6 6
According to the Georgian U fe o f Nino, prior to the king's conversion Nino begged the Christian God to
spare the heathen K 'art'velians from their impending doom, and on cue a mighty storm arose and toppled
the idols. The K 'art'velians, however, attributed the disaster to It'rujani, "the god of the Chaldeans,"
whom The U fe o f Nino identified as the chief rival of Armazi.2 6 6 In any event, the conversion of the
K'art'velians is not said to have been effected on the basis o f doctrine (as is also clear in subsequent
episodes), but on that o f simply turning away from idolatry. This circumstance is not uncommon in
Christian literature .2 6 7
We must consider the possibility that the Georgian historical tradition gleaned its knowledge o f
idol worship in early K 'a rt'li from Xorenac'i's history. It is conceivable that a K'art'velian cleric became
2 6 4 77?e U fe
o f Nino in C'x. k'art'. mep'et'a, p. 90g_g.
266Movses Xorenac'i, II.8 6 , p. 239.

2 6 6 7%e Ufe o f Nino in C'x. k'art'. mep'et'a, pp. 91-92. Cf. Movses Xorenac'i, H.8 6 , pp. 238-240, who is
unfamiliar with the storm toppling the idols. However, Nino is said to have been instructed by her
superior (!), Gregory the Illuminator, to destroy the idols as he himself had done in Armenia (p. 239).
267
^ 'M a rk u s , End o f Ancient Christianity, pp. 4-5, for the example of the fifth-century Bedouins before the
pillar of S t Symeon the Stylite.
299
acquainted with Xorenac'i's account (which itself m ight ultimately be based upon some K'art'velian
tradition) and deduced that Aramazd was the chief god o f the ancient K'art'velians. Recognizing the
similarity o f Aramazd with the nam e o f the old city Armazi, the two were linked. Then, lesser idols were
interpolated from existing oral/written traditions o r invented. All o f this is speculative at best, but. if
valid, it is fascinating that following the schism on 607/608 a distinct Georgian tradition o f its
Christianization (and the destruction o f idols) ultimately was based on an Armenian tradition.
Tree and Pillar Worship
As we have seen, the relatively late tradition o f Life o f Nino relates that the holy woman, while in
Urbnisi, had seen the multitude worshipping their "gods of unknown origins; for they worshipped as gods
fire, stones, and wood.^
By stones and wood the anonymous author was probably referring to the
materials used to construct idols. Perhaps some o f the idols were regarded by our later author to have had
Gres or candles incorporated into them. This passage possibly may be a reference to fire, stones, and trees
being held a sacred objects in and o f themselves. Nevertheless, the fact remains that it appeared in an
account describing K 'art'velian idols. Moreover, as we have seen, The Life o f Nino is a late tradition and
is probably not based upon some relevant ancient t e x t . ^
The contention that fire, stones, and wood were considered sacred by early K ' art'velians was
almost certainly a later attempt to explain the antagonists confronting Nino and her religion, and.
perhaps, the persistence (in the author's time) o f their veneration by certain "Georgian" peoples. In the
context of Biblical and Near Eastern history, this claim was plausible. That is to say. the author o f The
Ufe o f Nino, in attempting to present a plausible story o f K 'art'li's conversion, may accurately describe, by
chance, the religious milieu o f pre-Christian K 'art'li. Nevertheless, his information on that period must
be relegated to the realm o f perception and image, and his details on pre-Christian K 'art'velian religion
are almost certainly a later interpolation. We do know that some communities in the region that later
emerged as western Georgia (Egrisi) the Colchis o f antiquity, and the Lazika and Abasgia of the
Byzantines worshipped trees as late as the sixth century as is reported by the Byzantine historian
The Ufe o f Nino in C'x. k'art'. mep'et'a), p. 87|g_jg. See supra, footnote 257.
^ S p e a k in g o f late traditions, I do not address the plentiful evidence o f folk tales (which may, quite
obviously, include very old stories). I shall cite only one example. In the folk poem "Speak, O Fortress
Ruins" (K. Tuite, trans.. Anthology o f Georgian Folk Poetry [1994], #18, pp. 64-67 and commentary, p.
132), Tuite links its sacred cypress tree with the oak o f Xmelgora (in P'savet'i), which was believed to be
joined to Heaven by a golden chain by which sacred power could ascend and descend. The oak protected
Xmelgora so long as it stood. It could be felled only if a cat (considered an unclean anim al) was killed
and threw its blood upon the tree.
300
Procopius.270 The cult o f trees and pillars has been detected throughout the ancient Mediterranean
world.271 In the ninth century the enlightener o f the Slavs, Constantine/Cyril, is said to have found treeworship prevalent in the nearby Crimea.272 Survivals o f tree veneration in Georgia persisted well into
the Christian era and may even be observed even today .273
Trees are central to several episodes in The Ufe o f Nino. After the Christian God destroyed the
idols set up around M c'xet'a, Nino camped under an acacia tree, where, we are told. King Bartom (63-30
BC) used to relax. Nino planted a cross under the shade o f the tree, and nearby residents, including a
retainer o f the queen, frequented the place.274 Trees had some religious, albeit un-Christian, significance
to the K'art'velians, and the Christian missionaries capitalized upon this so as to attract potential
converts.
Prior to the conversion o f Mihran/Mirian, Nino had a vision instructing her to enter the royal
garden and take some soil from under the cedar tree growing there. She was compelled to present the soil
to a couple unable to have a child. Nino took heed, and the couple soon after was blessed with a son.273
270Procopius, Wars, VIII.3.14, pp. 78-79; and idem.. On the Buildings, III.vi, for the Tzani-s worshipping
trees and birds. See: W .ED. Allen, "Ex Ponto, III and IV: Some Notes," pp. 29-47; and G.A. Ochiauri
and I.K. Surguladze, "Kavkazsko-iberiiskikh narodov mifologiia" in S. A. Tokarev, ed., AUJy narodov
mira, vol. 1 (1980), pp. 603-4, who note tree "cults" in Caucasia among the Apxaz. Adyghi. Daghestanis, and Georgians. See also Bardavelidze, Drevneishie religioznye verovaniia i obriadovoe graftcheskoe
iskusstvo gruzinskikh piemen, esp. "Drevo zhizni i izobiliia,"pp. 54-93.
271A J. Evans, "Mycenaean Tree and Pillar Cult and its Mediterranean Relations." JHS 2 1 (1901). pp.
99-204.
272Z.//e o f Constantine/Cyril, pp. 40-43: "In the land o f Phoullae [i.e.. in NE Crimea] stood a great oak
which had grown together with a cherry tree, and under it sacrifices were offered. It was called
Alexander, and women were not permitted to approach it nor the sacrifices." Constantine persuaded the
people to allow him to cut down the tree (which he did with thirty-three swings o f an axe) and bum it.
For the Rus' worshipping an oak tree, see Constantine VII. DAI, pp. 60-61.
273E.g.: V. Loraia, "Xis kultisat vis sak'art'veloshi," SAIM 3 (1927), pp. 164-178. with Fr. sum.. "Sur le
culte de 1'arbre en G&rgie," p. 178; and Charachidze. "Le symbolisme de l'arbre et de la vignc en
G6orgje," BK 23-24 (1967), pp. 105-118. For the survival o f tree veneration in A p'xazefi. see N.S.
Janashia, "The Religious Beliefs of the Abkhasians," Georgica 1/4-5 (Autumn 1937), pp. 117-153. esp.
pp. 141-143. For the persistence of tree worship in the Georgian highlands, see Grigolia, Custom and
Justice, pp. 24-25 et sqq. On the Georgian names for trees, see Rayfield, "Georgian Dendronyms," BK 42
(1984), pp. 248-252. T . Jaqeli, "Saup'lo xe alva," JV 2 (1990), pp. 29-33, examines the place o f the
poplar tree as a divine symbol in a ritual still current among some highlanders in eastern Georgia.
Braund, Georgia in Antiquity, pp. 256-258, suggests that the pine-cone symbolism o f the cult o f Dionysius
(to whom at least two temples were dedicated in "Georgia") represents the sacred character o f trees in
Caucasia. Braund (ibid., p. 255) argues that trees were the "principal feature o f Transcaucasian [sic]
paganism to be transformed into a Christian symbol."
27477ie Life o f Nino in C'x. k'art'. mep'et'a, pp. 92-93.
215Ibid., pp. 93-94.
301
Moreover, the Lord's tunic, which had allegedly been brought to Mc'xeta by the local Jewish community,
is said to have been buried under this Lebanese cedar and thus this important relic was closely associated
with a tree.276 The first church built in K 'a rt'li under M irians direction, prior to the arrival o f stone
masons from Rome, was made o f the wood from the cedar tree under which had been hidden the Lord's
tunic:
And immediately [Mirian] took up the line [i.e., architect's device] and instructed the
carpenters, and he cut dorm the cedar [tree] and from this cedar prepared seven pillars
for the church. And after they built the wooden walls, they set up the six pillars one at a
time. But the largest pillar, which was wonderful to look upon, was meant to be placed
in the middle o f the church, but they could not raise i t 277
Through the prayer of Nino and the intercession o f God, the pillar miraculously lifted itself into the air
and eventually lowered itself into place. The succession of churches built on that site, first made from
wood and then from stone (from the early sixth century), were initially known as the Lower Church, and
then Sueti-c'xoveli, or "the Living Pillar."27* The eleventh-century structure on this site, which stands
today, still serves as the seat o f the kat alikos o f the Georgian Church. According to The Life o f Nino, the
sacred pillar of Sueti-c'xoveli became a locus o f sacred power, where numerous miracles were performed
So many people began making pilgrimages to the pillar that M irian is supposed to have been compelled to
protect the pillar by a wooden casing. Miraculously, the powers o f the pillar were exuded through that
barrier.279
116Ibid., pp. 100-101.

277/h/ri., p. 112
Thomson, in his trans. o f the Georgian text. Arm. Adapt. K'C', p. 123 (and footnote
3), gives the rendering o f "line" for moigho dzali. Cf. Agat'angeghos, para. 758, pp. 296-297: "St.
Gregory himself took up the architect's line."
278The name "Lower Church," whose site extends along the Mtkuari River, is in distinction to the "Upper
Church" (later Samt'avro) located on a site just above the former. For a history o f Sueti-c'xoveli (modem
Sveti-c'xoveli), see: A. Natroev, Mtskhet i ego sobor Sveti-Tskhoveli: istoriko-arkheologicheskoe
opisanie (1900); and Kakabadze with D. Gordeev, "The Date o f the Building o f the Cathedral T h e
Living Pillar,1" Georgica 1/2-3 (Oct. 1936), pp. 78-91. See also Z. Avalishvili, Jvarosant'a droidan: ot'xi
saistorio narkvevi (1989 repr.), pp. 25-26. In the twelfth-century, the kat'alikos-patnaich Nikoloz I wrote
a tract glorifying Sueti-c'xoveli, see, Nikoloz L Sueti-c'xoveli. A brilliant historical novel about its
restoration was written by the noted author K. Gamsaxurdia, The Hand o f a Great Master (1955).
27977ie Life o f Nino in C'x. k'art'. mep'et'a, p. 115. Cf. M irdat III (365-380) surrounding the pillar with
masonry after it had been reduced in size by pilgrims cutting away relics for themselves. The masonry
reportedly extended to the top o f the pillar, a cross was set up upon it. See Life Succ. Mirian, pp. 131132.
302
The pillar called Sueti-c'xoveli, allegedly fashioned from a sacred tree, is itself representative of
a still more ancient religious symbol. I. Surguladze, in a fascinating 1993 study o f Georgian folk symbols
and ornaments, demonstrated that the central supporting pillar o f the typical Georgian house, the
dedabodzi (csgfioaftcndo) or "the M other Pillar," was the focus o f domestic ornamentation.280 Typically
made o f wood, dedabodzi-s, were decorated with m any symbols, the chief among them being crosses, even
in the pre-Christian period.28* O ther symbols routinely carved into dedabodzi-s were chiefly astral,
including the rosette which represented the planet Venus as well as the Moon and the Sun. Relying upon
semantic and ethnographic evidence, Surguladze suggested that the dedabodzi served as a domestic
shrine, and significantly for us, is connected with the cult o f trees. The pre-Christian prevalence o f the
dedabodzi, and its connection with trees, partly explains why the Living Pillar serv ed as a convergence of
sacred power in early K 'art'velian Christianity.282
Perhaps the most direct evidence o f tree-worship related in The Life o f Nino is in connection with
the raising of a cross in Mc'xet'a:
At the time when the king, and the queen, and their children, and all the people were
baptized, there stood a tree in [a certain] place, on a remote rock, and [this] tree was
extremely beautiful and fragrant. A nd miracles were [performed] by this tree, for a deer
wounded by an arrow, coming to consume its leaves and its seeds, was healed, even if it
had come to the place close to death. This seemed very amazing to the former heathens
[pirvelt'a mat'carmart't'a], and they told the bishop [of K 'art'li] Iovane about the tree.
But the bishop said: "Behold, in truth from the beginning this land has been set aside by'
God for His service, for the tree has been cultivated by God for this [particular] m oment
For now the grace o f God has illuminated K 'art'li, and from this tree will be fashioned
the honorable cross, which all the multitude of K 'a rt'li will worship."
And Rev.282 son of [Mirian], and the bishop, and a multitude of people went
and felled the tree and retrieved it w ith its branches... And the people gathered to view
its green foliage [even] in winter28-* when every other tree was bare, yet its leaves had
not fallen, and it smelled pleasant an d it was beautiful to see..
280I. Surguladze, K'art'uli xalxuri omamentissimbolika (1993), with Rus. (pp. 210-218) andFr. (pp.
219-228) sums.
28 *Surguladze believes that pre-Christian crosses symbolized both the four comers o f the world as well as
the four comers of a field (ibid., Rus. sum., p. 213).
282On the survival o f "pagan" symbols in Georgian Christian art (at the Bolnisi Sioni cathedral and that
o f Juari in Mcxet'a), see N. Urushadze, Drevnegruzinskoe plasticheskoe iskusstvo (1988), esp.
"Iazycheskaia simbolika v omamental'no-dekorativnykh motivakh rannekhristianskikh klassicheskikh
khramakh Gruzii (Bolnisskii Sion, Dzhvari)," pp. 147-160. Deer, bull-heads, and cross designs from the
pre-Christian period are documented.
283Not to be confused with Rev I "the Just" (see supra).
284Some MSS have "summer."
303
T his [tree] was cut down on 25 March, on a Friday. And the tree remained
there for 37 days, and its leaves did not change color...
Then on the first [day] o f the month o f May they fashioned crosses [from it]
and they raised them with the assistance o f the king on the seventh o f the same
month...285
Thus our source relates that a tree, which had been worshipped by the populace, was appropriated by
Iovane, the first bishop o f K 'a rt'li, for the fashioning o f three crosses to be erected in public areas.
Significantly, Iovane did not deny the inherent sacredness o f the tree, but predictably attributed its powers
to the Christian God.
Xorenac'i adds some detail about the raising of wooden crosses in M c'xet'a. Once Nino had
demolished the idol o f Aram azd (read: Armazi), the nobles were profoundly confused and confronted her
concerning the proper sacred object for their religious devotion. Nino enjoined them to worship the Cross,
so they set a cross upon the hill overlooking M c'xet'a that later served as the site o f the Juari Church.
"And all the people worshipped [the Cross] in the mornings from their roofs, just as they had done
previously." But some o f the nobles spumed the Cross, having discovered that it was merely "a piece of
hewn wood, no work o f craftsmen." So God sent down "a pillar o f cloud, and the mountain was filled
with a sweet odor, and there was heard the sound of a host singing psalms." And after this, the Cross was
adored by all.286 Xorenac'i does not explicitly state that any o f the crosses had been fashioned from
sacred trees, but instead makes the nobility question whether or not they should be worshipping a simple
piece of wood
It should be said that the royal garden, in which was supposedly growing the Lebanese cedar
from which the Living Pillar was fashioned is represented by the O ld Georgian word samot'xe
(b^dmooba). Samot'xe designated not only a garden, but also Paradise and Heaven. Upon closer
inspection o f the term, we find that it is based upon the root mot 'xe and xe, both denoting "tree." Thus,
samot'xe literally indicated "a place where trees grow." It may be revealing that, to the K 'art'velian of
late antiquity, the word designating "Paradise" and "Heaven" was intimately associated with trees.
Seemingly, this derivation is a smoking gun, but this need not be the case. Samot'xe is actually a caique
upon the Greek IIAPAAEIEOE, "paradise," which itself was taken from Persian, and denotes "garden" or
"hunting enclosure/ground"287 As is well known, there are numerous Biblical and hagiographical
)o e
77ie Life o f Nino in C'x. k'art'. mep'et'a, pp. 119-120.. My trans. is based upon that of Thomson, pp.
133-134.
2 8 6 M ovs&
Xorenac'i, pp. 239-240, and Thomson's notes 7-8, p. 239.
yo 7
Thomson, private correspondence, 14 Apr. 1996, also noted that the same applies for the Armenian
word draxt (ripujufi).
304
examples o f gardens/orchards being a special setting; the story o f the Garden o f Eden is the most obvious.
The Bible has other prominent trees including the Tree o f Life. The literal meaning o f samot'xe,
therefore, does not necessarily imply that trees were considered sacred in early K 'a rt'li, though it, along
with the persistence of tree-worship throughout the medieval period, might have convinced a later author
o f its earlier prominence.
So although some forms o f tree and pillar devotion would seem to have existed prior to the
triumph o f Christianity in K 'art'li. the memory o f The Ufe o f the Nino is accurate only accidentally, for it
likely interpolated tree and pillar worship from the designation samot'xe, the important setting o f gardens,
and the survivals o f the practice.2** Even if our author merely assumed the existence o f tree worship in
early K 'art'li, his interpolation was nevertheless plausible and was buttressed by survivals o f it even in his
own time.
No medieval Georgian historical or hagiographical work provides direct evidence for the worship
o f stones or fire in K 'art'li. However, allusions to the veneration of fire may have been easily assumed by
later writers knowing about Persian Zoroastrianism, or Fire-Devotion, which was the "official" faith o f the
Sasanids. O f all Georgian sources, the anonymous The Ufe o f Voxtang is the one most concerned with
Zoroastrianism. Yet that text was considerably less polemical on the subject than the Armenian Eghishe,
who described the perilous situation o f fifth-century Armenia. Since Zoroastrianism posed a particular
problem for the early Christian kings o f K 'art'li, it will be discussed at length in subsequent chapters.
In both pre-Bagratid and Bagradd historical and hagiographical sources, none o f which seem to
predate ca. 800, the image o f pre-Christian religious devotion in K 'art'li is consistent and clear: it was
dominated by a highly-organized pantheon o f deities, under the aegis of the god o f gods Armazi. Armazi
stood at the peak of Mt. A rm azi/K 'art'li, that same mountain on which had been buried the deified
eponym K 'art'los. K 'art'velian pre-Christian religion, at least in the Hellenistic period, was allegedly
based upon a set o f royally sanctioned and constructed anthropomorphic idols.
A Further Consideration o f Astral Worship
The Ufe o f the Kings insists that Alexander had mandated that the K 'art'velians venerate God
the Creator (who had been worshipped by the early Caucasian T'argamosiani-s including K 'art'los and
2**The survival o f the veneration o f trees well into the Christian period may be reflected in the name
"Chqondidi," or "the Great Oak" (from the Megreli chqoni, "oak," and didi, "large," "great"). Chqondidi
became the chief bishopric o f the western region (esp. Samegrelo), and its bishop, under the Bagratid
Davit' n (1089-1125), also came to occupy the senior administrative post See Grigolia, Custom and
Justice, p. 25.
305
then seemingly forgotten by later K'art'losiani-s), as well as the Sun, the Moon, and the Five Stars.289
M arr associated these seven celestial bodies w ith the seven idols (including Aphrodite) known to The Life
o f the Kings.290 Indeed, the memory in Caucasia o f seven sacred objects, be they idols or heavenly
bodies, is an ancient one 291
O n this matter, I am inclined to concur with the brilliant findings o f Javaxishvili. Relying upon
both classical texts (especially that o f Strabo) and Georgian folk tales still current in his own time, he
determined that the ancient K 'art'velians had worshipped the stars, and that the chief pre-Christian deity
was the Moon, which was identified as a male figure in the Georgian tradition. Moreover, the position of
the Moon as the chief deity was assumed in the Christian period by S t George, who was and remains
one of the most important and popular figures in Georgian Christianity, often surpassing even the Virgin
Mary and Christ Himself. Even today S t George is called Giorgi t et ri, or "White George." which
289This was mandated before the introduction o f idolatry by Azon/Azoy.

29N.Ia. M arr, "Bogi iazycheskoi Gruzii po drevne-gruzinskim istochnikam," ZVOIRAO 14 (1901). p. 4.
M arr also noted that Armenian sources mention seven pagan shrines among the Armenians. Those seven
cities where Gregory the Illuminator destroyed shrines are A rtashat T ordan, Ani, Erez, T'il. Bagayarich.
and A shtishat On this see also Thomson in Agat'angeghos, introduction. pp. xxxviii-xlii. We should
recall that in addition to the triad o f major idols o f M c'xet'a, The Life o f the Kings mentions four others
(including Aphrodite). The seven major K 'art'velian idols were: Armazi. Gac'i, Gaim. Aynina/Ainina.
Danana. Zaden, and Aphrodite.
29*On medieval Georgian numerology, see: G. Alasania, Klassifikatsiia gruzinskikh pis'mennykh
istoricheskikh istochnikov, pp. 163-182; and idem., "Ric'xci d a mistika dzvel k 'art'ul saistorio
mcerlobashi," M acne 4(1984). pp. 28-45, w ithR us. sum., "C hisloi mistikavdrevnegruzinskoi
istoricheskoi pismennosti," p. 45.
306
Javaxishvili rightly understood as a reference to the Moon.292 Ancient reverence for the Moon in the
region is mentioned fay Strabo; he is fam iliar w ith temples dedicated to the goddess Selene.293
One further clue may be gleaned from a passage in the late sixth-century Martyrdom o/Evstat'i.
which seemingly provides evidence for an astrally-based religion. Evstat'i was a Persian who had been
bom into a Zoroastrian priestly family. H e came to M c'xet'a where he studied the craft o f shoe-making
and later, having entertained close contacts w ith Christians in both M c'xet'a and his former residence o f
Gandzak, accepted Christianity. Prior to converting, he engaged in lengthy discussions with the
archdeacon Samoel (Samuel) about the pitfalls o f Judaism and the virtues o f Christianity. Having
carefully listened to Samoel, Evstat' i became a Christian and proclaimed that:
... I have been baptized an d no one will separate me from Christ before my soul ascends
to Heaven above. But about the faith o f my fathers I am afraid and even ashamed to
speak. For it was God who created Heaven and Earth, the Sun and the Moon and the
stars, the sea and the dry land, the rivers and assemblies o f waters, mountains and hills,
plains and forests, wood and fire, quadrapeds and beasts, reptiles and birds o f the sky,
and afterwards, God created humankind. And [God] made [humankind] lord [up 'ali]
over all o f these... Are we now to abandon God who created all this, and consider as
gods things which have been created by God? Let this never be! The Sun and the Moon
are not God; it was God w ho commanded the Sun to illuminate the dav and He ordered
the Moon and the stars to illuminate the night, but they are not God...294
292Javaxishvili, "The Folk-Tales and Ancient Pagan Religion o f the Georgians." pp. 225-237; and ibid..
"S t George the Moon-God," pp. 528-545. See also: Allen. "Ex Ponto. Ill and IV: Some Notes." pp. 4041, note 6; and G.A. Ochiauri and I.K. Surguladze, "Kavkazsko-iberiiskikh narodov mifologiia." pp. 604607. The precedence o f St. George (and even the Prophet Elijah/Elias) ov er Jesus afforded my many
modem Georgians is vividly reflected in a folk tale published by I. Sanakoev. "Kartvel'skiia Iegendy."
SMOMPK19 (1894), "Ob Iisuse Khriste, proroke Il'e i sv. Georgie," pp. 152-154. For an attempt to
associate Armazi with the Moon, see Tarchnishvili, "Le Dieu Lune Armazi," BK 36-37 (1961). pp. 36-40.
Other historians have attempted to see the cult o f Mithras as the forerunner of that of St. George: see G.
Tsetskhladze, "The Cult of Mithras in Ancient Colchis," RHR 109/2 (1992), pp. 115-124. If correct, St.
George would therefore seem to have replaced the worship o f Sun. However, this approach does not
adequately explain the saint's Georgian sobriquet, "white," nor is it in accordance with existing folk-tales.
In any event, it seems certain that S t George came to replace some type o f astral worship, probably that o f
the Moon. (Tsetskhladze also notes the presence o f astral symbols on contemporary "Georgian" artifacts,
both from Kart'li and Colchis/Egrisi). See also C. Walter, "The Origins o f the Cult of Saint George,"
REB 53 (1995), pp. 295-326 (pp. 320-322, for the earliest extant instance in an eleventh-century Georgian
MS of the S t George's slaying o f a dragon and rescue o f a princess).
293Strabo, XI.4.7, pp. 228-229, "As for gods, [the Caucasian Albanians] honour Helius [i.e., the Sun],
Zeus, and Selene [i.e., the Moon], but especially Selene; her temple is near Iberia [i.e., K'artTi];" and
Xn.3.31, pp. 430-431.
294A/arf. Evstat'i, pp. 42-43.
307
This account demonstrates that even in the sixth century, almost two centuries after the conversion of
King Mirian to Christianity, reverence for celestial bodies remained a nagging thorn in the sides of
K 'art'velian ecclesiastics.
As is the case for all o f the early kings o f K 'artli, we are faced with the problem of separating
reality from image, and more often than not, the medieval texts which have come down to us. although
they may reflea the actual (general) state o f affairs, seek to paint a plausible picture o f this period (from
which evidence was, by the authors time, apparently lacking). This having been said, some form of
idolatry was likely part o f the pre-Christian religions o f Caucasia, including that o f K 'art'li. M c'xet'a, as
the principal settlement o f K 'a rt'li and as the seat o f its rulers, would have been a logical place to be a site
for idols. But the paucity o f contemporary evidence, be it archaeological or historical, prevents us from
stating for certain that idol worship was a prominent manifestation o f early K 'art'velian religious
devotion.
All evidence on K 'art'velian idolatry has come down to us in Christian s o u r c e s ,^ and was
conditioned by the agenda o f Christian polemicists to transform the struggle o f Christianity into a clearcut battle o f the faith o f Christ against a well-organized, royally-sanctioned antagonist Even if idolatry
had been a part o f early K 'a rt'li, its memory was almost certainly exaggerated by later authors. That
which is related in the considerably later Christian sources is, for the most p a rt an invention. We should
keep in mind that the foremost model o f the battle against idolatry emanates from the Bible itself. The
experience of the Jews w as terribly important to early K 'art'velian writers, and the evolution o f the
K 'art'velian community in many ways was imagined to parallel, and then exceed (with Christianization),
that o f the Jews. Moreover, the earliest extant Georgian texts (especially The Martyrdom ofShushanifd,
The Martyrdom o f Evstat'i, and The Conversion o f K'art'li), which are hagiographical in nature, as well
as Rufinus late fourth-century account o f the Christianization of K 'art'li, do not refer to the existence of
idols in K 'art'li. The authors o f these works were presumably aware o f the pre-/non-Christian religious
practices o f the K 'art'velians, but they chose to ignore them and focus instead upon the triumph o f
Christianity. This silence is best explained by the probability that "paganism" remained a genuine threat
at the time, and the authors may have feared that speaking about it may simply have encouraged it. In the
end. however, their silence neither proves nor disproves the existence o f ancient anthropomorphic
K 'art'velian idols.
^ Modern scholarship usually assumes that any pre-Christian K 'art'velian texts were obliterated in the
early Christian period. T he absence o f inscriptions and art from the pre-Bagratid period (including the
the pre-Christian era) may be partly explained by the numerous invasions of K 'a rt'li inflicted by the
Persians. Byzantines, Khazars, Muslims, etc.
308
Should we assume that the description o f K 'art'velian idol worship is largely a later, Christian
attempt to create a unified, palpable enemy for their religion to vanquish, then we must emphasize that
these image-makers did not proceed recklessly, for the enemy they created was a plausible one. That is to
say, although the claim that idol worship was the principal form o f pre-Christian K 'art'velian religious
devotion may be fanciful, the later medieval authors attempted to inject a sense of plausibility to the story.
Thus the triad o f idols were assigned Near Eastern names and were perhaps based upon neighboring
(especially Semitic, Anatolian/Hittite, and Persian) archetypes. O f course, it is entirely possible that some
o f these names had been transmitted in oral tradition, and their descriptions and the stories about them
were invented by a later author.
Moreover, the contention that the early K 'art'velians had revered the Sun, the Moon, and the
Five Stars was based upon ancient traditions, and the later Christian writers were almost certainly familiar
with the worship o f these objects in the Near East, and possibly its persistence in K 'art'li. Astral
veneration was thus applied to ancient K 'art'li. Perhaps by accident, the medieval Georgian texts
accurately claimed the veneration o f celestial objects. Javaxishvili has demonstrated that the Moon was
likely the chief god of the K'art'velians and that its position was later assumed by St. George. But the
memory that God the Creator had been worshipped by K 'art'los and then revived in the Hellenistic period
is probably part and parcel of the attempt by The Life o f the Kings to portray the early K'art'velians in
much the same terms as the Old Testament depicts the Jews, that is, in the light of a progression from
knowledge o f the Creator, a lapse into heresy, and a subsequent a reacquaintance with God. A second Old
Testament parallel might also be made with the bitter struggle o f Jehovah against idols.
The extant evidence for pre-Christian religion in K 'a rt'li is slight and ambiguous at best. In any
event, at our current level of understanding, I think the most tenable conclusion is to regard the
accounting of idol worship in the medieval Georgian historical tradition principally as a later invention to
provide context for the triumph of Christianity in K 'art'li. Thus, the systematized and organized idolatry'
o f the K 'art'velians. as is related in extant texts, should be envisaged not as undeniable fact but as a
carefully crafted, semi-historical image. To the medieval historians and hagiographers responsible for
this image (whose hard intellectual labors cannot be overemphasized after all, their traditions still live
today), their creative reconstruction of the Christianization o f K 'a rt'li was not exactly historical, though
they wished it to be understood precisely as historical truth. They already knew that Christianity had
triumphed, and they sought only to produce a credible and dramatic explanation of that portentous
episode.
*****
The Georgian historical tradition, as preserved in The Life o f the Kings, makes P'am avaz, its
first king o f the K 'art'velians, to be a great king, responsible for setting the entire kingdom in order.
309
Owing to the complete lack o f non-Georgian sources on P'arnavaz, we are not in a position to either
embrace the tradition at face value or to disregard it completely as some creative attempt to remember the
first king of the community. W e simply do not know the antiquity or original source o f the P'arnavaz tale
(in any form) among the K 'art'velians. It is possible, however, that oral traditions about the first king of
the community existed, and that the author o f The Life o f the Kings had at his disposal such traditions or
even an earlier written source about P'arnavazs reign. Yet it is also possible that the P'arnavaz tale is
entirely, or mostly, unadulterated fiction. At our current level o f understanding, we should adopt a
balanced approach, assuming that while the story was partially based upon an ancient tradition, in its
current form it is greatly elaborated. From near-contemporary Graeco-Roman sources we know the
K'art'velian monarchy was established in the era o f P'arnavaz (i.e., the early Hellenistic period), and at
least in this regard, the memory o f The Life o f the Kings o f a sovereign ruling at the beginning of third
century BC is accurate.
The Life o f the Kings depicts P'arnavaz as the archetypal pre-Christian K 'art'velian monarch,
and all o f his pre-Christian successors are portrayed in similar terms. They are described as essentially
Persian kings and the history o f their realm is set firmly in a Persian context Without exception they
bore Persian/Parthian/Avestan names and they are described as ruler-heroes in the (later) Sasanid sense
this according to the understanding o f the ca. 800 author. The early kings o f the K 'art'velians were
allegedly responsible for initiating, and presumably funding, great building projects, and it was their
prerogative to erect idols in and around the royal city o f M c'xet'a. P'arnavaz. as the first king (mep e), is
credited with laying the foundation for the entire kingdom. He is alleged to have:
(1) implicitly possessed fam ah (royal glory) which designated, in the Persian cultural world,
royal legitimacy, and to have been a bumberazi-goliat'i (a champion-duelist/goliath) and
a ruler-hero;
(2) himself erected the idol o f the god o f gods Armazi, whose very name, we are told, was the
Persian equivalent o f P'arnavaz (and thus P'arnavaz may have been directly associated
with the god Armazi) Armazi might also be equated with the Persian Ahura-Mazda:
(3) established the administrative machinery (based upon the erist'avi-s), itself modeled on the
Persian Empire; and,
(4) mandated that the Georgian language be spoken throughout his realm and him self invented
the Georgian script.
Finally, we should recall that The Life o f the Kings unreservedly reveals the cosmopolitan nature
o f Caucasia, and K 'art'li, in the pre-Christian period. Perhaps there is not a better example o f this than
Mihran/Mirian, the first Christian king and founder of the Chosroid dynasty; he was not a K'art'velian
(though he is understood to have quickly acculturated to become one), but a Persian. He married into the
royal K 'art'velian P'amavaziani family, but later took a Greek spouse. Thus it was a Persian-bom king
310
who introducedChristianityas a tolerated, andthenas the "officially" sanctionedandexclusive, religion

to the K'artvelians. Consequently, all ofthe P'arnavaziani-s were rememberedto havebeen "pagans."
It is significant that the medieval traditionabout P'arnavaz, like that ofK'art'los. was largely
forgotten, orperhaps consciously ignored, in subsequent literature. Afterthe K'art'velian Bagratids
establishedthemselves at the end ofthe eighth century, their historians were instrumental in promulgating
anddeveloping the historical dimension ofthe Bagratids1legitimacy claims (not baseduponPersian
considerations but Biblical andByzantine ones). The relegationof K'art'los and P'arnavaz to the status
of ratherunimportant figures in the K'art'velian semi-legendarypast was guaranteedbythe fact that both
of themcould not be isolatedfromthe "pagan"andPersian-coloredhistory ofK'art'li. Yet K'art'los,
P'arnavaz, and his immediate successors were not entirelyforgotten, for TheLifeoftheKingscontinued
to be transmittedin the royal historical corpus ofK'artiisc'xovreba. Theirentry into the popular,
collective past of the K'art'velians/Georgians becamepossible only afterthe re-edition ofK'art'Iis
c'xovrebaby the commission appointedby Vaxtang VI andthe reworkingofthat corpus by Vaxushti in
the eighteenthcentury andespecially afterthe publicationofK'art'lisc'xovrebaby Brosset in the firsthalfofthe nineteenthcentury.
311
Chapter Four
K in g a n d C o m m u n ity C h r is tia n iz e d
I. THE ANTECEDENTS OF CHRISTIANIZATION
The Christianization of the K'art"velians, like that of anyother community, didnot occur
suddenly, no matterwhat hagiography might have us believe, thoughthe conversion of a ruler could
potentiallybe effectedwithout significant warning. The conversion ofa king was, and is, oftendepicted
as a precise, identifiable moment andawatershed in the history ofa given community, usuallyas a
consequence of some missionary's activities, or a very act of God. This is precisely the case with the
K'art'velian monarch Mihran/Mirian III (284-361 ). But the historyof the Christianization of a society
cannot be merely encapsulated in the conversion of its ruler andexplainedas a strict top-down
phenomenon. Rather, it is a gradual andkinetic process, at least at first, affecting multiple generations
anddependent to a large degree upon the force of momentum.1
Reminiscent ofcountless other hagiographic texts describing royal conversions. The Life o f Nino
proclaims that the K'art'velian community was suddenly and thoroughly Christianized upon the
acceptance of the Christian Godby its monarch. But should the medieval Georgian historical tradition be
carefully scrutinized, it suggests a moredifficult andperilous course: the gradual anddeliberate triumph
of Christianity.
Before examining the conversion tales of Mihran/Mirian. we should first considerthe persons
andepisodes foreshadowing the adoption of the Christian Godby the K'art'velian Crown.
The Move Towards Monotheism... and Retrogression into Apostasy
The opening account of The Life o f the Kings is loosely modeledon the first bookofthe Old
Testament, imitating its structure andpurpose. This is significant, for The Ufe o f the Kings was
The topic of conversion is a complex issue. I have beenparticularly influencedby the following studies:
A.D. Nock, Conversion: The Old and the New in Religion from Alexander the Great to Augustine o f
Hippo (1933); R.A. Markus, The End o f Ancient Christianity ( 1990); and A.H.M. Jones, Constantine and
the Conversion o f Europe ( 1978, repr. of 1948).
312
composedin the Christianperiod (ca. 800), and its authorregardedGenesisas the proper point of
departureforthe history ofhis community. Whereas Genesiswas constructedaroundpaternal
genealogies extendingfromthe time of Adam, the anonymous authorof TheLifeoftheKingsleaped
forwardtoNoahandhis progeny, interpolating the K'art'velian community into the appropriate Biblical
tabulapopulorum.
TheOldTestament flavor of TheLifeoftheKingswas enhancednot only by its opening account
ofthe offspringofNoah, but by the incorporationofotherBiblical characters andevents. We have
alreadyseen that the story ofNoah passing throughthe Red Sea was recorded.^ TheLifeoftheKings
relates that the Jews repudiatedtheir idols andbeganto worship "the Godof Israel." who was equated
with "Godthe Creator." This correspondence is crucial, for in several instances the author endeavors to
demonstrate the similar experiences of the JewishandK'art'veliancommunities.
TheLifeoftheKings, the only extant medieval Georgiantext to provide anaccounting of the
ethnogenesis of the K'art'velians, reports that all the majorcommunities of Caucasia hadoriginally
reveredGodthe Creator. After defeating Nimrod, Haos/Hayk, the Armenianeponym, declared that the
CaucasianTargamosiani-s (including the K'art'losiani-s) wouldaccept the overlordshipof Godthe
Creatorexclusively.^ The reverence for the Creatoron the part ofthe K'art'velians. however, is not
specifieduntil the allegedconquest ofAlexander the Great Alexander is said to have personally
mandatedthat the K'art'velians worship the "invisible" Creator-God. But the world-conqueroralso
establishedthe Sun, the Moon, and the Five Stars as (apparently subordinate) deities.1* The historical
traditionenshrinedin TheLifeoftheKingsthus associates the K'art'velians. fromtheir inception, to God
the Creator, althoughtheirveneration of this supreme deity lapsed.
It shouldbe said that even Zoroastrianismso prevalent throughout the Persian world,
particularlyunderthe Sasanids couldbe regardedas having its own ultimate Godof Creation. After all.
Zoroastrians consideredAhura-Mazda to be the creatorof everything that was good. In the following
chapterwe shall see that the ca. 800 Christian biographerof V&xtang I Gorgasali depicts Zoroastrianism
as essentially monotheistic (or perhaps henotheistic. the belief in one god without necessarily denying the
existence ofothers), probablybecause of Ahura-Mazda's special position. Inany event, what is important
here is that the K'art'velians were surroundedbycommunities embracing the idea of a God the Creator,
which is an integral part ofJudaism, Christianity, andZoroastrianism, and later in Islam. In the opening
^TheLifeoftheKings, p. 14 jq_J2Ibid., p.
Haos refers to "Godon High" (ghmert i maghali)and "the Creator" (dambadebeli).
ÎbidL, pp. 1824-192.
313
section of The Life o f the Kings, however, the author associates Godthe Creatoronly with the ancient
Jews.
Onthe heels ofAlexander's alleged invasion and theestablishment ofthe K'art'velian monarchy
by P'arnavaz, The Life o f the Kings (andthe initial texts ofMok'c'evay k'artiisay) stresses that the
religionofthe K'art'velians was dominatedby the worship ofidols. Yet idolatry is rememberedas a
relatively late development in K'art'li. The K'art'velians encounteredby Alexander are not identified as
idol-worshippers:
Andhe foundall the K'art'velians to be worse than the religions of all other tribes/
peoples. Forthey were adulterers and theydid not observe kinship when entering into
marriages, they ate everykindof creature, theyconsumedthe dead like beasts and
animals: there are not [sufficient] words [todescribe their] behavior.^
This passage mirrors a similar account in the Syriac The Book o f the Cave o f Treasures, which has
reachedus in a sixth-centuryform:
... [Alexander] sawin the confines of the East those menwho are the children of
Japhet[h]. They were more wicked andunclean thanall [other] dwellers in the world:
filthy people of hideous appearance, who ate mice andthe creeping things of the earth,
andsnakes and scorpions. They neverburiedthe bodies oftheir dead [but consumed
them]...*
In myestimation, it is probable that the authorof The Life o fthe Kings knewof The Book o f the Cave o f
Treasures andwas able to equate these Eastern peoples, "thechildren of Japheth," with the K'art'velians.
Regardless, neither source explicitly states that the K'art'velians/Eastemers were idol-worshippers at the
time of Alexander. It shouldbe pointedout that the medieval Georgianversion of The Book o f the Cave
o f Treasures lacks an}account of Alexander and his exploits, andthe aforementioned passage is absent.
5Ibid.,
p. 178.n .
6Cave o f Treasures, p. 265. For The Life o f the Kings' possible familiarity with this Syriac source, see ch.
3 . This quotation about the barbarian Japhethites is based uponan ancient tradition, for the third-century
BC Babyloniaca ofBerossus, B.1.4 , p. 13, reports that in the antediluvianperiod "There was a great
crowdof men in Babylonia andthey livedwithout lawsjust as wild animals." The sixth-century Syriac
account ofAlexander attributedto Jacobof Serughalleges that Gog andMagog bathed in anddrank
blood, ate flesh, wore skins,"... and [they] are more ferocious andhave morewars than all other nations."
Moreover, Jacobidentifiedthese peoples as "the cursedchildren ofthe great family of Japhet[h]." See "A
Discourse ComposedbyMarJacobupon Alexander, the Believing King andupon the Gate Which He
Made Against Agog andMagog," in Ps.-CallisthenesSyriac, pp. 163-208, esp. pp. 177-178 and 197.
314
Should The Book o f the Cave o f Treasures indeedbe the inspirationfor the similar account in The Life o f
the Kings, then the former was almost certainly used in its Syriac original or an unknown intermediaiy.
At some unspecifiedtime, betweenthe mythical eponymK'art'los andthe legendary invasionby
Alexander, the K'artvelians are said to haveforgotten the Creator-God. The culmination of this apostasy
occurredwiththe renunciation the faith establishedby Alexanderwhich includeddue reverence to God
the Creator- andthe introductionof idolatry to K'art'li by Azon, an outsider (i.e.. a non-K'art'velian)
according to K'art'lis c'xovreba? This is important, for according to The Life o f the Kings the worship of
idols was not inauguratedbythe local kings but by a foreigner.8 However, once native royal authority
was establishedby P'arnavaz, the same sourcedivulges that the early K'art'velian kingsjealously
monopolizedthe erection of idols and shrines (even maintaining those built by Azon), thus sustaining and
strengthening idolatry there.
King Aderki and the Birth o f Christ
The narrative of the reignof Aderki (1-58 AD),9 who was by the eighth century believed to have
been the K'art'velian king at the time ofJesus Christ, was subjectedto countless insertions andeditorial
changes. The reshaping of his reignby successive generations of writers andscribes constitutes clearand
deliberate attempts to rewrite tradition, both in the medieval andearly modemperiods. A short notice on
the birth of Christ, if not part ofthe original text, hadbeen insertedalreadyby the time that the Armenian
adaptation ofK'art'lis c'xovreba was copied in 1279- 1311. andis present in the earliest extant Georgian
MSS:
But in the first yearof [Aderki's] reign. OurLordJesus Christ was bom in Bethlehemin
Judea [Bet'lems uriastaisasa]. Andthe magi appearedbefore Himbearing gifts, and
when the magi arrivedin Jerusalem, a report came to Mc'xet'a: "Jerusalemhas been
p. 20-7.^.
8This is true forthe traditionof The Life o f the Kings. We shouldrecollect that Royal List I identifies
Azoy/Azon as a king ofK'art'li. Both traditions admit that Azoy/Azon was responsiblefor introducing
idols to K'art'li. In any event, precedence is given in this studyto the account of The Life o f the Kings.
for that was the source incorporated into the official historical corpus of K'C'. The traditionof
Azoy/Azon as a king did not disappear, however, for it is affordedauthenticity by the Bagratid-eracorpus
ofMok'. k'art'. (which containsRoyal List L) anda brief historical notice by the eleventh-century Arsen
Iqalt'oeli, Metaphr. Nino, p. 391. Arsen does not provide any information about P'arnavaz anddidnot
use The Life o f the Kings as a source though he didexploit other texts in K'C'.
9Aderki, also known as P'arsman I (Pharasamanes), is a historical figure attested in the famous Bilingual
inscription (see ch. 3 ). He is the RokofRoyal List I, and is also known to Tacitus andCassius Dio. See
Toumanoff, "Chronologyofthe Early Kings of Iberia," pp. 11-12 and 14-15 (stemma).
^The Life o f the Kings,
315
capturedbythe Persians." And amongthe Jews who were in Mc'xet'a there was
mourningandweeping. And after twoyears another report came: "The Persians have
notcome to subjugate Jerusalembut tobring gifts to the youthwho has beenbom."
Andthe Jews of Mcxet'a rejoiced. 10
As we haveseen, the authorof The Life o f the Kings equates the experience of the earlyJews
withthe earlyK'art'velians, although the K'art'velians subsequentlywouldemerge as the betterof the
two, for they came tofollowalong the "true"path of Christ But the Jews andtheirfaith were more than
abstract notions to theancient and medieval K'art'velians. Hebrewcolonies hadexisted throughout
Caucasia since pre-Christiantimes. Undertheir influence, some K'art'velians surelycame to knowof
their Godthe Creator. But as the religious pronouncement ofAlexander demonstrates, perhaps these
K'art'velians did not regardthe Creator-Godas an exclusive deity, but ratheras the Godof Gods. It
shouldbe notedthat K'art'velian Jews were reportedlyamongthe initial converts to Christianity, as is
testified even in the much laterLife o f Nino. Should this memorybe an accurate one, this wouldconfirm
the early interactionofthe K'art'velians andthe Jews.
Accordingto The Life o f Nino. Jewish-K'art'velian contacts were paramount in the
Christianizationofcentral Caucasia. That text relates that while the Mc'xet'ian Jews Elioz Mc'xet'eli
("ofMc'xet'a") andLonginoz Karsneli ("ofKars," probablyrefers to his family's original home) were
visiting Jerusalem, theywitnessedthe Crucifixion. Afterwards, they obtainedthe Lord's tunic11 and
transportedit to the K'art'velian royal city. 12 The supposedburial of Christ's robe in Me'xet'a. and the
Jews' involvement, was regardedas an incontestable fact ttyK'art'velian writers already in the
seventh/eighth century. Before this time we cannot be certainof the legend's existence. Inanyevent, the
^T he Life o f the Kings, p. 35^-362- Cf. Arm. Adapt. K'C, pp. 45-46 = Thomson trans., pp. 49-50 . The
frequent reference to Jerusalemin the Nino Cycle, when consideredwith the fact that the earliest
Georgian liturgies werebasedupon those ofJerusalemand Syria, have led some scholars to suggest that
Christianity was introducedto K'art'li fromJerusalem; see., e.g., T. Mgaloblishvili, "K'ristianuli k'art'li
IV-Vss-shi,"Mac'ne-enisa 1 ( 1988), pp. 102- 117, withRus. sum., "Rannekhristianskaia Kartii (IV-V
w.)," p. 117. The latertraditionthat Nino was Cappadocian may also be a memorythat some early
missionaries came fromthat Anatolian region. Although this chapter focuses uponthe image projected in
Rufinus and Georgiansources, the possibility that Nino actually represents waves of missionaries from
Syria-Palestine andCappadocia is, in myview, an attractive one.
11Three Old Georgianterms are used for "tunic": samoseli (batknbgejo); tiloni ((Jjocpoi&o); andsudari
(b<3GJi6o). The latteris precisely renderedas "shroud" while the others referto "linen" or "cloth." All
three terms are employedin the account in which Nino first learns the details of howthe tunicwas
brought to Mc'xet'a: The Life o f Nino in C'x. k'art'. mep'et'a, p. 785+8+13Forthe traditions ofthe tunic of Christ, see M. Tamarati, L'Eglise georgienne des originesjusqu'a nos
jours (1910 ), ch. 4 , "Lasainte Tunique en Georgie," pp. 95-119.
316
entireepisode was inserted into The U fe o f the Kings with the admissionthat it hadbeen derived fromthe
earlier Conversion o f the K'art'li
Inits original form The Life o f the Kings, althoughwritten in the Christianperiod (but on the
basis ofancient material), was not a Christiantale at all, andto be sure, it terminatedprecisely with the
Christianizationof the Crown. Mimicking Genesis, the goal of The Ufe o f the Kings was to narrate the
historyofthe origin ofK'art'li upthroughMihran/Mirian, the first local Christian monarch. Only later,
especiallywith the editorial alterations introducedbythe eleventh-centuryarchbishop Leonti Mroveli.
were numerous Christian/Biblical elements insertedinto the history, includingthe attachingof a version
of The Ufe o f Nino to relate the events surroundingthe conversion of Mihran/Mirian. Since we do not
possess MSS earlierthan the late thirteenthcentury, the Christianizationofthe text of The Ufe o f the
Kings cannot be tracedincrementally. We shouldrecall that the tale of Aderki, allegedly the K'art'velian
sovereignat the time ofthe birthanddeath of Christ, was subjectedto massive editorial alteration, and
this is particularlyconspicuous in MSS of the eighteenth-century Vaxtangiseuli recension.
The resculptingof Aderiris tenure is astonishingly evident in the P'alavandishviliseuli codex
(P/p). Its account of Aderki was originally written innusxuri script andwas part of the older P document
(1719-1744). However, there are numerous mxedruli accretions andalterations throughout. The
incorporationoflengthy marginalia, changes to thenusxuri text, theblotting out of selectednusxuri
passages, and even some explanatory "footnotes" characterize this sectionofthe codex. Inaddition, the
Andrewlegendwas written in mxedruli on newparchment andinsertedinto the codex. ^ In two preVaxtangiseuli MSS, CQ, the narrative of Aderki is defective or missing (as in C). At least one
Vaxtangiseuli MS, D, is also damagedfor this account Finally, some MSS, such as m, specially
distinguish this passage about Aderki. The mvariant begins in distinctive red ink: "Andin the first year
ofthe reign [ofAderki] was bom Our LordJesus Christ."15
Certain Vaxtangiseuli MSS ofK'art'lis c'xovreba incorporate a relatively lengthy medieval
Georgianversion of The Wandering and Preaching o f the Apostle Andrew into the account of Aderki. ^
This particular insertion appears only in Tpband also B (the last compiled by Brosset). That is to say,
this detailedand relatively late account of Andrew'sactivities in western "Georgia" was placedwithin the
royal historical corpus ofK'art 'lis c'xovreba only inthe first decade of the eighteenth century, though it
hadbeentranslatedinto Georgian already in the eleventh century. The importance ofapostolicity in
p. 3622-23
^K eklnstM S # H-988, It 17r-18v; the nusxuri text resumes at I 19r.
^5Kek.InstMS # H-2135,1 74 .
*%orthis insertion, see The U fe o f the Kings, pp. 38-42 . See nowThomson, trans., pp. 355-359.
^The Ufe o f the Kings,
317
K'art'li was a relatively late development Moreover, the notion that the alleged preachingof Andrew
and Simon in Ap'xazet'i andEgrisi was tantamount to these apostles having evangelizedGeorgia is a
considerably lateridea that couldnot have predatedtheunification ofeastern andwestern "Georgia" (in
1008).17
The apostolicclaims of the K'art'velian Churchwill be consideredinfra, but it shouldbe noted

that at the time The Life o f the Kings was originally composed (ca. 800). the Andrewlegend had not yet
crystallizedamongK'art'velian clerics. But when the Arm/AMS ofthe Armenianadaptationof K'art'lis
c 'xovreba was copied in the late thirteenth century, the notion of apostolicity had alreadybecome weighty.
Although Arm/Ais wanting for the longer insertions characteristic of Vaxtangiseuli MSS, it does briefly
referto the apostolic origin of the K'art'velian Churchduring the reign of Aderki. Arm/Areports that
Andrewand Simonthe Canaanitevisited Ap'xazet'i/Egrisi. Following Simon's demise in Nikop'sia,
Aderki learnedof Andrew's Christianization of this western region andretortedby reinstating idol
worship there. Forthe time being, Christians were compelledto practice their faith secretly. The
corresponding passage in pre-Vaxtangiseuli GeorgianMSS offers the same basic account, although the
reference to Aderki reviving idolatry in the regions convertedby Andrewis missing:
Andduring the reignof Aderki [two] of the twelve holy apostles, Andrewand Simon the
Canaanitecame to Ap'xazet'i andEgrisi. Andthere the holy Simon the Canaanite w as
martyredin the city ofNikop'sia. onthe Greek [i.e.. Byzantine] border. But Andrew
converted [to Christianity] the Megreli-s and [then] he traveledalong the Klarjet'ian
Road19
It is possible that the original Georgian account included this notice, with later pious editors removing it
so as to make this enlightenedK'art'velian contemporaryof Christ, although himselfnot a Christian,
more palatable.
Froma relatively early time, the Georgian historical tradition classified Aderki as the
K'art'velian king who reigned at the time of Christ Though the historical tradition does not seem to have
connected Aderki directly with Christianity, by the ninth/tenth century hagiographical works did Thus
The Life o f Nino incorporates a special account about the tunic which is attributed to the Christianized
17The designationSak'art'velo ("all-Georgia"), which itselfgainedcurrency shortly afterunification in
, appears in the insertion, furtherdemonstrating its relatively late origin: ibid., p. 3821ft
loArm. Adapt. K 'C\ p. 47 4_17 = Thomson trans., pp. 50-51 . This passage is translatedinfra. It should
be notedthat this account assumes that Aderids authority extended into the western regions.
1977ie Life o f the Kings, p. 3824_28- By traveling along the Klaijet'ian RoadAndrewwas made to have
preachedin the region ofKlarjet'i.
1008
318
Jewishpriest, Abiat'ar (Abiathar). Although the seventh-centuryConversion o f K'art'li is acquainted

with the tunic legend, it is an innovationofthe later Life o f Nino that King Aderki was associatedwith
this relic. According to the later tradition, once the tunic was brought to Mc'xet'a, its powers became
celebrated. Eliozs own sister clutchedthe garment to her chest, whereupon she died instantaneously.
News about the tunic reachedAderki, and he made it be knownthat he desiredto addthe artifact to his
treasury. Theking himselfunsuccessfullyattemptedto dislodge Christ's robe fromthe hands of the
deceasedwoman. Having no otherrecourse, the populace buriedthewoman togetherwith it Someyears
latera relativeof Aderki attemptedto locate the robe, but he could learn only that it "was buriedneara
cedar fromLebanon"which stoodto the west ofMc'xet'a.
To recapitulate: The Conversion o f K'art'li is acquaintedwith the tradition that Christ's tunic had
beenbrought to Mc'xet'a by some Jews, but their identification, the ascription of this episode to the reign
of Aderki, andthevarious tales concerningthe relic's miraculous powers are relatedonly in the later Life
ofNino. It is obvious that the author of The Life o f Nino was not immune fromembellishing existing
sources. Inthis regard. The Ufe o f Nino contends that God's favorfor the K'art'velian community was
furthervalidatedbythe fact that the mantle ofElijah (Elia) couldalso be found in K'art'li.21 This
statement has no extant antecedents andis likely the reflection of a relatively late tradition. Inany event
the fact that Elijah's mantle couldbe saidto rest in the K'art'velian domains suggests that by the time of
the compositionof The Ufe o f Nino, thecult ofElijah whomthe K'art'velians considered to be a saint
- hadalreadytaken root.
It is worthemphasizing that the earliest extant version ofK'art'lis c'xovreba. ironically
preservedin Armenian, suggests that Aderki opposed the Christianization of western "Georgia" andthat
he reimposed idol worshipthere following the visitation of the apostle Andrew. All sources concur that
Aderki was not a Christian, though certain events occurring during his reign were later understood to
portendthe impending triumphof Christianity.
Rev I "the Just"
The extant versions of The Ufe o f the Kings suggest that the final Christian influences filtering
into K'art'velian lands prior to the conversion of the Crowncoincidedwith the reign of Rev I mart'alt.
in C'x. k'art'. mep'et'a, pp. 99- 101.

21
Ibid., p. 10721 "M311*16"*s rendered in Georgian as xaleni (bigjgBo); Thomson gives the Eng. "skin
cloak."
The Ufe o f Nino
319
"theJust"(189-216 AD).^ Revs wife was a Greek/Romanwomannamed Sep'elia. who reportedly

brought an idol of Aphrodite to K'art'li:
This King Rev. although he was a heathen [carmart'i\, was merciful and the
championof the oppressed, for he hadbeeninformeda little about the Gospel of Our
LordJesus Christ, and he hadsome love forChrist And during his reign he prohibited
the sacrificing of youths in K'art'li, since previously (before him) children used to be
sacrificed in front of the idols as offerings. Andso long as he was king no one
sacrificedyouths to the idols, however sheep andcattle couldbe sacrificed [to them].
Thus he was called Rev "theJust"...^
The Armenianadaptation ofK'art'lisc'xovrebadiffers slightly:
The king was merciful andan avenger forthe oppressed Knowing a little of the
dispensation ofour Lord he loved Christ He preventedthe K'art'velians from
human sacrifice, but worshipped the idols andhadoxen and sheep sacrificed His
name was called Rev, which means Victor.^
Boththe Georgian andArmenianversions report that Revprohibitedhuman sacrifices.
This passage reflects the final step in the steady, butgradual, progression of the K'art'velians
andespecially the K'art'velian monarchy, the very embodiment ofK'art'li according to the Georgian
historical tradition towards Christianization. Thus, TheUfeoftheKingsdepicts the K'art'velians as
havingbeen familiarwith Godthe Creatorat the time of the founding of Caucasia. Their knowledge of
the Creatorapparently fell into abeyance (just priorto Alexander); then theybecame refamiliarizedwith
the "unseen" Godthe Creator, along with the Sun, the Moon, andthe Five Stars (at the command of
Alexander). Finally, the K'art'velians plummeted into idolatry withthe introductionof the idols Gac'i
and Gaimby Azon, Alexander's administrator. But then TheUfeoftheKingssets the stage for the
triumphof Christianity by showing that a pre-Christian K'artvelian king. Rev. was "enlightened"
throughhis acquaintance with the teachings of Christ Rev, harboring "some love" for Him, forbade the
furthersacrifice of children to the K'art'velian idols. Yet more than a century expiredbefore the first
K'art'velian king wouldopenly confess Christianity.
Rev I is not attestedoutside of Georgian literature; see Toumanoff "Chronology of the Early Kings of
Iberia,"p. 17. Toumanoffnotes that mart'ali, "the Just" is "anobvious translation of AIKAIOE, one of
the epithets most frequently used in the intitulatioof the ArsacidGreat Kings" {ibid., p. 17, footnote 75).
Rev is the truncated, Georgian formof the Iranian Rewniz.
^TheLifeoftheKings, p. 58$_j j.
Ârm.Adapt. K'C', p. 62 j5^-=Thomson trans., pp. 69-70.
320
II. TWO MEMORIES, ONE KING: THE PERSIAN MIHRAN AND THE CHRISTIAN MIRIAN IN
THE GEORGIAN HISTORICAL TRADITION25
Two distinct Georgian traditions ofKing Mihran/Mirian m (284*361 AD), the last "heathen"
andthe first Christian king of the K'art'velians, survive. First, the ca. 800 Life o f the Kings2**portrays
Mihran/Mirian in muchthe same terms as the pre-Christian monarchs who preceded him. Although its
anonymous historian is aware of the tradition that Mihran/Mirianwas the first Christianking of the
K'art'velians, his own account focuses uponthe pre-ChristianMirianandends precisely with his
conversion. Second, the seventh-century Conversion o f K'art'li relates the conversion ofthe K'art'velian
monarch)'; this text servedas thebasis of the embellishedninth-/tenth-centuryLife o f Nino. These two
texts, which formthe core of the so-called Nino Cycle, are concernedwith Mihran/Mirianboth before and
afterhis acceptance of the Christian God. Unlike the narrative of The Ufe o f the Kings, the Mihran/
Mirianof these two hagiographical sources is effectively subordinate to the holy woman Nino, the
enlightener ofK*art'li. It shouldbe saidthat althoughthe extant traditionofMihran's/Mirian's
conversion is both relatively late andexaggerated, Mihran/Mirianwas a historical figure. Besides
Georgian sources he is knownby name to the contemporary Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus.27
The Pre-Christian Mihran o f The Life o f the Kings
dresses the first Christian king of the K'art'velians in a Persian guise, the
same wardrobe that it employedfor the pre-Christian kings. The last king to die a "pagan"before
The Ufe o f the Kings
^This section specifically examines Georgian accounts of King Mihran/Mirianandtreats the holy
woman, Nino, only peripherally. A more detailedconsideration of the Georgian and non-Georgian
traditions of heractivities is foundin the following section. It shouldbe saidthat we knowextremely
little about the historical Mihran/Mirian. No single coherent narrative ofthe events of the time can be
offered here owing to the multiple traditions createdover the course of manycenturies. The discussion of
Mihran/Mirian thus seeks only to disentangle the layers of traditions andto identify the various levels of
historical rewriting andrevision; that of Nino endeavors to demonstrate howthe conversion tale was
embellishedover the centuries andalso to comment upon the reportedandactual process of
Christianization amongthe K'art'velians.
2^Not including the insertedUfe o f Nino.
27Ammianus Maicellinus, XXI.vi.8, pp. 120-121, who knows Mirian ca. 361 ADby the Classical form
Meribanes: "Ante omnia tamen Arsaces et Meribanes, Armeniae et Hiberiae reges..." Mirian is also
mentioned in the early eighth-centuryHistory o f the Armenians ofMovses Xorenac'i, n.86, pp. 238-240.
See also Toumanoff; "Chronologyof the Early Kings of Iberia," pp. 21-24 .
321
Mihran, Asp'agur I (265-284), hadpassedawaywithout a male heir. Priorto his death he reportedly
negotiatedwith the Persianking, identifiedas "K'asre Sasaniani" (i.e., Khusrau the Sasanid). and
arrangedthe marriageof his daughter Abeshura with Mihran, son ofK'asre. Mihran,'2**the future
Christianking MirianIII. is thus describedas a scion of the Persian royal family2*5and not as a native
K'art'velian. However, his wife Abeshura was at once a K'art'losiani. an Arshakuniani. anda
Nebrot'iani (a royal descendant ofNimrod, equatedwith contemporaryK'art'velians with the early ruling
dynasties of Persia). Mihran is explicitly identified as a memberofthe imperial Sasaniddan. andthus
anychildren resultingfromthe Mihran-Abeshura unioncouldclaimto have bloodlinks to several
influential Near Eastern royal houses.30
Mihranallegedly ruledas "absolute lord" (qovlisa up'ros) over all the dties of K'art'li Somxit'i
(GreaterArmenia), andRani (Caucasian Albania), that is, the three major kingdoms that laterconstituted
Christian Caucasia. This contention almost certainly post-dates the schismof607/608 . By the time of
Mihranthe nobilitywas well entrenchedandoftenchallenged royal authority. Thus, upon his accession.
Mihranwas compelledto take an "oathandcovenant(pic'i da aght'k'ma) by which he confirmedthe
spaspeti Maezhani andall the erist'avi-s in their places. Therefore, Mihran. a Persianbybirth, through
his marriage to the daughterof the previous K'art'velian king Asp'agur I. securedhis right to be the king
of theK'art'velians.
We have already seen that even prior to Mihran some K'art'velian rulers were outsiders.
However, some link with the P'amavaziani dynastywas customarily demandedfromthe elite circles, or at
least deemednecessaryby the laterauthor, and thus we find the Persian Mihran marrying into that family.
But the case of Mihranis somewhat different, since for the first time the texts supplyconcrete examples of
howa non-K'art'velian king couldwin the favor and loyaltyof his subjects. Mihran is said to have been
sevenyears of age when he was marriedto Abeshura andsent to K'art'li as king. The bipartite nature of
I employ the Persianform"Mihran" to refer to that king before his acceptance of the ChristianGod
(i.e., the traditionof The Life o f the Kings) and the Georgified "Mirian" for that king as a Christian (i.e..
the Nino Cycle).
Cf. The Life o f the Kings, p. 64 , where Mihran is called the "illegitimate" son ofKasre Sasaniani.
Later, ibid., pp. 67-68, Mihranbattled against his brothers forthe throne of Persiaafter the deathoftheir
father. He was accusedof being the son ofa handmaiden [mq'evlisa]. Toumanoffoffers this explanation:
in 283 ADthe Roman emperor Carus defeatedPersia, yet Cams' death soonafterusheredin a periodof
internal strife. During this periodthe Persians tookadvantage of the extinction ofthe K'art'velian
Arsacids replacing themwith a Persian dynasty, the Mihranids, one of the Seven Great Houses of Persia.
Thus, "theassertionthat [Mirian] was not a legitimate son ofthe Great King is a wayof admitting that his
originwas in reality not imperial Sassanidbut rather princely Mihranid." See Toumanoff "Chronology
ofthe Early Kings of Iberia," p. 22 .
3077reLife o f the Kings, pp. 62 -64 .
322
Mihran's identity is evident by the fact that he was "namedMihranin Persian, but Mirianin Georgian."31
TheUfeoftheKingsrelates that fromanearlyage Mihranacculturatedto K'art'velian society;
AndMirian was brought upin his childhoodwith [both] the seven idols [ofthe
K'art'velians] and [Persian] fire[-worship]. But he loved the K'art'velians. and he
forgot the Persianlanguage andhe learnedthe Georgian language. He increased the
decorationof the idols andaltars, andhe treatedthe magi well; andmore than all [the
other] kings ofK'art'li he venerated [the local] idols, and he adornedthe grave of
P'arnavaz. He did all ofthese things so as to please the K'art'velians; and he treatedthe
K'art'velians well [giving them] gifts andeverykindof honor. Andall the
K'art'velians lovedhimmorethanall [theirprevious] kings. Andthus Mirian reigned
fromMc'xet'a over K'art'li, Somxit'i [Le Armenia], Rani [Le., Albania], Hereti,
Movkani, andEgrisi.3^
Thus Mihranessentially becamea K'art'velian, andonce he ascendedthe throne, our historian places no
emphasis upon his non-K'art'velian birth. Therefore, at least with regards to the ca. 800 author,
K'art'velian identity was composedof three chiefelements; first, the Georgian language; second, the
K'art'velian religion embracedbythe king ("paganism," then Christianity); andthird, the nascent, shared
historical tradition. An outsider, should he/she acculturate linguistically, religiously, and "historically,"
couldbe regardedas a K'art'velian even though he/she might not be descendeddirectly fromthe
K'art'velian eponym(as with Mihran). Sharedinterests wouldseemto have taken precedence or were
at least as significant as biological relationships.33 In the instance of the ruling strata, we have already
3*/&/., p. 64g:"... 60183236* 36^13* 63*6 6 )23*S 3o3 6 *6, 6012301
8o6o*6 [...
romelsaerk'uasparsuladmihran, xolok'art'uladmirian)." The Mc'xet'ian recension (MQm) ofK'C'
offers the variant "Mirihan" for "Mihran."Arm.Adapt. K'C'uses the formMihran throughout as does
Xorenac'i.
J*Ibid., p. 6 5 j5_23: "C94 A2ob*6OA 3o6 o*6 86*63636*6* 8*6 3 o6* 8510 3*oi 336801*6* fg*
33062306*6*. 6012301 83oyj*66A ^600332560, S4
63 a6 6 q 2SO jg* 06^*3* 36*
cgi 38a<*)a 3333016* 336801* a 6018016*, 3301023*09 o3 y6 6 * îg6 wj35o
336600*60, {g* 30133250)* 833303* ,3*6002306*0)* Q33(*)3b *Q*b6<j]2536a* 86*6^)636*6* 3*6
336603*6*, a* 83*8301 6*323*30 5*66*3*^060. 6012301 363 5)0133230 ^*60)332300*
6*006013606*0136 J36a, a* 3303023*3 o6y66* ^*600332360 Bogo* * 3013230* 0336001*.
a* 830313*636 030 301332300* ^*60332300* 383(^)36 301332301* 833300*6*. a* 8330163*
366301 3o6 o*6 836300001 3*218*6 3*6236, 601860006, 6*66, 3363016, 8013*3*66 a 4 3366."
This passage speaks volumes about the non-nationalistic milieuofpre-modemK'art'li/"Georgia. Cf. the
areas which Mihrandominated, i.e., K'art'li, Somxit'i, Rani, Heret'i, Movkani, andEgrisi, with the
Caucasian possessions ofthe T"argamosiani-s: Somxit'i, K'art'li, Rani, Movkani, Heret'i, Leket'i, Egrisi,
and (northern) Caucasia (ibid., p. 3). The extensionof Mihran's authorityto the farwestern domains is
almost certainlya reflectionof the ca. 800 notions of "K'art'li."
33I have beendeeply influencedbyR.P. Lindner, "What Was a Nomadic Tribe?," CSSH24 ( 1982), pp.
689 -711 .
I ?
oia
323
seen howa genetic comminglingwith other royal dynasties was regardedas paramount. Simply put
though the origin of the bulkofthe K'art'velian community was tracedto JaphethandTogarmah,
nevertheless there was no medieval emphasis upon pure K'art'velianblood.-*'*
The fact that Mihranwas believedto have become a K'art'velian is madeclear fromthe moment
ofthe deathofthe K'art'velian Abeshura. his first wife. The author of The Ufe o f the Kings lamentedthis
event, for he believedthat it markedthe endofthe "kingship andqueenship(mep'oba da dedop'loba)of
the Pamavaziani dynasty.3^ At that time Mihran was only fifteen years old. Yet he hadallegedly
assimilatedto his newsurroundings and he was well-liked by the K'art'velians. Opposition to his
remaining in poweris not recorded.36 Moreover, Mihran is not saidto have beencoercedto take another
K'art'velian wife. Accordingly, he marriedNana, a woman "fromGreece, fromPontus... a daughter of
Olighotos." Shouldthis be anaccurate statement, then it wouldseemthat Nana's fatherwas some Roman
official (cf. Olighotos andthe dignity logothete) who was stationed in the region. Toumanoffspeculated
that "Pontus" here actually refers to the Kingdomof the Bosphoros, which still existed in Mihran's
time.3^
Sasanidroyal imagery', which dominates the extant descriptions of the pre-Christian K'art'velian
monarchs, was likewise appliedto the last "pagan"/first Christian king. While The Ufe o f the Kings does
not specifically call Mihranagoliat'i or bumberazi, he is described in precisely those terms, like his heroking predecessors. This is demonstratedbythe account of the alleged invasionofAnatolia by Mihran and
the Persianshahanshah just before the conversion of the former. Crossing throughArmenia. T rdat (Gk
Tiridates), the first ChristianArmenianking, capitulated and his realmwas plundered Likewise, the
Roman emperor Constantine was unable to withstand them, and in a panic is reportedto have embraced
the Christian God! Thereafter Constantine expelled the invaders andsecured his borders. Thus, the
K'art'velian tradition does not place Constantine at Milvian Bridge in 312 - when, according to
3<*A s we shall see, the K'art'velian Bagratids were outsiders and likewise acculturated However, at least
fromthe eleventh century, they sought to preserve their blood by intramarriage lest their Davidic ancestry'
be lessened In any event, the K'art'velianBagratids never claimedthe same descent as the K'art'velian
community, and the two were conceivedin different terms.
Recently Goiladze, P'amavaziant'a saxlis k'ristian mep'et'a k'ronologia (1990) has hypothesized that
the early Christian kings were actually relatedto the P'amavaziani-s. But forus it is significant that the
historical tradition remembers that dynasty as frilling into extinctionon the eveofthe triumphof
Christianity in K'art'li. Sucha memorysuggests that medieval Georgian historians envisaged the
Christianization ofthe K'art'velian monarchy as a distinct breakwith the past. Ironically, the
P'amavaziani lineage was replacedwith a Sasanidone even though representinga specifically
Christian line. This is yet another indication of the Persian heritage of antique andmedieval K'art'li.
3677reUfe o f the Kings, p. 66.
-^Toumanoff, "Chronologyof the EarlyKings of Iberia," p. 23, footnote 91 .
324
Eusebius, he hadhis fateful vision but ratherassociates the conversion of Constantine with the
menacing invasion of Mihranand the shahanshah. Our K'art'velian historian assures us that this is the
account relatedin The Conversion o f the Greeks, perhaps Eusebius was intended, but no Greektradition
knows a K'art'velian/Persian stimulus for Constantine's conversion.^
Mihran's prestige was enhancedby the marriage of his son Rev Q(co-king 345-361 AD) to
Salome, daughterofthe Armenian king Trdat Rev and Salometookup residence at Ujarma. Rev seems
to have heldUjarma (i.e., in Kaxet'i, the regionjust east ofK'art'li) as an appanage. However, he never
becamethe seniorking as he precededhis father in death.39
The Ufe o f the Kings gives only a fleeting indication that Mihran became a Christian. The Ufe
o f the Kings incorporates only two laconic statements about the conversion of Mihran. It is worth
stressingthat its authordoes not repeat anyof the details whichappear in the inserted Ufe o f Nino or even
those of The Conversion o f K'art'li:
This Mirian, in his old age, came to knowGodthe Creator, and he came to accept the
Gospel of the apostles throughthe holy Nino. Andhe became a confessor of the Holy
Trinity anda devotee of the Honorable Cross.40
Andthe final passage fromThe Ufe o f the Kings:
At that time our holy and blessed mother andbaptiser [embazi) Nino arrivedand
she remained in Mc'xet'a for three years and she hadproclaimed [her] praise for the
faith of Christ, and she had healed [the sick] without medicines, and she began to
boisterously praise the true faith of Christ Our God4*
->o
The Ufe o f the Kings, pp. 69 -70 . In connection with Constantine I. this work contends that the
Armenianking T rdat (Trdat. Tiridates the first Christianking of the Armenians) won fame by
assisting the Greeks with a raid against the Goths (ibid.. p. 68). The tradition of The Ufe o f the Kings
about the conversion of Constantine "the Great" is at odds with theolder traditionof Conv. K'art 'li. In
that latter source we learn that Constantine accepted the ChristianGod having been informedabout
Christianityby a certain man from Ephesus. Inthis source the K'art'velians are accorded no role
whatsoever in his conversion (see Conv. K'art'li, p. 83).
3977/e Ufe o f the Kings, pp. 70 -71 .
40Ibid., p. 64p.jj.
4 1/6/d., p. 71^_y. Qauxch'ishvili in K'C'^, p. 71, footnote 1, notres that some Vaxtangiseuli MSS adda
datefor the conversion. Arm. Adapt. K'C', Thomsontrans., p. 84, places the correspondingpassage
within The Ufe o f Nino. However, by his own admission, the titles used in the Armenian adaptationdo
not appear in the extant MSS.
325
We do know that The Ufe o f Nino was composed after The Ufe o f the Kings, and the former's description
o f the conversion o f M ihran could not have been known to the ca. 800 author o f the latter. The version o f
The Ufe o f Nino that follows The Ufe o f the Kings must have been appended at a later time. However.
The Ufe o f the Kings seems to make reference to The Conversion o f K'art'li. a text written as early as the
seventh ce n tu ry .^ It is entirely possible that this reference was itself a later accretion. In fact, it falls
within the reign o f Aderki the account o f whom was infected with numerous later insertions and
elaborations, including those about apostolic activity in Egrisi/Ap'xazet'i.
I am not convinced that the author o f The Ufe o f the Kings was directly familiar with The
Conversion o f K'art'li. Be that as it may, I can imagine three reasonable scenarios: first the author of
The Ufe o f the Kings did not know o f the Conversion text but was aware o f the tradition (enshrined in.
and perhaps stemming from it) that M irian was the first Christian king o f the K 'a rtvelians: second, the
author himself inserted or paraphrased an account of Mirian and Nino from The Conversion o f K'art'li.
but later this short account was subsequently replaced by the embellished Ufe o f Nino-, and third, our
anonymous historian is actually an eleventh-century writer and therefore him self appended The Ufe o f
Nino to the text this might explain why The Ufe o f the Kings says almost nothing about Mirian
posterior to his conversion.
The original author o f The Ufe o f the Kings did not assess the Christian history' o f K 'art'li. at
least in this particular text. His is the only recounting o f pre-Christian times to have been incorporated
into the royal historical corpus o f K'art'lis c'xovreba, and only two other extant texts. The Primary
History o f K'art'li and Royal U st I (both found in Mok'c'evay k'art'lisay). are likewise confined to the
pre-Christian period. That is to say, with only three extant exceptions, Georgian historical literature is
concerned with the Christian era. Notwithstanding, The Ufe o f the Kings, The Primary History o f
K'art'li, and Royal U st I all seem to have been written by Christian authors, or at least, by authors who
nourished in the Christian period o f K 'art'velian history. So all survive only in Christian-era MSS. The
pre-Christian K 'art'velian past does not seem to have been particularly popular in any period o f pre
modem Georgian history. A few patriotic historians managed to preserve and in many instances. I
would argue, to create the pre-Christian K'art'velian p ast After the establishment o f the K'art'velian
Bagratids at the end o f the eighth century, no medieval K 'art'velian, and then Georgian, historian
engaged the pre-Christian K 'art'velian past until the early modem period. As we shall see. the Bagratids
did not usually cherish the memory o f their Christian predecessors (and certainly not that o f their preChristian counterparts), yet they did consider the Christianization of the local monarchy a watershed. It is
to the image o f the Christian Mirian that we should now direct our attention.
42Ibid pp. 36-38.
326
The Christian Mirian o f The Conversion o f K'art'li and The Life o f Nino
The Mihran o f The Ufe o f the Kings, the monarch o f the K'art'velians who continued to rule in
the mold o f a Sasanid shahanshah but who happened to accept the Christian God later in his reign, is
portrayed very differently in the hagiographical literature enshrining the activities of Nino. In both the
seventh-century Conversion o f K'art'li and the ninth-/tenth-century Ufe o f Nino, Mirian is a secondary
character, at least in terms o f Nino. True, Nino's ultimate aim was the conversion of the Crown, and the
subsequent conversion of its subjects, yet Nino remains the central figure o f these two texts. It should be
bom e in mind that both of these hagiographies focus upon the Christianization o f the monarchy, although
The Ufe o f Nino does offer some fabulous details about the pre-Christian Mihran.
The Conversion o f K'art'li was composed before The Ufe o f Nino, and constitutes not only one of
the earliest extant historical-hagiographical works in Georgian but also the earliest local text to name
Nino. It commences with the conversion o f Constantine "the Great, the first Christian Roman
em p ero r.^ During his reign, Nino described as a Roman dedop 'ali (usually "queen but here
"princess" or "noblewoman") - accompanied a concourse o f women to Somxit i (Greater Armenia) where
many o f them were martyred. Nino escaped and w ent to M c'xet'a, "the great city, the seat o f kings
[k'alak'i didi, mep 'et'a sajdomelsa]." This text does not report any organized idolatry being practiced by
the inhabitants of M c'xet'a, although later, while preaching in the countryside. Nino did encounter
sporadic idol-worship.44 No idols are named, and the descriptions o f idols and the ceremonies associated
with them so prevalent in The Ufe o f Nino are entirely absent in this earlier work.
Nino entered K 'art'li and, desiring to convert the people there to Christianity, she headed for the
royal city with the intention of converting the monarch, being convinced that his conversion would
prompt the Christianization o f the entire realm. Prior to the king's acceptance o f the Christian God, the
holy woman assumed a passive stance, planting a cross made of grapevines outside the city walls. She
hoped that her ascetic example, and her divinely-granted power o f healing, would entice onlookers into
the ranks o f Christians. Six years after her arrival in M c'xet'a, The Conversion o f K'art'li reports that
Nino succeeded in converting the queen-consort, Nana, who had been healed by the holy woman o f some
terminal illness. A year later, during her seventh year in K 'art'li, King Mirian accepted the Christian
God as a result o f an unspecified miracle.
A more detailed consideration o f the traditions o f Nino follows below. Enough information is given
here so that we may examine the image o f the king. Since there is no single tradition of Nino and Mirian.
and since we shall consider Nino separately below, a certain amount of repitition is required.
^ Conv. K'art'li, p. 89.
327
The king's Christianization was the immediate objective o f Nino, for once the king had adhered
to the "true" faith, she and h er converts would be free to profess their religion openly, perform baptisms,
build churches, and seek mass conversions o f the populace without royal interference. Immediately after
his miraculous conversion, M irian is said to have built the Lower {K'uemo) Church in the royal garden.
Subsequently, Roman masons raised a stone church the Upper (Zemo) Church near the same site (see
map). The Lower Church was the site o f the Living Pillar. Sueti-c' xovelL but The Conversion o f K 'art 'li
does not furnish any of the details about the pillar that characterize the later Ufe o f Nino.
Under the guidance o f Nino. Mirian allegedly wrote a letter to Constantine "the Great" informing
him of his own conversion, and requesting priests so as to establish the faith throughout K'art'li.
Constantine is supposed to have dispatched a bishop, named Iovane (John),4^ a deacon, an icon of Christ,
a letter written by the empress Helena, as well as a fragment o f the True Cross. When Iovane and his
deacon arrived, "King M irean and the queen and all o f their house received baptism... And the king and
all o f K 'artli succeeded in Christianity very quickly."4^
We should pause here to consider the effect o f the king accepting a new god, in this case one who
claimed to be the exclusive deity. Some people surely converted to maintain or even secure the king's
favor, others may have been enticed to the new faith by the promise o f reward (financial, etc.): still others
may have been forced into the faith, be it by royal decree (of which we have no evidence in this instance)
o r literally by the sword In any case, our text is unequivocal in regarding the king's conversion as
param ount The Christianization o f his subjects, for the most part, is depicted as a formality. O f course,
such a rapid and complete top-down conversion is ludicrous. This fanciful explanation may be explained
partially by the fact that the sources were written considerably later than the events they describe, in a
period in which Christianity had definitely trium phed Moreover, later Christian writers sought to avoid
any admission that Christianity, as the only "true" religion, did not immediately vanquish its opponents.
Moreover, we must also wonder how well Mirian. Nana, and their subjects understood Christianity
were they good Christians? How well did they understand the faith? For our sources, the most important
consideration is that the king is understood to have recognized the Christian God as the only god and to
have turned his (and his realm's) back on idol worship.
45 An eleventh century tradition, perhaps written by Ep' rem Me' ire, claims that the first bishop of K' art' li
was consecrated by Eustathius, the recently deposed patriarch o f Antioch. See Ep' rem Me' ire, pp. 8-9 =
Djobadze trans., pp. 59-60. By the twelfth century the tradition that Eustathius of Antioch had been a
prominent force in the development o f the early Church in K 'a rt'li was accepted as fact; his activities are
lauded in the preface to the canons o f the 1103 Urbnisi-Ruisi council. On Eustathius see ch. S.
Conv. K'art'li, pp. 86-87. M irian is rendered as Mirean throughout this text (as in the Shatberdi
codex).
R eproduced
with perm ission
M 'C X ET'A
M odified from K 'u rl'u li xiirot m o d ig h v re k isd ze g le b i
by V. C 'in c 'a d z e and V. O rbeladze (n o t to scale)
of the copyright ow ner.
S A M T 'A V R O
(U p p er C hurch)
Further reproduction
S U E T I-C 'X O V E L I
(L ow er C hurch)
JU A R l
SHIO MGHWME
prohibited
M ONASTERY
without p e rm issio n .
M T K U A R I R IV E R
A RM A ZI
Sueti-cxoveli
cathedral at
M c'xet'a.
Juari church
overlooking
M c'xet'a.
330
The king's adherence to Christianity is manifested in our sources by royal support, financially
an d otherwise, for the new faith. In order to demonstrate the place o f Christianity as the royally
sanctioned religion, Mirian is said to have supervised the construction o f the first church in M c'xet'a. But
the monarch him self was not responsible for the establishment and maintenance o f an ecclesiastical
organization in Kart'li. The earliest attempts in forging a formal K 'art'velian ecclesiastical hierarchy
were reputedly instituted by Constantine, for we read that he dispatched a Greek priest named Iovane to
lead the nascent church. Nino, prior to her death, is supposed to have selected the priest Iakob as the
successor of Iovane. Mirian is portrayed as having possessed no authority in this matter. This contradicts
th e custom in Byzantium whereby the emperor, from the time of Constantine, wielded considerable
influence in the selection o f the bishops/patriarchs o f Constantinople. Moreover, once M irian had
converted, it was Nino who is said to have led the movement to convert the rural population. She was
accompanied by an erist'avi, but Nino who, according to the received tradition, must be regarded as the
de facto head o f the embryonic Church in K 'art'li prior to her death specifically forbade the king's
participatioa
The M irian of the later Life o f Nino is described in much the same fashion, but this text greatly
embellishes the fundamental story o f its own source. The Conversion o f K'art'li. The participation o f the
pre-Christian M irian and his consort Nana in "pagan" ceremonies is emphasized in The Life o f Nino,
though this episode is completely absent in The Conversion o f K'art'li. On all essential points, however,
M irian is portrayed in the same manner in The Life o f Nino as in The Conversion o f K'art'li. Indeed, if
these accounts o f the post-conversion Mirian reflea historical reality, his acceptance o f Christianity must
have dumbfounded him, for he had been the pinnacle o f K'art'velian society, yet in some instances he was
dem oted from this esteemed status by Nino.
In sum. two images of Mihran/Mirian are transmitted in the extant Georgian historical tradition.
First, the "pagan" M ihran o f The Life o f the Kings is described in the Persian mold o f his predecessors.
Only at the very end of the text does the anonymous author relate that M ihran accepted the Christian God
through the intercession o f Nino. The Life o f the Kings was originally not a Christian work but rather an
account o f the pre-Christian K' art'velian kings. It was, however, composed in the Christian (but preBagratid) period, but not necessarily by a cleric. Second, the hagiographical Mirian is depicted in The
Conversion o f K'art ii, and this account was recapitulated and embellished in The Life o f Nino. The
M irian o f these two works, and later derivative ones, was clearly subordinate to the holy woman Nino
after his adoption o f the Christian God. These texts, describing the very Christianization o f the
K 'art'velian monarchy and community, do not portray the king in the Persian garb so characteristic of
pre-Bagratid historical works. The implication with regards to the pre-Bagratid Conversion o f K'art'li is
that its anonymous cleric-author refused to admit the ancient Persian heritage o f K 'art'li. For him,
331
K 'art'velian history began precisely with the Christianization o f the monarchy, and Christianity could not
be advanced by underscoring the ancient nexus o f K 'art'li and Persia. Should we take into account the
findings of this study, namely that the pre-Bagratid K 'art'velian monarchs were described and probably
conceived of themselves in essentially Persian terms, then we may deduce that the M ihran o f The Life o f
the Kings is probably closer to the historical figure than that o f the hagiographic traditions of Nino. This
will become particularly apparent in the next chapter when we shall see that a century later (Christian)
K'art'velian kings still were portrayed and conceived o f themselves as Persian-type monarchs.
III. NINO, THE ILL UMINA TRIX OF K'AR T L I
So King Mirian is in many respects a rather incidental character in the received hagiographical
traditions, both Georgian and non-Georgian, o f Nino. Nino is the principal figure o f The Conversion o f
K'art'li and The Life o f Nino, an d the king's role is limited to being converted so that all o f his subjects
might be baptized. These sources, which represent a conglomeration o f historical and hagiographical
elements, are unique in medieval Georgian literature, for although they do relate (part of) the reign o f a
K'art'velian king, their primary focus is nevertheless upon another individual. Both The Conversion o f
K'art'li and The Life o f Nino portray King M irian fundamentally in the same manner. Now we shall
closely scrutinize the traditions o f Nino herself (transmitted in these same texts), for they more clearly
demonstrate the development and reimagining o f the past.
Indigenous clerics and historians regarded Nino as the enlightener o f the K 'art'velian community
from at least the seventh century. Before that time, we may only conjecture. She is entirely unknown in
the earliest Georgian hagiographical w o rk s.^ Both the fifth-century Martyrdom ofShushanild and the
late sixth-century Martyrdom o f Evstat'i refer neither to Nino nor to the Christianization o f Mirian. The
Conversion o f K'art'li, written as early as the seventh century, is the most ancient extant Georgian source
to relate any tradition of Nino. Its account, as already noted, is exceedingly brief in comparison to The
Life o f Nino, the work that since the ninth/tenth century has enshrined the popular tradition of that saintly
woman. Under the Bagratids, from the tenth and especially the eleventh centuries, the literary interest in
Nino and the conversion o f K 'a rt'li exploded.*** The explanation for this is not altogether clear, but the
^M o d ern literature on Nino is voluminous. Particularly useful are: Tamarati, L Eglise georgienne, esp.
"L'apostolat de sainte Nino en Gdorgie," pp. 159-198; Javaxishvili, "Propovednicheskaia deiatel'nost' ap.
Andreia i sv. Niny," ZhMNP 333 (1901), pp. 77-101; idem., K'art'veli erisistoria, vol. 1 (1928), pp. 162184; Tarchnischvili, "Die Legende der hi. Nino," BZ 40 (1940), pp. 48-75; and Kakabadze, Cmida nino
da misis mnishvneloba sak'art'velos istoriashi (1912). See also: B. Outtier, "La Christianisation du
Caucase," in SSCLSSM, vol. 43a, pp. 553-570; and Braund, Georgia in Antiquity, pp. 246-261.
***E.g.: Kek.Inst.MS # A-19, tt 194v-198r, "Sakit'xavi t'k'um uli cmidisa dedisa ch'uenisa ninoysi
332
Bagratids' special emphasis th at their realm was Christian was certainly a factor. The elaborations o f The
Life o f Nino were further expanded by subsequent writers, notably in The Tale o f the Conversion o f the
K'art'velians, written ca. 1060 by Ep'rem M e'ire to counter Antiochene claims over the K 'art'velian
Church,49 and in the eleventh-century metaphrastic version o f The Life o f Nino written by Arsen
Iqalt'oeli.50
The Georgian Nino tale, therefore, seems to have been first articulated, at least in writing, in the
seventh century. The events described in The Life o f Nino, and to a lesser degree those o f the briefer
Conversion o f K'art'li, essentially follow the same pattern as other Eastern Christian conversion works,
most directly the Syriac Teaching o f Added a n d the Grigorian Cycle/Agat'angeghos (which imitated the
former).5 * As we examine the Georgian traditions o f Nino, we should constantly question their antiquity.
We shall begin here with the earliest known tradition o f K 'art'Iis conversion which is preserved in Latin
and Greek.
The Earliest Tradition o f the Christianization ofK'art'li: Rufinus
Already at the end o f the fourth century, the Latin writer Rufinus, in his Ecclesiastical History.
claims to have met in Jerusalem a K 'art'velian prince (and allegedly future king) named Bakur.3^ Prior
nat'elisghebisat'ws" (tenth century); and Kek.Inst.MS # A-95, CC39r-43r, "T k 'u m u li cmidisa dedisa
ch'uenisa ninoysi" and tl 142r-145v, "T k 'u m u li cmidisa dedisa ch'uenisa ninoysi nat'lisghebisat'ws."
49Eprem Meire, Conv.\ excerpt trans. in Djobadze, Materialsfo r the Study o f Georgian Monasteries,
pp. 59-62.
50 Arsen Iqalt'oeli, Metaph. Nino, pp. 352-396.
51 Thomson, "The Formation o f the Armenian Literary Tradition," in East o f Byzantium (1982). pp. 141142. Thomson gives the basic pattern of The Teaching o f Addai as: (1) scene set for arrival o f a
missionary from abroad [Nino a Cappadocian]; (2) king converted because o f a miracle effected by the
missionary [or in Nino's case, because of her presence in M c'xet'a]; (3) long sermon expounded by
missionary [missing from K 'art'velian conversion accounts]; (4) king encourages church building and
establishment o f a regular ecclesiastical hierarchy [Mirian built the original Sueti-c'xoveli church in
M c'xet'a but he had nothing to do with establishing a church hierarchy other than his request that priests
be sent to K 'a rt'li from Rome/Byzantium]; and, (5) proper succession within hierarchy is arranged before
the death of the original missionary [Nino set the succession o f bishops before her death].
The discussion o f M ihran/Mirian (supra) was based upon Georgian sources and thus represented the
pre-modem Georgian self-image o f that king. His image in non-Georgian sources is not important for
this study, therefore, the non-Georgian texts (and quotations from them) are provided only in this section
about Nino so as to demonstrate the evolution o f the tales about her. For a detailed analysis o f the
conversion o f K 'artli according to Rufinus, see: F. Thelamon, Patens et chretiens au It* siecle: L'apport
de IHistoire ecclesiastique' de Rufin d'Aquilie (1981), ch. 2, "La conversion des Ib&res," pp. 85-122; and
idem., "Historic et structure mythique: la conversion des Iberes," RH 247 (1972), pp. 5-28. M. van
Esbroeck, "Eglise georgienne des origines au moyen age," BK 40 (1982), p. 189, identifies this Bakur as
333
to his accession, Bakur had been charged by the Romans with the defense o f Palestine. The later Church
historian Socrates related that Bakur had been "entrusted with the supreme command in the war against
the tyrant Maximus" during the reign o f Emperor Theodosius.53 Rufinus emphasizes that Bakur was an
extremely trustworthy man.
Rufinus' account was influential among early Church historians, for his tale o f the conversion of
K 'art'li was incorporated into the contemporary ecclesiastical histories o f Socrates, Sozomen. and
Theodoret.5* Socrates history is particularly important, for an Armenian adaptation of it was been made
by the seventh century, and perhaps already in the sixth. The Armenian version o f Socrates was exploited
by the eighth-century Xorenac'i, and we know that many o f the K 'art'velian clerics and learned men of
this period could read Armenian. An undated, but later, Coptic version, apparently based on Rufinus as
well, has come down to us. In it Nino is referred to as Theognosta, whereas the holy woman is unnamed
in the accounts o f Rufinus and the other Graceo-Roman ecclesiastical historians.55
Since Rufinus' account constitutes the earliest tradition o f K 'artli's conversion (in any language)
and claims to be based upon a reliable source, it should be quoted in its entirety:
At that tim e also the Iberian people, who live in the region o f Pontus. accepted the laws
of God's word and faith in the kingdom o f heaven. This so excellent deed was brought
about tty a certain captive woman who had fallen among them, and who led a life o f
faith and complete sobriety and virtue, and throughout the days and nights unceasingly
Varaz-Bakur H (380-394 AD). If this identification is correct, it is perplexing that the Georgian historical
tradition remembers this king as irreligious and as engaging in polygamy (Toumanoff. "Chronology of the
Early Kings o f Iberia,"p. 27). On the other hand, Varaz-Bakur I reigned for only two years (363-365). P.
Ioseliani, A Short History o f the Georgian Church, trans. by S.C. Malan (1983 [repr. 1866]). p. 33.
footnote 33, does not equate Rufinus' Bacurius with the son o f Mirian. Could it be that Rufinus was
mistaken that his source had later ascended to the kingship o f K 'art'li? On the identity of Bakur. see also
Peeters, "Les debuts du christianisme en Georgie dapres les sources hagiographiques." AB 50 (1932), pp.
32-38; and Thelamon, "Histoire et structure mythique." pp. 9-10.
53Socrates, 1.20, cols. 133-134. Bakur is also known through his correspondence with Libanius (see
Peeters, "Les debuts du christianisme en Georgie dapres les sources hagiographiques." AB 50 [1932]. pp.
35-36). Moreover, Ammianus Marcellinus, XXXI. 12, p. 434, knows of the Iberian Bacurius who led the
archers and the Scutarii ca. 378 AD.
5*Rufinus history was also translated into Greek by Gelasius o f Cyzica (for the conversion o f the
K 'art'velians, III. 10). Later sources relying upon Rufinus include the history o f Michael the Syrian,
VQ.3, pp. 258-259 (via the Armenian adaptation o f Socrates). See: Tarchnishvili. "Sources armenogeorgiennes," pp. 30-31; idem., "Die Legende der hi. Nino," BZ 40 (1940), p. 52 etsqq: and Peeters, "Les
debuts du christianisme en Georgie," pp. 30-33.
55Tamarati, L'Eglise georgienne, pp. 165-166 and footnote 4; the Coptic fragment = Bibl. Vat.,
MS.SaTdque (Borgia Museum), pp. 161-162, note 168.
334
offered up prayers to God. The very novelty o f this began to amaze the barbarians,
and they diligently inquired what it m eant She told them simply the truth o f the
matter, namely that she was wont by this to worship Christ her God. The strangeness o f
this name seemed to the barbarians the most astonishing feature o f the whole affair.
As often happens, however, her very persistence aroused among the womenfolk a
certain curiosity to see whether such devotion might not win some reward.
It is said to be a custom among them that i f a child falls ill, it is carried round
by its mother to each individual household, so that if anyone knows o f some trustworthy
remedy, he may administer it to the sufferer. Accordingly, when a certain woman had
carried her ailing child to everyone, as the custom was, but without finding any cure in
all the homes she had visited, she came at last to the captive woman so that she too
m ight declare anything she knew of. The captive woman affirmed that she knew of no
hum an remedy, but assured the m other that her God Christ, whom she worshipped,
could grant the child that deliverance o f which men had lost hope. Placing the infant on
her hair cloak and furthermore offering up a prayer to the Lord, the captive woman then
gave back the child cured to its mother.
The report o f this spread to many, and the renown o f the marvelous deed
reached the ears o f the queen who, being afflicted by some very grave bodily complaint,
was in the greatest desperation. She asked for the captive woman to be brought to her.
The latter, however, declined to go, lest she should seem to diverge from the retiring
way o f life fitting to her sex. Then the queen commanded them to carry h er to the
captive's cell. After laying her likewise on her hair cloak and calling on Christ's name,
the captive woman raised her up immediately after the prayer in good health and spirits.
She taught the queen that Christ, Son o f God Almighty, was the Deity who had
bestowed this cure on her, and that she should invoke Him, whom she ought to
acknowledge as the source o f her life and health. For it is He who distributes kingdoms
to kings, and life to mortal men. A nd the queen, returning joyfully homewards, in
answer to her husband's enquiry revealed the source o f her sudden restoration to
health. But when in his joy at his wife's recovery, he ordered presents to be sent to the
woman, the queen said, "O King, the captive woman prizes none of these things. She
rejects gold, despises silver and nourishes herself by fasting as if by food. The only way
in which we can reward her is by worshipping that God Christ who cured me according
to her prayer."
At that time, the king paid no attention to this and put the matter off, although
his wife often recalled it to his mind. At length one day while he was hunting in the
forest with his retainers, the light o f the day was clouded over with dense murk and
disappeared in the horror o f pitch-black night, making it impossible to proceed. His
companions dispersed in various directions and lost their way, and he remained alone
enveloped in impenetrable gloom, without knowing what to do or where to turn.
Suddenly his spirit, tormented by despair o f being rescued, was lit up by a thought: "If
indeed that Christ whom the captive had preached to his wife was God, then let Him
now deliver him from this darkness, that he too might forsake all other gods to worship
him." And forthwith, as soon as he had made this vow in thought alone, and before he
had time to express it in words, the light o f day was restored to the world, and led the
king unharmed to the city.
Revealing immediately to the queen what had occurred, he summoned the
captive woman, bidding her instruct him in the ritual o f worship, and affirming that he
would from now on venerate no other god but Christ. The captive woman appeared, and
preached Christ the Lord, expounding the rites of prayer and the form o f worship, in so
far as these could properly be known to a woman. In addition, she told them to build a
church, and described its shape.
The king accordingly summoned together all the folk of his nation, and related
the events which had happened to him and the queen from the very beginning. He
instructed them in the faith and, albeit himself not yet initiated into the sacraments.
335
became the apostle o f his own nation. The men rendered thanks to the king, the women
thanks to the queen, and w ith a single mind they set to work to build a church. The
surrounding walls were quickly erected, and the time came to set up the columns. When
the first and second pillars had been raised, and they proceeded to lift the third, they
employed all forms o f machinery and the strength of oxen and men. but when it had
been elevated to a slanting angle, it proved to be impossible by any m anner o f effort to
raise it the rest of the way. The redoubled and often repeated efforts o f all the men
failed to move it from its position, and everyone was reduced to exhaustion. The whole
people w as seized with astonishment, and die king's resolution began to fail him.
Nobody knew what was to be done.
B ut when at nightfall everyone went away, and both the toilers and their toil
fell into repose, the captive woman remained alone on the spot and passed the whole
night in prayer. And behold, when the king and all his people arrived full o f anxiety in
the morning, he saw the column, which so many machines and so many men could not
shift, standing upright an d freely suspended above its pedestal not set upon it, but
hanging in the air about a foot above. As soon as the whole people witnessed this, they
glorified God and began to declare this to be a proof o f the captive woman. And behold,
while they were all paralyzed with amazement, the pillar slowly descended on to its base
before their eyes, without anyone touching it, and settled in perfect balance. After this,
the rest o f the columns were erected with such ease that the remainder were all set in
place that same day.
A fter the church had been built with due magnificence, the people were
zealously yearning for God's faith. So an embassy is sent out on behalf o f the entire
nation to the Emperor Constantine, in accordance with the captive woman's advice. The
foregoing events are related to him, and a petition submitted, requesting that priest be
sent to complete the work which God had begun. Sending them on their way amidst
rejoicing and ceremony, the Emperor was far more glad at this news than if he had
annexed to the Roman Em pire peoples and realms unknown.
These happenings were related to us by Bacurius [Bakur], a most trustworthy
man, him self king o f that very community, and commander o f the Guards in our court
(who was most scrupulous about religion and truth), at the time when he resided with us
at Jerusalem on cordial terms, being then in command o f the frontiers o f Palestine.56
It is worth recapitulating the main points o f Rufinus' account:
1. An unnam ed captive woman was held by the Ka r t ' velians. We do not know the
reasons for her imprisonment, or from whence she had come. She was not
K'art'velian.
2. A child had fallen ill. In accordance with K'art'velian custom, he/she was taken from
R u fin u s, 1.10. This trans. based upon that o f Lang in Lives and Legends o f the Georgian Saints, 2nd
ed., pp. 15-19. Cf. the Eng. trans. by Braund, Georgia in Antiquity, pp. 248-250. The Latin text has been
pub. several times; see, e.g., Peeters, "Les debuts du Christianisme en Georgie," pp. 27-30. The final
paragraph o f this account reads in Latin: "Haec nobis its gesta, fidelissimus vir Bacurius, gentis ipsius rex,
et apud nos Domesticorum Comes (cui sum m a erat cura et religionis et veritatis) exposuit, cum nobiscum
Palaestini tunc limitis Dux, in Jerosolymis satis unanimiter degeret. Sed ad coeptum redeamus." While
Bakur was in Jerusalem, he almost certainly was not serving simultaneously as the K 'art'velian k ing
Rather, Rufinus seems to have taken him to be the future monarch.
336
house to house, seeking a cure. When no remedy was found, the child
was taken before the captive woman who, having prayed to God for His
intercession, cured him/her. Thus the captive woman is credited with the
power of healing through h er God.
3 The (unnamed) queen subsequently fell ill. The queen requested that the captive
woman be brought before her so that she might be cured o f her affliction, but
the captive refused. The queen went to the captive and was cured.
4. The queen, having been healed, reported these events to the unnamed king. He
rejoiced and wanted to send gifts to the captive. The queen explained that the
captive did not seek material compensation, but desired only their conversion.
The king was amazed at that which had transpired; nevertheless, he refused
to venerate the God o f the captive, although the queen frequently nagged him
about the miracles performed by her.
5. Some unspecified amount of time later, the king was hunting in the forest with his
retainers. Suddenly, darkness enveloped all o f them, and in this state o f
confusion, the king thought o f the captive's God. He resolved that he would
forsake "all other gods" should the captive's God assist him. Immediately the
darkness lifted.
6. The king related to the queen these events and he summoned the captive woman. The
holy woman instructed the king "in the ritual o f worship." and informed the
king the method o f building a church, and its plan. The king assembled his
subjects and him self instructed them in the faith: "He instructed them in the
faith and, albeit himself not yet initiated into the sacraments, became the
apostle of his nation."
7. The king immediately began construction o f a church on the captive woman's plans.
The first two pillars were easily raised, but the third could not be placed, even
with machinery. The captive woman remained alone on the site throughout the
night, praying. The king an d his subjects arrived in the morning to find the
column upright, floating slightly above its pedestal. Soon after, the pillar
descended into place, without the aid of men or machinery. (The name of the
church was not specified).
8. An embassy was dispatched to the emperor Constantine "the Great" in accordance
with the advice o f the captive woman. The ambassadors requested that priests
be sent to K 'art'li.
9. These events were related by the (alleged) king Bakur (Bacurius). whom Rufinus
regarded as a highly reliable and trustworthy man.
Rufinus' brief account is similar on many points to the Georgian tradition preserved in the
seventh-century Conversion o f K'art'li and the detailed ninth-/tenth-century Life o f Nino. However,
Rufinus' description o f how the K 'art'velians were converted to Christianity diverges on several points.
First, Rufinus is unfamiliar with the name o f the captive woman, the reason behind her incarceration, and
her identity. More striking is the fact that Rufinus does not relate the name of the king or queen. The
only name known to him is that of his source, Bakur (Bacurius). To Rufinus, Christian K art' li was part
337
o f the "region o f Pontus." Thus, although the K 'art'velians might be barbarians, they were nevertheless
part o f the Roman/Byzantine commonwealth and their connections with Persia were completely ignored/
unknown. The tradition that an embassy was sent by the K 'art'velian king to Constantine "the Great" is a
very old one and is entirely plausible. On the other hand, no independent Graeco-Roman text is familiar
with if Regardless, such an embassy, although pleasing to the emperor, might have seemed insignificant.
This silence regarding the reception o f K 'art'velian envoys by Constantine does not in itself necessarily
suggest that the embassy was a fallacy.
According to Rufinus' source, the conversion o f the K 'art'velians transpired suddenly. Rufinus
himself is unacquainted with other Christian influences in central Caucasia before the miraculous deeds o f
the captive holy woman in the first-half o f the fourth century. The author does not claim that any apostle
had visited K 'art'li, as the later Georgian tradition emphatically pronounces. Moreover, the author
considers the conversion o f K 'a rt'li to have occurred at the moment o f the adoption of the Christian God
by the monarch. This, obviously, is a rather distorted and overly simplified (but contemporaneously
common) image, for the Christianization o f K 'art' li had been a gradual process culminating in the
conversion of the king. But the acceptance o f Christianity by the monarch potentially provided for the
exponential growth o f the Christian Church under the protection and support of the Crown.
The conversion of the K 'art'velians as related by Rufinus served as the basis for the subsequent
accounts of Socrates,^7 Sozom en,^ and T heodoret,^ and much later o f Michael the S y ria n .^ Although
the narratives o f the other fifth-century ecclesiastical historians are clearly based on Rufinus, there are
significant discrepancies. The relationship of the essential points o f the earliest o f these accounts may be
summarized as:
1. The captive woman. Unnamed, unidentified by all sources.
2. The ill child. Socrates child identified as that o f the king; the child was brought to
the captive by its nurse. All sources know o f K 'art'velian custom in taking an
ill child around house-to-house in search o f a remedy.
3. The ill queen. In all sources the queen unsuccessfully summoned the captive.
Subsequently, the queen herself appeared before the captive and was healed.
Sozomen explicitly states that the queen embraced Christianity at this point
(implied by others).
57Socrates, 1.20, cols. 129-134.

^Sozom en, 0.7. cols. 949-954.
59Theodoret, 1.23, cols. 971-974.
^Michael the Syrian, vol. 1, pp. 258-259.
338
4. Gifts and king's reaction. Theodoret - the captive requested that the queen built a
church, but this act was blocked by the king. All the sources relate that the
king wished to send gifts to the captive, but, w ith variations: Socrates - captive
told him that she desired only his conversion an d returned the gifts; Sozomen ~
king wanted to send gifts but the queen said that the holy woman only desired
their conversion; and Theodoret the queen herself offered riches to the
captive, but the holy woman refused, wanting only her to worship the Christian
God. The king rejoiced at his wife's cure but refused to accept the Christian
God in all accounts.
5. King's conversion. The king's hunt occurred on the following day according to
Socrates and some unspecified time later in Sozomen and Theodoret In
Socrates and Sozomen the king and his retainers were struck by the confusion
o f darkness; Theodoret the king was "converted like Paul" and only he.
and not his retainers, was deprived o f lig h t In all accounts, the unnamed king
thought o f the captive's God, whereupon the Sim instantaneously appeared.
6. King reports his conversion. In all accounts the king reported these events to the
queen and summoned the captive woman. The captive woman instructed him
in the faith and provided plans for a church. Socrates "The woman on her
arrival caused the king of the Iberians to become a preacher o f the faith." The
king summoned his subjects to tell them about these events. Socrates the
king and queen preached Christ to them, the king converting the males and the
queen the females' Sozomen - reports the same, except that the holy woman
aided the queen.61 In this way the kingdom was converted as a result o f the
conversion o f the king. No earlier conversions, except that o f the queen, are
related
7. The building o f a church. Theodoret - is unfamiliar with the story o f the raising of
the pillar, although he does report that the king asked the captive how to build
a church. Socrates and Sozomen know about the pillar, Sozomen reports that
the third pillar was miraculously raised (as Rufinus), but Socrates does not
specify which pillar. Socrates specifically states that the church was built on
"the Roman plan."
8. The embassy to Constantine "the Great." All accounts relate the embassy,
Sozomen and Theodoret - the embassy was sent at the behest o f the captive
woman. Socrates the embassy sought an alliance with the Romans, a bishop,
and a consecrated clergy; Sozomen K 'art'velians proposed alliances and
treaties, and asked for priests; Theodoret Constantine selected a bishop for
them.62 Moreover, according to Theodoret, the Christianization of K 'art'li
61This division o f gender in K'art'velian society is also evident in C'urtaveli, Mart. Shush, (fifthcentury). See also G. Charachidzd Le systime religieux de la Georgie paienne (1968), pp. 73-87.
62The bishop allegedly dispatched by Constantine is not named. However K. Salia. History o f the
Georgian Nation (1980/3), p. 70, quoted from an undated Sahidic fragment from a papyrus in the Borgia
collection:
... The blessed Theophanes, returning to the region o f Iberia, found the church built with
zeal and magnificence; they informed him of the miracle wrought by the prayers o f the
339
brought Constantine to the realization that the Christians of Persia required

Imperial protection; thereafter, Constantine sent a letter to the shahanshah
urging him to convert to Christianity (the letter is reproduced at 1.25).
9. Bakur related the story to Rufinus. Socrates names both Bakur and Rufinus:
Sozomen and Theodoret mention neither o f them.
Although there are minor variations to the tale, it is clear that the accounts o f Socrates. Sozomen. and
Theodoret are all based upon the original narrative of Rufinus, who himself relied upon the testimony of
Bakur. Rufinus, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret all incorporate the eight basic points of the
conversion o f K 'a rt'li, and only the last two do not report their ultimate source.
As for the relationship o f Rufinus' account to the later Georgian ones: it is entirely possible, and I
think likely, that The Conversion o f K'art'li used Rufinus' history, or a derivative one. as a source, but this
cannot be firmly established with extant MSS. However, it is clear that the embellishments o f The Life o f
Nino were not borrowed from Rufinus. Instead, those elaborations were invented by a Bagratid-era author
(or authors). The Georgian traditions will be discussed infra.
The Armenian Traditions o f the Conversion o f K'art'li
Early Armenian historical works are entirely ignorant that a saintly woman spearheaded the
Christianization o f the K 'art'velian king M irian (Armenian M ihran). However, after the tale gained
currency among the K 'art'velians in the afterglow of the ecclesiastical schism in 607/608. Armenian
authors began to take note o f i t
The earliest surviving Armenian reference to this holy woman, who was called Nune (cf. Nino),
is in the eighth-century History o f Movses Xorenaci.6^ Xorenaci devotes an entire chapter to Nune and
her role in the Christianization o f the K 'art'velian ruler.64 Thomson has established that Xorenaci's
virgin S t Theognost[a], or rather by the virtue of Christ and His holy Cross. He rejoiced
greatly, and wrote forthwith to the King and the Archbishop in the following terms:
"Theophanes humbly presumes to write himself to those who have trusted him and
installed him as Bishop o f the district o f Iberia..."
This fragment thus identifies the bishop sent to K 'art'li as a certain Theophanes; moreover, the
illuminatrix o f the K 'art'velians is presented as Theognosta ("Knower o f God"). See also Tamarati,
L'Eglise georgienne, p. 164.
The MS tradition o f Xorenac'is history, like that of Georgian historical texts, is rather late. Thomson
in Movses Xorenac' i, "The Manuscripts," pp. 369-370. reports that the earliest MS is from the fourteenth
and sixteenth centuries, while most extant ones date only from the seventeenth century and later. Thus,
this famous Armenian work actually survives in MSS which are only as old as the ones for K'C'.
64Movses Xorenaci, 11.86, pp. 238-240.
340
source for the tale was the Armenian adaptation o f Socrates' Ecclesiastical History (which itself had
appeared only a century or two before) / 5 But Xorenac' i was not a historian who was satisfied to repeat
verbatim the work of others, and he took great liberties in fashioning the Nune tale for an Armenian,
post-schism audience.6 6
Xorenac' i identifies Nune as one o f the companions o f Rhipsime ,6 7 a Roman nun who was
martyred in Armenia after having attempted to escape the unwanted matrimonial advances o f the Roman
emperor. Following the murder o f Rhipsime and many o f her companions, the fortunate Nune fled to
M c'xet'a as a refugee. She reportedly possessed the power o f healing, and is said to have cured the
(unnamed) wife o f Mihran, "the prince o f Georgia [Le., K 'art'li]." We should note that Mihran is
specifically styled as "prince" (arajnord, untujtam) and not "king" (t'agawor, pinquLnp), subordinating him
politically to the king o f Armenia!6**
Mihran, though inquiring about Nino's power o f healing and being informed about the
conversion o f the Armenian king, remained an unbeliever. However, his allegiance to the K 'art'velian
idols was soon cast into doubt, for one day during a hunt the sky darkened and he became disoriented6^
He thought o f the example o f the Armenian king T*rdat - another attempt tty Xorenac'i to subordinate
the K 'art'velian king to T rdat and vowed to worship Nunes G od (Xorenac' i does not state whether
M ihran first prayed to his idols). Consequently, the Suns rays penetrated the dark clouds, and M ihran
triumphantly returned to his capital.
Upon hearing the news o f the M ihrans conversion, Nune dispatched envoys to Gregory the
Illuminator, the Christianizer o f Armenia. Gregory ordered her to destroy the idols as he him self had
done in Armenia. Immediately she destroyed the image o f Armazd, "the god o f thunder."7 No Georgian
65Thomson in Movses Xorenac' i, p. 238, footnote 2.

66For a scathing attack on the Armenian tradition o f the conversion o f K 'art'li, see the nationalistic work
o f Salia, History o f the Georgian Nation, pp. 71-73.
67O n Rhipsime (Rip'sime), see also Agat'angeghos, cap. 5, para. 137-210, pp. 146-217 etsqq.
Agat'angeghos does not nam e Nune/Nino as among the companions o f Rhipsime. This holds true for the
medieval Georgian translation o f Agat'angeghos which now survives only in a fragment (see
Agat'angeghosGeorgian). Thomson in Movses Xorenac' i, p. 238, footnote 2, says that the association
o f Nino with Rip'sime is an invention o f Xorenac'i; if correct, then the similar association reported in The
Life o f Nino would suggest a dependence upon the Armenian Xorenac' i.
6 8 Ps.-Yovhannes Mamikonean, p. 92, also refers to the prince o f Georgia in the time o f Gregory the
Illuminator.
6^That the king's conversion should occur during a hunt is yet another example o f K 'art'li's connection to
the Persian cultural world.
7 Movs2s Xorenac'i, 11.86, p. 239. Should Xorenac'i have been a source for
The Life o f Nino (this is
341
tradition credits Nino herself with destroying the idols o f M c'xet'a. and indeed, the earliest nam e account
(The Conversion o f K'art'li), just like that o f Rufinus (and Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret). has no
knowledge o f any idols in the royal city. (Xorenac'i's is the earliest extant account in any language of idol
worship in pre-Christian K 'art'li). That Nune was said to have immediately established contact with
Gregory is indicative o f Xorenac'i's attempt to subordinate the K 'art'velians to the A rm enians.^ Nune.
in Xorenac'i's eyes, was nothing more than a disciple (and pawn) o f Gregory, and this implied the
subordination o f the Church in K 'art'li to that o f Armenia. Therefore, the conversion o f the whole of
Caucasia was ultimately traceable to Gregory the Illuminator. It should be noted that some scholars,
believing that Xorenac'i's account incorporates some kernels o f historical truth, suggest that Nino was
responsible for having converted the lands north o f the M tkuari River (i.e., K 'art'li), while Gregory' the
Illuminator converted those to the south (i.e Armenia, and th e frontier zone o f Gugark' )7^
Some o f the nobles o f M c'xet'a were profoundly confused, Xorenac'i continues, and they
inquired o f Nino what they should worship. She replied, "The sign o f Christ's cross." The nobles erected
a cross on top o f a hill to the east of M c'xet'a, the later site o f the Juari ("The Cross") ch u rch .^ The
choice o f this site is significant, for the cross was erected not on the location o f the idol Aramazd (and
taking advantage o f the pre-existing sacral nature o f that site), but rather, on a new site, facing east from
the city. Although the Georgian sources do not submit that the K 'art'velians had merely substituted the
veneration o f the Cross for idol worship (but one native source mentions that a cross was fashioned from a
sacred tree), Xorenac'i states that:
And all the people worshipped it in the m ornings from their roofs, just as they' had done
previously. But when they went out to the hill and saw a piece o f hewn wood, no work
o f craftsmen, more than a few despised it on the grounds that their whole forest was full
o f such objects. And they left it and went away. But the benevolent God, looking down
on their stumbling, sent from heaven a pillar o f cloud, and the mountain was filled with
a sweet odor, and there was heard the sound o f a host singing psalms exceedingly
possible but not yet proven), it is likely' that the tale o f K 'art'velian idols and esp. Armazi/Aramazd
was ironically based upon the former, an Armenian source. In any event, the written Georgian tradition
o f K 'art'velian idolatry is a relatively late development.
^ O n the areas evangelized by Gregory the Illuminator, see: N. A p'c'iauri, "Grigol ganmanat'leblis
k'adagebat'a sazghvrebi," mAmierkavkasiis istoriisproblemebi (1991), pp. 85-102, with Rus. sum.,
"Granitsy propovedovaniia Grigoriia Prosvetitelia," p. 102; and P.M. Muradian, "Kavkazskii kultumyi
m ir i kul't Grigoriia Prosvetitelia," Kavkaz i Vizantiia 3 (1982), pp. 5-20.
77
See previous note as well as S. Kakabadze, Sviataia Nino i ee znachenie dlia istorii Gruzii (1912), pp.
5-8, cited in Ocherki istorii Gruzii. vol. 2, p. 51, footnote 28.
^ T h o m so n in Movses Xorenac'i, p. 239, footnote 8 .
342
sweetly, and there shone out a light in the form of a cross, the same in shape and size as
the wooden cross, and it stood over it with twelve stars. At this everyone believed and
they worshipped i t Thereafter miracles were performed by it.7 4
Having secured Christianity within the confines o f the royal city. Nune directed her attention to
the countryside: "she preached beginning from K larjet'i [Arm. Kghaijk'] to the gates o f the Alans and the
Caspians, as far as the borders ofM assagetae ." 7 5 With this event, Xorenac'i's account draws to a close.
Although Xorenac'i's account is ultimately based upon the near-contemporary' narrative of
Rufinus by way of the Armenian adaptation o f Socrates, the story was carefully manipulated. Details were
added so as to give credence to the tale. Marry o f the characters were now explicitly named, including
Nune and Mihran, but not the queen. Nune was transformed from a captive into a "Roman companion of
Rhipsime, who herself would be martyred in Armenia. Xorenac'i is ignorant of, or perhaps chose to o m it
the episode in which Nune cured a child, but he does relate the pivotal healing o f the consort o f Mihran.
Although the king was instructed in the faith after the queen's healing, he did not become a Christian.
Rather, his conversion occurred as the result o f his turning to the Christian God when he lost his way in a
sudden darkness during a hunting expedition. Upon informing Nune about what had transpired, the holy
woman immediately sent messengers to Gregory the Illuminator for instructions. Gregory directed that
Nune should overturn the idols and plant crosses in the same manner as he had done in Armenia.
Accordingly, Nune overturned the idol of Aramazd. Finally, Nune sought to Christianize the K 'art'velian
countryside, from the southwestern region o f Klarjet' i up to Albania and the Caspian Sea. The earlier
Graeco-Roman tradition is completely unacquainted with the holy woman's missionary work outside of
the royal city. In fact, the king is depicted as the "apostle" o f his country after being instructed in the
details o f the faith. Nune is the missionary and Christianizer according to Xorenac'i. yet she is described
as the subordinate o f Gregory the Illuminator.
We cannot state with any certainty whether Xorenac'i was himself responsible for all these
embellishments, or if he merely consigned an existing but altered (and now lost) Armenian tradition to
parchment. Moreover, the late MS tradition o f medieval Georgian texts renders it an extremely difficult
task to reconstruct the indigenous Nino Cycle. The Conversion o f K art 'li was written as early as the
seventh century, but it is conceivable that it was written just after Xorenac'i's history (early eighth
century). Therefore, we must again raise the issue o f whether the K'art'velian tradition o f Nino is itself a
late one based upon Rufinus through some intermediary, perhaps Xorenac'i himself or even the Armenian
74Movses Xorenac'i, n.86, pp. 239-240.
15Ibid., H.8 6 , p. 240.
343
adaptation of Socrates directly? W e shall return to this question directly. In any event, I think it entirely
possible that Xorenac'i's history served as the inspiration for the descriptions o f idols in The Life o f Nino.
For the most part, Armenian historical sources composed prior to Xorenac'i's history are unaware
of, or at least do not relate, any distinct tradition for the conversion o f K 'art'li. The various Armenian
and Greek versions o f Agat'angeghos, The Epic Histories, Eghishe, and Ghazar P'arpec'i do not engage
this theme. It should be said that Xorenac'i himself cites Agat'angeghos for his account o f Nunes
missionary activity throughout Georgia, but no extant version o f Agat'angeghos mentions Nune/Nino.
However, one Arabic recension o f Agat'angeghos (Va), apparently based upon an early, but now lo st
version of the Armenian Agat'angeghos, does allude to the conversion o f the unnamed K 'art'velian king.
Upon his own conversion, the Armenian king T rdat is said to have summoned the monarchs o f the
K'art'velians, the Ap'xaz(l), and the Alans (Caucasian Albanians). Mass baptisms in the Euphrates River
subsequently were arranged by T 'rd at and Gregory the Illuminator. Among the alleged 370.000
proselytes was the K 'art'velian monarch. Afterwards, Gregory the Illuminator, as kat'alikos. consecrated
a metropolitan for the K 'art'velians, as well as bishops subordinate to him. This first metropolitan was a
K 'art'velian who resided in Sebastia named Iblr-b-z-xua.7<* Likewise, Gregory appointed a certain
Sophronius to govern the ecclesiastical affairs of the Ap'xaz, and a certain Thom[as] was charged with
directing the Albanian Church. In short, this Arabic recension of Agat'angeghos is completely unaware
o f the tradition o f Nino/Nune and merely narrates the understanding that the Church in K 'a rt' li was
established at the behest o f Gregory the Illuminator.7 7 In feet, in my opinion, the reference to a
metropolitan cannot predate the T hird Council o f Dwin (607/608) during which it was resolved that the
head of the K 'art'velian Church should hold the rank metropolitan and not kat'alikos
One o f the earliest extant works o f Armenian literature, The Epic Histories, is unfamiliar with
how K 'art'li was Christianized, but it does relate some information regarding its Church. According to it,
the grandson o f Gregory the Illuminator, Grigoris, was appointed in his young age to be the bishop o f the
K 'art'velian domains and Albania (Virk' and Aghuank'). Anachronistically, he is also called the
kat'alikos (Arm. kat'oghikos) o f those regions. Grigor reportedly built and restored all o f the churches of
these regions, and even to have expanded his authority to the southeast.7^ Later, Xorenac'i incorporated
7^M arr in Agat'angeghosArabic, commentary, pp. 171-172, links this nam e with the region of
Samegrelo, for it appears to incorporate the Megrel word squa (here represented by z-xua), i.e., "son."
7 7 Agat'angeghosArabic, pp. 112-115, and 134-139.
7o
Uxtanes, cap. 63, pp. 122-123. That is to say, this account was rewritten after the schism so as to
justify, historically (and through an alleged act o f Gregory the Illuminator himself), the demotion of the
K'art'velian prelate to the status o f metropolitan.
7^The Epic Histories, HI.5-6, pp. 70-73, and Garsoian in ibid., toponomy, s.v. "Virk," pp. 500-501.
344
this information into his history, but he did not count Virk', i.e., K 'a rt'li, as being within Grigoris'
jurisdiction.
on
Regardless, the evidence of The Epic Histories proposes that the Armenians, within two
generations o f Gregory the Illuminator, wielded significant power over the Church in K artl i 81
Early Armenian sources are unanimously unacquainted with Nino/Nune. and this reinforces my
argument that the Georgian tradition o f their own Christianization, at least as it has come down to us. was
largely a product o f the K ' art' veiian-Armenian ecclesiastical schism formalized in the first decade o f the
seventh century.8^ Therefore, The Conversion o f K'art'li represents a distinct K 'art'velian tradition
formulated, o r at least galvanized, in the wake o f the Council o f Dwin HI. The Armenian text of
Agat'angeghos (Aa), written originally in the fifth century but extant in later forms, relates the activities
o f the converter o f the Armenians, Gregory the Illuminator, and knows neither o f Nino nor o f any distinct
tradition of the conversion o f K 'art'li. To be fair, Agat'angeghos was interested only in the experience of
the Armenian community. The so-called Va Arabic version of Agat'angeghos does not mention Nino yet
it imparts that Gregory appointed bishops for a wide range o f Caucasian regions including K 'art'li .83
Xorenac'i echoes this claim by subordinating Nune to Gregory.
On this theme, many successive Armenian sources were influenced by either Xorenac'i or the
Armenian adaptation o f K'art'lis c'xovreba. The latter work provides an account which closely reflects
The life o f Nino as inserted in C'xorebay k'art'velt'a mep'et'a. Nino, however, is known by the
Armenized form Nune, and part o f the account is given in the first-person from Nino's perspective.8^ The
thirteenth-century compiler Mxita r Ayrivanec'i was familiar with the Armenian adaptation of K'art'lis
c'xovreba and o f K 'a rt'lis Christianization; he writes: "The K 'art'velians and [their] king Mihran came
to believe in God by means of Nune ."8 3
In sum, by the eighth century the name Nune, and hence Nino, was associated with the saint who
converted King Mirian. Nino's name was probably known in K 'art' li already in the seventh century from
80Movses Xorenac'i, m .3, pp. 255-256.

8 *The Georgian tradition does not completely deny Armenian involvement in the Church in K 'art'li, but
such influence is underrepresented The prelate Grigor is unknown in Georgian historical literature.
O f course, the Armenian Chinch could have suppressed an existing, local K 'art'velian tradition of
Nino/Nune prior to Dwin m .
8 3 Agat'angeghosArabic, pp. 136-139.
Â rm . Adapt. K 'C', pp. 74-13017 = Thomson trans., pp. 84-145. NB: Thomson continues to refer to the
successive life Succ. Mirian by the name Conv. K'art 'li by Nino with paginal headings. This obscures the
feet that C'x. k'art'. mep'et'a terminates with a text independent o f The Life o f Nino.
8 5 M xit'ar Ayrivanec'i, p. 391.
345
The Conversion ofK 'art'li, but the date o f its composition remains controversial (and its earliest extant
redaction was copied only in the tenth century). Nino is mentioned by name in the ca. 800 Life o f
Vaxtang and herself appears in a dream o f King Vaxtang. A sustained interest in Nino was not inculcated
among ecclesiastical and secular K 'art'velian writers until the Bagratid period, and it has been suggested
that the cult o f Nino, with its paradigm o f a strong woman, was royally sanctioned during the rule of
T a m a r (1184-1213).86 In any case the tradition was well-articulated by the tenth century, and therefore
it is puzzling why Nino is referred to by the Armenized name Nunne (6 3 6 6 3 ), in the canons of the 1103
Ruisi-Urbnisi ecclesiastical council summoned by Davit' II (1089-1125).87 This was the first major
K 'art'velian ecclesiastical council whose acts have come down to us. One o f the goals o f the synod was to
institute ecclesiastical (dogmatic) union with the Armenians (presumably non-Chalcedonians) in the
realm o f K 'art'li. And in the preceding century the K 'art'velian monk E p'rem M e'ire had also referred to
Nino by the similar name Nonna (6oa66i).88 It is unclear why Nino's name would have been rendered in
this seemingly Armenized form (cf. Xorenac'i's Nune, W h t). This confusion may, however, stem from
the fact that the Nino tale was not yet widely circulated in its classical Georgian form even in the
eleventh/twelfth centuries. But this, in my view, is unlikely.
We must also explore the possibility' that the Nino tale, presumably transmitted orally in its
earliest form, was largely forgotten by the K 'art'velians and was resurrected through the Armenian
adaptation of Socrates and the derivative account o f Xorenac' i .8 9 This might seem difficult to believe,
but the feet remains that Nino is entirely unknown in the earliest works o f Georgian literature, particularly
8 <*A. Eastmond, "Royal Renewal in Georgia: The Case o f Queen Tamar." in P. Magdalino. e d . New
Constantines: The Rhythm o f Imperial Renewal in Byzantium, 4th-l3th Centuries (1993). pp. 283-293.
^ A c ts o f Ruisi-Urbnisi, p. 58.
88g p'rem Mc'ire, Conv., p. 8 .
OQ
The memory o f Nino's name was called into question by the early seventeenth-century adventurer Pietro
Delle Valle. In a report to Pope Urban VIII he wrote that:
The Georgians at a very early period embraced the feith of Christ, to which they were
converted by a foreign female slave, about the year 330. By this slave many great
miracles are said to have been performed; her name, however, is unknown, even to the
inhabitants o f the country, notwithstanding they have retained her history, her only
denomination in our martryology being that o f Serva santa Christi. From the Greeks,
I believe, they first received the feith in the time o f the Emperors o f Constantinople, and
in consequence adopted the Greek ceremonies; those they now observe.
Thus the author claims that the Georgians' themselves, in his own time, were unacquained with the name
"Nino!" See "Pietro Delle Valle's Travels in Persia," in J. Pinkerton, e d , A General Collection o f the Best
and Most Interesting Voyages and Travels in A ll Parts o f the World, vol. 9 (1811), pp. 134-135.
346
in the vitae o f Shushaniki and Evstal'i. The narrative of Rufinus is ample testimony to the fact that a
non-K 'art'velian Christian woman was instrumental, or was believed instrumental by some noble
K 'art'velians already in the tim e o f Rufinus, in the conversion o f King Mihran/M irian in the first-half of
the fourth century. Accordingly, the memory o f this woman persisted among educated K'art'velians.
although the traditions about her became obscured with time. We have no indication that a now-lost
ancient Georgian text was written about the holy woman. In the patriotic milieu following the schism
with the Armenians, the K 'art'velians sought to "recover" their past, although a t times this entailed filling
certain lacunae in an imperfect memory, or in creating desirable episodes to justify the present. Thus, in
my view, it is extremely probable that along w ith a vague K 'art'velian oral tradition which had been
handed down from the fourth century, Rufinus1 account (likely through the Armenian adaptation o f
Socrates' Ecclesiastical History) was used to compile The Conversion o f K'art'li. Later, the author o f the
embellished Life o f Nino may have looked to another Armenian text, the history o f Xorenac'i, so as to
describe the pre-Christian K 'art'velian religion (the inclusion in both o f Nino's association with Rip'sime
suggests this). In any event, it should be kept in m ind that these preliminary findings are speculative, but
they are, I think, the most plausible explanations for the evolution o f the Georgian Nino Cy cle given the
extant MSS.
The Earliest Extant Georgian Tradition o f Nino: The Conversion o f K'art'li
The Conversion o f K'art'li is the earliest extant Georgian recounting o f the activities of Nino and
the Christianization of the K 'art'velian monarchy in the fourth cen tu ry .^ Some modern scholars, like
Tarchnishvili and Toumanoff have attributed the text to a certain Gregory the Deacon. But we possess no
contemporary evidence attesting its author. Whoever the author, this text was written as early as the
seventh century and certainly no later than the eighth. It represents, at least in part, a K 'art'velian
reaction to the Armenian/K' art' velian Church schism formalized by the Third Council o f Dwin in
607/608. From that time the K 'art'velian Church was understood by the Armenians as having subscribed
to Chalcedon. With the break, it became necessary for that Church to formulate and perhaps in the
process even partially to falsify its own history, to create one distinct from that o f the Armenians. This
text was engineered precisely to counter the application to K 'a rt'li o f the Armenian tradition,^* which
^Conv. K 'artli, pp. 83-91.

^ E .g .. the subordination o f Nino to Gregory the Illuminator in Movses Xorenac'i. 11.86, pp. 238-239;
an d the Armenian king T rdat's command to the kings of the A p'xaz, K'art'velians, and Alans (i.e.,
Albanians) each o f which is portrayed as subordinate to him and Gregory's appointment of bishops
throughout Caucasia in Agat'angeghos-Arabic, pp. 112-1 IS, 134-139 et sqq. It should be noted that if
Conv. K'art'li was composed in the seventh century, then it was written prior to the history o f Xorenac'i.
But Xorenac'i did not suddenly invent all o f the stories related in his work. In any event, the Armenian
347
depicted the Church in K 'art'li from its inception as being closely bound, and subordinate, to the
Armenian. Therefore, from the seventh century, following Dwin m , the K'art'velians sought to develop
an ecclesiastical history distinct from, but not necessarily hostile to, the Armenian Church.9^ But that is
not to suggest that the Nino tale was a complete figment o f the K 'art'velians' imagination, for we have
seen that already in the late fourth century the ecclesiastical historian Rufinus was informed by a
K 'art'velian prince about a holy woman converting the monarch o f K 'a rt'li. The tale was based upon an
existing tradition (or probably traditions), though it was reshaped so as to express and legitimize the
contemporary situation.
As we have had the occasion to mention, The Conversion o f K'art'li is familiar with Nino by
name. The holy woman is identified as a traveling companion o f Rip'sim e. From an early time. Nino
harbored an intense interest in the Christian dabblings o f the empress Helena. In addition, Nino
possessed the power o f healing and she even baptized women to whom she had preached. It should be
said that women generally did not perform baptisms within the early church. However, in an urgent,
emergency situation in which no priest was available, a baptized woman was permitted to execute the rites
o f baptism .93 It should be said that the anonymous author both relates nothing about Ninos origins,
except that she was a "Roman" princess/noblewoman (dedop'ali), and gives us no indication about how
she became a Christian.
Nino, Rip'sime, and their companions (all o f whom were women), fled to Armenia we are not
told why and there many o f their number were martyred by the still "pagan" King T rd a t Nino escaped
northwards, finally arriving in the Kartvelian royal city o f Mc'xeta. There she practiced her religion,
hoping to win converts o\'er to the faith o f C hrist Following Mirian's conversion, Nino proceeded to the
countryside so as to Christianize its inhabitants. While preaching east o f M c'xet'a, Nino fell fatally ill
and was buried in the village of Bodi. Significantly, this event is explicitly dated, and this may very well
be a later insertion: "Nino placed her soul in the hands o f God fifteen years after her arrival in K'art'li.
and 338 years after the Ascension o f C hrist 5838 years after the Creation [of the world] ." 9 4
Church definitely exerted its claim to be the leading Caucasian Church in the pre-Xorenac' i period.
Although Armenian polemic against the Chalcedonian K'art'velians stems from an early time, the
K 'art'velians did not seriously retaliate until the Bagratid period a few centuries later. In fa c t even
Gregory the Illuminator could still be revered in K 'art' li/Georgia, for we have evidence o f tenth-century
(and later) hymns celebrating that saint: see Marr in Agat'angeghosArabic, p. 154.
93 P. Crego, "Some Problems Concerning S t Nino: Enlightener o f the Georgians," unpub. essay (1990), p.
3.
94Conv. K'art'li, p. 90.
348
If this date is actually part o f the original text, then it is among the earliest calendrical dates
found in all o f Georgian literature. This Creation date at first glance is odd, for it does not correspond to
the Georgian Creation era (234 AD), nor to th e Byzantine (330 AD), nor even to the Alexandrian (346
AD). Rather, this date corresponds only to the eras o f Sextus Julius Africanus and Hippolytus o f Rome.
i.e 338/339 AD.9^ This, I should think, is m ore evidence o f the influence of the writings o f Hippolytus
on pre-Bagratid Christian K 'a rt'li. It should be noted that the Georgian calendrical system, the
k'oronikon, is not mentioned here. The k'oronikon was invented only in the early K 'art'velian Bagratid
period, and its absence may be an indication o f the passage's pre-Bagratid origin. Alternately, the author
may have realized that the k'oronikon was not an old system, and having invented the passage, he
deliberately kept the k'oronikon out o f the formula.
The later tradition that Christ's tunic had been deposited in M c'xet'a during the reign o f King
Aderki is also absent from The Conversion o f K'art'li. The tunic is an exceedingly conspicuous prop in
the ninth-Ztenth-century Life o f Nino, yet that source did not invent the legend. It is already reported in
the mid-tenth century by Giorgi Merch'ule, in his Works o f Grigol Xandzt'eli, who states: "But after this
the great Arsen became the kat'alikoz o f K 'a rt'li in the catholic church in M c'xet'a, in which is the tunic
o f Christ."9* The claim that the tunic o f C hrist was located in M c'xet'a seems to have been formulated,
or at least popularly articulated, in the eighth/early ninth century, and this corresponds precisely with the
entrenchment o f a branch o f the Bagratids in K 'a rt' li and their further development o f the Nino Cycle.
The Popular Tradition: The Ninth-/Tenth-Century Life o f Nino
With the popularization o f the cult o f Nino in the Bagratid period, it was only a matter o f time
before the skeletal narrative o f The Conversion ofK 'art'li was elaborated. Its tradition o f Nino was
known to the anonymous ca. 800 historian o f The Life o f Vaxtang, who depicts Vaxtang as having had a
vision o f Nino. The contemporary author o f The Life o f the Kings exhibits little interest in Nino .9 7 This
Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 374-378. As shown infra. The Life o f Nino in C'x. k'art'. mep'et'a offers the
same dates (except that Nino is said to have passed away fourteen years after her arrival in K 'art'li). This
correspondence is based upon the assumption th at K 'art'li was in fact converted ca. 337 (as calculated by
Javaxishvili, Toumanoff; et at).
^ G io rg i M erch'ule, Works o f Grigol Xandzt'eli, M arr ed., cap. 42, pp. 45 and 119.
97But we know that Nino was held in high esteem by Davit' kuropalates of Tao/Tayk' (966-1000 AD),
for his Processional Cross features Nino on its base. The Cross is now displayed at the Georgian Museum
o f Fine Arts in T bilisi. It is attributed to the goldsmith Asati. See Sh. Amiranashvili, Georgian
Metalworkfrom Antiquity to the 18th Century (1971), pp. 54-55. Monumental painting featured Nino
only from the eleventh century: see idem., Georgian Art (1968), p. 16.
349
is not surprising, for he was consumed by the pre-Christian K'art'velian past. The author does mention
Nino by name in his account o f Mirian, and it appears that a later scribe - perhaps even Leonti Mroveli
him selfattached a version o f Bagratid-era Life o f Nino to that tex t
It should be said that here we shall limit, for the most part, our discussion o f The Life o f Nino to
the version preserved in K'art'lis c'xovreba. As we have noted, a similar, related variant was attached to
Mok'c'evay k'art'lisay. Although the two variants correspond on most points, there are some palpable
differences. For example, part o f The Life o f Nino in Mok'c'evay k'art'lisay is written in the first-person
from Nino's perspective. It also mentions Aryan K 'art'li (i.e., Persian K 'art'li), which is completely'
unknown in K'art'lis c'xovreba. Unless otherwise noted, The Life o f Nino cited in this section is the one
attached to The Life o f the Kings (i.e.. in C'xorebay k'art'velt'a mep'et'a).
The Ufe o f Nino is considerably more elaborate, and more fanciful, than its source. The
Conversion o f K'art 'li. In The Life o f Nino it is said that Nino herself dictated the account o f events
surrounding K 'art'Iis conversion to Salome Ujarmeli (Le., "of Ujarma"), the spouse of a son o f King
M irian and a daughter o f King T rdat o f Armenia. Furthermore, parts o f the work were written from the
first-person perspective of the convened Jewish priest o f M c'xet'a, Abiat'ar, and his Christianized
daughter S idonia.^
Nino's parentage is precisely identified in The U fe o f Nino, but not in The Conversion o f K'art'li.
She was supposedly the daughter of Z a b ilo n " o f Cappadocia (who was responsible for converting the
Branji-s)
and Sosana/Susana, the sister o f Iobenal (Juvenal) the Patriarch o f Jerusalem. Nino herself
is therefore identified as a Cappadocian possessing, through her mother, a Christian link to the holy city
of Jerusalem. Indeed, Nino is said to have resided in Jerusalem for several years, her parents having
moved there and separated with the blessing o f the patriarch - in order to propagate the word o f God.
In Jerusalem, Nino served an Armenian woman from Dwin named Sara; this Sara is called
"Niapori" (6 o*gc*i6 o, var. Miapori [8 0 *530160 ] in the Shatberdi codex of Mok 'c 'evay k art Tisay), a
term which has yet to be deciphered. Within the first few pages of the text, the cosmopolitan background
^^The remarks here about first- and third-person are with regard to The Ufe o f Nino as it appears in C'x.
k'art'. mep'et'a, i.e., that version which was incorporated into K'C'. First-person (from Nino's
perspective) accounts are found in Arm. Adapt. K'C' as well as Mok'. k'art'.
9 9 Variant Zabilovn in the Shatberti redaction o f The Ufe
ofNino in M ok'. k'art'., pp. 106-107.
100The term Branji has been the subject of intense debate. The EPRBd MSS o f K'C' contain the
statem ent"... [the Branji-s], who are the P'rang-ni." In the time in which The U fe o f Nino attained its
current form (ninth century), the term P'rangi refered to "the Franks" (sometimes with the generic
meaning "European"). The same term Branji appears in both the Shatberdi and Chelishi codicies o f The
Ufe o f Nino in Mok'. k'art'., p. 107. See also V. Goiladze, K'art'uli eklesiis sat'aveebt'an (1991), esp. ch.
7, "Branjt'a ambavi cminda ninos 'c'xovrebashi,'" pp. 96-112.
350
of Nino is all too apparent: she was a Cappadocian; for a time she resided in Jerusalem and served an
Armenian; and was able to converse in "Roman (TLatin, ?Greek), Hebrew, and rather less fluently in
Armenian.
Nino was fixated by the Lord's tunic as well as by the Christian agenda o f the empress Helena.
Sara informed Nino that shortly after Christ's crucifixion, His tunic had fallen into the hands o f the wife
of Pilate. 101 Subsequently, she conveyed it to her home in Pontus and was reputed to have become a
believer. Later, Luke the Evangelist took possession o f the tunic and hid i t Sara assured Nino that in
their own time the tunic rested in the K'art'velian city o f M c'xet'a, which was a "part o f the area
controlled by the Uzhilri-s [Uzhikt'a saq'elmcip'od[ T h e
identification of these Uzhiki-s remains
obscure, though I would conjecture that they were to be identified as indigenous barbarians.
In an attempt to win an audience with Helena, Nino secured the blessing o f the patriarch of
Jerusalem to travel to Rome. There Nino met the princess Rip'sime and her foster-mother Gaiane. Later,
away from Rome, Nino is said to have instructed them in the faith and subsequently baptized both along
with fifty other women.
In the meantime, the emperor o f the Romans had commenced a frantic search
for his future spouse. Learning o f Rip'simes renowned beauty, the emperor dispatched men to escort her
back to his palace. Rip'sim e and her companions fled east to Armenia where most o f them were
eventually captured and martyred by King T rdat.
Nino's fate was different, and having survived the massacre, she was instructed in a divine vision
to proceed "to the northern regions where the harvest will be great but there is no laborer [in the
faith]." ^
Nino was troubled by her strange surroundings, yet she set out for Kart'li so as to convert its
inhabitants. Traveling along the Armeno-K' art' velian frontier through the regions o f Orbant' i and
Cf. Death o f Pilate, pp. 157-159, in which Pilate was arrested an d taken to Rome following Christ's
murder and the subsequent summoning o f Christ by the Roman emperor. Pilate appeared in Rome
dressed in Christ's tunic. This text is undated, but according to its translator it was written in the
medieval period. See also: A.I. Tumanov, "Pis'mo Pilata k rimskomu imperatoru Tiveriiu: Sudlba Pilata,"
SMOMPK 32 (1903), pp. 1-14; and N.Ia. Marr, "Armianskiia slova v gruzinskikh Deianiiakh Pilata."
ZVOIRAO 17 (1906), pp. 024-029.
^ T h e Ufe o f Nino in C x. k'art'. mep'et'a, pp. 78-79. Cf. The U fe o f Nino in Mok'. k'a rt'. = Shat.
Codex, p. 3 3 I 3 Q..3 j, which relates that "north of the land o f Armenia are highlands, a heathen land,
controlled by the Greeks and the Uzhiki-s." The Uzhiki-s are identified as the ancestors o f the 0[v]si-s
(Alans) by Sabinin, Istoriia gruzinskoi tserkvi do kontsa VI veka (1877), pp. 6-7.
^ T h e Ufe o f Nino in C x. k'art'. mep'et'a, pp. 80-81. Rip'sime is given precedence over Nino (Nino is
her companion) in the tradition o f Xorenac' i.
^ I b id , pp. 8 5 2 . 3 .
m e a n ^n 8 o f "the northern regions" is not explained in the text, though it is
probably from the perspective o f the Holy Land or even Persia.
351
Javaxet'i, she arrived at the shores o f Lake P'aravani. At night she witnessed the local fisherman
worshipping their idols Annazi and Zadeni. This is the initial indication o f K 'art'velian idols in the tex t
Speaking in Armenian with the fishermen, Nino learned that the K 'art'velian royal capital o f
M c'xet'a was nearby, and she immediately departed for i t Along the way the holy woman experienced a
second vision in which she was presented with a scroll bearing the Seal o f Jesus Christ and written in the
"Roman" tongue. In the vision, Nino realized th at she did not understand the K 'art'velian language, and
she pleaded that she was a stranger to their land and that she shouldnot be expected to entice a king to
accept a strange religion. Subsequently, the scroll was opened, disclosing ten sayings (based upon the
New Testament; cf. also the number o f commandments given to Moses) which foretold o f a holy woman
converting "pagans" to Christianity. ^
This reassured Nino, and she resumed her trek to M c'xet'a,
arriving first in the city o f Urbnisi, the second largest settlement in contemporary' K 'art'li. There she
witnessed more of the K 'art'velians' "pagan" rites. She spent a month in Urbnisi, passing much o f her
time in its Jewish quarter and conversing in Hebrew, which she had learned in Jerusalem.
Once in M c'xet'a, Nino is said to have assumed a passive stance reminiscent of that in The
Conversion o f K'art'li. She reportedly did not usually publicly denigrate the K'art'velians religious
practices, instead concentrating her efforts on establishing a network of personal contacts and secret
converts. Among her clandestine disciples were the royal gardener and his wife as well as the Jewish
priest A biat'ar (Abiathar, the namesake o f the chief priest o f the King-Prophet David) and his daughter
Sidonia. Only after witnessing an elaborate "pagan" ceremony involving the royal couple did Nino entreat
^ I b id ., pp.
8 6 1 2 *8 7 9 . Cf. Thomson, trans., p. 96 and footnotes 81-90. The ten sayings are:
1. Wherever this Gospel is preached, there they will speak of this woman [cf. Matthew XXVI. 13.
Mark XIV.9]
2. There is neither male nor female, but all o f you are one [cf. Galatians III. 18]
3. Go and teach o f all the heathens and baptize them in the name o f the Father, the Son. and
the Holy Spirit [cf. Matthew XXVIII. 19]
4. The light will shine upon the heathens to give glory to your people Israel [cf. Luke 11.32]
5. Wherever this Gospel o f the kingdom [of Heaven] should be preached, there too [this]
will be spoken about throughout the world [cf. Mark XIV.9]
6 . Whoever should hear and receive you will receive Me; and whoever should receive Me
will receive the One Who has sent Me. [cf. Matthew X 40. John XHI.20]
7. For Mariam [Mary] greatly loved the Lord, for she always sought to hear His word[s] o f truth.
[cf. John XI]
8 . Do not fear those who will destroy your bodies but are not able to destroy vour soul [cf.
Matthew X 28, Luke XD.4]
9. Jesus said to Mary Magdalene: "Go, o woman, and tell [the good news] to My brothers and
sisters" [cf. John XX. 17]
10. Wherever you preach, [do so] in the name o f the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit [cf.
Matthew XXVIII. 19],
352
God to demolish the idols. The Christian God responded by unleashing a violent storm, and the idols
were toppled.
The destruction o f the idols did not result in the sudden triumph o f Christianity. In fact we are
informed that it only engendered an air o f bewilderment In the meantime, Nino took up residence
outside the city's walls near a bush. There she raised a cross and prayed indefatigably. Periodically she
entered the Jewish quarter of M c'xet'a to inquire about Christ's tunic. Among Nino's earliest converts
were Jews, and most prominent among them was the priest Abiat' ar who was called "the new Paul."
The Ufe o f Nino includes a first-person narrative from the perspective o f this A b i a t 'a r , ^ but
there is no reason to think it was based upon some ancient source. In any event, the later writer was
perfectly aware that Jewish communities had existed in K 'a rt'li from antiquity . Thus, the author was able
to plausibly insert the Jews into the story o f K 'art'li's conversion. This injected the story w ith an
atmosphere of undeniable antiquity and also provided yet another bridge between the experiences o f the
Jews and K'art'velians. Moreover, several Jews of K 'a rt'li are said to have embraced the "true faith.
The U fe o f Nino makes A biat'ar relate that he was in regular communication with the Jewish priests of
Antioch, and letters were often exchanged between them . 1 0 7 In addition, Abiat'ar was quite familiar
with the Jews' role in the Lord's tunic (allegedly) being brought to M c'xet'a. and he was cognizant that its
arrival coincided with the reign o f King Aderki. But even more details about the tunic emerge: Elioz, one
of the two Jews who returned to M c'xet'a with the holy garment, allowed his sister to embrace the relic.
She pressed it against her breast and was instantaneously struck dead No one was able to remove the
tunic from the deceased's hands, so when she was interred still accompanied her. ^
All o f these
assertions linked Kart'li, through its Jewish communities, with the Holy Land and Jerusalem itself.
After Abiat'ar accepted the Christian G od he reportedly lost the confidence o f many o f the Jews.
They conspired to stone him to death. But the still unconverted King M irian was informed o f the plot and
forbade injury to Abiat'ar. Simultaneously, Mirian was advised about the triumph of Christianity in
Somxit' i (Greater Armenia) and "Greece" (Roman Empire). For the time being, however, the advance of
Christianity' did not provoke the monarch's own conversion.
But, according to The Ufe o f Nino, the Christian God was bringing about the conversion of the
Crown not only by the examples o f other royal conversion, but by divinely-inspired events within K 'art'li.
Thus, Queen Nana's loathing o f Nino was rapidly transform ed for the she became stricken by some
serious ailment which no doctor could remedy. Nana recalled Nino's power o f healing, and as a last resort
l06Ibid., pp. 95-108.

107Ibid., p. 95.
l0SIbid pp. 99-100.
353
summoned Nino to her bedside. Nino spumed her request, replying that she was willing to cure the queen
but only if Nana came to her. Standing on the verge o f death, Mirian's wife had herself conveyed to the
holy woman and was healed. As a result she professed the Christian God and actively sought to have her
husband counted among the converted. *0 9 These events are said to have mystified M irian even more
deeply than before. It is precisely at this time that he is said to have consulted The Book o f Nimrod and
found that the appearance of Christ had been foretold in this ancient, now-lost Near Eastern treatise. It
should be noted that the earlier Conversion ofK 'art Ti is completely unfamiliar with The Book o f Nimrod.
Pushing the K ' art'velian king still closer to conversion was Nino's healing of another o f his own relatives.
Xuara, who is identified as a Persian mt'avari (high-noble) and magi (priest). *
Sidonia, the daughter o f Abiat'ar, also accepted the Christian God and an account attributed to
her follows that of her father.
Sidonia relates that while the king was hunting a demon entered his
heart and convinced him to massacre all o f the Christians, including his own wife Nana should she refuse
to revert to idol worship. Reaching the summit o f Mt. T x o t'i in the region of Muxnari. the Sun was
enveloped by darkness and the countryside became like "eternal n ig h t" The hunting party scattered, and
the panicked Mirian began to conjure his deities, but to no avail. As a last resort he called upon the
Christian God and promised to accept Him should the Sun reappear. Instantly the sky was illuminated
and M irian returned home.
Nana and the populace met Mirian as he triumphantly entered the royal city o f Me' xet' a. But
Nino did not join the crowd. Rather, like the ailing Nana before him, the king was compelled to approach
Nino on his own accord. On the following day, Mirian. at Nino's recommendation, dispatched envoys so
as to request priests from the emperor Constantine "the Great." M irian was anxious to maintain the favor
o f the Christian God and he promptly ordered the construction o f a church in the royal garden. In The
Ufe o f Nino we find the first detailed rendition o f the raising o f "the Living Pillar." Sueti-c'xoveli.* ^
The Conversion o f K'art'li is familiar with the pillar, but it does not relate the miracle of its erection . 1
There are other examples of queen-consorts attempting to effect the conversion o f their husbands; e.g.,
Clotilda's efforts to Christianize her husband Clovis, king of the Franks. A similar example is that of
Ol'ga among the Rus'.
* ^T h e Ufe o f Nino in C'x. k'art'. mep'et'a, pp. 103-108.
l l l Ibid., pp. 108-119.

**2The Ufe o f Nino in Mok'. k'art'. = Shat. Codex, p.
(cmiday cmidat'ay).
3 5 4 j 2 , refers to this church as "the Holy of Holies"
^ T h e Ufe o f Nino in C x. k'art'. mep'et'a, pp. 112-115.
354
An embassy sent by M irian reported the conversion o f the K 'art'velian monarchy to the emperor
Constantine, and he rejoiced, being hopeful that the Christianization o f the K 'art'velians would assist him
in routing the Persians once and for all. It is noteworthy that Constantine or, the author o f The Ufe o f
Nino is unaware that M irian him self had been bom a Persian prince. Nevertheless. Constantine is said
to have dispatched a certain Iovane as bishop, and two priests and three deacons to serve him.
Constantine penned a "letter o f prayer" for Mirian, and sent to the K 'art'velians some relics: a cross and
an icon o f the Savior.* **
Upon the arrival o f the Roman clerics in M c'xet'a, mass baptisms were conducted in the Mtkuari
River: "the king was baptized under the band o f the holy Nino \nat'el-igho mep'eman q'elsa k'ueshi
cmidisa ninossa, 06O)3C5-OQcn 9 ag g 3 i6 JflEjb*
^ 3 3 8 3 ^0os>obA 60601 I1I1A]." This event would seem
to be uncanonical since it was not an urgent situation and priests - and even a bishop dispatched by the
emperor him selfwere present *
The nobles were baptized by the bishop Iovane, while further down
the river the two priests and the deacons baptized the eri, the people/army (probably used here in the
Biblical sense o f "host"). The vast m a jo rity of the K'art'velians are supposed to have been baptized, with
the exception o f some o f the m ountain peoples o f Caucasia and many o f the Jews o f M c'xet'a. * ***
After his baptism, M irian supposedly sent a second embassy led by the newly dispatched bishop
Iovane to Constantine. The king requested that the emperor send a piece o f the True Cross. Mirian also
entreated the emperor that masons be sent to build stone churches. Constantine obliged by conferring
upon the K'art'velians a fragment o f the Cross, along with the foot-boards and the nails driven through
the hands of Christ at His crucifixion. *
The emperor also dispatched builders with an enormous
quantity o f treasure so that churches might be constructed throughout K 'art'li.

We should recall that in The U fe o f Nino it is not the king who is portrayed as the moving force
behind the Christianization o f K 'a rt'li (except that his example led to the conversions o f the nobles and
the masses). It is Nino who is supposed to have established the order o f succession of the first bishops of
K'art'li. Nino directed where crosses should be set up throughout the realm: and Nino, acting upon the
king's desire to convert the mountain tribes, led the attempt to convert the M t'iuli-s ("mountain
inhabitants," or the inhabitants o f the region o f M t'iulet'i). The king suggested that he could force
conversion upon them, but Nino rebuked him for this. However, the erist'avi who accompanied her is
l u Ibid., p. 115.
*^P erhaps this statement actually suggests that Nino was the sponsor or godmother.
ll6 Ibid p. 116.

117
1 'After Heraclius invaded K 'a rt'li (en route to Persia) in the late 620s, he is said to have retrieved these
relics from the churches at Manglisi and Erushet'i; see Ps.-Juansher, pp. 227-228.
355
said to have violently destroyed the idols o f the M t'iuli-s, C hart' ali-s, P'xovi-s, Cilkani-s, and Gudamaqris, all o f which were tribes residing in the mountains . 1 18 Subsequently, M irian allegedly instituted a tax
upon the mountain tribes who refused to Christianize, thus hoping to entice them to the new religion if
only to escape the burden o f taxation . 119 Many highlanders are reported to have remained heathens until
the proselytization efforts o f Abibos of Nekresi in the sixth century. ^
While in transit to the eastern regions o f the realm, Nino was stricken ill in the village o f Bodi in
Kuxet'i. Mirian and Nana desired her return to M e'xet'a, but Nino declined. On her deathbed, the holy
woman is said to have ordered Salome Ujarmeli and Parozhavri Sivneli ("of Siunik'") to bring writing
materials to take down her autobiography. Thus, The Life o f Nino is claimed to be a contemporary', mid
fourth century text! Although the version o f The Life o f Nino contained in the corpus C'xorebay
k'art'velt'a mep 'et'a is not written in the first-person (of Nino), part o f the version in Mok'c'evay
k'art'lisay was written from this perspective (as was that in The Armenian Adaptation o f K'art'lis
c'xovreba).
The Life o f Nino also provides the date for Nino's death as reported in the earlier Conversion o f
K'art'li: she passed away fourteen years after arriving in K 'art'li, 338 years after the death of Christ. 5838
years after the Creation of the W orld ^ 1 Nino's demise was followed by that of Mirian and then o f his
wife. The royal pair were allegedly interred near the Living Pillar.
It is worth noting that the author o f The Life o f Nino did for Nino what the anonymous author of
The Life o f the Kings did for the early K'art'velians: both proceeded from established traditions,
manipulating and embellishing them. Whereas the author o f The Life o f the Kings focuses on specific
monarchs and the notion o f kingship, that o f The Life o f Nino emphasizes the Christian agenda of the
illuminatrix o f K 'art'li and how the monarchy came to be Christian.
1^T h e Life o f Nino in C'x. k'art'. mep'et'a., pp. 125-126. The text is not altogether clear in stating
whether Mirian himself sought to accompany Nino.
119The lure o f material compensation was periodically used to encourage conversion. This was true for
other religions as well. Thus we find that certain Persians who had become Christians were enticed to
return to "the faith o f their fathers" in Mart. Evstat'i, p. 33 = Lang trans., p. 99.
^ T h e Life o f Nino in C'x. k'art'. mep'et'a, p. 126. The Life o f Abibos o f Nekresi does not document
Abibios1 supposed prosteiyzation o f the tribes o f northern and central Caucasia.
^The Life o f Nino in C'x. k'art'. mep'et'a, p. 127^.21-
356
Notable Metaphrases
The Ufe o f Nino, composed in the ninth/tenth century, came to represent almost immediately.
the tradition o f Nino's evangelization o f the Kart' velian/Georgian community. The prominence o f this
rendition o f the Nino legend is manifested by the fact that closely related versions o f it were inserted into
the royal historical corpus o f K'art'lis c'xovreba as well as into Mok'c'evay k'art'lisay.
But that is not to suggest that the Nino Cycle was not subjected to further modifications. The Life
o f Nino was retold in dependent but divergent forms; these versions are characterized as "metaphrastic."
Perhaps the most renowned o f these variants is that of the eleventh-century monk Arsen Iqaltoeli. 122
Although his refashioning o f the Nino Cycle is clearly based upon The Life o f Nino, he took certain
liberties. Significantly, he inserted the tradition that the exiled patriarch o f Antioch, Eustathius, had
played a prominent role in the establishment o f the K'art'velian ecclesiastical hierarchy . 123 Iqalt'oeli's
tract is noteworthy because he appended to his biography o f Nino a brief account o f the history o f K 'artli.
Although he refers to the corpus o f K'art'lis c'xovreba (K'art'lisa c'xovreba), the author preferred the
tradition o f the earliest K 'a rtvelian kings as preserved in M ok'c'evay k'art 'lisay.
Nikoloz Gulaberis-dze, kat'alikos o f Georgia in the second-half o f the twelfth century (ca. 1150ca. 1178), was the author o f The Sermon About Sueti-c 'xoveli, the Lord's Tunic, and the Catholic Church.
In glorifying the establishment o f the cathedral of the Living Pillar in M c'xet'a, Nikoloz produced yet
another retelling o f the Nino tale. He describes Nino's arrival in K 'art'li. the destruction o f the idols, and
the conveyance of the Lord's robe to M c'xeta. Nikoloz is also familiar with the prophecy related in The
Book o f Nimrod, but his reference to it seems to be based not upon The Life o f Nino but rather upon a
reference in C'xorebay vaxtanggorgaslisa.12<1 And like the earlier Arsen Iqalt'oeli, the kat 'alikos
Nikoloz treats the tradition o f Eustathius o f Antioch as an established fact.
The num ber o f Georgian accounts based upon The Life o f Nino is staggering (especially during
the literary efflorescence o f the eighteenth century ) . 123 Notices about Nino were often inserted into
various ecclesiastical documents. Sermons on Nino's activities are preserved in a tenth-century MS which
122Arsen Iqalt'oeli, Metaphr. Nino, pp. 352-390.

123On Eustathius o f Antioch, see ch. 5.
12 *Nikoloz, Sueti-c'xoveli, pp. 56-57. Like Arsen Iqalt'oeli, the author explicitly refers to K'C'
(K'art'uelt'a c'xovreba) (p. 43).
12% o r the place o f Nino in later Georgian folklore, see Z. Kiknadz6 , "Die folkloristischen Varianten der
Bekehrung Georgiens,"' BK 42 (1984), pp. 222-231.
357
includes works by the famous Church Fathers Gregory o f Nazianzenus and John Chrysostom.
The
eleventh-century Parxali polycephalon (mravalt'avi). which comprises works by Gregory o f Neocaesarea.

John Chrysostom, Athanasius o f Alexanderia, and Gregory o f Nazianzenus. includes two works touching
on Nino.*22 The insertion o f the Nino tale into MSS dominated by translations and retellings o f the
works o f the Church Fathers is significant, for Nino was made to be an integral part of the traditions of
the Ecumenical Church, at least in Georgian eyes.
Ep'remMc'ire on the Christianization ofEgrisi/Ap'xazet'i
The political and religious experiences ofEgrisi/Ap'xazet'i up through the eighth century or so
were distinct from that o f K 'a rt'li. The two regions, separated by the Surami mountains, were enjoined
into a single political enterprise only at the start o f the eleventh century by Bagrat III. *2** The Nino
Cycle, from the time o f its earliest articulation in the seventh century, therefore did not attempt to explain
the Christianization o f the western regions o f Egrisi/Ap' xazet' i. We cannot be absolutely sure whether a
fourth-century K 'art'velian would have regarded Egrisi/Ap' xazet' i as a part o f the K 'art' velian realm, but
non-Georgian and archaeological evidence suggests that although some contacts and affinities did exist
between the two, nevertheless they were not joined into a single enterprise.
In any event, from the tenth/eleventh century Egrisi/Ap' xazet' i, as an imagined and subsequently
actual part o f the K 'art'velian domains, was named among the K'art'velian locales visited by the apostles
Andrew and Simon Zealotes. While The Life o f Nino imparts that Nino attempted to convert the
countryside, and that some o f her activity took place west of M c'xet'a. there is no indication that she
evangelized the western region o f Egrisi. Significantly. The Life o f Nino, and the earlier Conversion o f
K'art'li, have absolutely no knowledge o f an apostolic foundation for K 'a rt'li or Egrisi/Ap'xazet'i. and
neither source proposes that Egrisi/Apxazeti was a constituent of the K 'art'velian realm.
l26K eU nstM S# A-19, (( 194v-198r.

U7K eU nstM S A-95, it 39r-43r and I42r-145v.
128This is not the place to address the relationship of Egrisi and K 'a rt'li in the pre-modem period.
Suffice it to say that for the eighth/ninth century (and certainly before) statements like "The Ap'xaz
kingdom and its culture were Georgian" are untenable (Sh. Badridze, "Nekotorye voprosy politicheskogo i
sotsial'no-ekonomicheskogo stroia ahkhazskogn tsarstva," in Voprosy istorii narodov Kavkaza: sbomik
statei, posviashchennykh pamiati Z. V. Anchabadze [1988], p. 137). I do not deny the existence of socio
religious and political links among the A p'xaz and the K'art'velians, but in Soviet and post-Soviet
scholarship thay have tended to be seen in the light of either Georgian hegemonic claims over Ap' xazet' i
or now in terms of Ap'xaz independence from Georgia.
358
It was precisely at the time o f the creation o f an all-Georgian kingdom in the early eleventh
century that Ep'rem Me' ire. a K 'art'velian monk who was active at several monasteries near Antioch,
first refers to the Christianization o f western "Georgia." This claim was the cornerstone o f a tract
defending K 'art'velian ecclesiastical autocephaiy to oppose Antiochene jurisdictional claims . 129 An
extract from Ep'rem 's work, entitled The Conversion o f the Ap'xaz (Ap'xazta mok'c'evay) was later
insetted into Ps.-Juansher:
In those same times during the reign o f Justinian [Iustiniane\ the A p'xaz too were
changed for the better, and they accepted the preaching o f Christianity. For in the
palace \palati) o f K ing [read: emperor] Justinian there was a certain eunuch o f the
Ap'xaz race [ap xazi nat'esavit'], and who was named Evp'rata, and he was dispatched
by the king to preach to them and to promise that from that time none o f their tribe
would be castrated by the iron. For a multitude o f them had served in the royal
bedchamber [sameup 'osa sacolisa], the custom being that they should be eunuchs.
Justinian built a cathedral to the Holy Mother o f God in Ap'xazet'i, in Bichvinta. and he
installed priests in it, so that they would clearly teach the precepts o f the Christian
faith . 130
This distinct tradition for the Christianization o f western "Georgia" was inserted into the royal
historical corpus o f K'art'lis c'xovreba only in the eighteenth century, and appears only in selected
Vaxtangiseuli recension MSS (bp and B). That is to say, although this passage existed in Georgian
already in the eleventh century, it was not interpolated into the text of Ps.-Juansher until the eighteenth
century.
Ep'rem M e'ire's account o f the Christianization of western "Georgia" is based upon an earlier
Byzantine work contemporary with the events described. Explaining that the Abasgian kings customarily
seized comely young men from their parents, turning them into eunuchs and sold them in Byzantine
lands, Procopius addresses Justianian's meddlings in Abasgia:
But during the reign o f the present Emperor Justinian the Abasgi have changed
everything and adopted a more civilised standard o f life. For not only have they
espoused the Christian doctrine, but the Emperor Justinian also sent them one o f the
eunuchs from the palace, an Abasgus by birth named Euphratas, and through him
commanded their kings in explicit terms to mutilate no male thereafter in this nation by
doing violence to nature with the knife... It was at that same time that the Emperor
Justinian also built a sanctuary o f the Virgin in their land, and appointed priests for
129On Ep'rem Meire see Tarchnishvili. Geschichte. pp. 182-198. See also Javaxishvili, K'art'veli eris
istoria, vol. 1 (1928), pp. 223-224.

130Insertion in Ps.-Juansher, p. 2 1 5 ^ .^ . See also Thomson, trans., p. 369. Cf. Ep'rem Meire, Conv., p.
n 4-15-
359
them, and thus brought it about that they learned thoroughly all the observances of the
Christians . 131
Although a medieval Georgian rendering o f this account appears in early modern redactions of
K'art'lis c'xovreba. it may not be regarded as part o f the medieval Georgian historical tradition. The fact
that Ep' rem Me' ire was forced to rely upon a non-Georgian source for the Christianization of Ap' xazet' i
is evidence that medieval K 'art'velian historians, at least prior to the Bagratid period, knew relatively
little about the history ofEgrisi/A p'xazeti. Moreover, this account o f E p'rem M e'ire also demonstrates
that by the early eleventh century Georgian bookmen were projecting the nascent Georgian unit}7back into
the remote p ast Thus the interpolated myth of apostles o f Christ visiting Egrisi/Ap' xazet' i was
understood to indicate that all-Georgia had been evangelized by them (see infra). Notwithstanding
anachronistic back projection o f unity, Ep' rem Me' ire still understood th at the experiences of the western
lands had been distinct from K 'art'li, and thus he explained that region's Christianization not in terms of
any supposed activity o f Nino but rather in terms of existing, contemporary7 Byzantine (non-Georgian)
sources.
IV EARL Y CHRISTIAN KINGSHIP IN K'ART'LI
We should now direct our attention to how early Christian kingship is depicted in The Life o f the
Successors o f Mirian, the third and terminating part o f C'xorebay k'art'velt'a mep'et'a. The date of this
text is problematic. At the earliest it was written soon after The Life o f the Kings, that is to say, at the
beginning o f the ninth century. However, its terminus ad quern would seem to be the eleventh century, in
which case the author may have been Leonti Mroveli. Internal evidence suggests the later date: The Life
o f the Successors o f Mirian contains no references to K 'artlos, T'argam os, and their immediate progeny;
and kings are no longer described principally as Sasanid-type hero-rulers (i.e.. as bumberazi-s and
goliat'i-s). This circumstance strongly suggests that a later author embraced the notion that the
Christianization of M ihran/M irian was a definite and complete break with the "pagan" past. This
attitude, as we shall see, is compatible with that of the Bagratid era. In any event, we may be certain that
by the time o f the editorial work effected by Leonti Mroveli, the three constituents o f C'xorebay
k'art'velt'a mep'et'a had come to comprise a single corpus, offering an unbroken narrative from the origin
o f the K 'art'velians down through the early Christian monarchs.
131 Procopius,
Wars, VHI.3.18-21, pp. 80-81.
360
Kings as the Builder o f Churches
The theme o f the king as a builder of sacred monuments was carried over from The Life o f the
Kings. This in itself is not extraordinary, for monarchs the world over customarily supervised the raising
of religious structures. Whereas the earliest K 'art'velian kings directed the erection o f idols in and
around the royal city o f M c'xeta, M irian and his successors continued to devote their resources to
building activities, but in a Christian guise. One o f the primary functions o f the Christian kings of
K 'art'li was the raising o f churches, not only in M c'xet'a, but throughout K 'art'li. It demonstrated not
only the attachment and special relationship of the Crown to the Christian faith, but it also reflected the
fact that the king commanded the wealth and materials required to execute great building projects.
The church-building activities o f the early Christian K 'art'velian kings, from Mirian up to
Mihrdat V (435-447 AD), the father o f Vaxtang L, as reported in medieval Georgian texts, may be
summarized as:
King
Edido. citato
ChurehtelConstructed
284-361 Mihran/M irian
The Life o f the Kings
* none cited in this te x t,^ ~ but:
Life o f Nino,133 pp. 111-115
Wooden church in royal

garden; the first church
on the site of Sueti-c'xoveli
In Erushet'i, built by
Constantine's masons
In Cunda, built by
In Manglisi, built by
"Episcopal Church" [Eklesia
saepiskoposo\ completed
after Nino's death
Upper (Zemo) Church built
on Nino's death
Life o f Nino, p. 117; &

Conv. K'art'li, pp. 86-87
Life o f Nino, pp. 117-118; &
Conv, K'art'li, pp. 86-87
Life o f Nino, p. 118
Life o f Nino, p. 129
Conv. K'art'li, p. 91
363-365 Bak'ar
Life Succ. Mirian, p. 131;

Royal List II, p. 91
A tC ilkani
112
The pre-Christian rule o f M irian is emphasized in The Life o f the Kings and therefore his church
building activities are unrecorded.
19 9
1JJIn this chart The Life o f Nino is cited as it is found in the corpus C'x. k'art'. mep'et'a.
361
365-380 Mirdat HI
Life Succ. Mirian, p. 131
380-394 Varaz
Bakar II
Life Succ. Mirian, pp. 135-
394-406 T rd a t
Life Succ. M rian, p. 137
406-409 P'arsman IV
Life Succ. Mirian, pp. 137-
Inside the T uxarisi

fortress; embellished &
built churches in Erushet'i
and Cunda
136
At Rust avi and Nekresi
138
409-411 Mirdat IV
Life Succ. Mirian, p. 138
* an unbeliever, built no
churches
Restored churches o f K 'art'li;

built church of Bolnisi
* an unbeliever, built no
churches
411-435 A rch'd
Embellished churches, budt

the church of St. Step'ane
at M c'xet'a
435-447 Mihrdat V
Life ofVaxtang
* none cited
As may be discerned from the chart, only one Christian king is not credited with the building of
churches: Vaxtang's father M ihrdat V. While The Life o f the Kings does not mention any church-building
executed by Mirian, the later Life o f Nino discloses that he supervised the erection of churches with the
financial and technical assistance o f Constantine "the G re at
The life o f the Successors o f Mirian emphasizes the ecclesiastical building projects o f the
Christian K 'art'velian monarchs. Not only does it name specific churches that were constructed, but it
adds several statements to the effect that the king "increased the [number of] priests and deacons in all of
Kart'li and Rani;" 13<* and he "increased the crosses" and "restored" the churches of K 'art'li. 13^ 77te
Life ofVaxtang opens with Arch' il restoring the crosses and embellishing the churches; he "built churches
and multiplied the priests and deacons and all those who served the church throughout all o f K 'a rt'li . " 136
The assertion o f The Ufe o f the Kings, replicated in Royal List I, that the "pagan" monarchs of
K 'art'li bad held the sole prerogative o f erecting idols is replicated in the allegation that the early
Christian kings had monopolized the construction o f churches. This is not surprising, for the king was
regarded to be the apex o f society, and moreover, he certainly possessed the resources, both in terms of
^ L ife Succ. Mirian, p. 1319 . 10 * f r Bak'ar.

135 /&/d., p. 1 3 8 2 .4 , for P'arsm an IV.
1 3 6 77ie Life
ofVaxtang, pp. 140 an d 142.
362
material and manpower, to build houses o f worship. The Crown occupied, at least theoretically and
probably in reality, the most advantageous position from which to direct grand projects like these. But
this did not preclude non-royal assistance in this endeavor the aznauri-s (nobles) are credited in Royal
List II with constructing a church in Mcxet'a ; 137 and a certain (unnamed) woman may have assisted in
the building o f the Sioni cathedral in Tp'ilisi .* 38
Ps.-Juansher explicitly states that "the clan o f the pious King M irian were all builders of
churches."13** This contention is, quite obviously, consistent with the historical/hagiographical record
and demonstrates the connection of the K 'art'velian monarchs with the raising o f Christian edifices.
"PaganBacklashes
Though our sources were composed considerably after the fact and are biased in favor of
Christianity, it is a safe assumption that the old religion, or more probably religions, did not simply
capitulate and fade away without a struggle. The conversion o f a king neither guaranteed that his
successors would follow suit nor necessarily resulted in the conversion o f his subjects. The Byzantine
Empire itself had been faced with the "pagan" reaction o f the emperor Julian (361-363 AD), while in
Bulgaria Vladimir (889-893), the successor o f Khan Boris (852-889)140 who had been baptized in 864
also dislodged Christianity as the "official" faith. Early Christian K 'a rt'li was faced with two similar
"pagan" backlashes on the part of Varaz-Bak'ar II (380-394) and Mirdat IV (409-411).
Varaz-Bak'ar II is said to have been "an unbeliever and a hater o f the [Christian] Faith." He
refused to recognize the Christian rule o f monogamy and had two wives simultaneously. The people/army
(eri) reportedly feared him, and Christians were forced to worship clandestinely. The Life o f the
Successors o f Mirian further emphasizes that he raised neither churches nor any other sort o f municipal
177
Royal List II, p. 92. This regnal list is chronologically confused in several instances. It should be said
that from the perspective of extant historical texts, kings held the prerogative o f church building but they
m ight delegate authority over the work site to nobles. But owing to the relative lateness o f our texts, and
the fact that without exception they sought to eulogize the K'art'velian kingship, it is almost certain that
some churches were raised without the direct participation o f the monarch. We should recall the Bolnisi
Sioni cathedral's inscriptions which fail to mention any K'art'velian king but do refer to the Persian
shahanshah Peroz.
^ I n s e r t i o n in Ps.-Juansher, p. 2 2 2 ^ . This interpolation occurs in all Vaxtangiseuli MSS except Tm.
139Ibid, p. 2 2 2 7_8.
^ S e e the excellent study by R.E. Sullivan, "Khan Boris and the Conversion of Bulgaria: A Case Study
of the Impact o f Christianity on a Barbarian Society," Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History 3
(1966), pp. 53-139.
363
building, thus suggesting that he did not behave as a proper king should. 1*1 Yet, the same source reveals
that in response to a Persian invasion o f K 'art'li, Varaz-Bak'ar constructed the Q'idari fortress "and he
reinforced the fortress-cities [c'ixe-k'alak'i-s], and he ordered everyone to put away [their] crosses. We
should note that during his reign the Persians successfully invaded K 'art'li. To the dismay o f the then
Persian-oriented K 'art'velian nobility, the king opposed them. Thereafter. K 'art'li became a tributary o f
Persia. 1*2
A short passage from the later Georgian version of the vita of Peter the Iberian (the bishop o f
Mayuma) was interpolated into the account o f Varaz-Bak' ar. 1*2 Significantly, the account entirely
ignored the Monophysitism o f that renowned bishop, making him an Orthodox, and by implication, a
Chalcedonian! Peter the Iberian, a famous fifth-century figure, might have been known to the author o f
The Life o f the Successors o f Mirian, but the language and style of this passage make it clear that this
account was not originally a part o f this history. It m ay be tempting to deduce from the passage that
some, if not many, K 'art'velians remained true Christians, even if Peter has been grossly misidentified.
However, this account does not appear in any pre-Vaxtangiseuli MSS. and in fact only certain
Vaxtangiseuli documents, dating from the eighteenth century, included it. Therefore, we may not make
any generalizations from the passage for medieval K 'art'li.
Another royal lapse into "paganism" occurred some fifteen years later under Mirdat IV (409411). Mirdat is said to have been "a valiant man, a courageous warrior, [but] an unbeliever and [he did]
not fear God, [he was] proud and arrogant..." 1** The Life o f the Successors ofMirian reproaches Mirdat
for not having built a single church. Whereas Varaz-Bak'ar had to face a Persian invasion and the
subsequent imposition o f tribute, M ird at "through his insolence became the enemy of [both] the Greeks
[i.e., the Byzantines] and the Persians." He seized K laijet'i. which had been occupied by the Byzantines
during the reign of Varaz-Bak'ar. and he withheld tribute from the Persians. Consequently, the
shahanshah dispatched a detachment led by his erist 'avi 1*^ Up' robi. Mirdat was captured and taken to
^^L ife Succ. Mirian, pp. 13525*136 j_2 1*2i b i d pp. 136-137. Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 460-461. has demonstrated that Varaz-Bak'ar (his
Aspacures) was actually a vassal o f Persia established after the Romano-Persian treat) o f 363 (which
ceded to Persia political hegemony over Caucasia). In ToumanofFs view. Life Succ. Mirian telescoped
several events, including the treaty o f 363 and Varaz-Bak*a^s pro-Persian stance.
1*2ibid'., pp. 132-135; see also Thomson, trans., pp. 359-362. We are told that Peter "in a short time
learned the Greek language, and he learned everything about ecclesiastical matters and philosophy" (p.
1 3 3 2 1 -2 2 )- In Georgian the name Peter is rendered as Petre.
1U Ibid., p. 138.
l*În this case erist'avi must denote a "general," i.e., Gk. strategos. We should recall that the original
and literal meaning o f erist'avi was "head [t'avi] of the army [err]." Although a Georgian term has been
364
"Baghdad," which is to be equated here with Seleucia-Ktesiphon . 146 With this event The Life o f the
Successors o f Mirian and indeed, the corpus C'xorebay k'art'velt'a mep'et'a concluded. Yet The Life
ofVaxtang commences with the same episode. In the latter, which was actually written before the former,
we read that Mirdat passed away in Seleucia-Ktesiphon and subsequently "the Persians seized K 'art'li and
destroyed the churches, and the K 'art'velians hid [their] crosses. And in all of the churches o f K 'art'li the
Persian fire-worshippers lit their fires."14^ The royal clan fled K 'art'li and took up residence in the
neighboring eastern region o f Kaxet' i.
We have no indication as to the specific measures, if any, taken against the incipient Church in
K 'a rt'li by these non-Christian monarchs. Although I have employed phrases such as "pagan backlash."
"pagan reaction," and "unbelief" each o f these is misleading insofar as they are applied from a Christian
Orthodox perspective. It is true that the Georgian sources use the word carmart'i (Â3ji(6o)o).^4^ i.e.,
"pagan/heathen," and urcmuno
"faithless," *4 9 to describe those Kart'velian monarchs who
apostatized But no royally-sanctioned persecutions were documented, although occasionally the

Christians are said to have lived "in fear" and consequently "hid their crosses." Moreover, we must ask
how truly "pagan" were these kings? A nd how Christian were the early Christian kings? Given the
significance o f church-building to the author o f The Life o f the Successors o f Mirian. might a king who
did not (or was unable to) build any churches have been branded regardless of his beliefs, by a later
historian as a "pagan?" The memories preserved in these text are, in my view, incomplete and to a large
degree attained their received state at a considerably later time. Therefore, we must consider these
clamorings about apostasy with suspicion so long as contemporary MSS are absent
Early Christian K'art'velian Monarchs as Sascmid Hero-Kings and a Further Consideration o f the Date
o f TheUfe o f the Successors o f Mirian
Like The Ufe o f the Successors o f Mirian, neither The Conversion o f K'art'li nor the Royal List
II nor The Ufe o f Nino describe local Christian kings in the guise of Sasanid shahanshah-s. In fact The
used here for a Persian military p o st this figure was not part o f the K 'art'velian administration.
^ I b id ., pp. 138-139. In medieval Georgian sources "Baghdad" used anachronistically, often refers to
the Sasanid royal city of Seleucia-Ktesiphon.
^ T h e Ufe ofVaxtang, p. 139.
148Thisword is based upon some Persian term; its precise etymology, however, is not divulged by
Andronikashvili, Narlcvevebi, p. 34. The same condition applies to the Georgian word mart 'ali
(3a6acso), or "truth."
149Once Monophysitism became an issue, the term urcmuno ("faithless) could be employed to describe
an individual not subscribing to Chalcedonian Christology.
365
Life o f the Successors o f Mirian does not explicitly mention a single Christian K 'art'velian bumberazi or
goliath,1 5 0 although the earlier ca. 800 biography of the Christian King Vaxtang clearly demonstrates
that a Christian king could, and should, be counted among them. This also contrasts with the image of
Mihran in The Ufe o f the Kings as a hero-king, even though he is not expressly identified as a goliat'i or a
bumberazi.
The brief Life o f the Successors o f Mirian paints its monarchs with generic royal qualities. The
K 'art'velian king T rdat (394-406) was described as a believer, wise, and intelligent, and even "the
Persians were tamed by his sagacity." ^
warrior, ^
P'arsm an IV (406-409) was a believer and a courageous
while his successor Mihrdat IV (409-411) was a valiant and brave soldier yet he was also a
proud an d arrogant unbeliever. ^

coward an d timid.
Another "pagan" king, Varaz-Bak'ar n (380-394) is said to be "a
Again, none o f the kings described in this text are m ade to be bumberazi-s or
goliati-s, and this contrasts with the K 'art'velian rulers, both non-Christian and Christian, portrayed in
the ca. 800 U fe o f the Kings and Ufe ofVaxtang.
It is worth emphasizing that the early Christian monarchs in The U fe o f the Successors ofMirian
are molded differently than those in The Ufe ofVaxtang. The immediate successors of Mirian are not
portrayed as Sasanid ruler-heroes whereas the monarchs o f The Ufe ofVaxtang are clearly made to be
bumberazi-s andgoliati s , and among their armies could be counted other such heroes. Thus, at last one
Georgian historian understood it appropriate to describe pre-Bagratid Christian kings in a Persian
manner. It is not altogether clear when The U fe o f the Successors o f Mirian was composed (but, as
mentioned supra, it was most likely written down in the Bagratid period). In any event, its author refused
to depict Christian kings in blatantly Sasanid terms. Should this text have been composed ca. 800. then it
represents an alternate view o f Christian, pre-Bagratid K 'art'velian kingship as opposed to The Life o f
Vaxtang. Otherwise, as an eleventh-century source The Ufe o f the Successors o f Mirian enshrines the
Bagratid contention that Christian kingship had, or should have, little in common with that o f Persia. ^
k'art'. mep et a explicitly identified the Armenian King T rd a t as a goliat7 in connection with his
extension o f aid to the Romans in their struggle with the Goths. See The Life o f the Kings, p. 6 8 .
^ U f e Succ. Mirian, p. 137.
l52Ibid., p. 137-138.
153Ibid, p. 138.
l54Ibid., p. 136.
^N o tw ith stan d in g , the three components o f C'x. k'art'. mep'et'a represent two distinct periods ( The Ufe
o f the Kings is pre-Bagratid, The Life o f Nino is Bagratid, and Ufe Succ. Mirian is likely a Bagratid
source based upon pre-Bagratid material), two genres o f original literature (history and hagiography), and
two views o f Christian kingship (Persian vs. non-Persian).
366
Is it possible, then, that the eleventh-century archbishop ofR uisi. Leonti Mroveli. wrote and
appended the Christian section to The Life o f the Kings? This makes a certain amount o f sense, for
eleventh-century (Bagratid) Georgian histories are devoid o f Sasanid imagery. Furthermore. The Life o f
the Successors o f Mirian ends with the imprisonment o f the apostate King Mirdat IV by the Persians,
precisely the point where the ca. 800 Life ofVaxtang commences. In my estimation, it is most probable
that The Ufe o f the Successors o f Mirian was composed in the eleventh century, though based upon earlier
(sketchy) sources which themselves are no longer ex tan t If so, its author perhaps the legendary Leonti
Mroveli labored to erase the lacuna which existed in K'art'lis c'xovreba for the period between the
reign o f Mirian and the beginning o f The Ufe ofVaxtang. In this case Leonti Mroveli should be regarded
as having Christianized the received pre-Bagratid tradition o f K 'art'velian kingship. Moreover. Mroveli
himself probably added Christian and Biblical notices to The Ufe o f the Kings. Yet he kept the text and
its description o f K 'a rt'li as a part o f the Persian commonwealth in ta c t ^
It would seem, then, that
Mroveli did not seek to obliterate the pre-Christian p a s t yet he ensured that by maintaining the Persian
(and thus, non-Christian) image o f early K 'art'li that its memory would never acquire a large and devoted
audience. Ironically, within a century or so after Mroveli, Persian secular literature became extremely
popular at the Bagratid court Though the Persian-flavored biography o f Vaxtang was evidently a favorite
local story, there is no indication that the monarchs o f The Ufe o f the Kings were regarded in this high
esteem (they were, after all, non-Christians).
V. THE IMAGE OF THE EARL Y CHURCH IN K'ART LI
The corpus o f C'xorebay k'art'velt'a mep'et'a, whose components were written well after the
events they describe, does not propose how the fabric o f K'art'velian society was altered as a result o f
Mihran's/Mirian's acceptance o f the Christian God. We have already seen that late antique and early
medieval K 'art'velian society and kingship were deeply affected and penetrated by Parthian and Sasanid
norms and ideas. A formal, organized Christian church was not necessarily incompatible with a Sasanidstyle administration, for within Persia itself a rigidly hierarchical church, based at the capital of SeleuciaKtesiphon, had been sanctioned tty the shahanshah himself, although periodically the church fell under
Zoroastrian-led persecution. From an early time, Christianity came to be regarded by the Persian
leadership as a rival religion (of the Romans), although once the Roman Church began to issue and
enforce dogma, especially from the time o f the first ecumenical council in Nicaea in 325, the Persians
156For the K'art'velian/Georgian Bagratids' reorientation towards Byzantium, see infra, chs. 6-7.
367
allowed their Christian church to flourish so long as it professed a creed distinct from that o f the
Romans/Byzantines (it is customarily referred to as the Nestorian Church).
Early Church Organization
The extant sources, written well after the fact, provide extremely little information about the
organization o f the early Church in K 'art' li. ^
The Christian religion had certainly made inroads into
K'art'velian-inhabited lands prior to the conversion o f Mihran/Mirian. But with the king's conversion,
and his sanctioning o f the new religion, an "official" ecclesiastical organization was formed. From the
very beginning, the ranks o f the Church in K 'a rt'li were dominated by non-K' art' velians. Most
prominently, Nino herself was not a K 'art'velian (later tradition claims that she was a Cappadocian.
Earlier, she was said to be a "Roman" princess/noblewoman), and the first bishop and priests allegedly
sent to K 'a rt'li by Constantine "the Great" were Greeks. To complicate matters, the K'art'velians did not
yet possess their own script. Only with its invention in the late fourth/early fifth century did the
Scriptures as well as exegetical and patristic works begin to be translated into Georgian. Local
hagiography was written from the fifth century, and original historical works appeared a few centuries
later. The training of local ecclesiastics in their own language allowed the K 'art'velians to gradually
infiltrate, and then take the helm o f the ecclesiastical organization in K 'art'li. The domination o f early
Caucasian Christianity by the Armenians may have also served as an impetus for the K'art'velians to take
control o f their own Church.
This process, however, is not carefully outlined in medieval Georgian historiography. For
instance, the development o f the Georgian script is attributed by The Life o f the Kings to the first monarch
P'am avaz, a "pagan." Its actual invention following the Christianization of K 'a rt'li is not reported by any
medieval Georgian historian. We know even less about the network o f bishoprics, the authority o f the
bishop o f M c'xet'a, royal meddling in ecclesiastical affairs (or a lack thereof), and the like. Any
conclusions on these topics are drawn for the most part ex silentio and from the example of other Eastern
Christian churches.
157
'Speaking o f a "K'art'velian Church" for the two centuries following Nino is misleading, for although
the ecclesiastical organization served K 'art'li and sought to convert and retain the K 'art'velians as
Christians, its ranks were dominated by non-K'art'velians until the sixth century. The awkward phrase
"Church in K 'art'li" is deliberately applied here for the period until the K 'art'velians came to command
the local ecclesiastical hierarchy. For K 'art'velian ecclesiastical organization in the era ofVaxtang
Gorgasali, see ch. 5.
368
With respect to the establishment o f bishoprics, the native historical tradition provides some,
although largely incidental, evidence. For the most part, we are informed only o f the relative sequence of
the bishops (3 3 ab 3 ea3 eabo, episkopos-i; cf. Greek EIHEKOIIOE) and archbishops (3 a>&3 &6 3 3 ob 3 Pi3 oibo,
mt'avarepiskoposi. li t "head/chief bishop;" cf. Greek APXIEIUEKOIIOE) o f M c'xet'a. the
primates o f the incipient Church in K 'art'li. The length o f tenure o f these prelates remains obscure to this
day, and any modem enumeration attempting to attach specific dates to these early bishops must be held
suspect 158 In any case, the relative chronology o f the earliest bishops and archbishops o f K 'art'li. from
M irian III to Vaxtang I, according to Georgian historical texts, may be summarized as follows: 159
King*s Reign
King
Prelate
Editio citato
284-361
Mirian m
Iovane
The Ufe o f Nino. p. 115#

Royal U st I, p. 89
363-394
B ak'u rl
Iakob
Royal U st II, p. 91
365-380
Mirdat m
Iakob
lob 160
Life Succ. Mirian. p. 131
380-394
Varaz-Bakur II
still lob
Royal U st II, pp. 91-92
394-406
T rdat
?Iakob
Elia 161
Ufe Succ. Mirian, p. 137
406-409
P 'arsm anlV
Swmeon
Ufe Succ. Mirian. p. 137;

Royal U st II. p. 92
409-411
Mirdat IV
* "pagan"
411-435
Archil
Iona
Ufe ofVaxtang. p. 142
Grigol
Basil
M obidamcf.
Iona & 4 archbps Royal Ust II, p. 92
P. Karbelashvili, Ierark'ia sak'art'velos ekklesiisa kat'alikosni da mghvdelt'-mt'avami, book 1 (1904);

and Salia, History o f the Georgian Nation, Vivian trans., pp. 74-76 (based upon the official reckoning o f
the Georgian Church in Sak'art'velos eklesiis kalendari 1977).
ic g
Cf. "The K 'art'velian Bishops" o f the thirteenth-century Armenian compiler M xit'ar Ayrivanec' i. cap.
17. Among Ayrivanec' is sources was the Armenian adaptation of K'C'.
l 6 0 Cf. Royal U st II, p. 91, associates lob with T r d a t
^ I b id ., p. 92, associates Elia with Bak'ur.
369
435-447
Mirdat V
Glonok'or
Royal Ust II. p. 92
ca. 447-ca. 522
Vaxtang I 167
level
Roval List II. p. 93
Mikael
Petre [the first kat'alikos]
We know very little about these men. The first two. Iovane and Iakob. were Greeks who had
allegedly been sent by Constantine "the G reat" Iakob was appointed as the successor to Iovane as
archbishop by Nino. Otherwise, archbishops were simply "installed." but the extent o f the involvement of
the K 'art'velian king, o r some high-ranking Christian hierarch (e.g., the patriarch o f Antioch) in their
succession is unknown. The archbishops o f K 'art'li resided in the royal city o f M c'xet'a and usually sat at
the Sueti-c'xoveli which was also called the "episcopal church" (eklesia s a e p is k o p o s o and
subsequently the "kat 'alikos-al church" (eklesia sakat 'alikozo). ^
For most o f the early K 'art'velian prelates we know only their names, if even those. Royal Ust II
claims that thirty archbishops passed away up to the time o f the first kat'alikos Petre. who himself had
been installed during the reign ofV axtang I (ca. 447-ca. 522). ^
But we now possess far fewer than
thirty names. A passage from The Ufe ofVaxtang is enlightening in this regard:
From K ing Mirian to King Vaxtang eight generations [nat'esavi] and ten kings passed
away, 157 years [elapsed], and eight righteous bishops had succeeded in accordance
w ith the law [while] others were disgraceful o f the canons. ^
The Ufe o f the Successors o f Mirian enumerates exactly ten kings from M irian to Vaxtang.
Adding
157 years to the date o f the conversion or death of M irian (i.e.. 337 and 361 respectively) yields a date that
1f k)
^C'urtaveli. Mart. Shush., p. 27. mentions an archbishop Samoel: ibid.. p. 18. knows of Samoel and
Iovane.
^ T h e Ufe o f Nino in C'x. k'art'. mep'et'a. p. 129^.

l6*Ibid., p. 93.
l65Royal Ust II, p. 93.
^ T h e Ufe ofVaxtang, p. 1 5 9 ^ . ^ .
167But there may actually have been eleven, for the Georgian historical tradition (i.e.. C'x. k 'art'.
mep 'et 'a) was unaware o f Saurmag n (Sauromaces) who is mentioned by Ammianus Marcellinus,
XXVH.12.12, pp. 78-79: "... Sauromace[s]... quern auctoritas Romana praefecit Hiberiae..." For the
suggestion that this Saurm ag was overlooked by the Georgian tradition, see Toumanoff, "Chronology of
the Early Kings o f Iberia," pp. 24-26. O f course, it is possible that Marcellinus information on this point
may not have been accurate, although it should be said that his knowledge o f events in Caucasia and
370
clearly falls within the reign ofV axtang I. Thus the historical veracity o f this synchronism from The Ufe
ofVaxtang is tenable.
Many, if not all, o f the early archbishops o f the Church in K' artli were non-K' art' velians. The
earliest archbishops. Iovane and Iakob. were apparently "Greeks." i.e.. Byzantines. The archbishop lob
was a former deacon o f Nerses, the prelate o f Armenia . 168 Mobidan. also an archbishop, was o f Persian
birth; he is said to have feigned his allegiance to Christianity.16^ M ik'ael. the last archbishop o f K 'art'li
prior to the foundation o f the kat'alikos-aie, was "Greek."17 Petre. the first kat'alikos, was a native of
Pontus. and his immediate successors were for the most part "Greeks," and certainly non-K'art'velians.
The situation changed in the m id sixth century. During the reign o f P'arsm an VI (561-? AD),
we read that "From this time the Icat'alikos-es were no longer brought from Greece, but they were selected
from the noble clans o f the K 'art'velians . " 171 This marks, in my view, the culmination o f the
transformation of the Church in K'art'li into the K'art'velian Church. Accordingly, until the second-half
o f the sixth century, and for over two hundred years after the conversion o f King Mirian. the ecclesiastical
organization in K 'art'li was presided over by non-K'art'velians, including "Greeks," Armenians. Persians,
and probably Syrians.
The little else we know about the earliest archbishops o f K 'art'li may be extrapolated only from
later accounts. Royal U st III. which terminates with a relative chronology o f kat'alikos-es. maintains that
the archbishop-primates were unmarried, just as the initial kat'alikos<s o f the Church in K 'a rt'li are said
to have remained unwed . 172 By the era ofVaxtang, archbishops and their high-ranking suffragan
bishops participated in court ceremonial, being afforded an esteemed position on cushioned thrones . 172 It
is logical that Church officials assumed a role in court life from the outset, but our sources are quiet on
this point for the earliest period. But w'hereas we are informed o f the apex o f the ecclesiastical hierarchy
in K 'art'li (i.e.. the archbishops and later the kat'alikos-es). we may glean only a sketchy indication as to
northern Mesopotamia was usually reliable.

168 Z//fe Succ.
Xfirian, p. 132; and Royal U st II. p. 91.
16The Ufe ofVaxtang, p. 142.

l 7 (W
, p. 145.
171 Ps.-Juansher, p. 207j3_j5:

sfiQ sfis 8 eioy 3 A6 a 6 coab 36 a>6 go3 mbb.s b^ba(6 d 6 ao)oa),
j.fij.3 a 5 jifio ) 3 3 c?Bo jgibbcsaBeaesab,
60.0 )3 ^ 3 6 0 ;" repeated infirm. Adapt. K C \
p. 188 = Thomson trans., p. 226. "Greece" refers to the Byzantine Empire. Cf. Royal Ust II, p. 94.
m Roya! Ust III, p. 97.

17 ^77ie Ufe
ofVaxtang, p. 147.
371
the development of suffragan bishops and priests under the archbishops. A noteworthy exception is the
reference by the fifth-century Martyrdom ofShushaniki to a bishop named A p'oc'i (var. Ap'uti) attached
to the house o f the pitiaxshi Varsk'en. !7* At least this bishop was bound directly to a noble house, and
there were likely others, as was customary in neighboring Armenia. 175
The so-called Va Arabic redaction o f the Grigorian Cycle offers some information on the initial
organization o f the Church in K 'a rt'li. This Arabic version is now understood to be based upon an early,
no longer extant version o f the Armenian text o f Agat'angeghos; the Armenian text that is now extant is
later than the fifth-century original. The Arabic Agat'angeghos, unlike its extant Armenian counterpart,
does make some reference to the K'art'velians. In it the kings o f the K 'art'velians, Ap'xaz. and Alans (in
this instance, the Caucasian Albanians) are depicted as the subordinates o f the Armenian monarch T rdat
This is reminiscent of X orenac'is styling o f Mihran/Mirian as "prince" and not "king."!7* Having
supervised the conversion o f the Armenian monarch, and also the kings o f the K 'art'velians. Ap'xaz. and
Albanians, Gregory the Illuminator - called "the kat'alikos of all Armenia" - began to consecrate
bishops for the whole o f greater Caucasia. He reportedly ordained a K 'art'velian named Ibir-b-z-xua. a
resident o f the city of Sebastia, and made him metropolitan, subordinating all o f the bishops o f K 'art'li to
him. Ironically, the Georgian tradition does not recall that any K 'art'velian had led the Church in
K 'a rt'li at this time. Should this memory o f Ibir-b-z-xua be accurate, then perhaps his association with
Sebastia was mistaken by later K 'art'velians to mean that he was a Greek, o r that the author of the Arabic
text erroneously' made him to be a K 'art'velian who was residing in Anatolia. It should be said that
according to the Arabic version o f Agat'angeghos, another "Georgian" cleric, named Antioxi. was
designated by Gregory as the bishop o f Klarjet'i . ! 7 7
It is worth repeating that the claims that Gregory the Illuminator had superintended the
conversion o f K 'art'li and that he had appointed a metropolitan to administer the Church in K 'art'li
almost certainly demonstrate that this Arabic recension of Agat'angeghos was conditioned by the fallout
! 7 4 C'urtaveli, Mart. Shush., cap. 3, p. 13; cap. 5, p. 15; cap. 8 , p. 19; and cap. 18. p. 28.
! 7 5 Thomson, "Mission, Conversion, and Christianization: The Armenian Example," HUS 12/13
(1988/1989), p. 34; Thomson notes that in The Epic Histories, III. 14, the first Armenian bishopric was
established not at the royal capital (in the Greco-Roman world bishoprics were founded in the major
administrative centers, i.e., cities), but in western Armenian on a site o f a former pagan temple. The early
Armenian bishoprics were attached to the estates o f great naxarar families. See also Adontz/Garsolan,
Armenia in the Period o f Justinian, esp. ch. 12, "The Naxarar System and th e Church," pp. 253-302.
*7 **Agat'angeghosArabic, pp. 112-115. for T rd a t summoning these three kings after his own
conversion Cf. Movses X orenac'i, 11.8 6 , p. 238 and note 3.
! 7 7 AgatangeghosArabic, pp. 136-139. The Georgian tradition is unaware of any K 'art'velian bishop
by the name o f Ibir-b-z-xua.
372
after the schism o f 607/608. In the course o f the break o f the two major Caucasian Churches, the
Armenians had refused to recognize a kat'alikos for the K 'art'velians (which would constitute a
recognition their internal ecclesiastical independence) and instead allowed them only a metropolitan.
Later, Xorenac' i claimed that Nino/Nune had preached on behalf o f Gregory among the K'art'velians.
Thus, while this Arabic text may have been based upon an early, now-lost Armenian version of
Agat'angeghos, nevertheless, it is certain that scribes following the events o f Dwin m introduced certain
innovations into the text to further demonstrate the superiority' o f the Armenian Church.
In sum, early Georgian historical literature, written centuries after the events it describes,
provides only crude material on the development and structure o f the Church in K 'art'li. After the
Christianization o f the monarchy in the fourth century, references to the Church in K 'art'li are usually
limited to the nam e of its prelate and to the construction o f places of worship. The information which has
come down to us o n this theme must be carefully scrutinized, for it is now transmitted only in MSS that
were copied in the Bagratid period.
The Apostolic Claim
Both The Conversion o f K'art'li and the derivative ninth-/tenth-century Life o f Nino are
altogether unacquainted with any tradition o f an apostolic foundation for the Church in K 'art'li. Yet in
the eleventh century, during the heyday o f the Bagratid monarchs, the apostolicity o f the K' art'velian
Church was taken for granted. Although the apostolic clamorings o f the K'art'velian Church may be
traced only to the Bagratid era, we should consider the earliest texts in an attempt to detect the ultimate
sources for these claims as well as any possible real connection with the apostles/time of C hrist It should
be emphasized th at the extant Georgian sources on the apostolic founding o f the local church are
relatively late and were products o f the Bagratid era.
A p o s to lic ity emerged as a major issue within the Eastern Church as a result of the burgeoning
claims o f the papacy. The Roman prelacy had been established by not one but two apostles, Peter and
Paul. Through its apostolic connection, especially to Peter, the papacy built up claims that it had been
invested with the ultim ate authority over Christendom. Conversely, in the Byzantine world the supreme
authority o f the C hurch was deemed to rest in the ecumenical council, which though convened by the
emperor was believed to be guided by the Holy S pirit The bases o f papal claims to superiority gradually
compelled the Byzantines to produce counter-arguments, and from the ninth century their ecclesiastics
began to articulate the claim that the apostle Andrew had preached at Byzantium, the site upon which
Constantinople had been erected by Constantine "the G re at Andrew, it was maintained, was actually the
first-called apostle {John 1.37-42), and it was through him that Peter, the chief founder of the Roman see,
373
17ft
became a disciple o f C h ris t 1
From the Byzantine perspective, all the apostles were considered equal.
Therefore, it was o f relatively minor importance as to which apostle had preached in Byzantium.
From the early seventh century, at which time the K 'art'velian Church broke its communion with
the Armenians and came to accept Chalcedon, K 'a rt'li established intimate ecclesiastical contacts with
Byzantium. This process accelerated under the Guaramids and then especially under the K 'art'velian
Bagratids, who rose to power under Byzantine tutelage and in a region adjacent to Byzantine lands. We
should recall that it was precisely from the seventh century that K 'art'velian writers began to emphasize a
distinct history for the K 'art'velian Church, and this should not be divorced from the attempt o f some
K 'art'velian princes to rise to prominence under the watchful eye o f Byzantium. After all, the theology o f
the Armenians was not in accordance with that o f Byzantium, and with their m m towards Constantinople
the K'art'velians were anxious to prove their worthiness by distancing themselves from their Monophysite
neighbors. ^
This goal made the development o f specifically K 'art'velian traditions all the more
desirable.
The Armenians, w ith whom the K 'art'velians had maintained close ecclesiastical contacts from
the fourth century, had claim ed an apostolic origin for their Church from a relatively early period. 180
The fifth-century The Epic History had already advanced the notion that the apostle Thaddaeus (Tadcos)
had preached in Armenia.
The sixth-century Syriac Book o f the Cave o f Treasures clearly linked the
apostle Bartholomew with Armenia, and the Armenian king THursti is said to have martyred that apostle
in the city o f Urbianos. 18^ A more elaborate version, articulated in the early eighth century by Xorenac'i,
declares that the apostle Thaddaeus had lodged with the family o f Tobias Bagratuni in Edessa. which was
in his estimation an Armenian city. *8^ The same author contends that Gregory the Illuminator had been
17ft
F. Dvomik, The Idea ofApostolicity in Byzantium and the Legend o f the Apostle Andrew (1958).
17<\
1 ' Theology in early Caucasia, esp. in K 'art'li, is poorly understood; see S.P. Cowe. "Generic and
Methodological Developments in Theology in Caucasia from the Fourth to the Eleventh Centuries within
an East Christian Context," in SSCISSKI, vol. 43b, pp. 647-683 (largely from the Armenian perspective).
180See M. van Esbroeck, "The Rise o f Saint Bartholomew's Cult in Armenia from the Seventh to the
Thirteenth Centuries," in T.J. Samuelian andM .E . Stone, eds., Medieval Armenian Culture (1982), pp.
161-178; and Thomson, "Mission, Conversion, and Christianization, pp. 28-45.
^ T h e Epic Histories, E L I, p. 67. See also Garsolan in ibid., prosopography, s.v. "Tadeos," pp. 411412.
*8^Cave o f Treasures, p. 255. The medieval Georgian version o f this text (intentionally?) lacks this
account. The Epic Histories is unacquainted with this tradition of Bartholomew.
183 Movs& Xorenac'i, n.33. pp. 170-174; Xorenac'i identifies Abgar an Armenian ruler. Thaddaeus is
given the name Addai in the Syriac Teaching o f Added {ibid., p. 170, footnote 1).
374
conceived near the grave o f Thaddaeus 184 and that Bartholomew also had preached in Armenia . 185
Thus Armenia, like Rome, is said to have been introduced to Christianity by a pair o f apostles.
Since the K 'art'velian apostolic claim post-dated the schism with the Armenians, it is not
surprising that the K 'art'velians came to seek a distinct apostolic origin. Andrew, the apostle credited
with proselytizing the co-religionist Byzantium, eventually was understood as K 'art' li's first enlightener
(we shall see how this claim was plausibly interpolated). And like their Caucasian neighbors, the
K 'artvelians would maintain that a second apostle, Simon the Canaanite (Simon Zealotes) had preached
in "greater Georgia. " 186
The K 'art'velian Church did not advance any claims o f apostolic foundation until after the ninth
century . 187 With the single exception o f a brief notice appearing in The Life o f the Kings (see infra),
hagiographical and historical works composed before that period - including The Martyrdom o f
Shushanild, The U fe o f Peter the Iberian, 188 The Martyrdom o f Evstat'i, The Conversion o f K'art 'li,
C'xorebay vaxtang gorgaslisa, and The Ufe o f Nino are completely unacquainted with any K'art'velian
apostolic tradition. To this list we may add early Armenian historians (up to and including Xorenac'i) as
well as the earliest account o f the conversion o f K 'a rt'li, that o f the late fourth-century Rufinus (and the
related accounts Sozomen, Socrates, and Theodoret). Javaxishvili thought that the silence by Rufinus was
deafening on this point, for that ecclesiastic regarded his own source. Bakur/Bacurius, to be extremely
184ZWd., H.74. pp. 220-221. See ibid., n.91, p. 248, for Gregory later sitting upon "the throne o f the holy
apostle Thaddaeus." This phrase also occurs in the fifth-century The Epic Histories, HI. 12, p. 82.
186Movses Xorenac'i, 11.34, pp. 174-176.
186The Caucasian Albanians also developed a tradition o f having been Christianized by two apostles.
Thaddaeus and especially his own disciple Eliseus: this claim appeared at a time roughly contemporary'
with the development of the K 'art'velian claim. See Movses Dasxuranc' i. 1.6-7. pp. 4-6 et sqq.
187There is a wide range o f literature concerned with the apostolic foundation o f the K 'art'velian Church.
Particularly useful ate: Tamarati, L'Eglise georgienne, esp. ch. S, "L'apdtre saint Andre en Georgie," pp.
120-133; Javaxishvili, "Andria moc ik ulis da c~a ninos moghvaceoba sakart'veloshi." Moambe 5
(1900), pp. 55-70 and 6 (1900), pp. 18-50; idem., "Propovednicheskaia deiatel'nost' ap. Andreia i sv. Niny
v Gnizii," ZhMNP 333 (1901), pp. 101-113; Peeters, "Les debuts du Christianisme en Georgie," pp. 1015; Ev. Nikoladze, Sak'art'velos eklesiis istoria (1918), "M ok'ik'uli andria pirvel-codebuli
sak'art'veloshi," pp. 11-23; and D. Bakradze, Sak'art'velo andria moc'ik'ulisdros (1880). Cf. the
nationalistic surveys o f K. Salia, History o f the Georgian Nation, 2nd ed_, p. 6 8 , and P. Ioseliani, Short
History o f the Georgian Church, pp. 7-13 and footnotes 3-6, both o f which do not recognize the lateness
o f the Andrew legend.
188The earliest extant version o f this vita, preserved only in Syriac, is ignorant o f apostolic claims.
However, the later, Bagratid-era Georgian reworking o f Peter's biography refers to Andrew's preaching in
Georgia.
375
trustworthy. Had Bakur related the story o f Andrew or Simon, Javaxishvili felt that Rufinus would have
incorporated it into his ac co u n t 189
Before examining the development o f the Andrew legend among the K'art'velians. we should
briefly trace the evolution o f the Byzantine tradition. According to Origen. otic o f the earliest Christian
writers to engage the theme o f apostolicity. Andrew introduced the faith o f Christ to the Scythians; this
contention was repeated by Eusebius in the fourth century. I 9 By the seventh century the purview o f
Andrews activity had expanded only slightly, with Isidore asserting that the apostle preached in Scythia
andA chaia.19*
In the late seventh/early eighth century Epiphanius, the bishop o f Cyprus, embellished the talc
about Andrew.*9^ He greatly increased the area in which Andrew is said to have preached, adding the
domains o f the Soghdians and Gorsinians. *9^ Furthermore, Epiphanius introduced the notion that
Andrew preached in the city o f Sebastopolis, the major settlement of Egrisi (western "Georgia." but
outside o f K 'a rt'li proper), as well as the port o f Hyssos and along the Phasis (Rioni) River. Thus, by the
eighth century Andrew was imagined to have proselytized the population o f an area that became a formal
part o f the later all-Georgian kingdom (from the eleventh century). It is worth emphasizing that in the
time o f Andrew, we possess absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the K'art'velians envisaged Egrisi and
A p'xazet'i as an integral province o f the K 'art'velian enterprise. Such ideas, amorphously conceived,
surfaced only in the seventh and eighth centuries. This eighth-century claim of Epiphanius may' not be
admitted as evidence that Andrew was credited with introducing Christianity to K 'art'li (or.
anachronistically, to Georgia). Rather, here we have an indication that the purview o f Andrews mission
had been expanded, and that he was imagined as having preached along the greater part of the eastern
*8 9 Javaxishvili, "Propovednicheskaia deiatelnost ap. Andrei i sv. Niny v Gruzii." pp. 77-113; cf.
Tamarati, L Eglise georgienne, pp. 124-129.
*9 Origen, Exeg. Genesis, cols. 91-92; and Eusebius. Eccl. Hist., HI. 1. pp. 190-191. A useful collection
of various traditions about the apostles is Prophet, vitae fab.
^ I s i d o r e , De Ortu, col. 151: "Andreas, qui interpretatur decorus, frater Petri, secundum Joannem
primus, juxta Matthaeum a primo secundus. Hie in sorte praedicationis Scythiani atque Achaiam acceptit.
in qua etiam civitate Patris cruce suspensus occubuit." The Syriac Cave o f Treasures, p. 253. which has
come down to us in a sixth-century version, states that Andrew preached in Scythia. Nikomedia. and
Achaia. and that he died in Byzantium (i.e., Constantinople). Ibid., p. 255, o f Simon Zealotes (also part
o f the later K 'art'velian tradition), lists Samosata, Perrhe/Parin, Zeugma, Aleppo, Manbig/Mabbog, and
Kinnesrin. Simon is said to have built a church and died in Kyrrhos.
^ E p ip h a n iu s , cols. 221-222. Repr. in Tamarati. L'Eglise georgienne, p. 131, footnote 1.
l^ D v o m ik , The Idea o f Apostolicity, pp. 208 and 211, suggests that the designation "Gorsinians" may be
a deformation o f "Georgia," but this does not seem likely.
376
littoral o f the Black Sea. The increasing horizon o f Andrews activities, o f course, could be thus be seized
upon by the K 'art'velians to bolster their own claims.
The expansion o f Andrew's mission had not reached a plateau with the innovations introduced in
the eighth century. W ithin two hundred years Niketas o f Paphlagonia proclaimed that Andrew had
preached to the Iberians (K'art'velians) along with the Sarmatians, Taurians. and Scythians, as well as all
o f the settlements along the Black Sea . 194 Significantly, we possess direct evidence that Niketas account
o f Andrews mission was known to Georgian writers. The Georgian reworking o f The Life o f Peter the
Iberian, which in its extant form does not predate the thirteenth century,*9^ refers to Niketas by name.
This account enthuses that from the time o f the apostles up to the fifth century:
... [K 'art'li] had not deviated from the holy and veritable faith since [the time when] the
apostle Andrew had preached the Holy Gospel in the land o f K 'art'li. about which
Niketas the divine philosopher wrote in The Wanderings and Preachings o f the Holy
Apostles [mimo-svlat'a... da k'adagebat'a cmidisa mis moc'ik'ulisat'a] ...*
This is a rather late reference. However, Kekelidze and Tarchnishvili noted that the eleventh-century
Athonite Ep't'w m e M t'acmideli translated Niketas tract into Georgian (more on Ept' wme follows) . 197
It is through this translation that the author o f the Georgian reworking o f Peter the Iberians vita probably
knew Niketas.
In the ninth/tenth century another monk named Epiphanius, a resident o f the Kallistratos
monastery in Constantinople, devised an even more elaborate Andrew legend. *9** Epiphanius deduced
that Simon the Canaanite (also known as Simon Zealotes) had been the companion o f Andrew. This
embellishment was subsequently accepted by the K'art'velians. Epiphanius also divulges that both
Andrew and Simon proceeded to Abasgia/Ap' xazet' i and visited the city o f Sebastopolis (cf. the earlier
Epiphanius). Simon the Canaanite died during the journey and was buried in the city o f Nikopsia.
l 9<*Niketas o f Paphlagonia, cols. 63-64. See also Tamarati, L'Eglise georgienne, p. 131, footnote 3;
Dvoraik, The Idea o f Apostolicity, pp. 234-237; and Javaxishvili, "Andria m oc'ik'ulis da c~a ninos
moghvaceoba sakart'veloshi." Moambe 6 (1900), p. 40.
*9 ^Lang, Lives and Legends o f the Georgian Saints, 2nd ed., pp. 57-58.
^ T h e Ufe o f Peter Iber., M arr ed., para. 3, p. 3.

*9 7 Tarchnishvili, Geschichte, p. 135.
^ E p ip h a n iu s of Kallistratos, cols. 241-244. Repr. in Tamarati, L'Eglise georgienne, p. 132, note 3. See
also Dvoraik, The Idea o f Apostolicity, pp. 225-226.
377
It is unclear when the K'art'velians' own tradition o f Andrew was originally formulated, but its
introduction and dissemination belongs to the Bagratid period, and may be traced directly to K'art'velian
monks on M l Athos (especially in the eleventh and twelfth centuries). The Life o f the Kings (ca. 800)
includes a lengthy insertion based upon the Wanderings o f the Apostle Andrew, and it might be tempting
to pursue the legend to that time; but it is now established that this account is a later insertion. It would
seem, then, that the original author was not familiar with the apostolic claim. In all probability, the
Andrew tale was introduced to the K'art'velians by E p't'w m e (Euthymius), one o f the priors o f the heron
(lit. "of the Iberians) monastery on Athos (r. 1005-1019).*^ It is no coincidence that Ep't'w m e was
responsible for translating The Wanderings o f Andrew into Georgian. Another K 'art'velian Athonite. the
eleventh-century Giorgi Mt'acmideli, used the work in his defense of K 'art'velian autocephaly in the face
o f Antiochene claims:
[Giorgi addressed the patriarch o f Antioch:] "... But we [K'art'velians] are the heirs and
the flock o f him who was the first-called [i.e., Andrew] and who called his brother
[Peter]; and by him we were converted and enlightened. A nd one of the Twelve holy
apostles, Simon the Canaanite, is buried in our land o f A p' xazet' i, at [the place which]
is called N ik o p 's i[a ].^
The popularization o f the Andrew legend among K' art' velian/Georgian ecclesiastics is manifest by its
prominent position in Giorgi Mt'acmideli's defense against Antiochene jurisdictional claims in the
eleventh c e n tu r y .^
Ep'rem Me'ire, a renowned eleventh-century K 'art'velian monk active in the monasteries of S t
Symeon the Younger and Kastana near Antioch, was acquainted with the tradition o f Andrews preaching
inAvazgiay.202 He also added that Bartholomew (Bart' lome) had preached in K 'a rt'li !203 O f course.
^ A c te s d'lviron, vol. 1 (1985), pp. 93-94 et sqq: and Tarchnishvili. Geschichte, pp. 126-154. esp. p.
135.
^ G i o r g i Me'ire, The Ufe o f Giorgi Mt'acmideli, cap. 18, p. 154^_g. This trans. based upon that of
Djobadze, cap. 18, p. 56.
^ T h e issue o f autocephaly will be addressed in the following chapter, for the Georgian historical
tradition itself claims that this status was achieved during the reign ofV axtang Gorgasali, a contemporary
o f Zeno. Moreover, The Ufe ofVaxtang maintains that the Church in K 'a rt'li had been a dependency of
the Patriarchate of Antioch. Later Georgian traditions suggest that Eustathius, the exiled bishop of
Antioch, had come to K 'art'li following Mirians Christianization and him self ordained or even served
as the first bishop of Me' xet' a. But the Georgian historical tradition is completely ignorant of
Eustathius o f Antioch.
^ T h i s is a Grecified form and denies the author's dependence upon a Gk. te x t
201
J Eprem M e'ire, Conv., p. 4. Eprem seems to be drawing upon the Armenian claim that Bartholomew
378
E prem could plausibly claim that Bartholomew had visited some part o f "Georgia since the Armenians
understood that he had preached in their land .2 0 4 Essentially, Ep'rem sought to maximize the
justification for the independent status o f the Georgian Church, and thus he had calculated that three
apostles had passed through "Georgia." Bartholomew's appearance in K 'a rt'li was never "officially"
adapted (it is not clear why), although his tract was extremely popular, with numerous copies having been
m ade even in the early modem era .2 0 5
We possess even earlier, tenth-century evidence that the Andrew legend was current among the
K 'a rtvelians. The Klarjet'ian Polycephalon recollects that*
Andrew, [Peter's] brother, went and preached [about] the Lord to all the [areas along]
the [Black] Sea: to the Bithynians and Pontians, the Thracians and Scythians. After
this he went to the inhabitants o f th e great city o f Sebasti, where was located the camp o f
the Ap sari-s, and [he went along] the Phasis River.. . 2 0 6
The later Byzantine traditions of Andrew were clearly known to the Georgian monk responsible for this
chapter o f the Klarjet'ian Polycephalon, but it should be emphasized that the described region is not
specifically identified as either K 'a rt'li or Georgia. However, the tenth-century Palestino-K'art'velian
Calendar, which is preserved in a M S from Mt. Sinai, recalls the memory o f Andrew on several days (viz.
5 March, 29 April, 22 July, 18 August, 10 September, and 9 October), but this text does not name that
apostle as the evangelizer o f K 'a rt'li .2 0 7
A word should be said here about the Ruisi-Urbnisi synod o f 1103, held under the presidency o f
th e Bagratid king Davit' II (1089-1125). This gathering is the first general K'art'velian ecclesiastical
council attested in Georgian literature, occurring over six hundred years after the initial Christianization
o f the K 'art'velian monarchy. Its resolutions were w ritten down and first published by T \ Zhordania in
had been active in Armenia. Although he does not use the term Sak'art'velo (i.e., "Greater Georgia) a
single time in his tract, his definition o f the limits o f K 'a rt'li appears to be quite wide. Ep'rem merely
states that Andrew was the first-called (pirvelcodebuli) o f the apostles, and that he had been active in
K 'a rt'li, but does not give details from The Wandering o f the Apostle Andrew. On Ep'rem see also
Djobadze, Materialsfo r the Study o f Georgian Monasteries, CSCO vol. 372, subsidia 48 (1976), pp. 6 6 67.
204This extention o f Armenian traditions to Georgia is reminiscent o f the K'art'los/Haos legend.
2 0 5 E.g.,
KekJnstM S# S-184 (1809).
2 0 6 AT/ar/.
Polyceph., para. 46, p. 387.
2 0 7 Garitte, ed.,
Palest.-Georgian Cat., pp. 54,63, 80, 85, 89, 171-172, et sqq.
379
1897.208 The preface o f the acts o f the Ruisi-Urtmisi council are o f interest here since they provide a
sketch o f the official view o f the Christianization o f Georgia. Recognizing that the council was
summoned at Ruisi-Urbnisi by D avit', the document begins by addressing the worship o f idols before the
coming o f Christ.2 0 0 Although no specifically K 'art'velian idols are mentioned, the implication is that
the entire world had been plagued by the blasphemous worship o f idols. Christianity had been introduced
to the world by the apostles, and among the twelve Andrew and Peter were distinguished, and Andrew
was singled out, for he is said to have preached the Gospel "to all the land of Georgia [qovelsa
k'ueqanasa sak'art'veloysasa, ymsocgbA j*)Qy&66 t a b i^ i 6 m3 {jC5 PXQbi]." Then. Constantine "the

Great"'s contributions to the Universal Church are extolled. The conversion of the K 'art'velian monarchy
under Nino, called Nunne "the Cappadocian" in this account, is recalled and parallels closely the narrative
of the ninth-/tenth-century Life o f Nino. The episcopal order in K 'a rt'li is said to have been established by
the exiled patriarch o f Antioch, Eustathius. This is a very late tradition which will be examined in the
following chapter. Finally, the seven ecumenical councils are recounted ,2 *0 setting the context (and
precedent) for Davit' *s convening o f the Ruisi-Urbnisi synod. On the question o f apostolic foundation the
acts of Ruisi-Urbnisi are unambiguous: the preaching o f Andrew in Georgia was at that time accepted, or
at least portrayed, as fact.2 **
As we have seen, more than one set o f insertions regarding Andrew are found in The Life o f the
Kings. We know that by the time the Arm/A MS o f the Armenian adaptation o f K'art'lis c 'xovreba was
copied in the late thirteenth century, a brief notice regarding Andrew and Simon had already been
inserted. Surely this passage was not part o f the original ca. 800 U fe o f the Kings, but was added within
two centuries of its composition. The relevant passage from Arm/A reads:
In the days o f this same King Aderk, two of the twelve apostles, Andrew and Simon the
Canaanite, came to Ap'xazet' and Eger [i.e., A p'xazet'i and Egrisi]. The holy Simon
was martyred in the city o f Nikop'is [i.e., Nikopsia] on the Greek border. The holy
20Âcts o f Ruisi-Urbnisi, pp. 54-72.

200 Ibid., pp. 56-58 (idols), 58 (Andrew, Constantine, Nunne, Eustathius), and 59 (Eustathius and
ecumenical councils).
2 *It should be said that the contemporary Georgian Church normally stressed only the first six councils.
The seventh council, held in Nicaea in 787, officially codemned Iconoclasm, a heresy from which the
K'art'velians/Georgians claimed to have remained aloof. Therefore, the K'art'velian/Georgian Church
regarded the seventh council as being superfluous in terms of its own experience.
2 * *Javaxishvili, "Propovednicheskaia deiatel'nost' ap. Andreia i sv. Niny," p. 108. As m ight be expected,
the modem Georgian Church claims that it was, in fact, founded by Andrew and Simon. Ilia II, the
hat a//faw-patriarch o f all-Georgia, recently evoked this image in calling for calm and peace following a
natural disaster, see his "Kvlav k'ristes sap'arvels k'veshi," JV3 (1989), pp. 3*4.
380
Andrew, having converted Eger, went on to Klarjk' [i.e., Klaget'i], When [King]
Aderk heard of this, he became angry. He sent [agents] and reconverted Eger to
the idols. And they hid the Cross and the image o f the Cross. The ostikan [i.e..
governor] ofK laijk' was blamed for setting Andrew free unharmed .2 1 2
Only in the eighteenth century was much o f the Georgian version of The Wandering and Preaching o f
Andrew inserted into certain Vaxtangiseuli MSS o f K'art'lis c 'xovreba. This work, like The Life o f Nino.
was not an original component of The Life o f the Kings, and both represent an ongoing concern by
Georgian clerics to Christianize the early texts of K'art'lis c'xovreba. and to make that text address the
issues o f the day.
The inserted Andrew/Simon tale o f The Life o f the Kings follows closely that translated from
Greek by Ep't'w m e Mt'acmideli in the first-half o f the eleventh century .2 1 2 Andrew was emphasized as
being the first-called o f the apostles, Le., pirvelcodebuli (3ort3')C?^cTiGE>3&!3C?o). Furthermore, Andrew
is said to have visited the city ofTrebizond ( Trapizoni; Gk. Trapezus), "which is a Megrel-ian settlement
[romel ars sop 'eli megrelt'a]. Up to this time the Georgian historical tradition had never described
Trebizond as a part o f Samegrelo/"Me[n]grelia," 2 ^ o r as a locale inhabited primarily by Megreli-s. After
2 12 / lm .
Adapt. K 'C \ p. 4 7 ^ .j -7. Cf. Thomson trans., pp. 50-51.
For the insertion concerning the activities o f the apostles Andrew and Simon see The life o f the
Kings, pp. 38 and 39-42.

21*But the Greco-Roman tradition is not unfamiliar with such an identification. E.g.. Xenophon.
Anabasis, IV.8 , pp. 340-341: "[from there they went to] Trapezus [Trebizond]. an inhabited Greek city on
the Euxine [i.e., Black] Sea, a colony o f the Sinopeans in the territoiy o f Colchis. There they remained
about thirty days in the villages of the Colchians, and from these as a base plundered Colchis." Cf. Siege
o f Cple., pp. 48-49, where Trebizond is said to be in "the environs of Samegrelo. See also Tamarati.
L'Eglise georgienne. pp. 146-149. On the territories o f western "Georgia" see A. Gugushvili.
"Ethnographical and Historical Division o f Georgia," Georgica 1/2-3 (Oct. 1936). pp. 54-59.
Recently, G. Mamulia. K'art'lis eklesia V-VIsaukuneebshi (1992), with Eng. sum.. "The
Kartlian Church in the 5th-6th Centimes," pp. 94-96, has suggested that the early Church in K 'art'li was
actually dependent upon the Amasean metropolitan o f Helenopontus, which itself was situated within the
diocese o f Pontus (pp. 70,94, etsqq). This creative attem pt to subordinate the early Church in K 'art'li to
the metropolitan o f Helenopontus is based upon rather sketchy but nevertheless fascinating
information. A donor inscription of the Ishxani cathedral dated 917 AD relates that the K'art'velian
rulers "dispatched to Greece-Trebizond [i.e., Pontus] our honorable, worthy Father Stepane. and he was
consecrated as archbishop [of Ishxani] fay the hand o f the honorable and God-imbued Greek Patriarch
Basil..." (see Djobadze, Early Medieval Georgian Monasteries, pp. 209-210). This consecration took
place ca. 937. It should be emphasized that by the tenth century the K 'art'velian Church was
independent, and we would expect at this time that the archbishop of Isxani would have been ordained in
M c'xet'a by the K 'art'velian kat'alikos. The Georgian historical tradition itself recalls a connection to the
patriarchate o f Antioch; see infra, ch. 5.
Some modern specialists have sought to expand the confines of the K 'art'velian communities so
that notable personalities might be identified as being o f "Georgian" stock. E.g., E.G. Khintibidze,
Gruzinsko-vizantiiskie literatumye vziamootnosheniia (1989), pp. 170-196 (Eng. sum., pp. 309-310),
attempts to prove the "Georgian" origin o f Basil the Great by (unconvincingly) equating die terms
381
preaching in Trebizond, Andrew entered the confines o f K 'a rt'li, where he established priests and deacons
and directed the construction o f a church. By "K 'art'li" the author actually has in mind the western
region o f Egrisi/Ap'xazet'L It should be noted that in the translator's own time, the Georgian kingdom
comprised both K 'art'li and Egrisi/Ap'xazet'i.
Andrew is said to have proceeded to the southwestern region o f Samc'xe and visited a village
named Zadeni-Gora. There he witnessed the inhabitants worshipping idols, and he found an idol-temple.
tadzari sakerpo ((Jid i 6 o
the site o f which was in his own time reportedly called the "old
church \dzvel-ek{k}lesia]." Andrew also discovered an idol-altar, bomoni sakerpo (bci9n6o

b^3Q63n), before which the populace offered sacrifices to their gods Artemis and Apollo (Artemi and
Apoloni).
J Neither o f these gods is known to the Georgian tradition o f the idols found by Nino, nor are
the terms tadzari sakerpo or bomoni sakerpo. But however imaginitive this story is, the worship o f
Apollo and the goddess o f Phasis (who was equated by Zosimus with Artemis) in Colchis/Egrisi is attested
by Classical historical and archaeological evidence .2 1 6 O f course, this Georgian story might itself have
been extrapolated from ancient texts.
Subsequently, Andrew was joined by the apostle Simon the Canaanite and together they
journeyed to the land of Ovset'i (Alania). Entering the city o f P'ostap'ori - the only mention o f this
settlement in Georgian historical literature written before the twelfth century - they are said to have
performed great miracles and converted many o f its inhabitants. The apostles continued on to A p'xazet'i
and its chief city o f Sevaste (Gk. Sebastopolis), "which is now called C'xumi [Soxumi/Sukhumi]" where
they continued to preach. Then, having traveled even farther to the north, Simon was martyred and
buried in the village of Nikopsi, "in Ap'xazet'i and Jik 'et'i ." 2 1 7 Andrew was not diverted from the path
o f his missionary endeavors, however, and he pressed ahead, finally reaching Scythia (Skwt'i) .2 1 8 Thus,
Andrew is imagined as having evangelized the western regions o f "Georgia" en route to Scythia.
"Cappadocian," "Mesxi," and "Georgian." Although Basils family might have included some protoGeorgians (Mesxi-s, K'art'velians, Egrisi-ans. etc.), it is completely anachronistic to identify Basil as
"Georgian." Furthermore, we possess no evidence that Basil considered himself to be descended from any
"Georgian" people. Khintibidze's argument is insightful insofar as it demonstrates (but, on some
important counts, exaggerates) the intimate connection o f M esxet'i and Cappadocia in late antiquity.
215Later insertion in The Life o f the Kings, pp. 39-41.
Georgia in Antiquity, pp. 99-98 (for a m id fifth century BC silver bowl found along the
Kuban with the Gk. inscription "I belong to Apollo the Hegemon, die [god] in Phasis") and 190 (for the
cult o f the Phasian goddess).
2 1 6 Braund,
2 1 7 Cf. the sixth-century Syriac Cave o f Treasures, p. 255, which states that Simon Zealotes died in
Kyrrhos and does not mention the Iberians/K'art'velians.
218Later insertion in The life o f the Kings, pp. 42-43.
382
The tradition that K 'art'velian Christianity is apostolic in origin was not developed
systematically among the K 'art'velians until the early eleventh century, probably a t the instigation o f the
work o f the widely-read Georgian monks on M t Athos and in Syria. Byzantine writers had been
responsible for altering the early tradition o f Origen and Eusebius that Andrew had preached among the
Scythians, eventually adding the K'art'velians and others. The K 'art'velians only accepted these views
and injected certain details into them. The apostolic tradition in Georgia, therefore, is a Bagratid-era
development which was closely tied to the K 'art'velians' claim that their Church deserved its status o f
autocephaly (i.e., o f ecclesiastical independence). Imported from Byzantium, the Andrew legend is a
testimony o f the turn towards Byzantium so characteristic o f the Bagratid period. As far as I know, the
Armenians were not included in any o f the Andrew traditions, probably owing to the fact that from the
seventh century on the K 'art'velian Church was Chalcedonian and in full communion with the Imperial
Church, whereas the bulk o f Armenians were not. In any event, it is conceivable that the Armenians'
understanding o f apostolicity influenced the K'art'velians. In short, unlike the author o f The Life o f the
Kings who was forced to interpolate the K 'art'velians into established traditions, the legend o f apostolic
preaching in K 'art'li/G eorgia was actually formulated by Byzantine writers, and then simply embraced
reiterated and slightly elaborated by K 'art'velian monks and ecclesiastics from the eleventh century .2 1 9
There is no reason to think that the apostolic clamorings o f the K 'art'velian Church originated in
the pre-Bagratid period Rather, it was only under the K 'art'velian and then Georgian Bagratids, with
their turn towards Byzantium and the establishment o f large K 'art'velian monastic communities abroad
that the transmission o f Byzantine ideas to K 'a rt'li intensified and it was through this conduit that the
idea of apostolicity became a paramount consideration to the K 'art'velian ecclesiastical organization. The
pre-Bagratid K 'art'velian Church, following the schism pronounced at Dwin III in the early seventh
century, was concerned with formulating and popularizing a distinct K 'art'velian tradition vis-a-vis that
o f the Armenian Church. The question o f apostolicity. which could further strengthen the claim o f the
K'art'velian Church that it was rightly autocephalous, was seized upon by the K 'art'velians, and Andrew
was proposed as the apostle who had preached in Georgia. The rewriting o f history therefore became
desirable and necessary.
jig
* A7 Dvomik, following the arguments o f A. Pogodin, suggests that the Andrew tale may have permeated
the lands o f the Rus via Georgia: Dvoraik, The Idea o f Apostolicity, pp. 263-264: A. POgodin, "Povest1 o
khozhdenii apostola Andreia v Rusi," Byzantinoslavica 7 (1937-1938), pp. 137-141 (cited in Dvomik):
and I.S. Chichurov, "'Khozhdenie apostola Andreia' v vizantiiskoi i drevnerusskoi literatumoi traditsu,"
in A.-E.N. Tachiaos, ed.. The Legacy o f Saints Cyril and Methodius to Kiev and Moscow (1992), pp. 195'
213. Rus. Prim. Chron. does speak o f Andrew's preaching along the Black Sea, but Georgia/K'art'li is
not specifically named. See Rus. Prim. Chron., p. 53. However, this source offers no indication that the
Andrew legend was transmitted to the Rus' through the intermediacy o f the K'art'velians.
383
Chapter Five
T h e I m a g i n e d V a x ta n g G o r g a s a li
a n d th e A u tu m n o f P r e - B a g r a tid K ' a r t 'l i
The modem memory o f Vaxtang I Gorgasali (ca. 447-ca. 522) is, in many respects, a fallacy o f
immense proportions. During the past century and a half, Georgian nationalists have collimated
Vaxtangs already semi-legendary medieval biography to the patriotic line, transforming it into a popular
paradigm o f Georgia's constant struggle against foreign oppression. * The monument o f Vaxtang which
stands near the Metexi cathedral overlooking the Mtkuari River in T b ilisi and the alleged grave of that
king in front o f the altar o f Sueti-cxoveli in M c'xet'a are palpable, m odem reminders of this supposedly
remarkable monarch. But was Vaxtang so great a king that, as popular tradition holds, he was able to
liberate his kingdom from Sasanid Persia? Was Vaxtang so great that he, and only he, could effect a
peace between Persia and Byzantium, two o f the most powerful and influential empires o f the
Mediterranean and the Near Eastern worlds? Was Vaxtang the savior o f Jerusalem?
With the passage o f time all historical figures are subject to mythicization, idealization, or even
vilification, and, in this regard Vaxtang stands along the notable company o f individuals like Alexander
the Great, Charlemagne, George Washington, and Vladim ir Lenin. Simply put. history is constantly
being made and remade, imagined and reimagined, precisely because it is a discipline based upon
interpretation. There can be no question that the historical Vaxtang, a very real person, faced a perilous
situation in the late fifth and early sixth centuries, for the struggle waged by the Persians and Byzantines
over control o f the Caucasian isthmus had grown savagely fierce. But as to the elaborate claims o f his
biographer, we cannot be so certain. Unfortunately, no contemporary Georgian historical evidence
This chapter is concerned primarily with the image of Vaxtang according to The Life o f Vaxtcmg. The
semi-mythical Vaxtang o f this text is referred to here as "the imagined Vaxtang" as opposed to "the
historical Vaxtang" (who is known from contemporary, non-Georgian sources). It should be noted that
the imagined Vaxtang is a key component o f the medieval Georgian historical tradition, and this image is
historical insofar as it was believed to be feet after ca. 800 AD. The dates o f Vaxtangs life and reign, like
those o f all the pre-Bagratid rulers, are hotly debated; modem Georgian specialists usually prefer a
considerably earlier death for Vaxtang, ca. 502. I have been pursuaded by the arguments o f Toumanoff,
whose calculations are accepted throughout this study.
384
survives, so we must lode to non-Georgian sources as well as to the considerably later Georgian biography
o f that king (ca. 800).2
As we shall see, m odem nationalists are not alone in their reinterpretation o f Vaxtang. His
medieval biographer already obscured his historical memory with an almost unpenetrable veneer of
legend and fabrication. Despite the numerous embellishments o f The Life o f Vaxtang to be examined in
this chapter, however, the K 'art'velian community did survive the various onslaughts, as it would later
against the Arabs, Turks, Mongols, the armies o f Timur, and even the Russians. In seeking to place credit
where credit is due, we shall attem pt to navigate through the layers of myth applied to Vaxtang already" in
the medieval period. In the process, o f course, we shall learn much about the interpretation o f Vaxlang's
place in K'art'velian/Georgian history by his later biographer and successive scribes, and less about
Vaxtang himself.
The Life o f Vaxtang, like The Life o f the Kings, was composed at a time when the K'art'velian
monarchy had fallen into abeyance (since the sixth century). These anonymous authors were compelled to
gather, recollect, and eulogize the history o f the preceding kings. Their works were partly inspired by
nostalgia and they echoed the hope that the monarchy was worthy of being, and should be, restored This
rings particularly true for The Life o f Vaxtang and its brief continuation by Ps.-Juansher, both o f which
are concerned with the last kings o f K 'a rt'li before the dissolution of local royal authority by the Persians.
The anonymous author of Vaxtangs biography, through legend and excessive detail o f heroic exploits,
sought to establish a model Christian K 'art'velian monarch. This is not to suggest that Vaxtang did not
accomplish any heroic feats, and that elements o f his agenda did not affect the successive generations of
K'art'velians. However, I shall argue that the historical Vaxtang was not the great king depicted by his
biographer, and that his imagined memory actually sustained the K'art'velian community more than any
o f his actual deeds.
/ .
IMAGE OF REALM: DESCRIPTION AND A TTENTION TO DETAIL LN THE LIFE OF

VAXTANG
Among the earliest extant Georgian historical works is the anonymous Life o f Vaxtang, probably
written at the end o f the eighth century, and certainly no later than the ascendancy o f the Bagratid Ashot I
in 813.3 Before examining its image o f Vaxtang, we should first offer a brief consideration o f the style of
Ôriginal Georgian literature seems to have emerged in the period of Vaxtang; the earliest extant work,
the hagiographic Mart. Shush., was originally composed in the fifth century.
^The life o f Vaxtang is commonly attributed to Juansher Juansheriani among historians in the Republic of
Georgia. The predominant view am ong them is that Juansher is a historian o f the eleventh century, but
V. Goiladze has recently, and I think unsuccessfully, suggested that Juansher was a historian
385
* *i
*Vi
j
d ^ p d o ^ ^ c jjU
$ p
Ceo. JTpOjWlsd jTO<K>: joO: ^ ^ ^ g J o r ^ ^ S o o V n - 3 ^ '

^ jy p ^ )n v 5 ^ rO : crajjiljcJ- J^:C&<*: % dlsirf< J: Qrf-.g&fe*3'J t* ^ :
c j^ o jb a tj- o < ^ Q j ^ o ?j ^ o ^ < y r ^ l9 ^ T / ^ J
jTOOTd.'j^: to^no^JCTJO: M n o a o :
< r- ^ 'tio c & c n *
$,<lftyS<r>4QS-- C ^ O ^ ^ O ; ^TT3C<< ^JpIj- iSK pfryJÔ P1^
J^xngpc/boxjiC:
bSaîOsC: di&C: Qr/bf-jcijfifod'' h<3<&
^TO: S5C3 o 6 ': W d $ J O ) d : (JciPtyjStyff:
!ÔOi<y'.
0 )0: O c ^ ^ a f l j o o - I r o S ^ o c g P ^ ) ^ 1 h & t$ s& d iy r
dotft&qjlj: lyldrÔJd; C8^j<r>-tôg2r:

< $ : ijjdc ffljnao : j |) :
Uom-d:
r^dO ^C ^T -
.^rgp? < ftaJj~ ben-jrn ^
- - - ^ .ia
}.$0030<!&}(,:.$\god>-'^!5o<^p
*fc
^ * *, .. '?,
k ck./n sr.x/S tt S-30. p. 293 = M ariamisculi

I variant o f ATT)#-/'/ c xovreba. O pening o f 77k; Life o f
kaxtang.
contemporary with his subject Vaxtang: see Goiladze, Vaxtang gorgasali da misi istorikosi (1991), with
Rus. sum., "Vakhtang Gorgasali i ego istorik," pp. 205-207.
386
r
*sr*
^
6t\j& oo34'
*
<**
V
' ...
**! * "** * ./ _. V.
**
'-S
--
.-,
**. ..'
, .
| o o ^ 6 h ;* -<T&o 6V-
'
-*.
> p w " <n<iT ii)i >n y

' ...
*" '.y^
f t -.* V V V .. ' v
Ô O df: o^
.'.
' ; ' '
"* -
'
jocârh^5<3a*..Si|^.: 9^3?C^
$&%p*Fb>
^^C % 3?yd: C*3o^b;
^ 1?%
/.
ôc^dajjnod' b$*s^fbcnO'^
r ' %: . i f f i s V ' # O iM ^:^< iSSpcjls^j:i^& a: ^ce^C J< ^n o ^

^ ' '
CQ<M ej3Qmcjlj<ioo*6: ^ d n O i^ n y ^ jo c n c -.Q jc ^
3& C
hsmcds'- Sh^kfr^ÔnC: Is^S^ljofc: & ^6 ^:Q S flg ^$ n 3 C i>
^
Ft"
j W ^ * g
W < jc $ j6 :
..
>-
<S>
S iJ -.ejs^g> o
K e k.In st.S IS f> S - 30. p. 2V4 = M a n a m isc u li
variant o f A. art Its c xuvrcha. O p e n in g o f 7 /ie /.// /'
l-axtitnft.
387
his biography and especially its unprecedented use o f vivid detail. This careful attention to detail was
almost certainly a later cosmetic overhaul of an earlier oral, or even (now-lost) written, tradition of
Vaxtang. This infusion o f brilliant imagery was intended to exaggerate the figure o f Vaxtang and to
render him as the very epicenter o f K'art'velian heroism.
It should be noted that the vivid description in The Life o f Vaxtang is limited to Vaxtang himself
and is not shown for his father and grandfather, whose reigns open the work. The inescapable conclusion
arises that its skillful author was concerned primarily with narrating a gripping, and memorable, tale o f
the hero-king Vaxtang so as to stimulate (or, as part of) an effort to restore the monarchy. Moreover, the
second and term inating text o f the corpus C'xorebay vaxtang gorgaslisa, the early ninth-century
continuation fay Ps.-Juansher, generally lacks this attention to detail, and that source is syntactically and
structurally reminiscent o f The life o f the Kings. Moreover, Ps.-Juansher deals only with the successors
of Vaxtang and not with that king himself. Unlike preceding Georgian historians, Ps.-Juansher is nearly
contemporary for the events he describes. He is the earliest extant Georgian historian to demonstrate a
fascination with things Byzantine and, in fact, he provides several notices on events in Byzantium from
the reign o f the emperor Maurice (582-602). Successive Georgian historians routinely report events in
Byzantium and often relate the relative sequence and names o f its emperors. These characteristics are, for
the most part, not applicable to The Life o f Vaxtang, although, significantly, this text constitutes the first
stones o f a bridge linking pre-Bagratid/Persian-oriented and Bagratid/Byzantine-oriented historical
writing. In any event, its anonymous author did take a great interest in the question o f the relationship of
the Christian K 'art'velians and their king to the Byzantine emperor, who regarded himself as the ultimate
sovereign o f all Christian peoples.
Dialogue and Exaltations o f the Christian God
The Life o f Vaxtang employs rather frequent dialogue, a trait usually uncharacteristic o f early
Georgian historical literature, but not uncommon in hagiographies. Essentially, The Life o f Vaxtang
constitutes a historically-based form o f hagiography, eulogizing not a saint but rather the great Christian
hero-king Vaxtang;4 this partially explains the occurrence o f dialogue. Much o f it is attributed to
Vaxtang himself, as he addressed his troops or as he battled against opposing bumberazi-s. Regardless o f
his audience or topic, the king's alleged speeches contain numerous allusions to the Christian God, and
thus the identification o f the K 'art'velian kingdom and realm as specifically Christian is repeatedly
Again note the influence o f the hagiographical genre upon Georgian historical writing is evidenced by
the designation c'xorebay (modem c'xovreba), "life" (Latin vita), which is commonly used in the titles o f
each.
388
confirmed by the monarch himself. The contemporary Kart'velians' close association with Christianity is
emphasized by the Byzantine historian Procopius. In any event, the king's utterances are almost certainly
not an accurate memory but rather were created by the ca. 800 author so as to solidify his desired image of
Vaxtang.
Struggle is one o f the primary motifs o f The Life o f Vaxtang, be it against the infidel Zoroastrian
Persians o r against the occasional indiscretions o f the Christian Byzantines.5 In this milieu, it is to be
expected that a vocabulary of war would be thrust upon Christianity. Consequently, Vaxtang is made to
speak o f the Cross as his foremost weapon, his source o f strength, and his guide.6 Before facing the
Byzantine soldier Polekarpos in a duel, Vaxtang touched his sword to the Cross, hoping to conjure divine
favor.7 But the imagined Vaxtang's good fortune in warfare is reportedly augmented by the fact that he
was o f superior physical conditioning,8 and that he wielded an assortment of extraordinary weapons
including a shield constructed from dragon's scales9 as well as an unusual helmet from which his
biographer derived his sobriquet Gorgasali. ^
The Cross was the embodiment o f God on Earth for the medieval K'art'velians. This emphasis
upon the Cross as a weapon and guide is enhanced by the description o f the divine in The Life o f Vaxtang.
God is specifically described as "all powerful and "incomprehensible." Furthermore, some o f the basic
theological issues o f the day were o f interest to the anonymous biographer, for the Christian God is often
identified as the "consubstantial Trinity (sameba ert'arseba),** God "Who is without beginning"
(ghmert'i dausabamo),*7 and "God the Creator" (ghmert'i dambadebelisa).15 These conceptions are
5In medieval Georgian literature, the Byzantines are routinely refered to as "Greeks" (berdzenni) while
Byzantium (esp. Greece and Anatolia) is called "Greece (Saberdznet'i).
^The Life o f Vaxtang, pp. 140,154-155, etsqq. Similar imagery was current in Byzantium. S.G.
MacCormack, Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity (1981). p. 85, refers to a work of George o f Pisidia, in
which is said: "The cross, thanks to you [Heraclius], was seen by the enemy to be a new Ark, and more
than the Ark; for the Ark afflicted the enemy in taking the place of missiles, but the force o f the wood [of
the cross] sent against the enemy living missiles..." MacCormack rightly identifies the cross as both the
instrument o f imperial rule and victory (p. 86).
7Ibid., p. 175.
*Ibid, p. 159.
9Ibid,
p p .
1 5 4
and
1 7 5 1 4 .
Îb id ., p. 180. Vaxtangiseuli MSS often corrupt the sobriquet as Gurgaslan. For the helmet, see infra.
l l Ibid, pp. 149
and 192j 1_j2-
i2Ibid, pp.
1 4 0
Îbid., p p .
1 4 0 j7 ,
7 ,
1 5 2 2
and 1 9 2 ^ .
1 4 7 j^ _ ]4 ,
1 5 0 8 _q,
1 9 2 | i _ i
7, and
1 9 3
j -
389
indicative o f a limited understanding o f the pronouncements o f Nicaea. But the author eulogized Vaxtang
and did not endeavor to provide a synopsis o f the K 'artvelians' contemporary' understanding o f theology
(which, in any case, seems to have been relatively inexact).
This circumstance m ay appear to contradict my thesis that Georgian historical writing had
developed in the wake o f the theological controversies surrounding Dwin ID in 607/608. We might have
expected numerous statements upholding the tenets o f Chalcedon. However, The Life o f Vaxtang was
composed some two centuries after the schism and was intended to be not some polemical attack on the
Armenians or Monophysitism but rather a written monument to the alleged great king Vaxtang, and in
my view, commendation to K 'art'velian kingship itself. That the Armenians are not afforded a prominent
role in this text which covers early Christian K'art'velian history, a period in which the Armenian
Church was dominant in Caucasia is itself indicative o f the post-Dwin K 'art'velian effort to create their
own written traditions. The crux o f this text is the history o f the kings in K 'a rt'li, and not one specifically
o f the Church. This approach denied the Armenians any substantial role.
The reign o f Vaxtang coincided with a series o f disasters, or as our historian calls them,
"plagues." These misfortunes are directly attributed to the sinful nature o f the K 'art'velian community,
but not to any similar behavior on the part o f the monarch.14 Vaxtangs biographer relates that the
Christian God was punishing the K 'art'velians for their transgressions, and that the K 'art'velians and
their king were conscious o f Gods retribution against them. The virtuous Vaxtang is portrayed as
assuming responsibility for his subjects, setting them upon the path o f orthodoxy. Moreover, he is
constantly made to be an example for his people, and subsequent kings, to emulate. Thus, before entering
into a duel with the "Khazar w arrior T 'arq'an, Vaxtang secluded himself in the royal tent, praying for
the duration o f the n ig h t The next m orning Vaxtang slew T 'arq'an, fighting as though he were
"incorporeal." ^
Following each o f his innumerable victories, Vaxtang habitually expressed his gratitude
for the favor o f the Christian God by instituting a week o f prayer, Casting, and night vigils, and at times he
is even said to have distributed largess among the poor.16 This explicit linking o f tragedy and sin has no
precedent in Georgian historical literature.
The imagined Vaxtangs struggles were not confined to skirmishes on the battlefield. One of the
most potent weapons in his arsenal was believed to be the very words o f Christianity: Biblical citations
and stories, prayers, and the like. Vaxtangs most noteworthy war-of-words was directed against the
UIbid., pp. 146-150.

l5Ibid, pp. 152-154.
l6Ibid., pp. 151, 158, 164, etsqq.
390
heathen king o f the Sind-s . 1 7 The king's legendary verbal dexterity probably contributed to the Bagratids'
admiration o f him (considered infra).
Another manifestation o f the divine favor shown to Vaxtang is his dream inspired by God. later
interpreted by the Byzantine ("Greek") clerics Petre and Samoel. This vision - or. at least its
interpretation convinced him to establish peace between himself and the emperor, and to ensure that his
successors would recognize the ultim ate religious authority o f Christian Byzantium . 18 This dream will be
specially discussed later.
The Military: Troops and Armament

The life o f Vaxtang thus imparts the constant struggle being waged by the K'art'velians. It is
not surprising, therefore, that its author exhibits a vested interest in things military. Much o f his vivid
description is dedicated to the army {lashk'ari,
andspanni, b3j>66o = "troops"). We can say
little about military organization during the time o f Vaxtang , 19 but the ca. 800 author provides multiple
references to both cavalry (mq'edari, SjflfiS-iAo)2 and infantry (k'ueit'i, ^)qo<o)21 troops; this was
almost certainly applicable to Vaxtangs own time. The use o f boats, usually called navi (6 ^3 0 ) but
sometimes referred to by the Greek term dromona (sA<n3ca6j), is also recorded .2 2 For the first time in
Georgian historical literature, troop counts are given in several instances, although they are often grossly
inflated to render the odds o f K 'art'velian victory slim, making arty victory fantastic.22
^The Life o f Vaxtang, pp. 192-194. O n the Sind-s in Classical literature, see V.I. Moshinskaia, "O
gosudarstve sindov," VD I17/3 (1946), pp. 203-208.
to
*It should be noted that the type o f allegiance owed lty Vaxtang to the Byzantine emperor is not
altogether clear, the Byzantines would have claimed both religious and political domination while the
K'art'velians (according to the author) seem to have offered only their religious subordination.
19 Cf. Kakabadze, Vaxtang gorgasalis xana (1994 repr.), ch. 99, "Samxedro rep'orma; sakargavis
shemogheba," pp. 292-299.
20This term is also employed in Old Georgian in the sense o f "warrior."

21The instrumental form o f k'ue ("under," from the vantage point o f the cavalry).
The life o f Vaxtang, pp. 171 (which reports that 500 dromona-s had approximately 500 men does
this mean 500 or 100 men per boat?), 176-177, and 195.
22 E.g., ibid., pp. 150 (where cavalrymen and infantry are differentiated), 151,157-160,176-179,186,
and 2 0 2 .
391
Unlike the contemporaryLife o f the Kings andeventhebriefcontinuation by Ps.-Juansher, The

Life o f Vaxtang often refers, by name, to weaponry andarmor, including:2* armor(.sachurveli,
Iia3?!)633C5o);25 helmets (ch'abalaxi, sing. fiabAcjAbo);26 shields (p'ari, gafto);27 swords (q'rmaii.
jrt3iC50, mod.: i //,2 8 andmaxwli, 3abjc?o);29 spears (horoli, Jea^xnepo, var. oro//);30 bows
(mshwldi, 333C5SO);3 1 andarrows (isari, obatSo).32 Some of the weaponry as described is exaggerated:
thus the Ovsi goliath Baqat'ar reportedlywieldeda longbowoftwelve spans (which itselfrequiredarrows
of six spans), andVaxtang, while dueling with Baqat'ar, is himselfsaidto have employeda shield made
fromdragon's scales 33 These aggrandizements are merely intendedto enhancethe story.
tw o
2*On contemporary Armenian arm or and weaponry, see Garsoi'an in The Epic Histories, s.v. "zorkVzor."
technical terms, pp. 573-576.

25The Life o f Vaxtang, pp. 14016, 1487, 153 j^ , 15417, and 167^. For horses clothed in iron armor see
also Xoneli, Amiran-Darejaniani, p. 23 and footnote 2. Armor is also mentioned in The Life o f the Kings,
pp. 20
j, 3 4 3 .^ 5 , 5 6 3 , and 6 8 j 7. There is a single reference in The Life o f Nino in C'x. k'art'.
mep'et'a,p. 987 .
pp. g,
(variant
jg, and I8O9. This termis also recordedonce in the later
^T h e Life o f Vaxtang,
a helmet made ofchainmail),

in
p.
152 155
jachuch abalaxosanni =
175
Life o f Nino C'x. k'art'. mep'et'a,
89 IQ. It is not used in The Life o f the Kings or in Ps.-Juansher.
17
* The Ufe o f Vaxtang, pp. 154 lg , 155 j 0, and 17513_15. This term does not appear in C'x. k'art'.
mep'et'a (including The Ufe o f the Kings) or Ps.-Juansher.
2 8 Ztorf.,pp. 152g, 155i2, 165 j j , 175g+ i^, and 197i^. This term does not appear in C 'x. k'art'. mep 'et'a
(including The Life o f the Kings) or {^.-Juansher. O 'rmali is often rendered as "sabre."
2<*lbid. pp. 15 O3 , 15419 , 1 7 I 2 3 , and 200g. See also Ps.-Juansher, p. 237 19 . The distinction between the
q'rmaii and the maxwli is not altogether clear, later editors use the words interchangeably. E.g., at The
Ufe o f Vaxtang, p. 175g, while most MSS use q'rmaii the MQm variant (i.e., the Mcxet'ian recension)
employs maxwli. We should also emphasize that while q'rmaii does not appear in The Ufe o f the Kings,
maxwli is relatively common (pp. 28j j. 61 15, and 677). Maxwli is also used in The Ufe o f Nino in C'x.
k'art'. mep'et'a, pp. 8 9 ^ , 1O8 2 0 , H 3 h _ 2 1 , an<* 1 2 5 l l - 2 0 2The Ufe o f Vaxtang, pp. 153 1 2 - 14 . ^^15* ^ d 194 j i . ^ . See also The Ufe o f the Kings, pp. 347 _g,
46 12 - 14 , and 569. i 2.
3 1 77e Life
o f the Kings, p. 1547; see also ibid., pp. 3 4 j3, 55ig, and 5 6 2 -
11
Isari properly denotes "arrow" but can be used in the sense of "bow and arrow." The Ufe o f Vaxtang, p.
155^1 1, 1562 , 16020
2 0 2 i7 . See also The Ufe o f the Kings, pp. Ij+ lfr 2 *20* 3*14 ^ 2 aiK*
Ufe o f Nino in C'x. k'art'. mep'et'a, p. 81 13 .
22The Ufe o f Vaxtang, pp. 154-155; the shield o f dragon's scales is also mentioned ibid., p. 175.
392
Wealth and Money
Luxury items, especially precious stones, linen, and horses, and the description o f gills are
commonly specified for the first time in local historical writing. Vaxtang allegedly presented valuable
gifts to his allies and associates, emphasizing that he was a great king possessing a massive fortune.
Sometimes Vaxtang was him self the recipient o f extraordinary presents. We read that:
1. Vaxtang sent to his uncle Varaz-Bakur:

1000 slaves, 1000 pack-horses, 1000 mares34
2. Vaxtang sent to the Persian king:
10,000 slaves, 10,000 pack-horses, 10,000 mares33
3. The inhabitants of Speri gave Vaxtang:
1000 litra ("pounds) o f gold, 500 pieces o f precious cloth3**
4. The inhabitants o f the city o f Pontus gave Vaxtang:
1000 bags of musk, 500 ambergris. 1000 litra o f perfume3^
5. Vaxtang gave to the king o f the Persians:
1000 maidens, 500 slaves, 500 gold-brocaded linens, 500 linens (bizioni
zuzma), 10,000 mares, 500 pack-horses, 300 mules. 4000 oxen. 10.000 sheep3
6. The king o f the Persians gave to Vaxtang:
3000 litra of perfume, 500 litra o f ambergris. 500 litra o f musk. 3000 steeds.
1000 royal garments. 3000 furs3^
34/b/</., p. 158. Cf. Thomson trans.. p. 173. who renders saq'edari (my Hpack-horse[s]") with "cavalry
horses."
7,5Ibid., p. 158.
36Ibid, p. 170.
3Îbid., p. 172. Thomson trans., p. 189 and footnote 34, notes that "bags" (mut'akal) is actually the
Arabic mitqdl, "a measure less than five grams."
3Îbid., p. 182. Thomson trans., p. 199, gives "500 bezants and drachmas" (i.e., coins) for bizioni zuzma
xut'asi. I have identified bizioni with the Byzantine vission, o r cloth. In any event, drachmas are not
mentioned here.
3Îbid., p. 183. Thomson trans.. p. 200, footnote 57, gives: "Royal: xuasrovani, an adj. derived from
Xuasro" (or, the Chosroids).
393
7. Vaxtang and the king o f the Persians took as tribute from the king of
the Indians: 1000 litra o f musk, 1000 litra o f amber, ten ships o f aloe (alva),
one ship o f jacinths and emeralds, various sapphires, 100 camels (ak'lemi) o f
gold, 500 camels o f silver40
8. Vaxtang took twice as much tribute from the king o f the Sinds as he took from the
king o f the Indians (see #7 supra).4^
In addition to the various precious items enumerated by The Life o f Vaxtang, its anonymous
author also explicitly mentions coinage.4^ The precise identification o f these coins, invariably called
drahkani Ggfii.3j.s6o, cf. drachma),4^ cannot be attempted, for further details and specimens are lacking.
Throughout the corpus o f C'xorebay k'art'velt'a mep et'a, including The Ufe o f the Kings, there is but a
single reference to coinage (dramay, jg fii8 ia ). The relevant account reported the K ' art'velian promise
that coins featuring the effigy o f the Armenian king were to be struck.44 Notwithstanding, modern
numismatic and archaeological researches have determined that both Sasanid and Byzantine/Roman
coinage circulated simultaneously throughout contemporary Caucasia.
No specifically K 'art'velian coinage was struck under Vaxtang or his predecessors, although
some Sasanid coins, bearing Georgian inscriptions, were minted in the late sixth and in the first-half o f
the seventh centuries. The earliest Georgian inscriptions on Sasanid drachms (cf. the Georgian term
drahkani-s) are cryptic and have yet to be satisfactorily deciphered. One o f them might be read as G-N.
Some specialists have attempted to read this as an abbreviation o f Gurgaslani, i.e., the late medieval,
corrupted form o f Vaxtang1s sobriquet, Gorgasali. Likewise, another coin seems to read J~0, which
sometimes has been incorrectly taken to refer to a certain erist'avi Juansher. However, E. Pakhomov
convincingly dismissed both o f these opinions and established that no specifically K'art'velian coins are
known to have been struck during the time o f Vaxtang I.4^ The reference to drahkani-s, should it be
40Ibid., p. 188.
41Ibid, p. 195.
4^Coins (here struck in the name o f the Armenian king for circulation among the K'art'velians) are
specifically mentioned once in the contemporary The Ufe o f the Kings, p. 49 lg .
4^The Ufe o f Vaxtang, pp. 1582 and 164j. There is a single reference in Ps.-Juansher, p. 225 jq. See
also R. Blake, "Some Byzantine Accounting Practices Illustrated from Georgian Sources, HSCP 51
(1940), p. 23, who equates drahkani (for the eleventh century) with the Byzantine nomisma/bezant.
44The Ufe o f the Kings, p. 49 jg.
45Pakhomov, Monety Gruzii, pp. 17-24.
based upon some sound historical reflection, would seem to denote a coinage which circulated in K 'art' li
but one that had been struck elsewhere.
Specimens o f the Sasanid-Kart'velian series (after Kapanadze)
395
Roads
Roads were important not only for moving troops and defending against invasion, but also for
expansion and control, communication, commerce, the propagation o f Christianity, and the like.
C'xorebay vaxtang gorgaslisa exhibits a considerable interest in roads, as did the contemporary Life o f the
Kings. The names o f roads are usually derived from their endpoints, with K 'art'li as the point of
reference. Although medieval Georgian historical sources customarily describe roads in vague terms, it is
possible to identify general routes from these references. Roman sources concerned with highways,
especially the Tabula Peutingeriana (third century AD) and the Cosmography o f the so-called Ravenna
Anonymous (third/fourth century), confirm several o f these Caucasian routes.46
The following roads are mentioned in Georgian historical writing up through the eleventh
century (in alphabetical order, [see map]):
1. ABOC'I (Gza aboc'iisa): The U fe o f the Kings, p. 48g_g. According to The Ufe
o f the Kings, this route linked M c'xet'a and K 'art'li to Armenia (Somxit'i).
Hewsen suggested that this is probably the Artashat-Abaran-Ganlij-Pogh-AbulAxalk' alak' i/Axalc' ixe-TBoijomi-Phasis route o f the Tabula Peutingeriana
(q.v. "Armenia," "Parisosi").
2. ADARBADAGANI (Gza adarbadaganisa): The Ufe o f Vaxtang, p. 186q_jq; cf. Hist.
andEul., p. 1 0 9 This highway connected TK'art'li and K axet'i (via T elavi)
to Adarbadagani (roughly corresponding to modern Azerbaijan), perhaps
having a station in Kabala (q.v. "Rani").
3. AP'XAZETT (Gza ap'xazet'isa): The Ufe o f Vaxtang, p. 1 5 7 ^ ; and Chron. K'art'li.
p. 313 j j . This route connected K 'art'li with the western territories of
Egrisi/Ap'xazet'i (including Guria, Samegrelo, and Imeret'i). Running
On antique and medieval Caucasian roads, see: H.A. Manandian, The Trade and Cities o f Armenia in
Relation to Ancient World Trade. Garsoian trans. (1965); and S.N. Mouraviev, "The Trade Routes of
Ancient Georgia According to the Tabula Peutingeriana and the Anonymous Cosmography from
Ravenna," unpubl. paper presented at the Sixth International Conference on the Cultures o f the Caucasus,
University o f Chicago, May 1993 (who shows that the circuit route of the Tabula Peutingeriana actually
consisted offive distinct roads in K 'a rt'li). See also the earlier works by: A. Eritsov, "Istoricheskii ocherk
torgovykh putei soobshcheniia v drevnem Zakavkaz'ia, Sbomik svedenii o Kavkaze, vol. 1 (1871), pp.
33-57; and G. Gozalishvili, "O drevnem torgovom puti v Zakavkaz'e," Trudy-Javax. 2 (1956), pp. 153160 (for routes to the Caspian and Inner Asia). It should be emphasized that the routes described here are
o f relatively short or medium distance, and this is consistent with the circulation o f silver coinage (both
Sasanid and Byzantine; see supra) during this period I am deeply indebted for the guidance and
suggestions on Caucasian highways provided by Prof. R.H. Hewsen. The routes o f the highways
enumerated here are based upon the careful research o f Mouraviev, Manandian, and Hewsen.
396
through the Surami pass, Hewsen has suggested that the route may have
included a coastal road linking Phasis and Soxumi/Suxumi. Chron. K'art 'li
specifically mentions that K 'u t'a t'isi was a station on this highway.
4. ARMENIA (SOM XITI/SO M XET ft {Gza somat'isa ): The Ufe o f Vaxtang.
p. I77}7_|g. This could be any o f three major roads which linked K 'a rt'li and
Armenia. Hewsen prefers that which ran along the Debeda River.
5. CTLKANI (Gza cilknisa): Chron. K'art'li, p. 311j0 ; cf. Vaxushti, p. 35116_20Our source describes this route as extending from the Xerki mountains along
the valley o f the Aragwi River u p to Erco (near the Cilkani mountains).
6. DARIALT (Gza darialisa): The U fe o f Vaxtang, p. 1 5 7 ^_ jg ; Chron. K'art'li. p.
250 j; cf. Vaxushti, p. 1277. This route linked the valley o f the Aragwi River
in K 'a rt'li with the Darial Gorge and finally Northern Caucasia. As Mouraviev
noted, part o f this road now constitutes the so-called Georgian Military
Highway.
7. D V A LET I {Gza dvalet'isa): The U fe o f the Kings, pp. 55j and 682 ; Chron. K'art'li.
p. 256g; cf. Vaxushti, pp. 6724 and 130g. This road linked K 'a rt'li and
Im eret'i with Dvalet'i, O vset'i andK hazaria (Xazaret'i), perhaps traversing
Suanet'i/Svanet'i.
8. GURIA {Gza guriisa): Ps.-Juansher, p. 2 3 8 ^ ; cf. Vaxushti, p. 12425. Hewsen
tentatively identified this as a coastal road from Guria to Pontii&T rebizond
such a route is attested in Roman sources.
9. K 'A R T L I (Gza k'art'lisa): The U fe o f Vaxtang, p. 203g_7; and Ps.-Juansher, p.
227 jq . This is the main road through K 'a rt'li extending along the valley of the
Mtkuari River. Ps.-Juansher relates that Heraclius, during his invasion of
Persia and the East, passed through K 'art'li along this highway.
10. K LA R JETI (Gza klarjet'isa)'. The Ufe o f the Kings, p. 382g; The Ufe o f Vaxtang,
p. 1 7 7 yj\ cf. Vaxushti, p. 1 0 8 2 q . The Ufe o f the Kings mentions this route in
connection with the legendary preaching o f the Apostle Andrew; he is
described as converting the Megreli-s and then leaving Samegrelo/Egrisi
along the Klarjet' i Road The U fe o f Vaxtang names T uxarisi as a station
along this road Hewsen suggested that this highway was an offshoot from
the A p'xazet'i R oad running along the valley o f the Upper Mtkuari River.
11. L E K E T I (Gza leket'isa): Chron. K'art'li, p. 2 4 9 cf. Vaxushti, pp. 127j and 358
(variant reading). Chron. K'art'li explicitly states that this was a major route
linking Khazaria/Xazaret'i to Kaxet'i; in any case, it surely crossed into
Daghestan (Georgian Lek=Lesghian).
12. M C 'X E T 'A (Gza zeda mc'xet'isa): The Ufe o f the Kings, p. 2 7 ^ . ^ . The Ufe
o f the Kings relates that idols were placed along "the road above M c'xet'a."
This road is likely part o f that which ran through K 'art'li along the valley of
the Mtkuari River (q.v. "K 'art'li" supra).
13. P'ARISOSI (Gza p'arisosi): The U fe o f the Kings, p. 4 5 ^ . In our source, this
route is mentioned in connection with Armenia (Somxit'i), Shirakuni,
Vanandi, Bagrevandi, Basiani, Dashti, and Naxchevani, all o f which are part o f
historical Armenia (rendered here in Old Georgian). Hewsen suggested that
397
this road ran up the valley o f the Shamxor River passing through the P'arisosi
Pass, then into Geghark'uni, then south through the Vardenis Pass into Siwnik'
and then through the Bichenik Pass into Naxchevani.
14. PONTUS (Gza pontosa): The Life o f Vaxtang, p. 17l3_^. O ur source names this as
a Byzantine road which approached Caucasia, running along the coast of
Pontus. Trebizond was almost certainly the major station. Such a route is
confirmed by the Roman sources.
15. RANI (Gza ranisa): The Life o f Vaxtang, p. 1873 ^ ; and Ps.-Juansher, p. 231 j.
Both sources in the corpus C'x. vox. gorg. identify this road as connecting
Persia and K 'art'li, Ps.-Juansher describing it as part o f the route taken by the
Byzantine emperor Heraclius. Hewsen suggested that this road ran north of the
Mtkwari River from K 'art'li/K axet'i on to Kabala. Thus the Rani and
Adarbadagani Roads may be one an d the same (q.v.). Goiladze identified the
Rani Road as part o f the Great Achaemenid Royal Highway, but this is far from
certain .4 7
16. RKINIS-JUARI (Gza rldnis-juarisa): Chron. K'art'li, p. 3 0 1 ^ ; cf. Vaxushti, pp.
14723_24> l7724 ^ 66418-19- 1116 P1 ^ location o f this route is unclear,
although it did run through Arqis-c'ixe. Hist, and Eul., p. 513, is familiar with
Rkinis-Juari, and Chron. Hund. Years, p. 98g = Qauxch'ishvili ed.. p. 216g,
identifies Rkinis-juari as being situated between Same' xe and Ghado.
17. SHIMSHATT (Gza shimshatisa): The U fe o f Vaxtang, p. 1 7 9 ^ , cf. p. I96y. The
biography of Vaxtang states that this road ultimately connected Persia and
K 'art'li; however, from its name we may discern that it principally linked
northern Mesopotamia and Syria w ith K 'art'li. This road, having a station in
Samosata (i.e., Shimshati), must also have continued on to Antioch. The
precise route of this highway between K 'art'li and Samosata is a matter of
conjecture, although Hewsen describes the most probable route as having
extended up the Choroxi River to Erzurum and Erzinjan and then down the
Euphrates River to Samosata. Vaxtang Goiladze attem pted to equate the
Shimshati Road with part o f the Great Achaemenid Royal Highway, but this
identification remains speculative.4^
18. T AKUERI (Gza t'akuerisa): The U fe o f the Kings, p. 5 7 ^ ; cf. Vaxushti. p. 6 8 jg.
The Ufe o f the Kings mentions this route with regards to Egrisi. Hewsen
believes this to be a road running up the Rioni/Phasis River through T akueri
and then to Suanet' i.
The familiarity o f early Georgian historians with these roads is significant, for they represent
tangible routes o f political, social, religious, and cultural influence and transmission. We should note that
the pre-Bagratid highways mostly extended away from Byzantium; they connected K 'a rt'li with Northern
4 7 Goiladze,
Vaxtang gorgasali damisi istorikosi, pp. 111-112 and 207.
X%Ibid pp. 181-186 and 207.
L"' nurk ,pproxim*,e direeion
398
TO ANTIOCH
KART-LI
IJJXWOS/V1N3WHV
LEADING TO/FROM
MAJOR MEDIEVAL ROADS
rwrava
399
Caucasia and Daghestan (Dariali, Dvalet'i, L eketi), Armenia (Aboci, Armenia, P'arisosi),
Adarbadagani/Rani, and Syria and northern Mesopotamia (Shimshati) that is to say, with the Near
Eastern world. Four roads were known in the territories which later would constitute western "Georgia"
(A p'xazet'i, Guria, Klarjet'i, and Takueri). Thus, by the authors time, there seems to have been at least
a basic K 'art'velian understanding of the geography of Egrisi/Samegrelo and Ap'xazet'i. Only one road,
that o f Pontus, is known to have linked K 'a rt'li with Byzantine territories. Unfortunately, Bagratid-era
Georgian historical works did not evince a sim ilar penchant for relating information about roadways, but
if they had, we would have expected them to have described several routes to (Byzantine) Anatolia and
perhaps to Constantinople itself.
We might ask why the two authors o f the corpus C'xorebay vaxtang gorgaslisa were suddenly
interested in naming these highways. A partial answer may be found in the consideration of the time of
the authors, i.e., ca. 800, for it was precisely under Arabic domination that "Caucasia once again became
the nexus o f trade-routes connecting Europe and Asia."49 Thus the recovery o f the network o f roads
which canvassed Caucasia contributed to the increased interest in and understanding o f these routes.
With regards to highways, the indebtedness o f the K 'art'velians to Muslim rulers and traders, and the
economic integration of Caucasia into the Islamic commonwealth, partially explains the prominent use of
Arabic legends on Georgian coins (which date from the Bagratid period, demonstrating that the Bagratids
did not sever themselves completely from the Near Eastern world).
II. IMAGE OF THE KING
The Ufe o f Vaxtang was composed almost three hundred years after its subject's death.
Accordingly, some elements o f that text are semi-legendary, while others are outright fabrications.
Vaxtang's anonymous biographer seems to have built his story around a received tradition, but
independently o f his work we know nothing about i t However, these oral sources were ultimately near
contemporary since several o f the events described in The U fe o f Vaxtang may be verified in nonGeorgian texts.^ The probable existence o f an old oral tradition, which likewise became embellished
with the passage o f time, must not be overlooked. In the final analysis, however, the received account of
the imagined Vaxtang represents a ca. 800 tradition.
49Toumanoff, "Armenia and Georgia, p. 609.

^^Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 147 et sqq.
400
One o f the most intriguing questions enveloping The Ufe o f Vaxtang is the multiplicity o f
identities which were made to define Vaxtang. Although royal titulature confirmed Vaxtang as the king
ofthe K'art'velians (Le., o f the K 'art'velian community), he, like many o f his predecessors, possessed
intimate ties o f kinship with Persian noble families. The imbroglio o f identity did not end there, for the
central theme o f The Ufe o f Vaxtang is the recognition that he. as a Christian monarch, should necessarily
be responsible, at least religiously, to the Byzantine emperor, who himself claimed to be the ultimate
sovereign over all o f Christendom (and the emperor was widely regarded in this manner). Thus, a
conspicuous commingling o f K 'art'velian, Persian, and Byzantine/Christian identities is present in the
imagined Vaxtang.
Although it is to a great extent artificial to detach each o f these elements from the others, for they
overlapped and at times even reinforced one another, we shall now offer a consideration o f each o f these
dimensions o f K 'art'velian royal self-identity in the late fifth century, as imagined by the ca. 800 author.
The Persian/Sasanid Dimension
The Ufe o f Vaxtang commences with a series o f events that set the stage for the remainder o f the
narrative. We first read o f the death o f the incarcerated Mirdat IV (409-411), which coincided with the
ruin of K 'art'li by the Zoroastrian Sasanids. The anonymous author emphasized that the Persians invaded
Christian K 'art'li and desecrated its churches, forcing the K 'art'velians to practice their religion
clandestinely. Some churches are even said to have been converted into Zoroastrian shrines. Unable to
withstand the invasion, the K 'art'velian royal family sought refuge in the valleys of the eastern region o f
Kaxet'i. Only after three years o f occupation were the K 'art'velians able to restore local authority, for at
that time the Persians were embroiled in military operations along their eastern frontier.5 1 Taking
advantage o f the lull in Persian authority over Caucasia, the aznauri-s (high nobility) o f K 'art'li selected
Arch'il, son of the brother o f the deceased Mirdat, as king.5^
King A rch'il (411-435) is said to have reacted swiftly against the Persians. Symbolic o f his s tria
adherence to Christianity, he married a relative of the emperor Jovian (363-364). This is significant, for
Jovian had reestablished Christianity among Roman/Byzantine emperors in the wake o f the brief rule o f
the apostate Julian (361-363). Similarly, Arch' il is regarded as having restored Christianity after the brief
5 *This is reminiscent o f the various "liberations" o f the ancient K 'art'velians and the Armenians in The
U fe o f the Kings.
52
The Ufe o f Vaxtang, p. 139. Since I believe that this text was written well before Ufe Succ. Mirian, the
latter almost certainly borrowed this account from the former.
401
overlordship o f the infidel Persians, and his connection with Jovian was imagined as both symbolic and,
through marriage, legal.
Arch' il declared war upon the Persians and initiated a campaign to halt their occupation of
K 'art'li. Fire-worshippers were massacred and expelled, and he requested support from the Byzantines,
his fellow Christians. This call for Byzantine assistance portended the agenda o f Vaxtang. The Sasanid
overlord o f central Caucasia, the erist'avi o f Rani and Movakani, mustered his troops and battled Arch'il
on the Berduji River, along the frontier o f K 'a rt'li and Rani (Caucasian Albania). A rch'il emerged
triumphant, attributing his victory to Christ, God, the Cross, an d the Holy Trinity. To commemorate his
success, he ordered the construction o f the Church o f S t Stepanoz in M c'xeta .33
Arch'iTs son, Mirdat (the future M irdat V), the father o f Vaxtang, intensified the K'art'velian
struggle against Persian domination. As the Persians battled the "Indians," "Sind-s, and "Abashi-s"3 4 in
the E a s t A rch'il an d his heir-apparent ravaged the Persian strongholds o f Rani, Movakani, and
"Adarbadagan" in eastern Caucasia. Nevertheless, A rch'il is said to have continued to regard Persians as
honorable. In some instances, he established links with the Persians, as with the marriage o f his son
Mirdat to Sagduxt daughter o f Botzabod the erist'avi o f Rani. Vaxtangs biographer imparts that the
K 'art'velians hoped that the marriage would engender a permanent peace between Persia and K 'art'li .3 3
M irdat and Sagduxt were married in M c'xet'a and took up residence just to the south at
Samshwlde. Soon after, Sagduxt accepted Christianity, becoming convinced o f the righteousness o f that
faith through the translations o f the Scriptures made by her spouse. Should this episode be an accurate
memory, it is both an example o f the conversion o f a Zoroastrian to Christianity3** and evidence of a fifthcentury K 'art'velian king still knowing Persian, an entire century posterior to the Christianization of
Mirian. In any case, Sagduxt is said to have been baptized and subsequently she commissioned the
construction o f the Samshwlde Sioni cathedral .3 7
Îb id ., p. 140. This church does not survive today.

34In later texts, the term Abashet'i ("the land o f the Abashi-s) refers to Ethiopia. The peoples
enumerated here refer to exotic communities living on the fringes o f the known world. In the context of
this passage, they were situated in the East; therefore, the Abashi-s cannot be the Ethiopians in this
instance. Budge in Kebrd Ndgdst, introduction, p. xii, notes that Habeshi is the old name for Ethiopia
(iteydpeya), and was usually applied for the pre-Christian period. The term Et'iopiay is known in the
medieval Georgian trans. o f The Siege ofCple., p. 42. Xoneli, Amiran-Darejaniani, pp. 40 and 74,
likewise refers to Arabia, Yemen, and China.
3 3 77re Life
o f Vaxtang, p. 141.
3 6 Cf. Mart.
Evstat'i.
37The Life o f Vaxtang, p. 142.
402
Arch ils son, M irdat V (435-447), is im agined to have reigned over a revitalized Christian
K 'art'velian kingdom, yet he was still faced with th e prospect of the reimposition o f Persian tyranny.
Vaxtang was the second o f three children bom to M irdat and Sagduxt; the other two were his older sister
(by four years) named Xuarandze, and a younger one named Mirianduxt. Vaxtang was to rise against the
Persians, proclaiming that as a Christian kingdom K 'a rt'li should render allegiance, at least in religious
matters, to the Byzantine Empire. Significantly, however, Vaxtang did not declare that K 'a rt'li should
sever its ties with Persia. Even while advocating a close association with Christian Byzantium, one o f his
last alleged acts was to accompany the Persian shahanshah on campaign in the E ast
From the outset Vaxtang is described as a king in the Persian sense, demonstrating that the
K 'art'velian conception o f kingship was still indebted to its Persian heritage.5** Although Vaxtangs
biographer wrote considerably later, he continued to be influenced by K 'art'lis ancient connection with
Persia. Though the received imagery may be traced directly to ca. 800, this imagery is nevertheless
plausible for the period addressed. There are many indications that Vaxtangs K 'a rt'li was, in fact, still
part o f the Persian world, although Christian. Vaxtangs own name was Persian, as had been those o f his
predecessors. His biographer reports that he was given "the Persian names Varan-Xuasro-T ang, and in
Georgian he was named Vaxtang "5 9 Likewise, Vaxtangs son and successor had "the Persian name
D arch'il and the Georgian Dach'i ."6 0 Vaxtangs sobriquet, Gorgasali, was based upon Persian:
But King Vaxtang had fashioned for himself a helmet o f gold, and a wolf was depicted
on the front [of it], and a lion on th e bade, and he rushed to wherever the K 'art'velians
were being defeated, and there the Persian soldiers would fall under his charge like
onagers [being chased by] lions. Hereafter the Persians were unable to withstand him.
for they recognized him who had a w olf and a lion depicted on his helmet, and at the
sight o f Vaxtang they would exclaim "Dur az gorgasaP which means "Flee from the
head o f the w olf."^ And because o f this King Vaxtang was called Gorgasali
5**The description o f K 'a rt'li as politically and socially (but not religiously) similar to Persia prompted
Toumanofif Studies. p. 364, to brand the author o f The U fe o f Vaxtang as being o f a pro-Persian
orientation. It is true that the author, a Christian, was not ashamed o f K 'art' li's Persian heritage. As we
shall see, instead o f simply being pro-Persian, he sought to demonstrate that Persian, Byzantine, and
K 'art'velian forms o f identity could co-exist and actually were commingled in the person o f V axtang
^ T h e Ufe o f Vaxtang, p. 143; his Persian name is also attested in ibid., p. 158. See also Justi, Iranisches
Namenbuch, pp. 343-344.
60Ibid., pp. 178 and 185.
^ T h e correct form o f this Persian phrase should be Dur az gorgsar, "from the wolf-head." See Thomson
trans., p. 197, footnote 51. Cf. the name o f Vaxtang's alleged biographer Juansher, whose own name is
based upon the Persian Juwdn-sher, or "young lion."
Ibid.,p. 180q_u . The Armenian historian Ghazar P arpec'i is completely ignorant o f this sobriquet
403
O f course, Vaxtang's own mother was a Christianized Persian and his sisters bore Persian names.6 5 thus,
during the reign o f Vaxtang the entire K 'art'velian royal family bore Persian names (the use o f Persian
names in this period is confirmed in non-Georgian sources). This constitutes an admission that at this
time there was no absolute denial o f K 'art'li's connection with the Persian cultural and even political
world, notwithstanding the Sasanids' often violent attempt to Zoroastrianize K 'art'li. That is to say. the
continuing dominance o f Persian nomenclature among the K 'art'velian ruling strata suggests that even a
century after Christianization there was no systematic attempt to de-Persianize K 'art'li. But, to be fair.
K 'art'li had been a part o f the Persian world for centuries, and it is likely that the K 'art'velians saw
nothing particularly Persian in their own names, but rather, regarded them as an integral part o f their
K 'art'velian heritage. This attitude was probably prevalent in the period, especially after Christianization.
But the implication is that the K 'art'velians, though they probably did not envisage much o f their selfidentity as specifically Persian, were, in fact, still indebted directly to Persian civilization.
K 'art'li's Persian legacy was, o f course, not limited to royal nomenclature. Not only was
Vaxtang's mother, Sagduxt, Persian by birth, but his first wife was Balenduxt, "daughter" (perhaps close
relative) o f the shahanshah Hurmazd HI (457-?459).6^ In order to maximize the effect o f being married
twice, Vaxtangs second wife was a relative of the Byzantine emperor.6 5 W e should remember that it is
uncertain whether these events are historical or if they are merely a later, desired image- In any event,
through these two marriages the imagined Vaxtang could claim a dynastic-blood connection for his family
to Persia and then Byzantium. But the fact remains that his first wife was Persian, and this testified to
Persian context o f contemporary K ' art' li.
It is possible that the historical Vaxtang spoke Persian. Unfortunately, this problem is not
addressed by our sources, but his father and predecessor, Mirdat V, is understood to have known it well.66
Moreover, Vaxtang's mother had Persian as her native language. It is known that royal, and perhaps
while Procopius refers to Vaxtang by a corrupted form of it (Gurgenes). On the cult o f the wolf in
Georgia, see Allen, "Ex Ponto, m and IV: Some Notes," BK 6-7 (1959), pp. 29-30 et sqq. See also W.M.
Ramsay, Asianic Elements in Greek Civilization (1928), "Wolf-Priests, Goat-Priests, Ox-Priests, BeePriests," pp. 72-83, for Greek manifestations o f the Pbrygo-Pisidian wolf-god Manes (Daos).
The Life o f Vaxtang, p. 143. Like Vaxtang's name, those of his sisters are also Persian in form. See
Andronikashvili, Narkvevebi, pp. 511-512 (Xuarandze) and 481-482 (Mirianduxt), where -duxt denotes
"daughter."
^ T h e Ufe o f Vaxtang, p. 158.
65Ibid, p. 198. Cf. the two marriages o f Mihran/Mirian HI.
66Ibid., p. 142.
404
high-noble, children were parceled out to nobles for upbringing and education (as was customary' in Persia
and Armenia), and thus Vaxtang may not have formally learned Persian depending upon the family .6 7 It
is likely, however, that the historical Vaxtang possessed a t least a rudimentary knowledge o f Persian.
Vaxtang is portrayed by his biographer much like the shahanshah, an absolute king, but on a
local (K'art'velian) scale and stripped o f any adherence o r inherent loyally to Zoroastrianism. Intitulatio
suggests that K 'art'velian royal authority was conceived essentially in Persian terms. In a letter, which is
almost certainly a later fabrication, the shahanshah Hurmazd addressed Vaxtang in the following manner.
"From Hurmazd, the King of Kings, to Vaxtang, Varan-Xuasro-T ang, the valiant King o f the Ten
Kings .6 8 The precise meaning of "King of the Ten Kings" has eluded modem historians to this day and
is not adequately explained in medieval literature. However, the phrase may refer to "the Kings of
Caucasia" who often are said to have fought under Vaxtang and are depicted as politically subordinate to
him .6 9 In any event, through the Great King's own mouth Vaxtang is depicted as a King o f Kings (albeit
here, over only ten lesser "kings" of Caucasia), the literal meaning o f shahanshah?
The K 'art'velians' attachment to the Persian world was modified to fit the local situation,
particularly in terms o f religion following the Christianization o f the K'art'velian monarchy. Vaxtang is
identified as a staunch defender of Christianity, and even in his youth he is said to have exhibited a great
distaste for the official Sasanid religion, Zoroastrianism. Yet this hatred for, and struggle against, fireworship, should it apply to the historical Vaxtang. evidently did not manifest itself in a wholesale attempt
to de-Persianize K'art'velian society.
The commingling of K 'art'velian Christianity with Persian social and political notions are
vividly evident at the fifth-century Bolnisi Sioni basilica, just south o f Tp' ilisi. The basilica, whose
Ibid., p. 143. Vaxtang was entrusted for upbringing to the spaspeti Saurmagi; later, Vaxtang's younger
sister Mirianduxt was also entrusted to a high-noble (the spasalari o f Kaspi). T \ Ch' xeidze, Aghzrdis
instituti sasanur iranshi (1979), with Rus. sum.. "Sistema vospitaniia v sasanidskom Irane." pp. 60-69;
and A. Sarjveladze, "Ramdenime dakvirveba mamamdzudze. uxuc'esi, moxuc'ebuli terminebis shesaxeb."
i n Istoriul-cqarot'mc'odneobit'i dziebani (1989), pp. 18-21, with Rus. sum.. "NeskolTco nabliudenii nad
drevnegruzinskimi sotsial'nymi terminami 'memamdzudze,"ukhutsesi,' 'mokhutsebuli,'" pp. 26-27. For
Armenia see Garsoi'an in The Epic Histories, s.v. "dayeak," technical terms, p. 521. Toumanoff, Studies,
makes the argument that the K' art'velian nobility often gravitated towards Persia. If accurate, the more
important noble families may have spoken both Persian and Georgian, and thus Vaxtang might have
learned Persian at a noble's court
6 8 77re Ufe
69Ibid., pp. 151, 157-158, etsqq.

70 K. Gamsaxurdia, "Veretragna, f raetaona da 'c'xovreba vaxtang gorgaslisa," Mac'ne 1 (1988), pp.
113-119, points to three episodes within The Ufe o f Vaxtang which are connected with the Persian epos'.
Vaxtang's military campaign to free his sister from northern Caucasian tribes; Vaxtang's shield made o f
dragon's scales; and Vaxtang's wolf-head helm et
405
inscriptions include the oldest dated specimens o f Georgian writing, was constructed during the reign of
Vaxtang and, according to extant inscriptions, seems to have been completed in 493 AD .7 1 Strangely,
the dedicatory inscription does not mention Vaxtang, or any other Christian/K'art'velian king, but only
the Persian shahanshah, the overlord and real authority in contemporary K 'art'li:
With the help o f the Holy Trinity the construction o f this church was begun in the 20th
year o f King Peroz and completed 15 years later. Whoever worships inside here God
have mercy on him; and whoever will pray for the bishop [of this church. Davit' ] God
have mercy on him too. Amen . 7 7
This inscription is a testament to the actuality o f Persian authority and domination in central Caucasia at
this time. Moreover, the absence o f Vaxtang's name in any of the Bolnisi inscriptions m ight suggest that
Vaxtang was not as great a monarch as affirmed in his biography.73
As a warrior, Vaxtang is described in unmistakably Persian terms as a Sasanid hero-king
Vaxtang's biographer compared him to "the hero Nimrod," who was intimately associated w ith the
Persians .7 4 In fact, The Ufe o f Vaxtang claims that the K'art'velian monarchs were the direct
descendants of Nimrod, "the first king on Earth," who could "make lions as tame as lambs" and could
catch "onagers and chamois running at full speed ." 7 3 Irrespective of his religious affiliation and
obligations to Christian Byzantium, the imagined Vaxtang shows no remorse in proclaiming his Persian
roots and in allying him self when expedient, with Persia. Moreover, Vaxtang is conspicuously depicted
7 *This date for the erection o f the Bolnisi cathedral has been soundly established by means o f donor
inscriptions. The written Georgian historical tradition differs: The Ufe o f the Kings, p. 1383, suggests
that P'arsm an IV (406-409) built Bolnisi. The Ufe o f Vaxtang, p. 1 9 8 ^ , is aware that Vaxtang installed
a bishop at Bolnisi. Owing to the historical veracity o f these pre-Bagratid sources, it is possible that a
smaller church was built at Bolnisi during the reign o f P'arsman and that the current stone structure, and
its promotion to a cathedral (i.e., o f a bishop), was carried out during the reign of Vaxtang
7 2 V. Silogava, Boinisis udzveiesi k'art'uli carcerebi (1994), pp. 34-48; and E n g , pp. 105-107 (with
variant readings o f the damaged inscription). The bishop Davit' is not specifically named in this
particular inscription, but his name is mentioned in other contemporary ones. There is no reason to think
that Vaxtang's name belongs in the damaged portion o f this inscription.
7* 5
It is possible that the shahanshdh allowed the construction of Bolnisi but did not permit the
K'art'velian's monarch's name to appear within its inscriptions. However, should Vaxtang have been a
powerful king we might expect his name to have appeared therein.
7*The Ufe o f Vaxtang, p. 148 j^.

7Îbid., p. 161. For the pre-Bagratid kings being described as the descendants of Nimrod, see also Ps.Juansher, p. 240.
406
as a royal bumberazi, o r "duelist-champion." Vaxtang himself is said to have regularly engaged in duels
against antagonist g o lia t'is. The image o f Vaxtang as both a king and bumberazi likened him to the
shahanshah but also associated him with the pre-Christian K 'art'velian rulers described in the
contemporary Life o f the Kings.
By the time he was a young man, Vaxtang is understood to have taken full control over and
responsibility for his realm. At age twenty-two he reportedly:
... was taller than all the men o f his time and was handsome in face and so abundantly
m ighty that on foot [wearing] arm or he could overtake a deer and catch it by [its] antlers
and kill it; he could carry a saddled horse on his shoulders from M cxet'a and haul it to
the Armazi fortress . 76
Yet Vaxtang's noblemen and even the spaspeti (second-in-command) Juansher expressed their concern
that he was too inexperienced to successfully lead the troops in war, one o f the principal attributes of a
king. Vaxtang replied that he, as the monarch, would lead the troops himself. From his vantage, age was
no determinant, for he w ould be guided and supported by the Cross. The imagery here is clearly that of
David and Goliath, and in fact, the Old Georgian word for giant/goliath, goliat'i, was used throughout the
text, ironically evoking a positive memory o f Goliath for its royal imagery .7 7
Vaxtang chose to personally lead his troops into battle and to defend to his subjects. In the
ensuing battle against the Ovsi-s and "Khazars," Vaxtang himself engaged in bumberazi combat. The
K'art'velians and their foes encamped on opposite sides of the Aragwi River. Over the course of seven
days duels were waged along the riverbanks. A certain "Khazar" goliath named T a r q 'a n distinguished
himself as a remarkable bumberazi. In one blow T 'a rq 'an had slain the seemingly invincible P'arsman70
Parux , 70 a beloved Persian ally o f Vaxtang. K 'art'velian morale plummeted and Vaxtang secluded
himself within the royal tent , 7 9 offering supplications to God. Vaxtang determined that he himself
The Life o f Vaxtang, p. 1593_^. Agat'angeghos, para. 767, pp. 306-307, describes the Armenian king
T rdat, after his conversion, as possessing "giant strength like Hayk s." No K' art' velian/Georgian king is
likened to K 'art'los in medieval texts.
77
Ibid., pp. 148-149. B ut we should recall that the pre-Bagratid tradition often referred to kings and
heroes as goliat'i-s, "goliaths." This word is identical to the Georgian rendition o f the name Goliath (NB:
Georgian does not differentiate miniscules and majuscules; thus the w ord "giant" an d the name "Goliath"
are both rendered as goliat 7). It would seem, then, that Vaxtang was likened both to David and Goliath.
78This is a rare example in medieval Georgian historical literature o f a non-royal figure being afforded a
name based upon the root p 'ar-fh. fam ah.
79The royal tent, karavi (ibid., p. 152 j j) may be a recollection o f the Persian xoran, which was less
elaborate that the mashkapachin, or "royal pavillion." See Garsolan in The Epic Histories, technical
terms, s.v. "xoran," p. 568, and "mashkapachen," p. 544.
407
should duel T a rq 'a n , and the king exclaimed to his troops: 1 shall enter into combat with T a rq 'a n ,
trusting not in my own strength and my own courage, but by placing my trust in God Who has no
beginning and the consubstantial Trinity, the Creator o f all."
The K 'art'velian nobles implored Vaxtang not to proceed w ith this intent owing to his perceived
inexperience, but the king could not be swayed.* Before mounting his horse ,8 1 Vaxtang exalted God
and implored that He strike down that "unbeliever" and "detractor" o f C h rist Consequently, in their
initial skirmish, Vaxtang slew the mighty T a rq 'a n , striking him in the loins with his spear.
Eventually the opposition sent forward another bumberazi, an Ovsi named Baqat' ar.8^ Baqat' ar
was an even greater opponent for Vaxtang, for he is said to have brandished a long bow o f twelve spans
which launched arrows o f six spans. Not to be eclipsed, Vaxtang appeared with his own extraordinary
device: a shield made o f dragon's scales .8 3 As the two heroes fought the armies along both sides o f the
river intensely watched, each playing drums and trumpets in support o f its own duelist8* A pair of
arrows glanced off Vaxtang's shield, but then his horse was struck. As his steed collapsed underneath,
Vaxtang lunged at Baqat'ar, cleaving him with a sword. Baqat'ar was killed, and the demoralized troops
of the enemy were routed. Upon vanquishing the marauders, Vaxtang cast his gaze upon a still greater
opponent the Byzantines, and the fortresses which they had seized in the western region o f Ap'xazet'i .83
8The bumberazi duel between Vaxtang and T a rq 'a n is related ibid., pp. 151-154.
81Sometimes horses were employed in bumberazi com bat as is the case with Vaxtang's duels with both
the Khazar T arq'an and the Ovsi B aqat'ar (see infra).
8^The bumberazi duel between Vaxtang and Baqat'ar may be found ibid.. pp. 154-156. The name
Baqat'ar is in fact derived from the Os language: baeghatyr/baighataer, "hero," "giant" See
Andronikashvili, Narkvevebi, pp. 134-135. The names IIAKA0AP and IIAKA0AN are attested on a
Greek monolith (perhaps eleventh/twelfth century) from the Kuban region north o f Caucasia; see: V.
Miller, "Drevne-osetinskii pam iatnik iz kubanskoi oblasti," MAK 3 (1893), pp. 114-115.
83For the connection o f the dragon with the Persian cultural world, see E. Benveniste, "L'origine du
vishap armenien," REArm, o.s. 7 (1927), pp. 7-9, and cited tty Avdoyan in Ps.-Yovhannes Mamikonean,
p. 201. The Old Georgian designation for dragon, vigri (3 0 5 6 0 ), is based upon the Persian root vagr
("panther, "leopard"). The variant veshapi (3 3 8 ^ 0 , cf. Armenian vishap and Avestan vishdpa) is
attested in Mart. Habo. On the medieval Georgian terms for "dragon" see: Andronikashvili, Narkvevebi,
s.v. "veshapi," pp. 239-239 and s.v. "vigri," pp. 239-241; Sulxan-Saba Orbeliani, vol. 1, s.v. "vigri," p.
263; and Tsulaia in his Rus. trans. o f The Life o f Vaxtang, p. 117, note 54 (who says that the use of the
term vigri in The Life o f Vaxtang is its earliest extant occurrence in Georgian). Dragons are prominent in
XoneU,Amiran-Darejaniani,pp. 15-16 and 117-119. For the connection o f Vaxtang's shield with Persian
legends, see K. Gamsaxurdia, "Veret'ragna, t'raetaona da c'xovreba vaxtang gorgaslisa," M ac'ne-ist. 1
(1988), pp. 113-120, Rus. sum., p. 120.
^ C f . the playing o f music during sim ilar battles in Xoneli, Amiran-Darejaniani, p. 98.
oc
The Life o f Vaxtang, p. 157. T he Byzantine emperor at the time is identified as "the great Leon,"
408
Vaxtang's opponents were not limited to infidels. While battling the Byzantines for control o f
Ap'xazet'i, Vaxtang engaged Polekarpos, a "Greek" soldier. Significantly. Polekarpos is not described as
a bumberazi, or even a goliat'i. In fact, these terms are employed only for members o f the PersianCaucasian environment. In the battle, Polekarpos charged towards Vaxtang with his spear but the attack
was repulsed by the king's dragon-scale shield. Vaxtang then raised his sword and struck Polekarpos'
helmet, severing his head down to the shoulders. The K 'art'velian monarch lifted half o f his victim's
head into the air and exclaimed "This will be the fate o f any who defy You ." 8 6 This is noteworthy since
the implication is that this Byzantine solider, probably a Christian, had somehow defied God. That is to
say, Vaxtang was made to engage directly the forces o f the Christian God against the Christian
Byzantines. O f course, from the K 'art'velian perspective the Byzantines had illegally occupied certain
"K'art'velian" fortresses, and Palekarpos defeat demonstrated that the Byzantines had acted unjustly.
However, the author anachronistically projected Georgian unify into the story, making the fortresses of
Ap'xazet'i (which did in feet often pass into Byzantine hands in this period) possessions o f the
K'art'velian realm.8^
The final duel in which Vaxtang participated occurred while he was campaigning in the East
alongside the Persian king. Vaxtang's troops had advanced to the royal seat o f Sindet'i (i.e., Sindia)
within which that realm's king had entrenched himself. The Sindian king, unnamed and described as a
goliat'i, personally presided over the daily bumberazi battles, and our historian emphasizes that he
himself regularly participated in bumberazi com bat For several days the kings remained aloof from one
another, but then the ejibfi* o f Vaxtang, Saurmag, was killed in an ambush. The first encounter o f
Vaxtang and the king o f the Sind-s cannot be characterized properly as a duel but rather as a competition
in fable-telling. Vaxtang verbally worsted his antagonist by extolling the virtues of Christianity. But
while attempting to convert the Sind-s to Christianity, Vaxtang remained mindful that at the moment he
was campaigning in the company o f the Zoroastrian shahanshah. But, the author justified this state of
presumably Leo I (457-474).
*6Ibid, pp. 174-175.

'Could it be that the historical Vaxtang came to claim fortresses in A p'xazet'i occupied by the
Byzantines? Toumanoff reckons that Vaxtang twice sought refuge in Byzantine territory, the last time in
522 just prior to his death. We must ask whether during these exiles Vaxtang determined that A p'xazet'i
should be part o f his realm, and if the historical Vaxtang did not subsequently claim them for his
kingdom. O f course, Vaxtang was in no position to make demands upon the Byzantines. If true, it is
entirely possible that the K 'art'velian notion that A p'xazet'i was an integral part of K 'art'li might have
been formulated in the era o f Vaxtang.
88The ejibi was a high official o f the king; cf. the hajlb-s, the intermediaries between the Abbasid rulers
and the masses.
409
affairs by making Vaxtang proclaim that the Persians worshipped God the Creator and believ ed in the
"spiritual life:"
First, [I should render assistance to the Persians] because o f my kinship [with them]:
and second, although the Persians are not in the True Faith, nevertheless they know
God the Creator, and they believe in a spiritual life .8 9
It would seem that the Christian Vaxtang regarded Zoroastrianism as essentially monotheistic, or
henotheistic (worship o f a single god while not denying the existence o f others). In this way he could
justify his often friendly relationship with the Persians. For their part, the Sind-s were "completely
ignorant about God, like horses and mules, who are unable to serve God, the Creator of everything."
Finally, Vaxtang and the Sind king engaged each other physically, fighting with spears. Vaxtang
evaded the violent blows o f his opponent "like a whirlwind" and struck the Sind on the shoulder. As he
lay wounded Vaxtang dragged his bloody body before the king o f the Persians. The shahanshah spared
the Sind's life, calling for an expert in healing. Once revived the Sind monarch accepted tributary status
to the Persians .90
In short, Vaxtang, like his pre-Christian predecessors, is described as a king in the Sasanid sense
o f the word, but without an affiliation to Zoroastrianism . 9 * Vaxtang is not depicted as a Zoroastrian, and
no contemporary text suggests that he was. The Ufe o f Vaxtang identifies him as behaving like a
bumberazi, and this linked his image to the Sasanid hero-kings. The institution o f bumberazi was limited
to the Persian world, and pre-Bagratid historical texts describe Persia as "the land o f heroes and goliat'is ." 9 2 Though Byzantine texts are unfamiliar with the Georgian word bumberazi. there is a late
eighth/early ninth century (that is to say, around the same time as the composition of The Ufe o f Vaxtang)
account documenting the Persians' penchant for dueling. In his Short History, Patriarch Nikephoros (806815) relates that:
OQ
The Ufe o f Vaxtang, p. 193y_g. This statement is absent in the Armenian adaptation and probably
reflects the negative opinion o f Persia by Christian Armenians (see esp. Eghishe and Xorenac'i).
90T he encounter between Vaxtang and the king of the Sind-s is found ibid., pp. 188-195.
9 *As we have seen, the possible adherence to Zoroastrianism o f Vaxtang's predecessors is far from
evident The Ufe o f the Kings is not clear on the point; the K 'art'velian idol Armazi almost certainly
represents Ahura-Mazda, but the authenticity o f the story and its interpretation is indeterminate at best.
Ibid., p. 170g:"...
g3o6o>6 os* acijgoiCom.sbA...," k'ueqanasagmirt'a dagoliat't'asa.
410
When [the shahanshah] Chosroes had been informed that [the Byzantine emperor]
Heraclius was close to the Persian royal residence, he sent out against him a brave
and experienced general named Razates. This man drew up [his forces] against
the emperor and, coming forward in front o f his lines, delivered a challenge to
a duel. When Heraclius realized that none o f his men would volunteer, he went
forth himself against the barbarian. Being an expert archer, [Razates] discharged
an arrow which grazed the emperor's lips. He then shot a second arrow which
scraped his ankle. Now Heraclius urged on his horse, and one o f his bodyguard,
who was ahead o f him, sliced off w ith his sword the shoulder o f Razates; and
when the latter had fallen down, the emperor speared him and straightaway
cut off his h e a d 93
This episode is reminiscent o f the duel between Vaxtang an d Baq'atar. Though the bumberazi duels
reported in ca. 800 Georgian historical works are almost certainly later inventions, it would seem that
such combat was common in the Persian world and therefore was practiced in ancient and late antique
K 'art'li.
Significantly, Ps.-Juansher did not make the succeeding K 'art'velian monarchs bumberazi-s. For
example, his account o f D ach'i (522-534), Vaxtangs son and immediate successor, does not provide a
single instance o f that king participating in a duel.9"* Moreover, the connections to Persia now became
troublesome to some K'art'velians, as Ps.-Juansher describes a division in the royal family over the
relationship with Persia. The sons o f Dach'i remained loyal to the Persians while the sons o f his brother
Mirdat pledged their allegiance to the Byzantines .9 5 Each faction took up residence in different parts of
central Caucasia, the pro-Persian group in the eastern region o f Kaxet'i and the pro-Byzantine one in the
southwestern region of K laijet'i.
The Byzantine emperor is said to have installed the pro-Byzantine Guaram as kuropalates ca.
588 AD (the founder o f the short-lived Guaramid dynasty o f princes, which ruled in the absence o f kings,
which themselves had been abolished just previously), and the pro-Persian faction declared its loyalty to
h im 7 0 But the pro-Persian movement did not completely fade away after the establishment o f the
kuropalate in central Caucasia, for the presiding prince Step'anoz I (ca. 590-627), probably a
Monophysite, maintained friendly relations with Persia and he was removed from power in 627/628 only
9 3 Nikephoros,
Brev. Hist., para. 14, pp. 60-61.
9 <*Ps.-Juansher, pp. 204-205.
95Ibid., p. 207; cf. ibid., pp. 217 and 219.

^ I t is not altogether clear what the Georgian historical tradition has in mind when it calls such factions
"pro-Persian.'' In some instances, calling a king or prince "pro-Persian" merely seems to indicate that he
was at odds with Byzantium In this regard, religious affiliation also might have been intended.
411
during the emperor Heraclius' invasion o f K 'a rt'li .9 7 His elimination was a momentous occasion in the
eyes o f early Georgian historians, for it is the only event from this period recorded in three separate local
historical sources.9** The ouster o f Step'anoz marked the end of the customary political allegiance to
Persia and its replacement by a closer connection with Christian Byzantium. This, o f course, was to be
the milieu in which the K 'art'velian Bagratids rose to power, and the significance o f this change was
realized by the first historian o f the Bagratid age, Sumbat Davit'is-dze, one of the three historians to
record this episode.
The Byzantine Dimension
Vaxtang is depicted by his biographer as a king in the Sasanid sense of the word, yet this did not
prohibit him from being attracted to Byzantium, which, after all, unlike Persia was ruled by Christians.
The ca. 800 author is the first known Georgian historian to harbor a deep fascination in things Byzantine.
Having fallen under the spell of imperial ideology, he came to accept the emperor's claim to be the
ultimate ruler of all Christendom. Consequently, the author's own position was transferred onto his semimythical Vaxtang. We cannot be absolutely certain that Vaxtang him self made any public
pronouncements on this subject, but it is known from Byzantine sources that the historical Vaxtang
entertained a love-hate relationship with Constantinople, and there can be no question that unprecedented
contacts between K 'art'li and Byzantium were established during his reign. But he was, in my estimation,
a relatively weak king and unable, o r unwilling, to bring the K'art'velian kingdom fully under the
umbrella o f Byzantine authority (see the following section). As his reign progressed, the imagined
Vaxtang is depicted as having come to understand - and ultimately, to accept - the ultimate religious
authority of the Byzantine emperor. Yet his biographer, presumably himself a cleric, refused to deny the
honorable Persian heritage of K 'a rt'li and he sought to bring about a happy and, on m any counts,
improbable if not impossible - accommodation between the two. It should be emphasized from the outset
that The Ufe o f Vaxtang constitutes a later, ca. 800, attempt to understand how K 'art'li could both
97Ibid.. pp. 222-224.

9 8 Heraclius invasion of K 'art'li, and the sacking of Tp' ilisi and the consequent ouster o f Step'anoz 1, is
recorded by: Ps.-Juansher, pp. 222-225; Royal U st IIy pp. 95-96; and Sumbat Davit'is-dze. pp. 41-43 =
Qauxch' ishvili e d , pp. 374-375 (Davit' is-dze seems to have exploited both Ps.-Juansher and Royal U st
IT). Originally, these three sources were transmitted independently o f one another; that is to say, Sumbat
Davit' is-dze's history was not included in K'C ' immediately as it was written; Ps.-Juanshers account was
part o f K 'C \ and Royal Ust II was part o f M o kk'a rt'. Thus, the Georgian story o f Heraclius was
originally transmitted in three separate forums, though the tale could ultimately be traced back to Ps.Juansher. Heraclius' military operations in K 'a rt'li are also reported in: Movses Dasxuranc'i, n . 11, pp.
83-86; cf. Theophanes, AM 6117-6118 = 625/6-626/7 AD, pp. 21-29
+12
recognize the ultimate religious overlordship o f Byzantium while remaining faithful to Persia and its
traditions. O f course, from either the Byzantine or Persian point of view, this kind o f syncretism was
undesirable if not impossible.
The imagined Vaxtang is said to have felt no special or inherent allegiance to the Byzantine
em peror for much o f his reign. Accordingly, he invaded Fontus, an eastern Byzantine territory', in
retaliation for the seizure o f Ap'xazet'i fay imperial tro o p s ." As we have seen, early Christian K 'art'li
remained part o f the Persian commonwealth, and the contemporary K 'art'velian monarchs were not
invested by the Byzantine emperors. This contrasts with neighboring Lazika (roughly speaking.
A p'xazet'i) where the local princes were crowned and robed at Constantinople, or at least at the behest of
the emperor. 100
That is not to say' that Vaxtang lacked ties with Byzantium and the far-flung currents of
Byzantine civilization. Vaxtang's grandfather Arch'il (411-435) had m arried Mariam, a Byzantine
princess reputedly from the family of the emperor Jovian; Vaxtang him self seems to have had a Greek for
his second wife. Vaxtang's intellectual prowess was also compared to the "Greek"10* philosophers of old;
he was said to be like "an old wise men bred from among the philosophers."
But Vaxtang's biographer fashions his subject in a Persian context in much the same way o f the
pre-Christian monarchs o f the contemporary Ufe o f the Kings. That is to say, Vaxtang is not portrayed as
a Byzantine emperor but rather as a Persian shahanshah in a K 'art'velian context (or, if you like, a
K'art'velian shahanshah). His very name is not Greek, but Persian. T he historical Vaxtang may have
spoken Persian Late in the reign of the imagined Vaxtang, after he allegedly recognized the Byzantine
emperor as his ultimate superior (at least in terms of religion), he could envisage no barrier to prevent him
from serving as an ally o f the Persians, his kinsfolk. He is made to justify this religiously by' claiming that
the Persians were essentially monotheistic, like Christians, and that they similarly believed in the
"spiritual life." Vaxtang's depiction as a hero-king in the Sasanid sense o f the term, especially as a
bumberazi, is a further indication o f the primacy of Vaxtang's Persian orientation, and he is not made to
jettison this imagery even after accepting the elevation in status afforded to him by the Byzantine emperor
(based largely upon religious considerations).
^ T h e U fe o f Vaxtang, p. 146. It seems that this text anachronistically considered Ap'xazeti (for
Vaxtang's time) as part o f the K 'art'velian domains
Chronicon Paschale, olympiad 325 [AD 522], pp. 105-106. This source reports that the Lazian king
Tzathes came to Constantinople to be confirmed in Christianity and was crowned by the Byzantine
emperor Justin I, "and not be appointed by the Persian king in accordance with custom." Tzathes married
a Byzantine woman, Valeriania, granddaughter of a patrican and former kuropalatis.
**In O ld Georgian, the Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, and Anatolians were often subsumed under the
designation "Greek."
413
The fact that the Byzantines were Christian, and that they regarded their enterprise as the
Christian empire par excellence, was embraced by Vaxtang's biographer and then Ps.-Juansher, both o f
whom wrote ca. 800. Their biases were thus transferred onto the person of Vaxtang and his successors.
O f course, this may or may not reflect the situation o f the K 'art'li o f Vaxtang's time.
How did the imagined Vaxtang's acceptance o f the emperor's superior religious position come
about? During his attempt to force the Byzantines out of the western domains, the imagined Vaxtang
decided to deploy his troops in Byzantine Pontus in an attempt to weaken imperial authority on the
borders of his realm. While in Pontus the K 'art'velian king had a divinely-inspired vision which
persuaded him to be loyal to the emperor.
In the dream, Nino, the holy woman credited w ith having
Christianized K 'art'li, appeared to Vaxtang and escorted him before the two great kings of Heaven and
Earth. Standing in view o f the imperial capital o f Constantinople, Vaxtang saw two fantastic thrones
before him. On one sat an elderly man in a white robe upon whose head rested a luminous crown and
upon whose knee sat Nino; on the other sat a youthful warrior-king. Vaxtang found himself accompanied
by two "Greek" clerics who had befriended him in Pontus, the priest Fetre (who held the king's right
hand) and the monk Samoel (who held his left).
Samoel instructed Vaxtang to fall and give reverence to Grigor, the old man, who is probably to
be equated with either Gregory o f Nazianzenus or Gregory the Wonderworker. 103 Gregory proceeded to
scold Vaxtang for having attacked the Christians o f Byzantium, and he angrily declared that he would
have taken revenge upon the K 'art'velians had Nino not interceded. Kissing Gregory's hand, Vaxtang
was presented with a crown and instructed to place it upon Petre's head. Petre, in turn, took it upon
himself to crown Samoel. This moment is highly symbolic, for it not only foreshadowed Petres elevation
as the chief prelate o f the Church in K 'art'li (and, indeed, he was said to be its first kat'alikos), but it also
represented Vaxtang's authority over the Church. This latter point is o f the utmost importance, for it
constitutes the first explicit statement in Georgian historical literature that the K 'art'velian king, like the
Byzantine emperor, was ultimately responsible for his Church . 10 4 Afterwards, Vaxtang reportedly
102The vision is described ibid., pp. 167-169.

103Gregory o f Nazianzenus* works were extremely popular among medieval Georgian translators; see
chs. 6-7. But Gregory the Wonderworker was also revered in early Christian K 'a rt'li. For at attempt to
identify the Gregory o f the dream, see infra.
l^ E v e n in the later ninth-/tenth-century Life o f Nino, King Mihran/Mirian m was not repsorisible for
appointing the first prelates o f the Church in K 'art'li. Rather, this task was undertaken by Nino, who
appointed a Greek priest who him self allegedly had been dispatched by Constantine "the G reat" It should
be noted that the shahanshah also claimed authority over the Christians in Persia (b u t in the dream of
Vaxtang, this behavior is explicitly linked to Byzantium). This is particularly evident in the fifth-century
ecclesiastical councils held in Persia, where the shahanshdh is depicted in an analogous position to the
Byzantine em peror see Synodicon Orientale. See also: S. Brock, "Christians in the Sasanian Empire: A
Case of Divided Loyalties," in his Syriac Perspectives on Late Antiquity (1984), VI, pp. 1-19; and
414
assumed an active role in ecclesiastical affairs, establishing bishoprics, appointing and removing bishops,
etcetera
After crowning Petre as the head o f his Church (still in the dream), ^
the imagined Vaxtang
approached the other figure, the youthful king, and was directed to sit on the throne with him. This
unnamed king, who signifies the Byzantine emperor (keisari, 3 3 0 LS6 0 ; cf. caesar), presented Vaxtang
with a ring. The emperor promised to present a crown o f kingship to Vaxtang on the condition that he
would suspend forever his attacks upon Christian Byzantium and declare his unconditional allegiance.
Vaxtang beheld the Cross, standing behind the thrones, from whose arm s were hanging a crown. He was
terrified o f the sight The emperor demanded a guarantee o f his behavior, and Nino, Petre, and Samoel
pledged that Vaxtang would act in accordance with his will. The caesar removed the crown from the
Cross and placed it upon the head o f Vaxtang, symbolically testifying to Vaxtang's allegiance and
ultimate subordination (at least religiously) to Byzantium.
The next day Petre and Samoel, the two clerics who had stood by Vaxtang's side during the
vision, interpreted the dream, and the imagined Vaxtang immediately moved to establish peace with the
Byzantines. Thereafter, Vaxtang became considerably more amicable towards the Byzantines, and he did
not initiate further attacks upon their territory. The notion that a Christian king should protect Christians,
and be on friendly terms with the Christian ruler, the Byzantine emperor, had germinated and taken root.
Ps.-Juansher, who wrote a brief continuation to The Ufe o f Vaxtang, clearly divulges this notion by a
statement attributed to the emperor Maurice: "I am the succouier [mce\ and the guardian [mouravi] o f all
K 'art'velians and all C h r is tia n s ." ^ Furthermore, after Vaxtang's first wife. Balenduxt (the daughter of
the shahanshah Hurmazd m ), had died, in 484 he married Helena, a relative o f the emperor Zeno. His
second marriage solidified K 'art'li's nascent alliance with, and ultimate religious submission to,
Byzantium. His two marriages were intended to enhance the fact that the imagined Vaxtang, as a great
Garsoi'an, "Armenia in the Fourth Century," pp. 349-351.

l 0 5 However, Kart" velian/Georgian monarchs did not summon ecclesiastical councils (in the mold of
Byzantine emperors) until 1103 during the reign of Davit' II. See ch. 7.
l^^Fetre had not yet been elevated to the status o f kat'alikos (see infra). Moreover, Vaxtang and the
other actors in the dream seem to have forgotten about the existence o f a K 'art'velian prelate
(archbishop) already resident at M e'xet'a. This circumstance is considered infra. Petre's nam e is fitting;
cf. the apostle Peter. Procopius was unaware o f this Peter or the establishment o f the kat'alikos-ate,
although he did know a general named Peter whom the emperor sent to T-aîlm to assist Vaxtang
(Procopius, Wars, I.xii.9, pp. 98-99).
^ P s.-Ju a n sh e r, p. 221.
415
monarch, was able to engineer juridical connections with the ruling classes o f both Persia and
Byzantium.10*
Although not specifically addressing the example o f The Ufe o f Vaxtang, P.C. M illar has
demonstrated antique and early medieval texts often depicted reorientations, be they political religious, o r
otherwise, as being provoked by dreams:
Instead of being seen as a m imetic to reality, dreams were valued by Graeco-Roman

dreamers for their ability to shift the grounds o f perception by bringing into sharp focus
those ideas and emotions th a t would otherwise have remained inchoate and by making
clear the potential consequences for the future o f thoughts and behaviors in the
present. 109
This observation is applicable for The Ufe o f Vaxtang, since Vaxtang's vision allegedly nudged him to the
realization that he must acknowledge the authority o f the Byzantine emperor or be confronted with the
wrath o f God.
Despite this revelation, the imagined Vaxtang, for all o f the rhetoric of his biographer, still did
not dispense o f his Persian heritage and the K 'art'velians' traditional relationship with the Great King,
and his biographer makes no demands that he should The author presumed that submission and alliance
to the Byzantine emperor, on the basis o f C hristian affiliation, did not preclude an intimate relationship
with non-Christian Persia. Soon, reportedly without Byzantine objections (!), Vaxtang campaigned in the
East with the shahanshah. This is precisely th e point when Vaxtang is made to further justify his
participation by identifying the Persians as monotheists/henotheists. But Vaxtang did not forget his
Christian responsibilities, and he is reported to have sought the Christianization of India and the Far East
while on this eastern campaign.
Vaxtang's anonymous author, writing ca. 800. assumed that K 'art'li, as a Christian kingdom,
should be aligned closely with Byzantium. S till K 'a rt'li remained part o f the Persian commonwealth
(except in terms of religion), and our historian did not seek to deny or obscure this fact. It might seem
odd that a Christian author, who himself was likely a cleric, did not attempt to conceal K 'art'li's
connection with Persia, especially since his subject was an allegedly great Christian monarch. This
circumstance, it seems to me, demonstrates th at in the author's time the Persian heritage o f K 'a rt'li was
still strongly remembered and thoroughly ingrained. Moreover, since the Sasanids had succumbed to the
Muslims long before, the Persians no longer afforded a th reat There was no way to obscure this heritage
10*See also Toumanoff, "Chronology o f the E arly Kings o f Iberia," pp. 28-29.
109p c Miller, Dreams in Utte Antiquity: Studies in the Imagination o f a Culture (1994), p. 252.
416
since it was still very much alive. In order to strike a balance between a Persian and Byzantine
orientation, Vaxtang is made to recognize the religious (and, from the Byzantine perspective, political)
authority o f the Christian Byzantine emperor, but without renouncing his Persian heritage or the
Kart'velians traditional connection to Persia. Accordingly, this imagined Vaxtang found himself in an
extremely advantageous position, having acquired an equipoise between the two great empires. In fact,
this imagined Vaxtang is said to be a mediator between the Byzantines and the Persians (see infra), and is
depicted as an equal to them. Miniscule K 'a rt'li is thus credited by its own historians with having
engendered a peace between the two hostile powers.
In the end, however, as Vaxtang lay on his deathbed, he instructed his son and successor Dach'i
never to abandon "our love for the Byzantines [lit Greeks] ." 110 At least in the authors mind, K 'art'li
from this point had recognized the ultimate authority o f Christian Byzantium, and it would seem that this
loyalty was not necessarily limited to religion. This episode conveniently set the stage for the ascendancy'
o f the K 'art'velian Bagratids whose links to Byzantium were unprecedented in K 'art'velian history
which coincided precisely with the writing o f The Ufe o f Vaxtang.
The U fe o f Vaxtang shows a very limited knowledge of events in Byzantium and knows only one
emperor by name, Zeno (474-475; 476-491).111 On the other hand, the continuator Ps.-Juansher knows
significantly more about Byzantium, and imparts some details about events and intrigues during the
reigns Maurice (Mavriki) (582-602), Phokas (Pokasi) (602-610), and Heraclius (Erekle) (610-641). In
addition, Ps.-Juansher provides substantial evidence for the Byzantine involvement in Persian affairs
during the uprising ofB ahram Chobin in Persia. While The Life o f Vaxtang merely injects the idea that
the Christian K 'art'velian kings should ultimately be allied with Byzantium, Ps.-Juansher demonstrates
the actual evolution of these ties by his acquisition and reporting o f unprecedented information about
political events in Byzantium.
For this period Byzantine sources offer little information about K 'art'li proper, which was
situated just beyond the Byzantine frontier. Byzantine historical texts o f the sixth through the eighth
centuries - especially those o f Procopius, Agathias, the surviving fragments of Priscus and Meander the
Guardsman, the anonymous Chronicon Paschale, John o f Nikiu, John Malalas. and Theophanes relate
10 77ie Life o f Vaxtang, p. 203 j 7 ; "... jo i
bartdjjExniliA 63
Ironically,
through the term s o f the Treaty o f 532, Byzantium abandoned its rights over K 'art'li. However,
Byzantium won over several subsequent presiding princes, including Guaram I (588-ca. 590). Then,
Step'anoz I (ca. 590-627) seems to have ruled for the shahanshah; he was replaced by the pro-Byzantine
Adamase I (627-637/42). The following four presiding princes each ruled at different times in their
reigns on behalf o f the emperor and the Islamic Caliph. See Toumanoff, Manuel de ginealogie et de
chronologie, p. 553.
l l l /A/d p. 203.
417
only incidental details about K 'art'li (Iberia ) . 1 12 Conversely, all o f them are considerably more familiar
with events in western "Georgia, i.e., A p'xazet'i (Lazika/Abasgia), that is to say, that area which was
immediately adjacent to Byzantine territory. A t this time the western regions (A p'xazet'i with
Suanet'i/Suania) were the major point o f contention between the Byzantines and the Persians, whereas
K 'a rt'li remained firmly within the Persian sphere. This circumstance was vividly set into writing by
Meander the Guardsman who, reporting negotiations on one occasion between the warring sides, reveals
that the Persian representative feared that granting excessive concessions to the Byzantines m ight result in
Byzantium laying a claim on K 'art'li (which is clearly envisaged here as part o f the Persian
dominions) .113 In an insightful account, Agathias records an alleged debate that took place am ong the
"Colchians" (an archaism here) concerning whether they should ally with the Persians or the Christian
Byzantines. 114 In any case, contemporary Byzantine knowledge o f K 'a rt'li was extremely limited and
imprecise, and this situation persisted until the appearance in the tenth century o f the De administrando
imperio o f the scholar-emperor Constantine VII . 1 ^

The Ufe o f Vaxtang models K 'art'velian kingship upon that o f the Byzantines only to the degree
that it accepted the theory that the Byzantine emperor, as the Christian ruler, should expect the friendship
and goodwill of his fellow Christian monarchs, and that a Christian king must protect his co-religionists.
Moreover, a Christian king, in emulation o f the emperor, should oversee the affairs o f his Church. But
our text suggests that the imagined Vaxtang did not accept any actual, political overlordship from
Byzantium, though the Byzantines would have expected this. The strongest influence of Byzantine theory
in this time was in the ecclesiastical sphere. W hat is clear is that the imagined Vaxtang greatly cherished
his role as a protector o f Christians, and in this he was emulating the Byzantine ruler. Vaxtang's
biographer went beyond this and sought to inculcate in the K 'art'velian community an understanding that
ultimate authority should be owed to the Christian emperor. Our author, writing at a time when the
K 'art'velian monarchy had fallen into abeyance, almost certainly realized that an alliance with Christian
Byzantium, if exploited, might restore indigenous kingship to his land.
For the evidence o f these sources, see Braund, Georgia in Antiquity. See also: V. V. Latyshev,
Izvestiia drevnikh pisatelei grecheskikh i latinsfdkh o SJathii i Kavkaze = Scythica et Caucasica e
veteribus scriptoribus graecis et latinis, 2 vols. (1901-1906).
113Meander the Guardsman, frag. 6 . 1, pp. 68-69.
114 Agathias, m.8-13, pp. 92-102.
1^ O n De administrado imperio, see ch. 6 .
418
A Biblical Model o f Kingship: The Old-Testament King-Prophet David
The Ufe o f Vaxtang, unlike the contemporary Ufe o f the Kings, is imbued with references to the
Old Testament King-Prophet David. This fart has tempted many specialists to date the text to the
eleventh century, making it echo the K 'art'velian Bagratids claim to be the direct descendants of
David. ^
David was regarded as a model king throughout the medieval C hristian world, from the
Carolingian polity to K 'a rt'li, and for this reason the mere evocation o f bis name should not lead us to
jum p to perilous conclusions. The Ufe o f Vaxtang, as an early ninth-century monument, is a
manifestation of the popularity o f David in K 'art'li and almost certainly represents the basis upon which
the K 'art'velian Bagratids were to graft their own elaborate Davidic origins claim. But The Ufe o f
Vaxtang is completely unfamiliar with the K'art'velian Bagratid clan. 1 ^ Slightly after the composition
o f The U fe o f Vaxtang, Ps.-Juansher evinces a vague familiarity with the Bagratids, and more importantly,
with their claim to be the progeny o f King David. 1 18 Since no such claim was advanced in The Ufe o f
Vaxtang, it is evident that only the model o f Old Testament kingship, a topos throughout the Christian
world, is being alluded in that tex t
The few Georgian hagiographic and historical works composed before The Ufe o f Vaxtang speak
o f the Biblical King-David rather generally, often in terms o f his psalms. The earliest extant work o f
Georgian literature, The Martyrdom ofShushaniki, does not refer to David, but the late sixth-century
account o f the Persian convert Evstat' i states th a t"... David reigned, and David also was the beloved of
God, and David loved God and offered oblations and sacrifices and burnt offerings and faithfully observed
the festivals and sabbath days . " 1 ^
In the seventh century, The Conversion o f K'art'li relates only that
Christ had been bom "of the seed o f David.
Within a hundred years The Martyrdom o f Habo
employs a passage from Psalms attributing it to "the blessed David." ^ 1
1 *% .g., Tsulaia trans.,
The Ufe o f Vaxtang, introduction, p. 40.
1 i^ w e do not know if the author knew about the Bagratids and failed to mention them or if he simply did
was not aware of the existence.
1 18 Ps.-Juansher, p. 243.
^^M art. Evstat 7, p. 38.

^ C o n v . K'art'li, p. 8 8 . The later, ca. 900 Ufe o f Nino in C'x. k'art'. mep'et'a, pp. 97, 98, and 118
based upon some earlier sources knows o f David (i.e.. that David desired to be baptised and that Jesus
was o f the seed o f David).
^ Mart. Habo, p. 75; Psalms CXV .6 is quoted.
419
None o f these works composed anterior to The Life o f Vaxtang explicitly compare K'art'velian
kings with David, nor did they use Davidic imagery to describe local monarchs. The U fe o f Vaxtang
appears to be the first Georgian source to directly employ Davidic symbolism in describing the
K'art'velian kings. Tsulaia, who translated C'xorebay vaxtang gorgaslisa into Russian, detected a deep
familiarity on the part o f its anonymous author with I Kings which described the reign o f David. 122 To
those authors, the early non-K 'art'velian (rings worthy o f emulation were David, Solomon, Constantine,
and Jovian.123 To be sure, Vaxtang was made to compare himself to David; "I, like David, am going
forth with the sign o f the Cross..."124 Other, more indirect, connections with David may be discerned.
For example, both Vaxtang and David employed heroes: Vaxtang had his bumberazi-s while David had
bis heroes like Josheb-basshebeth, Eleazar, and Shammah.125 Mimicking the duels o f Old Testament
heroes, the bumberazi combat tales o f The Ufe o f the Kings incorporates not only description o f weaponry,
armor, and the skirmishes themselves, but also the witty dialogue exchanged between the antagonists.
Vaxtang's surrendering o f the reins o f power to his son and his deathbed speech may very well have been
patterned after David's final m inutes.126 We might find a further parallel between the building of the
Temple by Solomon, David's son and successor, and Vaxtang's erecting the chief cathedral o f K 'art'li, the
stone structure o f Sueti-c'xoveli.127 Vaxtang was styled as "The King o f the Ten Kings." and this might
this have been based upon the Ten Tribes o f Israel that revolted on Solomon's passing.128
The Davidic imagery employed in the work, and especially the comparison o f David to the
K'art'velian king Vaxtang, was a significant step towards the development and acceptance o f the
K'art'velian Bagratids' claim o f Davidic provenance, and accounts in part for Vaxtang's relative
popularity in Bagratid-era historical works. But, the Davidic imagery o f The Ufe o f Vaxtang was not
regarded by our medieval historian as purely Christian, for he found that the heroic stories o f the Old
Testament, and their emphasis upon patrilinear succession, could be reconciled to the norms and
conventions o f the Persian world. I would suggest that to the earliest Georgian writers, the world of the
^ T s u l a i a trans., The Ufe o f Vaxtang, introduction, pp. 38-39; Vaxtang's biographer was particularly
fond of I Kings XVII (verses 3-8, 10, 33,42, 45, and 52 are incorporated).
123 The Ufe o f Vaxtang, p. 165.
124/b/d., pp. 174-175. O f course, David preceded Christ although he was counted am ong the prophets.
125For David's heroes, see: II Samuel XXIII.8-39; and I Chronicles XL 10-14.
126I Kings II. 1-12.
l27I Kings V-VU1.
m l Kings XII. 12-24.
420
O ld Testament on many points paralleled closely that o f the Persian commonwealth. Thus, bumberazi
combat could resemble Old Testam ent duels (including David and Goliath), yet in the K 'art'velian
understanding bumberazis were an integral part of the Near Eastern w orld N im rod was regarded as the
first king o f the world and as a Persian, and his existence was confirmed in the O ld Testament and related
apocrypha. Despite their Persian substrata, tales describing K 'art'velian monarchs as heroes, bumberazis, aadgoliat'is had the added advantage of analogues in the semi-legendary tales o f the O ld Testament.
The K'art'velian Dimension
It is a difficult, and in m any respects impossible, task to clearly divide into well defined
categories the various elements constituting medieval K'art'velian kingship. Just as spiritual and secular
categories are largely modem divisions, and often indistinguishable in the pre-m odem period, so too are
the various dimensions o f kingship and from which sources the K 'art'velian monarchy was influenced.
Therefore, it is an arduous and artificial affair to label certain Christian elements as specifically Byzantine
or K'art'velian. One example, the image o f the Biblical King David employed throughout The Life o f
Vaxtang. is considered separately, for it is a characteristic of all Christendom, and, in the K'art'velian
context, its earliest manifestations in local historical literature (ca. 800 AD) could also be regarded as a
combination o f Old Testament an d Persian conceptions o f heroism and authority. O f course, we have
already seen how the contemporary Life o f the Kings explains the ethnogenesis o f the K 'art'velian
community. According to that text, the K 'art'velian community, and its language, was in some respects
an amalgamation of existing N ear Eastern societies. In any event, by ca. 800 much o f K' art' li's Persian
heritage had been ingrained and had become part and parcel o f the K 'art'velian dimension. What is
important for us is the commingling o f culture and society, demonstrating that K 'a rt'li was a crucible of
ideas, ideologies, cultures, religions, and so forth.
As a king who was remembered by the Bagratid historical tradition, it is significant that, in his
own (pre-Bagratid) biography, Vaxtang is presented as a Persian-style king who was o f Persian origin.
This ran counter to the tendency o f Bagratid-era historians to couch their rulers in more Byzantine terms.
But Vaxtang was unmistakably Christian. As the monarch, Vaxtang appointed and maintained regional
governors, or erist'avi-s, whose foundation The Life o f the Kings attributed to the first king P'amavaz.
And as the king, Vaxtang assum ed responsibility for the misfortune that had befallen his subjects, and
made himself a model for the rehabilitation o f the K'art'velians in the eyes o f the Christian G od
As a Christian K 'art'velian monarch, Vaxtang was sometimes associated with M irian, the first
local Christian king and the founder o f Vaxtangs Chosroid dynasty. In fact, Vaxtang is the one of the
only post-Mirian kings so clearly connected with him: e.g., in Vaxtang's time "only Vaxtang and his sister
421
were from the clan o f the pious king Mirian: they were o f the clan o f Bakar, son o f M irian."129 Upon
Vaxtang's departure on a military campaign, he instructed that in case o f his demise his sister Xuarandze
should m any a certain M irian - himself from the family o f Rev, the son of the first Christian king Mirian
and that this fifth-century Mirian should become king.130 The Ufe o f Vaxtang is aware that "our
[forejfather Mirian was informed about the Gospel o f Christ by Nino." ^3 * Assuming that this literary
monument dates from ca. 800, this reference to Nino (and others within the work) is among the earliest in
Georgian literature.
The continuation by Ps.-Juansher shares The Ufe ofVaxtangs penchant for Mirian. Thus the
Christian kings of K 'art'li, up through Vaxtang, "the clan o f the pious king Mirian," are extolled as the
builders o f churches. *32 "King M i[h]r passed the reins o f power to his brother Arch'il and proclaimed
that "now you are the heir o f our royal house, [that] o f King M irian."133 The erist 'avi Juansher
Juansheriani, wrongly identified later as the author o f The U fe o f Vaxtang, is described as being "from the
family of King Mirian, [one] o f the [descendants] ofRev."*3^ Like The Ufe o f Vaxtang, Ps.-Juansher had
some familiarity with the Nino Cycle, for w hen the Byzantine emperor Heraclius invaded K 'a rt'li, he
reportedly robbed the K 'art'velians o f the foot-boards and nails o f Christ which had been presented to
King M irian by Constantine "the Great."135
a. The King as Mediator
Once the divine vision had convinced him that as a Christian king he should be on friendly terms
with Byzantium, Vaxtang is said to have assumed the role o f mediator (shuamdgomelobay.
8<3A3ooaPi3ac5^64a),136 being uniquely poised between Zoroastrian Persia and Christian Byzantium.
The implication is that Vaxtang was the only person who might negotiate a lasting peace between the two
^^T h e Ufe o f Vaxtang. p. 159, cf. p. 169.

l30Ibid., p. 151.
131Ibid., p. 163.
132Ps.-Juansher, p. 222.
l33Ibid., p. 240. Mi[h]r was actually the prince o f Kaxet'i.

l34Ibid p. 242.
135Ibid., pp. 227-228.
136Ps.-Juansher also describes Vaxtang as a mediator {ibid., p. 240). Ufe Succ. Mirian, p. 131, also
employs the term for Mirian's son Bak'ar.
422
hostile empires.
in order to strike a careful balance between them, Vaxtang sought to m aintain
friendly relations with both. O n the one hand, Vaxtang refused deny K 'a rt'li its Persian heritage or its
military obligation to the shahanshah. But K 'art'li was a Christian kingdom, and in order to legitimize
the close relationship with the Sasanids, Vaxtang conveniently deduced that Zoroastrianism was
essentially a monotheistic/henotheistic religion which glorified God the Creator. On the other hand, this
imagined Vaxtang is compelled to accede to the Byzantine ideology that its emperor was the ultimate
monarch o f Christendom. Having opened a face-to-face dialogue with the Byzantines, the imagined
Vaxtang became increasingly aware o f the trappings o f Byzantine rulership, and now he could easily
adopt some o f the prerogatives o f the emperor, such as assuming the ultimate leadership o f the Church in
K 'art'li, with the right to appoint prelates and to create bishoprics. Since Vaxtang had been made into a
friend of both the kings o f the two great empires he was said to have attempted to do what no other
monarch, no matter how great, could accomplish: to negotiate a lasting truce between Persia and
Byzantium and to be regarded as their equals.
The Ufe o f Vaxtang reports that, through the mediation o f the imagined Vaxtang. the Persians
and the Byzantines conducted peace negotiations, which initially were concerned with the Byzantine
seizure of Jazira and Shami (i.e., northern Mesopotamia) from the Persians. ^
The representative o f the
Byzantine emperor, the anthypatos (antipat'i) Leon, agreed to restore to Persia the five cities o f Jazira and
half o f Siliki (?CiIicia) in exchange for the return o f Jerusalem and the conclusion o f a firm peace.
Evidently both the Persian and Byzantine rulers had foreseen the success o f the negotiations, and
propitious letters recognizing the agreement were exchanged on the s p o t139 In short, the restoration of
key Persian territories and the liberation o f Jerusalem are directly attributed to the mediation o f the
imagined Vaxtang. Thus he is portrayed as the benefactor o f Persia and the savior o f Jerusalem. It should
be recalled that this entire episode is legendary, and was probably created by Vaxtang's biographer (if not
even later).
Once the negotiations between the Persians and Byzantines had drawn to a close. Vaxtang was
approached by Barzabani, an envoy o f the shahanshah. Barzabani informed the K 'art'velian king that the
shahanshah would indeed recognize the accord reached with the Byzantines, but that a great number of
the Persian elders were nevertheless demanding an immediate invasion o f Byzantine Anatolia. In order to
pacify them, the king of the Persians desired that he himself would marry a sister of Vaxtang so as to
137In this period, mediation was often transacted by holy men. E.g., Daniel the Stylite was called upon to
mediate between the Roman emperor Leo I and the king o f Lazika Gubazes. See The Ufe o f Daniel the
Stylite, para. 51, p. 36.
^ T h e Ufe o f Vaxtang, pp. 182-183.

l39Ibid, p. 183.
423
solidify the Persians relationship with the K'art'velians. Moreover, he asked Vaxtang to accompany him
on campaign against the Eastern enemies o f Persia, namely the Abashi-s (TEthiopians),140 Elemi-s,
Hindo-s (TIndians), and the Sind-s. With the consent o f the Byzantine anthypatos Leon (and. by
implication, the Byzantine emperor!), Vaxtang acceded to the shahanshah's request This is. quite
obviously, extraordinary. This entire episode, as described, is nothing more than a figment of the author's
imagination, and it was intended to demonstrate Vaxtang's unique position between Persia and
Byzantium. In any event Vaxtang allegedly granted his sister M irianduxt to the Persian king to be his
wife, and he mustered his troops and prepared to join the Persians on campaign.
As Vaxtang departed K 'art'li to join the Persian army in the East, he appointed his son Dach'i as
co-king and heir to the throne. Dach'i was only five years old when his father crowned him, and this
event was not unlike Vaxtang's accession at the age o f seven. D ach'i was left in K 'art'li both to be
educated by, and himself to keep a watchful eye over (!), the spaspeti Juansher and the erist'avi-s. Prior
to marching East, Vaxtang accompanied his mother and sister to Jerusalem,142 the city which reportedly
had been liberated from the Persians through his own intercession. While they visited Jerusalem, the
shahanshah Khusrau143 patiently waited for them at Antioch! Reminescent o f Helena, the mother o f
Constantine "the Great," Vaxtangs mother and sister entered the holy city, worshipped there on Easter
Sunday, and prayed at several churches including that o f the Holy Resurrection.144 Essentially. The Life
o f Vaxtang claimed that Jerusalem, the Christian city par excellence, itself had been resurrected through
the labors o f Vaxtang Gorgasali.
14As I have mentioned, the Abashi-s in other medieval Georgian texts are often to be equated with the
Ethiopians. In this context, however, the Ethiopians make little sense. The meaning o f the passage
whose episode was invented by the author ca. 800 was that Vaxtang and the Great King battled exotic
peoples in the "East"
141/Wrf., pp. 183-185. We are also told that Vaxtang's other sister, Xuarandze, had been promised as a
wife to the pitiaxshi o f Somxet'i (Armenia); thus Vaxtang's own two marriages linked him with Persia
and Byzantium, and those o f his sister to Persia and Armenia.
142K 'art'velian monks had been established in Jerusalem from an early time. K'art'velian/Georgian
pilgrimages to the Holy Land were not uncommon. See, e.g., Giorgi M e'ire, The Ufe o f Giorgi
Mt'acmideli, pp. 144-145.
143This would seem to be a reference to Khusrau I (531-579), but his regnal dates fall well beyond
Vaxtang's death c a 522.
14477re Life o f Vaxtang, p. 186.
424
b. The King as Church Builder
Vaxtang and his successors also promoted Christianity in K 'a rt'li by continuing the custom o f
building churches. As we have seen, The Life o f the Successors o f Mirian records the intense churchconstruction activities o f Vaxtang's predecessors.145 The following ecclesiastical construction projects
are documented in The Ufe o f Vaxtang and the continuation by Ps.-Juansher:
King/Presiding Prince
Editio Citato
Churches
411-435 Arch'il
U fe o f Vaxtang, p. 140
S te p 'a n -c m id a ^ at M c'xet'a
K'uem o Church collapsed and bishop
lone removed to Gareubani Church
435-447 M irdatV
Samshwlde Sioni [built by wife Sagduxt]
ca.447-ca. 522 Vaxtang
U fe o f Vaxtang, pp. 177- Church and monastery7(Opiza) at

178
522-534 D ach'i
Ps.-Juansher, p. 205

588-ca. 590 Guaram I
ca. 590-627 Step'anoz I
Artanuji in Klarjet'i; three churches

in villages ofM eri. Shindoba. A xizi1*7
Sueti-c' xoveli at M e' xet' a, also called
Church o f the Apostles and the Great
Sioni; declared it the kat'olikos-s' seat
Nik ozi church, on a previous fi re-altar
site, for St. R azhderr**
Finished K'uemo Church and installed
Petre in it as kat'alikos
Cqarost'avi church in Javaxet'i
Church built in Tp'ilisi
Began Juari (in M c'xet'a)
Renovated foundation o f the Sioni
church in Tp'ilisi
Laid foundation o f Juari: a great
church built in Tp'ilisi
Juari in M c'xet'a completed [by
Demetre, brother o f Step'anoz]
Juari continued; Sioni finished
* ^ S ee ch. 4.
146For a description o f the Church o f S t Stephen, see Vaxushti. p. 349.
l470 n these see also the description ibid., p. 682.
^ M a rt. Razhden was written down considerably later.
425
637/642-ca. 650 Step'anoz Q

Encircled Juari with walls
It should be emphasized that the extant historical record did not account for all the churches constructed
during this period. For example, the construction o f the famous and important Bolnisi cathedral, built
during the reign o f Vaxtang, is not known to the corpus C'xorebay vaxtang gorgaslisa}*^ It is
noteworthy that its fifth-century construction inscriptions do not mention Vaxtang, or any other
K 'art'velian king, although they do im part the name o f the Persian shahanshah. Although The Ufe o f
Vaxtang is unfamiliar with the actual construction o f a stone church Bolnisi, it is acquainted with that
cathedral, for Vaxtang is said to have established the a bishopric centered there.
c. The Establishment o f Tp'ilisi andArtanuji
Like his predecessors, Vaxtang's building activities were not confined to the ecclesiastical sphere.
M odem Georgians cherish the tradition that Vaxtang w as responsible fbr establishing the city o f Tp'ilisi
(mod. Tbilisi), and in that kings honor a statue o f Vaxtang on horseback - fashioned by the sculptor E.
Amashukeli in 1967 - is prominently situated next to the Metexi church overlooking the picturesque
district o f Old T bilisi. The modem popular tradition is essentially based upon the evidence in The U fe o f
Vaxtang and Ps.-Juansher. The former recorded that Vaxtang "built the city o f Tp'ilisi and began to lay
its foundation."1^ 1 Yet archaeological evidence suggests that the site had been occupied for much longer,
and The Ufe o f Vaxtang itself even refers to "Tp'ilisi" before Vaxtangs supposed foundation o f it.1^
Ps.-Juansher relates that Vaxtang's son and successor, D ach'i, "completed the walls o f Tp'ilisi, and, as
had been decreed by Vaxtang, he made it the royal residence [saxlad sameup 'od\." ^
149
Other sources,
As we have seen, its building is attributed to P'arsm an IV in Ufe Succ. Mirian.
^The U fe o f Vaxtang, p. 198.

l ^ lIbid., p. 200g. The earliest reference in Byzantine literature to Tp'ilisi was made by the sixth-century
Theophanes o f Byzantium, p. 271, whose history is not extant but is mentioned in the Patriarch Photius
Biblioteca. Theophanes Byzantius states that: "HN AE TON IBHPQN TOTE H TTOIAIE
MHTPOIIOAIE," "The metropolis o f the Iberians is Tiphilis." See also Goiladze, Vaxtang gorgasati da
misi istorikosi, pp. 196-201.
^^T h e Ufe o f Vaxtang, p. 1822^ P s .-Ju a n s h e r, p. 205.
426
written well after the feet, sometimes mention Tp'ilisi anterior to its foundation in the epoch o f
Vaxtang.15**
The evidence o f The Ufe o f Vaxtang therefore suggests that Vaxtang decreed that Tp' ilisi be
upgraded to become the capital city (deda-k'alak'i, l i t "Mother City": cf. Greek metropolis and Armenian
mayrak'aghak'). But the actual transfer o f the political capital from M c'xet'a to Tp'ilisi reportedly
occurred only during the reign of his son Dach' i (S22-S34). Significantly. Royal U st II does not connect
Vaxtang to the change o f capital. Rather, it states that during the reign of Vaxtang's son D ach'i "people
began to settle in T p'ilisi."155 Thus, the actual transfer o f capital is ascribed by medieval sources to
Dach'i, while the popular memory (both late medieval and modern) credits this great event to Vaxtang.
Only later writers, like the twelfth-century Arsen Iqalt'oeli and the thirteenth-century Armenian historian
M xit'ar Ayrivanec' i (who relied upon the Armenian adaptation o f K'art'lis c xovreba), uncategorically
ascribe the foundation o f Tp'ilisi to Vaxtang.15*
The rationale for transferring the royal seat is not suggested, but we do have an approximate,
symbolic parallel in the establishment o f Constantinople by Constantine "the Great." But this does not
adequately explain the rise o f Tp' ilisi. Perhaps Vaxtang's later popularity among the Bagratids was partly
based upon the premise that he had swept away the old order (and especially its connection w ith "pagan"
M c'xet'a), an image in which, as I argue throughout this study, the Bagratids themselves (by the eleventh
century) they had adopted. But M c'xet'a remained the spiritual center o f K 'a rt'li for centuries to come,
and even Vaxtang - who, later tradition suggests, was responsible for establishing Tp'ilisi was buried
in the Sueti-c'xoveli cathedral in M c'xet'a.157
15*E.g.: The Ufe o f the Kings, pp. 9-10, 21, 24, and 136; the Ufe o f Nino in C'x. k'art'. mep'et'a, p. 98;
and Royal U st II, pp. 92 and 94. Furthermore, The Ufe o f Vaxtang, pp. 181-182, itself mentions Tp'ilisi
before its supposed foundation by Vaxtang. These sources mention that a fortress had been erected at
Tp' ilisi but do not suggest that Tp' ilisi was a great city. The author o f Life Succ. Mirian does not attribute
an ancient provenance to the city, and he does not attempt to derive the city's origins from some
eponymous ancestor (as is the case with M c'xet'a/M c'xet'os).
^ R o y a l U st II, p. 94.
15<*Arsen Iqalt'oeli, Metaphr. Nino, p. 392; and Mxitar Ayrivanec'i, cap. 16, p. 16: d.utoujU| uju
qSiJifuftu 2hU*ug" = "Vaxt'ang, he built Tp'xis [Tbilisi]." It is noteworthy that after Vaxtang, Ayrivanec'i
mentions Vache (a corrupted memory o f Vaxtang?) and then "Gurgaslan" which is a corruption o f
Vaxtang's sobriquet, Gorgasali.
157
The Ufe o f Vaxtang, p. 204. Vaxtangiseuli MSS add "On his grave is depicted his life-size image"
while T adds "Now [nothing] is clear beyond his armor and clothing." See also Thomson trans., p. 223
and footnote 89. The alleged grave o f Vaxtang is marked with a beautiful marker just before the altar.
427
Tp'ilisi rapidly developed. Ps.-Juansher relates that during the reign o f Step'anoz I (ca. 590-627)
"M c'xet'a was in decline and Tp'ilisi was expanding. Armazi was in ruins and Kala was built up."1^8
Tp'ilisi became the political center o f K 'a rt'li, and remained so until it was wrested away by the Arabs in
the seventh century. T he city remained in Muslim hands for half a millennium, and was not finally
reoccupied by the K'art'velians/Georgians until its seizure by Davit' II in 1122.
It should be noted that the promotion o f Tp'ilisi to the status of the royal seat during the reign o f
either Vaxtang or Dach' i is problematic, for chronologically this great event would seem to coincide with
the installation o f Persian officials in both M c'xet'a and Tp'ilisi. Here. I have only sought to relate the
evidence that is to say. the image o f medieval Georgian sources. Below, during the consideration o f
the contemporary account o f the Byzantine historian Procopius, I shall offer a few' words as to the actual
situation. Suffice it to say that Vaxtang and D ach'i may very well not have been responsible for building
up Tp'ilisi, and the Persians may have had a prominent role in its rise.
Tp'ilisi was not the only major settlement whose establishment is attributed to Vaxtang
Gorgasali. In the western region o f K larjet'i, which later served as the springboard for the conquest of
K 'art'li and all o f central Caucasia by the K 'art'velian Bagratids, the imagined Vaxtang became
enamored with a massive outcrop of rock and resolved to build the village o f Artanuji upon it. 16^ At
Artanuji Vaxtang installed his foster-brother, Artavaz, as erist'avi. The king ordered that a fortress be
raised there and that a monastery and a church also be constructed. Artavaz thus built the Artanuji
fortress, the Opiza monastery, 166 and is also said to have constructed churches in the villages o f M en,
Shindoba, and Axizi. This establishment of multiple churches in adjacent villages has no further parallel
in the source and may be an indication that the influence o f Christianity was weak in the region.
Vaxtang essentially made Artanuji his western base, and some modem specialists. like D.
Musxelishvili and J. Gvasalia, argue that from here Vaxtang launched his campaign to unify of all
"Georgia."161 Surely Vaxtang held some lands in western "Georgia," but we have no further.
158Ps.-Juansher, p. 223. This passage has a close parallel in The Royal Ust II, p. 95, "At that time
M c'xet'a began to thin out and Tp'ilisi was built up, Armazi fell into decline and Kala was rising up" and
Sumbat Davit'is-dze, p. 40 = Qauxch'ishvili ed., p. 373,"... M c'xeta was thinning out and Tp'ilisi was
increasing, Armazi was in decay and Kala was rising up." The establishment o f Tp'ilisi as a major center
is thus attributed by all these historians, the latter two doubtlessly dependent upon Juansher, to the period
just after Vaxtang.
^ T h e U fe o f Vaxtang, pp. 177-178. O n Artanuji, see: R.W. Edwards, "The Fortifications o f Artvin,"
DOP 40 (1986), s.v. "Ardanu?," pp. 170-174; andDjobadze, Early Medieval Georgian Monasteries, pp.
19-21 and plates 16-18.
166But Opiza was actually founded in 750! See Djobadze, Early Medieval Georgian Monasteries, pp. 918.
161Dzh. Gvasalia, Istoricheskaia geografiia vostochnoi Gruzii (Shida Kartli) (1991), pp. 61-62 and Eng.
428
independent indication (outside of his eulogizing v i t a that he actually unified eastern and western
Georgia into a coherent, stable kingdom. Artanuji (Gk. APAANOYTZI) was unquestionably an
important base. The tenth-century De admnistrando imperio o f the Byzantine emperor Constantine VII
Porphyrogennitos attests that it served as the major urban center o f the K 'art'velian Bagratids. It should
be said that Artanujis establishment by Vaxtang was also reported by the eleventh-century historian
Sumbat Davit'is-dze, who reflects that citys importance for the expansionists agenda o f the Bagratids
(Davitis-dzes source was The Ufe o f Vaxtang).
III. VAXTANG IN CONTEMPORARY NON-GEORGIAN SOURCES
Vaxtang Gorgasali. for all of the embellishments o f his later biography, is a historical figure. He
is attested by name in the fifth-century History o f the Armenians o f Ghazar P'arpec'i, and is known as
Gurgenes, the corrupted form o f his sobriquet, by the noted Byzantine historian Procopius.164 (However,
it is noteworthy that Sasanid, Armenian, and even Georgian inscriptions are completely unfamiliar with
him). W e should now direct our attention upon those two contemporary non-Georgian sources which are
acquainted with Vaxtang and compare their descriptions o f that king with the local historical tradition. It
should be noted that the principal focus of this chapter is the Georgian image o f Vaxtang. Therefore, this
section about the historical Vaxtang is principally intended to more fully demonstrate the legendary nature
of The U fe o f Vaxtang.
sum., "Historical Geography o f East Georgia (Shida Kartli)," p. 213; and Musxelishvili. Safe'art'velos
istoriuligeograp'iisdzirit'adi saldt'xebi, vol. 1 (1977). esp. ch. 3, "Vaxtang gorgaslis epok'a." pp. 200229.
The image o f Vaxtang as the unifier of eastern and western Georgia (as portrayed in The Ufe o f
Vaxtang) also must have appealed to the K 'art'velian Bagratids who eventually achieved the same feat.
^ C o n s ta n tin e VII, DAI, cap. 46, pp. 214-223 (the title o f this chapter is "IIEPI THE rENEAAOriAE
TON IBHPON KAI TOY KAETPOY APAANOYTZIOY" = "Of the genealogy o f the Iberians and of the
city of Ardznoutzi"); and Sumbat Davit'is-dze, p. 45 = Qauxch'ishvili ed., p. 377.
^^ B rau n d , Georgia in Antiquity, pp. 282-284, unconvincingly argues against such an identification. In
fact, B raund discusses Vaxtang only in his chapter entitled "War in Lazica" and refers to The Ufe o f
Vaxtang casually. In any event, Braund's apparent opinion that Vaxtang was not a great king is a valid
one. M any specialists in Georgia also have taken issue with Toumanoffs conclusion; e.g., N. Lomouri,
Safc'artvelosa da bizantiis urt'iert'oba Vsaukuneshi (1989), p. 42 and Rus. sum., pp. 87-88. We shall
return to this question in the following discussion o f Procopius.
429
Ghazar P'arpec'i's History o f Armenia
The only extant contemporary non-Georgian, but Caucasian, account o f Vaxtang was composed
by the fifth-century Armenian historian Ghazar P 'arpec'i.165 Having been educated at the court o f the
pitiaxshi Arshusha (Arm. Ashushay), P 'arp ec'i passed some o f his youth in the eastern territories of
Byzantium. His history was commissioned by the marzpani Vahan Mamikonean and began with the
partition of Armenia in 387, the final episode o f the contemporary Epic Histories. Like other Armenian
historians o f his era i.e., Koriwn, Eghishe, and the anonymous author o f The Epic Histories - P'arpec'i
limits his inquiry chiefly to Armenia, and information on K 'a rt'li usually incidental. Relatively speaking,
however, o f his contemporary compatriots only he incorporates significant evidence on late fifth-century
K 'art'li, information which was the subject o f an outstanding but often overlooked monograph by L.-N.
Janashia.166
Unlike his Armenian contemporaries, Ghazar P 'arpec'i exhibits a familiarity with the
K 'art'velian king Vaxtang, referring to him by the Armenian form Vaxt ang (d.u^puiliq). The first
reference to Vaxtang concerns his assassination of the K 'art'velian pitiaxshi Varsk'en (here, the bdeashx
Vazgen), who had apostatized to become a Zoroastrian and who ultimately martyred his Christian
Armenian wife, Shushaniki. 16^ The Life o f Vaxtang itself does not mention her martyrdom as having
occurred during the reign o f Vaxtang. Rather, this episode, and the subsequent murder o f Varsk'en, is
erroneously consigned by Ps.-Juansher to the reign of Vaxtang's successor Bakur.168 P'arpec'i's
contemporary evidence conclusively demonstrates that both the martyrdom o f Shushaniki and the
execution o f her husband (in 482) took place during the reign o f Vaxtang.
Following the murder of Varsk'en, P'arpec'i divulges that Vaxtang revolted against Persian rule,
and that the Armenians soon joined ranks with their Christian neighbors. The Armenians are said to
have declared that "This king o f Georgia [read: K 'art'li] is a valiant man." 169 Vaxtang promised to send
165On Ghazar P'arpeci the historian, see: Thomson in G hazar P'arpec'i, introduction; and L.-N.
Janashia, Lazarp'arpec'is c'nobebi sak'art'velosshesaxeb (1962), pp. 13-70.
166L.-N. Janashia, Lazar p'arpec'is c'nobebi sak'art'velos shesaxeb. Thomson does not mention this
important study in his trans. o f Ghazar P'arpec'i.
16^Ghazar p'arpec'i, para. 66, pp. 171-172. Mart. Shush, was trans. into Ann. from the Georgian in the
tenth century. For a tenth-century Armenian synopsis o f the vita o f Shushaniki, see Uxtanes, para. 67, pp.
127-129. On the literary relations of Armenia and K 'art'li in the ninth and tenth centuries, see Abuladze,
K'ar'uli da somxuri literaturuli urt'iert oba IX-Xss-shi: gamokvleva da tek'stebi (1944).
168O n the anachronistic reporting of Shushaniki's demise in the Georgian historical tradition, see infra,
ch. 5.
169Ghazar P'arpec'i, para. 66, p. 172.
430
some Huns, who served in his army, to assist the Armenians, but for some reason he delayed before
sending only three hundred o f them for a short time. 17 0
The Armenians grew suspicious o f Vaxtang, yet they are said to have continued to abide by the
oath o f mutual su p p o rt 171 W hen K 'a rt'li fell victim to invasion, Vaxtang dispatched a messenger to his
Armenian allies requesting assistance. Vahan Mamikonean, for whom P'arpec' i wrote this History, led
an Armenian force to aid Vaxtang; still, according to our Armenian source, the K 'art'velian king
persisted in his offering o f feigned promises o f Hun reinforcements. *7 7 The weak position o f Vaxtang is
manifested by the supposition that the joint Armenian-K' art' velian attack was led by Vahan Mamikonean
(who was not even a king) and that Vaxtang himself led only the left wing. During the battle the
Armenian and K 'art'velian troops broke rank, and P 'arpec'i expressed his disgust by referring to "the
worthless Georgian [read: K 'art'velian] army and their king Vaxt'ang . " 173 The K 'art'velians continued
to be harassed by the superior Persian army, and the shahanshah finally laid a death sentence upon
Vaxtangs h e a d 17 4
In the end, Vaxtang's own troops deserted him and he was forced to flee to Eger, the Egrisi of
Georgian sources and the Abasgia o f the Byzantines. As we shall see, this was also reported by Procopius.
Toumanoff has demonstrated that Vaxtang fled to these western regions in 522 where he died there during
the same year. 175 P 'arpec'i's sad story o f the demise o f the weak Vaxtang contradicts the triumphant end
o f The Life o f Vaxtang which imagined that monarch to have personally negotiated a truce between
Byzantium and Persia, and then campaigned jointly with the shahanshah in the East.
Much o f G hazar P'arpec' i's history is devoted to the struggle o f Christian Caucasia against the
domination of the Persian Zoroastrians, a common theme in other contemporary Armenian works,
especially that o f Eghishe. The anti-Zoroastrian tone so characteristic o f contemporary' Armenian
histories is detectable, but muted, in The Life o f Vaxtang. Although we do find occasional condemnations
o f fire-worship, still that text made Vaxtang regard Zoroastrianism as essentially a monotheistic religion,
a sentiment not voiced in Armenian sources. Ghazar P'arpec'is opinion o f Vaxtang is unequivocal:
Ibid., para. 70, pp. 181-182. For Hunnic troops assisting Vaxtang. see the account o f Procopius infra.
^ T h o m s o n in Ghazar P 'arpec'i, p. 189, footnote 6 .
*7Îbid., para. 73, pp. 188-190.
173 /i/W., para 74, p. 192.
I 7 *I b id para. 79, pp. 204-205.

l 7 3 Toumanoff, "Chronology o f the Early Kings of Iberia" pp. 28-31. It should be said that many
specialists in Georgia believe Vaxtang to died much earlier (ca. 502 is often cited).
431
though he possessed the title o f king, he was very weak indeed. O f course, P'arpec'i is biased insofar as
his history had been commissioned by the very Vahan Mamikonean who apparently had been forced to
navigate through a sea o f lies which had been uttered forth by Vaxtang himself. Moreover, P'arpec'i
composed a history o f Armenia and not K 'art'li. Unlike his Armenian contemporaries, however.
P'arpec'i exhibits a great interest in K 'art'li, and had Vaxtang been a great king we might have detected
i t This is simply not the case.
Procopius
Bom in Caesarea in Palestine, the sixth-century Byzantine historian Procopius was a prolific
writer who composed three major works: History o f the Wars, On the Buildings, and the so-called Secret
History. 17<* Procopius flourished at the time when the Byzantine Empire was being revived by the
emperors Justin I (518-527) and Justinian (527-565). Unlike the contemporary history o f his compatriot
John Malalas, Procopius is extremely familiar with Caucasia, since that region served as the major
battleground for Byzantium and Persia at the time . 1 7 7 We are fortunate that Procopius was fascinated by
military engagements. Otherwise, contemporary Byzantine evidence for Caucasia might be lacking.
Procopius' information on Caucasia is to be found chiefly in his History o f the Wars. His most
detailed and accurate evidence concerned the western region o f Abasgia/Egrisi. This is to be expected
since this territory was both the locus o f contention between Persia and Byzantium and the part of
Caucasia closest to Byzantine territory. The intense battle for Abasgia heightened the Byzantines'
awareness o f K' art' li/Iberia, because it was hoped that as a Christian realm it might be won over to the
emperor. Accordingly, Procopius' first allusion to K 'a rt'li expresses his favorable impression that the
K'art'velians were excellent Christians:
The Iberians, who live in Asia, are settled in the immediate neighbourhood o f the
Caspian Gates, which lie to the north o f them. Adjoining them on the left towards the
west is Lazika, and on the right towards the east are the Persian peoples. This nation is
Christian and they guard the rites o f this faith more closely than any other men known
to us . . . 178
17Ôn Procopius see Av. Cameron, Procopius and the Sixth Century (1985).
177See the recent study o f B.H. Isaac, The Limits o f Empire: The Roman Army in the East (1990), esp. pp.
43-50,229-233, am d 260-265.
178 Procopius,
Wars, 1.12.2-3, pp. 96-97.
432
Procopius proceeds to note the K 'art'velians' long-standing connection to Persia, but emphasized that the
Christian K 'art'velians now sought to defect from the Persian commonwealth:
... but they have been subjects o f the Persian king, as it happens, from ancient times.
And ju st then Kabades was desirous o f forcing them to adopt the rites of his own
religion. And he enjoined upon their king, Gurgenes, to do all things as the Persians are
accustomed to do them, and in particular not under any circumstances to hide their
dead in th e earth, but to throw them all to the birds and dogs. For this reason, then.
Gurgenes wised to go over to the Emperor Justin... ^
Who was Gurgenes? No Gurgenes is attested in the pre-Bagratid section o f K'art 'lis c 'xovreba.
We may surmise that Gurgenes was eith er (1) a K'art'velian monarch unattested in the local tradition:
(2) another name, or the corrupted name, o f a king known in K'art'lis c'xovreba; (3) a case o f mistaken
identity, or (4) an outright fabrication. At first glance, this name might appear to be a Grecified version
o f Gurgen, but no K 'art'velian ruler by this name was known in the period. In a similar vain, we might
regard it as a corruption o f the Georgian name Guaram, for its Greek form was sometimes TOPrEN H E
(Gorgenes),
which is sim ilar to Procopius TOYPrENHE. However, Guaram I ruled only in the late
sixth century, and in Procopius' context o f the Persian war, this identification may hardly be suggested.
We know that the K 'art'velian ruler during the time o f the shahanshah Kabades, or Kavad I (488-496.
498-531), was Vaxtang. It is reasonable to identify Gurgenes with Vaxtang, through a deformation o f his
sobriquet Gorgasali. 181
Procopius then relates that Vaxtang (Gurgenes) desired to enter into an alliance with the
Byzantines in order to stave off the Zoroastrianizing attempt o f the Persians. Justin I responded by
securing an army of Huns from the Bosporus which he dispatched to K 'art'li. This generally corresponds
with the memory o f the Huns in Ghazar P'arpec'i. Before the arrival o f the Hun mercenaries, the Persian
general Boes invaded K 'a rt'li and Vaxtang was forced to flee with "all of the notables of the Iberians to
Lazika in the west, "taking with him his wife and children and also his brothers, o f whom Peranios was
the eldest" ^
From Lazika, Vaxtang sent an embassy to Justin to seek Byzantine support. Thus,
Ibid., 1.12.3-4, pp. 96-97. This statement shows that the K'art'velians, as Christians, were often
subjected to Sasanid persecution even though the K'art'velians had much else in common with the
Persians. Thus, the expiration o f the Sasanid Empire and the relatively late date o f our sources (ca. 800)
allowed our authors to forget about such persecution. This is in contrast to Armenian historical works,
several o f which were composed at the tim e o f the Sasanid persecutions against Christianity.
IS^Toumanoff Studies, p. 380.
181 Toumanoff, "The Chronology o f the Early Kings of Iberia," p. 28; and
idem., Studies, pp. 368-369.
^ P ro c o p iu s , Wars, 1.12.10-11, pp. 98-99. This Peranios is not attested in C'x. vox. gorg. This passage
433
Procopius provides a real example o f Vaxtang having direct contact with the Byzantine court The fact
that Vaxtang had established a relationship with the Byzantine emperor was recollected by his Georgian
biographer, but it was infused with fantastic detail, and Vaxtang's precarious position (and exile) were
obscured.
The evidence o f Procopius is remarkable, for it corroborates Ghazar P'arpec'i's contention that
Vaxtang had been compelled to seek refuge in the w est There may be no question that Vaxtang was
forced to seek protection outside o f K 'art'li, in the western region o f Egrisi, where Byzantine influence in
Caucasia was the most potent Moreover, Vaxtang's exile marks the beginning o f a historically verifiable
political relationship between the western Egrisi (and later A p'xazet'i) and the eastern K 'art'li, a
connection which gradually intensified and culminated in the political unification o f the two under the
Bagratids in the early eleventh century.
The dissolution of the K 'art'velian monarchy by the Persians following the flight o f Vaxtang is
also described by Procopius:
... the Persians from that tim e did not permit them to set up a king over themselves, nor
were the Iberians single-minded subjects o f the Persians, but there was much suspicion
and distrust between them. A nd it was evident that the Iberians were most thoroughly
dissatisfied and that they would attempt a revolution shortly if they could only seize
upon some favourable opportunity . 183
The abolition o f K 'art'velian royal authority by the Persians in the sixth century is an event which is hotly
debated by modern specialists, especially owing to the lack o f contemporary Georgian historical sources.
Although Procopius states that the monarchy was abolished once Vaxtang fled to the western regions ca.
522, Toumanoff has nevertheless demonstrated that K 'art'velian kingship, in a weakened form, continued
to exist until ca. 580. ^
Should Toumanoff be correct, and I believe he is, then how may we reconcile
his view with the evidence of Procopius? It would seem that the Persians had installed high officials in
K 'a rt'li already in 517/518, and Toumanoff was right to suggest that Procopius refers precisely to the
establishment o f a Persian marzpcmi at Tp'ilisi at this time. ^8 3 This event seems to have coincided with
suggests that Vaxtang had more than one brother.
^ I b id ., H.28.20-21, pp. 520-521. "Gurgenes" (Vaxtang) is mentioned again in this passage. This
account is especially interesting in view o f K 'art'li's ancient Persian heritage. However, Procopius is
almost certainly approaching the topic from a religious standpoint
^^T o u m anoff Studies, pp. 380-381.
183 Toumanoff, "The Chronology o f the Early Kings o f Iberia," pp. 29-31.
434
the displacement, but not outright extermination, o f the K 'art'velian Chosroid kings. In any event, the
late sixth-century Georgian Martyrdom ofEvstat'i reveals that there were Persian officials resident in both
M c'xet'a an d T p 'ilisi by the 540s. Significantly, not a single K 'art'velian king was mentioned in the text,
although the mamasaxlisi o f M c'xet'a (perhaps a K 'art'velian proxy o f the Persians) and the kat'alikos
were still thought to have existed. ^
The text does not mention the stirps regia, and no resistance to
Zoroastrianism on the part o f the Crown is documented.

It is noteworthy that, according to the received tradition, Tp'ilisi did not become the royal seat
until the reign o f Vaxtangs successor Dach'i. How, then, may we to explain the rise o f Tp' ilisi as the
royal capital in the light o f the aforementioned account o f Procopius? This is a difficult query, we m ust
deliberate the accuracy o f Procopius' knowledge o f events in K 'art'li. O f course, this circumstance begs
the question o f whether local kingship continued to exist while high Persian officials were installed in the
two most significant centers o f K 'art'li. Any conclusion must remain speculative at b est As to the firs t I
do believe that the most plausible approach is to regard the foundation o f Tp'ilisi as the royal seat by
Vaxtang as an exaggeration, if not a fabrication. The Life o f Vaxtang portrays a weak monarch as a great
one. Consequently, in many ways this text constitutes a blatant rewriting o f the past Since Tp'ilisi d id
emerge as an im portant city around the tim e o f Vaxtang, it was logical for the later historian and imagem aker to attribute its foundation to a contemporary great k i n g . S o the imagined Vaxtang, along w ith
his son Dach'i, are said to have raised Tp'ilisi to the status o f the royal seat; but why all sources do not
understand that the "great" Vaxtang completed Tp'ilisi is enigmatic. Moreover, if Vaxtang and D ach'i
actually built up Tp'ilisi, then the resident kings had to immediately share the city with high Persian
officials. This arrangement is not impossible, but it forces us to ponder the reputed greatness o f Vaxtang.
Should this be the case, then it is entirely possible that Tp'ilisi was constructed with Persian assistance, or
even under Persian supervision, although no source - Georgian or otherwise imparts this. In any event,
should the K 'art'velian kings have resided at Tp'ilisi prior to abolition, their authority was checked there
by Persian officials. It must be pointed out that the seizure o f Tp'ilisi by Davit' II in 1122 (when the city
was finally brought under the sole authority o f local monarchs) may not have been a re-conquest at all, but
l**t>But the silence on K 'art'velian rulers does not necessarily mean that no local king existed at the time,
for the fifth-century Mart. Shush, does not mention the contemporary V axtang O f course, I argue here
that, despite the proclamations o f his later biography, Vaxtang was not a powerful king Early
K 'art'velian hagiographers may not have regarded these rulers as true "kings," and, therefore, they could
have been easily ignored. Perhaps the mamasaxlisi ("Father o f the House") o f Mart. Evstat'i was actually
the weakened k in g Still, had a Christian king/prince have taken a stand against Zoroastrianism and
Christian persecution, we might have expected a corresponding account in the vitae.
IB^This is reminiscent o f the fact that the author o f The Life o f the Kings, recognizing that K 'art'velian
kingship had been established in the early Hellenistic period, fashions a king P'arnavaz and associates his
elevation with the famous Alexander the G reat
435
the first meaningful occupation o f that city by K'art'velian/Georgian kings, regardless of the earlier
traditions.
Toumanoff s theory expounding the relatively late date o f outright abolition is largely based upon
the trustworthy evidence o f the near-contemporary Georgian historian Ps.-Juansher. That author wrote in
the first decade o f the ninth century, a time when the monarchy had not yet been recovered. Still, he
believed strongly in the ideal o f K 'art'velian royal authority, and desired its restoration. In any event Ps.Juansher erroneously styles D ach'i (522-534), Bakur II (534-547), P'arsm an V (547-561), and P'arsm an
VI (561-?), and Bakur HI (?-580) as mep 'e-s, or "kings. Following Bakur, Ps.-Juansher usually does not
refer to the rulers o f K 'a rt'li as kings, although his subheadings (which were probably added later)
continue to name the presiding princes with the exception o f Step'anoz I, Adarnase I, and Step'anoz II
- as such. In the main te x t Guaram I (588-ca. 590) is simply identified as kuropalates (a Byzantine
title). Step'anoz I (ca. 590-627) is specifically reported not to have dared to take the title o f k in g but was
merely erist'avt'a-mt'avari (a 6 ob<ni3 a)6 -9 oDj>3 s 6 o), or "the chief o f the erist'avi-s."** Stepanozs
successors, down to the seventh century, are styled similarly. B ut the seventh-century Mi[h]r and Arch il,
whom Ps.-Juansher fashions as kings, were in reality princes. *8 9 It is odd that Ps.-Juansher does not
explicitly state haw M ihr and A rch'il were able to bring about this alleged recovery of the monarchy. The
last ruler considered by Ps.-Juansher. another Arch'il, is also erroneously styled as king O f course, owing
to the relative lateness o f extant MSS, it is possible that this was the work o f a later scribe/editor. In fact,
this styling does not appear in the Armenian adaptation . 190
It is unclear wlty Ps.-Juansher. should this be part o f the original text (and I am tempted to think
that it was not), would have described the last rulers o f his account as kings. But the fact remains that the
author did understand that the end o f Bakur HTs rule, in 580, m arked the cessation of K'art'velian royal
authority. Toumanoff seized upon this date and believed it to signify the last breath of pre-Bagratid
K'art'velian kingship. In my opinion, Toumanoffs remains the most tenable view, although, like him, I
would argue that K 'art'velian kingship was curtailed by the Persians already in the second decade o f the
sixth century.
We do not know whether the shahanshah allowed the K 'art'velian monarchs to remain in
Tp'ilisi or M c'xet'a, or if the royal family was immediately compelled to seek exile in the eastern region
of Kaxet'i (where they, at some point, took up residence). Should we have confidence in Procopius, then
188 Ps.-Juansher, p. 2 2 2 .
*89 Ibid., pp. 233-241. It should be noted that Mi[h]r and A rch'il were simply the princes of the eastern
region o f Kaxet'i and were not the presiding princes o f K 'art'li (though Ps.-Juansher does not state this).
Adapt K 'C \ pp. 195-203 = Thomson trans., pp. 240-251.
436
we must accept an early date for exile and. perhaps, dissolution. It is certain that the Chosroid dynasty, of
which Vaxtang was a part, endured throughout the sixth century and beyond; this we know from Ps.Juansher. At some point, however, it was forced to abandon M c'xet'a and Tp'ilisi, and then, by ca. 580,
the royal family was stripped o f the title o f mep 'e and/or its members discontinued its use (or. it simply
lost its meaning o f a sovereign monarch). ^
From the Persian perspective, an independent local
kingship had probably ceased with the installation o f officials o f the Great K ing in K 'a rt'li by 517/518
this is probably what Procopius refers to. The principate will be considered further in the following
chapter.
Contemporary non-Georgian (Christian) evidence thus portrays K 'a rt'li as a kingdom at odds
with Persia and resisting the shahanshah's desire to Zoroastrianize the whole o f Caucasia. Such
persecution was, in fact, reported in the initial folios The Life o f Vaxtang. Both Ghazar P'arpec'i and
Procopius present Vaxtang not as a powerful monarch who personally negotiated a peace between the
Persia and Byzantium, but rather as an impotent quasi-king who was twice forced into exile where he died
ca. 522. The semi-legendary Life o f Vaxtang did incorporate the theme o f K 'a rtlis turn towards
Byzantium for assistance which began under the initiative o f Vaxtang. Although Vaxtang himself did
entertain relations with the emperor (and this is confirmed by Procopius), nevertheless, this imagined
Vaxtang is rendered too great a role.
The evidence o f Ghazar P 'arpec'i and Procopius is incontestable: Vaxtang was not a great king,
although he likely participated in the Caucasian struggle against the Sasanids. It is ironic that although
Vaxtang himself wielded minimal power, his image became extraordinarily potent The image o f the preBagratid Vaxtang became popular ju st as the Bagratids were coming to power. Thus the myth o f this preBagratid monarch likely served as a rallying cry for the early Bagratids, and. as we shall see. the
subsequent Bagratids continued to hold his image in high esteem. Although many o f the themes o f The
Life o f Vaxtang were current in the time o f Vaxtang. his anonymous biographer reshaped them so as to
depict his hero as a great monarch who secured independence for his realm and the respect and friendship
of the kings of both Byzantium and Persia. Whereas The Life o f Vaxtang, written well after the fact (and
after the passing o f the Zoroastrian threat), depicts K 'art'li as a Christian part o f the Persian
But this is also problematic. The pre-Bagratid history o f Ps.-Juansher says nothing about the
Chosroids relinquishing their right to be called kings. But the earliest Bagratid histories, i.e., Chron.
K art 'li and that o f Sumbat Davit' is-dze. clearly refer to Chosroid presiding princes who did not take the
title o f mep 'e. O f course, these eleventh-century sources might have been attempting to demonstrate that
the Chosroid successors o f Vaxtang were inept and unfit to rule, and that they were responsible for the
kingship having fallen into abeyance, thus setting the stage for the ascendancy o f the K 'art'velian
Bagratids. See also ch. 6 .
437
commonwealth, the contemporary sources mentioning Vaxtang carefully stress that K 'art'li was first and
foremost a Christian realm, and, accordingly, that it was subjected to Sasanid religious persecution.
IV. IMAGE OF THE CHURCH UNDER VAXTANG

Christian K'art'li and Zoroastrianism
As we have mentioned, one o f the themes o f The Life o f Vaxtang is the struggle o f Vaxtang and
his immediate predecessors against Zoroastrianism, or as it was called in the Georgian sources, "the
veneration o f fire" 0c'ec'xlismsaxurebay, GaQbcjobBbAbgfiaftia). The struggle and eventual victory o f
Christianity is enshrined in, and encapsulated by, the anti-Zoroastrian agenda o f the imagined Vaxtang.
It should be emphasized that Georgian authors are not the only ones in Caucasia to have taken an interest
in the war against Zoroastrianism. Perhaps the most renowned tale o f this struggle was composed by the
fifth-century Armenian historian Eghishe. ^
The anonymous author o f The Life o f Vaxtang is also not the first Georgian writer to have taken
an interest in the presence and persistence o f Zoroastrianism in Christian K 'art'li. The two earliest extant
works o f Georgian literature, the vitae o f Shushaniki and Evstat'i, are concerned with the bitter conflict o f
the Christians with the Zoroastrian Persians. They constitute, at least in part, polemic against the
Zoroastrianism. Unlike the biography of Vaxtang, these two hagiographic texts were composed at the
very time that Christians o f Caucasia had fallen under the persecution o f the Sasanids. Thus, their
attitude towards the Sasanids was fully hostile, and it is possible that their complete unfamiliarity with
K 'art'velian kings is an indication that those monarchs, although nominally Christian, maintained
intimate connections with the Persians (or, conversely, that the local kings were extremely feeble). In any
event, the later Life o f Vaxtang does not dwell upon the persecution of Christians, and, moreover, it is
willing to admit the ancient Persian heritage o f K 'art'li.
The earliest surviving work o f Georgian literature, The Martyrdom o f Shushaniki by Iakob
C'urtaveli, relates the murder o f the Armenian-bom Shushaniki by her K'art'velian husband
V arsk'en .* 93 The tale commences with th e pitiaxshi Varsk'en, son o f Arshusha, traveling to the Persian
^ T h o m s o n in Eghishe, introduction.
193For the information about this holy woman preserved in The life o f Vaxtang. see B. Martin-Hisard,
"Le roi georgien Vaxtang Gorgasal dans Ihistoire et dans la legende," in Temps, Memoire, Tradition au
moyen age (1983), pp. 210-211. See also ch. 4.
438
royal court at Seleucia-Ktesiphon. *9 4 In order to win the favor o f the Persian Great King, Varsk'en
renounced Christianity and "gave reverence to fire." He promised the Persians that he would convert his
wife, Shushaniki, and their children. To emphasize Varsk'en's apostasy, the hagiographer reveals that the
Persian king offered his own daughter to replace the Christian wife of the pitiaxshi.
Shushaniki, the daughter o f the Armenian spaspeti Vardan Mamikonean, was resolute in her
refusal to apostatize. Although Varsk' en had renounced Christianity, a Christian bishop remained
attached to his house. How this ecclesiastic evaded removal is uncertain. This bishop, named A p'oc'i
(variant: Ap'uti), was, however, unable to ease the torture inflicted upon Shushaniki. Over a prolonged
period, Varsk'en's charms and tortures proved futile. It should be noted that this vita's opinion o f
Zoroastrianism is unconditionally negative. In this text we do not find any notion that Zoroastrianism
was remotely similar to Christianity. This contradicts The life o f Vaxtang in which the imagined
Vaxtang justified religiously his continued friendship with the shahanshah by maintaining that
Zoroastrianism was essentially monotheistic (with a Creator-God). In any event, Shushaniki accused
Varsk'en o f inviting demons into his house and o f "despising [the] Creator, " 195 she also reproached her
husband for allowing women an d m en to dine together, an act which is said not to have been customary
among the K 'art'velians and Armenians.
In the end, Shushaniki was unable to withstand the psychological and physical torture imposed
by her K 'art'velian husband, an d died a martyr. Her memory was evidently well-remembered by the early
Christian K 'art'velians, as is testified tty a short account o f Shushaniki's martyrdom in Ps.-Juansher. 196
However, his account o f Shushaniki, who was murdered in 475, is not reported as occurring during the
reign o f Vaxtang, but rather under the later Bakur in (d. 580). The Royal List II, which is dependent
upon The Life o f Vaxtang and Ps.-Juansher, repeated the tatter's anachronism.19^ Toumanoff explained
this "egregious anachronism" by a confusion o f two different shahanshdhs each bearing the name
Hurmazd' one was a contemporary o f Vaxtang (Hurmazd in [457-7459]) and the other o f Bakur m
(Hurmazd IV [579-590]).1911 How was this confusion manifest? Shushaniki is not mentioned in The Life
19<1Toumanoflf Studies, pp. 364-365.

195 Mwr. Shush., cap. 4, p. 15. Her feast-day is recorded in Bagratid-era texts; see Martin-Hisard,
"Christianisme et Eglise dans le monde georgien, pp. 588-589.
196 Ps.-Juansher, p. 216.
^ R o y a l List II, p. 94, reads: "... Bakur reigned, and the kat'alikoz was Makari; and under this [king]
Varsk'eni was pitiaxshi, and Shushaniki was martyred in C'urxavi." See also Toum anoff Studies, pp.
419-420.
19 *Toumanoff,
Studies, p. 419.
439
o f Vaxtang. Perhaps Ps.-Juansher, finding the Shushaniki tale absent in Vaxtang's biography, determined
that Shushaniki's martyrdom had not occurred during Vaxtang, and thus placed it under the next
shahanshah nam ed Hurmazd. The confusion was fueled by the fact that The Martyrdom o f Shushaniki
itself does not refer to any K 'art'velian king, including Vaxtang. 1 9 9
The late sixth-century Martyrdom ofEvstat'i imparts the Christianization o f a Persian cobbler
named Gwrobandaki. He was the son o f a Zoroastrian priest and had come to M c'xet'a in search of
training and employment. Before reaching M c'xet'a, Gwrobandaki was first introduced to the Christian
faith during his residence in the city o f Gandzak (Ganja). He had daily associations with the Christians o f
M c'xet'a, and he eventually converted, taking the Christian name E vstat'i (Eustathius), and married a
Christian wife .2 0 0 The relatively large Persian community in M c'x et'a was alerted to Evstat'is apostasy
when he refused to participate in one o f their annual festivals. The local Persians lodged a complaint with
the M c'xet'ian c'ixist'avi (gobobco&so, lit "head o f the fortress") Ustami, who in turn referred the case to
the leading Persian official in K 'a rt'li, the marzapani (9i6bi3o>Bo) o f Tp'ilisi. The marzapani, a certain
Arvand Gushnaspi, heard the cases ofEvstat'i and other Christianized Persians. Evstat'i was imprisoned
and ordered executed under Arvand's successor, Vezhan Buzmiri.
Evstat'i's biographer clearly expresses his feelings on Zoroastrianism. Like Iakob C'urtaveli, he
does offer any kind or reconciliatory words for fire-worship. Evstat'i is made to boldly proclaim to his
Persian judge Vezhan:
... fire is not a god, because man lights fire[s] and m an also puts them out, for man is the
lord o f fire; therefore, fire is not God. If it breaks out somewhere and spreads, it
consumes whatever it encounters, either wood o r meadow or home; if man is at hand, it
likewise burns him. But if water comes into contact with it, then it extinguishes the
power o f even such a flame as this, and the fire is reduced to nothing, because it is no
god. Are we then to honor it as a god?
But it was God who gave us fire for our use, to melt ice and to prepare all our
food. When we require it, we light it, and when we so desire, we extinguish it. Thus
fire is not a god... *
It should be stressed that The Martyrdom o f Evstat'i is remarkable on two counts: first, it
demonstrates that by the end o f the sixth century Zoroastrianism still had not been exterminated from the
K 'art'velian territories, even in the royal city o f M c'xet'a in which Zoroastrian festivals were held (and at
*Thus two important events, the martyrdom o f Shushaniki and the construction o f Bolnisi were not
attributed to Vaxtang by that king's later biographer.
2 0 0 M irf.
Evstat'i, p. 30 = Lang trans., p. 95.
2 0 V i/d., p. 43 = Lang trans., p. 111.
440
the time Persian officials were installed in both T p'ilisi and M c'xet'a); and second, that conversions from
Zoroastrianism to Christianity were occurring in K 'a rt'li, even under Persian domination (the converse
was almost certainly true).
Both of these early hagiographical works are noteworthy for their identification o f the Persians
primarily in religious terms, as Zoroastrians, in contrast to the earliest historical works: The Life o f
Vaxtang, Ps.-Juansher, and The Life o f the Kings. The heroic quality o f the Persians is not lauded or
emulated. How may we account for this? First, as hagiography these vitae necessarily emphasize the
Christian qualities of their subjects, and the Zoroastrians were the antagonists o f the Christians o f
Caucasia; and second, the two works were written during the period o f direct Persian political domination
over K 'art'li, and thus their clerical authors did not wish to provide their Christian or potentially
Christian readers with any obvious positive Persian-like characteristics of K 'art'velian society.2 0 2
Therefore, Georgian historical and hagiographical works describing this era differ significantly: while the
saints' vitae were composed in the period under examination and are characterized by their stinging
disdain for Persian rule, the historical texts, written after the Sasanids themselves had fallen victim to the
Arabs, concentrate on the virtues o f the Persian kings and transfer them to the images o f the contemporary
K 'art'velian monarchs. In short, according to the Georgian historical texts, the Christianization o f
K 'art'li was established without any sudden denial o f Persian heritage, and it added a new, exclusivist
element to K'art'velian identity which was not easily reconciled with the K'art'velians' connection to the
Persian cultural world. O f course, by the time o f the composition o f these historical texts (ca. 800 and
later), Persia was no longer a threat to Christian K 'art'li. But contemporary hagiographers concealed
K 'art'li's Persian heritage, for Zoroastrianism was in their time the enemy of Christianity in Caucasia. O f
course, hagiography essentially constituted a Christian history, and as such Zoroastrianism could not be
praised in any way.
Thus, in medieval Georgian historical texts, Zoroastrianism is usually portrayed as the antithesis
o f Christianity, yet the Persians, when their religious affiliation was ignored or obscured (which is more
often than not the case), were still regarded as courageous, trustworthy, and honorable allies. The
anonymous author of The Life o f the Kings, a contemporary o f the author of The Life o f Vaxtang and Ps.Juansher, provides valuable information on K 'art'velian attitudes towards fire-worship. Although he does
not explicitly link Zoroastrianism to the early Sasanids ,2 0 3 he connects it to their later members. We
have seen how one K'art'velian king, P'am ajom , at first reputedly worshipped the local idols but then
*1CY)
Although Mart. Shush, does illustrate that some K 'art'velian nobles, in this case Vark'sen, did
abandon Christianity for Zoroastrianism.
The life o f the Kings, p. 59: during the reign o f Asp'agur "K'asre Anusharvan Sasaniani became the
king o f Persia, [and] he destroyed the Azhghalaniani kings.
441
turned to the "foreign" Zoroastrian belief. T hat monarch is said to have openly professed it, installing
fireworshippers and Zoroastrian high-priests in the Mogut'i sector o f M c'xet'a. Consequently. P'am ajom
was overthrown in a coup which had been engineered by some erist'avi-s. In fact, the erist'avi-s turned to
the Armenian king for assistance while P'arnajom secured the support of the Persians. In the end.
P'am ajom was put to death . 2 0 4 It should be emphasized that this episode represents more directly the
attitude o f the ca. 800 Christian author. In his view, the pre-Christian K 'art'velian kings naturally should
have worshipped the local idols, and to emphasize that P'am ajom was unfit to be king he was (ironically)
made to be a Zoroastrian apostate.
The life o f the Successors ofMirian, that terminating part o f the corpus C'xorebay k'art'velt'a
mep'et'a, ends with the capture o f King M irdat IV (409-411) by the Zoroastrian Persians. He was taken
to Baghdad and died there while incarcerated .2 0 5 The curtain to The Life o f Vaxtang lifts over this same
event.20** The biographer o f Vaxtang commences with Mirdats death by the infidel Persians and then
describes the perilous condition o f Christian K 'a rt'li and the intrusion of Zoroastrianism .2 0 2 To
compound the desperate situation, the K 'art'velian kings/presiding princes and the royal family had been
forced from M c'xet'a for the first time since P'am avaz. Taking refuge in the defiles o f Kaxet'i, the royal
family remained in hiding for three years. W hen the Persians were forced to withdraw some o f their
Caucasian troops in order to participate in some Eastern military campaign, the K 'art'velian aznauri-s
reportedly installed Arch'il (411-435), the son o f Mirdat's brother T rd at, as the ruler in M c'xet'a.20**
After his enthronement, Arch'il reportedly married a Byzantine woman, Mariam, "who was
related to the emperor Jovian." Thus A rch'il is directly linked to the Christian Byzantine Empire, and
this is especially symbolic since Jovian (363-364) had replaced the last non-Christian Roman emperor.
Julian "the Apostate" (361-363). Then we are informed that Arch'il:
... declared war on the Persians; he replaced the crosses and embellished the churches;
he slaughtered and banished all the fire-worshippers from the borders o f K 'art'li; he
called upon the might o f Greece [i.e Byzantium] and the Guiding Cross [and he] began
to battle against the Persians .2 0 9
20*lbid., pp. 29-30.

20^Life Succ. Mirian, pp. 137-138.
20^The life o f Vaxtang, p. 139.
207Ib id ,p . 1396_g.
20**On Arch'il, see ibid, pp. 139-142.
209Ibid, p. 1403_g.
442
Yet The Life o f Vaxtang does not suggest that A rch'il severed K 'art'velian links with Persia.
While A rch'il him self was m arried to the Byzantine princess, his son and future successor Mirdat V (435447) wed Sagduxt, the daughter o f the Persian erist'avi of Rani. Later Vaxtang was married successively
to Persian and Byzantine princesses. It should be remembered that Sagduxt converted to Christianity and
played a very important role in the establishment o f her famous son Vaxtang.
At the end o f Arch'ils reign the chief prelate ("bishop") o f the Church in K 'a rt'li was Mobidan.
who was "by birth a Persian . 2 1 0 We are not told who installed Mobidan, although his origin may imply
that he was the candidate of the shahanshah (thus indicating th at in this period the shahanshah held the
right to confirm the prelates o f the Church in K 'art'li, just as he did in Persia and Armenia), or that the
K 'art'velian presiding prince appointed him so as to appease the Great King. Vaxtang's biographer
contended that this Mobidan practiced "Orthodoxy" only nominally, and that in reality he was a
Zoroastrian p riest But it is said that Mobidan did not preach Zoroastrianism 2 1 1 openly, confining his
activities to writing and presumably circulating books which only later were burned by the later bishop
M ik'ael, perhaps an indication o f a book burning campaign against Zoroastrian texts initiated during the
reign o f Vaxtang.
The imagined Vaxtang came to the throne at the young age o f seven, a number of cosmological
importance, especially for the Persians. His mother, Sagduxt, the daughter of the Persian erist 'avi of
Rani, suspected that the Persians would seize the opportunity to inaugurate a major offensive against the
Christian K 'art'velians. She courageously appeared before her father Borzabod and implored that he not
impose Zoroastrianism upon K 'art' li. Borzabod was apparently impressed by his daughter's pleadings
and he resolved not to Zoroastrianize K 'art'li by force and even to permit his apostatized daughter to
remain in her new faith. This would seem to contradict the aforementioned evidence o f Procopius, who
noted fierce Zoroastrian persecutions occurring in Caucasia during the reign of Vaxtang. Vaxtang's later
biographer wanted to place his subject in the position o f being able to draw freely and deliberately from
the wells o f both Persia and Byzantium, and he could not portray Zoroastrianism and the persecutions o f
Christians as insurmountable obstructions. Therefore, having admitted the anti-Christian policy' o f the
Sasanids in the reigns o f Vaxtang's father and grandfather, the biographer consciously diminished the
religious antagonism between K 'art' li and Persia. Having recognized the religious supremacy of the
emperor, Vaxtang could still go on campaign with the shahanshah. This contradicts contemporary non-
210On Mobidan see ibid.. p. 142; cf. Vaxushti, pp. 99-100 ("Mobida").
211
It is possible that Mobidan may have been an adherent o f Manicheanism, but this has yet to be
demonstrated. In any event. The Life o f the Kings depicts Mobidan as adhering to the religion of the
Persian rulers.
443
Georgian sources, for Vaxtang at the end o f his reign is thought to have fled into the eastern Byzantine
frontier to seek a respite from the Persians. I should think, therefore, that Procopius' statement that
K 'a rt'li was faced with Sasanid-Ied persecutions is accurate, and that the silence on this issue on behalf o f
The Ufe o f Vaxtang is connected w ith its imaginative attempt to render Vaxtang a unique position
between Persia and Byzantium.
Having showered his own daughter and her Christian compatriots with his mercy-, the erist'avi o f
Rani demanded that fire-worshippers and their high-priests (called "bishops" in the source!) be installed
in M c'xeta.2 *2 The Zoroastrian adherents mentioned in The Martyrdom o f Evstat'i were perhaps those
first established in M c'x et'a during the early years o f Vaxtang's reign. Thus, at least in the early part o f
Vaxtang's reign, I would suggest that Christianity and Zoroastrianism coexisted in the K 'art'velian royal
city, and that adherents o f both faiths could openly worship. Contemporary hagiography does not suggest
otherwise.
In any event, Borzabod dispatched the high-priest Binkaran 2 *2 to M c'xet'a. B ink'aran openly
professed Zoroastrianism in the K 'art'velian royal capital, but we are assured that "not one o f the
[K'art'velian] nobles succumbed, yet [Bink'aran] did manage to convert to Fire-Worship a number of the
common people [curili eri, lit 'small people*]."2 ** The activities of Bink'aran troubled Sagduxt deeply,
and she reportedly began to regret h er promise to tolerate the establishment of Zoroastrians in the veiy
royal seat of the K 'art'velians. Ultimately she requested that a bishop be sent from Byzantium to expel
the Zoroastrian priest from M c'xet'a. Aggravating the situation was the fact that the Church in K 'art'li
was still being governed by Mobidan, who him self is said not to have been a Christian. Thus the Church
is depicted as having been under attack from all sides.
But just then Mobidan is supposed to have died, perhaps through a conspiracy, and the prelacy
conveniently fell vacant. Mik'ael was dispatched from Byzantium and he was installed in the Upper
Church (the site o f the Samt'avro church) in M c'xet'a where he became the bishop and chief prelate. Wc
are told that he was a "veritable priest" and that he professed the "veritable faith to every K 'art'velian."
This is likely an indication that M ik'ael was believed to have been a staunch supporter o f Chalcedon. But
2 *27he Life o f Vaxtang, pp. 144-145; Thomson trans., pp. 159-160 (and footnote 7), renders "bishops"
here as "overseers," and he notes that the Armenian adaptation avoided the term altogether.
2 *2The extant MSS o f K'C ' contain a number o f renderings o f Bink'arans name: B ink'aran (Ca),
Shink'aran (A; confusion o f b/sh). Shinak'aran (Mm). Binak'ar (dp and B/Vaxushti. p. 100). Bank'ar (b),
and B ink'ar (other Vaxtangiseuli MSS).
2 **7%e Ufe
o f Vaxtang, p. 145[g_2g, and Thomson trans., p. 160, who proposes "common people and
"lower people" for curili eri.
444
while the nobles, reportedly unaffected by Bink' arans activities, were attached even more firmly to the
faith, some o f the "common people" were not rescued from their recent conversion to Zoroastrianism.
M ik ael's personal battle with B ink'aran lingered, for only later the imagined Vaxtang
incarcerated "the bishop' of the fire-worshippers in a dungeon, and he exterminated and banished all of
the fire-worshippers beyond the borders o f K 'artli."21^ Moreover, at the urging of the cleric Petre,
Vaxtang is said to have demanded that his troops, mercenaries, and allies take an oath upon the Cross
under penalty o f death, so that they should declare their loyalty to Christianity and to the K 'art'velian
monarch. Borzo, the "king" ofMovakani and a vassal o f Vaxtang, refused to take the oath. Borzo boldlydeclared that "1 shall not renounce the burning flame and I shall not worship [this] rotten wood which has
been embellished w ith jewels and gold." Having heard Botzos defiant proclamation, the spaspeti
Juansher struck him down on the spot No one else dared to defy the king, and the historian imparts that
the people proclaimed that "If the Cross should help us, then we shall know no other god, [and we shall
worship] only He who was Crucified." 2 ^
Proudly declaring his expulsion o f the Zoroastrians from K 'art'li , 2 1 7 Vaxtang is made to boast
that:
... w hen the location o f the houses of fire [read: Zoroastrian altars] were found I have
doused it with urine; I have subjected the magi and their adherents to cruel torture, and
I incarcerated the seducer Bink'aran in a dungeon ...2 1 *1
So the imagined V axtang is credited with eradicating Fire-Worship from K 'art'li. at least for the time
being, and, in particular, with having expelled the chief-priest o f the Zoroastrians from the royal city of
M c'xet'a.
2l5Ibid., p. 178.
2 1 *7<&, pp. 173-174. It is noteworthy that nowhere in this source do we find the Monophysite addition
to the Trisagion, namely O ETAYPG0EIE AIHMAE, or qui crucifixus es pro nobis. It was accepted at
the Second Council o f Dwin in S55 by the three Christian Caucasian Churches. Had our source been
written around this time, we might have expected this formula instead o f merely "He who was crucified
[juarc'muli]" as appears in this passage. However, it must be said that it is possible, though I think
unlikely, that this source was written at this time, but that later Orthodox (i.e Chalcedonian) scribes
edited out such statements. See Toumanoff; "Christian Caucasia Between Byzantium and Iran," p. 145,
footnote 140.
217Zoroastrianism was a lingering problem esp. after the dissolution of the K 'art'velian monarchy by the
Persians ca. 580. In addition, other forms o f "paganism persisted: Ps.-Juansber, pp. 243-244, tells us that
Arch'il initiated forced baptisms of heathens.
21 **77ie Ufe
o f Vaxtang, p. 179y_jg.
445
Although Vaxtang bitterly struggled against a Zoroastrian presence in his kingdom, he himself is
also supposed to have enacted several rapprochements with the Persians and he oflen fought alongside
them. Within his own army we are told there were Persian troops (perhaps entire companies), like the
mighty bumberazi P'arsman-P'arux. But in those instances when such Persians are mentioned, we are not
reminded that they were Zoroastrians, and there is no indication in The Life o f Vaxtang that Persian
troops fighting under the flag o f Vaxtang were compelled to renounce Zoroastrianism. The author
customarily divorces (or ignores) the Zoroastrian affiliation o f the Sasanid Persians. We should also
recall that Vaxtang's first wife Balenduxt was a Sasanid princess. But after Balenduxt's death, Vaxtang
married into the Byzantine imperial family. Even after Vaxtang's rapprochement with the Byzantines, the
Persians were not willing to allow Vaxtang to forget his obligations to Persia. Thus the Persian king
would implore that Vaxtang and his family visit "our ancestral land" o f Persia.2 *^
Although Vaxtang is contrived as a Persian-style king in his biography, nonetheless, we must
remember that the anonymous author had a specific agenda: to demonstrate the beginning of Vaxtang's,
and the K 'art'velian kings', progression - or desired progression - from a predominately Persian context
into a closer relationship with the Christian Byzantine world. The transition was brought closer to its
fruition in the continuation by Ps.-Juansher. T he Persians, w hen expedient, are portrayed as the enemy in
terms o f religion, and Vaxtang's biographer does not hesitate in reminding us that Vaxtang's companion
Razhden had been martyred by them.
On his deathbed Vaxtang specifically commanded his son and successor to remain loyal to the
Byzantines, and this suggests that the author believed that K 'art'velian loyalty must ultimately be
rendered to the Byzantines:
And [Vaxtang] said to all the nobles: "You, O inhabitants o f K 'art'li, remember my
virtues, for from the start you received eternal baptism from my house [i.e., the
Chosroid dynasty, which was founded by Mibran/Mirian], and tty my incarnate
glory [q'orc'ielebrit'a didebit'a] I honored you, my kin. Neither hold our
house in contempt, nor abandon [our] love for the Greeks [i.e., Byzantines ]." 2 2 0
119Ibid., p. 184.
2 2 0 /&/d., p. 203j4_j7 : "csi 6 J 3 6 ^ 6 6 6 0 6 3 6 3 2 3 0 )6 : '0 ,3 3 3 6 , 333ofi6ei 13 j,6 cnepobj)6 c'i,
8 0 1 0 3 6 3 6 3 6 0 0 3 3 0 0 2 3 6 0 6 3 8 0 , 6 6 8 3 0 3 3o 6 3 3 2 5 6 bibcpobi 6 3 8 0 6 6 8 0 3 6 800(3301 660)3230
6 6 3 3 3 6 0 , 0 6 83 3 0 1 6 0 0 3 2 3 3 6 6 0 0 )6 0 0 3 6 0 0 ) 6 0 6 0 0 0 3 6 0 , ^ 3 3 6 660136630)6 6 3 8 0 6 . 6
b6 bc?b 6 6 3 3 6 6 6 6 3 8 3 3 6 6 0 b-3 ypigo, o * 6 0 3 3 6 6 3 2 3 6 6 6 3 6 8 3 6 0 6 6 6 6 3 oÔ dX K ô.'" The
word "glory" here is not rendered with some form o f famah but by the Georgian didebay, l i t "greatness."
446
In a sense, then, the literary structure o f The U fe o f Vaxtang is extremely similar to hagiography, for in
the latter conversions to Christianity are often the subject and in the former Vaxtang's "conversion." or
reorientation, more fully into the fold o f the Byzantine commonwealth is disclosed.2 2 1
Church Organization Under Vaxtang
As I remarked in the previous chapter, precious little historical evidence has come down to us
regarding early ecclesiastical organization in K 'a rt'li (and it should be said that this topic is poorly
understood even for the Church Universal). A bishop seems to have been established a t M c'xet'a already
in the time of Nino, shortly after 337. M odem historians have been too anxious to label this bishop as the
prelate of the Church in K 'art'li, m aking him the head of a well-defined hierarchy. At least in the fourth
century, formal ecclesiastical organization in K 'a rt'li must have been amorphous at b e st
We possess no evidence that local clerics assembled for pan-K'art'velian Church councils before
the Bagratid era. In nearby Armenia such gatherings were not infrequent and this is, in pan, a
manifestation of the relative organizational strength o f the Armenian Church; priests from K 'a n 'li,
especially from the Armeno-K' art' velian marchlands, attended them. Ecclesiastical councils were also
convened by the Christian Church in Persia and we may have a single case o f a cleric from K 'art'li
attending the Synod o f M ar Yahbalah I in 420.222 In any case, no documents associated with
ecclesiastical councils, and the valuable enumerations o f bishops that normally accompany them, are
extant for the early Church in K 'a rt'li, and no formal local synods were mentioned in early Georgian
historical literature.
Prior to Vaxtang, Georgian sources relate virtually nothing about the bishops established outside
o f the royal city of M c'xet'a. However, the fifth-century Martyrdom o f Shushaniki is acquainted with the
bishop Ap'oc'i (variant Ap'uti), who w as attached to the house of the pitiaxshi V arsk'en (centered at
C'urtavi). In a letter sent from the K 'art'velian hat 'alifcos Kwrion to his Armenian counterpart, several
"bishops of C'urtavi" are enumerated: A p'oc'i, Garnik, Sahak, Eliay, Yakovb. Step'annos, Esayi, Samuel,
another Step'annos, Yovhannes, and Movses .2 2 2 That is to say, with Ap'oc'i/A p'uti, and the clerics
2 2 *And thus, in the continuation by Ps.-Juansher, p. 206, we find that the Persians are again ravaging
K 'a rt'li during the reign o f P'arsm an V (S47-S61). It should be noted that Vaxtang's cordial relationship
with the Byzantines did not prevent later confrontations with the Empire. However, Vaxtang's intimacy
with the Byzantines was an important stepping stone to the initial establishment o f the Bagratids in
K'art'velian lands by the Byzantine emperors (as kuropalatSs).
****Synodicon Orientate, p. 276. The bishop, who is not named, was said to have been from the region o f
"Gouizan." The synod o f420 was also attended by bishops from Armenia a n d "Adorbigan" (i.e.,
Azerbaijan).
222This letter is repeated in the tenth-century history o f Uxtanes, para. 48, p. 96. C 'urtavi was the home
447
m entioned by Uxtanes, we have evidence that some o f the bishops in K 'a rt'li were attached not to major
administrative centers, as was customary throughout the Roman and Byzantine domains, but rather to
noble households. We should expect that other local bishops were associated with representatives o f the
high nobility (and their regions), for this pattern was prevalent throughout greater Armenia.2 2 4 It should
be emphasized that C'urtavi was not simply a K 'art'velian bishopric, for it was located in the ArmenoK 'art'velian marchland. Uxtanes identifies this region as bilingual, although he is quick to point out (in
this polemical, pro-Armenian work) that Shushaniki had spoken Armenian and that it should be regarded
as the predominant language o f the bishopric.22^ In any event, both Armenian and K'art'velian cultural
and religious influence was strong in the region o f C'urtavi, and it should not surprise us to find
Arm enian forms o f ecclesiastical organization there. C'urtavi, and regions like it. served as a conduit for
the exchange o f ideas between K 'a rt'li and Armenia.
In this context, the bishop o f M c'xet'a might be regarded as the bishop attached to the royal
household.22** By the fifth century the chief priest o f M c'xet'a was elevated to the status of archbishop,
this being a reflection o f the establishment o f other bishops in K 'art'li. It is uncertain who authorized this
change in rank. In the time o f Vaxtang the archbishop o f K 'a rt'li took the title o f kat'alikos, an event
whose importance and implications will be examined infra. The ninth-/tenth-century Life o f Nino
suggests that the first bishop o f K 'art'li had been ordained in Roman/Byzantine lands and then sent to
K 'a rt'li .2 2 2 Later traditions declare that Eustathius, the exiled patriarch o f Antioch, was the first bishop
o f K 'a rt'li, or at least the consecrator of the first bishop in K 'art'li.22** Non-K'art'velian clerics
continued to play a conspicuous role in the Church through the early sixth century, and we have seen that
a great many Byzantines (Cappadocians, Pontians, etc.), Armenians and even Persians occupied high
o f the pitiaxshi Varsk'en and his Christian wife Shushaniki. It is situated in southern K 'art' li.
224O n the so-called naxararization of the Armenian Church, see Adontz/Garsoian, Armenia in the Period
o f Justinian, p. 166, and esp. ch. 12, "The Naxarar System and the Church," pp. 253-288. The Armenian
naxarar-s were roughly equivalent (functionally) to the K 'art'velian erist'avi-s.
2 2 % .g ., Uxtanes, pp. 5 6 ,6 4 ,5 7 (where a distinction is made between the Armenian- and Georgian
speaking congregations of C'urtavi), 91 (on the language o f Shushaniki). and 92.
2 2 *76/dL, para. 50, p. 99, refers to a certain Palten (late fifth-/early sixth-century) who was "the bishop of
the royal house" o f the K'art'velians. But he also refers to a separate bishop o f M c'xet'a and even a
bishop o f Tp'ilisi.
2 2 7 Cf. the early bishops o f Armenia who were consecrated in Caesarea in Cappadocia.
22**Discussed infra. See also J.M. Neale, A History o f the Holy Eastern Church, vol. 5 (1873, repr. 1976),
appendix 2 , p. 2 0 1 .
448
posts. Regardless, the bishop and then archbishop and finally kat'alikos2 2 9 o f M c'xet'a held the most
prominent ecclesiastical position in K 'a rt'li from the fourth century on. and this, in no small measure, was
a result o f that bishop being associated with the Crown.
C'xorebay vaxtang gorgaslisa displays considerable interest in the relative order o f the prelates
o f the Church in K 'art' li, the archbishops and subsequently the kat 'alikos-es. Only the name o f the
prelate and under whose reign he passed away are normally given. The prelates named in that corpus are:
CArch-lBishop
King
King's Reign
Editio Citato
Iona
Grigol
Basil
Mobidan
Mik'ael
A rch'il
411-435
Ufe o f Vaxtang, p. 142
435-447
Life o f Vaxtang. p. 145 (through
n tt
tt ft
ft ft
[Mirdat V]
Vaxtang
Kat'alikop-^
King/Prince231 Ruler's Reign
Petre
Samoel
T*avp'ech'ag
Ch'ermag
Saba
Evlat'i/Evlavioz
Vaxtang
Dach'i
Parsman V
Makar
Swmon2 3 2
Samoel2 3 3
?(another) Samoel
Bart'lome (Kwrion?)23^
Iovane2 3 5
n ft
447-522
522-534
547-561
Editio Citato
Ufe o f Vaxtang. p. 196
ft tt
P'arsm an VI
P'arsm an VIBakur III
B a k u rm
Guaram
561-?
56 1-?
7-580
Ps.-Juansher, pp. 207 and 215
7-580
588-ca. 590
ca. 590-627
627-637/642
ft N
Step'anoz I
Adamase I
2 2 9 And, in the Bagratid period, the patriarch-far 'alikos.
Cf. Toumanoff s enumeration o f to r alikos-es through Kwrion/Bart'lome: "Christian Caucasia

Between Byzantium and Iran," p. 176. footnote 295.
n it
The K 'art'velian monarchy was abolished by the Persians at some time in the sixth century, certainly
by ca. 580. See also ch. 6 .
232Also attested in Sumbat Davit'is-dze, p. 41 = Qauxch'ishvili ed., p. 373; this Swmon is to be
identified as Simon-Petre. He is named as the "ninth kat'alikos.
233Also attested ibid., p. 41 = Qauxch'ishvili ed., p. 374.
23<*Also attested ibid., p. 42 = Qauxch'ishvili ed., pp. 374-375.
2 3 5 Iovane, Babila, and T a b o r are also attested
ibid., p. 43 = Qauxch'ishvili ed., p. 375.
449
Babila
T ab o r
Samoel2 3 6
TTabor
Adarnase I
627-637/642
Step'anoz II
?Mi[h]r
637/642-ca. 650
?685-736
The confused enumeration of ecclesiastical hierarchs preserved in The Royal Lists II and III differs on
some points:
Archbishop
Iona
+ 3 others n.n.
Iovel
Mik'ael
King
Kings Reign
Editio.Citato
Arch'il
411-435
447-522
Royal Ust II, p. 93
it it
Vaxtang
ft ft
Kat'alikoz
King/Ruler
Ruler's Reign
Historical Source
Petre
Samovel
TPetre
Samovel
T av p 'ach 'ag
Vaxtang
Dach'i
447-522
522-534
7-580 [?]
547-561
Ch'imaga
Dasabia
Makari
Samovel
Si[m]on-Petre
?another Samovel
another Samo[v]el
ft tt
Royal Ust II, p. 94 + list from
this kat'alikoz onwards in
Royal Ust III, p. 97
NB: "sixth" kat'alikoz
ft ft
?B akur m
P'arsman V
P'arsman VI
Bakur III
561-?
7-580
ft ft
ft tt
[probably the same as above]" "

Guaram 588-ca. 590
Royal Ust II, p. 95
Other bishops in the K 'art'velian domains are attested in The Ufe o f Vaxtang, but it should be
emphasized that their precise relationship to one another within the hierarchy must be, at least for the
moment, consigned to the realm o f speculation. During the late stages of Vaxtang's rule (i.e., the first
quarter o f the fifth century) we know o f Petre, the kat'alikos (resident at Sueti-c'xoveli in M c'xet'a), and
Samoel, the "bishop o f M c'xet'a." Mimicking Christ and the Twelve Apostles, the first kat'alikos Petre
Within the text o f Ps.-Juansher, this Samoel is mentioned only in a later insertion. Sumbat Davit' isdze, p. 44 - Qauxch'ishvili e d , p. 375, mentions Samoel and his successor Enon. It is odd that he
enumerates no further kat'alikos-^s (this coincides exactly with his account o f the Bagratids proper).
450
allegedly possessed twelve suffragan bishops, not counting his appointed successor Samoel. 2 3 2 These
twelve bishops maintained cathedrals at :2 3 8
1. Axizi in K latjet'i
2. Artani in Erushet'i
3. Cunda in Javaxet' i
4. Manglisi
5. Bolnisi
6. R ustavi
7. Ninocminda
8 . Cheremi
9. C h'elet'i
10. Xornabuji
11. Agaraki, opposite o f Xunani
12. Nik'ozi
It should be noted that a bishopric o f M c'xet'a, separate from the kat'alikos-ate with its headquarters in
the same city, is not attested in other Georgian sources. The bishops enumerated here fell within the
territories o f K 'art'li, Kaxeti, Javaxeti, and Klaijeti, and did not extend into Egrisi/Ap'xazeti. This, I
think, is evidence that, at least in Vaxtang's time, K 'a rt'li had neither political nor ecclesiastical influence
in the western regions.2 3 9
2 3 2 Vaxushti, pp. 113-114, also enumerates these bishops. Toumanoff, "Christian Caucasia Between
Byzantium and Iran," p. 170, states that: "It would appear that, under the impact of the memories o f the
Patriarch Peter [the Fuller o f Antioch] who consecrated the first Iberian Katholikos, the latter went down
also as Peter, whereas out o f his real name o f Samuel an imaginary double was created, with whom the
Katholikos was made even to share his See." Toumanoff makes this assertion, which I think may very
well be correct, from the basis that Mart. Shushaniki is completely unfamiliar with Petre, but it does know
Samoel. This circumstance would account for the awkward successor position (as "bishop o f M e' xet' a,"
see further) rendered to Samoel in The Ufe o f Vaxtang.
238The Ufe o f Vaxtang, pp. 198-199. Cf. M. Lort'k'ip'anidze, K'art'li V saukunis meore naxevarshi
(1979), pp. 108-109; and Musxelishvili, Sak'art'velos istoriuli geograp'iis dzirit'adi sa/dt'xebi, vol. 1, pp.
222-223.
239Even Georgian historians, who widely cling to the view that Vaxtang united eastern and western
"Georgia," admit that Vaxtang's ecclesiastical "reform" did not affect the western territories: see, e.g., M.
L ort'k'ip'anidze, K'art'li Vsaukunis meore naxevarshi, p. 109 (western "Georgia" was subordinate to the
patriarchate o f Constantinople); and Musxelishvili, Sak'art'velos istoriuli geograp'iis dzirit'adi sa/dt'xebi,
vol. 1, Rus. sum., pp. 234-235. A later Armenian list, recorded by Uxtanes, para. 50, p. 99, and taken
from The Book o f Letters, divulges that twenty-one "K'art'velian" bishops attended the First Council of
Dwin in 506, during which both Chalcedon and the Tome o f Leo were condemned. Many o f their
bishoprics were situated along the Armeno-K' art' velian frontier. Among these bishops are Gabriel of
M c'xet'a, Palten "[bishop] o f the royal house," Davit' o f Bolnisi, Step'anos o f R ustavi, Elates o f
Manglisi, Ewginis of Samt' avisi, and Sahak o f Tp' ilisi.
451
The Establishment o f the Kat'alikos-ate: Beginnings ofAutocephaly?
It is worth disclosing again ecclesiastical organization in K 'a rt'li for the fourth and fifth
centuries is poorly understood because of the meagemess o f contemporary evidence. For this time, we
cannot state with airy precision the rank of the chief prelate o f M c'xet'a, whether bishop or archbishop.
But The Ufe o f Vaxtang does shed some light on this matter, for it divulges the supposed elevation o f the
M c'xet'-ian hierarch to the rank o f kat'alikos
variant kat'alikoz, Gk. KAGOAIKOE, Latin
catholicus) during the reign o f Vaxtang

The U fe o f Vaxtang attempts to demonstrate Vaxtang's steady progression from a Persian-style
king in a Near Eastern context to a Christian king coming to understand better the ideology, authority,
and trappings o f Byzantine rulership. As the imagined Vaxtang consolidated his power, he resolved to
expel the Byzantine troops who had occupied several strategic fortresses in the western domains, which,
in fact, were never under the control o f the historical Vaxtang Seeking to impair Byzantine
encroachments, the imagined Vaxtang invaded Pontus, and subjected countless Christians to the sword.
While engaged in eastern Anatolia, he experienced the fateful vision which convinced him to ally with the
Christian Byzantine emperor and to proclaim his everlasting goodwill. This is, in fact, the pivotal
moment o f The U fe o f Vaxtang, for through this dream Vaxtang is depicted as having recognized the
ultimate religious authority o f the Christian Byzantine emperor. Although the details o f this story are
suspect, we have seen how Procopius, a contemporary o f V axtang reports that the K'art'velians had
entered into an alliance with Justin I, and at the end o f his reign Vaxtang him self was forced to seek exile
in Byzantium.
Vaxtang's biographer, writing some three centuries after the fa c t explained Vaxtang's ultimate
turn towards Byzantium by means o f a sudden transformation, a vision inspired by God. In it Vaxtang
was presented with a crown by a certain St. Gregory (either Gregory o f Nazianzenus or Gregory the
Wonderworker) and was commanded to place it upon the head o f the Greek monk Petre, whom he had
befriended in Pontus. In turn, Petre took the crown and placed it on his lesser colleague, the Greek
Samoel.2 4 0 This episode symbolizes the desired relationship o f k in g prelate, and lower ecclesiastics.2 4 *
That is to say, in the dream Vaxtang received his crown, that is, his right to rule, from both the Byzantine
emperor and God him self through the agency of S t Gregory. V axtang as the king of the K'art'velians,
was directed to crown Petre, the future chief-prelate o f the Church in K 'a rt'li. Finally, Petre placed the
2 4 0 7%e Ufe
2 4 *Cf. M. van Esbroeck, "Primaute, Patriarcats, Catholicossats, Autocdphalies en Orient," in II Primato
de Vescovo di Roma nel Primo Millennio (1991), pp. 516-517.
452
crown upon Samoel, his subordinate and successor. A clear chain o f authority, and the superiority o f the
divinely-sanctioned king over the Church, had been explained.
Following his dream, the imagined Vaxtang returned to M c'xet'a with Petre, who was to assume
the helm o f the local Church. But Vaxtang had forgotten that the bishop M ik'ael, himself a Byzantine,
already occupied the prelacy, or at the very least, the king had underestimated Mik' aels reaction to his
removal/demotion. In any event, M ik'ael learned o f Petre and, even before Vaxtang had reached
M c'xet'a, the resident bishop sent forth an envoy, proclaiming: "You, it would seem, have renounced
Christ and have placed your faith in the flame ."2 4 2 In essence, M ik'ael branded Vaxtang as an apostate.
The imagined Vaxtang rapidly moved to defuse the situation. Having entered the royal city, he
appeared before M ik'ael, kneeling before him and pleading for forgiveness. In response, M ik'ael kicked
the king in the face, shattering one o f Vaxtang's teeth.2 4 3 As a consequence, M ik'ael was sent under
guard to the emperor and ecumenical patriarch in Constantinople so that he might be judged. Vaxtang
also requested that the Byzantines immediately consecrate Petre as the first kat'alikos o f K 'art'li.
2 4 2 77ie Ufe
o f Vaxtang, p. 1%.
243This episode has aroused considerable debate among modem specialists, for it has been regarded as a
manifestation o f the straggle between Monophysitism, Chalcedonianistn, and even adherents o f Zeno's
Henotikon. Among these arguments, ToumanofFs is the most soundly based. He suggests that Vaxtang
was a Monophysite who accepted Zeno's Henotikon, and that the first kat 'alikos was installed ca. 485/486
by Peter II "the Fuller" (484-ca. 488 in this case), who himself was a zealous Monophysite (Toumanoff,
"Christian Caucasia Between Byzantium and Iran," pp. 167-172). As already mentioned, Toumanoff also
believes that the supposed first kat'likos Petre is actually a memory o f Peter the Fuller, and he reckons
Samoel to have actually been the initial kat'alikos o f K 'art'li. As such, M ik'ael has been seen as an
ardent Chalcedonian. Mgaloblishvili, "K'ristianuli k 'a rt'li IV-V ss-shi," Mac neenisa 1 (1988), pp.
111-117, also links the conflict to the Henotikon. Z. Alek'sidze, "Vaxtang gorgasalsa da mik'ael mt'avarepiskoposs sakit'xisat'vis," in Dziebani sak'art'velosa da kavkasiis istoriidan (1976), pp. 88-98.
attempted to reduce the debate into Vaxtang's accusation that M ik'ael was more interested in silver than
religion (cf. The U fe o f Vaxtang, p. 197: "You are a lover o f silver."). We do not have any solid
indication as to Vaxtangs adherence to Monophysitism or Chalcedon, and it seems unlikely that he was
overly concerned with this issue. Rather, he was interested in gaining the friendship and support o f the
Byzantine emperor, and it is more probable that Vaxtang vacillated in turn with the Byzantine emperors
on the issue o f Christology. See also: G. Mamulia, K'art'lis eklesia V-VI saulcuneebshi, pp. 17-34 et sqq
and Eng. sum., pp. 94-% ; M. Lort'k'ip'anidze, K'art'li Vsaukunis meore naxevarshi, Rus. sum., p. 108;
Goiladze, Vaxtang gorgasali da misi istorikosi, p. 207; van Esbroeck, "Vakhtang Gorgasali et l'eveque
Mikael de Mtskhetha" (unpub. typescript); and A Koxreidze, "Ram gamoicvia vaxtang gorgaslisa da
m ik'ael mt'avarepiskoposis konp'lik'ti," Zhumalistoriia, geograp'ia, sazogadoebamec'nierebaskolashi
2 (1980), pp. 38-42.
M. van Esbroeck, "Primaute, Patriarcats, Catholicossats, Autocephalies en Orient," pp. 514-519,
asserts that originally the title o f kat 'alikos carried with it the im plict rqection o f Chalcedon. This in fact
seems valid, since the other contemporary kat 'alikos-ates were certainly non-Chalcedonian (i.e., those of
Persia and Armenia). Simply stated, The Ufe o f Vaxtang does not address the issue o f Christology.
453
Ultimately, M ik'ael was sentenced by the patriarch to exile among the "Sleepless Ones" (Akoemetae) at
the Stoudion monastery in Constantinople .2 4 4
The emperor and patriarch allegedly forwarded Vaxtang's request that Petre be consecrated as
kat'alikos to the patriarch o f Antioch .2 4 5 The patriarch o f Constantinople is said to have dispatched the
following letter to his colleague in Antioch:
Originally, at the time of the conversion o f K 'a rt'li by the Roman woman Nino, a bishop
was sent from here, but there was tumult between the Persians and the Greeks [i.e..
Byzantines], and thus it was not possible to arrange the m atter in accordance with the
requirements o f the law. For we known that K 'a rt'li and the East and the North belong
to [your] holy throne [i.e^ see], as the apostles ordained in the Gospel what the order
o f precedence should be .2 4 6
The Armenian Adaptation o f K'art 'lis c 'xovreba encapsulated this passage into a single statement that the
matter had been sent to Antioch since K 'art'li "is your diocese."2 4 2 In any event, it was understood, at
least by the author, that there had been some confusion as to which patriarchate the Church in K 'art'li
rightly belonged. In fact, this confusion existed well beyond the confines o f K 'art'li. The patriarchate of
Antioch was regarded to have the East under its jurisdiction, yet canon 2 o f the acts o f the Second
Ecumenical Council held at Constantinople seems to qualify this fay stating th a t"... and let the bishops o f
the East manage the East alone, the privileges of the Church in A ntioch... being preserved." 248 Then, at
the next general council convened in Ephesus in 431, Antioch was criticized for having illegally extended
its influence to Cyprus (canon S). The late twelfth-century patriarch o f Antioch Theodore Balsamon
244See Thomson trans., p. 215 and footnote 76.

245Van Esbroeck, "The Credo o f Gregory the Wonderworker and its Influence through Three Centuries,"
SP 19 (1989), p. 265, states that: "To my mind, it is quite probable that Peter, found in the Georgian
Annals, is none other than Peter the Fuller at the time he was excluded from the see o f Antioch, and had
to exercise his legitimacy elsewhere." See also his "Lazique, Mingrelie, Svanethie et Aphkhazie du IV6
au IX6 siecle," in SSCISSM, vol. 43a, pp. 204-209. Should this identification be correct, then this
establishment o f a former Antiochene patriarch at M c'xet'a may have later sparked the legend that
Eustathios, also an ex-patriarch o f Antioch, had been the first prelate o f the Church in K 'art'li. However,
the identification o f Petre as Peter the Fuller, however fascinating, is speculative at b est It is absolutely
clear that The Ufe o f Vaxtang, though it does incorporate some memories o f the time o f Vaxtang, is in its
received form terribly confused and convoluted. Cf. Toumanoff.
2 4 6 77re Ufe
o f Vaxtang, p. 197j9_22 = Thomson trans., p. 215. Note that this passage refers to Nino as a
"Roman" and not as a Cappadocian as is related in the Bagradd-era Ufe o f Nino.
2 4 Ârm. Adapt.
K'C', p. 1795^ : "2bp t, uubh, ilhAuii'b iujh" = Thomson trans., p. 213.
248/f els o f the Ecum. Councils, p. 176.
454
claimed the K'art'velians had earlier leveled a sim ilar charge against the Antiochenes, and that the
ecumenical church had given the K ' art'velians a similar ruling at the Sixth Ecumenical Council in
680/681 (canon 39 ).2 * 9 We shall return to the position o f Antioch directly, but for the moment it is
important to note that the juridical relationship o f eastern churches, including that of K 'art'li. was. at best,
vague.
The Life o f Vaxtang reports that Petre was ordained as kat'alikos by the patriarch o f Antioch. In
addition, the unnamed patriarch also consecrated twelve suffragan bishops. This is strange, for we should
have expected Petre, by virtue o f his new status, to have consecrated them himself. Notwithstanding, the
structure of the Church in K 'a rt'li is clearly delineated: the kat'alikos sat in M c'xet'a as its anchor, while
under him were twelve major bishops (not counting his successor Samoel). To commemorate the dawn o f
the institution o f kat'alikos in K 'art'li, Vaxtang is said to have erected a new structure on the site o f the
original Sueti-c'xoveli church, this one made o f stone. The Life o f Vaxtang also notes that this church
was (?re-)dedicated to the holy apostles .2 5 0 The twelve suffragan bishops were then parceled out
throughout K 'art'li.
Medieval Georgian texts do not propose that the function or authority o f the prelate o f M c'xet'a
was suddenly transformed with his elevation as kat'alikos. M odem specialists have often assumed that
the establishment of the K 'art'velian kat'alikos-ate precisely corresponds to the attainment o f an
autocephaly (i.e., internally independence ).2 5 * But this need not be the case. The Life o f Vaxtang,
2*9Ibid., pp. 234-235 and 177 (for Balsamon).

2 5 0 77re Life o f Vaxtang, p. 198.
25 *As in the case with K. Tsintsadze, Avtokefaliia tserkvi gruzinskoi (istoricheskii ocherk I I -A7 v.J
(1905). Cf. K. Salia. History o f the Georgian Nation, 2nd ed., p. 103, who anachronistically equates the
kat'alikos with the office of patriarchy). Goiladze, K'art'uli eklesiis sat'aveebt'an, p. 134, emphasizes
that the K'art'velian Church was "one o f the oldest autocephalous churches in the world" and equates
autocephaly with the establishment o f a kat'alikos. For a more balanced consideration o f K 'art'velian
autocephaly, see Tarchnishvili, "Die Entstehung und Entwicklung der Kirchlichen Autocephalie
Georgiens," LeM lh (I960), pp. 107-126. J.H. Erickson. "Autocephaly in Orthodox Canonical Literature
to the Thirteenth Century," SVTQ 15/1-2 (1971), p. 33, relying upon Tarchnishvili. states that
"Foundations for the autocephaly o f Georgia... were laid in the 5th century, when, in exchange for a
political alliance and acceptance o f his pro-Monophysite Henoticon, the emperor Zeno recognized the
catholicos of the Georgian church as autocephalous, though still vaguely dependent on Antioch. At the
beginning of the 7th century the Georgian church returned to Orthodoxy but retained its exceptional
status, and by the 8 th century it was fully independent." This view assumes that the schism o f 607/608
did not mark the outright acceptance o f Chalcedon by the K 'art'velians, though the Armenians leveled
this charge. The theory o f a gradual acceptance o f Chalcedon by the K'art'velians, with the Armenians
condemning their neighbors at an early stage, is an attractive one. In any event, Dwin in was instigated,
along with real theological concerns by the Armenians, by the K 'art'velian political alliance with
Byzantium, and an accomodation on religious matters seems to have been reached with the Empire from
an early time.
455
written ca. 800, includes no explicit statement that at this moment the Church in K 'a rt'li became
autocephalous.
In my view, the pivotal moment in terms o f the self-regulation o f the Church in K 'a rt'li occurred
when K'art'velians were able to monopolize the kat'alikos-ate. The earliest kat'alikos-es were "Greeks."
i.e., Byzantines. Before this, as we have seen, the prelates of the Church were also outsiders. Nearly a
century elapsed, from the founding o f the kat'alikos-ate ca. 485/486 up to the reign o f P 'arsm an VI (561?), before the kat'alikos-ate was occupied by native K 'a rt'v e lia n s .^ In his account o f P 'arsm an VI, Ps.Juansher reveals that:
From this time the kat'alikos-es were no longer brought from Greece [i.e.. Byzantium]
but they were selected from the K'art'velian noble f a m i l i e s . ^
Royal List II, paraphrasing the account o f Ps.-Juansher, offers this version:
... [and] another P'arsm an reigned and the kat'alikoz was Dasabia, a native o f M c'xet'a.
And from this time two native houses of M c'xet'a have held the kat'alikoz-a t e . ^
Thus, in the second-half o f the sixth century the K' art'velians took control of their own Church, and from
this time we may finally speak o f the K'art'velian Church and not simply o f the Church in K'art'li. That
is to say, the raising in status to kat'alikos o f the prelate of the Church in K 'art'li did not exactly
correspond with the domination o f the upper rungs o f the local ecclesiastical administration by native
K'art'velian priests. But this event did occur within a century o f the appearance o f the kat 'alikos-ate in
K 'art'li. Moreover, the impending schism with the Armenians (in 607/608) must be considered in the
context o f an emboldened K 'art'velian ecclesiastical organization which had become relatively free o f
external control.
The evidence o f Royal List II is striking for it suggests that the kat'alikos-ate had
55 5
N. Janashia, "Kartli V s. meore naxevarshi: vaxtang gorgasali," in h is Istoriul-cqarot'mc'odneobit'i
narkvevebi (1986), pp. 42-46, suggests that the kat'alikos-ate was established in the 470s. However, I
follow ToumanofFs more convincing dating.
551
z-J Ps.-Juansher, p. 20714_15: " ^ * 0 9 5 4 6 *6 q * 6 * 3 c"K)g3 *63 &C8 3 b 3 *03*2 5 0 3 0 ^ *
b*&3 6 d 6303 oo3,
* 6 * 3 3 5 ,3*603332560 fiOAbbea&cijsab, ^ * 6 fto 636325 * 6 * 0 ^ * 3 6 0 ."
Royal List II, p. 9 4 j^_ jg (from the Shatberdi codex o f the tenth century): "... 8 3 8 os&ca8*{5 3 3 3 0 1 6 (8 *
g*6b3*6 bbig*a (8 * 3 *03*2 5 0 3 0 1 ^ 0 0301 cp*b*6 o*. 8 3 3 (5 6 0 dQbaa>3 C5 o. op* *J*Q03&*6 on6 0 3 *
b*bK* ijjOQab 3 *03*250301 ^( 1 6 * 0 8 (3630332503 * 83300603 *."
555
Thus, on the heels o f the schism, Toumanoff, "Christian Caucasia Between Byzantium and Iran," p.
182, describes Kwrion as an "Iberian Monophysite" (his emphasis).
456
become hereditary in two K 'art'velian (noble) houses. Ps.-Juansher does not shed any light on this
question. However, it should be noted that the early Armenian Church was dominated by the Grigorid
dynasty, the family o f Gregory the Illuminator.2 5 6 T he phenomenon o f ecclesiastical dynasties is alien to
Byzantium and is a manifestation o f the Persian-style social structure o f early Caucasia.
We must also ask who was responsible for selecting the hierarchs o f the Church in K 'art'li. In
the preceding chapter we saw that the medieval Georgian literary tradition credits Nino with having
confirmed and then appointed the first two bishops o f K 'a rt'li from the ranks o f priests allegedly
dispatched from Constantinople. Until the reign o f Vaxtang, local texts are vague on this issue. We may
only speculate, from the example o f other Christian communities, whether the Crown confirmed or itself
selected the prelate. The allochthonous monopolization o f the highest rungs o f the K 'a rtvelian
ecclesiastical organization up through the era of Vaxtang might suggest the influence o f an outside
authority (or authorities). It is altogether possible that the early bishops/archbishops o f M c'xet'a were
confirmed by several different figures, including, but not limited to, the patriarch of Antioch, the Persian
shahanshah (who carefully regulated the miniscule Church in Persia), the prelate of Armenia, and the
Byzantine emperor/patriarch of Constantinople. Furthermore, at the tim e the K 'art'velians are reported to
have taken control of their own church hierarchy, the monarchy was feeble, and, according to most
specialists in modem Georgia, it had already been abolished. The medieval Georgian sources, as we have
just seen, explicitly state that the native-born kat'alikos-es were members o f noble houses. This might be
an indication o f the relative weakness (or absence) o f the Crown and the relative strength o f the noble
houses. In any case, the sources are vague about the ascendancy o f the early kat'alikos-es, and it is not
clear whether the king/presiding prince became responsible for their confirmation.
In the second-half o f the sixth century, the monarchy - if still existing - was hopelessly
im potent We m ust therefore, entertain the possibility that the Persians themselves instigated the
aforementioned transformation o f the K'art'velian Church. Why would they have behaved in this
manner? The Persians wished to flush outside influences from K 'a rt'li, particularly those from
Byzantium, and therefore might have provided the K 'art'velians with the opportunity to administer their
own Church. Since the kat 'alikos was resident in M e' xet'a, a city having (or that would have) a Persian
administrator, the Persians could exert great influence over the hierarch. When the Persians resolved to
extinguish the K 'art'velian monarchy once and for all, they might have granted cooperating nobles a hand
in church affairs. It is altogether possible that if the monarchy did in fact exist until ca. 580, then before
this time the Persians gave the nobles the authority to regulate the Church in an attempt to limit royal
authority (but later, ironically, the K'art'velians, seeking to limit Armenian influence, would come out in
favor o f Chalcedon). And should the Persians have abolished the monarchy in the first-half o f the sixth
2 5 6 E.g.,
The Epic Histories, HI. 15, p. 91; HI. 17, p. 92; andIV .3, pp. 108-109.
457
century, then we must ask whether the Persians themselves had provided for the establishment o f the
kat'alikos-ate (the ecclesiastical rank o f kat'alikos was used for the head of the Persian Church). If so, the
author o f The Life o f Vaxtang, though he was not shy to adm it K 'a rf Ii's Persian heritage, may have
wished to obscure any Christian connections to Persia. By his own time, Antioch was claiming
jurisdiction over K 'art'li, and thus he could have merely projected back this situation. In any event,
contrary to The Life o f Vaxtang, the attainment o f a kat'alikos and then o f autocephaiy occurred in the
context o f a relatively weak monarchy, and their appearance may not be credited the virility o f the Crown.
The issue o f K 'art'velian autocephaiy has yet to be definitively settled, and this topic is deserving
o f a special monograph. It is, quite obviously, impossible to provide a detailed account of this question
here, yet it concerns us because it demonstrates how the earlier tradition o f a kat'alikos being appointed
for the K'art'velians was understood by later historians to correspond to the attainment of autocephaiy.
In the eighth and ninth centuries, precisely the time at which The Life o f Vaxtang was composed.
K 'art'velian autocephaiy was an issue not infrequently discussed at Antioch. But we possess no
Antiochene documents from this period to indicate that the early Church in K 'a rt'li had been formally
recognized as a dependency upon Antioch . 2 ^ 2 However, the establishment o f the kat alikos-aie was
known to the Antiochene patriarch Theophylakt (741-755). In his Protreptikon he asserted that the
K 'art'velians had been granted the right (from Antioch) to ordain their own kat'alikos-es at the time when
Arab armies made it impossible for K 'a rt'li and Antioch to remain in regular communication .2 5 8 But
Antioch began to officially dispute the K 'art'velians 1claim to autocephaiy only in the eleventh
century ,2 5 9 when the Peter III (1053-1057) reminded the K 'art'velians that they must commemorate the
2 5 2 R. Devreesse, Le patriarcat dAntioche depuis la paix de Teglise jusqua la conquete arabe (1945),
esp. pp. 124-141 and 305-312. No Antiochene claims were reported at the following ecclesiastical
councils, all o f which were prior to the Arab invasions o f the seventh century: Nicaea (325), Sardis
(342/343), Seleucia (359), Antioch (363), Constantinople (381,459, 553), Ephesus (431), Antioch (445).
Ephesus (449), and Chalcedon (451). The La Notitia Antiochena (fifth-seventh centuries) does not
enumerate K 'art'li among its eleven metropolitans and 127 bishops. For the history of K 'art'velianAntiochene relations, see Goiladze, Vaxtang gorgasali da misi istorikosi, pp. 159-166; and B. Lominadze.
"Saxelmcip'osa da eklesiis urt'iert'oba V m -X B saukuneebis sak'artveloshi," in Sak'art'velo rust'avelis
xanashi (1966), pp. 67-69, with Rus. sum., "Vziamootnosheniia mezhdu tserkoviu i gosudarstvom v
Gruzii VIII-XII w .," pp. 297-299. For the issue o f autocephaiy, see also The Life o f Vaxtang, pp. 186196.
2 5 8 Kekelidze, "Liturgicheskaia spravka po voprosu ob avtokefalii gruzinskoi tserkvi," in his Etiudebi,
vol. 7 (1961), pp. 253-258.
259This claim persisted well past the eleventh century. Macarius in (1648-1672), patriarch o f Antioch,
himself visited Georgia a n d he devotes m uch attention it in his travel account. In recapitulating the
ecclesiastical history o f Georgia, Macarius begins by saying that "From the beginning [Georgia] has been
dependent upon Antioch. Furthermore, the author repeats not only the Andrew and Nino traditions, but
also the story o f Eustathius (see further). See: Macarius, Travels = P. Zhuze, ed. and trans., Gruziia v 17
stoletii po izobrazheniiu Patriarkha Makariia (1905) (with parallel Arabic text and Rus. trans.); and O. de
458
patriarch o f Antioch "as had been done since the first kat'alikos, w ho was established for the K'art'velians
fay Theophylakt, the patriarch o f Antioch ;"2 6 0 we shall return to this period directly. In any case, by the
eighth century Antioch claimed that K 'art'li was ecclesiastically subordinate to i t
As we have seen, the ca. 800 Life o f Vaxtang itself declares that the first K 'art'velian kat'alikos
had been consecrated at Antioch, and this is consistent with Antiochene claims from the author's time. In
fa c t our historian mentions Antioch on several occasions, and Vaxtang is even said to have visited it.
There are indications that the contemporary Church in K 'art'li was deeply influenced by Antioch. For
example, the pre-Bagratid K 'art'velian liturgy was based upon the Syrian-Jerusalem rite, and only was
supplanted fay that o f Constantinople after the solidification ofB agratid rule (from the ninth century).2 6 1
The influence o f Christian Syria upon K 'art'li is particularly evident in the episode of the Thirteen Syrian
Fathers who introduced monasticism to K 'art'li in the sixth century. This was followed fay the
establishment o f a series o f K 'art'velian monasteries near Antioch (which The Life o f Vaxtang does not
document), and it is possible that the biographer o f Vaxtang had been resident in one o f them .26 2 In any
case, the influence o f Syriac Christianity upon the K 'art'velians was enormous, and a manifestation o f this
influence from the south was that periodically the Antiochene see exercised jurisdictional claims over
K 'art'li, although it should again be said that no Antiochene document predating the eleventh century
explicitly identifies K 'a rt'li as a suffragan diocese. Thus, while the patriarch o f Antioch may have had a
hand in the establishment o f the K 'art'velian kat'alikos-ate, originally he neither possessed, nor claimed,
regular ecclesiastical authority over K 'art'li.
The biographer o f Vaxtang writing at a time when Antioch claimed to have been responsible for
the consecration o f the K'art'velian kat'alikos, merely repeats and does not refute this situation. As
to the precise events which transpired at the time of V axtang we know very little. In fact, we may not
even state with certainty that the first kat'alikos was actually consecrated at Antioch, notwithstanding the
subsequent Antiochene claims.
L^bedew, trans., Histoire de la Conversion des Georgiens au Christianisme par le Patriarche Macaire
dAntioche (1905).
260Kedrenos as cited in Kekelidze, "Liturgicheskaia spravka po voprosu ob avtokefalii gruzinskoi
tserkvi," p. 254.
Kekelidze, Liturgicheskie gruzinskie pamiatniki v otchestvennykh knigokhranilishchakh i ikh
nauchnoe znachenie (1908). See also Djobadze, "Medieval Bread Stamps from Antioch and Georgia,
OC 63 (1979), pp. 163-176, esp. pp. 173-174, who shows that bread stamps confirm the use of the SyrianJeruslaem rite in K 'a rt'li.
^Djobadze, Materialsfo r the Study o f Georgian Monasteries in the Western Environs o f Antioch on the
Orontes (1976).
459
Much o f what is now known about the ecclesiastical relationship o f K art' li and Antioch
emanates from the Bagratid period, especially from the eleventh century. The ecclesiastical jurisdiction o f
Antioch was called into question shortly after the K 'art'velian Bagratids had succeeded in reestablishing
local royal authority in 8 8 8 . The tenth-century Works o f Grigol Xandzt'eli by Giorgi M erch'ule ends with
a passage testifying to the death o f the renowned monk Grigol. This passage incorporates an enumeration
o f the rulers o f K 'art'li and the prelates o f the Christendom, both within and without K 'art'li.
Significantly, the patriarch o f Antioch is not mentioned:
... In Jerusalem the A gat'on [held] the patriarchate. In M c'xet'a M ik'el [held] the
kat'alikoz-ate. Ashot kuropalates, son o f Adarnerse the king o f the K 'art'velians, was
the mt'avari over the K 'artvelians. Giorgi, son o f King Kostanti, was king over the
Ap'xaz. Sumbat, son o f King Adarnerse, was erist'avi o f erist'avis. Adarnerse, son o f
Bagrat magistros, was the magistros. Sumbat, son of Davit' mampali was erist'avi.
Merch'ule is unfamiliar with Antiochene jurisdictional rights over K 'art'li, o r sought to obscure them,
although the patriarch o f distant Jerusalem was remembered. It should be noted that in the same century,
the compiler o f Royal List II, relying upon The Life o f Vaxtang, chose to ignore entirely his source's claim
that the early kat'alikos-es had been consecrated in A n t i o c h .^
By the eleventh century, when a strong all-Georgian monarchy had been established by the
Bagratids, a fierce controversy about K 'art' li's autocephalous status was waged with A n tio c h .
The
most famous episode from this controversy concerns some Greek monks from the monastery o f St.
Symeon who appeared before the Antiochene patriarch Theodosius III (1057-1076) complaining about
their K'art'velian brethren:
... And with this evil conspiracy [the Greek monks] went and approached the patriarch
Theodosius, for he was newly arrived and unaware, and with utmost exertion as if in
suffering they told him: "Help us holy lord, deliver us from this great misfortune, and
rescue us from these vain and alien men, for in our monastery there are about sixty men
^Giorgi Merch'ule, Works o f Grigol Xandzt'eli, cap. 83, p. 80 and 148-149. Should the absence of the
Antiochene patriarch be any indication, then perhaps the perceived lack o f respect on the part o f the
K'art'velians added fuel to the fire which was to erupt in the eleventh century.
2^R oyal List II, p. 93: "And [Mik ael] struck Vaxtangs face with his foot But the king sent [Mik'ael
with his] envoys to Greece [i.e., Byzantium] and asked the king [i.e., emperor] and patriarch for a
kat'alikoz.'' No reference to Antioch is made here.
See the excellent survey o f Djobadze, Materialsfo r the Study o f Georgian Monasteries, part 3, "The
Relations of Georgia with Antioch from the End of the Tenth Century to the Second Half o f the Thirteenth
Century," pp. 63-85.
460
who call themselves K 'a rt 'velians, but we do not know what their intentions are
or what their religion is. A nd thus they confiscated some land o f the monastery."
Hearing this the patriarch was astonished, an d told them: "How is it possible that the
K'art'velians do not adhere to Orthodoxy?" For he was not informed on K 'art'velian
matters. And so, intending to cover up their malicious plan, they told him: "We do not
know whether they are K 'art'velians or Armenians, for their priest is not allowed to
officiate in our monastery ." 2 6 6
The dispute was settled when Theodosius him self met with a K 'art'velian monk and determined that
"although you are K 'art'velian by birth, in all other respects [and] in learning you are entirely Greek ."2 6 2
Essentially, the "K'art'velization" of the Church in K 'a rt'li had come full circle, from its domination by
non-K'art'velians to the recognition fay some Byzantine ecclesiastics that certain K 'art'velian priests were
in many respects the equals to their "Greek" comrades.
Subsequently, the patriarch Theodosius deliberated the alleged autocephalous status o f the
K 'art'velian Church. Apparently, a group o f Greek monks approached him and inquired about both the
K 'art'velian Church's proper relationship w ith Antioch and the ecumenical Church as well as its right to
consecrate its own kat'alikos-es. It was argued that the K 'art'velians had no right to claim autocephaiy
since their Church had not been established by one of the apostles.26** The K' art'velian response to this
charge was delivered by the renowned Georgian Athonite, Giorgi Mt'acmideli ("of the Holy Mountain,"
i.e., "of Athos"). He cited the Book o f the Wanderings o f Andrew (Cigni mimoslvay andrea, ^ 0 5 6 0
8o 3 mbcp 3 iG *6 3 6 3 *), a Byzantine work that had been translated into Georgian in the eleventh century,
as proof o f K 'a rt'lis apostolic foundation .2 6 9 Theodosius asked T'eop'iles (Theophilus), the K'art'velian
metropolitan o f Tarsus, to bring the book and there the patriarch found that both Andrew and Simon the
Canaanite had preached in Apxazet'i.22 To strengthen his argument. Giorgi mentioned that when
266Giorgi M c'ire, The Life o f Giorgi Mt'acmideli, cap. 17, pp. 14924 .-150^. My Eng. trans. is based
upon that of Djobadze, in Materialsfor the Study o f Georgian Monasteries, pp. 53-54. Part of this vita
was also trans. in Lang, Lives and Legends o f the Georgian Saints, 2nd ed.. pp. 165-168 (his "George the
Athonite").
Giorgi M c'ire, The Life o f Giorgi Mt'acmideli, cap. 17, p. 15112-13;
6 *0 )30*3003
d*(bo)33C30 b*tf>, bbjra*
3PX33C50i b^*3C3)E?3boo)A b(*)Qc?o*0 6 3 6 ^ 3 6 0 b*6 ."
2 6 **/b/rf., cap. 18, p. 152^.25-
269This is neither the first nor the only instance o f opponents' own traditions being tinned against them
by the K'art'velians. Cf. the use o f Armenian traditions both in the formation of a specifically
K 'art'velian tradition following Dwin HI as well as in Arsen Sap'arelis polemical tract.
226Giorgi M c'ire, The Life o f Giorgi Mt'acmideli, cap. 18, pp. 153-154. This is ironic since the
K 'art'velians themselves did not invent the story that Andrew and Simon had visited "Georgia;" rather, as
we have seen, this innovation came from the pens of Byzantine clerics. On the alleged preaching of
Andrew and Simon in "Georgia," see ch. 4. Note that only in the Bagratid period could A p'xazet'i be
461
Byzantium had itself fallen into the error o f Iconoclasm, the K'art'velians remained free o f this plague.
As proof, he pointed to the consecration o f John, the bishop o f the Goths, by the bishop o f M c'xet'a . 271
Just prior to the year 1060, the K 'art'velian monk Ep'rem M c'ire ("the Lesser"), who worked at
monastery o f Kalipos in Syria, wrote his metaphrastic Tale o f the Conversion o f the K'art'velians
{Ucqebay mizezsak'art'velt'a mok'c'evisasa,
3ob{jbbA jafioagflrocoa 8 ci^Qa3 obibA). Ep'rem
M e ire's main sources were The Conversion o f K'art'li, The life o f Nino, the aforementioned Wandering
o f Andrew, a now-lost Chronographia ofAntioch?7^- and, for the conversion o f western "Georgia,"
Procopius' History o f the Wars.272 Ep' rems account commences with the King-Prophet David and his
enlightenment even before the coming o f C hrist This is significant since the ruling K 'art'velian
Bagratids claimed to be the direct offspring o f David.27"* According to this monk, the Christian message
first reached the Georgian kingdom (a political enterprise o f Ep'rem M e'ires time!) through two apostles:
Ap'xazet'i had been evangelized by Andrew while Bartholomew had preached in K 'a rt'li proper 2 7 5 We
have already seen that the Andrew legend was a relatively late development and was imported to K 'art' li
from Byzantium. The tradition about Bartholomew was Ep'rem Me'ire's own invention, and may be
based upon Armenian claims that Bartholomew had visited Armenia. In any case, the notion that
Bartholomew had preached in K 'a rt'li did not gain many adherents.
Having traced the activities o f the holy woman Nino in the fourth century, Ep' rem Me' ire
introduced another innovation:
... For it was Eustathius, the patriarch o f Antioch, himself who established the church
built by M irian in M e' xet' a, and consecrated their kat a//a?-archbishop. And the king
of the K 'art'velians, and all his mt'avari-s [i.e., head nobles] gave to the patriarch of
Antioch, as payment for the holy chrism, villages comprised o f a thousand households
counted as an integral part o f the "Georgian" kingdom.

271
Ibid., cap. 18, p. 154^.24- John is referred to as Iovane gut'el episkoposi. See also A.A. Vasiliev,
The Goths in the Crimea (1936), p. 90.
272
'Eprem M c'ire, p. 8 2 3 :"... flbg 3 o 3 tn<j
9o6a ^ (p m jo ^ b iQ âftogpbi [... ese
vipoet'xronoghrap'ia shina antiok'ias aghcerilsa\ "... these things we found in the Chronographia
written in Antioch."
272
'- Ep'rem Me'ire's account o f the conversion o f western "Georgia" was interpolated into later redactions
o f the history o f Ps.-Juansher. p. 2 1 5 ^ (for the reign o f P 'arsman VI).
274E p 'rem Mc'ire, p. 4 1-4-
275Ibid., p. 44_g.
462
from the land o f the K 'art'velians... From this time on the conversion is recognized, and
because o f their adherence Ito the Church o f Antioch], the kat'alikoz-es of K 'a rt'li were
consecrated at [Antioch]... 6
Thus Ep'rem M c'ire suggests that the (organized) Church in K 'art'li. from its inception, had been linked
to the patriarchate o f Antioch. For Eustathius is to be identified as the bishop o f Antioch who assumed
that post in 324/325. He was exiled sometime thereafter, although the precise time and reasons have yet
to be established .2 7 7
This carefully crafted embellishment was both clever and diplomatic, for it endeavored to prove
that the K'art'velians, having first been exposed to Christianity by the apostles Andrew and Bartholomew,
obtained their very first bishop and then autocephaiy itself at the hands o f the patriarch o f Antioch.
And from the beginning, the prelate o f the Church in K 'a rt'li was styled kat'alikos, itself a flagrant
anachronism. From the See of Antioch the K 'art'velians also obtained the right to ordinate their own
kat'alikos-es. On this matter Ep'rem M c'ire referred to the now-lost Chronographia o f Antioch, which
allegedly stated that the patriarch Anastasius n (599-600) had granted the K'art'velians the emergency
right o f self-ordination because o f the inability to maintain regular communication during the Arab
conquest.27* Subsequently, Antioch formalized the de facto autocephalous status of the Church in
K 'art'li. Thus E p'rem M c'ire argued that K 'art'velian autocephaiy had in fact been granted by the
Antiochenes themselves, and that this information was preserved in Syrian documents.
Although E p'rem Me'ires innovation about the preaching o f Bartholomew did not become part
o f the accepted tradition, his tale about Eustathius was adopted as fact. Subsequent metaphrastic versions
o f The Life o f Nino incorporated this feature .2 7 9 The renowned monk Arsen Iqalt'oeli, who wrote during
the late eleventh/early twelfth century, composed an account o f early Christian K'art'velian history.
Building his text around the ninth-/tenth-centuiy Life o f Nino, this scholar-monk interpolated the later
216Ibid., p. *14-26- My Eng. trans. is based upon that in Djobadze, Materialsfo r the Study o f Georgian
Monasteries, pp. 59-60, with parallel Georgian text.
277On Eustathius, see: G. Florovskii, Vostochnye ottsyIV-go veka, 2nd pr. (1990), s.v. "Sv. Evstathii
Antiokhiiskii," pp. 189-191; R.P.C. Hanson, The Search fo r the Christian Doctrine o f God: The Arian
Controversy 318-381 (1988), pp. 208-217; H. Chadwick, "The Fall o f Eustathius of Antioch," JTS
49/193-4 (Jan.-Apr. 1948), pp. 27-35; T.D. Barnes, "Emperor and Bishops, A.D. 324-344: Some
Problems," AJAH 3 (1978), pp. 57-60; and idem., "The Date o f the Council o f Gangra," JTS, n.s. 40 (Apr.
1989), pp. 121-124.
2 7 *Eprem M c'ire,
2 7 9 E.g.,
Corn., pp. 9-10.
DzK'ALDz, vol. 3 (1971), pp. 7-82.
463
tales o f Andrew and Eustathius .2 8 0 The acts o f the Ruisi-Urbnisi ecclesiastical council o f 1103 likewise
mentions Eustathius and his association with the establishment o f the K 'art'velian Church hierarchy .281
Thus, like the tradition o f Andrew, the story o f Eustathius contribution to the early K 'art'velian Church is
a later invention which was inserted into existing historical and hagiographical sources.
A word should be said about the Giorgi Mamulias insightful 1992 study o f the Church in K 'art' Ii
in the fifth and sixth centuries. It is known that the Christian communities o f eastern Anatolia
contributed deeply to the Christianization of Caucasia, and this is reflected in the later tradition which
holds that Nino herself was from Cappadocia and (the earlier tradition that) the early prelates o f the
Armenian Church were consecrated at Caesarea. Mamulia abandoned the tradition view that the Church
in K 'art'li was subordinate to Antioch and instead suggested that it was hierarchically dependent upon the
Amasean metropolitanate o f Helenopontus, itself a diocese within Pontus.2 8 2 The author based his
intriguing hypothesis upon the (relatively late) evidence o f the twelfth-century Byzantine w riter Neilos
Doxapatrios who clearly states that Iberia/K 'art'li was subordinate to Helenopontus.2 8 3 M amulia also
explains Vaxtangs original dispatch o f Petre to Constantinople28* for ordination as kat'alikos by the fact
that Constantinople held the right to nominate the metropolitans o f Pontus, Asia, and Thrace. In fact, the
historical (and weak) Vaxtang had ju st entered into a fragile alliance with the Byzantines and that he was
careful to maintain their trust. Therefore, when the issue o f the ordination o f a kat'alikos for his Church
surfaced, he sent the nominee directly to Constantinople. Although Mamulia does not prove his point, he
280Arsen Iqalt'oeli, Metaphr. Nino, pp. 354 (Andrew) and 381-383 (Eustathius).
28*Acts o f Ruisi-Urbnisi, pp. 58-59.

2 8 2 G. Mamulia,
K'art'lis eklesia V-VIsaukuneebshi, Eng. sum., "The Kartlian Church in the 5th-6th
Centuries," pp. 94-96.

283Neilos Doxapatrios, pp. 270-272 and 296-298 (p. 298: "H AMAEEIA EAENOIIONTOY, EXOYEA
EIHEKOIIOE Z. HE EmEKOHH HN KAIAYTH H IBHPIA."); and G. Mamulia, K 'art'lis eklesia VVI saukuneebshi, p. 69. Doxapatrios, in describing the authority o f the patriarchate o f Constantinople,
bases its jurisdiction largely on the lands where Andrew was believed to have preached, which, according
to later Byzantine tradition (and seized upon only subsequently by the K'art'velians), included
K'art'li/Iberia (for Andrew, pp. 296-297). He places Cherson, Khazaria, "Gothia," Chaldea, Abasgia
(Ap'xazet'i/western Georgia), Iberia (K 'art'li/eastern Georgia), and Alania (?Albania) within
Constantinopolitan ecclesiastical jurisdiction (p. 297). This claim is extremely late and itself cannot be
directly applied to an earlier period.
28*We should recall that Vaxtang him self sent Petre to Constantinople. The emperor and
Constantinopolitan patriarch determined that the Antiochene see had jurisdiction in this matter, and Petre
was sent by them to Antioch for consecration.
464
nevertheless enlightens us with regards to the fact that the Christian influence upon K 'art'li came from
many quarters, including Jerusalem, Antioch, Armenia, Pontus, and Constantinople .285
The Life o f Vaxtang may itself offer one clue as to the relationship o f the diocese o f Pontus and
the Church in K 'art'li. In Vaxtangs dream, Nino, the illuminatrix o f K 'a rt'li, sat on the knee o f a certain
S t Gregory. Many attempts have been made to identify this Gregory: he might be Gregory the
Illuniinator (who converted Armenia), S t George, Gregory o f Nyssa, o r Gregory o f Nazianzenus. This is
a particularly explosive question, for the first possibility would render Nino subordinate to the enlightener
o f Armenia (as is claimed by Movses Xorenac'i). But w e have no reason to adopt this identification,
because this source was written only after the schism. In any event nowhere in this source is K 'art'li
ecclesiastically or politically subordinated to Armenia. O f these four mentioned Gregories, Gregory of
Nazianzenus is the most likely choice since his works were extremely popular in K 'art'li. There is, in
fact, a fifth candidate: Gregory the Wonderworker (or "Thaumaturgus," d ca. 270). This Gregory was
responsible for evangelizing Pontus .2 8 6 Van Esbroeck, who is tempted to equate the Gregory in the
vision with Gregory the Wonderworker, has demonstrated that this Gregory was revered in early Christian
K 'art'li; a Georgian version o f his Syriac vita exists. The author even suggested that The Life o f Vaxtang
originally incorporated a version o f the Credo o f Gregory the Wonderworker, but that later Orthodox
scribes removed i t 2 8 7 This theory is very attractive. I f we were to propose this identification, it might
signify that K 'art'li had been subordinate to Pontus (since Nino had sat on the knee of the illuminator o f
Pontus). But The Life o f Vaxtang does not digress to reveal K 'art'lis relationship to Pontus, and the fact
remains that the nominee for the kat'alikos-ate was eventually ordinated at Antioch. In any event, the
identification o f this Gregory may be reduced to either Gregory o f Nazianzenus or Gregory
Thaumaturgus .2 8 8 But we should not forget that the first two kat'alikos-es o f K 'art'li, Petre and Samoel,
were themselves understood to be residents o f Pontus.
On the curious tenth-century inscription at the Isxani monastery mentioning the ordination o f an
archbishop at Trebizond in Pontus, see supra.
286
A. Hamack, The Mission and Expansion o f Christianity in the First Three Centuries, trans. and e d by
J. Moffatt, vol. 2 (1908), pp. 205-208. The fact that Nino and Gregory the Wonderworker are not exact
contemporaries does not weaken such an identification since they occur together in a divinely inspired
vision.
287Van Esbroeck, "The Credo o f Gregory the Wonderworker and its Influence through Three Centuries,"
pp. 255-266, esp. pp. 258 am d 264-265.
288Van Esbroeck, "La Stavrotheque de Sahakdoukht," i f Symposium International de TArt Giorgien a
Tbilissi (unpub., undated), dates a reliquary of the K 'u t'aisi museum to the end of the fifth century. Its
inscriptions mention Sahakduxt as well as "^Sogowi afio&cnc? b6 3 3 6 3 <)3 a>dcri^ 3 <)oo" (cmidao grigol
sakwrvelt'mok'medi), i.e., "the holy Gregory Thaumaturgus" (in the vocative case).
465
The image formulated by the anonymous author o f The Life o f Vaxtang submits that the
K 'art'velians turned to the Byzantine emperor and patriarch o f Constantinople with th eir request for a
kat 'alikos. Vaxtang had already reoriented him self in favor o f Christian Byzantium (or. at the very least,
actually sought Byzantine protection from the Persians), and the elevation o f his chief ecclesiastic to a
higher rank was, at the time, nothing more than Imperial recognition ofVaxtangs proclaimed allegiance.
The earliest Georgian sources say nothing about the issue o f autocephaiy because it w as not an issue in
Vaxtang's time. The Church in K 'a rtli was in many ways autocephalous de facto, even with its nonK 'art'velian prelates, from its inception owing to its relatively remote geographical position. The pivotal
moments came when the K 'art'velians took control o f the office o f kat'alikos, followed by the severance o f
communications w ith Antioch and Constantinople which resulted from the Arab conquest o f the seventh
century, and then the break with Armenia. In short, the episode o f the establishment o f the kat'alikos-ate.
as depicted in The Life o f Vaxtang, was intended by its author to be a proof o f Vaxtang's allegiance to
Christian Byzantium and not some pronouncement o f ecclesiastical independence on behalf of the Church
in K 'art'li. Moreover, The Life o f Vaxtang accurately attests the increased organization o f the Church and
the establishment o f a rigid hierarchy headed by the kat'alikos?* Ironically, this ecclesiastical
reorganization occurred precisely at the time when the monarchy had become extremely w eak The role
o f the nobility, and the context of both Persian overlordship and the schism with Armenia, must not be
overlooked.
Ecclesiastical Schism with Armenia

The ecclesiastical schism between the K 'art'velian and Armenian Churches, which was
formalized at the Council of Dwin III in 607/608, was not the result o f some sudden decision that the two
institutions should proceed along different paths.^9 On the contrary, Dwin in was a formal recognition
2QQ
This attention to organization was also manifest in the trans. of Byzantine ecclesiastical literature, for
the earliest versions o f the Georgian lectionary, iadgari ( tropologion), and mravalt'avi (polycephalon)
seem to have been translated during the time o f Vaxtang. See Mgaloblishvili in Klarj. Polvceph., pp.
165-199.
^ ^ % o r a general treatment of the schism, see Toumanoff, "Christian Caucasia Between Byzantium and
Iran," pp. 162-186. For the Armenian sources, see: Javaxishvili, "Istoriia tserkovnago razryra mezhdu
Gruziei i Armeniei v nachala VO veka," Izvestiia imperatorskoi akademii nauk (1908), pp. 433-536; G.
Kojababian, The Relations Between the Armenian and Georgian Churches According to the Armenian
Sources, 300-610 (unpub. D.Phil. diss., Mansfield College, Oxford, 1977); B.L. Zeldyan, "La rupture
entre les eglises ggorgienne et armdnienne au debut dn VII si&cle," REArm, n.s. 16 (1982), pp. 155-174;
an d J.-P. Mahd, "La rupture armeno-georgienne au d& ut du VHe siecle et les redcritures
historiographiques des D ^-X I 6 sidcles," in SSCISSM, vol. 43b (1996), pp. 927-961. If w e are to believe
Armenian sources, then it would seem that the Armenian Church bad not considered that o f K 'art'li as a
separate organization, but rather as a dependency from its inception.
466
on the behalf o f the K'art'velians that they had allied themselves politically and as a result,
ecclesiastically with Christian Byzantium in hopes that they might survive the Persian onslaught.2 9 ^
This turn to Byzantium was later encapsulated in the political decisions made by the imagined Vaxtang.
Moreover, the schism is also an expression o f the consciousness which had germinated among the
K 'art'velian elite that their com m unity was distinct from, and should be on equal terms with, that o f
Armenia. This sentiment was compounded with the domination o f the highest positions o f the Church in
K 'a rt'li by K 'art'velian priests from the mid sixth century. However, especially from the Armenian
perspective, we must not overlook the fret that real feelings about theology were involved.
Georgian texts predating the eleventh century relate nothing directly about the ecclesiastical
schism, and this is in contrast to Armenian polemical works which were issued soon after 607/608. Ps.Juansher, who addresses the period, is completely unfam iliar with the schism and the same may be said o f
the derivative Royal L ists 2 9 2 It should be said that Ps.-Juansher, who may himself have been a cleric,
was interested in other overtly Christian events: he relates the succession o f K'art'velian prelates, the
arrival o f the Thirteen Syrian Monks, and the martyrdom o f Shushaniki. It would seem, then, that Ps.Juansher, though he reports other Christian events, was, for whatever reason, not interested in the schism
o f 607/608. It is conceivable that, from the K 'art'velian point o f view, there was no reason to draw
attention to fissure w ith the Armenians, otherwise the former dominance o f the Armenian Church would
be admitted. However, the reason for Ps.-Juanshers silence on this point is unknown (cf. the silence on
the Roman-Byzantine schism in 1054 by the Byzantine writers Michael Psellus and Anna Komnena).
The first (extant) medieval Georgian work to address specifically the break with Armenia was the
brief On the Schism o f the K'art 'velians and the Armenians (Ganqop 'isat 'ws k 'art 'velt 'a da somext a,
,3 *6 0 )33250)6 5 * bei3obo)*) by Arsen Sap'areli ("of Sap'ara"). Written no earlier than
the second-half o f the eleventh century. The Schism exploits Armenian sources, including the ArmenoChalcedonian Narratio de Rebus Armeniae (ca. 700), the History o f Armenia of Yovhannes
2 9 1 Cf. G. Mamulia, "Vaxtang gorgaslis saeklesio politikis shesaxeb." Kfac'ne 1 (1990). pp. 61-73, who
emphasizes the pro-Byzantine political and ecclesiastical orientation o f Vaxtang.
992
In fact, Georgian historical sources refer to Kwrion by the name Bart'lom e (Bartholomew)! Cf. Arsen
Sap'areli who refers to this kat'alikos tty the name Kwrion. Moreover the thirteenth-century Armenian
historian M xit'ar Ayrivanec'i, p. 247, knows "bfupfinli ufad" or "the unholy Kwrion." This is interesting
since Ayrivanec'is m ain source for his enumeration o f K 'art'velian bishops is Arm. Adapt. K'C', which
itself is unfamiliar with this name. In fact, Ayrivanec'i merely inserted Kwrions name between Evlati
and Makari, but this is some thirty years or so too early (see chart supra and cf. Bart'lome who must be
equated with Kwrion). Thus, Ayrivanec'i made it a point to specifically identify Koriwn (though he has
done so incorrectly), and, unlike the other K 'art'velian bishops listed, he does not afford Koriwn the title
"Lord."
467
Drasxanakertc'i, and the eleventh-century history o f Asoghik .2 9 3
Sap'areli argues that the schism o f the
two communities was essentially political, and moreover, that the Armenians themselves had abandoned
the veritable faith that had been preached by Gregory the Illuminator. The use o f Armenian sources in
making arguments against Armenian claims o f superiority parallels E p'rem M e'ires alleged use o f the
"Chronographia o f Antioch" against Antiochene encroachments.

Predictably, the Armenian view was different Already in the seventh century the so-called Book
o f Letters (Girk' Tght'oc, Arm. Hmp fihipng)29* was compiled, though it attained its received form only
in the subsequent century. This work is a collection o f letters allegedly exchanged between the two major
characters in the schism, the Armenian prelates Movses and then Abraham as well as the K'art'velian
bishop Kwrion. The Book ofLetters served as the basis for the tenth-century History o f the Severance o f
the Georgiansfrom the Armenians composed by Uxtanes, the bishop o f Sebastia. Uxtanes pinned the
blame for the schism squarely upon the K'art'velians and especially upon their prelate. According to him.
Kwrion was a native o f the southwestern K 'art'velian region o f Javaxet'i. While residing there he learned
both Georgian and Armenian, testifying to the large numbers o f Armenians present there. Later Kwrion
took up residence the Byzantine region o f Koloneia, remaining there for fifteen years and learning about
the Christological formula adopted at the Fourth Ecumenical Council o f Chalcedon in 45 1. Having
returned to Caucasia, he entered the service o f the Armenian kat'alikos and himself served as the bishop
o f the Armenian province o f Ayrarat for five years. The lack o f nationalism in this period is clearly
evident by the fluid sense o f identity in contemporary Caucasia.
In the meantime, the kat'alikos o f K 'art'li passed away. Subsequently, the K 'art'velian nobility
are alleged to have requested that the Armenian prelate ordain a new kat'alikos for them:
The princes and the naxarar-s [i.e., erist'avi-s] o f the land, having secured the consent
of the bishops, submitted a request to the kat'alikos Movses o f Armenia, asking him to
assign a prelate for them.29^
See Arsen Sap'areli. See also: Tarchnishvili, Geschichte, s.v. "Arsen der Grosse aus Sap'ara," pp. 99
101; and N. Janashia, "Arseni sap'arelis ganqop'isat'ws kart'lisa d a somxitisa-s ert'i adgilis
gagebisat'vis," in his Istoriul-cqarot me 'odneobit 'i narkvevebi, pp. 154-162.
2 9 <*Girk'
T'ght'oc', ed. by Y. Izmireanc* (1901) and the more recent ed. (with parallel modem Georgian
trans. and comm.) ofZ. Alek'sidze, Epistolet'i cigni = Liber Epistolarum (1968). See also the reviewcommentary of Alek'sidzes ed. by N. Janashia, "Shenishvnebi epistolet'a cignze," in his Istoriulcqarot'mc'odneobit'i narkvevebi, pp. 163-242.
2 9 5 Uxtanes, para. 1, p. 41.
468
This may or may not be accurate, but we must not forget that Uxtanes' work is unadulterated polemic and
that his major source, the Armenian-edited Book o f Letters, was biased against the K ' art'velians, though
it masquerades itself as a faithful repository. Yet in this period it must be admitted that the Armenian
Church was better organized and its polemic may be relating the sound memory o f Armenian
ecclesiastical dominance over much of Caucasia, including K 'a rt'li.
Although Movses and his predecessors are depicted as staunch supporters o f Armenian
Christology (very similar to, if not, Monophysitism), Kwrion was closely linked to two heresies:
Nestorianism an d Chalcedonianism (a heresy from the Armenian point o f view). Uxtanes. following The
Book o f Letters, accused Kwrion o f having ordained a Nestorian Persian as a priest, but he refused to
admit his alleged error .2 9 6 Cautioning Kwrion not to become "an inventor of malice," Movses also
pleaded with the K 'art'velian kat'alikos to reaffirm the "convenant" made between the two churches
which rejected Chalcedon and the Tome o f Leo.2 9 2 This reference was to the First Council o f Dwin in
506 (held during the reign o f Vaxtang) which was attended by several bishops from K 'art'li, including
Gabriel o f M c'xet'a, Davit' ofBolnisi, Step' anos o f Rust' avi, S ahakofT p'ilisi, and Elates of
Manglisi .2 9 8 Twenty-one "K'artvelian" bishops were enumerated by Uxtanes as having accepted the
pan-Caucasian condemnation o f Chalcedon and the Tome in 506.
In the end, Kwrion embraced Chalcedon and the new Arm enian kat'alikos Abraham
anathematized him , issuing an encyclical letter proscribing Arm enian contacts with the K'art'velians.
including pilgrimages to M c'xet'a .2 9 9 The Armenians are also said to have responded by lowering the
status o f the bishop o f M c'xet'a from kat'alikos to metropolitan, m aking him clearly subordinate to both
the kat'alikos o f Armenia and even that o f Caucasian Albania .-*0
Ibid., pp. 42 et sqq. P. Goubert established that Pope Gregory the Great sent a letter to Kwrion in June
or July 601 ("Quirico episcopo et ceteris in Hiberia catholica ecclesia episcopis") in which he answered the
K 'art'velians query whether it was necessary to rebapdze Nestorians who had accepted Orthodoxy. This
would seem to confirm the presence of Nestorians in K 'art'li. See Goubert, Byzance avant IIslam (1951).
pp. 238-246, cited in ToumanofF, "Christian Caucasia Between Byzantium and Iran," p. 182.
2 9 7 Uxtanes, pp. 45-46 and 99.
7QQ
Ibid., para. 50, p. 99 and note 2. This synod is also documented by Movses Dasxuranc' i, n.47, pp.
173-174.
2 9 9 Uxtanes, p. 115. This statement demonstrates that Armenian pilgrims had frequented the K 'art'velian
royal city o f M c'xet'a before the schism.

pp. 122-123. Uxtanes reports that this ecclesiastical reorganization effected at Dwin III enraged
Kwrion. Cf. Movses Dasxuranc'i, n.48, p. 176, who suggests that the demotion o f Kwrion to a
metropolitan ultimately was the reason for the schism
469
From the Armenian and Georgian polemics alone, it difficult to reconstruct the events which led
to the schism. But from the circumstantial evidence o f The life o f Vaxtang and Procopius, it appears that
this rift was accelerated, if not galvanized, by Vaxtang's rapprochement with the Byzantine Empire. The
Armenians were opposed to intimate ecclesiastical relationships with Byzantium, and when the relatively
weak Vaxtang effected an alliance w ith the emperor, the Armenians seem to have responded by
demanding that the K 'art'velian Church reaffirm its pronouncements against Chalcedon made at Dwin I.
In any event, the Armenians blamed the K'art'velians o f abandoning them and the "true" faith while the
K 'art'velians were more concerned w ith the fruits which might be harvested from a closer association
with Byzantium. Moreover, we cannot overlook the emboldened K 'art'velian Church, which had just
recently began to forge its own traditions. ToumanofFs assessment is fitting:
The religious development o f Kyrion [i.e., Kwrion] appears now rather clear.
Though at first a Monophysite, he was an Iberian Monophysite; and, like the
Armenian Monophysite who claimed S t Gregory for their own, he clung to
the faith o f Jerusalem, and from that Church he must have acquired, or by it
he must have been confirmed in, his Catholic ecclesiology. That conception
o f authority implied, as a matter o f course, the acceptance o f Chalcedon and
of the Tome o f Leo. 0 1
If Toumanoff is correct about Kwrions turn to Jerusalem, then we must question whether Jerusalem's
influence over the K 'art'velian Church, which is clear from contemporary liturgies, predated the schism.
In any event, Kwrion sought to reorient his Church so that it was not simply the pawn o f some nearby,
non-K'art'velian hierarch.
In this milieu the K 'art'velians did not actively seek to engage in a war of polemic with the
Armenians whereas the Armenians took the K'art'velian-Byzantine alliance, and the fashioning o f
specific K 'art'velian traditions, as an affront and attacked from a dogmatic standpoint. After all, if the
K 'art'velians' very souls had been doomed to Hell, then what difference did it make that they should
become the friends o f the hated Byzantines? Although Abrahams encyclical letter prescribes that the
Armenians should maintain no contacts with the K'art'velians, interaction, albeit curtailed, did in fact
continue, even ecclesiastically. K 'art'velian cleric-scholars continued to learn Armenian (e.g., Ps.Juansher, the author o f The Life o f the Kings may not have been a priest, but he almost certainly knew
Armenian). In the ninth and tenth century several Armenian saints' lives were translated into Georgian,
and The Martyrdom ofShushanila and The Life o f Dionysius the Aeropagite entered Armenian from
Georgian.
105
z At the end of the tenth century Armenian masons oversaw the restoration o f the Ateni
^T oum anoff, "Christian Caucasia Between Byzantium and Iran," p. 182.

105
Abuladze, K'art'uli da somxuri literaturi urt'iert'oba IX-Xss-shi: gamokvleva da tek'stebi, Rus. sum.,
470
Sioni cathedral situated near Gori.3 0 3 And under the K 'art'velian Bagratids, much o f Greater Armenia
was incorporated within the Georgian kingdom by the twelfth century. Thus, the Armenians constituted a
major community within that cosmopolitan enterprise. Even K'art'lis c'xovreba, the received history of
the K 'art'velian community, was translated, and adapted, into Armenian by the thirteenth century.
However, we must remember to distinguish between the Monophysite and Chalcedonian Armenians, for
the latter group may have been largely responsible for maintaining contacts with the Chalcedonian
K'art'velians/Georgians.
The diminished influence o f the Armenian Church, and o f Armenian ecclesiastical traditions,
allowed the K 'art'velian Church to develop and propagate even further its own traditions. Although the
K 'art'velians (until the eleventh century) usually refrained from issuing polemics, they did seize the
moment to w rite down, develop, and in some regards invent, a distinct tradition about the Christianization
o f their community. Thus The Conversion ofK 'art'li, probably written within a century o f Dwin HI,
emphasizes the conversion o f the K 'art'velians and does not allude to Gregory the Illuminator. O f course,
the Armenians could not completely deny this story, for it was based upon a tradition which could
ultimately be traced to Rufinus. Within two hundred years the story was further embellished and The Life
o f Nino became the tradition o f the conversion o f the K'art'velians. K 'art'velian historical writing may
also be traced to the post-schism period, for within two hundred years o f607/608, The Life o f the Kings,
The Ufe o f Vaxtang, and the anonymous continuation by Ps.-Juansher had all been composed.
In sum, although we may only speculate as to the ecclesiastical and Christological dimensions o f
Dwin m , the K 'art'velian alliance with Byzantium, and the deliberate attempt to dampen Armenian
influence, could not be forgiven by the Armenians. The K 'art'velian kat'alikos had to preserve the
incipient friendship with Byzantium and he had no choice but to abandon the Armenians, and in any case,
so long as the K 'art'velians were intimately connected with Byzantium, the Armenians wanted nothing to
do with them. Dwin in is significant because it graphically illustrates the deliberate and expedient
turning to Byzantium on the part o f the K 'art'velians, and this anticipated the orientation o f the
K 'art'velian Bagratids. The disassociation o f the K 'art'velian Church from its better organized Armenian
counterpart also allowed the former to develop independently from the latter, thus contributing to the
beginnings o f the de facto autocephalous status o f the K'art'velians. Finally, Dwin III cultivated the
"Gruzino-armianskie literatumye sviazi v EX-X v.v.," pp. 0200-0208.

3 3 Z. Alek'sidze, Atenis sionis somxuri carcerebi (1978), Eng. sum., pp. 123-124. P.M. Muradian,
Armianskaia epigrafika Gruzii: Tbilisi (1988), pp. 8-11. demonstrates the construction o f Armenian
churches in early Bagratid K 'art'li. O f course, not all Armenians were Monophysite; some Armenian
Chalcedonian inscriptions from the ninth/tenth century found at Sabereebi in the Davit' Garesjeli (lit, "of
Garesji") monastic complex in K axet'i were examined by Z. Sxirtladze, Sabereebisp'reskuli carcerebi
(1985), Eng. sum., p. 145.
471
writing o f specifically K 'art'velian hagiographical works on a hitherto unknown scale, and moreover, it
produced a favorable climate in which the K 'art'velians felt compelled to develop their own historical
traditions for the first time.
V. VAXTANG IN SUBSEQUENT GEORGIAN HISTORIOGRAPHY
Vaxtang Gorgasali is exceptional am ong the pre-Bagratid kings o f K 'art'li since he is the only
one o f their number to be revered by medieval Bagratid-era historians .3 0 4 Judging by the numerous later
references to him, an extravagant oral tradition about the exploits o f Vaxtang existed. O f course, the
detailed account of The Life o f Vaxtang only increased or, itself was responsible for his subsequent
popularity. But the fact that The Life o f Vaxtang makes for an entertaining and memorable story, in
contrast to the prosaic account about the first (pre-Christian) king P'am avaz and his immediate
successors, does not by itself explain Vaxtang's later eulogization.
Why would the Bagratids wish to remember a pre-Bagratid king who in no way could increase
their own Davidic legitimacy? First, Vaxtang was depicted as a staunch defender o f the faith, a model the
Bagratids likewise employed. Not only was Vaxtang a veritable Christian, but that monarch's biography
presented a positive image of David, the cornerstone of Bagratids propaganda. Moreover, the motif o f
struggle against the enemies o f K 'a rt'li was a metaphor for the Bagratid period, both for the assembling of
the kingdom and for resisting its decimation in the era o f the Mongol invasions. The imagined Vaxtang
was also a strong king who was portrayed as occupying the unique position of a moderator and peace
maker between the great empires o f Persia and Byzantium. As a result, he might be regarded as having
successfully maintained K 'art'li's independence. This was not actually the case, but this received image
came to be accepted as fact. Significantly, the Persian heritage o f K 'art'li, and Vaxtang's own intimate
connections to Persia, were obscured, if not completely ignored, by the later historians.
Bagratid-Era References to Vaxtang Gorgasali
Ps.-Juansher, who is concerned with Vaxtang's immediate descendants, is necessarily familiar

with that king, as was the compiler o f the derivative Royal List II who provides few details about Vaxtang
(and nothing about his exploits in war) but does recall the establishment o f the kat'alikos-ate. Strangely,
3 0 4 Mirian, the first Christian monarch, was often recalled in Bagratid literature. But unlike Vaxtang,
M irian was not remembered in his own right, but rather as a part o f the popular story o f Nino.
472
The Royal List II renders Vaxtang's sobriquet as Golgasari (am c& ^taA o), a corruption o f Gorgasali;30^
other Bagratid-era works give similar corruptions (esp. Gurgaslani). Later, after The Life o f Vaxtang had
become popular, a separate hagiographical work eulogizing Vaxtang's murdered friend Razhden was
written down.300 Its information about Vaxtang, however, is based upon The Life o f Vaxtang.
The classical articulator o f the K 'art'velian Bagratid Davidic claim, the eleventh-century Sumbat
Davit' is-dze, blames Vaxtang's successors for the disintegration o f the Crown. Davitis-dze nevertheless
is under the impression that Vaxtang was a great king, and he credits Vaxtang with having constructed
Artanuji. Artanuji, in the author's time, was the principal K 'art'velian Bagratid stronghold and trading
center, and its history was o f interest to the Bagratids. But Davit'is-dze imparts no further details about
Vaxtang, because he had no vested interest in a non-Bagratid K 'art'velian monarch.30^
The slightly later Chronicle o f K'art'li refers to Vaxtang's dynasty, the Chosroids (founded by
M ihran/Mirian III), as "great," but also pins the blame for the collapse o f local royal authority on
Vaxtang's inept successors.308 But the tone o f this early Bagratid text concerning Vaxtang himself is
positive:
And I say that after the great king Vaxtang Gorgasali there had not been another [king]
so great and powerful and o f all kinds o f intellect, [as] he was a builder of churches,
[and] he granted good favors to the destitute and he rendered justice to all men.300
T his statement is made in the context of a discussion o f Bagrat IQ. the Bagratid king responsible for the
very unification o f eastern and western "Georgian" lands in 1008. According to the anonymous historian,
there had been no K 'art'velian king so great as Vaxtang until Bagrat IQ. Even during the initial part of
the account o f Bagrat IQ, the author, describing the sad state o f affairs, relates that the Ap'xaz king
T eodos had "altered all the law and order which had been established by the first kings \pirvelt'a
30SRoyal List II, p. 93.

300A/ar/. Razhden, pp. 169-180.
30^Sumbat Davit'is-dze, pp. 40 and 45 = Qauxch'ishvili ed., pp. 373 and 377. The troubles of Vaxtang's
sons are reported in Chron. K'art'li, p. 250, said Mart. Davit' and Constantine, Amichba e d , p. 12 the
latter o f which names his sons as Archil and Darch'il. His relatives are known in Mart. Arch',il.
Amichba e d , p. 40 = Qubaneishvili ed , p. 238). Sumbat Davit'is-dze, however, is able to laud the
Arshakuniani royal clan as resplendent, strong, and great; see Sumbat Davit'is-dze, pp. 59-60 =
Qauxch'ishvili ed., p. 386. Cf. the parallel passage in Chron. K'art'li, p. 294, which does not mention the
Arshakuniani-s.
308O w i. K'art'li, p. 250.
309Ibid., p. 2824_7.
473
mep 'et'agan].n3
To be sure, the early K 'art'velian Bagratid presiding princes, and then kings, were
relatively weak, yet this Bagratid historian is willing to admit that Vaxtang excelled the earliest Bagratid
rulers up through Bagrat HI. This is a n exceptional statement for a Bagratid-era historian. Moreover, it
is significant that it was pronounced in an early Bagratid source, for the subsequent Bagratids customary
abhorrence for their K 'art'velian predecessors does not yet seem to have been firmly established. In any
event, Vaxtang was still revered, in a m ore subdued fashion, even during "Golden Age" o f Bagratid rule
in the eleventh through thirteenth centuries.
The medieval Georgian kingdom reached its apogee under Davit' II (1089-1125). Davit' s
biographer was fond o f the Persian legend o f Bahrain V Gor,3 *1 and since many elements o f that legend
had parallels in The Life o f Vaxtang, it is not surprising that Vaxtang found popularity among the
contemporary Bagratids. Simultaneously, as we shall see, secular Persian literature was embraced at the
Georgian court by this time, and the Persian-flavored pre-Bagratid biography o f Vaxtang resonated like a
Georgian imitation o f the Shah-namd. O n the other hand, the relative lack o f interest in the pre-Christian
pre-Bagratid monarchs o f The Life o f the Kings, especially in P'am avaz, is almost certainly to be
explained by the fact th at they were not Christians. Vaxtang had been a Christian, and although he often
is depicted as a Persian-style monarch, he nevertheless came to recognize the position of Christian
Byzantium.
Be that as it may, the great king Davit' II, the namesake o f the Old Testament King-Prophet
David, named his own son Vaxtang.3 ^
This Vaxtang, however, never ruled. Later noblemen (like
Vaxtang Xac'eneli,3 13 a contemporary o f T am ar) and even kings took the nam e Vaxtang; among these
monarchs were Vaxtang II (1289-1292), Vaxtang III (1303-1308), Vaxtang IV (1443-1446). and Vaxtang
V (also known as Shanavazi [1658-1675]). Perhaps the best known of these was Vaxtang VI, who
established the commission to collate the then-extant MSS of K'art'lis c'xovreba. Some K 'art'velians
even took Gorgasali as a praenomen, such as an attendant o f Giorgi Saakadze.3 ^4
m Ibid., p. 275.
5 1 1
lThe Life o f Davit', p. 202 = Qauxch'ishvili e d , p. 349, given as Baram-juri with variants. Note that
Bahram-Gor is not linked by Davit'*s biographer to Vaxtang Gorgasali.
117
J Ibid., p. 184 = Qauxch'ishvili e d , p. 337. As for earlier usages o f this name, the Byzantine historian
Theophanes, AM6235=AD 743/4, pp. 110, knows o f a patrician named "Baktangios" who was apparently
not a K'art'velian.
3 *3 Hist.
andEul., p. 69 = Vivian trans., p. 129.
3 14Beri Egnatashvili, p. 412. For Vaxtang VI being called Vaxtang V, see infra.
474
It is possible that other connections with Vaxtang were made in contemporary historical texts.
When King Davit' H set about building the monastery complex o f G elat'i near K 'u t'a t' isi (mod.
K'ut'aisi), he:
... placed there the divans and thrones of the great Xuasiovani [i.e.. Chosroid] kings
[xosrovant'a mep'et'a taxtni da saqdami]..?
Chosroid thrones were evidently among the prized possessions o f Davit' and his successors. But what is
intended by the dtynastic tag "Chosroid?" It is not certain that we should equate Xuasraviani with the
K'art'velian dynasty of Vaxtang and Mihran/M irian, which is routinely called "Chosroid" in both
contemporary and modem literature. Rather, in this instance "Chosroid" might refer to the pre-Islamic
Persians. It should be noted th at T am ar is reported to have had a throne o f Vaxtang (see infra), and thus
we should probably equate the "Chosroid" of the aforementioned passage with "V axtang" Moreover, we
have already seen that The Chronicle o f K'art 7/ regards Vaxtang as the last great Chosroid monarch. So
it would seem that the biographer o f Vaxtang believed that the throne, should it be associated rightly with
the K'art'velian dynasty, to have been that of Mihran/Mirian - the founder of the Chosroids and first
Christian king o f K 'a rt'li and his successors, including Vaxtang. Should Vaxtang have been intended,
we might have expected his name, or even the designation Gorgasaliani, or "the descendants o f Vaxtang"
(who, according to The Chronicle o f K'art'li, were not great kings). O f course, the inherent ambiguity o f
the term Xuasroviani may have been intended, for we encounter a sim ilar vagueness in the designation
Davit icmi which could apply to both the King-Prophet David and the Georgian king Davit II.
Vaxtang Gorgasali is a favorite hero in the two biographies o f T a m a r (1184-1213). The Histories
and Eulogies refers to Vaxtangs immediate descendants as the Gorgasaliani-s; they were part o f the
Chosroid dynasty, but the Chosroids preceding Vaxtang were not Gorgasaliani-s. Even the later history
about the Mongol incursions, the The Chronicle o f a Hundred Years, employs the term Gorgasaliani,
once referring to heroes and goliaths in connection with the Gorgasaliani-s and Davit iani-s? *6 For its
part, The Histories and Eulogies commences with a colorful lauding o f the rule of T amars father, Giorgi
m (1156-1184). The ancestors and forerunners o f Giorgi and T a m a r are said to be Davit'iani-s,
Xuasroiani-s, and Pankratoniani-s. That is, the descendants of the King-Prophet David/Davit'II, the
descendants of the Chosroid dynasty (Persian/K'art'velian), and Bagratids (rendered in the Grecified
^The Life o f Davit', p. 174jg_j7 = Qauxch'ishvili ed., p. 330g.

^ Hist.. and EuL, pp. 25,43, 57, 71, and 104; and Chron. Hund. Years, p. 38 (for axovani da goliat 7)
and 51 = Qauxch'ishvili ed., pp. 152 and 165.
475
form).3
In this instance Xuasroiani designates either the Persian Chosroids or the K ' art'velian
Chosroids o f whom Vaxtang was the most prominent representative. However, T am ar's father is also
described as a relative o f Vaxtang Gorgasali, i.e., a Gorgasaliani, and the historian declares that a
prophecy had foretold o f the origination o f the K' art'velian Bagratids from the descendants of Vaxtang.
Furthermore, these Bagratids engendered "the restoration o f the East and West, which, as it was
popularly believed, Vaxtang had done in the fifth and sixth centuries. This particular passage ends with a
poem lauding Vaxtang Gorgasali:
You, Vaxtang. desired to glorify God for your sake,

He knows your victory over [your] enemies [and] it shines like the Sun:
Destroyer o f the Muslims, Benefactor o f the Christians,
He who made you wants to be bom like you.3 18
It should be emphasized that the opening o f The Histories and Eulogies is exceptional among Bagratidera sources for its detail about Vaxtang and its unequivocal statement that the Bagratids were related to
the earlier K 'art'velian dynasty o f Vaxtang.
T am ar is said to have employed the standards/banners/flags (drosha-s) of Vaxtang, one of which
had been "bleached with age since Gorgasalis campaign in the land o f Sindet'i."3 ^
The knowledge o f
Vaxtang's alleged campaign in Sindet'i denies the author's reliance upon The Life o f Vaxtang. T a m a r
was crowned upon "the fortunate throne o f Vaxtang, the seat of the Davit' iani-s." It is possible that this
throne is to be equated with the Chosroid throne placed at Gelat'i by her grandfather Davit' II.33 The
Gorgasaliani-s are repeatedly associated with the Davit'iani-s by T a m a r's first historian and in The
Chronicle o f a Hundred fears,33 * but we must ask if the latter designation referred to the clan of the
King-Prophet David and/or Davit' II. O f course, the Bagratids claimed to be the direct descendants o f the
Old Testament David, and both figures might have been intended. The courage of T amar's troops is
317Hist. andEul., p. 171 = Kekelidze Rus. trans., p. 170.

3 Îb id ., pp. 4-5 = Kekelidze Rus. trans., p. 173.
3
I b i d pp. 71 (quoted) and 104. For the drosha, see ch. 7.
3377re Life o f Tamar, p. 11522-2333
^Hist. andEul., p. 104; and Chron. Hund. Years, pp. 38 and 51 = Qauxch'ishvili ed., pp. 152 and 165.
476
directly compared to th at exhibited by the army o f Vaxtang.322 Later, even the inept Giorgi Lasha is
likened by to the hero "Gorgaslani by his soldiers.323
Other contemporary Georgian literary figures were smitten by the imagined Vaxtang Gorgasali.
He is often associated by medieval and late-medieval ecclesiastical writers with Razhden. who had been
martyred during his reign.32* The K 'art'velian churchman Arsen Iqalt'oeli. who resided at Iqalt'o (a
medieval center o f learning in K axet'i near T elavi), in 1110*1120 composed a metaphrase o f the
activities o f the missionary Nino. To this was appended a few notes about later K 'art'velian royal history.
Iqalt'oeli paid particular attention to Vaxtang and the establishment o f Petre as the first kat'alikos. But
no new information about Vaxtang is divulged.
Subsequently, in the thirteenth century, the poet loane
Shavt'eli recollects the w ar banners/flags o f the descendants o f Vaxtang and David/Davit' in his famous
poem Abdulmesiani, o r Sword o f the Messiah,32<* The contemporary T'amariani o f Ch'axruxadze
remembers the "race o f Vaxtang."327
We should m ake special note of Nikoloz I, kat'alikos o f the Georgian Church in the second-half
of the twelfth century. He was an erudite individual among whose literary contributions were a translation
of the works o f Maximus the Confessor. Nikoloz also wrote a tract glorifying Sueti-c'xoveli, the cathedral
of the kat'alikos in M c'xet'a built upon the site o f Mirian's original church. Nikoloz praises the original
foundation o f the church, drawing upon Mok'c'evay k'art'lisay, a later rendition o f The Ufe o f Nino, and
perhaps C'xorebay k'art'velt'a mep'et'a. We can be certain that he employed a raetaphrastic version of
The Life o f Nino, since he incorporates the embellished tales o f the tunic and o f Eustathius o f Antioch.
Significantly, Nikoloz does not mention Vaxtang in connection with Sueti-c'xoveli whereas his
biography credits him with building a stone church on that spot and being buried there and Vaxtang's
name is not to be found anywhere in the text. The only pre-Bagratid kings mentioned by Nikoloz are
those named in the Nino Cycle: Mirian, Aderia (his: "Aderiki"), and Bartam. Vaxtang's absence in this
work is all the more curious since Nikoloz seems to have borrowed a passage about Nebrot' i/Nimrod from
322Hist, and Eul., pp. 69-70 = Vivian trans., p. 130.

323 Chron.
Hrnd. Years, p. 38 = Qauxch'ishvili, p. 152.
32*E.g., Kek.Inst.MS # Q -l 1 = Anton Is Martirika o f the eighteenth-century. See also Q-Fond Catalog,
vol. 1. #11, pp. 12-13.
323Arsen Iqalt'oeli, Metaphr. Nino, pp. 391-392.
32Îoane Shavt'eli, Abdulmesiani, Lolashvili ed., #31, p. 595. Also cited in Goiladze, Vaxtang gorgasali
da misi istorikosi, p. 64. This passage seems to be based upon a poem in Hist, and Eul., p. 104.
327Ch'axruxadze, T'amariani, para. 71, p. 576, and para. 93, p. 582.
477
The Life o f Vaxtang and inserted it into his account o f Mirian consulting The Book o f Nimrod3^
Nikoloz was surely familiar with Vaxtang, and probably even that king's biography, and his silence on
Vaxtang is therefore puzzling. It is possible, however, that Nikoloz was the strictest o f Bagratid
legitimists and chose to ignore the semi-legendary feats o f the pre-Bagratid Vaxtang. Moreover, it is
possible that the Persian flavor o f the Vaxtang legend was distasteful to that cleric.
The tale o f Vaxtang Gorgasali occupies a prominent position in the eighteenth-century history of
Vaxushti.329 While Davit' ITs biography consumes nine pages o f the printed version, Vaxtang's occupies
sixteen (and T amar, twenty-five). Vaxushti bases his account upon C'xorebay vaxtang gorgaslisa and
d id not incorporate additional contemporary information about that king. Although Vaxushti considers
Vaxtang's rule to be a watershed in Georgian history, it is noteworthy that he inserts the later notion
Sak'art'velo, i.e. all-Georgia, into his account o f Vaxtang only once, as if by oversight330 It might be
tempting to proclaim that Vaxushti was unconvinced that Vaxtang ever ruled over a united Georgia; but
he did anachronistically apply the designation Sak'art'velo to several pre-Bagratid monarchs, including
P'am avaz, Saurmag, Arshak I, Bartom, Mirvan I, Aderiri. and Mihran/Mirian.-*3 1 Surely Vaxushti
understood the imagined Vaxtang to have been a king as great as these. Therefore, the lack of references
to Sak'art'velo in Vaxushti's history is almost certainly due to inattention, or an indication that he often
used K 'art'li and Sak'art'velo as synonyms, and does not indicate that the author believed that Vaxtang
ruled over something less than a unified Georgia.
Vaxtang was revered by other early m odem writers. His reign opens the Anonymous Short
Chronicle o f446-1855, which essentially made Vaxtangs reign one o f the most important moments in
early Christian K 'art'velian history.332 We have already seen that from at least the late medieval period,
Vaxtang was considered as the ruler o f all-Georgia (Sak'art'velo).333 Thus, we read in an eighteenthcentury MS about:
32^Nikoloz I, Sueti-c'xoveli, pp. 56-57 = Sabinin. ed., pp. 69-117.

329Vaxushti, pp. 100-115.
330Ibid., p. 1072.
33 Ê.g., ibid., pp. 5616, 5814, 6 0 ^ , 615,62g, and 9220. It is interesting that after the fall of the dyarchy
an d up through the reign o f Mirian, Vaxushti refers to K 'art'li by the Gk. Iveria (i.e., Iberia). For his use
o f this designation, see ibid., p. 39.
33^Chron. 446-1855. p. 57. opens with "Vaxtang Gorgasali Xosroiani." The relevant account is dated
446 AD.
333Vaxtang's biographer does not employ the term Sak'art'velo, and the continuation by Juansher uses
the term only once.
478
... the illustrious [and] great sovereign Vaxtang Gurgaslani, autocrat and king o f
Georgia and Jerusalem, [and a member o f the] Xosroiani [dynast)]. [Saxeloani didi
q'elmcip'e vaxtanggurgaslan, mpqrobeli damep'e sak'art'velosa da ierusalimisa,

xosroiani]..?^
This memory is obviously distorted, for The life o f Vaxtang (or any medieval text for that matter) never
employed a phrase like "sovereign... and autocrat and king o f Georgia and Jerusalem." Vaxtang's alleged
connection with Jerusalem in his ca. 800 biography had been transformed into the bold allegation that he
ruled over the Holy City! Other late references to Vaxtang connected his progeny with the devastating
invasion by Murvan Qru (which is related in C'xorebay vaxtang gorgasali) and the martyrdoms o f Davit'
and Constantine.333
Unlike the heathen P'arnavaz, who seems to have been largely forgotten from the time that The
life o f the Kings was written until the early m odem period, Vaxtang Gorgasali was revered throughout
the Bagratid period.336 Early Bagratid historians seem to have considered Vaxtang's legacy as the
historical backdrop for the ascendancy o f the Bagratid dynasty. Sumbat Davit' is-dze, the Bagratid
historian par excellence, censures the descendants o f Vaxtang for the dissolution o f the K 'art'velian
kingdom. To maximize this catastrophe, the image o f Vaxtang as a great king was all the more
meaningful. It should be remembered that the Bagratids had risen to power in the context o f the abeyance
o f the local monarchy, and they were regarded as having filled the vacuum left by Vaxtang's successors.
Notwithstanding o f Vaxtang's popularity in Bagratid times, the fact remains that even those later
Bagratids, like Vaxtang VI and his scholars in the eighteenth century, who harbored a real fascination and
love for the remote past o f the K 'art'velian community regarded Vaxtang as less o f a king because he was
3 3 4 Kek.Inst.MS # Q-80,
( 106r. See also Q-Fond Catalog, vol. 1, #80, pp. 92-93.
333Such as the eighteenth-century MS Gamokrebili t'veni (Kek.lnst.MS # Q-627); see also Q-Fond
Catalog, vol. 2, pp. 79-81. Earlier, Vaxtang is m entioned in connection with Murvan Qru in the
thirteenth/fourteenth-century Krebuli (Kek.lnst.MS # Q-762); and Q-Fond Catalog, vol. 2, pp. 207-210.
For Murvan Qru, see ch. 6.
336It should be emphasized that not a single medieval portrait o f Vaxtang survives today, with the
possible exception o f a pendant in the British M useum having a Persian inscription naming a certain
"Vrthangi" (see Amiranashvili, "Apergu sur {'identification dn personnage reproduit sur la gemme
conservee au British Museum, (119712). avec inscription pekhlevienne," BK 28 [1971], pp. 167-171).
The lack o f Bagratid-era renditions, in my view, suggests that while the Bagratids could admire Vaxtang
for his heroic deeds, he was not a Bagratid king and thus he was not an equal to the claimed relatives of
the O ld Testament King-Prophet David. For three portraits (probably of the seventeenth/eighteenth
century) which were known to nineteenth-century specialists, see Kakabadze, Vaxtang gorgasalis xana,
pp. 371-374.
479
not related to David. Thus, in the preamble to Vaxtangiseuli redactions o f K'art 'lis c'xovreba, Vaxtang
VI is actually named as Vaxtang V, since only five Bagratid kings had possessed that famous n a m e . ^
W hile The life o f Vaxtang does not depict accurately the historical Vaxtang, it nevertheless is an
extremely important source for ninth-century K 'a rt'li. That text represents the conviction o f a ca. 800
writer that Christian K 'art'li, whose monarchy had been abolished by the Persians in the sixth century,
should throw itself into the arms o f Byzantium. In so doing, K 'a rt'li would not only recognize the
ultimate authority o f the Byzantine emperor (as, according to Byzantine ideology, any veritable Christian
monarch should do), but an alliance with Byzantium might be rewarded with the restoration o f local royal
authority in K 'a rt'li. Though the successors o f Vaxtang, and especially the Guaramids from the late sixth
century, had already looked to Constantinople for aid, it was the Bagratids, who established themselves in
K 'art'li in the last quarter o f the eighth century, that fully put their fortunes in the hands o f the emperor.
^S ee "Major Vaxtangisueli MSS" in the introduction for a trans. o f this passage. See also Toumanoff,
"Medieval Georgian Historical Literature," p. 164, footnote 18.
IMAGINING HISTORY AT THE CROSSROADS:

PERSIA, BYZANTIUM, AND THE ARCHITECTS
OF THE WRITTEN GEORGIAN PAST
Volume II
by
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment

o f the requirements for the degree o f
Doctor o f Philosophy
(History)
in The University o f Michigan
1997
Doctoral Committee:
Professor John V. A. Fine, Jr., Chair
Professor Kevork B. Bardakjian
Professor Rudi P. Lindner
Professor Ronald G. Suny, The University o f Chicago
PART TWO
THE BAGRATID PERIOD
481
Chapter Six
F r o m K ' a r t ' l i t o S a k 'a r t 'v e l o : T h e I n c e p t i o n , I d e o l o g y ,
a n d H i s t o r i o g r a p h y o f th e E a r l y K ' a r t ' v e l i a n B a g r a t i d s
/ .
THE CONTEXT OF ARAB DOMINATIONAND THE ASCENDANCY OF THE GVARAMIDS
Abolition o f Royal Authority Reconsidered
The liquidation of the Kart'velian monarchy by the Persians in the second-half of the sixth
century was a monumental catastrophe in the eyes o f local medieval historians. We have already seen that
the memory o f Vaxtang Gorgasali was reshaped so that he became the archetypical Christian K'art'velian
monarch, and his biographer hoped that this image might stimulate the elites o f the community to
resuscitate indigenous royal authority. So deeply did sorrow penetrate the unusually accurate Ps.-Juansher
that he refuses to admit that the kingship had fallen into abeyance at all, and he erroneously but
consciously - continues to style the presiding princes as "kings." In the same way A rch'd is portrayed as
a saint-"ldng" by his legitimist Bagratid-era biographer, demonstrating the durability o f the historical
discourse o f the pre-Bagratid period. The historians of the eighth and ninth centuries thus regarded the
amputation o f K 'art'velian royal authority as contradicting the perceived natural state o f affairs. In fact,
the earliest extant specimens o f Georgian historical writing may be traced precisely to this time, and it is
altogether possible that this literary genre arose in K' art' li as an immediate response to this crisis. * From
the beginning, K 'artvelian historians were partisans o f the monarchy. This creative minority assumed
the responsibility for educating the populace (primarily the nobility and ecclesiastical hierarchs) about the
remembered past glories o f the K 'art'velian monarchs so as to provoke a reconstitution o f an indigenous
kingship, probably with Byzantine assistance.2
^Cf. the making and writing down o f a legendary past during a period o f sim ilar crisis in medieval Wales.
The absence of a political enterprise led the elite in both Wales and K 'a rt'li (e.g.) to devote much
attention to cultural matters and to the recollection and invention o f a communal past. For Wales, see
P. Morgan, "From a Death to a View: The Hunt for the Welsh Past in the Romantic Period," in
Hobsbawm and Ranger, eds., The Invention o f Tradition, pp. 98-99.
For background on the abolition o f K 'art'velian kingship by the Persians and its replacement by the
principate (i.e., rule of presiding princes), see Toumanoff, "Armenia and Georgia," pp. 603-611. The life
482
From a cursor} examination o f early Bagratid historical sources especially the eleventh-century
narrative o f Sumbat Davit'is-dze and the contemporary Chronicle o f K'art'li it is clear that the
K 'art'velian kingdom o f Vaxtang was palpably different from the enterprise of the earliest K'art'velian
Bagratids. The titles of the earliest K 'art'velian Bagratid rulers, and their Guaramid forerunners, vividly
demonstrate this metamorphosis, for the heads o f those dynasties arc not styled as kings but erist'avis (in
this context to be rendered as "presiding princes"). Moreover, from the late sixth century Byzantine titles
predominated among the highest ranking Guaramids and Bagratids with the presiding prince bearing the
dignity o f kuropalates along with corresponding Georgian titles (usually erist'avi. which was not limited
to the kuropalates). Finally, various amir-s were scattered throughout Caucasia, testifying to the Arab
conquest of, and influx o f Islamic ideas and vocabulary into, the region.
Unlike the case o f Ps.-Juansher, early Bagratid historical literature actively engages the theme o f
the dissolution o f the K 'art'velian monarchy in the sixth century. The abhorrence o f Sumbat Davit' is-dze
loudly resonates in his statement that:
... from the time that the kingship died with the descendants of [Vaxtang] Gorgasali
until [the arrival o f the Bagratids], the aznauris [i.e.. nobility] had ruled K 'art'li. But
the end o f the rule of the aznauri-s in K 'a rt'li was effected by their own evil doings.5
This historian explicitly pins the blame for the extinction of the monarchy upon the "descendants" (lit.
"sons") o f Vaxtang. The contemporary Chronicle o f K'art'li has a similar declaration:
But from this time the reign o f the great Xosro[i]aniani [i.e.. Chosroid] kings began to
weaken. And henceforth the power of the Saracens was strengthened, and from time to
time this entire land [i.e., K 'art'li] was ravaged and ruined. Then the mt 'a\ari-s [i.e..
rulers, nobles] in the land o f K 'art'li multiplied [and] the}- began to fight and they
became the enemies o f one another. And when one of the sons [i.e.. progeny] of
Vaxtang appeared, [anyone] who was worthy to be king, he was humiliated by the
Saracens. For the Hagarites had seized the city Tp'ilisi.^ turning it into their abode...5
o f the Kings also laments the passing of the K 'art'velian monarchy, cf. Mart. Habo which exorts the
K'art'velians to withstand the Arab hegemony over Caucasia yet it gives us no hint as to the rise o f the
K 'art'velian Bagratids.
Sumbat Davit'is-dze, p. 4 O2 3 .2 6 = Qauxch'ishvili ed., p. 373 19 . 2 1 *For Arabic rule o f Tp'ilisi (Arabic Tiflis) see: M. Lort'k'ip'anidze, "Tbilisis saamiros istoriidan," in
Mimomxilveli. vol. 2, pp. 185-201, with Rus. sum.. "Iz istorii tbilisskogo em irata" pp. 200-201; and V.
Minorsky, "Tiflis," in E l , pp. 752-763. Three major dynasties o f am irs ruled that city: the Shuabids. the
Shaybanids, and the Jafarids.
5Chron. K'art'li, p. 250i2_ig. Cf. Thomson trans., p. 257, e s p ."... [S]econd, there was a host of
mt'avaris in the land of K 'art'li...," and my "Then the m t'avaris in the land o f K 'art'li multiplied..."
483
This anonymous author offers a more balanced interpretation o f the abolition o f the K 'art'velian
monarchy than does Davit' is-dze. The former regards the decay o f Chosroid (i.e.. the successors of
Vaxtang and M ihran/M irian III) authority as a result o f both the increasing Islamic presence and
dissension within the ranks o f the K 'art'velian nobility. This explanation is in contrast to that of the
Bagratid eulogist Davit'is-dze who censured only the successors o f Vaxtang for the "death" of kingship in
K 'art'li.
The Dawn o f Islam According to Medieval Georgian Historical Sources
The earliest Georgian historical source to record the advent o f Islam is the brief text of Ps.Juansher.* During the reign o f Step'anoz II (637/642-ca. 650), Ps.-Juansher reports that:
At that time Muhammad, [who was descended] from the clan o f Ismael and [who was]
the teacher o f the Saracen faith, came forth and seized all Arabia and Yemen. And he
passed away and Abu Bakr took his place and invaded Persia. No one in Persia could
oppose him since the emperor Heraclius had already devastated Persia and Persia was in
disorder. This Hagarite Abu Bakr conquered Persia [and] came to Baghdad [read:
Seleucia-Ktesiphon] and by force [of arms] he compelled innumerable [people] to
forsake fire-worship and he converted [them] into Saracens. And he passed away and
Omar took his position and became [even] stronger.^
6For surveys o f early Islamic rule o f Kartli see csp.: B. Silagadze, Arabt'a batonoba sak'art'veloshi,
which sadly has no foreign-language sum.; S. Janashia, Araboba sak'art'veloshi, repr. in his Shromebi,
vol. 2 (unavailable to the author); V. Minorsky. "Tiflis," in EI^, pp. 752-763; idem, with C.E. Bosworth.
"al-Kurttf." in E l2, vol. 5/85-86, pp. 486-497; and Bosworth, "al-Kabk," in El2, vol. 4 (1978). pp. 341351. See also: O.V. Tskitishvili, "Islam i Gruziia v rannee srednevekove," in Amierkavkasiis istoriis
problemebi. pp. 115-131; A.A. Bogveradze, "Arabskie zavoevaniia i b o rta protiv arabov v VII-VIII w "
in Ocherki istorii Gruzii, vol. 2, pp. 171-189; and B. Martin-Hisard, "Les Arabes en Georgie occidentale
au Vm s.: etude sur 1ideologie politique georgienne," BK 40 (1982), pp. 105-138. For Arab rule of
Armenia proper, see: Aram Ter-Ghewondyan, The Arab Emirates in Bagratid Armenia, trans. by N.G.
Garsolan; and idem., Armeniia i arabsfai khalifat. On the Armenian tradition o f the rise o f Islam, see:
R.W. Thomson, "Muhammad and the Origin o f Islam in Armenian Literary Tradition," in Kouymjian,
ed., Armenian Studies in Memoriam Hatg Berberian, pp. 829-858 (examine?; the accounts o f Tomvay
Arc'runi, Samuel o f Ani, M xit'ar o f Ani, and Vardan); and N.O. Emin, "Makhomed po armianskim
istochnikam" in his Izsledovaniia i stati, pp. 335-354.
It should be noted that from Ps.-Juansher, Georgian historians describe events that are
contemporary or near-contemporary with themselves. Thus, the reader will note that in these final two
chapters we are in a position to offer more dates, historical events, etc., than for the pre-Bagratid period.
^Ps.-Juansher, p. 229jq_j^. Cf. The Royal List III, p. 97, "And news came that the Hagarites had seized
Baghdad."
484
This passage is anachronistic insofar as Muhammad died in 632 AD while Step'anoz seems to have been
invested no earlier than 637. But the relative chronology o f Muhammad and the first two caliphs Abu
Bakr (632-634) and Om ar (634-644) is sound^
According to the testimony o f Ps.-Juansher, after the Byzantine emperor Heraclius had been
informed about the Arab conquest o f northern Mesopotamia, a certain prophecy of Hermes Trismegistos
foretelling the rise o f Islam was imparted to him. It became evident that, at least for the moment, the
Arabs would dominate the East and that Caucasia would be overrun.^ Fearing the onslaught o f the armies
of Islam, the Caucasian aristocracy began to hoard their wealth, and charters were drawn up so their
possessions and lands might be determined later. The stirps regia apportioned its possessions among
Kaxet'i, K 'art'li, Javaxet'i, and allegedly even the far western region o f Egrisi. In the meantime. Persian
refugees penetrated the confines o f K 'art'li, and some o f them entered into the service o f Heraclius. who
had recently established Byzantine hegemony there . 10
According to Near Eastern sources, by 640 the Arabs had entered Armenia: in 645 the Arabs
reached K 'art'li although they did not extend their sway over it before 653/654. In 654/655 a "letter of
protection" was issued to the city o f Tp'ilisi as it fell under Arab rule . 11 The Arabs organized all o f
*See also O.V. Tskitishvili, "Islam i Gruziia v rannee srednevekove," vaAmierkavkasiis istoriis
problemebi, pp. 118-119. For a survey o f Islamic history, see J.J. Saunders, A History o f Medieval Islam.
9This is not the place to provide a detailed history o f K 'a rt'li under Arab rule: only those events having a
direct impact upon the issues considered in this study will be related here. For summaries o f this period,
see the literature enumerated sz/pra.
^Ps.-Juansher, pp. 230-232.
**This Kitdb al-aman ("Letter of Protection") was issued to the population of Tp'ilisi (Arabic Tiflis) by
the Arab general Habib ibn Maslama al-Fihri (614-662). This text has been preserved in the Arabic
histories o f Baladhuri, Tabari, and Yaqut. The Kitdb al-aman, as preserved in Tabari's Tarikh al-rusul
wa'l-muluk, reads:
In the name o f God, the Compassionate, the Merciful. This is a document from
Habib b. Maslamah to the people o f Tiflis in Jurzan, the land of al-Hurmuz.
[granting you] safc-conduct for your persons, your possessions, your
religious buildings, your places of worship, and your prayers, with the
imposition of a small tribute, a whole dinar on every household. We [in turn
shall have] your good counsel, your help against God's and our enemy,
your hospitality for one night for the passerby, [providing] the permitted
food and drink o f the People of the Book, and guidance along the way
insofar as none o f you thereby comes to any harm. If you become Muslims,
pray, and pay alms; then we shall [all] be brethren within Islam, and [you will
be] our clients. But he who turns his back on God, His apostles, His books,
and His partisans, we shall "declare war" on you "fairly, God does not love
the treacherous." (Tabari, vol. 14, "The Conquest o f Iran," p. 46).
485
Caucasia into the province o fArminiya, which itself consisted of four smaller administrative units: the
second of these was designated Jurzan, the Arabic term for K 'art'li (later Gurjistan) . 12
Ps.-Juansher is altogether unfamiliar with this initial Arab foray into Caucasia. ^ But he
commences the reign o f "King" M i[h]r with news o f devastation:
For the Hagarite amir, who was called Murvan Qru ["the Deaf"], son of Muhammad,
entered K 'art'li: he had been dispatched [to K 'art'li] by Hisham. the Amir al-mu'minin
["Commander o f the Faithful"] o f Baghdad... He had the nickname [lit. "the second
name"] Oru because he did not listen to sensible words. 14
The Chronicle o f K'art'li provides many alleged details about the invasions led by "Murvan Qru." This
Murvan may be identified as M arwan ibn Muhammad, later the caliph Marwan II (744-749).* 6 In
recounting the destruction of K 'a rt'li during Mi[h]r*s reign, this passage documents Marwan ibn
Muhammad's invasion o f Caucasia in 736/737 under the caliph Hisham (724-743). But this invasion was.
in fact, directed more against the Byzantine-held territories in western "Georgia" than against K ' art' li
proper .*6
The invasion o f Manvan ibn Muhammad is significant for K 'art'velian political history not so
much for the actual destruction that was dealt by the Arabs - which surely occurred, especially in the
western domains but because w ithin a decade o r so o f this raid the Guaramid presiding princes fell from
Al-Baladhuri, pp. 316-317. See also: O. Ckit'ishvili, "About the History o f Arab-Georgian SocioEconomic and Political Interrelations (7th-8th Centuries)," REGC 1 (1985), pp. 127-140: and Silagadze,
Arabt'a batonoba sak'art'veloshi, pp. 56-65. Minorsky is of the opinion that Tp'ilisi was subdued in 645
("Tiflis," EIl , p. 753).
*2See M. Canard, C. Cahen, et al "Arminiya," in 7 , vol. 1 (I960), pp. 634-650. For the four parts o f
Arminiya, see al-Baladhuri, p. 305. On the Arabic designations for K 'art'li and "Georgia" (Jurzan,
Jurziya, Abkhaz, Kurj) see G. Jap aridze, "K'art'velebisa da sak'art'velos arabuli saxelcodebebi," in
Paichadze, e d , Sak'art'velosa da k'art'velebis aghmnishvneli uc'xouri da k'art'uli terminologia, pp. 121145 with Eng. sum., "The Arabic Designations o f the Georgians and Georgia," pp. 144-145. The Rus.
term rpy 3 ng (Gruziia) is ultimately derived from Jurzdn>Gurjistdn.
*2 ToumanofF, Studies, pp. 394-405.
*4 Ps.-Juansher, p. 2 3 3 ^ . ^ .
15The Murvan Qru o f Caucasian historical sources refers to a composite historical figure: Muhammad ibn
Marwan (the Umayyad general) and Marwan ibn Muhammad (the future caliph Marwan II). See
Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 351-352: cf. Minorsky with Bosworth, "al-Kurdj," in EI~, vol. 5/85-86 (1981), p.
487.
*6 Toumanoff, Studies, p. 405.
486
power. The Guaramids had emerged after the abolition o f the K 'art'velian monarchy and were named
after its founder Guaram I (588-ca. 590), the presiding prince (in this case, erist'avi and kuropalates) of
Klarjet' i-Javaxet' i . 17 Guaram's own descent could ultimatefy be traced back to Leo (d. after 534), son of
Vaxtang Gorgasali (through his second wife Helena). Thus, the Guaramids were related, albeit distantly,
to the former Chosroid dynasty o f Vaxtang and M ihran/M irian III. Five Guaramids ruled during the
principate: Guaram I, Step'anoz I (ca. 590-627), Guaram II (684-ca. 693), Guaram in (ca. 693-ca. 748),
and Step'anoz III (779/80-786).^
The Move Towards a Byzantine Orientation: Ps.-Juansher
The rule o f presiding princes during the interregnum was established formally with the elevation
o f Guaram I to the Byzantine dignity of kuropalates (KOYPOIIAAATHE) in 588. ^
Guaram's
possession o f this title is an indication o f the Byzantine orientation o f the Guaramids, for the emperor
Maurice (582-602) himself had bestowed this coveted dignity upon the K 'art'velian prince.20 It is within
the context o f the rise o f Islam and the success o f the Arab armies that the Byzantines came to participate
Îbid., pp. 389-407. Royal power in this period had been abolished not only in K a rt' li but also in
Armenia and Albania. The presiding princes o f K 'art'li d id not style themselves as kings (mep'e-s) but
rather as erist'avi-s, eris-mt'avari-s ("chiefs o f the army/people), and erist'avt'-mt'avaris ("chiefs o f the
erist'avi-s"). Often they bore Byzantine dignities like kuropalat&s and patrician. The locus classicus for
the title held by the presiding princes is found in Ps.-Juansher, p. 222: "joj>
^3 3 bo
b<*)3g i 5oi1l.
0fl3(n6ob^ bibgcoo 336 03^56* b3^6 bo>^ g * 6366360^ 9o3ob6g66, i6a03g
3 6 0 ^03^3036 -8 0 5 6 3 ^ 6 5 bigoigjjb," "And [Guaram Is] son Step'anoz sat [as ruler]. Fearing the Persians
and the Greeks [read: Byzantines], he did not dare take the name o f king, but he was called erist'avt'amt'avari [lit. the chief o f the erist'avi-s']." Toumanoff (ibid., p. 387) notes that the presiding princes
were analogous to the Roman exarchates created by the em peror Maurice (582-602).
^G u aram id rule was interrupted with the replacement by the Byzantine emperor Heraclius of Step'anoz I
(who was put to death after the Byzantine-led siege of T p'ilisi in 627) for the Chosroid Adamase I (627637/642). Since Step'anoz had been an Iranophile in Byzantine eyes, Heraclius restored the former
Chosroids to power. Adamase was succeeded by Step'anoz n (637/642-ca. 650) and then Adamase II (ca.
650-684). These Chosroids did not possess the title kuropalates but rather were called patrician-s.
Adamase n was the last Chosroid to rule over the K art'velians.
^ T h e medieval Georgian rendering of this term is confused. The variants kulatpalati (M), kuradpalati
(m), and kuratpalati (Q) are attested. In the critical text o f Qauxch'ishvili this term has been rendered
kurapalati and in that o f Araxamia, kuratpalati. See Araxamia in Sumbat Davit'is-dze, p. 61, note 5.
90
Cf. his successor, Step'anoz I, who was charged with being an Iranophile and was removed from power
during Heraclius campaigns in the E ast Djobadze, "The Sculptures on the Eastern Facade of the Holy
Cross o f M tzkhet'a," OC 44 (1960), pp. 116-119, using the Bagratid-era Life ofShio Mghwme and
numismatic evidence, theorizes that Step'anoz was not so m uch an Iranophile but that he sought to re
assert the political independence o f K 'art'li and to strengthen the Christian faith (but we must ask, which
creed?). Guaram I, and the Guaramids following Step'anoz I, were closely allied with Byzantium.
487
in Caucasian politics more directly than ever before.21 It should be said that some presiding princes,
though endowed with Byzantine honors, were recognized also by the Caliphate. But the important point
here is that the Georgian historical tradition remembers this era as one in which the K 'art'velian princes
began to look to Constantinople for support.
From the fifth century the title o f kuropalates was very near the summit o f the Imperial
administration and was sparingly granted. The original duties o f its holders focused upon the material
condition o f the palace, and in its early stages only one kuropalates existed at a given time. But the office
was rapidly transformed and came to designate the heir to the throne (junior co-emperor, caesar). In this
way Justinian (527-565) bestowed the kuropalati upon his nephew and designated heir Justin II (565578). At the end o f the ninth century this dignity was ranked just after caesar and nobelissimos?^ In
any event, Ps.-Juansher specifically relates th a t"caesar [i.e., the Byzantine emperor] bestowed upon
Guaram the rank o f kuropalates and [Guaram] was sent to M c'xeta ."22 In the K 'art'velian context, this
kuropalates was recognized as the ruler o f K 'art'li. The Byzantines had elevated the K 'art'velian princes
to this honor as a countermeasure against the Persian threat, and subsequently to that of the Arabs. Thus
the Byzantines hoped that the Christian K'art'velians, ruled by their own kuropalatis, might be loyal
vassals and provide some measure o f se c u rity for the far eastern frontier o f Byzantium .2,1 The importance
of this policy is demonstrated by the fact that the K 'art'velian presiding princes, along with their
Armenian counterparts, were the first non-Byzantines to possess the dignity o f kuropalates.
The title o f kuropalates seems to have rapidly become hereditary am ong the K 'art'velian
presiding princes, and it should be emphasized this was not the customary practice in Byzantium.2^ The
For Byzantine contacts w ith Caucasia in this period see W.E. Kaegi, Byzantium and the Early Islamic
Conquests, esp. ch. 8 , "Byzantium, Armenia. Armenians, and Early Islamic Conquests." pp. 181-204. It
is curious that Kaegi devotes much energy to Armenia while saying so little about K 'art'li: this is partly a
reflection o f the lack o f Western scholarship on the subject
2 2 Philotheos, Kletorologion, pp. 22 and 34-35. See also Constantine VII, On the Ceremonies. Vogt c d .
cap. 54/45, "OEA AEI FLAPA $ YAATTEIN EIQ HPOATOrH KOYPOIIAAATOY," vol. 2, pp. 37-39.
2 2 Ps.-Juansher, p. 21 8 7 : ma 8 aIj 5 <g6 6 6 3 b dcibQ6 j 3 obj>fi9 j>B 3 )6 6 3 6 E)6 <J)ci&6 , g6 ^ 668015)16366
8 ()bgct)6 b." This account was directly borrowed by Sumbat Davit'is-dze, p. 4 1 1 3 .1 9 = Qauxch'ishvili e d ,
p. 374j q _ j " 6 8 oibQ6 6 8 6 b 8 3 3 3 8 6 6 8 3 6 8 3 6 0 1 6 8 6 6 3 6 (*)0 3 6 Co 3<36ca36C?6^)ci&6Q S *
^ 6 6 8 0 1 5 )1 6 3 6 6 8(jb 3oi6b ."
2 *Ps.-Juansher, pp. 239-240, reports that Heraclius credited the K'art'velians, who are said to be "the
descendants o f Nim rod" with preventing the Arabs from raiding deep into Anatolia and even reaching
Constantinople. Because o f this, Heraclius ordered his governor of Abasgia (Ap' xazet'i) to take care not
to violate the border between Abasgia ("Egrisi") and K 'art'li, and to treat both the K 'art'velian kings and
their subjects "with respect."
2 ^Cf. G uilland "Curopalate,"
Byzantina 2 (1970), pp. 189-249 and esp. pp. 215-220.
488
"hereditarization o f this Byzantine dignity by the K 'art'velians is to be expected, for the local royal
tradition, from its inception, was strongly dynastic, and offices and titles were customarily held by bloodr i g h t ^ But, at least in the initial instances and always theoretically, the emperor held the right o f final
selection and investm ent 2 7 Notwithstanding, the contemporary sources provide little additional
information on the process o f the "hercditarization" o f the K 'art'velian kuropalate.
Although the Guaramids were supposed to represent an explicit Byzantine political orientation,
not all of them were so quick to drink from the Byzantine well. The founder o f the dynast}-. Guaram I.
had secured Byzantine support, and Ps.-Juansher emphasizes that the emperor Maurice himself took an
interest in the K'art'velians, proclaiming that he himself was "the succourer and guardian o f all the
K 'art'velians and Christians.2^ But Step'anoz I sought to distance K 'art'li from Byzantium and to
diminish the intimate ties that had been carefully nurtured by his father Guaram. Ps.-Juansher brands
Step'anoz as "faithless" and laments that "he neither feared God, nor did he serve God. nor did he
increase the Faith and the Church."2^ This statement is almost certainly not an indication that the
allegedly Iranophile Step'anoz had adopted Zoroastrianism, for we are told by the same historian that
Step'anoz had installed Bart'lome (Bartholomew) as kat'alikos. This Bart'lome, at least in terms o f
chronology, must be the Kwrion who set off the ecclesiastical schism with Armenia in 607/608 by
recognizing the proclamations of Chalcedon. It would seem that Step'anoz remained a Christian, but one
who was at odds with Byzantium while his own bishop eventually came to favor Byzantine Christology .-*0
In any case, Ps.-Juansher explains the break with Byzantium in the following terms:
At this time there was a great disorder in Byzantium [lit. "Greece"]: the soldier Phokas
rebelled from the caesar Maurice and he murdered the caesar Maurice and his
children. And the solider Phokas seized Byzantium. And the son-in-law o f the caesar.
Khusrau [II] the king of the Persians, began to avenge the blood of his father-in-law and
the brothers o f his wife by invading and devastating Byzantium. He overcame the
26This is a manifestation o f the social influence o f Persia over Caucasia.

yn
The situation is much clearer with regards to Ap'xazet'i/Abasgia, whose rulers were usually given their
royal insignia by the emperor. See, e.g., Braund. Georgia in Antiquity, pp. 280-281.
28
Ps.-Juansher, p . 221 j q ^: Maurice said that "3q 3 * 6 8 ^ 3 coo> 801^)6 * 3 0 30133230 )* ^* 6 0 3 3 2 3 0 )*

C 'i 30133230 )* ^ 6 ob(*)o*6 3 a)*." Thus the Byzantine emperor is exerting his claim to be the ultimate
leader o f all Christendom including the K'art'velians.
29Ibid p.
2 2 2 15_16.
^Toumanoff suggests that Step'anoz was a Monophysite while his replacement, Adamase, was
Chalcedonian: "The Bagratids o f Iberia from the Eighth to the Eleventh Century: II. The Lands." LeM
74/3-4 (1961), pp. 288-289, footnote 171. Toumanoff also notes Heraclius "conversion" of an Albanian
ruler to Chalcedonianism.
489
Byzantines, and the caesar Phokas was unable to withstand him. But Step'anoz, the
mt'avari [i.e., "chief] o f K 'a rt'li, was afiaid o f the king o f the Persians [and] he
rebelled from the Byzantines and he united with the Persians.3 1
This passage is accurate with regards to events in Byzantium and serves as further evidence of
the increased contact between K 'art'li and the Empire. According to Ps.-Juansher, Step'anoz I defected
from the Byzantines precisely because of the civil w ar in which the soldier Phokas (602-610) murdered
Maurice (582-602).32 Earlier, the shahanshah Khusrau II (S90 and 591-628) had been overthrown by
Bahrain VI Chobin (590-591) and then restored to his throne with the assistance o f Maurice.3 3 When
Maurice was toppled by Phokas, Khusrau sought to avenge his patron by invading Anatolia and battling
the armies o f Phokas. It was precisely because o f the leadership struggle in Byzantium, and the retaliatory
strike of Khusrau n , that Step'anoz abandoned the Byzantines. The Persian threat was a very real one to
the Byzantines, and an even more serious one to the K'art'velians. Following the overthrow o f Phokas by
Heraclius (610-641),3* the new emperor endeavored to deliver a death-blow to the Persians and to quiet
the perfidious K 'art'velians once and for all.
As Heraclius marched East and approached the Caucasian isthmus, he presented Step'anoz with
the opportunity to restore the alliance with Byzantium and to plead for his own life. Step'anoz
underestimated the strength and resolve o f the advancing armies, and he refused to recognize Heraclius as
his sovereign. The K 'art'velian prince entrenched himself in Tp'ilisi. Like the bumberazi-Yxngp before
3 ^Ps.-Juansher, p. 223
32Phokas murdered Maurice in 602 and Ps.-Juansher claims that the Persian retaliation against Phokas
resulted in Step'anoz's defection from the Byzantines. Yet in 607/608 the K 'art'velian Church severed its
ties with the Armenian and seems to have supported Chalcedonianism. It is odd that at that moment that
Step'anoz abandoned Byzantium that he would authorize his Church to come out in favor o f the imperial
Christology. If Ps.-Juansher's information about Step'anoz's Iranophilism is accurate, then this was likely
an attempt by Step'anoz to keep the favor o f Byzantium while becoming friendly with the Persians to
prevent a Persian invasion o f K 'art'li. If so, Step'anoz's position must have ossified in favor o f Persia
before Heraclius personal invasion o f K 'art'li. Or, it is possible that, for whatever reason, the prelate of
the K 'art'velian Church came out in favor o f Chalcedon against the wishes of the presiding prince.
The Armenian source attributed to The Anonymous Story-Teller, p. 185 ("Ps.-Shapuh") reports
that David, the father o f Maurice, had given his son advice on how to consolidate his power and fend off
his opponents. David had "entered his garden and began to pull up the biggest root-vegetables. Taking
the small plants he (began to) cast them into the places o f the largest. On seeing this the Roman [envoy of
Maurice] said: What is that you are doing? He said: 'Such ought to be done.'"
3 3 Ps.-Juansher. pp. 220-221, is familiar with the revolt o f Bahram Chobin (Georgian: Baram Ch'ubini).
On this entire episode, see also: Chronicon Paschale, para. 582-602. pp. 139-144; and Ostrogorsky,
History o f the Byzantine State, pp. 79-86.
34 Ps.-Juansher, pp. 223-224.
490
him, he reportedly exited the city gates daily to engage the Byzantine troops in hand-to-hand com bat and
Ps.-Juansher does not hesitate to describe this "impious" king as "a valiant and brave w arrio r ."35
Heraclius himself appeared before the gates of T p'ilisi in 626/627, and having been insulted by
the c'ixist'avi ("the chief o f the fortress) o f the Kala fortress,3* he appointed a Khazar named "Jibgha" to
lead the siege .3 7 Then, with the bulk o f his forces, Heraclius moved south and penetrated Persia,
subsequently occupying the Sasanid capital o f Seleucia-Ktesiphon ("Baghdad"). In the meantime. Kala.
the principal fortress o f Tp'ilisi, fell to a detachment o f Byzantine-Khazar troops. The c'ixist'avi who had
insulted Heraclius was captured, his mouth was filled with coins, and he was skinned alive.3**
As a result o f the actions o f Step'anoz, and his capture tty Heraclius. the Guaramids fell under a
temporary paralysis and the inertia of the presiding princes' nascent Byzantine orientation was thus
restored by military means. Heraclius raised as presiding prince a member o f the former Chosroid
dynasty, Adamase, who ruled from Tp'ilisi. Presumably with Byzantine assistance. Adamase finished
two major churches: Juari ("the Cross") in M c'xet'a - some o f whose inscriptions include references to
Byzantine titles held tty K 'art'velian rulers and Sioni (Zion) in Tp'ilisi. It is also reported that
Heraclius, ignoring the pleas o f Adamase, repossessed relics which had been presented to the K'art'velian
king M irian tty Constantine "the Great" in the fourth century .3 9 This loss o f tangible articles o f divine
25Ibid., p. 224.
36This c 'ixist'avi is unnamed in Georgian sources. He is probably not to be identified with "Barsamouses
[i.e.. P arsman]. the commander o f the Persians' Iberian subjects" who was incarcerated by Heraclius:
Theophanes, Chronicle, pp. 23-29 (AM 6 1 18/AD 626-627). O n this Barsamouses, see V.I. Goiladze.
"Iavliaetsia li kartliiskim erismtavarom upomianutyi u Feofana khronografa Varsamuse?," Mac'ne 1
(1976), pp. 133-140 (unavailable to the author).
37Khazar mercenaries constituted a significant element o f the Byzantine forces. The Khazars are
mentioned often in K 'art'velian sources describing this period; moreover, as we have aleady seen, sources
written in this period could also anachronistically refer to the Khazars and Khazaria (as in The Life o f the
Kings). Jibgha (Jibghu in Sumbat Davit'is-dze and Jibgho o f Royal List II) is the Jebu X ak'an o f Movses
Dasxuranc'i and the ZIEBHA o f Theophanes, AM 6117/AD 625-626, p. 22. The Georgian sources have
confused this Turkic title (yabghu) for a name o f the Khazar general. The qaghan Yabghu, also known as
Tun-shekhu (618-630), was a member o f the royal Ashina clan and ruled over the Western Turk realm.
During his reign the Khazars and the Bulgars united under the Turk banner. According to P. Golden "the
Khazars formed the bulk o f the Ttirk forces used tty the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius... in his counteroffensive against the Sasanids in Transcaucasia [sic]" (Golden. "The Turkic Peoples and Caucasia," pp. 6 7. See also: ToumanofF, Studies, pp. 382-391; M.I. Artamonov, Istoriia khazar, with Eng. sum., pp. 517521; Golden, Khazar Studies: An Historico-Philological Inquiry into the Origins o f the Khazars, pp. 5052, 187-190, and 218-219; A.P. Novolsel'tsev, Khazarskoe gosudarstvo i ego roTv istorii Vostochnoi
Evropy i Kavkaza, pp. 88-89; idem., "Strany Zakavkaz'ia i Khazariia v VTII-pervoi polovine IX w .," in
Sak'art'velo da aghmosavlet'i, pp. 186-194; and D.M. Dunlop, The History o f the Jewish Khazars.
3 8 Ps.-Juansher, pp. 224-226.
29Ibid., p. 227.
491
power seems to symbolize not only the strength o f Heraclius and Byzantium vis-a-vis K'art' li at this time.
but also the fact that K 'a rt'li was no longer to be regarded by the Byzantines as autonomous in either
political o r ecclesiastical matters.
The invasion o f K 'a rt'li by Heraclius is a pivotal moment in medieval K'art'velian history.
Before the era of Heraclius the K'art'velians had taken steps which had gradually led to a close
association with Byzantium: the conversion of the first Chosroid M ihran/M irian m to Christianity, the
alliance effected by Vaxtang (exaggerated in medieval Georgian historical texts), and the incorporation of
the Guaramids into the imperial administration. But when Step'anoz I refused to abandon his ambivalent
stance towards Constantinople (which was, according to the Georgian historical sources, supposed by the
Byzantines to be a pro-Iranian position), Heraclius had Step'anoz murdered and replaced with a proByzantine prince. Following Heraclius' invasion, the remainder o f the presiding princes of K 'art'li.
followed by the early Bagratid kings after them, were loyal at least nominally' to the Byzantine
40
emperor.
Arab rule in Caucasia, while having a destructive dimension, set the stage for the ascendancy of
the K 'art'velian Bagratids.4 * For Arabic domination ushered in a shift in the fortunes of the noble
families o f Caucasia: in Armenia the Bagratid (Bagratuni) family came to be favored over the
Mamikonean, while in K 'a rt'li the Chosroid dynasty was supplanted by the pro-Byzantine Guaramids.
Later, the disintegration o f Caliphal authority in Caucasia allowed the formation o f a number of
autonomous Islamic enterprises; e.g., in 809 Ism ail ibn Shuaib, the amir ofT p'ilisi (Tiflis), removed
himself from the jurisdiction o f the Caliph .4 2 In the meantime the Muslims targeted and decimated many
40The importance o f this event is reflected in the fact that it is related by three separate Georgian sources:
Ps.-Juansher, pp. 222-228 and the derivitive Royal List II, pp. 95-96 (who reports that Heraclius
unleashed an anti-Zoroastrian campaign in K 'art'li). and Sumbat Davit'is-dze, pp. 42-43 =
Qauxch' ishvili e d , pp. 374-375. Davitis-dze appears to have used both Ps-Juansher (the original
account) and Royal List II as sources. Since the texts o f K'C' rarely repeat information, the inclusion of
detailed descriptions o f Heraclius1 invasion by both Ps.-Juansher and Davitis-dze may be an indication
that the latter was not originally a part o f the corpus (and was appended later); this would explain why the
tatter's history is found only in selected recensions. An independent account of the siege of Tp'ilisi is
found in Movses Dasxuranc'i, II. 11, pp. 85-86. Heraclius' campaign in K 'art'li (Iberia) is also reported
by Constantine VII, DAI, cap. 45, pp. 206-207.
Ibid., p. 609, emphasizes some of the positive

elements o f Arabic rule: "The Saracen insistence on collecting taxes am d tribute in money, not in kind,
led to an economic revival... the middle class revived; new cities like Ani, Kars, Balesh (Bitlis), Artanuji,
rose beside the o ld .. Caucasia once again became the nexus o f trade-routes connecting Europe and Asia,
and the prosperity of the medieval period was founded" With regards to the revival of roads, we should
recall the prominent position (and direct naming) o f roads in C'x. vox. gorg. and The Life o f the Kings, all
o f which were written ca. 800, precisely at the time o f this "recovery."
4 *Toumanoff, "Armenia and Georgia," pp. 605-610.
42The "illegal" nature o f the separatism characteristic o f this period o f Arab rule over Caucasia was noted
492
o f the indigenous noble families. At first even the Bagratids appeared to have been weakened beyond the
point o f recovery. But that family proved to be resilient, and from their ancestral lands in Speri they
regenerated themselves. In the last quarter o f the eighth century, a branch o f that family established itself
in the K 'art'velian domains. Though at first we should speak o f them as Bagratids in K'art'li. they* seem
to have quickly acculturated, transforming themselves into K'art'velian Bagratids. Their consolidation
first manifested itself in the rule o f Ashot I and then in the restoration of royal power by Adamase II/IV
(888-923).
The enfeeble Guaramid dynasty was thus replaced in the second-half o f the eighth century by the
K 'art'velian Bagratids. Ashot I "the Great" (813-830), the first K 'art'velian Bagratid to hold the position
of presiding prince, was granted the title o f kuropalates by the emperor and this dignity quickly became
hereditary within his clan, being held in the same fashion as it had been under the Guaramids.
II. EARLY BAGRATID HISTORICAL WORKS
Georgian historical writing was not an invention of the Bagratid era. Rather, the earliest known
Georgian historians were active on the eve o f Bagratid rule during the abeyance o f the monarchy, evoking
the period when the K 'art'velians had been governed by their own kings. Once the K 'art'velian Bagratids
solidified their hold on the principate, the next logical step was the restoration o f royal authority. But the
K 'art'velian Bagratids had been established only in the second-half o f the eighth century', and thus they
were relatively new-comers to the K 'art'velian scene. Although it was possible for them to claim a
genetic link with the Guaramids (through Vasak Bagratunis marriage to a daughter o f Guaram III [ca.
693-ca. 748]), the earliest extant K 'art'velian Bagratid historical works, which date from the eleventh
century', do not emphasize this dynastic connection. The earliest extant Bagratid histories were written
after their restoration o f royal power and their eventual establishment o f the first unified Georgian state.
Thus, we do not know whether the early K 'art'velian Bagratids had felt compelled to prove their
K'art'velian royal filiation o r whether they had almost immediately claimed to represent a distinct break
with the past.
Sumbat Davit 'is-dze
Sumbat Davit'is-dzes Life and Tale o f the K'art'velian Bagratids is the earliest extant Bagratidera historical work. It was composed in the mid-eleventh century, perhaps as early as 1030, but in any
by al-Baladhuri, IV. 1, vol. I, p. 330, with regards to Ishak ibn Ism ail ibn Shu'aib.
493
case posterior to the establishment o f a united Georgian kingdom ca. 1008 by Bagrat HI."*3 Regardless o f
its dating, this text was written after the restoration o f K 'art'velian royal authority by the Bagratids. This
source has come down to us in two prc-Vaxtangiseuli MSS, MQ.4* Sumbat Davit' is-dze's history does
not appear in every redaction o f K'art'lis c'xovreba. but in those in which it does, the text was placed after
The life ofDavit'. We would have expected their order to be reversed. The placement o f Davit'is-dze's
history chronologically diverges from the corpus scriptorum o f K'art'lis cxovreba, and it does not
recollect the origin of the K ' art'velian Bagratids (either real or imagined) in its proper order, relating only
the Bagratid predecessors o f Davit' II and not Davit' himself. This circumstance has yet to be explained
satisfactorily, although it is quite possible that Davit' is-dze's history was incorporated, immediately after
its own composition, only within certain recensions o f K'art'lis c'xovreba, or, more probably, that it
remained an independent text for a century o r two following its production.
Like all the constituent histories o f K'art'lis c'xovreba, Davit'is-dze's history survives only in
relatively late MSS. It is not incorporated into the earliest extant variant o f K'art'lis c'xovreba, the
Armenian adaptation (Arm/A) which survives in a late thirteenth-century MS. All of the known
Armenian variants break off in m id sentence within the biography o f Davit' II. There are several
potential explanations for this circumstance: (1) the Georgian exemplar o f the Armenian was itself
defective; (2) the Georgian exemplar did not include Davit'is-dze's history (suggesting this text was
originally independent o f K'art'lis c'xovreba)', (3) the Georgian exemplar placed Davit'is-dze's history
after the vita o f Davit' H, as occurs in the M Q variants (and since the Arm/A and related variants break
o ff with this vita, Sumbat Davit'is-dze's history has not come down to us in this recension): or (4) the
Armenian translator took offense with this ideological tract (insofar as the K'art'velian Bagratids
downplayed their connection to the Armenian Bagratuni-s) and chose not to translate it. Vaxtangiseuli
MSS incorporate this text, but instead o f making Davit'is-dze's tract a distinct work (as it was received).
4 3 Toumanoff, "Medieval Georgian Historical Literature," pp. 154-156, assigned Davit'is-dze's work to ca.
1030 while the recent study o f Araxamia in Sumbat Davit' is-dze, introduction, pp. 10-32, suggests that it
was composed in the 1050s or 1060s. Javaxishvili, Dzveli k'art'uli saistorio mcerloba, s.v. "Sumbat dze
davitisi," pp. 195-197, merely dates this text to the eleventh century. The importance o f Davitis-dze's
ideological tract is manifest by the fact that it is the first Georgian historical work whose author is
expressly identified within the text.
^ B ec au se this text has come down to us in only some of the pre-Vaxtangiseuli MSS, Toumanoff
consigned Davit' is-dze's history to that group o f sources outside o f K'C'. Although this work is not to be
found in all recensions o f K'C', the fact remains that this source does not exist in any MSS independent of
the Georgian royal annals. Therefore it should be counted as a part of that corpus, although with the
caveat that it appears only in selected MSS. In an examination o f royal and noble genealogies. MartinHisard suggests that the stemma o f Davit'is-dze represents a tradition separate from that of K'C'. I
believe that this characterization is somewhat misleading, for Davit'is-dze delineates a divergent tradition
within K 'C' from that o f the earlier Life o f the Kings. See Martin-Hisard, "Laristocratie gdorgienne et
son passe," BK 42 (1984), pp. 13-34.
494
the King Vaxtang VI Commission disassembled it, inserting its fragments into the slightly later Chronicle
o f K'art'li and the earlier Ps.-Juansher .4 6

Sumbat Davit'is-dzes brief tract constitutes the history, par excellence, o f the early K'art'velian
Bagratid family. It aims to elucidate that dynasty's origin, rise to potver. and its self-conceited legitimacy
to rule as kings through the family's claim to be the biological descendants of the Biblical David .4 6
Whereas the earlier Life o f the Kings traced the provenance o f both the K 'art'velian monarchy and the
K 'art'velian community, the history o f Davit'is-dze is concerned first and foremost with the Bagratid clan
and with offering a summation o f its history up through the eleventh century. Although Davitis-dze
endeavors to demonstrate that the K 'art'velian Bagratids personified a sharp break w ith the earlier
monarchs of K 'art'li, he nevertheless plunders, without acknowledgment, several pre-Bagratid historical
works. Yet, for the most part, he carefully and intentionally ignores the monarchs w ho reigned in K 'art' li
before the advent of the Bagratids. It must be emphasized that Davit'is-dze wrote a t a time when the
Georgian Bagratids were already well established and that he sometimes anachronistically telescopes back
a sense of coherence and unity which did not actually exist
As has been noted by numerous modem specialists, the initial portion o f Davit'is-dze's narrative,
up through the end o f the eighth century, is, for the most pan, fantastic. Davit'is-dze commences by
relating the Biblical stemmae o f Genesis and Matthew, tracing the origin o f the K 'art'velian Bagratids
from Adam, through Shem (and not Japheth as in The Life o f the Kings with regards to the K'art'velian
community), David, Solomon, down to a certain (different) Solomon whose seven sons came to
Caucasia.4 7 The Bagratids allegedly had issued forth from these sons. The account o f these early
Bagratids, some of whom were actually Guaramids, was largely appropriated from Royal Lists 11 and
46The first interpolation o f Davit'is-dze's text in Ps.-Juansher occurs for the reign o f Guaram I
kuropalates (Ps.-Juansher, p. 218. apparatus criticus). Just before the interpolation, the Vaxtangiseuli
recension adds a statement that Guaram was bom o f a Chosroid mother and a Bagratid father (ibid., p.
21 8 5 ^ ) : this is a later tradition and is not found in any pre-Vaxtangiseuli MS. The Vaxtangiseuli
insertion from Davit'is-dze begins with the title o f his work and even an authorial attribution. Only one
Vaxtangiseuli MS (T) does not exactly follow this pattern.
4 6 Davit'is-dze himself may have been a scion o f the K'art'velian Bagratid house. In this regard his
"surname" Davit'is-dze, literally "son o f Davit'." may in fact be a reflection o f the K 'art'velian Bagratids
claim to be the direct biological offspring o f the O ld Testament King-Prophet D avid But the name
"Davit'is-dze" was not used by other Bagratids in such a manner. Cf. T'aqaishvili, Sumbat davit 'is dzis
k'ronika tao-klarjet'is bagrationt'a shesaxeb, pp. 1 1-12, who notes that the names Sumbat and Davit'
were popular among the Bagratids o f Tao/Tayk'-Klarjet'i. Moreover, D. Karichashvili, "Vin unda iqves
'sumbatis k'ronikis' avtori?" in Dzveli sak'art'velo, e d by T'aqaishvili, vol. 1, pp. 36-42, identifies
Sumbat as the son of Davit' M e'ire, him self the son o f the Bagratid Adamase kuropalates.
47These are not to be confused with the sons o f Japheth in The Life o f the Kings.
495
I I I .^ The Royal Lists have reached us only as part o f the corpus Mok 'c 'evay k'art'lisay and Davit'is-dze
had access to some redaction o f i t 4 9 In addition, Davit'is-dze is also familiar with the corpus C'xorebay
vaxtanggorgaslisa (and, consequently, with K'art'lis c'xovreba). M ok'c'evay k'art'lisay and C'xorebay
vaxtang gorgaslisa represent the pre-Bagratid K 'art'velian historical tradition and there is no doubt that
Davit'is-dze himself was cognizant o f the fart that these works lauded the pre-Bagratid kings o f K 'art'li.
But Davit'is-dze took care that their praise be less emphatic in his own work, and he quotes and
paraphrases (without attribution) these pre-Bagratid sources only insofar as they strengthened his
arguments about the rise of the Bagratids. In addition to these texts, Davit'is-dze also may have relied
upon a now-lost, even earlier history of the Bagratids .5 0 Finally, Davit' is-dze, although he is generally
unconcerned with things Armenian, probably exploited an Armenian source, either written or oral,
regarding the Byzantine rebellion o f Nikephoros Phokas and Nikephoros Xiphas in 1022 (see infra).
Sumbat Davit'is-dze is the first Georgian historian to systematically incorporate calendrical dates
within his work, employing the Georgian era, or k'oronikon, which had been invented during early
Bagratid rule. The several innovations in Bagratid-era historical writing, royal ideology and legitimacy,
and other related issues will be considered separately infra and in the succeeding chapter.
The Anonymous Chronicle o f K'art'li
Written by an anonymous author in 1072/1073, The Chronicle o f K'art'li (.Matiane k'art'lisay)

addresses the period from the martyrdom of A rch'il II in 786 until the death o f K ing Bagrat IV in 1072.
A title is not attached to extant versions of this text although a certain "old chronicle o f K 'art'li" (dzveli
matiane k'art'lisay, d3 flcjo
06 <J)oa63
is attested in the twelfth-century Life o f Davit', and
this is possibly a reference to the work under consideration .5 1 In any event, Georgian does not
distinguish capital letters (for titles, proper nouns, etc.), and this reference does not necessarily reflect a
^ A rax am ia, Dzveli k'art'uli saghvareulo maticmeebi, pp. 22-27, demonstrates that Davit'is-dze did not
alway s blindly rely upon the narrative in the Royal Lists.
Ibid ., pp 14-15, suggests that Davit'is-dze had access to a version o f Mok'. k'art'. that was a bridge
between the extant Shatberdi and Chelishi redactions.
50 Taqalshvili, Sumbat davit'is dzisk'ronika tao-klarjet'is bagrationt'a shesaxeb, pp. 13-15 (who refers
to this lost source a sMokle istoriuli sagvareulo k'ronikebi tao-klarjet'is bagrationebisa, or Short Family
Historical Chronicle o f the Bagratids ofTao-Klarjet'i])', and Toumanoff, "Medieval Georgian Historical
Writing," p. 155.
5 *77ie Life o f Davit', p. 21712 = Qauch'ishvili, e d , p. 359g. See also Javaxishvili, Dzveli k'art'uli
saistorio mcerloba, s.v. "Matiane k'art'lisay," pp. 198-209. Thomson, trans., p. 349, and footnote 110,
takes this as a reference to Chron. K'art'li (his Book o f K'art'li).
496
title but may instead be a description. M odem specialists routinely refer to this work as The Chronicle o f
K'art'li, and for the sake o f convenience it is adopted here, though I am not convinced o f its identification
with dzveli matiane k'art'lisay.
In later Vaxtangiseuli MSS The Chronicle o f K'art'li was subjected to substantial editing.
Several lengthy excerpts were inserted from Davit'is-dze's slightly earlier history. This editorial work,
effected by the Vaxtang VI Commission in the early eighteenth century', is striking because the history of
Davit' is-dze was dismembered and inserted into the slightly later Chronicle o f K'art 'li. The
Vaxtangiseuli version o f this text, because o f the insertions from Davit' is-dze's Life and Tale o f the
K'art'velian Bagratids. contains considerably more calendrical references than the original. It should be
noted that The Chronicle o f K'art 'li is not properly a chronicle (i.e a historical work which is organized
along strict chronological guidelines and which incorporates explicit dates for its accounts). However, the
original text does include several dates in the Georgian era (k'oronikon) . ^ Moreover, the inserted
information does not appear to have been extracted from any unidentified, now-lost sources, and. in fact
much of it is tediously repetitious.
The Chronicle o f K'art'li is a significant source on Arab rule in K art'li, and especially, the
ascendancy o f the K 'art'velian Bagratids. Unlike Davit'is-dze, its anonymous author is not primarily
interested in setting forth the origin, the consolidation o f power, and bases o f legitimacy o f the Bagratids.
Rather, he presents the political history o f K 'art'li up through the second-half o f the eleventh century'.
Moreover, The Chronicle o f K'art'li describes the reigns o f both late pre-Bagratid and early Bagratid
rulers. Significantly, the anonymous author himself does not suggest that the pre-Bagratid presiding
princes were any less legitimate than their Bagratid counterparts. Although he relates the Davidic claim
of the Bagratids, he does not dwell on that point In my estimation, although reaching its final form in the
eleventh century, The Chronicle o f K'art'li accurately communicates the attitude o f the early Bagratids.
insofar as they did not immediately completely ignore the traditions and existence o f the pre-Bagratid
K'art'velian monarchs. It would seem. then, that The Chronicle o f K'art'li, and the untitled work by Ps.Juansher, constitute intermediate works: these two texts were partly written in (Ps.-Juansher), or partly
based upon sources from (The Chronicle o f K'art'li), the period when the K 'art'velian Bagratids were just
emerging and certainly before their consolidation. In any event, The Chronicle o f K'art'li also admits the
appearance and existence o f other kings on "Georgian1 territory at this time. It provides an unparalleled
account o f the kings o f K axet'i (who were curiously styled as chorepiskopos-os) an d o f Apx a z e t'i.^ In
52
On the occurrence o f regnal subheadings within Chron. K'art'li, see ch. 1, #11.
55
On the kings o f K axet'i and A p'xazet'i, see infra. In letters to the rulers o f A p'xazet'i (Abasgia).
Nicholas I Mystikos, the patriarch o f Constantinople, addressed the A p'xaz king as "prince" or "ruler"
(ESOYEIAZTH ABAXTIAE). See Nicholas Mystikos, Letters, pp. 265-267, 279-281, and 486-487. On
these letters, see also M.D. L ort'kip'anidze, "Vozniknovenie novykh feodalnykh gosudarst," in Ocherki
497
fact, this text refers to a now-lost History (c'xovreba) o f the Ap'xaz.5* The increasing contacts of
Bagratid K'art'li/Georgia and Byzantium are evident throughout this work, as is immediately articulated
by the K 'art'velian prince (mt'avari) Juansher and his family who had decided to See K 'art'li: "... it is
best for us to set out for Byzantium and turn to Christians ..." 55
Innovations in Early Bagratid Historical Writing
The genre o f historical writing was developed among the K 'art'velians just prior to the
consolidation of Bagratid power. The Life o f the Kings, The Life o f Vaxtang, the brief continuation by Ps.Juansher, The Conversion ofK 'art ii, and perhaps The Primary History o f K'art 'li were all composed in
the pre-Bagratid period. Moreover, these works were produced at a tim e when the K 'art'velian monarchy
had fallen into abeyance.
So we cannot link the emergence o f Georgian historical writing with the K 'art'velian Bagratids.
But that dynasty, once it had firmly established itself, came to monopolize historical literature in much the
same fashion as the pre-Bagratid K 'art'velian kings had .5 6 In Bagratid histories the received approaches
and models were not merely repeated or modified. Rather, the Bagratids consciously abandoned the
explicit Persian milieu that was characteristic o f pre-Bagratid historical works. Moreover, Bagratid-era
historians chose to ignore, for the most part, the earlier K 'art'velian kings, emphasizing instead the
independent legitimacy o f the K 'art'velian Bagratids. The only meaningful exception to this is the
Bagratids 1 love affair with the memory o f Vaxtang Gorgasali, whose heroic deeds were enshrined in The
Life o f Vaxtang.^
The earliest Bagratid-era historians, writing in the eleventh century', discarded the ancientlyrooted nexus with the Persian cultural world and insisted that K 'art'li. as a Christian kingdom, was part
istorii Gruzii, vol. 2, pp. 297-298.

Chron. K'art'li, p. 2 6 5 3 . Bagratid-era works rarely refer to their sources. Thomson, in his trans. of the
Georgian text, p. 267. footnote 32, suggests that this may be a reference to the thirteenth-century
Chronicle o f the Kings o f Ap'xazet'i, which survives in a fifteenth-century MS and remains unpublished.
See also Toumanoff "Medieval Georgian Historical Literature," p. 1S7. This reference is almost certainly
not to the Divan attributed to Bagrat III.
5 5 C/wwj.
K'art'li, p. 2 4 9 i q . u : "... gBxm&ab i 6 l>, (hsois
jo i 8 0 3 0 ^6 0 )0110}
^6ob(J)OAB3a)A..."
56We should recall that Georgian historical writing was largely the prerogative o f the royal clan in both
the Bagratid and pre-Bagratid period, whereas in Armenia it was dominated by the various noble houses.
5^For the view o f Vaxtang in the Bagratid period, see ch. 6 .
498
of the Byzantine commonwealth. This shift in orientation was not instigated by the Bagratids for traces o f
it may be detected already' in the ca. 800 Life o f Vaxtang: but the K 'art'velian Bagratids did bring this
reorientation to fruition. As we shall see, the connection with Byzantium began to be carefully controlled
and manipulated under King Davit' H (1089-1125), a king who established a pan-Caucasian empire and
who realized that with tangible authority drawn from Byzantium an opportunity had emerged to
emphasize self-reliance and an identity distinct from Byzantium. In this context, Bagratid historians after
Davit' II do not attempt to rehabilitate the Persian heritage o f K 'art'li which had been emphasized in preBagratid historical works but rather merely seek to diminish arty semblance o f Byzantine influence and
authority over the all-Georgian kingdom.
An examination o f the nature o f Bagratid-era historical writing during the eleventh through
thirteenth centuries follows. However, a few of the immediately noticeable innovations in early Bagratidera historical writing should be specified at the start We should remember that Bagratid historical works,
with the exception o f the legendary initial portion o f Davit'is-dze, describe contemporary events, and this
is in contrast to the pre-Bagratid C'xorebay k'art velt'a mep'et'a and The Life o f Vaxtang (Ps.-Juansher is
the only pre-Bagratid work that is near-contemporary). While pre-Bagratid historical texts are probably
based upon some ancient written o r oral recollections, Bagratid historians had to describe the activities
and fortunes of a living dynasty. Thus, the pre-Bagratid historical tradition remembers the pre-Bagratid
kings and extols the notion o f local royal authority in the hopes that it m ight be reestablished. The
Bagratid historical tradition is concerned with an existing dynasty, and instead o f merely lauding the
notion o f kingship, Georgian historical writing was now used to justify and to perpetuate a particular
contemporary dynasty. Both traditions use textual imagery to sway their audiences, but as we shall see the
nature o f imagery underwent a substantial metamorphosis in the Bagratid period.
Among the important innovations in early Bagratid-era historical writing are:
a. Nusxuri and Mxedruli Scripts
As we have seen, a specifically Georgian script was invented only in the late fourth century AD,
and its fashioning was spurred tty the triumph of Christianity throughout Caucasia and the resulting need
to translate the Bible and patristic works into the local idiom. ^
In the early Christian and medieval
periods, three scripts were current in K'art'li/Georgia. The earliest o f them is the asomt'avruli script
which consisted only o f majuscule characters; it is attested already in the fifth century. Nusxuri, a new
miniscule script, was introduced by the ninth century and therefore would seem to have been a Bagratid
^ O n the invention o f the three Georgian scripts, see ch. 4.
499
invention. The asomt'avruli and nusxuri scripts are now collectively referred to as xuc'uri, or the
"priestly" hand. Today these scripts are utilized only within the ranks o f the Georgian Church.
The ascendancy o f the K 'art'velian Bagratids, their consolidation o f power, and their subsequent
establishment o f a pan-Caucasian empire by the end o f the eleventh century required more complicated
mechanisms o f governance than had ever existed in K 'art'li. The asomtavruli script, while beautiful to
the eye, required considerable precision, and documents could not be quickly written in it. The early
K 'art'velian Bagratids seem to have devised nusxuri for the sake o f efficiency, though this script was also
cumbersome. Ironically, unlike the rounded letters o f asomt'avruli, the prominence o f right-angles and
straight strokes in nusxuri was reminiscent o f Armenian, and the latter may very well have been the
inspiration for the former. This would be a further proof that the early K 'art'velian Bagratids did. in fact
draw heavily from Armenian ideas and civilization. As the bureaucracy o f the K 'art'velian Bagratids
expanded, productivity considerations required that a new script be fashioned. By the eleventh century
mxedruli, or the "knightly" (i.e., secular) hand, was inaugurated. A form of mxedruli serves as the
modem Georgian script
The need for a more efficiently written script is apparent from the explosion of secular documents
that appeared by the eleventh century. From third decade o f the eleventh century a great number of royal
and ecclesiastical charters were issued, many of them in the nascent mxedruli s c r ip t^
Since no early Georgian MSS o f K'art'lis c'xovreba survive, we may only speculate as to the
script in which they were originally composed. Only three extant Georgian MSS were copied in the
nusxuri script: QTP. The remainder were copied in mxedruli. "Mc'xet' ian" variant, Q, is the only preextant Vaxtangiseuli MS written in nusxuri, although it seems certain that its relative, M. although itself
in mxedruli, was copied (and ultimately transcribed) from a nusxuri o rig in a l.^ Thus the so-called
M c'xet'ian recension/group (MQm) is likely based upon an early, nusxuri exemplar. But as to the script
of the earliest MSS o f K'art'lis c 'xovreba, we are completely in the dark.
^S ev eral ecclesiastical charters were composed in nusxuri. Only one surviving charter pre-dates the
eleventh century (dated to the second-half o f the ninth century but extant only in a late thirteenth-century
MS). The most significant o f these charters was published by Enuk'idze, et al., K'art'uli istoriuli
sabut 'ebi IX-XIII ss., with photo-reproductions o f the charters. Although mxedruli is the predominant
script for secular charters, K 'art'velian Bagratid coins more frequently employ asomt'avruli (which is
more fitting for epigraphic inscriptions than mxedruli).
**M exhibits several mistakes which are characteristic o f a confusion arising from the transcription of
similarly shaped letters in nusxuri (esp. the confusion o f b and sh). E.g., see the apparatus criticus in The
Life o f the Kings, pp. 39, 5 j4, 6 j, I5 j, and 174.
500
b. The K'oronikon: The Medieval K'art'velian Calendrical System
Pre-Bagratid historical works, including The Life o f the Kings, The Ufe o f Vaxtang. and Ps.Juansher are completely devoid o f calendrical dates. Except for a few rather accurate synchronisms .6 1 the
writers of these sources did not exhibit a familiarity with any calendrical system, foreign or K'art'velian.
In the pre-Bagratid section o f K'art'lis c'xovreba (i.e.. the corpora C'xorebay k'art'velt'a mep'et'a and
C'xorebay vaxtang gorgaslisa) only one date occurs, that for the death o f Nino:
A nd [Nino] gave her soul to the King o f Heaven, [and] she departed K 'a rt'li 338 years
after the death o f C hrist 5838 years after the Creation.6^
It should be noted that this date occurs in The Life o f Nino, itself composed in the ninth-/tenth-century
(under Bagratid rule) and inserted into C'xorebay k'art'velt'a mep 'et'a probably in the eleventh century.
The aforementioned date was almost certainly extracted from the seventh-/eighth-century Conversion o f
K'art'li which offers the same dates 6 3 The Creation date o f 5838, if equated with 338 AD. corresponds
neither to the Georgian Creation era (5838 = 234 AD) nor to that o f the Byzantines (330)6* nor even to
that o f the Alexandrians (346). Rather, this date is in harmony with the eras o f Sextus Julius Africanus
and Hippoiytus o f Rome.6^ It is thus entirely possible that the writings o f Hippolytus, which as we have
seen influenced the opening section o f the pre-Bagratid Life o f the Kings, also formed the basis for the
Esp. that o f The U fe o f Vaxtang. p.

"From King Mirian to King Vaxtang passed eight
generations and ten kings, and 157 years, and eight righteous bishops o f the Veritable Faith while others
ignored the canons." ToumanofF rightly counted three "historically certain dates for the K'art'velian
kings of the first five centuries AD: AD 1 for the accession o f P'arsm an I; 361 for the death o f Mirian III;
and ca. 446 for the accession o f Vaxtang I Gorgasali (ToumanofT, "Chronology o f the Earlv Kings of
Iberia," p. 20).
^ T h e Life o f Nino in C'x. k'art'. mep'et'a, p. 127 ^9 .2 j - The Vaxtangiseuli d variant o f K'C' gives the
erroneous dates o f 335 and 5938 respectively. On this date, see also ch. 5.
Conv. K'art'li, p. 90. But this text incorrectly describes the year 338 as being "after the Ascension of
Christ."
64The Byzantines reckoned 5508 years from Creation until the birth o f Christ. A Byzantine Creation date
is found within the eighth-century Mart. Habo, cap. 3, p. 63, for Habo is said to have been murdered in
6424. But this date is patently wrong and should read 6294 or 6298 (to correspond with AD 786/790). In
any case, the ?miscopied 6424 likely corresponds to the Byzantine Creation date and not the Georgian
(which would yield 5604 + 786/790 = 6390/6394). No calendrical dates are found within the earliest
extant works of Georgian literature, viz. Mart. Shush, said Mart. Evstat'i.
6 ^Toumanof,
Studies, pp. 374-378.
501
Georgian calendrical system. In any event, this Creation date seems to be rather old. o r was intended to
be understood as old, since the Georgian Creation date according to which 5604 years are reckoned to
have elapsed from Creation to the birth o f Christ was not employed.
A major innovation o f the early K 'art'velian Bagratid period was the introduction of a
specifically K'art'velian era, though its very nam e the k'oronikon (Jci<6 pi6 o 3 pi6 [oJ; variant k'ronikon
rd 6 m 6 o 3 ci 6 ]; cf. Gk. XPONTKONj^ denies the influence o f Classical models. The k'oronikon is
based upon the paschal cycle o f 532 years, a number obtained by multiplying together nineteen lunar years
by twenty-eight solar years, a full cycle of which includes all o f the possible variations o f movable
ecclesiastical holidays (i.e., the perpetual calendar). Each 532-year cycle o f the k'oronikon is called an
indik'tion (o 6 cgoJ(*)on6 [o]; cf. Gk. IN A IK TIO N ).^ In medieval Georgian historical monuments, the
indik'tion is customarily omitted. Thus, the first year o f each indik'tion is year one o f the k'oronikon.
Considerable debate surrounds the basis o f the k'oronikon. That is to say, to which event or
person, if any, does the first year o f the first indik'tion correspond? P. Ingoroqva conjectured that the
victory o f P'am avaz over Azon/Azoy and his elevation as king served as the point of departure for the
k'oronikon. However, the k'oronikon is first and foremost based upon the Georgian Creation date,
according to which 5604 years elapsed from the Creation o f the world to the birth of Christ. The cycles o f
the Georgian calendrical system may thus be computed:
Georgian Indik'tion
AD 1845-2377
1313-1844
781-1312
249-780
15th cycle
14th cycle
13th cycle
12 th cycle
284 BC-AD 248
1 1th cycle
^ O n the k'oronikon. see V. Grumel, La Chronologie, volume 1 oiTraite d'Etudes Byzantines, ch. 11,
"Lere des Romains, le Kronikoni, e t 1'ere mondiale des Georgiens," pp. 146-153. See also: P.M.
Muradian, "Khronologiia sistem letoschislenii po armianskim istochnikam," Kavkaz i llzantiia 6 (1988).
pp. 61-71; and Brosset, ed. and comm., Chronique georgienne, introduction, pp. xvii-xxv. K'oronikon
dates are found in all early Bagratid-era histories: that o f Sumbat Davit' is-dze, Chron. K'art'li, and the
vitae o f Davit' II and T amar. The original text o f Chron. K'art'li contained relatively few dates but the
King Vaxtang VI commission interpolated several dates into this text from Davitis-dze's history. Some
Bagratid-era historians did not record dates in their works, notably Chron. Hund. Years.
aqalshvili, "Georgian Chronology and the Beginnings o f Bagratid Rule in Georgia," Georgica 1/1
(Oct. 1935). p. 10. notes that the indik'tion was sometimes refered to as asuruli ("Syrian") since it had
been borrowed from Syriac Christianity. This identification is not made in medieval historical literature.
68These are rough correspondences, for the k'oronikon began on a different day and month from our
current AD/BC dates.
502
816-285 BC
1348-817
1880-1349
2412-1881
2944-2413
3476-2945
4008-3477
4540-4009
5072-4541
5604-5073
10th cycle
9th cycle
8 th cycle
7th cycle
6 th cycle
5th cycle
4th cycle
3rd cycle
2 nd cycle
1st cycle
W orking in reverse from 780 in 532-year increments, we find that the first cycle began precisely in 5604
BC, the very year that medieval K 'art'velians had calculated for the beginning of the w orld
Ingoroqva seized upon the beginning o f the tenth cycle in 284 BC and suggested that this date
corresponds precisely to the ascension of P'arnavaz, the first king o f the K'art'velians according to The
U fe o f the K i n g s However, this date is too early for his elevation, an event which more likely occurred
ca. 299 BC
In any case, Ingoroqva operated from the fragile assumptions that: (1) P'arnavaz is a
historical figure, which is far from certain; (2) that the alternate tradition o f The Primary History o f
K'art'li, which contends that kings o f "Aryan K 'art'li" (Persian K 'art'li) predates P'arnavaz. is spurious:
and (3) that the K 'art'velian Bagratids would have wished to commemorate their pre-Bagratid
predecessors. Although the eleventh cycle does roughly coincide with the establishment o f the
K 'art'velian monarchy (as remembered in The Life o f the Kings), there is no reason to believe that the
k'oronikon was based upon this event This circumstance is purely coincidental.
There can be no question that the k'oronikon was devised in the Bagratid period, almost certainly
in the ninth/tenth century. This connection with the Bagratids was further exaggerated by T'aqaishvili
who suggested that the k'oronikon was calculated from the year that the K 'art'velian Bagratids came to
power. But T aqaishvilis arguments proceeded from the premise that the Georgian Creation date was
calculated from the k 'o r o n ik o n That is to say, T aqalshvili postulated that the k'oronikon was devised
first, and then the Georgian Creation date evolved from it.
P. Ingoroqva, "Dzveli k'art'uli matiane 'mok'ceva k 'art'lisa' da antikuri xanis iberiis mepet'a sia,"
SM M 11 (1941), p. 313. This argument was recently repeated by O. Lortk'ip'anidze, K'art'uli

c'ivilizac'ia: saidan icqeba misi istoria? = Georgian Civilization: Whence Does its History Start?, p. 24.
Similarly, D. Ch'uMnashvili attempted to link the k'oronikon to the year 284 BC at which time, he
thought (erroneously), the Pontic king Mithridates III had established a specifically Pontic era. For a
summation of this argument, T aqalshvili, "Georgian Chronology and the Beginnings o f Bagratid Rule in
Georgia," pp. 11-12.
70 Toumanoff, "Chronology o f the Early Kings of Iberia," pp. 8-9.
7 *Taqalshvili, "Georgian Chronology and the Beginnings o f Bagratid Rule in Georgia," pp. 10-11.
503
The crux of T aqalshvili's hypothesis is that the end o f the twelfth/beginning of the thirteenth
cycle (indik'tion) corresponds precisely with the ascendancy o f the Bagratids in K a r f li. and that this
moment is enshrined in the invention o f a specifically K 'art'velian calendrical system. T aqalshvili thus
made 780 the pivotal year and suggested that this was the date that Ashot I "the G reat" the first great
K 'art'velian Bagratid, had come to power. However, Toumanoff has demonstrated that Ashot actually
ruled from 813 to 830, thus rendering T aqalshvilis argument untenable.7 7 Toumanoff cited Grumels
earlier work which had proven convincingly that the K 'art'velians were then employing the short-lived
"Roman era."7^ This system had been devised in the fourth century AD and had been based upon the two
thousandth anniversary o f the founding o f Rome (i.e., 248/249 AD). And this date, in fact, falls at the end
o f the eleventh and the beginning of the twelfth cycles o f the Georgian calendar. From this date the
K 'art'velians were able to compute, proleptically, the Creation o f the world as 5604. This explains not
only the K'art'velians distinctive reckoning o f the Creation, but also the basis o f the k'oronikon.
Although the k'oronikon itself was devised in the K 'art'velian Bagratid period, we cannot accept
T aqalshvili's theory that the k'oronikon commemorates, through its structure, the ascendancy o f the
Bagratids. Nor can we accept the argument o f Ingoioqva that the k'oronikon was based upon the assumed
date of the very establishment o f the K 'art'velian (pre-Bagratid, pre-Christian) monarchy. Although it is
tempting to link such a great innovation with the K 'art'velian kings, in the case o f the Georgian
calendrical system it is clear that it was a borrowing from Rom e/Byzantium .^ And it should be said that
it was just as the Bagratids were coming to power that the system and names o f the Roman months were
adopted in K 'art'li.7^
^Toumanoff, "Chronology o f the Kings o f Abasgia and O ther Problems," LeM 49/1-2 (1956), part 2.
"Date o f the Death of the Curopalates Ashot the Great o f Iberia," pp. 83-85: and idem.. Studies. pp. 353354. footnote 54.
7 -*Grumel, La
Chronologie, ch. 11, "Lere des Remains, le Kronikoni, et 1ere mondiale des Georgiens,"
pp. 146-153; and Toumanoff Studies, pp. 353-354, footnote 54.
Â rm en ian sources and inscriptions from the eleventh century often refer to the k'oronikon as "Roman"
Csmnifng). See: N.Ia. Marr, "Ark'aun, mongolskoe nazvanie khristian, v sviazi s voprosom ov armianakhkhalkcdonitakh," W 12 (1906), pp. 40-41; and esp. P.M. Muradian, "Khronologiia sistem letoschislenii
po armianskim istochnikam: gruzinskii khronikon," Kavkaz i Vizantiia 6 (1988), pp. 61-71.
7S
T aqalshvili. "Georgian Chronology and the Beginnings o f Bagratid Rule in Georgia," pp. 14-16 (with
chart, p. 15). See also Ingoroqva, "Dzvel-k'art'uli carm art'uli kalendari me-5-8 saukunis dzeglebshi,"
SMM 5 (1928/1930), pp. 419-430; K P . Patkanov, "Neskolko slov o nazvaniiakh drevnikh armianskikh
mesiatsev," TVOIRAO 16 (1872), pp. 295-339; and J. Gippert, "Old Armenian and Caucasian Calendar
Systems (part 2),ASSC 1 (1989), pp. 3-12.
504
The interest and introduction o f a Georgian calendar based upon Roman/Byzantine models is
itself a manifestation o f the more intim ate contacts developed between the K 'art'velians and the
Byzantines (and all o f Christendom) under the Bagratids. In short, we cannot link the k'oronikon with
the pre-Bagratid K 'art'velian kings.
c. Influx o f Greek Vocabulary
The reorientation o f the ruling strata o f K'art'velian society more fully towards Byzantium is also
testified by the introduction o f various Greek/Byzantine phrases into Georgian beginning in the ninth
century. To be sure, Greek never infiltrated Georgian as Russian was to later, especially from the
nineteenth century. Nevertheless, in the earliest extant Bagratid-era historical literature, composed in the
eleventh century, we may detect several Greek terms which were not current in Georgian in the preBagratid period It should be said that in the pre-Bagratid period Greek loan words were generally limited
to the ecclesiastical sphere (a notable exception is wrorra/IETOPIA), for a great m any ecclesiastical terms
in Georgian are based upon Greek (e.g., bishop, kat'alikos, church, o il etc.). But the Bagratid period
(especially in the time o f T amar), a number Greek terms, many o f which are non-ecclesiastical. were
introduced into Georgian historical writing, including:^
Georgian
Greek
English
Edido. citato
andrianti
antakra
O ANAPIAE
ANTIKPY
statue
opposite
astrolabi,
istrulabi
azma
barbarozi
O AETPOAABOE
astrolabe
Hist, andEul.. p. 21 yj
Hist, and Eul., p. 12 j: Chron.
Hund. Years, p. 2 0 4 3 2 /3 1 1jg
Hist, and Eul.. p. 113 jy
TOAEM A
0 BAPBAPOE
eulogy, song
barbarian
bomoni
daso
0 BGMOE
TO AAEY
altar
beard
ek'soria
H ESOPIA
exile
iro
OHPOE
hero
Hist, and Eul.. p. I 3

Hist, and Eul., p. 48 jq;
Chron. Hund. Years, pp.
9227/
2092 1 a n d 9 3 30/2114
Hist, and Eul., p. 41 ^ j
Hist, and Eul.. pp. 644;
Life o f Tamar, pp. 131 and
1442 i
Hist, and Eul., p. 18j j; Life o f
Tamar, p. 131
Chron.
Hund Years, p. 8 3 2 4 / 2 0 0 g
Hist, and Eul., p. 259
^Particularly useful in compiling this list were: Lampe, Patristic Greek Lexicon; an d Sophocles, Greek
Lexicon o f the Roman and Byzantine Periods-, and Liddell and Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon.
505
katapelti
OKATAIIEATHE
kutali
HKOTYAH
lankani
mandili cmida
HAEKANH
TO MANAYAION
ATION
marmenio
ok'ro-bechedi
ritori
sk'ema
smaragdo
sumperazma
t'emi
rack, torture
instrument
cup, hollow
object
dish, pan, basin
holy mantle
H EIMAPMENH
fate
TO XPYEOBOYAAON golden bull, i.e.,
royal decree with
a golden seal
PHTQP
rhetor
TOEXHM A
figure,
appearance
0 EMAPATAOE
emerald, green
stone
TO EYMHEPAEMA
completion,
accomplishment
0EM ATA
theme, a Byz.
adm. unit
Hist, and Eul.. p. 70^

Life o f Tamar, p. 1 2 8 ^
Life o f Tamar, p. I39jg
Chron. K'art'li. p. 2 8 7 ^ ;
and Sumbat Davit' is-dze. p.
567/38418
Hist, and Eul.. p. 25 j
Chron. K'art'li, p. 294 j j
Hist, and Eul., p. 95g

Hist. Five Reigns, p. 366 jq
Hist, and Eul., p. 2 I 7
Hist, and Eul., p. 9g
Life o f Tamar, p.
1 23 2 4
d. New Designation Sak'art'velo
When the K 'art'velian Bagratids initially ascended to power, they did not suddenly introduce an
entirely new form o f administration with its own calendrical system, language, and vocabulary. Rather,
they concentrated their efforts first upon gathering lands and developing their base o f legitimacy. But
once the Bagratids had asserted themselves over much o f central Caucasia in the eleventh century, a
situation confronted them which was unprecedented: a unified Georgian kingdom (for the events
surrounding this event, see infra).
In the earliest Bagratid-era writings, the core o f the kingdom is invariably referred to as
"K 'art'li." This is the designation that had been current from the advent o f Georgian historical writing,
and long before. As we have already seen, the pre-Bagratid historical tradition o f The Life o f the Kings
derives the term "K 'art'li" from the alleged primogenitor o f the K'art'velians. K 'art' los. However, this
was a considerably later attempt to explain the provenance o f the K 'art'velian community, and we have no
evidence predating the late eighth/early ninth century to suggest the currency (and accuracy) o f the legend
of K 'art'los.
A t the very moment that the K 'art'velian branch o f the Bagratids was established in the late
eighth century, a consciousness emerged among K 'art'velian historians regarding the potential for the
unification o f the eastern and western regions o f "Georgia," presumably on the basis o f common religion
506
77
and an affinity o f language.'
The earliest reference to all-Georgia, o r "Sakartvelo" ( l w ^ 6 33 C5 <t),
occurs in the untitled text o f Ps.-Juansher (first-decade o f the ninth century).7* It is possible that this
reference to Sak'art'velo is a later interpolation, and we should recall that the MS tradition o f K'art'lis
c'xovreba is relatively late. However, all extant Georgian MSS have the term Sak'art'velo in this
instance. Moreover, it occurs only once in Ps.-Juansher and thus it seems to be a nascent rather vague
concept. In Ps.-Juansher Sak'art'velo certainly refers to some sense o f an all-Georgian kingdom, an entity
greater than K 'art'li proper, and it is specifically applied to the "frontier between Byzantium and Georgia
[Sak'art'velo]* The development o f a consciousness among K 'art'velians concerning an all-Georgian

kingdom, and an all-Georgian community, was made and remade over several centuries, and it is not
surprising to find historians o f the seventh and eighth centuries grappling with the description of this
embryonic conception. Furthermore, we should recall that The Life o f the Kings and The Life ofVaxtang
both exude nascent and vague ideas about "Georgian" unity, and both o f these sources were written
precisely ca. 800. There are no grounds to regard the appearance o f the designation Sak'artvelo in Ps.Juansher as a later insertion, and this interpolation most probably constitutes the earliest extant usage o f
this term . 79
The K 'art'velian Bagratids did not immediately seize upon the designation Sak'art'velo even
though, from their inception, they seem to have harbored the goal o f an all-Georgian kingdom.
Progressing rapidly but deliberately, the K 'art'velian Bagratids first set their sights upon gathering
K'art'velian lands and developing their own mythology o f legitimacy. Only later did they realize and
manipulate the power o f the pen, and, with the development o f Bagratid-era historical writing, so too did
the designation Sak' art'velo enter general usage. The prevalent opinion among modem specialists is that
the term Sak'art'velo was introduced by the K'art'velian Bagratids ca. 1008. when Bagrat III (978-1014)
first unified Ap'xazet'i, K 'a rt'li, and Tao/Tayk'. But we have already noted one pre-Bagratid usage of
Sak'artvelo occurring in Ps.-Juansher. Moreover, the two earliest Bagratid historical works, that of
Sumbat Davit'is-dze and the anonymous Chronicle o f K'art'li. do not record a single instance of the term!
For the Surami/Lixi mountains as a barrier between eastern and western "Georgia," see Braund.
Georgia in Antiquity, pp. 40-47. In antiquity, Strabo (XI.2.17) reports that four days were required to
cross the mountains. We have already seen that in the sixth century the Persians constructed a road
through the mountains.
7 0
'Ps.-Juansher, p. 2355. There are two other occurrences o f Sak'art'velo in Ps.-Juansher, p. 2324+10. but
these are found within a later insertion concerning the Sixth Ecumenical Council (originally written down
by Eprem Me'ire).
79
The designation Sak'art'velo does occur once in the Mcxet'ian recension: The Life o f the Kings, p.
apparatus criticus-, but this is clearly a later interpolation, for it is found only within the MSS o f the
M c'xet'ian recension. Some later Vaxtangiseuli MSS insert the word in this text; e.g., the
Rnmianc'eviseuli (R) variant, Kek.Inst.MS # H-2080, t 3v, line 3.
6 6 7,
507
Neither one o f these sources makes an explicit statement that B agrat III was the first king of Sak 'art 'velo.
We can be certain that the designation Sak'art'velo gained general currency under the K 'art'velian
Bagratids, but the term was not created by them, nor was it re-introduced in the two earliest extant
Bagratid-era historical works.
This is not the place to trace the development o f the designation Sak'art'velo .8 0 But we may
observe that even in the twelfth-century Life ofD avit', whose subject was one of the greatest monarchs o f
the medieval K 'art'velian kingdom, the term Sak'art'velo is found only twice.8 ^ Thus even in the twelfth
century, although the Bagratids had by then succeeded in constructing a pan-Caucasian empire (including
much o f Greater Armenia and Rani/Azerbaijan), this fact was not emphasized in Georgian historical
literature by use o f the term Sak'art'velo.
III. THE K'ART'VELIANBAGRA TIDS COME TO POWER

The Historical Provenance o f the K'art'velian Bagratids
A kaleidoscopic controversy has enveloped modern study o f the origin o f the K 'art'velian
Bagratids,8 2 and o f the Bagratid family as a whole. It is ironic that the most venomous debate, which has
On this question, see Musxelishvili, "K'artvelt'a t vitsaxelcodebis istoriisat'vis," in Paichadze, ed.,
Sak'art'velosa da k'art'velebis aghmnishvneli uc'xouri da k'art'uli terminologia, with Eng. sum.,

"Towards the History o f the Self-Designation o f the Georgians," p. 377. This tome, edited by Paichadze,
contains several excellent contributions by leading Georgian specialists on the designations for
Georgia/K'art'li and the Georgians/K'art'velians from ancient to m odem times.
8 *27ie Life
o f Davit', pp. I5 9 g an d 1838. 9 = Qauxch'ishvilied-, pp. 3 I9 15 and3367. The designation

Sak'art'velo also occurs only twice in the mid eleventh-century Life o f Iovane andEp't 'wme of Giorgi
Mt'acmideli, p. 9 5 5 ^ . We should again emphasize that the term K 'a rt'li is preferred throughout both o f
these works.
82In this study, the phrase "K 'art'velian Bagratids is employed in the general sense o f those Bagratids
who removed themselves to areas dominated by K 'art'velian society and language, rapidly acculturating
themselves to the K 'art'velian environm ent Thus the phrase "Armenian Bagratids" refers to those
Bagratids who could be identified as Armenians in terms o f language, religion, and the like. These terms
do not necessarily indicate origin but rather/also affiliation, acculturation, and/or assimilation. Moreover,
the designation "K 'art'velian Bagratids" as found in this study is misleading since that stirps, by the
generation after Ashot I, had been divided into three sub-branches: the lines ofTao/Tayk, Klarjet'i, and
K 'a rt'li (Iberia) proper. From this line o f K 'art'li the kings of all-Georgia, beginning with Bagrat m ,
emerged. We are deeply indebted to the genealogical labors o f Toumanoff; see esp. his Studies-, "The
Bagratids o f Iberia from the Eighth to the Eleventh Century," LeM 74 (1961), pp. 5-42 and 233-316; and
Manuel de ginealogie et de chronologie pour I'histoire de la Caucasie chretienne, revised as Les
dynasties de la Caucasie chritienne (all o f which supercede the earlier, problematic work o f J. Marquart,
"Der Ursprung der iberischen Bagradden," in his Osteuropdische und Ostasiatische StreiJzBge [1961;
repr. of 1903], pp. 391-465). Cf. M. Surguladze with M. K 'avt'aria, Bagrationt'a samep 'o saxli.
508
been waged in the arena o f nationalism, surfaced only under the Soviet regime, which itself unsuccessfully
endeavored to dismantle, or at least confine, the boundaries of nationality. Generally speaking, the
Armenians are content to describe the Bagratids as an Armenian family which developed a
K'art'velian/Georgian branch. But the Armenians often downplay the achievements o f the K 'art'velian
Bagratids, and especially their outright rule over m uch o f Greater Armenia by the late eleventh/early
twelfth century.83 The Armenians stand on firm er ground than the Georgians, for the family was
unquestionably tied to the Armenian m onarchy already in the fourth century', at least three centuries
before a sustained branch o f the Bagratids was known in K 'art'li. Throughout this study I have given
preference to the attributive Armenian in those cases in which I refer to the early Bagratids o r to the main
branch o f the family (i.e., excluding the K 'art'velian Bagratids). By this I mean that relatively large
numbers o f them were Armenian in their political loyalties and in a broad cultural and linguistic sense.
Admittedly, this categorization is largely artificial. In the cosmopolitan milieu o f Caucasia, the Bagratid
clan as a whole is best termed as Pan-Caucasian and even Perso-Caucasian even though, at least until the
eighth century, the dominant influence upon them was from Armenia.
Modem Georgian scholars usually have taken great offense at the suggestion that the dynasty
which ruled K 'art'li, and then a unified Georgia, in excess o f a millennium could be of Armenian
extraction. This is graphically illustrated by the nationalistic manifesto o f K. Salia:
After full and objective examination o f all the documents, old and new, it appears that
the Bagratid house is o f pure Georgian stock (Chan or Laz), with origins in the most
ancient Georgian province. Speri (now Ispir); the Bagratids principal dominions were
the provinces o f Samtzkhe [i.e., Samc'xe], Klarjet[']i. and Javakheti [i.e.. Javaxet'i].
until they became eristav[ijs and later kings ofKartli [i.e.. K 'art'li| (Iberia).8*
As is the case in the recent study by K.N. Iuzbashian, Armianskie gosudarstva epokhi Bagratidov i
Vizantiia IX-XI w esp. "Vladeniia gruzinskikh Bagratidov'," pp. 130-149. Iuzbashian emphasizes the
Byzantine connection o f the K 'art'velian Bagratids and makes little note o f their achievements (esp. those
of the eleventh century).
**K. Salia, History o f the Georgian Nation, p. 128. Salia, and many modem Georgian specialists, have
essentially accepted at face value the alleged K 'art'velian origin for the Bagratids as articulated in the
ideological tract o f the eleventh-century Davit'is-dze. a supporter (and perhaps member) o f the
K 'art'velian Bagratids. See also the lengthy, and sometimes patriotic, study o f the early Bagratid period
in K 'art' li by Ingoroqva, Giorgi merch 'ule. It should be said that some prominent Armenian families
seem to have had a "Georgian" provenance, e.g., the Mamikoneans: see Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 210-212,
footnote 238.
509
As we shall see, Salia's argument is presumptive, misleading, and invalid, and it constitutes a nauseating
invective against the Armenian position. But how then are we to explain the origin o f the Bagratids and
their K'art'velian/Georgian branch?
A serious study o f the genesis o f the Bagratid clan would require an entire monograph, but we
are fortunate that this question has been tackled by two outstanding scholars. N. Adontz (Adonc') and
Toumanoff, whose groundbreaking research, for the most part, has not been superseded Both Adontz and
Toumanoff suggested a local, Perso-Armenian, origin for the Bagratids .8 5 The literary basis for this
supposition is the evidence o f The Primary History o f Armenia which clearly describes the Bagratids as
clan o f Caucasian extraction and ultimately descended from Hayk, the eponym o f the Armenians.8* It is
uncertain when The Primary History o f Armenia was written down,8^ but it probably predates by a at
least a hundred years the early eighth-century Movses Xorenac'i, who enunciates the notion that the
Bagratids' roots are not Armenian or Caucasian but Jewish. At this point, however, we should merely
note that the alleged Jewish origin o f the Bagratids is first advanced by Xorenac'i, and no earlier source is
acquainted with this claim. It is o f interest that in the twelfth-century the Armenian historian Matthew of
Edessa reveals t h a t "... the Bagratids, the Pahlavids, and all o f the other [Armenian] noble families [were]
from the race o f Hayk..." 8 8 This account is probably based upon the tradition o f The Primary History o f
Armenia. It should be said that Matthew o f Edessa had much to say about K 'art'velian Bagratid rulers.
8 Adontz/Garsoian, Armenia in the Period o f Justinian, p. 319; and Toumanoff. Studies, pp. 201-202 and
306-336. Toumanoff demonstrated that the Bagratids were, in fact, descended from the local Orontid (the
"First Armenian") dynasty.
Od
Prim. Hist. Armenia, p. 362:"... [The Armenians] revolted from servitude to the kings of Assyria. And
there ruled over them Zareh, a son o f [one of] Aramaneaks sons... then Annog: then Sarhang; then
Shavash: then P'arnavaz. This last begat Bagam and Bagarat. and Bagarat begat Biwrat, and Biwrat
begat Aspat. And the sons o f Bagarat succeeded to their inheritance in the regions of the west, that is,
Angegh-tun, because Bagarat was also called Angegh, whom at that tim e the nation o f the barbarians
called g o d" To suggest a link between this P'arnavaz and the semi-legendary first K'art'velian king by
the same name, and then to connect the P'arnavaziani clan with th e later Bagratids, would be unfounded
The P'arnavaz o f Prim. Hist. Armenia is identified neither as a K 'art'velian ruler nor as a P'arnavaziani;
the occurrence o f the name P'arnavaz does not necessarily deny a connection with the P'arnavaziani
dynasty (on this issue, see Toumanoff "Problems o f Aranshahfidd Genealogy'," LeM 98/3-4 [1985], p.
282. footnote 4). Toum anoff Studies, pp. 315-318, posits that this passage is potential evidence for a
short-lived Bagratid branch having established itself in K 'art'li as early as the second century', but this is
not a certainty. See also Hewsen, "The Primary History o f Armenia: An Examination of the Validity o f an
Immemorially Transmitted Historical Tradition," History in Africa 2 (1975), pp. 91-100.
8^Toum anoff "The Early Bagratids: Remarks in Connexion with Some Recent Publications." LeM 61/1-2
(1948), p. 22, footnote 2, suggests a date for Prim. Hist. Armenia as early as the end o f the fourth
century/beginning o f the fifth century.
88Matthew o f Edessa, 1.10, p. 23.
510
and his pronouncement m ight be understood as an attempt expose the Armenian roots o f the Bagratids in
K 'art'li.
The earliest Arm enian historical works, written from the fifth century, are already familiar with
the Bagratid clan. The Bagratids are attested in the fifth-century Epic Histories (formerly attributed to
P'awstos Buzandac'i), and although they reportedly held high office (coronant [t'agakap] and Master of
the Horse [aspet]) in the fourth century, the anonymous author does not comment on their origin .**9 The
earliest named Bagratid is a certain Smbat (the Armenian form o f the Georgian Sumbat). a late thirdcentury AD figure who held both o f the aforementioned positions.9 But Adontz hypothesized that the
Bagratids were o f Perso-Armenian extraction on account o f the aforementioned passage from The Primary
History o f Armenia as well as that familys possession of the important office as aspet. Early Bagratid
nomenclature confirms the theory, for the names Bagarat/Bagrat, Smbat/Sumbat, and the like are derived
from Persian and not Hebrew (which would not support Xorenac'i's later claim o f Jewish origins for the
family).9 * Finally, both Adontz and Toumanoff demonstrated that the Bagratids' homeland was in Speri,
on the marchlands o f Arm enia and K 'art' Ii. 9 2 Although a prominent family already by the fourth
century, the Bagratids ascended to royal power gradually, and their eventual transformation into a royal
family was by no means certain (though they would later depict it precisely in this manner). In any event,
the Bagratids thrust themselves to the foreground o f Armenian and K 'art'velian politics only during the
seventh and eighth centuries, at which time all o f Caucasia was under Arab rule.
When may we speak o f the K'art'velian Bagratids? Toumanoff conjectured that as early as the
second century AD some Bagratids (known in Georgian sources as the Bivritiani-s) established themselves
in K 'art'li, and up through the fifth century they seem to have possessed the erist ov-ate of O dzrq'e .92
on
The Epic Histories, IV.iv, p. 111: "the great prince Bagarat." See also Garsoian in ibid.,
prosopography. s.v. "Bagrat Bagratuni" and "Bagratuni," pp. 362-363. Agat'angeghos, paras. 795 and
873, pp. 334-335 and 406-407, seems to be referring to the Bagratids when he mentions, anonymously,
princes who are both coronants and Master o f the Horse.
90 Toumanoff, "The Early Bagratids: Remarks in Connexion With Some Recent Publications." pp. 21-54.
9 *Adontz/Garsolan, Armenia
in the Period o f Justinian, p. 319. On K ' art'velian Bagratid nomenclature,
see infra.
92 Ibid., pp. 241-242 and 313; and Toumanoff, "The Early Bagratids: Remarks in Connexion with Some
Recent Publications," pp. 21-25; idem.. Studies, pp. 202ff. Speri (b3a6o) is also known by the
designations Syspiritis, EYEHIPITIE, EOYLHEPTTE, YEIHPITIE, Armenian Uufbp(ujgtO, and the later
Ottoman Ispir (see ibid., index, p. 590). On the identification o f the "Aryan-K'art' li" of Prim. Hist.
K'art'li with Speri, see ch. 3.
92 Toumanoff, Studies, p. 202. He has demonstrated, ibid., pp. 316-317, 344 (footnote 16), etsqq., that
the name "Bivritiani" was occasionally used in pre-Bagratid histories to refer to some Bagratids.
However, these histories do not explicitly identify the Bivritiani-s as Bagratids. See also supra, footnote
85.
511
Although we may not treat this view as certain, nevertheless it is probably accurate insofar as it represents
an early Bagratid settlement in K 'art'li. However, we may point only to circumstantial evidence on this
matter. Since the Bagratids' possessions were concentrated along the Armeno-K-art" velian frontier, it
might logically be concluded that some Bagratids would have established themselves in the southern
confines o f K 'a rt'li (Odzrq'e is located precisely in this area). Should this have been the case, these
Bagratids do not seem to have survived in K 'a rt'li beyond the fifth century.
It was only in the context of the Arab domination o f Caucasia that a K'art'velian branch o f the
Bagratids was permanently established. Following the unsuccessful insurrection against Arab authority in
the Armenian region o f Bagrewand in 771-772, the chief representative o f the Bagratid house, Smbat VII.
was killed and some o f the Bagratids' domains were seized. The powerful Armenian noble house o f the
Mamikoneans, often the rivals of the Bagratids, likewise met the wrath o f the Arabs. In 772. or slightly
thereafter, certain Bagratids relocated in K 'a rt'li and it is to this period that we may trace the origin o f a
sustained Bagratid presence in K 'a rt'li.^
A permanent branch of the Bagratids was established in K 'a rt'li already in the last-quarter of the
eighth century. But how, and when, did these Bagratids acculturate themselves to K 'art'velian society
(and become K'art'velian Bagratids instead o f merely Bagratids in K'art'li)? Sadly, this question must
remain, for the most part, unanswered. It should be recalled, however, that the center o f the Bagratids'
domains was in Speri, which was located on the frontier between Armenia and K'art'li. All o f medieval
Caucasia was characterized by its plurality o f cultures, social structures, and even religions, but the
Armeno-K'art'velian frontier was especially heterogeneous, for sizable K'art'velian and Armenian
communities populated the area. At the time o f the ecclesiastical schism o f 607/608, we know that many
o f the churches in this frontier zone were bilingual, having services both in Armenian and Georgian . 95
We cannot state precisely the situation after the schism, but some degree o f bilingualism and biculturalism
surely remained, and thus the Bagratids of this region were never completely estranged from K 'art'velian
society. The Armenian Chalcedonians probably played an important role. But it must be admitted that
we do not know for certain the religious affiliation o f the earliest K 'art'velian Bagratids (i.e., to Armenian
or Chalcedonian/K'art'velian Christology).
94Ibid., pp.
202 #
9 5 Uxtanes. n.14, p. 58.11.18-19, pp. 62-66. and n.44-45. pp. 91-92. The K'art'velian kat'alikos Kwrion,
who removed his Church from the Armenian fold, him selfknew both Armenian and Georgian (ibid., II. 1 ,
pp. 41 and 43). The region in question here is that o f the bishopric o f C'urtavi which is the setting for
Mart. Shush. This vita itself testifies to the heterogeneous nature o f this region, for Shushaniki was an
Armenian and her husband, Varsk'en, was K 'art'velian.
512
O ur knowledge about the Bagratids in K 'art'li becomes considerably clearer with the reign o f
Ashot I "the Great (813-830). In his time the local Bagratids spoke Georgian and had become members
of the K 'art'velian Church.^* Thus, by the time o f Ashot L within the span o f a generation after their
removal to K 'artli. the Bagratids began to be counted (or. counted themselves) as members o f the
K 'art'velian community. One o f the earliest extant Bagratid-era works o f original Georgian literature, the
hagiographical Works o f GrigolXandzt'eli, was written in 951. It recalls that the K 'art'velian Bagratids
were just that, K'art'velians. a t least in terms of language and religion. Giorgi Merch'ule. the author of
that text, considered these two elements to be the pillars o f contemporary K 'art'velian self-identity. In
fact, M erch'ule expressly defines K 'a rt'li in linguistic and religious terms:
... K 'a rt'li is to be considered as the land in which all the liturgy and prayers are
performed in the Georgian tongue. However, the kyrie eleison is said in Greek, which
in Georgian [means] "Lord have mercy" or "Lord forgive u s ." ^
Throughout his work, M erch'ule emphasizes that the K 'art'velian Bagratids were K'art'velians, and that
by his time they were both members and the rulers o f that community. T hat the K 'art'velian Bagratids
rapidly established themselves as the actual and legitimate rulers o f the K 'art'velian Bagratids is stated
with the utmost clarity:
And at that time those lands were ruled by the great. God-serving sovereign o f the
B agratuniani-s.^ Ashot kuropalates?^ [who was] very pious [and who] solidified his
and his children's rule [i.e.. the Bagratids'] over the K 'art'velians for eternity . 100
^R unicm an, The Emperor Romanus Lecapenus and His Reign, p. 167. footnote 3: "I am inclined to
question the o rth o d o x o f the Karthli [i.e.. K'art'velian] branch: it was so intimately bound up with
Armenia..." With the ephemeral victory in the tenth century of the kings o f Apxazet'i over the
K'art'velian Bagratids, Runciman suggests that "It is possible that the conquest of Karthli by the
Abasgian King was aided, or even perhaps originated, by some lapse from orthodoxy on the part o f the
Bagratids, which was resented by their subjects." These statements, even today, remain speculative at
best. Moreover, Runciman seems to have overlooked the community o f Chalcedonian Armenians.
97
Giorgi Merch'ule, Works o f Grigol Xandzt'eli, cap. 43, pp. 49-50: "...
g fio ifo o
6ei3325b4Q4 8 0 6 4 ,3 4 6 0 )9 2 5 0 0 )4 360034 3 4 8 0 8 3 0 ^ 4 6 3 0 6 C04 c?piq 3 4 Q
act33E?o AQQijfitfjCM&ob. bciExn jjfioocjoaljciB o &oftdgc 545 0 0 ) ^ 9 8 0 6 6 pi8325 4 6 b
j4(6a)gc5*E5 QgAffKt â 4 cpci 6 4 -y 43 3 0 6 4 cog 9 3 4 2 5 0 1 8 3 5 3 ^ ) 4 2 5 3 6 ." and ibid.. p. 123 (Rus.
trans.) = Lolashvili, ed., p. 182.
^ T h e form o f the dynastys name in this source is extremely close to the Armenian rendition Bagratuni.
^ A s h o t I kuropalates (813-830).
^ G i o r g i M erch'ule, Works o f Grigol Xandzt'eli, cap. 9, p. 138. Cf. the Eng. rendering of Lang in his
Lives and Legends o f the Georgian Saints, 2nd ed., p. 141.
However, it must also be said that Merch'ule, a pupil o f Grigol X andzt'eli, also comments upon the
proper relationship o f temporal rulers to monks. Grigol is m ade to say to Bagrat kuropalates-. "O
esteemed king, you are a sovereign o f the land/world, while Christ [rules] the sky/heaven and the
land/world and the nether world..." Grigol goes on to reason that Christ is an eternal king (saukuno
meup e) while Bagrat, and other worldly rulers, only govern temporarily in His name. Bagrat is made to
respond that "What you say is true, O holy man ..." 101 The implication, which resonates throughout this
text, is that monks, and specifically the monastic communities o f Tao/Tayk', Klaijet' i, and Shavshet' i
were under the direct jurisdiction o f God. As should be expected, this pronouncement is not repeated in
Bagratid histories (extant only from the eleventh century and later), and Bagratid distaste for such
declarations may have contributed to the text falling out o f circulation within the confines of
K'art'li/G eorgia (the surviving MS was found in Jerusalem). In any event, this alleged dialog probably
reflects the contemporary situation, for while the Bagratids were consolidating their power the monks of
the southwestern domains, led by Grigol Xandzt'eli, had already strongly established themselves as the
purveyors o f culture and religion in the area.
There can be no question that by the time o f Ashot I some the K 'art'velian Bagratids had
acculturated themselves to the K 'art'velian community, at least in terms o f language and creed. Yet, as
we shall see, the K 'art'velian Bagratids invented and propagated the claim that they were ultimately
descended not from any indigenous K'art'velian or even Arm enian ancestor, but rather, were the direct
biological descendants o f the O ld Testament King David. Thus the K 'art'velian Bagratids admitted that
they were outsiders, but they were esteemed outsiders who asserted a tendentious legitimacy that could not
be excelled in all o f Christendom. And this assertion, distinct but logically deduced - from the existing
greater Bagratid claim of their own Jewish provenance, is an indication o f the consolidation o f power on
the behalf o f the K 'art'velian Bagratids.
A word should be said about the K'art'velian Bagratids' relationship to the Guaramids. The
Guaramids rose to power during the abeyance of the K 'art'velian monarchy, at the time when the Arabs
had already' cast their suzerainty over Caucasia. ^
Acquiring the favor o f the Byzantine emperor (with
the exception o f Step'anoz I), the head of their house held the Byzantine dignity o f kuropalates and ruled
as the presiding prince from 684 to ca. 748. The brilliant genealogical work o f Toumanoff has
demonstrated that the early K 'art'velian Bagratids were in fact related to the Guaramids, for a daughter of
^ I b id ., Lolashvili ed., cap. 26, pp. 158-159.

l0 Ôn the Guaramids, see infra, this ch., part 1.
51 +
Guarani m (ca. 693-ca. 748) had married a certain Vasak Bagratuni, and it was through him that the
K 'art'velian Bagratids were descended . 103
Adamase I, the first major K 'art'velian Bagratid prince (who ruled over Erushet' i-Artani in the
late eighth century), was thus descended from the female line o f the Guaramids. 10-1 Medieval Georgian
sources, both of the pre-Bagratid and Bagratid eras, do not emphasize the K 'art'velian Bagratids' genetic
link through marriage to the Guaramids, and through them, to the earlier royal dynasty of the Chosroids
o f which Vaxtang and M ihran/M irian III are the best known, and remembered, representatives . 103 But
the eleventh-century B agratid historian Sumbat Davit'is-dze identifies the Guaramids not as any separate
dynasty, but rather as proto-Bagratids; he even states that Guarani I was "a descendant of David . " 106
This is likely a confused memory o f the Bagratids* link to the Guaramids. but it is significant that
Davit" is-dze does not explain the Bagratids 1basis o f legitimacy in terms o f any connection with a previous
royal K 'art'velian dynasty. It should be said that Davit' is-dze's identification o f the Guaramids as protoBagratids may be understood by the fact that the two families had established intim ate ties. For example,
marriages did join the two clans. Moreover, the early K 'art'velian Bagratids came to occupy many o f the
former lands of the Guaramids . 1 0 7 So it m ight appear to a later historian that the Guaramids and the
Bagratids were one and the same.
As we have seen, in the first decade o f the eighteenth century the King Vaxtang VI Commission,
charged with editing K'art'lis c'xovreba, effected several insertions regarding the Bagratids. Beginning
with the reign of Guarani I, the commission interpolated much o f Sumbat Davit' is-dze's history' into Ps.Juansher and The Chronicle o f K'art 'li. The commission was intoxicated by the ideological, and
103 Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 407-416. A recently discovered, unpublished Georgian MS from Mt. Sinai
(New SinM S # 50) includes a colophon which states that the K 'art'velian Bagratids were relatives of the
pre-Bagratid presiding princes. I am grateful to Professors J-P. Mahe and Z. Alek' sidze, who are
preparing an edition and translation o f this MS, for this important information.
10*On the establishment o f Adamase. Chron. K'art'li, p. 251, reads: "Still during the life o f fthe
mt'avari] Juansher, Adamase Bagratoni acquired a third o f Klaijet"i. Shavshet'i, Achara. Nigali,
Asisp'ori, Artani, and Lower Tao/Tayk' [k'uemosa taosa] and fortresses which the grandsons [i.e.,
"progeny"] o f King Vaxtang had possessed. A nd Adamase went to Klaijet'i and he passed away there."
105This is reminescent o f the near-contemporary Capetians of medieval "France" who could claim to be
the descendants o f the Carolingians but nevertheless downplayed this relationship to emphasize that they
represented a new dynasty. A nd the Capetians, like the Bagratids, believed themselves to rule w ith the
explicit sanction o f God. B ut whereas the Capetians were usurpers, the K 'art'velian Bagratid merely
attempted to fill the void o f royal power in K 'art' li. See A. Lewis, Royal Succession in Capetian France:
Studies on Familial Order and the State, esp. pp. 34-35.
106Sumbat Davit'is-dze, p. 41 = Qauxch'ishvili e d , p. 374.
107 Toumanoff, Studies,
pp. 192 et sqq.
515
confused, account o f Davit'is-dze and identified Guarani I as a proto-Bagratid. Thus, the following
insertion is made into MSS o f the Vaxtangiseuli recension:
But this Guaram had a Chosroid mother and a Bagratid hither. And the Bagratids are
the kinsmen and progeny o f this Guaram.
In Vaxtangiseuli MSS, an interpolated regnal heading also identified Guaram specifically as a

Bagratid. ^
So whereas Sumbat Davit'is-dze him self envisaged the Guaramids as proto-Bagratids, the
direct statement that the Guaramids were Bagratids was a later, but logical, interpolation.
T he historical origin o f the K 'art'velian Bagratids may thus be traced to Caucasia itself and the
Persian commonwealth. Although some Bagratids probably migrated to K 'art'li as early as the second
century, this settlement was temporary. Only with the transfer o f some Bagratids to K 'art'li following the
disastrous uprising o f 771/772 against the Arabs were the some o f them established in K 'a rt'li once and
for all. The K 'art'velian Bagratids were an offshoot the greater Bagratid family which could, on most
accounts, be characterized as Armenian. But some Bagratids, like those from whom the K 'art'velian
branch issued, resided in the Armeno-K' art' velian marchlands, and thus acculturation was presumably
not a tumultuous process. To return to Salia's pronouncement: it is impossible to characterize the
K 'art'velian Bagratids as being o f "pure Georgian stock." In any event, the notion o f "Georgia" did not
exist until well after the establishment o f Bagratid rule in K 'art'li. Though on some accounts they tried to
obscure the fact, the K 'art'velian Bagratids were the product o f the cosmopolitan milieu o f Caucasia, for
they were originally a Perso-Armenian family, bearing Persian names, Christian (and Chalcedonian/
K 'art'velian Christian soon after their settlement in K 'art'li) by faith, speakers of Georgian (and. at least
early on, Armenian), and recipients o f high Byzantine dignities (most notably, kuropalates) in the same
fashion as the K 'art'velian Guaramids before them.
Sumbat Davit'is-dze and the Origin o f the K'art'velian Bagratids
The eleventh-century The Life and Tale o f the K'art'velian Bagratids by Sumbat Davit'is-dze
comprises the earliest extant historical work produced during the hegemony o f the K 'art'velian
l 0 8 Ps.-Juansher, p. 2185^ : "boicjei al >0 aQ sfiid oycn 031500 ) bmbfimosBo g 6 848000

&4 &6 4 (J)ci4 6 o. 06 36 3 &4&6 6 (J)<n4 6 6 o 8 3 0 gob3 3 0 g6 o g 4 6 4 0 3 6 4 3 6 0 4 6 0 4 6 484 5 1 3 4 6 4 3 0 6 6 0 ."
O f the Vaxtangiseuli MSS, only one, the m variant, lades this notice as well as the insertions from
Davit'is-dze. The m MS is a relatively late document that is based largely upon the pre-Vaxtangiseuli
M c'xet'ian recension (which also includes MQ).
109Ibid., p. 2184 .
516
Bagratids. 110 Writing as early as 1030, Davit'is-dze's overriding concern was to sum up the history o f
the Kart'velian Bagratids from their provenance down to his own time. Unlike the eighth-century
Armenian historian Movses X orenac'i, Davit' is-dze exhibits no interest in delineating the evolution o f his
community. 11 * Instead, his gaze was set conscientiously upon the K 'art'velian Bagratid dynasty.
The title o f this text provides not only the name of its author (this is the earliest extant Georgian
history to directly state its authorship), but it also emphasizes that the Bagratids were originally not of
K'art'velian extraction:
QbOlfiflbAQ 06 3âa&6fl
j6(ho>3QC90)6 dag<)0>6lj6. CD3)
Ussjao) 8010^03636 484b

05060, 46j 6018323003 348003546 333603!
340) 8330164 ,3460)2301)6, 60183230 622^364 b)8&6(*) 83846 043003013046^
C'xorebay da ucqebay bagratoniant'a, ch'uen k'art'velt'amep'et'asa, t'u
sadat' moicivnes amas k'ueqanasa igini, am romelit'zhamit'gan upqries
mat'mep'oba k'art'lisa, romeli aghcerasumbat dzeman davit'isman
The Life and Tale o f the Bagratids, Our K'art'velian Kings, From Where They Came to
This Land, And Since That Time That They Have Held Royal Authority In K'art'li,
[All o f Which] Was Written By Sumbat, Son o f David.
In explicating the origin o f the K 'art'velian Bagratids, Davit'is-dze immediately begins with a
Biblical genealogy and in this regard his Life and Tale o f the K'art'velian Bagratids is reminescent o f the
pre-Bagratid Life o f the Kings. * *3 Although the two texts are similar insofar as they' both exploit the
This section is intended to introduce the evidence of Davit' is-dze's tract. The development of the
Jewish origin claim and subsequently that o f the Davidic claim is discussed in more detail in the following
section.
** ^Thomson in Movses Xorenaci, introduction, esp. "The Purpose o f Moses' History," pp. 56-61. Thus
Xorenac'i not only explained the rise o f the Bagratids (at times tendentiously). but he also summarized the
collective past o f the Armenians. There is no completely analogous historical work in Georgian, for The
Life o f the Kings sums up the K 'art'velian past and is unaware o f the Bagratids while Davit'is-dze's brief
tract is focused narrowly upon that dynasty. Xorenac' i's history actually accomplished what the preBagratid Life o f the Kings and the Bagratid history o f Davit' is-dze did for Kart' li/Georgia. Xorenac' i
both sums up the traditions o f Armenia's origin as well as exalts the Bagratuni-s (his sponsor is said to be
Sahak Bagratuni, allegedly the first patron o f an Armenian history; see Movses Xorenac'i, 1.3, pp. 69-70,
and note 5).
* ^S um bat Davit'is-dze, p. 37 = Qauxch'ishvili ed., p. 372j_^. This entire title is found only in the MSS
of the M c'xet'ian recension (MQm). In Q it appears in red ink at ( I lOv.
113On the function and nature o f Biblical genealogies, see ch. 3, footnote 1; on genealogies in the context
o f medieval history, see: D.N. Dumville, "Kingship, Genealogies and Regnal Lists," in Sawyer and Wood,
eds., Early Medieval Kingship, pp. 72-104; and R.H. Bloch, Etymologies and Genealogies: A Literary
Anthropology o f the French Middle Ages (1983). For the possible connection o f one element o f Davitis-
517
tabula populorum o f the Old Testament so as to explain K 'art'velian history, their objectives are
altogether different The author o f The Life o f the Kings calculated the origin o f the K'art'velian
community, and then, that o f the K 'art'velian monarchy. The significant point here is that the
provenance o f all K'art'velians. and not just the lineage o f the royal family, is described. Conversely.
Davit'is-dze completely ignored the origin of the K 'art'velian community: he relates only the genealogy,
from Adam, o f the K 'art'velian Bagratid family. In fact, this narrative o f the Bagratids' origin is the onlysuch account provided for a specific clan in K'art'lis c'xavreba (whose histories, we should recall, were
written in support o f the Crown, and now survive only in Bagratid-era MSS). The only possible
exception, the P'amavaziani-s, are linked together w ith the K 'art'velian community whereas the
Bagratids are depicted as having a distinct provenance. The effect cannot be ignored: the Bagratids. alone
o f all the noble houses in K'art'li/Georgia, are rendered with a detailed genealogy, extending in an
unbroken line to Old Testament times, and this further magnified the image that they enjoyed a unique
position far above all other Caucasians. This is especially evident by their claim to be the direct
descendants o f the King-Prophet David. ^
The admission that the K 'art'velian Bagratids originally were not K 'art'velian at all was entirely
necessary, for that family was established in K 'a rt'li only during the last-quarter o f the eighth century AD.
The placing o f their origin into a Biblical framework injected the sense that the family was o f great
antiquity-, and Davit' is-dze was forced to explain who the Bagratids were prior to their settlement in
K 'art'li. It does seem that the Bagratids, once established in K 'art'li, acculturated themselves with
considerable speed. Nevertheless, the memory that they had come from outside o f the K'art'velian
domains was remembered, and was actually embellished and glorified to augment their claim to authority.
At first glance we might take this admission o f foreign extraction to be another reflection of the
cosmopolitan character o f Caucasia, which is so prominently expressed in pre-Bagratid works like The
Life o f the Kings and C'xorebay vaxtang gorgaslisa. But the K 'art'velian Bagratids themselves had
something else in mind: they should be regarded as esteemed foreigners and they alone had been granted
divine sanction to rule. The earliest reference to the K 'art'velian Bagratids in Georgian historical
literature, which occurs in Ps.-Juansher (first decade o f the ninth century), already discloses the family's
dze's genealogy (i.e., Klopas) to Eusebius, see Guram Mamulia, "Sumbat davit'is-dzis ert'i cqaros
sakit'xisat'vis," in K'art'uli cqarot'mc'odneoba, vol. 3, pp. 115-116, with Rus. sum.. "K voprosu ob
odnom istochnike Sumbata, syna Davida," p. 116. There is no reason to believe that Davit' is-dze was
directly familiar with the works of Eusebius; furthermore, no medieval translation o f Eusebius Eccl. Hist.
o r Chron. is known to have existed.
*^^Bloch, Etymologies and Genealogies, pp. 69-70. Bloch quotes G. Duby, "Structures de parente et
noblesse dans la France du Nord aux Xle et Xlle siecles," in Hommes et structures du moyen age (1973),
p. 283: "To be noble is to be able to refer to a genealogy." In the case o f the Bagratids, they may be
regarded as having imposed a monopoly over genealogies recited in K 'C \
518
claim to be descended not from the Armenian core o f that clan, but rather, directly from the Old
Testament King-Prophet David. This made them monarchs par excellence, and no Earthly king could
possess more royal legitimacy than the Christian, but descended-from-David. Bagratids.
By the time o f Davit'is-dze. the Davidic claim o f the K 'art'velian Bagratids was already well
developed, so when that author sought to trace their pedigree he could not and did not desire to
associate them with the K ' art'velian pedigree o f Japheth and Togarmah (and then Hayk/K' art' los). for the
Jews did not have this descent Employing O ld Testament genealogies, the author descends the
K 'art'velian Bagratids directly through Shem, down through the renowned kings David and Solomon, and
through Joseph (the husband o f the V irgin Mary), the last of which rendered the Bagratids a special
connection with the advent o f Christianity. O f note here was the necessity to connect the Bagratids. who
were alleged to be the ancestors o f the ancient Jews, w ith Shem, who was understood by Biblical tradition
to be the ancestor of the Jews. From Shem, the Bagratids could therefore be made to be the relatives of
David and Solomon, those great Jewish kings o f Israel. This precluded making the Bagratids the
descendants o f Japheth and then Haos and K 'art'los, all o f who, according to Biblical and local traditions,
were the ancestors o f several communities o f the N ear E a s t including the Armenians and the
K'art'velians. The divergence o f the origin o f the Bagratids with that o f the K'art'velian community was
o f little consequence, for the Bagratids had only established themselves as rulers in the K 'art'velian
domains in the late eighth century. T he memory' of this transportation was thus remembered and, more
importantly, was thus advantageously manipulated.
The Biblically-inspired stemma o f Davit'is-dze essentially ends with a certain (different)
Solomon who, while he was in captivity, had seven sons from whom the Bagratids issued forth:
... And these seven brothers, the sons o f this Solomon, departed from the land of
Palestine as the Jews were coming out o f captivity, and they came to Eklec'i* ^ [and
appeared] before the queen/princess Rak'ael and they were enlightened [about
Christianity: perhaps "converted" or even "baptized"{!}]. And they remained in the
land o f Armenia and to this day their descendants rule as mt avari-s there in Armenia.
And four o f those brothers came to K 'art'li: but one of them, by the name of
Guaram, was selected as erist'avi, and the Bagratids o f K 'art'li \ese k'art'lisa
bagratonicm{n}i] are the descendants and the kinspeople of this Guaram. But his
brother, Sahak by name, departed for K axet'i and by marriage he became related to
Nerses. And the other two brothers, by the names o f Asam and Varazvard. departed for
Kambech'ani, and they murdered the spasalari1^ o f the Persians and they seized
* *%kleci is the Gk. AKIAIEHNH and the Latin Acilisena: it is the Classical Arm. Ekegheac' and
constituted the fourth district o f Upper Armenia, just to the south of Speri. Thus Davit' is-dze has
accurately, albeit perhaps unconsciously, associated the Bagratids with the area near Speri, their ancestral
homeland. See: Ananias Shirakec'i, V .l, pp. 59-59A; and Garsoian in The Epic Histories, toponymy, s.v.
"Ekegheac'," p. 461.
* ^ I .e general, military commander.
519
Kambech'ani. And they established their residence at Xornabuji. And until this day
their descendants rule there [as mt'avari-s].
But from the time that the kingship died with the descendants o f [Vaxtang]
Gorgasali, until [the arrival o f the Bagratids] the aznauri-s had ruled K 'art'li. But the
end o f the rule o f the aznauri-s in K 'art'li was brought about by their own evil affairs...
And the Persians ruled over K 'art'li, Kaxet'i, Heret'L Armenia. Siunik'. and
Vaspurakan.
... and all o f K 'a rt'li gathered together and selected Guaram. who was a
descendant o f David, [to rule over them]...
... and the king of the Greeks [read; Byzantine emperor] granted [Guaram] the
honor o f kuropalates and sent him to Me' xeta. 1 17
Toumanoff has already demonstrated that the events described in the initial portion o f Davit' isdze's history, and especially this account o f the origin o f the K 'art'velian Bagratids, are largely
ahistorical. In fact, he branded this section as "worthless for the history prior to Ashot the G reat " 1 18
But as Toumanoff him self was aware, the value for this preface is the image which this eleventh-century
historian wished to paint of the K 'art'velian Bagratids. 119 The importance o f the initial account of
Davit'is-dze, as o f Biblical genealogies, is not to present a historically accurate accounting of past
generations, but to demonstrate desired relationships and legitimacy rooted in antiquity. Prior to the reign
117Sumbat Davit'is-dze, pp. 40-7*4119 = Qauxch'ishvili ed., pp. 373 j -374 j j.

1 18 Toumanoff, "The Bagratids o f Iberia From the Eighth to the Eleventh Century," p. 9, footnote 3.
119 Toumanoff,
Studies, p. 423:
More than a mere genealogical treatise, [the early] part o f Sumbat's work
is an ideological declaration, which, in the course o f history, has influenced
the political Weltanschauung o f the Georgian Bagratids and even o f other
dynasties related to them. This Bagratid ideology is contained in their
claim to a Davidic descent a descent from King David the Prophet, the
ancestor o f Our Lord, the Archetype o f Kings, and him self a descendant
in an unbroken line, o f Adam - which made the House of Georgia the oldest
and the most natural royal dynasty in the world. Sumbat's production,
however, is not the starting point but a culmination and fullest
development o f the Davidic tradition.
Cf. Dumville, "Kingship, Genealogies and Regnal Lists," p. 83;

Genealogy... could have a propagandist function. Propaganda is no modem
invention. Encapsulated in verse..., in heroic tales, and in the less literary
genealogical records, royal o r dtynastic propaganda could be broadcast via
the learned classes whose responsibility it was to maintain laiowledge' of
this type. Genealogy allowed the ruling dynasties to present the past (and,
by implication, the future) in terms of their own history; such total exclusion
of other lines was a powerful propaganda weapon.
520
o f Ashot "the Great," Davit'is-dze's text indeed may be technically ahistorical, but the value of the
document is its expression o f eleventh-century K 'art'velian Bagratid ideology' and their deliberately
fashioned view o f the p a st In other words, we should treat Davit'is-dze's tract with some caution, for
although it represents the ideology o f the eleventh century, its relevance to the preceding period is far less
certain.
The quoted passage tells us much about how the K 'art'velian Bagratids envisaged their own past,
at least by the eleventh century. Clearly, they regarded themselves as being descended directly from King
David, and then from a certain Jew named Solomon whose seven sons had ventured to Caucasia.
Although Davit'is-dze does not acknowledge that the Bagratids had established themselves primarily in
Armenia, he does relate that the core o f the family had passed through there and that the branch that
remained there was collateral, for a majority o f the brothers (four o f seven) settled in K 'a rt'li ! 120
Curiously, the brothers were converted to Christianity only after their arrival in Caucasia by a certain
queen or princess named R ak'ael . 121 It should be noted that this is a very late tradition inspired by
contemporary K'art'velian/Georgian Bagratid ideology. This story is not confirmed in earlier Georgian or
Armenian texts.
D id Sumbat Davit' is-dze link any o f the former K' art'velian dynasties (e.g.. the P' amavaziani-s.
the Chosroids, the Guaramids) with the Bagratids? The simple answer to this query is no. Davit'is-dze
expresses little interest in the pre-Bagratid rulers o f K 'art'li (with the exception o f Vaxtang Gorgasali).
and he does not explicitly link the Bagratids with them. However, this statement should be qualified, for
Davit'is-dze confuses intentionally or not - the early Guaramids for proto-Bagratids. In doing so he
transforms the relationship o f the Guaramids with the Bagratids from the female line to the male line. *22
The K 'art'velian Bagratids are said to be descended from a certain Guaram, presumably Guaram I.
As the tendentious first K'art'velian Bagratid to occupy a rulership position, Guaram is said to
possess a quadripartite legitimacy, which, as it turns out, may be equated with the ideological bases of
K 'art'velian Bagratid authority. F irst he was a Christian. Second, he was made to be a descendant o f the
*20The fact that the Armenian Bagratids are portrayed as a collateral branch is emphasized by the term
mt'avroben which denotes that they ruled as mt'avari-s. Mt'avari-s were high nobles clearly subordinated
to the head o f the K 'art'velian Bagratids who possessed the titles of erist'avi and kuropalates. For the
deliberate representation o f a Georgian king as a subordinate prince in Armenian literature, see ch. 5 (i.e..
Mihran = ishxari).
\* )\
The Old Georgian term dedop 'ali designated either a princess or queen cohort Rak'ael is not
otherwise attested.
^ T o u m a n o ff, Studies, pp. 425-426. Here we are discussing only the provenance o f the K 'art'velian
branch o f the Bagratids. As a matter o f fa c t it was established only in the last quarter o f the eighth
century, according to Davit'is-dze, however, it could be traced directly to King David. The origin o f the
entire family, both Armenian and K'art'velian/Georgian, will be discussed in more detail infra.
521
O ld Testament David, the archetypical king whose direct descendants had received divine sanction to rule
askings. Third, he is said to have been selected by a gathering o f "all o f K' art' li." Thus, although an
outsider, he had local support and sanction. Finally, the Byzantine emperor himself is understood to have
conferred the weighty dignity o f kuropalates upon Guaram. In reality, however. Guaram was not a
Bagratid, although later a Guaramid princess was m arried to an early K 'art'velian Bagratid. Although it
might be argued that Davit'is-dze actually built the Bagratids' legitimacy upon a non-Bagratid. and by
consequence the Bagratids did tap into the pre-Bagratid notions and traditions o f rulership. we must recall
that the author, however incorrectly, depicted the Guaramids as proto-Bagratids. In any event. Davit' isdze himself is aware that Ashot I had been the first great K 'art'velian Bagratid, for his death is
emphasized with the first calendrical date (expressed in multiple forms) incorporated in this text
It is worth noting that Davit'is-dze conducts himself in much the same fashion as the author o f
The Ufe o f the Kings with regard to how dynasties are understood to have been formed. Both authors
project back the salient characteristics and bases o f legitimacy of dynasties to alleged founders. Therefore,
the anonymous author o f The Ufe o f the Kings makes P'arnavaz, the legendary founder o f the
P'amavaziani-s, the creator of administration, a w ritten script, and so forth, while Davit'is-dze regards
Guaram, the reputed (tendentious) founder of the K 'art'velian Bagratids, to have established firmly the
bases of Bagratid rule.
The historical tradition exposed tty Davit'is-dze does not necessarily preclude or contradict that
o f The Ufe o f the Kings, and it is precisely for this reason that both historical works continued to be
transmitted in the corpus o f K'art'lis c 'xovreba, even in the Bagratid era. But we should not overlook the
fact that these works represent, on some levels, two distinct historical traditions. On the one hand. The
Ufe o f the Kings strives to sum up the history o f both the K 'art'velian community and the pre-Bagratid
K 'art'velian monarchs up through Mihran/Mirian; it is continued down to Mihrdat IV (409-411) by an
anonymous author (in The Ufe o f the Successors ofMirian). These pre-Bagratid K 'art'velian kings were
either descended from, o r related by marriage to the descendants o f Togannah, son o f Japheth, son o f
Noah. The author o f The Ufe o f the Kings wrote ca. 800 during the abeyance o f the K' art'velian
monarchy, and his work was partly inspired by his yearning that the K 'art'velians should again be ruled
by their own kings. O n the other hand, Davit'is-dze wrote in the eleventh century at the time when the
K 'art'velian Bagratids bad established themselves as the ruling family o f the K'art'velians, and after the
triumphant restoration o f royal authority by that dynasty in 8 8 8 . Since the K 'art'velian branch of the
Bagratids was established only in the late eighth century, he could not plausibly describe them as having
been K'art'velians since antiquity. Moreover, the K 'art'velian Bagratids' Davidic claim demanded a
Jewish origin. Davit'is-dze saw no need to recapitulate the provenance o f the K 'art'velian community
since the K 'art'velian Bagratids themselves were not originally K 'art'velian, since the ethnogenesis o f the
K 'art'velians had already been consigned to parchment ca. 800. Thus he completely ignores the evolution
of the K'art'velians and instead focuses on the rise o f the K 'art'velian Bagratids.
522
We should emphasize that to Davit'is-dze, the K'art'velian Bagratids were the core o f the
Bagratid family, and the Bagratids in Armenia were only a junior branch. The early K 'art'velian
Bagratids possessed a marriage connection with the Guaramids and this was later confused so that the
Guaramids became Bagratids. Nevertheless, at least by the eleventh century (Davit' is-dze's flourit) the
K'art'velian Bagratids emphasized that they were not related to any earlier K 'art'velian dynasty, whether
the Guaramids (who were erroneously understood to be proto-Bagratids). or the Chosroids. or even the
P'amavaziani-s. Although it has now been established that the K 'art'velian Bagratids did effect marriage
ties with other Caucasian noble families, this is never emphasized in extant Bagratid historical works as
constituting a principal basis, o r even a meaningful enhancement, o f their authority to rule. The fact that
the Bagratids had only recently migrated to K 'a rt'li is reflected ideologically, for Bagratid historians did
not attempt to invent blood connections between the Bagratids and the previous K ' art'velian dynasties.
Since the K 'art'velian Bagratids claimed to be the direct descendants o f King David, ideologically
speaking it was unnecessary to biologically connect the new and old dynasties; furthermore, the Bagratids
wished to depict themselves as a break with the past, and an association with the previous rulers would
have undermined this agenda.
The Legendary Origin o f the Bagratids: The Development o f Jewish and Davidic Origins
The K 'art'velian Bagratids, at least by the eleventh century, represented themselves as a distinct
break from the pre-Bagratid K 'art'velian past as recollected in The Ufe o f the Kings and the corpus o f
C'xorebay vaxtang gorgaslisa. Although the K 'artvelian Bagratids came to consciously forget their links
to Armenia, from where they had migrated in the late eighth century, nevertheless they' tapped into the
ideology and bases o f legitimacy formulated by the greater Bagratuni clan so as to demonstrate their
unique fitness to govern. We have already seen that the K'art'velian Bagratids claimed to have been
descended directly from David. Now we shall turn our attention to the earlier assertion that the greater
Bagratuni family had originally been Jewish, and how Davidic origins could be logically deduced from it.
We must first consider Armenian sources composed before the establishment o f the Bagratids in
K 'art'li. As we have seen, the Bagratuni family was known by the earliest Armenian historians o f the
fifth century. Already in the fourth century AD we know that the Bagratuni-s served as coronants
(t agakap-s) and as the Masters o f the Cavalry (aspet-s) for the Armenian Arshakuniani-s (Arsacids). The
Primary History o f Armenia, w hich represents pre-eighth-century traditions, explicitly provides a local,
Caucasian provenance for the Bagratuni-s . 123 Indeed, this family does seem to have issued from the
^P rim . Hist. Armenia, p. 362.
523
confines o f Caucasia, an d in any case, from within the Persian commonwealth, for the names of the
earliest Bagratids were Persian . 124
The most celebrated source which provides information on the early Bagratids is that o f the
Armenian historian Movses Xorenac' i. Xorenac' i wrote on behalf o f the Bagratuni clan, his work having
been reportedly commissioned by a certain Sahak Bagratuni. *2^ T his is not the place to recount the
heated controversies surrounding Xorenac'i and his history. For o u r purposes, however, we should make
reference to the study o f Thomson, which is among the most recent to convincingly establish that
Xorenac' i could have written no earlier than the late seventh/early eighth century. *2^ Thus Thomson
consigned Xorenac' is w ork to a period significantly later than the claim ed fifth-century date o f
composition .^ 2 2
The history o f X orenac'i is an extremely important source in terms o f the development o f
Bagratid ideology. W riting before the very existence o f the K 'art'velian branch (which emerged only in
the late eighth century), Xorenac' i is the first Armenian to have attem pted a comprehensive history of
Armenia, placing his homeland's past in the context o f world history. In the process, Xorenac'i endeavors
to confirm the antiquity and importance of the Bagratuni clan. He commences with the supposition that
Sahak Bagratuni, his own sponsor, had been the first patron o f a historical treatise in Armenia. 128 Of
course, once Xorenac' is history was relegated to the early eighth century, the absurdity o f this putative
antiquity becomes evident.
Xorenac'i advances other tendentious claims concerning the Bagratuni-s. One o f the most
significant o f Xorenac'is pronouncements, at least in terms of the K 'art'velian Bagratids. is that o f the
alleged Jewish provenance o f the family:
^2^The names Bagarat and Smbat are Persian: see Thomson in Movses Xorenac'i. p. 111. footnotes 6 and
10. See also infra.
^ M o v s e s Xorenac'i, 1.1, p. 65.
126rhomson in Movses Xorenac'i. introduction; idem, in Arm. text, introduction; idem., "The Formation
of the Armenian Literary Tradition," in Garsoian. Mathews, and Thomson, eds.. East o f Byzantium: Syria
and Armenia in the Formative Period, pp. 135-150.
117
Thus the histories w hich delineate the origins o f both the Armenians and the K'art'velians/Georgians,
that o f Movses Xorenac'i and The Life o f the Kings respectively, are both embroiled in modem
controversy.
118
Movses Xorenac'i, 1.3, pp. 68-70, where hescolds the earlier rulers o f Armenian for their "unscholarly
habits."
524
In [Hrach'eay's] ^ time they say lived Nebuchadnezzar, king o f the Babylonians, who
took the Jews captive. And they say that he asked Nebuchadnezzar for one o f the
captive Hebrew leaders, Shambat by name, and brought and settled him in our country
[of Armenia] with great honor. From him the historian says that the Bagratuni family
descends, and that is certain. But what efforts our kings made to constrain them to the
worship o f idols, how many o f them, and who they were, who lost their lives for
worshipping Gog, we shall later relate methodically. For some unreliable men say. out
o f fancy an d not according to the truth, that the coronant family o f the Bagratuni
descends from Hayk. Therefore I reply: "Do not believe such foolish words, as there is
no vestige o r sign o f probability in those stories that m ight indicate the truth. For they
are disordered babblings of vain words concerning Hayk and his ilk. But know that the
name Smbat, which the Bagratunik' often give to their children, is in truth Shambat' in
their original speech, that is, Hebrew. " 1-*0
Xorenac' i is the earliest Arm enian historian to claim a Jewish origin for the Bagratuni-s. Before him.
Armenian texts related a Perso-Armenian provenance for the family, and this is explicitly stated in one of
Xorenaci's sources. The Primary History o f Armenia. Needless to say. the redating o f Xorenaci to the
seventh/eighth century is significant, for it relegates the various embellishments and legends introduced
by the author (including that o f the origin o f the Bagratuni-s) away from the traditional fifth-century date
to a later period.
Xorenac' i carefully attempted to prove both the antiquity o f the Bagratuni clan as well as its ageold connection with Jerusalem. These twin goals were best effected if the Bagratids could be plausiblymade to be Jews. Thus he modified the received account o f the Jewish captivity under Nebuchadnezzar,
inserting an early Bagratid into the story-, and then declaring that an early Armenian king had bargained
personally for his life. To make the story seem even more authentic, the author invented Hebrewsounding names, projecting Bagratid family names back into remote antiquity . 131 In any case. Xorenac' i
139 Hrach'eay was an early king o f Armenia.
130Movses Xorenac'i. 1.22, Arm. text. pp. 6 8 4 -6 9 7 = Thomson trans.. pp. 110-111. Xorenac' i's account
o f the origin o f the Bagratunik' (Armenian plural form, i.e.. "Bagratids") is repeated by later Armenian
historians: for example, Uxtanes. cap. 24, p. 37, Movses Dasxuranc'i. 1.3. p. 3 ("... and if you wish to
know about the Bagratunis, Paroyr Skayordi called Hrach'eay, king o f Armenia, son o f Haykak. asked the
king of Babylon for a certain Jewish captive named Shbat', whom he took and settled in Armenia with
great honour. From him originated the Bagratuni family as the great family o f Japheth declined"); and
Vardan, p. 157 ("... the coronant Bagratunis from the name o f Bagarat, who was from the race of the Jew
Smbat, from the family o f Juda...).
13 *But it should be noted that Xorenac' is invention of Jewish names was not haphazard Thomson in
Xorenac'i, p. 111, footnote 6 , demonstrated that the name P'ak'arat ($A K A PA 0, $AXAPAT,
$AXA PA 9) occurs in Nehemiah VII.59 in a list of Nebuchadnezzar's captives. But Bagarat is the
Armenian rendering o f the Persian Bagadata.
525
is the first historian to articulate and he him self perhaps introduced the notion that the original
Bagratids were Jews who had migrated to Armenia.
The Bagratids secured for themselves high offices in the service o f the Armenian Arshakuniani
kings. But their esteemed position, as Xorenac'i describes it. did not necessarily guarantee their
unconditional loyalty. Thus when Tigran II attempted to impose his own form o f idolatry (including the
making of sacrifices) upon the princes o f Armenia, the Jewish Bagratids did not consent. A certain Asud
(Ashot) Bagratuni's tongue was removed for insubordination. But the Bagratids did agree "to eat [meat]
from the king's sacrifices and also pork, although they themselves did not sacrifice or worship." The king
further punished the Bagratids by removing them from the command o f the army, but he did not strip
them o f their tides. ^3 2 Thus the Bagratids opposed idolatry and the sacrificing o f animals and this
behavior set the stage for their, and Armenia's, Christianization.
According to Xorenac'i, the Bagratids were intimately connected with the Christianizadon o f
Armenia. His account o f the triumph o f Christianity is highly tendentious on numerous accounts, and his
suggestion that the prince Tobias Bagratuni provided lodgings for Thaddaeus (one of the seventy who had
been dispatched to King Abgar in Edessa. a city which Xorenac'i considers to be Armenian) is fictitious.
But this episode associated the Bagratids with the supposed apostolic foundation o f Armenian
Christianity, for Thaddaeus had been sent by Thomas, one o f the twelve apostles.
The fact that the history o f Movses Xorenac'i is so imbued with fabulous assertions does not
deprive it of historical value. Rather, much like that o f the slightly later anonymous author o f Life o f the
Kings, Xorenac' is goal was to compose a meticulously fashioned history o f his homeland. Both The Life
o f the Kings and The History o f the Armenians by Xorenaci are rather successful, conscious attempts at
historical image-making. But Xorenac'i's history contrasts with its Georgian counterpart because on
numerous occasions he interpolates the Bagratid clan into his account, whereas the Life o f the Kings is
completely unfamiliar with the Bagratids. After all, the K'art'velian branch o f that family was just
beginning to establish itself at the time of its composition (ca. 800). In fa ct even the eleventh-century
Davit'is-dze divulges that the clan had not been established in K'art'li in antiquity. Rather, that author
merely provides a Biblical genealogy to prove the ultimate Jewish origin o f the family, confessing that it
had migrated to K 'art'li several centuries after the birth o f C hrist Davit'is-dze's report that the family
came to Caucasia well after the tim e o f Christ constitutes a tacit admission that the K 'art'velian branch
was a relatively late development However, it should be kept in mind that the author fashions the
K 'art'velian branch not as an offshoot but as the m ain body of the family. That is to say, the Armenian
connection o f the early, and main portion, of the family was conveniently forgotten. Nevertheless, Movses
Xorenac'i and Sumbat Davit'is-dze are in agreement on two fundamental points: ( 1) the Bagratids were of
l32Movses Xorenac'i, 11.14, p. 152.
526
Jewish origin; and (2) the Bagratids were not descended from Japheth and thus were not closely related to
the peoples o f Caucasia.
The fact remains that there is really no Georgian Bagratid-era history analogous to that of
Xorenac' i. Davit' is-dze's b rief tract is concerned primarily with the rise and consolidation o f the
Bagratids in K 'art'li and not with the ethnogenesis and development o f the K'art'velian/Georgian
community. The K 'art'velian Bagratids were established in the late eighth century, and this is precisely
the era in which the earliest extant Georgian historical works were being composed. However, it would be
deceptive to brand The U fe o f the Kings, The Ufe o f Vaxtang, and the brief continuation by Ps.-Juansher
as "Bagratid'' works since they were not written to glorify, o r under the sponsorship of, the K 'art'velian
Bagratids. Rather, each o f these works nostalgically recall the glorious K 'art'velian p ast lamenting the
fact that the monarchy had fallen into abeyance, and expressing the hope that local royal authority would
be reborn in the near future. These pre-Bagratid texts, taken together, constitute an attempt to describe
the history o f K 'art'li from its origin. But with the exception o f Ps.-Juansher. their authors reveal
absolutely nothing about the Bagratids established in K 'a rt'li after 771/772.
Ps.-Juanshers brief work was the last to be written in the pre-Bagratid period, being composed
after 800 but before the ascendancy o f Ashot in 813 (about which Ps.-Juansher is completely ignorant). In
the continuation tty Ps.-Juansher we have the earliest extant native reference to the K'art'velian Bagratids.
and it is almost certain that this passage is based upon contemporary evidence, for the coming
achievements o f that dynasty are not foreshadowed in any way:
Then there came to [Arch' i l ] ^ a mt 'avari who was o f the clan o f David the Prophet,
by the nam e o f Adamase, grandson o f Adarnase "the Blind."
[His] father was
related to the Bagratids and had been established by the Greeks [read: Byzantines] as
erist 'avi o f the regions o f Somxit' i. And during the oppression o f [K'art' li] by
[Murvan] Q ru he had come to the children o f Guaram kuropalates in Klaijet' i and
stayed there. He made a request o f Arch'il and said: "If you wish me to become your
vassal, give me land." And [Arch'il] gave [him] Shulaveri and Artani. ^ 6
1^
Xorenac'i insists that the Bagratuni-s were not descended from Hayk (the eponymous ancestor o f the
Armenians) but that they were Hebrews who had been brought to Armenia under the protection of the
Armenian k in g But an older Armenian tradition, with which X orenac'i seems to have been familiar, is
completely unfamiliar with the alleged Jewish origin of the Bagratuni-s and instead describes that family
as being the descendants o f Hayk, and thus, a clan of local extraction {Prim. Hist. Armenia, p. 362 and
Thomson in ibid., p. 362, footnote 34).
*^*This Arch' il is the last "king" treated by Ps.-Juansher.
^ A d a m a s e "the Blind" is to be identified as Ashot m . The oldest Georgian variant of Ps.-Juansher, that
o f A, makes Adamase to be the "grandson" (dzisculi) of Ashot whereas later variants invariably have
"nephew" (disculi, l i t "sisters son"). Toumanoff Studies, pp. 345-347 (and p. 346, footnote 24), notes
this and emphasizes that the critical text o f Qauxch' ishvili prefers the later, erroneous variant
527
The Armenian adaptation, the earliest extant version o f K'art'lis c'xovreba, gives a similar, but vague,
notice:
In those days a certain noble from the house of the prophet David, Adrnas by name,
came to Arch' il. He had been in Armenia, was taken captive with his sons by the
Muslims, and having escaped from there requested from him a placed to dwell. He gave
him Risha and Shghuer and Atone . 13 7
This is an extraordinary passage not only because it constitutes the earliest Georgian reference to the
K 'artvelian Bagratids, but because already in the first decade of the ninth century that family would seem
to have been identified as the ancestors o f the O ld Testament King-Prophet David.13**
How could the K 'art'velian Bagratids plausibly claim to be the biological descendants of K ing
David? Why would such a link be attempted? There may be no doubt that the pronouncement that the
Bagratids were o f Jewish extraction had gained currency throughout Caucasia in the early medieval period
(see infra). The K 'art'velian Bagratids, as a junior line o f the Bagratuni-s, were acquainted with this
assertion and unabashedly subscribed to i t As part o f a prominent family which, along with other
aristocratic clans, had recently been repressed by the Arabs, the Bagratids in K 'art'li had been accustomed
to occupying esteemed positions. Some doubtlessly became ambitious to seize control o f the affairs o f a
weakened K 'art'li. The K 'art'velian Bagratids did not portray themselves as being related to the former
dynasts o f K 'art'li, the Chosroids. Moreover, by the end o f the eighth century the myth o f the Jewish
origin of the Bagratids was known throughout Caucasia, which made the Chosroid tie undesirable if not
l 36 Ps.-Juansher, p. 2 4 3 ^ .^ . Cf. the translation in Toumanoff, Studies, p. 345. On this passage, see also
Araxamia. "'M ep'et'a c'xovreba' bagrationebis shesaxeb," inlstoriul-cqarot'mc'odneobit'i dziebani, pp.
69-76. with Rus. sum., "Nachalnaia letopis' 'Kartlis Tskhovreba o Bagrationakh." p. 76.
^ A r m . Adapt. K 'C \ pp. 198-199 = Thomson trans., pp. 248-249. Cf. Thomson's trans. o f the Georgian
text {ibid.) where he prefers the later misreading "nephew" for the "grandson" o f the earliest extant
Georgian MS (see also his p. 247, footnote 47).
13**Owing to the late MSS tradition, we must admit the possibility that this notice on the Bagratids was a
later insertion. However, its brevity and content do not suggest this to be the case. The earliest MS o f
K 'C \ the Arm/A redaction (copied in 1279-1311), includes this passage: Arm. Adapt. K 'C \ pp. 198jy199y = Thomson trans., pp. 248-249. (which enumerates Risha, Shghuer, and Atone as the lands given to
Adantase). It is clear that the Davidic clamorings o f the K'art'velian Bagratids had not merely been
borrowed from the main Armenian branch o f the family. After Xorenac' i, the eighth-century Armenian
historian Ghewond was acquainted w ith both the Bagratuni and King David (quoting the psalms often)
but he in no way suggests that the Bagratids were the descendants of David. All Armenian sources that
are familiar with the Davidic origins o f the Bagratids were composed after the history o f Ps.-Juansher.
528
largely impossible save for a very few dynastic connections made in the eighth century. Rather, the early
K 'art'velian Bagratids creatively manipulated their alleged Jewish provenance so as to ingratiate
themselves with the ultimate form o f royal legitimacy. Thus they traced their purported Jewish origins
directly to the Old Testament King-Prophet David. According to Davit' is-dze. the K art' velian Bagratids
did not admit themselves to be an offshoot of the main family but rather the core itself. However.
Davit'is-dze declares that the Bagratids established in K 'art'li were not only Jewish but also royal.
The author does not explicitly extend this claim to the Armenian Bagratuni-s. although the Armenians
subsequently adopted the K 'att'velians' innovation as their own.
Since the assertion to be the descendants o f the ancient Jews h ad circulated for at least a century
before the establishment o f the K' art' velian Bagratids, that branch's extension o f that claim to be the
offspring o f King David was both logical and, in a relative and contemporary sense, plausible. This
circumstance reminds us o f the author o f the pre-Bagratid Life o f the Kings and his faithfulness to
received (non-Georgian) traditions.
^ T h e linkage o f ruling dynasties to the King-Prophet David was not the monopoly o f the Bagratids.
The Carolingians often connected themselves with David, although they did not claim to be descended
directly from him. E.g., see B.S. Bachrach, "A Picture of Avar-Frankish W arfare from a Carolingian
Psalter o f the Early N inth Century in Light of the Strategicon," AEMA 4 (1984), pp. 5-27. It should be
emphasized that the image o f David as a model ruler was ev oked often throughout Europe and in
Byzantium. Perhaps the closest parallel to the Bagratid experience is that o f Solomonic Ethiopia. The
Ethiopian historical work named Kebrd Ndgdst. probably written down in a preliminary form in the sixth
century, claims that the Ethiopian rulers were the direct descendants o f Solomon's first bom. Menelik.
But the Kebrd Ndgdst developed this biological connection much more that was done by the Kartvelian
Bagratids with David; e .g . these Solomonids claimed that the Ark o f the Covenant had been transferred
to the Ethiopian city o f Aksum (and thus it became the holy city) and that the Ethiopian Solomonids were
Israelites. In sum, the Solomonids represented the monarchy par excellence o f the entire world. Kebrd
Ndgdst, para. 2 0 , p. 16:
From the middle o f Jerusalem, and from the north thereof to the south-east
is the portion o f the Emperor o f Rom [i.e., the Byzantine emperor]; and from
the middle o f Jerusalem from the north thereof to the south and to western
India is the portion o f the Emperor o f Ethiopia. For both o f them are the seed
o f Shem, the son o f Noah, the seed o f Abraham, the seed o f David, the
children o f Solomon. For God gave the seed o f Shem glory because o f
the blessing o f their father Noah. The Emperor o f Rom is the son of
Solomon, and the Emperor of Ethiopia is the firstborn and eldest son o f
Solomon.
Incidentally, the Kebrd Ndgdst provides no information on K 'art'li although Gregory the Illuminator is
known. On the Kebrd Ndgdst and the Solomonids o f Ethiopia, see: The Queen o f Sheba and Her Only
Son Menyelek (I), trans. and comm, by E. A. W. Budge; I. Shahid, "The Kebra Nagast in the Light of
Recent Research," LeM 89 (1976), pp. 133-178; and S. Kaplan, The Monastic Holy Man and the
Christianization o f Early Solomonic Ethiopia.
529
The next Georgian literary reference to the Davidic provenance o f the K 'art'velian Bagratids
occurs in The Works o f Grigol Xandzt'eli, written in 951 by that monk's pupil Giorgi M erch' ule. This
hagiography provides important evidence about the early K'art'velian Bagratids. As we hav e seen, the
Bagratids seem not to have taken an interest in sponsoring historical writing until the eleventh century;
therefore, this text is among the earliest extant literary works from the Bagratid period. Grigol Xandzt'eli
(lit "of Xandzt'a") was the founder an d Father Superior of twelve major monasteries in the southwestern
territories. It was from this area that the K 'art'velian Bagratids launched their conquest of the
K'art'velian lands which had been seized by the Arabs. We encounter several statements in M erch'ule's
work testifying to the solidification o f Bagratid power as well as to their by-then well-developed Davidic
claim. The most explicit passage in The Works o f Grigol Xandzt'eli which relates the biological
connection of the King-Prophet David occurs in dialogue between the kuropalates Ashot I (813-830) and
Grigol, in which the latter proclaimed:
O sovereign, [you] who are called the son o f the consecrated-by-the-Lord David the
Prophet, let Christ God establish you in his [i.e., David's] kingship/kingdom and virtue,
concerning which should be pronounced: Let the rule of your children and their clans
never be removed from this land for eternity, however, let them be steadfast like stable
rocks and [like] eternal mountains and [let them] be glorified forever. 140
Thus the K'art'velian Bagratids were incontestably linked, genetically, to King David, who him self had
been ordained by God. Moreover, M erch'ule interpolated the K 'art'velian Bagratids into the Old
Testament prophecy that the progeny o f David would rule until the end of the world. And we should
recall that Merch'ule himself was a distinguished monk and that he expressed no doubt concerning the
alleged Davidic provenance o f the K 'art'velian Bagratids. Merch' ule believ ed, or at least wanted his
audience to conclude, that the K 'art'velian Bagratids in reality were the biological offspring o f King
David and therefore were uniquely fit to govern.
Armenian historians promptly adopted the Davidic claim developed by the K 'art'velian Bagratids
for the entire family, and this is evidence o f the continuation of K' art' velian and Armenian contacts even
following the ecclesiastical schism o f Dwin III in 607/608. The earliest Armenian historian to relate the
Davidic origin o f the Bagratids was the tenth-century kat'alikos Yovhannes Drasxanakertc'i (d. post
923/924):
l^ G io rg i Merch'ule. Works o f Grigol Xandzt 'eli, cap. 11, p. 143. Cf. Lang, Lives and Legends o f the
Georgian Saints, 2nd ed., p. 142. Ingoroqva, Giorgi merch'ule, is the most detailed study o f this tex t
However, I cannot concur with Ingoroqva's nationalistic position that the Bagratids were purely
"Georgian." For a critique of Ingoroqva, see Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 334-336.
530
... [Vagharshak, king of the Armenians] first., designated as his coronant B agarat a
descendant o f the Jewish Sham bat who, they say, was o f the family of David, since he
had willingly offered his services to him before m ost o f the others, Vagharshak also
appointed him sparapet [and put him] in charge o f thousands and myriads of
soldiers . 141
Drasxanakertc'i fused together two traditions: first, that the Bagratids were descended from the ancient
Jews, as had been articulated by the Armenian Xorenac'i; and second, that the Bagratids were royal Jews,
and that their lineage could be traced directly to the King-Prophet David, a claim that had been developed
by the Bagratids in K 'art'li.
Also in the early tenth century the Armenian historian T" omva Arc' runi wrote his History o f the
House o f the Arc'runik'. Although Arc'rani's primary purpose is to glorify his own aristocratic house,
nevertheless he provides valuable information about both the Armenian and K'art'velian Bagratids. In
order to extol the virtues o f the Arc'runi-s, T omva A rc'runi links his family to the famous Bagratids.
even in several instances alleging that the former were equal, and even more powerful and virtuous, than
the latter. The historian tells us about two Bagratid princes:
... The brothers Gagik and Gurgen, born o f the same father and mother, descended from
the noble and high-ranking stocks o f Senek'erim and [the Prophet] David...14^
From the evidence o f Drasxanakertc'i and A rc'runi we may confidently surmise that the
Armenian Bagratids accepted and adopted this Davidic claim by the first-half o f the tenth century. Thus
the myth o f the Jewish origins o f the Bagratids had been popularized by the family in Armenia and
articulated by the Arm enian Xorenac'i; then, expanding upon this legend, the K 'art'velian branch o f the
family deduced that they were the direct descendants of King David; finally, this K' artvelian innovation
was adopted by the m ain body of the Bagratuni-s in Armenia. So the Jewish/Davidic origin claim of the
Bagratid family resulted from a pan-Caucasian effort with contributions having been made by the
Armenian and K 'art'velian branches of one and the same family.
We should not be astonished to find an Armenian kat'alikos echoing an ideology that had been
developed in K' art' li. Drasxanakertc' i had resided voluntarily at the court of the K' art' velian Bagratid
Adamase ILTV (888-923), the restorer of K'art'velian royal authority, where he would have been exposed
141Yovhannes Drasxanakertc'i, IV.10, p. 73.

14^T om va A rc'runi, m .29, p. 313.
531
to Davidic clamorings . 143 In any event, according to extant Georgian texts the K'art'velian/Georgian
Bagratids did not apply a Davidic provenance to their Armenian counterparts. Nevertheless, the
Armenian historian Drasxanakertc'i logically extended it to the entire family, for the claim had not been
formulated in a way to exclude the non-Georgian members.
The Davidic claim was also known to non-Caucasian writers. During 948-952 the scholaremperor Constantine VII Porphyrogennitos (r. 913-959) compiled the so-called De administrcmdo
imperio.144 As a manual o f Byzantine foreign policy, this work both provides information and suggests
diplomatic approaches regarding many areas and peoples with whom the Byzantines maintained contacts.
Constantine VII dedicates two entire chapters to Iberia, i.e., K 'a rt'li This testifies to the rise o f the
K'art'velian Bagratids and their establishment as a formidable power in Caucasia already by the mid tenth
century. The account o f De administrcmdo imperio concerning the K 'art' velians begins with a notice on
their Bagratid rulers:
The Iberians [i.e., K 'art'velians], I mean, those who belong to the curopalate, pique
themselves upon their descent from the wife o f Uriah, with whom David, the prophet
and king, committed adultery: for they say they are descended from the children she
bore to David and are related to David, the prophet and king, and consequently to the
most holy Mother o f God also, inasmuch as she was by descent o f the seed o f D avid
For this reason also the great ones o f the Iberians [i.e the Bagratids] take in marriage
their female relatives without impediment, believing that they are preserving the ancient
ordinance; and they say that they originate from Jerusalem and were warned by an
oracular dream to migrate thence and to settle over toward the region of Persia, that is to
say, in the country where they live now.
Constantine Porphyrogennitos thus relates that the K 'art'velian Bagratids claimed to be

descended from King D avid ^
However, Constantine is not altogether convinced o f this claimed
Davidic provenance, and he demeans it by adding the concubine and the charge o f adultery. Moreover.
De administrcmdo imperio clearly associates this Davidic claim with the K artvelian Bagratids and not
the older Armenian Bagratid clan. This is an indication that the Davidic claim had originated within the
^ Y o v h a n n e s Drasxanakertc'i, LIII.34, p. 189.

^^R -J.H . Jenkins in Constantine VII, DAI. general introduction, p. 11.
145Constantine VH, DAI, cap. 45 "IIEPI TON IBHPQN" = "Of the Iberians," pp. 204-205 (Greek text and
parallel Eng. trans.). See also the comm. (pub. separately): F. Dvomik, et al., vol. 2, pp. 170-171.
146For a survey o f Constantine Porphyrogennitos' account o f Caucasia, see Toynbee, Constantine
Porphyrogenitus and his World, "Relations with the Armenian and Caucasian Principalities," pp. 394410.
532
K 'art'velian Bagratid domains and had only later been adopted by the Armenian Bagratids. Finally,
Constantine VII is one o f the earliest sources explicitly noting the consanguinity among the K'art'velian
Bagratids.
As we have seen, the fullest expression o f the Davidic claim s o f the Kart'velian Bagratids in
Georgian historical literature is preserved in the eleventh-century' Life and Tale o f the K'art velian
Bagratids by Sumbat Davit'is-dze. His brief history commences with a lengthy stemma derived from
Genesis V, tracing the ultimate origin o f the K 'art'velian Bagratids from Adam through the King-Prophet
David an d Solomon, ^
down to a certain (mythical) Hebrew Solomon whose sons had migrated to
Caucasia. To emphasize their Davidic origins, Davit'is-dze states that Guarani, a proto-Bagratid, was "a
descendant o f David.
However, the initial stemma was more important than this direct statement, for
through it Davit'is-dze interpolates the K'art'velian Bagratids into the tabulae o f Genesis and Matthew
and thus that dynasty's origin could be traced directly to Biblical times.
Just after Davit'is-dze composed his history, an anonymous author wrote the so-called Chronicle
o f K'art'li. This text begins its account in the second-half of the eighth century on the eve o f K 'art'velian
Bagratid rule. In the account o f the pre-Bagratid princes (mt'avari-s) Iovane and Juansher, whose tenure
preceded that o f the famous first Bagratid prince Ashot I, the anonymous author referred to the Davidic
origins o f the Bagratids, who were on the verge o f establishing themselves as the rulers o f K 'art'li:
But this Juansher took as a wife [a woman] from the clan o f the Bagratoniani, [who was]
the daughter o f Adarnase [and] named Latavri. A nd [Juanshers] mother reproached
him because he had taken her as his wife, [for] she did not know that [the Bagratids]
were the descendants o f the Prophet David who was called Father o f God in the flesh.
But when she beheld the wife o f her son, she loved, blessed, and sanctified her .*4 9
This passage, although written down in the eleventh century, may be proof that in the first-half of the
ninth century the Davidic claim o f the K'art'velian Bagratids was not widely known and recognized.
To be sure, in this received form this passage does not predate the eleventh century'. But The Chronicle o f
K'art'li is an exceedingly accurate historical source, and its author almost certainly had at his disposal
contemporary sources which have not come down to us.
l^ s u m b a t Davit'is-dze, p. 39j j _ |3 = Qauxch'ishvili ed., p. 3 7 2 ^ - David is explicitly referred to as

"king" 0mep'e) in this stemma.
^Îbid., p. 415/3742: "eSi3 0 CDob 6 M)>)lj63 olu&.s6 .n

^ C h ro n . K'art'li, p. 25 13 . 7 .
150This was also surmised by Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 328-329.
533
I believe we may confidently deduce that th e Davidic claim o f the K 'art'velian Bagratids was
introduced ca. 800, just prior to the rule o f Ashot which commenced in 813; ^
that this claim was
current prior to Ashot is testified by Ps.-Juansher. Moreover, it should be said that The Chronicle o f
K'art 'lis narrative is fundamentally different from Davitis-dzes contemporary tract in that the former
relates the reign o f some pre-Bagratid princes, whom it does not render any less legitimate than the
Bagratids. That is to say, although The Chronicle o f K'art'li is acquainted with the Davidic origins claim
o f the Bagratids, its author does not seem to have understood or to have adopted - the implication that
the pre-Bagratid rulers were not legitimate. The Chronicle o f K'art'li, in my view, incorporates some very
early Bagratid traditions from a tim e (ninth and tenth centuries) when the "official" view o f the preBagratid past had not yet crystallized.
Subsequent Bagratid-era historical works refer on many occasions to the Davidic provenance o f
the K 'art'velian Bagratids. This alleged biological link with the King-Prophet David on behalf of the
Georgian Bagratids persisted until the abolition o f the monarchy by the Russian Empire in the early
nineteenth century and is even claimed by today's surviving Bagratids.
Although the Davidic tradition o f the K 'artvelian Bagratids was originally developed from a
pre-existing, Armenian tradition o f the Jewish origins o f the entire Bagratid clan. Georgian historians do
not acknowledge the Armenian provenance o f the earlier claim. Moreover, at least by the eleventh
century (i.e., Davit'is-dze), the Georgian Bagratids sought to obscure the blood-links o f the Georgian and
Armenian Bagratids. The first Georgian historian to directly incorporate the Armenian account of
Movses Xorenac'i in his work was Davit' Bagrationi (1767-1819). In chapter four of his Istoriia Gruzii
(History o f Georgia. HcTopsa TpjrjHH), he elucidates the origin o f the Bagratids;
The Armenian and the Georgian chroniclers tell us that the Bagratid dynasty had its
beginning with the Judaic kings David and Solomon. On account o f the destruction o f
the city o f Jerusalem by Titus Vespasian, several tribes o f Jews were taken to Italy,
among them were the relatives o f the very Cleopas, about whom we are informed in the
Gospel o f Luke the Evangelist Having reached their majority, they returned to
Jerusalem. After some time one o f them, by the name o f Shambek or Sumbat, came to
Armenia. He entered military service [and] he distinguished himself by his zeal, his
good sense, and his courage... His son, Bagrat, had seven sons, from which three
remained in Armenia, and the other four - Guram, Sa[h]ak, Asaf, and Varvart - at that
time crossed into Samc'xe (Axalc'ixe ) . 152
It is purely coincidental that at this same period Georgian historical writing was first developed That
is to say. the K 'art'velian Bagratids were not responsible for introducing historical writing to the
K'art'velians, however tempting it m ight be to locate a line o f transmission from the Armenians (who
engaged in historical writing already in the fifth century) to the K'art'velians.
^ 2 Davit' Bagrationi, cap. 4, "On the Kings of the Bagratid Dynasty," para. 78, p. 89.
534
This passage introduces information which ultimately may be traced to X orenac'i, for that author was
responsible for deriving the Bagratid name Sumbat/Smbat (the Georgian and the Armenian forms
respectively) from the tendentious Hebrew name Shambat, i.e., the Shambek o f Davit' Bagrationi.
Davit''s source for the name Shambat/Shambek is a mystery, but in his tim e enumerations of "traditional"
Bagratid names could be found in several MSS. Kek-InstMS # Q-338 was copied in 1831 and includes a
passage listing several o f the names first set down by Xorenac'i in the early eighth century:
The original names o f the Bagratids, who issued forth from [among] Judea, are: Bagatia.
Toebia, Elennas, Sara, Sacek'ia, Aod, Sap'atia, Azaria, [and] Enianos. But even more:
Bagarat, which is Bagatia, Ashot, Aod, Sumba, Sumbat, which is Shambati, but Biurat
and Urdat are [yet] more [Bagratid names]... 3
These names are clearly based upon cap. n.63, "Concerning Trdat Bagratuni and the first names o f his
family," o f Xorenac'i: Bagadia/Bagarat, Tubia, Senek'ia, Asud/Ashot, S ap'at'ia, Vazaria/Varaz. Enanos,
Biurat, and Sm bat/Sham bat 154 There is no indication that Davit' Bagrationi could read Armenian, and
no Georgian translation o f Xorenac'i existed in his time, so he likely relied upon a list like that o f Q-338
for his evidence regarding the original names of the Bagratids.
With Davit' Bagrationi, the Davidic claim o f the K'art'velian, and then Georgian, Bagratids had
come full circle. The claim had been originally devised at the time when the K 'art'velian Bagratids rose
to power under Byzantine tutelage, succeeding in establishing a unified Georgian kingdom by the early
eleventh century. Although internal discord and incessant foreign invasions had ripped the kingdom
apart in the thirteenth century, the Bagratids nevertheless remained the legitimate dynasty in Georgia,
although royal power was fragmented. Davit' Bagrationi wrote just as the Georgian kingdom had been
brought to an end with the annexation o f Georgia by the Russians in the first-half o f the nineteenth
century. In fact, the towering shadow o f Russia's influence is manifested by the fact that Davit'
Bagrationi, a scion of the Bagratid house that had ruled in K 'art' li/Georgia for a thousand years, wrote his
history not in Georgian but Russian. His history was an attempt to sum up the history of Georgia and to
proclaim, for one last time, the divine sanction behind the Bagratids.
^Kek.InstM S # Q -338, U 49v-50r "306332560 6*632560 &*a6*(5Fi3*6a>*6o, 601832560

!g6oei&oa) 338010(5*6636, 36360 *6o*6: &*&*(5o*, <501360*. 325366*6, 6*6*, 63^3^04, *015,
6*g*<5o*. *b*6o*. 360*6016; 6012501 03*606 6*83(56*30: 6*a*6*<5, 6018325 *66 &*3*<5o*,
*8oi(J), *oico, 6o 9&*, 6g8&*(5, 6018325 *66 3 *8&*<5 o, 6012501 Bog6*<5 * o6(o*<J)
6*83(56*360*..." See also Q-Fond Catalog, vol. 1, pp. 371-374.
^^M ovses X orenac'i, n.63, pp. 207-208 and Thomson's note 14, p. 208.
535
Bagratid Royal Nomenclature
As we have seen, the nomenclature o f pre-Bagratid K 'art'velian rulers is dominated by Persian,

with the exception o f two Guaramid presiding princes bearing the Christian/Greek name o f Step'anoz
(i.e., Stephen). In fact, explicitly Christian names are applied to K 'art'velian presiding princes only
during the reign o f the usually pro-Byzantine Guaramids, although Persian names continued to be used.
This short-lived dynasty introduced not only the name Guaram (i.e., the dynasty's founder. Guaram I
[588-ca. 590]), but also Step'anoz, 1^ 5 and Demetre. A princess o f this same dynasty married an
Armenian Bagratid, a branch of that family removed to K 'art'li in the late eighth century, and thus the
K 'art'velian Bagratids were established. This may help to explain the popularity o f the Persian (nonChristian) name Guaram among the K 'art'velian Bagratids. ^
In any event, the introduction o f the
Persian-based name Guaram into the noble and royal nomenclature o f the K 'art'velians was relatively
recent and does not necessarily indicate K 'art'li's ancient Persian heritage. In fa ct the Guaramids and
then the K art'velian Bagratids possessed their own nomenclature which was based upon some traditional
filial names and especially those derived from the Bible (usually Greek). This is a clear indication o f not
only a change in dynasty and the self-perception by that dynasty' that they were distinct from their
predecessors - but o f a change in orientation from Persia and the N ear East towards Christian
Byzantium.
The following early K a rt'v elian Bagratids are attested in Georgian, Armenian, and Byzantine
sources. Toumanofif compiled an outstanding prosopography of these figures and reference has been made
to that work (i.e.. the cataloging numbers following each name in the "notes" column: see the stemma in
excursus C ).* ^ Because three major branches o f the K art'velian Bagratids existed in this period (the
lines o f Tao/Tayk', Klarjet'i, and K 'a rt'li proper), and owing to the popularity' of certain appellations,
several rulers are known by the same ordinal (e.g., two rulers identified as Adamase III. one of the line of
^ F o llo w in g the Guaramid Step'anoz I (ca. 590-627) we find a Chosroid bearing the same name
(Step'anoz n [637/642-ca. 650]). A later Chosroid prince of Kaxet'i was also named Step'anoz (ca.
685/736).
*Ândronikashvili, Narkvevebi, vol. 1, pp. 454-457, who connects Guaram with the Persian Vahram
and the Phi. Gurgen.
* ^ O n Greek names in Old Georgian, see S. Qauxchishvili, "Berdznuli mamakact'asaxelebis
gadmoe'emisat'vis kart'ulshi." in Arili (1925), pp. 89-106, with Ger. sum., pp. 105-106.
158 Toumanoff, "The Bagratids of Iberia from the Eighth to the Eleventh Century," pp. 5-42. For
Bagratid names of the eleventh through the seventeenth centuries, see Pirt'a anotirebuli lek'sikoni, vol. 1,
s.v. "Bagratovani," pp. 212-371.
536
Tao/Tayk' the other o f that o f K 'art'li). ToumanofFs works should be consulted for a more precise
identification.
Name
Basis
Identification
Adarnase
Ir. Adamarseh, cf. Narseh1^
Adarnase I (#1), Adarnase II (#5). Adarnase (#13).

Adarnase HI (#18), Adarnase IV (#23), Adarnase
(#27), Adarnase IE (#47), Adarnase (#50)
Ashot
Ir. Ashot160
Ashot I (#3), Ashot Kekelay (#9), Ashot (#14),

Ashot (#16), Ashot H Kuxi (# 19). Ashot II of
Artanuji (#29). Ashot II (#35). Ashot (#44)
Bagrat
O.Ir. Baeadata-, "given by

God"161
Bagrat I (#6), Bagrat I o f Artanuji (#20). Bagrat

(#36), Bagrat (#43), Bagrat (#46). Bagrat II
Regueni (#49), Bagrat I (#53). Bagrat (#58).
Bagrat III (#60)
Giorgi
Christian, cf. Eng. George
Giorgi I 16^
Guaram
Ir. Vahram>Guhram; cf. Gurgen16^ Guaram (#7)
Gurgen
Ir. Gurgen; cf. Guaram16'1
Gurgen I (#8), Gurgen II (#25), Gurgen I o f Artanuji

(#28), Gurgen (#41), Gurgen (#52), Gurgen I
(#55)
Davit'
Christian, cf. Eng. David
Davit' I (#12), Davit' the Great (#21). Davit' I

of Tao/Tayk' (#24). Davit' (#30), Davit' n (#34),
Davit' I o f Artanuji (#45), Davit II the Great
"ofTao" (#54), Davit' Me tre (#57)
Demetre
Christian
Demetre (#59),16^ Demetre king o f Ap'xazct'i,

Demetre son o f Gurgen, Demetre son o f Guaram
Â n d ro n ik ash v ili, Narfcvevebi, pp. 417-421.

160Not enumerated by Andronikashvili, but see Justi, Iranisches Namenbuch, pp. 44-45.
161 Andronikashvili, Narkvevebi, pp. 438-443.
Giorgi I (1014-1027) is not included in ToumanofFs enumeration since his reign falls beyond its
chronological strictures.
163Ibid., pp. 454-457.

l64Ibid., pp. 458-461.
1650nly this Demetre is enumerated by Toumanoff.
537
Nasr[al
cf. Av. nairydsat'ar. Phi. Narsah,

N.Ir. N a r s e ^
Nasr (#15)
Sumbat
Pers.
Sumbat I (#10), Sumbat II (#31). S u m b a tlo f

K 'art'li (#37), Sumbat III (#51). Sumbat (#56)
Early K 'art'velian Bagratid-era sources give us little indication as to the name o f female Bagratids,
although the following names are attested: Latavri (#2), Dinar (#26), G uaranduxt,*^ Mariam (Man*).
Elena (Helena), Kata, and M art'a (Martha).
From this enumeration it is obvious that certain names were held in high esteem by the early
K'art'velian Bagratid family. W e have already noted that the name Gurgen had been carried down to the
Bagratids from Guaramid times. Bagrat forms the basis o f the dynastic tag Bagrationi (its earliest attested
Georgian form is Bagratuniani is extremely similar to the Armenian Bagratuni). Davit'is-dze explaining
its derivation by the fact that he believed the K'art'velian Bagratids to be descended from a certain
Bagrat
The name is in fact based upon the O.Ir. Bagadata, "given by God," and dates from the
earlier era o f Persian cultural dominance over Caucasia. ^
So, as should be expected, the name
Bagrat/Bagarat had been current in the Bagratid clan from an extremely early time. But these early
Bagratids were, for the most part, Armenian (with the K 'art'velian branch only developing in the eighth
century) and Davit' is-dze has thus created a false etymology' for the name which completely ignores its
Armenian connection. Moreover, this name is not a Christian one but rather is a manifestation o f the
ancient provenance o f that family and its earlier connection with the Persian cultural world. In any event,
none of the pre-Bagratid kings o f the K 'art'velians bore this name and thus its introduction to K 'art'li
constituted a distinct break with the past.
Another old Bagratid nam e was Sumbat (Armenian variant Smbat). The earliest historical
Bagratid has been identified as a certain Smbat I who is attested ca. 3 0 0 .^ This name was thus current
in the early (Armenian) Bagratid family, although Davit'is-dze deliberately neglects to mention the
^ I b id ., pp. 485-486; and Garsoian in The Epic Histories, s.v. "Narseh," p. 394.
167
Bagratid female names more usually lack the -duxt Persian suffix so prevalent in the pre-Bagratid
period; one exception is the Bagratid princess Guaranduxt
I68Sumbat Davitis-dze, p. 4 1 1 2 -1 3 = Qauxch'ishvili ed., p. 3747, who styles Bagrat specifically as "the
father of the Bagrationiani-s" (ci.s0.sa 6.s&6.s(5<'i6o,s6a>.s).
Â n d ronikashvili, Narkvevebi, vol. 1, pp. 16-17 and 438-443. The Persian basis o f the name Bagrat
attests the Persian and not Jewish/Davidic provenance of the Bagratid clan.
*^T oum anoff "The Early Bagratids: Remarks in Connexion with Some Recent Publications," pp. 21-54,
esp. pp. 25-32.
538
Armenian connection with the name Smbat/Sumbat. Regardless, the early eighth-century Armenian
historian Xorenac'i him self develops a false etymology for the name. Speaking in the context o f the
alleged Jewish origins o f the Bagratuni-s, Xorenac' i writes that:
... Nebuchadnezzar, king o f the Babylonians,... took the Jews captive. And that say that
[the Armenian king Hrach'eay] asked Nebuchadnezzar for one o f the captive Hebrew
leaders, Shambat by name, and brought and settled him in our country with great
honor. From him the historian says that the Bagratuni family descends, and that is
certain... know that this name Smbat, which the Bagratunik' often give to their
children, is in truth Shambat' in their original speech, that is, Hebrew. *7 *
Thomson and ToumanofF have noted the tendentious nature o f this etymology, and Smbat/Sumbat, like
Bagarat/Bagrat, is actually based upon Persian.172 In any case, Xorenac'i was right to link
Smbat/Sumbat with the early Bagratuni family. This name, in the form Sumbat, was also popular among
the later K 'art'velian branch o f that family. In fact, the author o f the Bagratid history par excellence is
named Sumbat Davit'is-dze (Sumbat, son o f Davit').
The appellation Ashot also is derived from Persian. But Xorenac'i suggests that this name, like
Bagrat/Bagarat and Sumbat/Smbat, was traditionally used among the Bagratids:
But know that when the Bagratuni family abandoned their ancestral laws, they first
received barbarous names: Biurat, and Smbat, and other similar appellations, being
deprived o f their traditional names by which they were called before their apostasy:
Bagadia, Tubia, Senek'ia, Asud, Sap'at'ia, Vazaria, Enanos. And it seems to me that
the name Bagarat tty which the Bagratunik' are now called is Bagadia, and Asud is
Ashot, and similarly Varazia is Varaz, just as Shambat is Smbat. 73
Thus Xorenac'i equates the Bagratid name Ashot (current in K 'art'li as well as Armenia) with the older
form Asud.
Other Bagratid names are Persian. The names Adarnase and Nasr are based upon the Persian
name Narseh, probably via the Arabic A damarsah.174 Gurgen is derived from the Persian Gurgen/
*7 *Movses Xorenac'i, 1.22, pp. 110-111. See also below (for ibid., n.63). "Bagratunik'" is the plural
nominative form o f "Bagratuni/Bagratid."
172Thomson in Movses Xorenac'i, p. 111, footnote 10; and Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 327-328 and 336.
See also Justi, Iranisches Namenbuch, pp. 314-316.
^73Movses Xorenac'i, n.63, pp. 207-208. The "apostasy" and abandoning of the "ancestral laws" on
behalf of the Bagratids refers to their alleged Jewish origins.
*74Andronikashvili, Narkvevebi, vol. 1, pp. 417-421.
539
Gurgin and may possibly be related to Gorgasali, the sobriquet o f Vaxtang 1.175 Later, the Iranian-based
name Rusudan entered Georgian, perhaps from Armenian.176
Thus several "new" Persian-derived names were introduced into the K 'art'velian noble and royal
nomenclature by the Guaramids and then the Bagratids. But once again we should emphasize that these
names are not attested for the pre-Bagratid period and thus mark a clear break with the pre-Bagratid past.
In addition, the Guaramids and then the Bagratids also introduced specifically non-Persian names into
K'art'velian noble and royal nomenclature. The praenomen Davit' was popular with the K'art'velian
Bagratids from an early time and testifies to their claim to be the direct biological offspring of the Old
Testament King-Prophet David. Step'anoz (variant Step'anos, i.e., Stephen) had been used by the
Guaramids but did not gain popularity among the Bagratids o f K 'art'li. The name Demetre (later variant
Dimitri) is based upon the Greek nam e Demetrios, and is attested for both the Guaramids and the
Bagratids. Giorgi entered the royal nomenclature rather late, with the first ruling Bagratid taking that
name only in the eleventh century. Probably as a tribute to St. George who was popular in medieval
K 'artli/Georgia, the name Giorgi became extremely popular after King Giorgi I (1014-1027).177 The
name Alek'sandre became common only from the fifteenth century, and its currency is probably an
indication o f the popularity' o f the legend o f Alexander the Great at that time. *7** Also in the
fifteenth/sixteenth century the names Erekle (Heraclius), Konstantine (Constantine), *79 Levan/Leon
(Leo), and Svimon/Swmon (Simon) gained currency among the Bagratids.180 And the majority o f the
l75Ibid., pp. 458-461. We should recall that Procopius referred to Vaxtang I as rOYPTENHE. Could it
be that Vaxtang took the name Gurgen upon his Byzantine reorientation in order to marie a distinct break
with the K 'art'velian past? O r perhaps it indicates that Vaxtang took a new name following a relatively
late baptism (no source suggests this). In such a case Vaxtang would have replaced his Persian name with
another, although Gurgen had not previously entered the K 'art'velian royal nomenclature. In any case,
we possess no pre-ca. 800 source which specifically refers to Vaxtang as Gorgasali. This sobriquet is very'
likely a later invention and itself may' have been derived from Vaxtangs "Christian" nam e Gurgen/
Gurgenes.
^ J u s t i , Iranisches Namenbuch, p. 268.
^77Pirt'a anotirebuli lek'sikoni, vol. 1, pp. 241-263.
m Ibid., vol. 1, pp. 212-228.

179Some rulers o f Ap'xazet'i/Abasgia bore the name Constantine (Kostanti); e.g Constantine HI (899915/916).
m Ibid., vol. 1, pp. 273-293 (Erekle), 316-320 (Konstantine), 320-326 (Levan/Leon), and 359-370
(Svimon).
540
few feminine early Bagratid appellations that have come down to us are Greek/Christian (Elena/Helena,
Kata, Mariam/Mary, M art'a/Martha).
The early K 'art'velian Bagratids predilection for recently introduced Persian names was not
sustained. O f these names, only Bagrat remained popular after the eleventh century. From the eleventh to
the seventeenth century no usages o f Sumbat among the Bagratids are known. Furthermore. Adarnase is
only attested three times among the later K ' art'velian Bagratids, as well as one Guaram an d two
Gurgens. 1*1 With the exception o f the supposed namesake o f the dynasty (Bagrat), all other Persianderived names, so popular in the early Bagratid period, fell out o f use in the eleventh/twelfth century.
This is a testimony to the abhorrence o f K 'art'velian Bagratids for the pre-Bagratid, Persian heritage o f
Caucasia (of which they were originally a part!) that had developed by the eleventh century. But although
the Bagratids discarded these names which could be linked directly to the pre-Bagratid K 'art'velian p a s t
other Persian names entered the royal nomenclature. Thus we find many Bagratid princes bearing the
name Rostom from the fifteenth century, probably attesting to the far-reaching influence o f the Shah-nama
and other works o f Persian secular literature in Georgia. The name Vaxtang was also popular, but this
had less to do w ith Persian influence than w ith the heroic tradition of Vaxtang I Gorgasali (via The Life o f
Vaxtang which was always transmitted in K'art'lis c 'xovreba). Finally, the names Lurasab and T eimuraz
were also held in high esteem in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. But o f the last three names, only
Vaxtang had been current in K 'art'li prior to this time. The names Rostom, Lurasab, and T eim uraz were
all recent imports. I
A word should also be said about the use o f cognomina in medieval Georgian historical
literature. In pre-Bagratid sources, we find absolutely no indication that surnames are employed.
Although we encounter such names term inating in the suffix -eli, such as "Karsneli" or the later
"Mroveli," these were not properly surnames but rather designated a geographical location and refer either
to a birthplace or a place o f residence. I*3 In Ps.-Juansher several erist'avi-s seem to have surnames:
Nerse Nersiani, Adarnase Adamasiani. and Juansher Juansheriani. I*4 But rather than being surnames,
these are likely the hereditary names o f these erist'av-ates. That is to say, in this instance each o f these
erist'avi-s established their domains as hereditary. Thus Nersiani, Adamasiani. and Juansheriani are
I*Ibid., vol. 1, pp. 212 (Adarnase), 231-241 (Bagrat), and 263.

1%1lbid., vol. I, pp. 236-333 (L uarasab), 335-359 (Rostom), 306-315 (Teimuraz), and 293-305
(Vaxtang).
l* 3Cf. the name Movses "Xorenac'i," in which -aci is the Classical Armenian suffix equivalent to the
Georgian -eli.
l*^Ps.-Juansher, pp. 241-242.
541
dynastic tags and not surnames. The same may also be said o f the designation "Bagrationi" (earliest
Georgian form: Bagratuniani), for it is derived from the imagined eponym o f that family. Bagrat
Surnames are not employed in early Bagratid sources up through the twelfth-century Life o f the
King o f Kings D avit'. However, proto-surnames may be detected already in the history o f Sumbat
Davit'is-dze. These proto-surnames terminated in -dze (-dfl), o r "son." Thus we read about a certain
Vache Karichis-dze ("son o f Karichi") who defected from Bagrat IV .185 In The Chronicle o f K'art'li we
find references to Sahak Ismaelis-dze ("son o f Ismaeli"), Davit' Bagratis-dze ("son o f Bagrat"). Ivane
Marushis-dze ("son o f Marushi"), Arjevan Hololas-dze ("son o f Holola"). Step'anoz Vaijanis-dze ("son of
Varjani") and the like. 18<* Now these proto-surnames literally represent the father-son relationship.
However, in the later medieval period, names in this form were frozen and treated as proper surnames.
W hat is certain is that many modem Georgian surnames terminate in -dze (and the -shvili [-3 3 0 2 5 0 1also
denoting "son").187
It is extremely curious that the twelfth-century Life o f the King o f Kings Davit' provides no such
proto-surnames. However, we should remember that this source is carefully focused upon Davit' II and
that the nobles are mentioned only insofar as they add to the king's prestige. In both Davit'is-dze's history
and The Chronicle o f K'art'li these proto-cognomina are commonly employed and testify to the gradual
development and rise in significance of names. And it should be recalled that Davit'is-dze's own name is
a manifestation o f this trend, and, in fact, his is the first K 'art'velian historian's name that has come down
to us which is unquestionably authentic.
IV. THE EMERGENCE OFSAKTAKTVELO (GEORGIA)
The greatest legacy o f the medieval Bagratid kingdom was its unification o f the lands both east
and west o f the Surami (Lixi) mountains into a single political entity. Although the inept rule of Giorgi
IV Lasha and the subjugation o f all of Caucasia by the Mongols brought about the fragmentation of the
unified realm in the thirteenth century, the ideal o f a unified "Georgia" persisted throughout the late
medieval and early modern periods. Today, the unification o f Georgia is taken for granted as the natural
state o f affairs from tim e immemorial, and modem Georgians often do not hesitate to project this unity
185Sumbat D avit'is-dze, p. 58 = Qauxch'ishvili ed., p. 385.
m Chron. K 'art'li, pp. 255, 258,272,292, a n d 298.

187This certainly had happened by the fourteenth century. E.g., see the enumeration o f names in Tbet'i
Synod. Rec.
542
anachronistically back into the medieval era, into remote antiquity, and even onto the person o f the semimythical Pamavaz.
Sak'art'velo emerged only as the result o f an attenuated process which ultimately witnessed the
creative Bagratid minority seizing upon the potential for unification o f the sundry communities o f central
Caucasia.
We have already had the occasion to mention how historians on the eve o f K 'art'velian
Bagratid rule had come to realize the possibility that Ap'xazeti, K 'art'li, and Tao/Tayk' m ight be joined
into a single political enterprise, but the practicalities were left to the intense physical and intellectual
undertakings o f the Bagratids. The formation o f Georgia was neither rapid, nor inevitable, nor the only
possible outcome. Rather, Georgia was conceived and assembled by a creative minority o f politicians,
military men, and scholars who labored to bring the realization o f the potential for unification to its
fruition.
Davit' o f Tao/Tayk' and Two Byzantine Rebellions
In the very beginning, the K 'art'velian Bagratids did not have the unification o f Georgia as their
principal goal, although this aim became part o f the Bagratid agenda from a relatively early time. From
Ashot I "the Great" that clan sought and monopolized the coveted Byzantine dignity o f kuropalates. Even
the nascent K'art'velian Bagratids, who had established themselves as a separate branch o f the Bagratuni
family in the late eighth century, did not remain united. Following the death o f Ashot I in 830, the
K'art'velian Bagratids broke into three major branches (see the stemma in excursus C); the line o f K 'art'li
(Iberia) proper was established by Ashot's sons Bagrat I and Guaram; the line o f Klaijet'i (Cholarzene)
was established by his grandson Sumbat I; and the line o f Tao/Tayk' was established Ashot's grandson
Gurgen I. The fragmentation o f the K 'art'velian Bagratids into three distinct branches was not so much
the result of any internecine conflict as a reflection o f the Bagratids' rapid gains and the need to effectively
administer a far-flung polity. With the exception o f Adarnase III (891-896) o f the line o f Tao/Tayk', the
K 'art'velian kuropalate remained within the line of K 'art'li proper. This is not the place to trace the
domination of the line o f K 'art'li, but suffice it to say that this branch outlasted those o f Klarjet'i (its last
erist'avi died in 1011) and Tao/Tayk (ending in 941). Extant Bagratid histories are written from the
perspective o f the line o f K 'art'li.
too
I.e., the regions eventually assembled into the all-Georgian kingdom, many of which are today part of
the Republic of Georgia, were not all inherently "K'art'velian." Thus, modem nationalists often voice the
loud opinion that A p'xazet'i was always "Georgian; such a view is particularly charged in view of
A p'xazet'is attempt to detach itself from Georgia. I do not deny the fact that many affinities existed
between medieval K 'art'li and A p'xazet'i and these affinities were seized upon by the Bagratids to join
them together - but to suggest that A p'xazet'i was always "Georgian" only obscures and simplifies the
process by which A p'xazet'i became part o f Georgia.
543
One the most renowned figures o f the line o f K 'a rt'li was Davit' o f Tao/Tayk' (d. 1000), the
erist'avi of Upper Tao/Tayk and the kuropalate o f K 'artli. ^
The reign o f Davit' ofTao/Tayk was to
have serious repercussions for subsequent K 'art'velian history, and it was treated by the Byzantines as a
litmus test o f the K 'art'velians loyalty to the emperor who regarded him self as the leader o f all
Christendom.
The immediate context o f the unification o f Ap'xazet' i and K 'a rt'li under Bagrat HI, the adopted
son o f Davit' ofTao/Tayk', is intimately bound up in D avit's multifaceted relationship with Byzantium.
In 976, following the death o f the Byzantine emperor John I Zimiskes (969-976), the aristocrats Bardas
Phokas and Bardas Skleros emerged as two o f the main contenders for the imperial throne. ^
Both
Phokas and Skleros, along with other nobles, had earlier been removed from positions of power. Skleros
himself had been replaced by a eunuch, and as a result o f this insulting demotion he rebelled against the
emperor in 976. After marrying the daughter o f the Hamdanid am ir o f Mosul, Abu Taghlib, and reaping
a contingent o f M uslim troops from the ensuing alliance, Skleros established himself in eastern Anatolia
and northern Mesopotamia and embarked upon a successful march to the west with the ultimate goal o f
^ A lth o u g h Davit' was based in upper Tao/Tayk', he was the head o f the line o f K 'art'li (and not that of
Tao/Tayk' which came to and end in 941). O n this Davit' and his role in the unification o f Georgia, see:
Z. Avalichvili, "La succession du curopalate David dlberie, dynaste de Tao," Byzantion 8 (1933). pp. 177202; Toumanoff, "Armenia and Georgia," pp. 616-618; M.D. Lordkipanidze, "Obrazovanie gruzinskoi
feodalnoi monarkhii," in Ocherld istorii Gruzii, vol. 2, pp. 354-381; idem., P'eodaluri sak'art'velos
politikurigaert'icmeba (EC-Xss.), esp. pp. 135-257; V. Kopaliani, Sak'art'velosa da bizantiispolitikuri
urt'iert'oba 970-1070 clebshi, with Rus. sum., "Gruzino-vizantiiskie politicheskie vziamootnosheniia v
970-1070 gg.," pp. 310-320, and esp. pp. 10-128; Sh. Badridze, Sak'art'velos urt'iert'obebi bizantiasa da
dasavlet' evropast'an (X-XIIIss.), with Rus. sum., "Vzaimootnosheniia Gruzii s Vizantiei i Zapadnoi
Evropoi (X-XIII w .)," pp. 176-178, and esp. pp. 15-73; Melik'ishvili, P'eodaluri sak'art'velos politikuri
gaert'ianeba da sak'art'veloship'eodalur urt'iert'obat'aganvit'arebiszogiert'i sakit'xi, with Rus. sum.,
"Politicheskoe obedenenie feodalnoi Gruzii i nekotorye voprosy razvitiia feodalnykh otnoshenii v
Gruzii," pp. 133-158; Musxelishvili, Sak'art'velos istoriuligeograp'iis dzirit'adi sa/dt'xebi, vol. 2. pp.
224-244, with Rus. sum., "Osnovnye voprosy istoricheskoi geografii Gruzii." pp. 245-251; and K Salia,
History o f the Georgian Nation, pp. 134-136.
^ J e n k in s , Byzantium: The Imperial Centuries, AD 610-1071, pp. 302-316; J.H. Forsyth, The ByzantineArab Chronicle (938-1034) ofYahya b. Saidal-Antald, 2 vols., unpub. Ph.D. diss., The University of
Michigan, 1977; and R.E. Edwards, "The Vale o f Kola: A Final Preliminary Report on the Marchlands of
Northeast Turkey," DOP 42 (1988), pp. 134#! I draw heavily upon Forsyth's outstanding narrative. P.A.
Blaum, The Days o f the Warlords: A History o f the Byzantine Empire, A.D. 969-991, is far less ambitious
and successful than the study o f Forsyth. See also: H. Gregoire, "The Amorians and Macedonians 8421025," in CN1H, vol. 4/1 (1966), pp. 176-181 (for the rebellions o f Skleros and Phokas/Skleros); N.
Lomouri, "K istorii vosstaniia Bardy Sklira," [T'bilisissaxelmcip'o universitetisj Shromebi 67 (1957), pp.
29-46; Ch. Badridzd, "L'insurrection de Bardas Skldros," BK 33 (1975), pp. 162-190; M. Tarchnishvili,
"Lc soulevcmcnt de Bardas Skleros," BK 17-18 (1964), pp. 95-97; and idem., "Die Anfflngc der
schriftstcllerischen Tatigkeit des hi. Euthymius und der Aufstand von Bardas Skleros," OC 38 (1954), pp.
113-124. Earlier, K'art'velians, Ap'xaz, Laz, Alans (Ovsi-s), and Armenians had participated in the
revolt of Thomas the Slav, see Genesius, II.2, p. 2418.
544
seizing Constantinople. Already in the summer o f 976 Skleros seems to have declared him self emperor.
A series o f Byzantine generals were sent against the rebel, but for the most part they were ineffective, and
Skleros continued his advance and seized the important city ofNicaea. The ultimate prize, the imperial
capital, was now within his grasp.
Realizing the danger posed to Constantinople, the emperor's parakoimomenos (a top imperial
advisor), Basil Lekapenos, recalled Bardas Phokas from the island o f Chios where he had been exiled for
participating in the rebellion against Zimiskes in 970. The Byzantine historian Skylitzes reports that after
several indecisive skirmishes. Phokas and the emperor requested that Davit' ofTao/Tayk' supply troops to
aid the Empire. After all, Davit' owed his title o f kuropalatis to the emperor and Skylitzes says that
Phokas and Davit' had been friends since the former had served as dux o f Chaldaea.191 Especially
important in Byzantine eyes was the fact that Davit''s position in eastern Anatolia would be a most
suitable base from which to direct a retaliatory strike against Skleros.
It is odd that contemporary' Georgian historical texts do not record Davit"s assistance to the
Empire during the rebellion o f Skleros. The Armenian history of Matthew o f Edessa reports only that an
Armenian army forced Skleros to withdraw to Baghdad.
But a contemporary Georgian hagiographical
work, The Life oflovane and Ep't'wme, written by the renowned Giorgi Mt'acmideli, does relate this
episode, and moreover, it declares that once Skleros had rebelled the emperor himself sought the
intervention o f Davit' ofTao/Tayk*. The emperors Basil II (976-1025) and Constantine VIII (r. as senior
emperor 1025-1028) dispatched the Caucasian (probably K'art'velian but perhaps Armenian
Chalcedonian) monk T om ik Ch'orduaneli. who was at the time living on Mt. Athos, with the request for
assistance. Davit' acceded to the solicitation and mustered 12,000 troops placing them under the
command of the now monk-general T o m ik . It was this force, according to Giorgi Mt'acmideli, that was
directly responsible for Skleros' demise. ^
n should be noted that in two MSS o f the later Vaxtangiseuli
recension of K'art'Us c'xovreba, Tk, this episode was inserted into The Chronicle o f K'art'li. although it
does not form part o f the original tex t
A tenth-century Georgian inscription from the Zarzma monastery, situated near the town of
Axalc'ixe, also reveals Davit' s involvement against the Skleros insurrection:
^ S k y litz e s , para. 9 (Basil and Constantine), p. 326.

^ M a tth e w o f Edessa, 1.28, pp. 36-37.
10 '?
Giorgi Mt'acmideli, The Life oflovane and Ep't'wme, cap. 3-6, pp. 44-48, esp. cap. 6, pp. 47-48 =
Lang trans., pp. 156-159.
*^*For the insertion, see Chron. K'art'li, pp. 2T$2-'S2-
545
In the nam e o f G od and with the intercession o f the Holy M other o f God. I, Ivane, son o f
Suli, built this holy chapel. During the time when Skleros was leading a rebellion in
Byzantium, Davit' kuropalates may God exalt him aided the holy emperor and
[Davit-] sent all o f us on campaign. We put Skleros to flight...198
W ith the assistance o f troops provided by Davit' which included both K 'art-velians and
Chalcedonian Armenians196 the rebellion o f Skleros was quashed in 979. In the following year Basil
expressed his gratitude to the K 'art'velians by contributing to the establishment o f a new K'art'velian
monastery on ML Athos named Iverbn (Iviron), or "of the Iberians." But the K 'art'velians received other
compensations, for the Armenian historian Asoghik reports that the emperor bestowed several regions and
cities o f eastern Anatolia upon Davit' ofTao/Tayk-, including Basiani/Basean, Apahunik' (including the
city ofM anzikert), Hark-, and the city o f Theodosioupolis (Karin/Erzerum in Georgian called Karnukalak'i).197 Although some o f these territories were newly given over to the K'art'velians. like
Theodosioupolis, others, like H ark' and Apahunik', were already under the de facto control of Davit-. 198
Soon after Davit' o f Tao/Tayk-s loyalty to the Empire was again put to the test, for, because of
Basil Hs ongoing attempt to tame the aristocracy, his friend Bardas Phokas and others went into rebellion.
Ironically, Skleros returned from his exile in Muslim territories and joined w ith Phokas after reaching a
condominium. But Skleros was placed under house arrest and Phokas assumed the sole leadership o f the
insurrection. Davit' seems to have quickly sided with Phokas, and Psellus divulges that "an army of
Iberians [i.e., K 'art'velians and perhaps Chalcedonian Armenians] was conscripted, fierce, proud
warriors, standing up to ten feet in h eight199 Likewise, Asoghik reports that "a Greek and an Iberian
army" fought in the name o f the rebels.^99 The uprising was eventually put down with the aid o f Rus'ian
troops in 989.
198T aqaishvili, "Zarzmskii monastyr1, ego restavratsiia i freski," SMOMPK 35 (1905). p. 19, Georgian
text and Rus. trans.
196Matthew o f Edessa, 1.31, p. 38. Matthew reports that D a v it's army during an attack on the am ir of
Azerbaijan included 350 infantry and 2500 cavalry from the Armenians.
197See: V.A. Arutjunova-Fidanjan, "Some Aspects o f the Military-Administrative Districts and of
Byzantine Administration in Armenia During the 11th Century, REArm, n.s. 20 (1986-1987), p. 313;
and Iuzbashian, "Vladeniia gruzinskikh Bagratidov," in bxsArmianskie gosudarstva epokhi Bagratidov i
Vizantiia IX-XI w ., pp. 130-149. See also Ter-Ghewondyan, The Arab Emirates in Bagratid Armenia,
trans. by Garsoi'an, p. 109.
198Edwards. "The Vale o f Kola." pp. 135-136.
l99Psellus, 1.10, p. 7.
20As quoted in Iuzbashian. Armianskie gosudarstva, p. 138.
546
Once the rebellion o f Phokas and Skleros had been quashed, Basil II acted swiftly to punish the
betrayal o f Davit' ofTao/Tayk'. Yahya ibn SaId discloses that:
... Davit', the king o f the K'art'velians. begged Basil for forgiveness and mercy, and he
pledged his obedience and submissiveness; and that his possessions after his death
would be annexed by [Byzantium] since he himself was a decrepit old man and had no
sons, nor other heirs. A nd he begged the emperor for permission to dispatch his envoys
to the [imperial] palace so that the emperor might extract an oath from them and obtain
commitments from their side that they would surrender the city [of Theodosioupolis]
upon the death o f [Davit' ofTao/Tayk'].2 0 *
The Byzantine historian Skylitzes and Armenian historians (like Vardan Arewelc'i) confirm that Davit'
was compelled to concede his patrimony to Byzantium upon his death.202 However, Basil II declared
himself the heir to all o f D a v it's possessions, but from the Georgian point o f view the Byzantines could
not justly claim any of D a v it's original patrimony. In any event, Byzantium regarded the Georgian
territory o f Tao/Tayk'-Klaijet'i as an integral part o f its eastern defense, for not only did it guard the
northeastern Byzantine border but the area might also be used as a springboard for Byzantine offensives
into Armenia and as a check upon the pretensions o f the rising "Georgian" kingdom.205
Georgian historical texts for this period (Davit' is-dze and the anonymous Chronicle o f K'art 'li)
do not address the issue o f Davit' of Tao/Tayk's participation in the rebellions which rocked Byzantium
in the second-half of the tenth century. T his is strange- As we shall see, although Davit' had bequeathed
the lands given to him by Basil following the 976-979 rebellion to the Byzantine Empire, this was not
fully recognized by the K 'art'velians until the reign of Giorgi I (1014-1027). In this regard Davit' is-dze
reports that Giorgi I was forced to capitulate and, thus. Davit''s former possessions in Tao/Tayk'
Basiani, Javaxet'i, and Shavshet'i were officially surrendered to Byzantium.20^ Moreover. Davit'isdze suggests that Basil ordered a punitive campaign against Davit' ofTao/Tayk' even before his death in
an apparent attempt to weaken the K 'art'velians position.205
2 0 1Yahya ibn Sai 'id, cap. 4, p. 27.

202Skylitzes, para. 20 (Basil and Constantine), pp. 339-340; and Vardan Arewelci, para. 93, p. 191.
203Kopaliani, Sak'art'velosa da bizantiispolitikuri urt'iert'oba 970-1070clebshi, Rus. sum., p. 313.
20*Sumbat Davit'is-dze, p. 56 = Qauxch'ishvili e d , pp. 384-385.
205Ibid p. 52 = Qauxchishvili e d , p. 382, reports that Basil devastated part ofTao/Tayk'.
547
The Death o f Davit' ofTao/Tayk'
Davit' 's disloyalty apparently cost his successors the prerogative to rule over a kingdom which
comprehended the strategic Anatolian cities o f Manzikert and Theodosioupolis. Some degree of
resentment lingered at his court Although the Georgian historical tradition does not relate the
circumstances o f D a v it's death, Matthew o f Edessa propounds that the king became the object o f intrigue
engineered by several high-ranking nobles. They apparently succeeded in recruiting Hilarion, "the
archbishop o f K 'art'li," to their cause.206 Hilarion is supposed to have mixed poison into the eucharist.
but Davit' was forewarned of the conspiracy and he had an antidote prepared which saved his life.
Consequently, the embittered Hilarion secretly gained access to D avit''s bedchamber and smothered the
slumbering king. A few years later Basil had Hilarion arrested, but the precise charges levied against the
prelate are unknown. In any event, the sentence was harsh. A stone was fastened around Hilarion's neck
and he was cast into the Black Sea. Simultaneously, other conspirators were taken into custody and
executed202 It is possible that Basil himself knew of, or perhaps even engineered Davit' 's assassination,
for upon his death much o f his realm would pass to Byzantium. But as to why Basil sought the arrest and
execution of the conspirators must be relegated to the realm of speculation. It is entirely possible that
Davit' was not murdered by the archbishop.
Another contemporary Armenian historian, Aristakes Lastivertc'i, does not implicate Hilarion
although he does contend that the nobles had successfully assassinated Davit' by poisoning the eucharist.
Lastivertc'i relates that the nobles "had wearied of [Davit' ], and were interested in the promises [made to
them] earlier by [the Byzantine] emperor."20*
Whatever the actual circumstance. Davit' ofTao/Tayk' passed away in the year 1000.
2^fyfedieval Georgian literature is entirely unfamiliar with any kat'aiikos (i.e., head o f the K'art'velian
Church) of this name for the reign of Davit ofTao/Tayk. Rather, we know o f the tenures of IoanneOkropiri ("John the Golden-Mouth"; cf. Chrysostom, r. ca. 980-ca. 1000/1). Swmon (ca. 1000/1-ca.
1002), and Melk'sedeki (ca. 1012-ca. 1030). It is possible that Hilarion was a bishop ofTao/Tayk', for
the Armenian source does use "archbishop" and not kat'aiikos to describe his ecclesiastical status.
202Matthew of Edessa, 1.33, p. 39. Matthew claims that both Basil II and Davit' ofTao/Tayk could trace
their lineages to the Armenian Arshakuniani-s (Arsacids). Davit' ofTao/Tayk'. and other K 'art'velian
Bagratids, do not seem to have emphasized their connection to the Arm enian Bagratuni-s, much less the
pre-Bagratid dynasties o f Armenia.
208
Aristakes Lastivertc'i cap. 1, p. 56 = Bedrosian trans., cap. 1, pp. 3-4.
548
Bagrat III, King o f All-Georgia, and the Theme o f Iberia
Davit' ofTao/Tayk' was unwilling to relinquish the lands he had won from Byzantium following
the suppression of the rebellion o f Bardas Skleros in 979. Byzantine, Armenian, Arabic, and Georgian
sources all concur that Davit' did not have a son whom he could elevate as co-king and heir to the
K 'art'velian realm. Since royal succession in K 'a rt'li was strictly based upon primogeniture, this
situation was problematic, for Davit''s kingdom would surely plunge into anarchy following his death.
This was especially true since Byzantium would surely attempt to occupy many o f the royal possessions in
such an environment
Ivane Marushis-dze. the creative erist'avi o f K 'art'li, was the architect o f a scheme to secure a
stable succession. O f course, the heir whoever he/she m ight be - would have to be a K'art'velian
Bagratid. Marushis-dze was consumed by the idea o f checking Byzantium's increasing presence in
Caucasia and one way to engender this was the expansion o f K 'art'velian royal authority. Accordingly, he
cast his gaze upon Bagrat m , the heir to both the Ap'xaz and K 'art'velian kingdoms. The eleventhcentury Chronicle o f K'art'li contains two passages which relate this episode. The first of them reads:
... And at that time the erist'avi o f K 'art'li was Ivane Marushis-dze. a powerful man
with a great number of troops. He sent an emissary before Davit' kuropalates; he
offered to appear with his forces [so as] to seize K 'art' li and either to occupy it himself
or to bestow it upon Bagrat, son o f Gurgen, son o f the daughter o f Giorgi the king o f the
Ap'xaz. to whom A p'xazet'i and K 'art'li belonged. This very Ivane Marushis-dze
supported [the ascendancy] o f Bagrat as king. And having heard the proposition o f
Ivane Marushis-dze, Davit' kuropalates appeared with all o f his forces and came to
K 'art'li... [after occupying K 'a rt'li Davit'] left Gurgen and his son Bagrat at Up'lisc'ixe. At that time Bagrat was still in his minority, therefore he left his father Gurgen
as regent [t'anagan-mgebelad\. He assembled the K 'art'velian aznauri-s and he issued
the order that "He will be the heir o f Tao, K 'artli. and Apxazet'i, my son and adopted
son, and I am his steward [mouravi\ and assistant [t'anashemce]; everyone will obey
him ."2 0 9
The second passage relates that:
... Ivane Marushis-dze desired to confirm Bagrat as king o f the Ap'xaz. And all o f the
didebulis, and the erist'avi-s, and the aznauris of A p'xazet'i and K 'art'li, together
with him asked Davit' kuropalates to appoint Davit' as k in g And with great duress
[and] with great difficulty he fulfilled their request since it was already manifest that
Davit' kuropalates was childless, and he brought up Bagrat as his own son, making him
2 0 9 C/?ron.
K'art'li, pp. 2728_15 and 2745_9.
549
the ruler over both parts o f Tao [i.e., Upper and Lower]. Since the land o f K 'art' li and
A p'xazet'i remained without an heir, [Davit'] bestowed them upon [Bagrat] under a
firm oath ...2 1 0
Thus Davit' ofTao/Tayk'. through the recommendation o f Ivane Marushis-dze. adopted his kinsman
Bagrat QI as his own son and heir, and in the process confirmed and strengthened Bagrat's right to
become the first king o f a united Georgia, i.e., the lands east (esp. K 'art'li) and west (esp. Ap' xazet' i) of
the Surami mountains, along with lands in the southwest which constituted Davit''s own patrimony of
Tao/Tayk'. To be sure, according to the norms o f primogeniture Bagrat was already heir to K 'art'li
through his own father Gurgen and to A p'xazet'i through bis mother Guaranduxt. Davit' merely
confirmed Bagrat's right to occupy both the K 'art'velian and Ap'xaz thrones, but he also strengthened
Bagrat's hand by making him heir to his land ofTao/Tayk'.
It should be emphasized that these contemporary" accounts do not explicitly declare that Bagrat
IH was the first king o f Sak'art'velo, all-Georgia, although they do clearly state that he was the monarch
of K ' art' li-Ap' xazet' i-Tao/Tayk'. That is to say, though modern specialists assume (probably rightly) that
the term Sak'art'velo gained real meaning and began to be widely used during Bagrat's reign, the
historical accounts about him do not employ the term. In any event, Bagrat was commemorated as a great
king, and in The Chronicle ofK 'art'li we find this brief eulogy in his name:
And I say that after the great king Vaxtang Gorgasali there was not another so great and
powerful and o f all kinds o f intellect as he; he was a builder of churches, he granted
favors to the poor, he rendered justice to all .2 1 1
This is a unique passage in medieval Bagratid historical works, for it explicitly pronounces that the preBagratid monarch Vaxtang Gorgasali was a great monarch and an even greater one than the first king o f
all-Georgia (a Bagratid)! This passage demonstrates the popularity o f the Vaxtang legend via The Life
o f Vaxtang - and the fact that the earliest K'art'velian/Georgjan Bagratids did not divorce themselves
completely from the memory o f earlier K 'art'velian dynasties. After The Chronicle o f K'art'li, such
comparisons become exceedingly rare.
There are, o f course, numerous aspects o f the unification o f Georgia which demand study. O f
interest to us is the forging o f an all-Georgian Bagratid historical tradition. That is to say, the kings and
queens o f all-Georgia sponsored, or at least encouraged, the writing o f history, and in the process they not
110Ibid., p. 2759_15.
l n Ibid., p . 2 8 2 4 _7.
550
only brought into being a homogenized and "official" view o f the past but also a shared, collective past for
the all-Georgian community. T he Georgian past was to be the past o f the Georgian Bagratids. In the
generation following Bagrat HI th e earliest extant histories o f the Bagratid Georgian kingdom were
written. Bagrat in himself seems to have been interested in history, for he is credited with having
compiled The Divan o f Kings, a b rief list o f the A p'xaz monarchs down to his own rule.
The attitude o f the earliest Bagradd-era historians towards Byzantium is one o f exasperation.
Although early Bagratid Georgia was a Christian kingdom and was more closely allied with Byzantium
than ever before, the emperor nevertheless deemed it necessary to punish Georgia for the supposed
indiscretions o f Davit' ofTao/Tayk'. Upon D avit''s death, and the consequent accession o f Bagrat III as
senior mep'e, Byzantine troops moved in to occupy Davit's former possessions. At the same time,
perhaps with the intervention o f imperial agents, some o f the K 'art'velian nobility began to rebel against
B agrat Thus The Chronicle o f K'art'li recounts that the K 'art'velian nobles united around the rebel
K 'a v t'ar Tbeli ("of Tbet'i"), although this insurrection was short lived. In southern K 'art'li the
recalcitrant erist'avi Rati also refused to recognize royal authority, although he too was eventually
quieted .212 Although the Byzantines had seized a part o f his patrimony, Bagrat succeeded in subduing
other territories, including the eastern region o f Kaxet'i-Rani (which had its own rulers styled as k'orikoz
which seems to be a corruption o f the Greek chorepiskopos)2 ^ and parts of Armenia.2 *"* although
112Ibid., pp. 276-278.

2 *-*The title chorepiskopos seems to have been used by the kings of Kaxet' i in a purely secular sense,
although it is conceivable that they were both king and priest. A principate in Kaxeti was already
established in the eighth century and was not fully integrated into Georgia until 1104. On this intriguing
enterprise, see: T '. Papuashvili. Rant'a da kaxt'a samep'o (V1II-X1 ss.), with Rus. sum., "Tsarstvo ranov i
kakhov (VIII-XI w .), " pp. 286-290 (Papuashvili suggests that the title chorepiskopos was first used as a
political title in K axet'i to designate the head of a tribal confederation [pp. 147 and 255-285]); G.G.
Mkrtumian, Gruzinskoe feodalnoe kniazhestvo Kakheti v VIII-XV w . i ego vziamootnosheniia s
Armeniei; and idem., "K voprosu ob obrazovanii feodal'nogo kniazhestva Kakhetii," PBH 1/56 (1972). pp.
230-234. It should be said that five major polities existed in central Caucasia (north of Armenia) just
prior to the establishment of Georgia/Sak'artvelo: (I) Kaxet'i, (2) Hereti, (3) Apxazet'i, (4) Kart'li
(with Tao/Tayk' -Klaijet' i), and (5) the amiratc o f Tp'ilisi. On these, see M.D. Lordkipanidze,
"Vozniknovenie novykh feodalnykh gosudarstv," in Ocherki istorii Gruzii, vol. 2, pp. 246-353.
214The Armenian enterprises in th e ninth and tenth century were: (1) Greater Armenia (886-1045), ruled
by the Bagratuni-s, with capitals in Erazgavorse, Shirakavan, Kars, and Ani; (2) Vaspurakan (908-1021),
ruled by the A rc'runik', with its capital at Van; (3) Kars/Vanand (963-1064), ruled fay a branch of the
Bagratuni-s, with its capital at K ars [separated from Greater Armenia]; (4) Lore/Tashir-Dzoraget (9791256), with capitals at Samshwlde an d Lore, ruled by a branch o f the Bagratuni-s; (5) Siunik' (970-1091),
with capitals at Sisian and Kapan; and (6 ) P'arisos (7-1003), with its capital at Parisose. See Iuzbashian,
ArmiansMe gosudarstva, esp. ch. 2.
551
Davit'is-dze's claim th at he came to occupy "all o f Caucasia from JOcet'i [north o f A p'xazet'i along the
Black Sea] to the Gurgeni [i.e Caspian] Sea is an exaggeration.2 1 5
In the meantime, Basil n annexed many o f Davit''s former possessions some o f which had
been granted to the K 'art'velians by the very emperor in 979 - and created the so-called "theme of
Iberia." The lands comprising the theme o f Iberia were the southern part o f Tao/Tayk ' . 2 1 6
Basiani/Basen, Theodosioupolis/Karin. Xaldoy-arich. Mardaghi, H ark', Apahunik' /Manzikert. and
perhaps Aren and Hawchich. V. Arutjunova-Fidanjan has amply demonstrated th at these territories were
for the most part populated by Armenian Chalcedonians .2 1 7 The consistency o f the Iberian theme was
altered with the addition o f Ani (1045, lost in 1064 to theSeljuqs) andby the 1070s it also included Kars.
Theodosioupolis, and Oltu. O f course, the frontier o f the theme did not remain fixed owing to the
incursions by the Seljuqs.
The theme's last Byzantine governor, Gregory Pakurianos (Bakurianis-dze; r. 1071-1072/1064).
was a native Caucasian; Chalcedonian Armenians bad routinely held the post from 1050. We shall have
the opportunity to m ention the achievements o f Bakurianis-dze in the final chapter, but suffice it to say
that the fact that his immediate predecessors were Chalcedonian Armenians does not necessarily imply
that he is to be identified as one as well. For in 1072/1074 the Iberian theme was vacated and soon afler
annexed by the Georgian kingdom, and it is conceivable that before abandoning the territory the
Byzantines sought to place a pro-Byzantine Georgian in the post so as to ease the transition. The
Byzantine withdrawal from the Iberian theme was surely tied to the rise o f the Turks and the emperor's
defeat at Manzikert in 1071, and was also foreshadowed by the marriage o f Bagrat IV s daughter MariaMaria to the emperor M ichael VII Dukas (1071-1078) and Bagrat's own marriage to a Byzantine princess.
The Chronicle o f K'art'li merely reports that at the beginning o f the reign o f Giorgi II, the son o f Bagrat
215Sumbat Davitis-dze, p. 53 = Qauxchishvili ed., p. 382.

216For the will (written in 1059) o f a Byzantine magnate who took up residence in the theme o f Iberia,
see The Will o f Eustathius Boilas, pp. 263-277. It should be noted that Boilas found the region to be in a
terrible state; when he arrived, he found seven o f his eleven villages were depopulated. See also Edwards,
"The Vale o f Kola," pp. 138-140. The population o f this Iberia was probably alienated by an
unprecedented collection o f taxes during the reign o f Constantine IX (reported by the Byzantine historians
Skylitzes, Kekaumenus, and Attaleiates).
217This discussion on the Iberian theme is based upon the groundbreaking work o f Arutjunova-Fidanjan,
"Some Aspects o f the Military-Administrative Districts and o f Byzantine Administration in Armenia
During the 11th Century," REArm, n.s. 20 (1986-1987), pp. 309-320. See also idem., "Iz istorii severovostochnykh pogranichnykh oblastei vizantiiskoi imperii v XI veke," PBH 1/56 (1972), pp. 91-102; and
idem., Armiano-vizantiiskaia kontaktnaia zona (1994). Edwards, "The Vale o f Kola," p. 140, states that:
"Ironically, this theme was created out o f the Armenian province ofTayk' and bore the name Iberia
merely because those lands had been incorporated into one of the expanding Bagratid provinces o f
Georgia in the early ninth century.
552
IV, "God returned the fortresses that had been tom away by Byzantine pow er... [including] Anakop'ia [in
A p 'x a zet'i]... and many fortresses in Klarjet'i. Shavshet'i, Javaxet'i, and A rtani... [and] the city o f Kars
*218
Giorgi la n d the Rebellion o f the Two Nikephoroi in 1022
Davit' ofTao/Tayk' had sought to better the lot o f his successors by guaranteeing that they would
be the monarchs of an all-Georgian kingdom. Bagrat HI was content to write off the Byzantine territories
which bad been granted to Davit' in 979 but were to retrocede to the Empire upon his death, which
occurred in 1000. Though Bagrat found disappointment in the Byzantines' unwillingness to renegotiate
the settlement, nevertheless he did not openly challenge Basil's occupation force. Rather, Bagrat
concentrated his energies on gathering additional lands within central Caucasia, including the temporary
seizure o f the eastern region of Kaxet'i-Heiet'i. This introverted turn, instigated by Byzantine policy,
precipitated the final absorption of the "Georgian" lands o f central Caucasia into Sak'art'velo. That is to
say, by forcing the Georgian Crown to look inward, the Byzantines inadvertently contributed even more to
the consolidation o f the all-Georgian polity.
Bagrat's successor, Giorgi I (1014-1027). quickly effected a shift in his father's foreign policy.
The ambitious Giorgi flagrantly staked a claim upon the former "Byzantine" possessions o f Davit' o f
Tao/Tayk' and even occupied some of them with Georgian troops. Basil resolved to quell the Georgian
problem once and for all. The Chronicle o f K'art'li reports that "in the seventh year o f [Giorgis] reign
[i.e 1021] Basil, the Byzantine emperor, appeared against him with all o f his Byzantine [lit. 'Greek']
troops including innumerable foreign [mercenaries]
Several inconclusive battles were waged. In the winter o f 1021-1022 Basil camped near
Trebizond. During this period a relatively minor rebellion broke out in Anatolia in 1022 spearheaded by
Nikephoros Phokas son o f the famous and beloved Bardas Phokas and the general Nikephoros
Xiphias .2 2 0 The revolt o f the two Nikephoroi in 1022 is documented by a number of sources: in
2 1 8 CA/wi.
K'art'li, p. 317.
2 Ibid., p. 284. Matthew o f Edessa, 1.50, p. 46, also relates the invasion. Curiously, Matthew reports
that during the campaign Basil secretly became an "Armenian Christian" and that "henceforth [he]
became like an adopted father of the Armenian nation..."
220Nikephoros Xiphias was probably the son o f Alexis Xiphias, the katepan of Italy, Guilland, "Patrices
du regne de Basil DL," JOB 2 0 (1971), pp. 83-108, reprinted in his litres et fonctions de I'Empire byzantin\
and Schlumberger, L'Epopee Byzantine, part 2, "Basile II: Le Tueur de Bulgares, p. 514, note 2.
According to Guilland, ibid., pp. 96-98, Nikephoros Xiphias had been raised to strategos o f the
Anatolikon theme following his successes in Bulgaria. Upon his defection from Basil, the emperor
replaced him with th e protospatharios Theophylakt Dalassenos. Cf. Yahya ibn Sa'id, para. 15, p. 64, who
553
Georgian by Sumbat Davit' is-dze and The Chronicle o f K'art'lv, in G reek by Skylitzes (repeated almost
verbatim in Kedrenos Historiarum Compendium) and Zonaras; in Armenian by Aristakes Lastivertc' i and
Matthew o f Edessa; and in Arabic by the Christian Yahya ibn Sa id.
The Byzantine account o f the rebellion is preserved in Skylitzes' history .2 2 * According to
Skylitzes, when Basil h ad marched to Caucasia seeking to quell the clamorings o f Giorgi L the emperor
had left several noblemen behind (intentionally?), including the patricians Nikephoros Phokas and
Nikephoros Xiphias 2 2 2 Embittered by this, the two Nikephoroi haphazardly assembled supporters from
Cappadocia, Rhondantos, and "the neighboring lands" and went into open revolt.
Fearing that he would be forced to divide his troops between two fronts, Basil dispatched separate
letters to the two Nikephoroi hoping to sow a seed o f discord between them. It would seem that Xiphias.
the military man who was the mind and organizer behind the revolt, was jealous o f the charisma garnered
by the otherwise ineffective, and probably elderly, Phokas. In the end, Phokas was murdered by
supporters o f Xiphias, and Xiphias assumed the command over the rebellion. Theophylakt Dalassenos.
the strategos o f the Anatolikon theme and the future governor o f the them e o f Iberia (r. 1022-1027). took
advantage o f the sudden, negative reversal in morale among the rebels and managed to capture
Nikephoros Xiphias .2 2 2 Xiphias was exiled to the island of Antigonos and many o f the participants were
punished. Some were stripped o f their property, and a few were executed among them a certain patrician
from Tao/Tayk' names Pherses who was charged with the brutal murder o f four kurator-s and the
beheading o f an imperial eunuch.
Yahya ibn Sa'id, a Christian from Antioch who wrote in Arabic, adds significant details.22'* He
concurs with Skylitzes about the origin o f the revolt, but he states that Nikephoros Phokas. the son o f the
also provides Theophylakt with the title o f drungarios. S.A Kamer. "An End and a Beginning: The
Revolt o f the Two Nicephori," in his Emperors and Aristocrats in Byzantium , 976-1081. unpub. Ph.D.
diss.. Harvard University (1983), pp. 137-145, regards this rebellion as a failure o f Basil to promote "new
men." Moreover, Kamer believes that Xiphias was the real force behind the rebellion: while the elderly
Phokas was useful in attracting supporters to the cause, Xiphias was the mastermind. However. I would
suggest that the Phokas familys charisma was an overriding concern for the participants, for we shall see
that once the ex-general Xiphias took control of the insurrection, that his support base rapidly
deteriorated.
2 2 *Skylitzes, para. 45 (Basil and Constantine), pp. 366-367 (who refers to Giorgi as "APXONTOE
ABAEFIAE") = Kedrenos, vol. 2, pp. 477-478.

2 2 2 Zonoras, XVII.9, vol. 3, pp. 567-568, writing after Skylitzes and probably dependent upon him for this
point, relates much less about the rebellion but provides the same reason for its outbreak.
'yyi
For a miniature depicting the defeat o f Phokas and Xiphias in the Skylitzes Madrid MS, see S.C.
Estopafian, Skyllitzes Matritensis. vol. 1 - Reproduccionesy miniaturas, "Castigo de los Rebeldes," no.
486, with description, pp. 185-186.
22<*Yahya ibn Sa'id, cap. 15, pp. 61-66. On this source, see Forsyth, The Byzantine-Arab Chronicle (938-
554
renowned Bandas, was the real initiator o f the rebellion, and that the general Xiphias joined him with
hopes that he might have him self declared emperor. Soon after the rebellion had commenced, Xiphias
became jealous o f Phokas. This culminated in Xiphias ordering the murder o f Phokas in August 1022.
The resolve o f the rebels deteriorated and Xiphias had little time to relish his position as leader o f the
revolt Faced with an onslaught by imperial forces led by Theophylakt Dalassenos, Xiphias sent forth a
messenger declaring that he had successfully infiltrated the rebel ranks and was now declaring an end to
the sedition. Basil was deaf to this fabrication, and Xiphias was arrested and exiled
The non-Caucasian sources for the 1022 revolt say little about Georgian involvement. But
Georgian and Armenian sources do associate the insurrection o f the two Nikephoroi with Giorgi I. In
Georgian we possess two related accounts. The earliest o f them is by Davit' is-dze:
But at this time a great defection occurred in Byzantium, for the spaspeti [i.e.. general]
of Basil and Carvezi, the son o f the renegade Phokas, became allies and Xiphias was
proclaimed as emperor, and they seized all o f the Eastern lands. But God bestowed his
great grace upon the frightened Basil, for Xiphias defected from Carvezi; and all of the
troops who had sided with [Xiphias] were enticed into a fortress, [they] seized them and
they sent them to Basil. And [Basil] banished [Xiphias] to [some] islands, and he
decapitated many of his supporters, among them was P'erisi, son of Jojik. a
K 'a rt'v e lia n .^ ^
The dependent account o f The Chronicle o f K'art'li is essentially the same, although its author
incorporates a few additional details. Nikephoros Xiphias is not said to have been declared emperor by
the rebels, and "Dalassenos," i.e., Theophylakt Dalassenos, is understood to have been responsible for the
capture o f Xiphias.22** Moreover, Perisi is identified as a native o f Tao/Tayk (the implication is that he
might be a Chalcedonian Armenian) and not simply as a K 'artvelian. It is entirely possible that the
anonymous author o f The Chronicle o f K'art 'li had access to a Byzantine source (perhaps Skylitzes or the
dependent accounts o f Kedrenos and Zonaras).
The rebel actors in these two Georgian accounts are confused. The first individual to be
mentioned is the spaspeti o f Basil. As we have seen, the term spaspeti refers to the second-to-the-king in
pre-Bagratid K 'art'li; it is used here in the sense o f the Greek strategos, or general. Thus we may equate
this general with Nikephoros Xiphias who had held the post o f strategos o f the Anatolikon theme before
1014) ofYahyd b. Sa'idal-Antaki, esp. vol. 2, pp. 369 etsqq.

^ S u m b a t Davit'is-dze. p. 558 _ 18 = Qauxch'ishvili e d , pp. 38330-3844.
226
Chron. K'art'li, pp. 285 17 - 2 8 7 3 . The editor o f the text, S. Qauxch'ishvili, provides extensive comm,
on these two Georgian passages; see K'C'^, notes and apparatus criticus for pp. 285-287 {Chron. K'art'li)
and introduction, pp. 034-039.
555
his defection from Basil. The Georgian historians are unaware that this anonymous strategos was actually
Xiphias, for both accounts mention Xiphias separately.
It would seem logical to equate the "Carvezi" o f Georgian sources with Nikephoros Phokas. But
how may we account for this strange word? Byzantine sources refer to Nikephoros Phokas as O
BAPYTPAXHAOE, or "the Twisted Neckfed]." This sobriquet was known to the Armenian historians
Aristakes Lastivertc'i and Matthew o f Edessa, both o f whom relate the events surrounding 1022. But
instead o f transliterating the Greek form, the Armenians created the caique C raz, meaning precisely
"twisted neck[ed]."
777
Clearly, the Georgian Carvezi is a corruption o f the Armenian Crviz. and thus it
is exceedingly likely that Sumbat Davit'is-dze used an Armenian source (written or oral) for this account:
later The Chronicle o f K'art'li merely duplicated it. In any event, Carvezi is to be identified as
Nikephoros Phokas, and in the context o f the Georgian accounts this is absolutely accurate.
As for the Armenian sources, it should be said that they essentially agree with the other accounts,
although they offer substantially more detail. But in contrast to other texts, Lastivertc'i contends that
Senek'erim-Davit, the Armenian prince o f Vaspurakan, was responsible for assassinating Phokas in the
name o f Basil.2 2 8 Matthew o f Edessa states that the Armenian Davit' was courted by Nikephoros
Phokas. It is significant that neither Armenian source mentions the role o f Xiphias and instead they'
substitute this Armenian prince Davit' 2 2 9 Both sources credit this Armenian with the collapse o f the
rebellion, but since no other work confirms this in either Greek, Georgian, or Arabic - this supposition
seems to be a patriotic embellishment
It is significant that the rebellion o f 1022 is prominently featured in both Georgian sources
addressing this period. This begs the question: was Giorgi I involved in the insurrection of the two
Nikephoroi? The Byzantinist H. Grggoire believed that Giorgi him self had incited the rebellion.22 But
Davit'is-dze and The Chronicle o f K'art'li that is to say, the local Georgian contemporary sources do
not mention his having any involvement But Nikephoros Phokas does seem to have previously employed
the service of Georgian troops in 988 when, under the command o f his rebel-father Bardas. he defeated
the magistros Taronites .2 2 * Matthew o f Edessa reveals that Nikephoros Phokas sought to establish an
alliance with Giorgi, but no further details are disclosed. There can be no question that some Georgians
222Adontz and Gregoire, "Nicephore au Col Roide," Byzantion 8/1 (1933), pp. 203-212. E.g., this form
is found in Aristakes Lastivertc'i, luzbashian trans., cap. 3, p. 64 = Bedrosian trans., cap. 3, p. 17.
2 2 8 Aristakes Lastivertc'i, cap. 3, pp. 63-66 = Bedrosian trans., cap. 3, pp. 16-21.
229Matthew of Edessa. 1.51. pp. 46-47.

2 2 H. Gregoire, "The Amorians and the Macedonians 842-1025," in
CMH, vol. 4/1, p. 189.
231Ibid., p. 179.
556
took part in the revolt, for many o f the sources, both Georgian and non-Georgian, mention the execution
o f the rebel P'erisi (who may actually have been a Chalcedonian Armenian). But we possess only
circumstantial evidence for Giorgis possible support for, or even incitement o f the rebellion o f the two
Nikephoroi. To be sure, Giorgi must have welcomed the revolt since some of Basil's troops for his
Caucasian campaign were diverted. Moreover, we know that Giorgi even sought the assistance o f alHakim, the Fatimid sultan in Egypt, in his struggle against Byzantine intervention .2 2 2
Once the rebellion had been quashed, Basil directed his full energies against Giorgi I. and the
latter finally capitulated giving up his own son and heir, Bagrat, as a hostage.2 2 2 The future Bagrat IV
lived in Constantinople for three years and, as we shall see in the following chapter. Byzantine respect for
him was manifest in the marriage o f his daughter M art'a-M aria ("Mary o f Alania") to two successive
emperors and to his own marriage to Helena, a Byzantine princess.
Bagrat IV and the Diminishing Byzantine Threat
Bagrat became the senior mep 'e in 1027 at the age o f nine. Despite residing for three years in
Constantinople, he seems to have harbored no blind love for the Empire, and upon his accession he
demanded the unconditional return o f Georgian territories still held by Byzantium. The emperor rejoined
with the dispatch of a small army to extinguish Bagrat's insubordination. Saba, the bishop o f Tbet'i
("Mtbevari"), took a stand against the Byzantine raid by constructing a fortress to guard Shavshef i. He
was joined by other nobles loyal to Bagrat including Ezra, the bishop o f Anch'i ("Anch'eli " ) 2 2 4
Byzantine forces met with defeat in several skirmishes, and upon the death o f the emperor Constantine
VIII in 1028 the troops were recalled once and for all.
The Byzantines did not abandon their desire to influence events in Georgia and they continued to
check the ascending power o f the Georgian kingdom by interfering in its internal politics. From the
1020s the Byzantines supported various Georgian nobles and encouraged their defection with money,
training, and perhaps even troops. At the beginning o f Bagrat's reign, several nobles from Tao/Tayk' including Vach'e Karichis-dze and Iovane, the bishop o f Bana defected to Byzantium. Later,
Byzantium threw its weight behind Liparit Baghuashi [mod. Baghvashi], the erist'avi o f erist'avi-s, whose
222Yahya ibn Sa'id, cap. 15, p. 6126-29- See also Kopaliani, Sak'art'velosa da bizantiispolitikuri
urt'iert'oba 970-1070 clebshi, Rus. sum., p. 315.

222For a miniature of Basil IPs victory over Giorgi I in tbe Skylitzes Madrid MS. see Estopafian,
Skyllitzes Matritensis, vol. 1, "Victoria de Basilio II sobre Georgios de Abasgia," no. 485, with
description, p. 185.
2 2 ^ Chron.
K'art'li, pp. 291-292. These bishops were essentially behaving as erist'avi-s.
557
headquarters were at Klde-kari, a fortress in the T ria le t'i region within K 'a rt'li (and not in the western
periphery along the Byzantine border ).2 3 3 The emperor reinforced Liparit's hand by sending Demetre.
Bagrat's younger brother, to Georgia as a pretender to the throne. Earlier, Demetre himself had taken up
residence in Byzantium .2 3 6 After Demetre passed away, Liparit continued to seek Bagrat's removal while
also being employed by the Byzantines to fight off Turkish raids. Bagrat eventually journeyed to
Constantinople to plead his case before the emperor. While there, Liparit instigated the crowning of
Bagrat's son, the future Giorgi H, as co-king and secured for himself the position o f tutor (mzrdeli,
8b6fi3C30)23^
Nobles loyal to Liparit grew tired o f him, and in 1058 Sula Kalmaxeli led a group o f Mesxi-s
(from southwestern "Georgia") in open revolt against him. Liparit was seized and was surrendered to
Bagrat. In turn, Bagrat rewarded Kalmaxeli w ith the lands of C'ixisjuari and O dzrq'e .2 3 8 It should be
said that Liparit's immediate descendants continued to undermine the Crown and it was only in the reign
o f Davit' II (1089-1125) that "the house o f the Baghuashi-s came to an end, [it was] the house of the
Embitterers [saxli gamamcarebelt'ay] [and] o f those who drained the dregs o f wrath, [of those who] drank
o f the sinners of this w orld .." 2 3 9
Following the downfall o f Liparit. Bagrat IV cast his gaze upon the eastern region o f Kaxet'i,
which had been subdued by Bagrat in but now had liberated itself and was ruled by its own monarchs.
Moreover, during his rule the SeljOq Turks began to make raids into Georgia. To be sure, other nobles
would rebel and other pretenders would seek the throne, but the intense Byzantine involvement in. and
influence over. Georgian affairs reached its zenith at this time. The evaporation o f Byzantine intervention
coincides with the appearance o f the Seljuqs. Although the Georgian kingdom would have to send its
forces against the new Turkish treat, the potential for Byzantine interference in Georgian politics had been
forever dim inished The stage was now set for the further distancing of Georgia from potential Byzantine
claims o f superiority by Davit' II at the end o f the eleventh century.
2 3 5 Liparit's rebellion is well known in non-Georgian sources. See: Skylitzes, para. 11 (Constantine
Monomachos), pp. 447-448 (Bagrat IV is called "HATKPATIOE AE O THE IBHPIAE APXHTOE);
Kedrenos, vol. 2, pp. 578-581 (who repeats the account o f Skylitzes); Zonoras, vol. 3, pp. 639-641; and
Matthew o f Edessa, 1.94, pp. 78-79.
236Sumbat Davit'is-dze, pp. 58-59 = Qauxch'ishvili e d , pp. 385-386; and Chron. K'art'li, pp. 300-301.
2 3 2 Chron.
K'art'li, p. 304.
2 3 8 / d , pp. 304-305.
2 3 9 77re Life
o f Davit', p. 1 6 9 ^ = Qauxch'ishvili e d , p. 326jq_^2-
558
The process o f Georgia's unification by the Bagratids in the course o f the late tenth and early
eleventh centuries still awaits a comprehensive, scholarly treatment in a Western language. Here, I have
sought only to place the establishment o f an all-Georgian kingdom within a relevant historical context
Ultimately, the coincidence that Bagrat III inherited both the kingdoms o f K 'art'li an d A p'xazet'i brought
about the unification o f those two regions. To ensure that Bagrat m would emerge as the first and
uncontested monarch o f all-Georgia, the kuropalates Davit' ofTao/Tayk' adopted Bagrat as his own son;
Davit' made Bagrat heir to his own patrim ony ofTao/Tayk' in the hopes that his enterprise might outlive
its Byzantine occupation following his death. After Davit''s demise in 1000, Bagrat was reluctant to assay
Byzantine resolve on the issue, and m any o f Davit's former possessions were occupied by imperial troops
and organized into the so-called "theme o f Iberia." Giorgi I, Bagrat's successor, was unwilling to confer
Byzantium free rein over Georgian authority, but his challenge to the emperor fell s h o rt But as Georgian
power intensified under Bagrat IV, an d as the Turks weakened Byzantium's hold in the E a st the Georgian
Crown succeeded in regathering m uch o f Davit's patrimony and even in annexing the "theme o f Iberia."
The unification o f Georgia was intimately linked to Byzantine foreign policy. In this regard the
three rebellions which rocked Byzantium in 976-979,987-989, and 1022 affected Georgia's uneasy
relationship with its co-religionist neighbor. In the rebellion of Bardas Skleros. D avit' ofTao/Tayk'
voluntarily provided massive military assistance to help his old friend Bardas Phokas, then supporting the
Empire. Although we must not exaggerate Georgia's role in quashing the rebellion, nevertheless Davit's
aid to the emperor was significant i f not pivotal, and in any case it brought about m ore quickly than
otherwise a successful conclusion. A s a result o f his fidelity. Davit' was bequeathed several Byzantine
territories in eastern Anatolia and Basil seems to have assisted with the foundation o f the Iveron
monastery on Mt. Athos. But Davit' s loyalty to Bardas Phokas proved dangerous w hen he supported
Phokas, who had joined with Skleros, in a n insurrection against the Empire less than a decade later.
Davit' ofTao/Tayk' pleaded with Basil for mercy and the punishment was delayed. But the arrangement
provided for the annexation to Byzantium o f at least some o f Davit's territories following his death.
The rebellion o f the two Nikephoroi in 1022 was set in the context o f Basil's campaign against
Giorgi I who himself refused to recognize Byzantine authority over Davit' s former patrimony. Giorgi's
role, if any, in the rebellion is unclear. Although he may have not instigated it, he surely encouraged the
insurgents. Following the rebellion's end and Giorgi's consequent submission to Byzantium, the emperor
attempted to affect Georgian politics by propping up Bagratid pretenders to the throne (like Demetre) and
in providing support to recalcitrant Georgian nobles (like Liparit).
Thus in the last-half o f the tenth and the first-half o f the eleventh centuries K art' li/Georgia
could not free itself from Byzantine politics.2* In terms of ultimate political allegiances, K 'a rt'li was
2 *Georgia's important position w ithin the Byzantine world is often ignored; e.g., M. Angold, The
Byzantine Empire 1025-1204: A Political History, p. 3, where he makes reference to Georgia's role in
559
irrevocably pushed into the Byzantine orbit by Heraclius' invasion. Three centuries later, Basil ITs
policies indirectly encouraged the establishment o f the all-Georgian kingdom but subsequently the
emperor himself witnessed the refusal o f the Georgian Bagratids to blindly submit to the imperial agenda.
The Georgian Bagratids established themselves under Byzantine tutelage and to no small degree they
modeled their polity after that o f Christian Byzantium and Davit' ofTao/Tayk' even conceived of
himself as a ruler in the Byzantine sense o f the w o r d . ^ But w ith Basil's occupation o f the extreme south
o f Georgia and the Byzantine challenge to the authority of Giorgi I and then Bagrat IV, Georgia took
advantage o f the appearance o f the Seljuqs to begin to distance itself from any position or circumstance by
which the Byzantines m ight claim ultimate authority.
This distancing itself from Byzantium reached its zenith under Davit' II (1089-1125). who
discarded Byzantine dignities once and for all and sought to elevate him self to a status within Caucasia
and the Near East equal to that o f the Byzantine Empire. Byzantium, weakened first by the Turkish
invasions and then by the Crusades, was now in no position to hinder the expanding authority o f the
Georgian Crown. T he forging o f a distinctly Georgian kingship, within a Byzantine/Christian ideological
context and within the geographical context o f the Near East, had commenced.
Byzantine rebellions; but Angold says little about the all-Georgian kingdom.
^
Eastmond, Royal Imagery in Medieval Georgia, unpub. typescript (1996), esp. ch. 2.
560
Chapter Seven
L o o k in g T o w a r d s B y z a n tiu m :
R e fin e m e n t o f R u le a n d I m a g e
In contrast to the preceding period, the reigns o f Davit' II (I089-1125) and his successors are
comparatively well-documented by contemporary local historical sources, with Davit' and his great
granddaughter T am ar having three extant biographies about them: The life o f Davit', The Histories and
Eulogies, and The Life o f Tamar. ^ On the basis o f these texts, I shall conclude this stud) with an
overview of the contemporary image o f Bagratid rulers o f this grand siecle o f medieval Georgia. This
discussion does not pretend to be a comprehensive analysis. Rather, it provides just enough evidence so as
to compare adequately the contexts and traditions o f pre-Bagratid and Bagratid historical literature.
I. BAGRATID ROYAL TITVLATURE
The Byzantine Dignity o f Kuropalates
An examination o f the evolution o f royal titulature, or intitulatio, provides graphic evidence for
the expansion and unification o f the Georgian kingdom under the Bagratids, as well as for Georgia's shift
in orientation at least in terms o f notions o f royal authority from the Persian/Near Eastern to the
Byzantine world .2
1<X these three, only The life o f Davit' has been re-edited since the discovery of the Q variant of K'C'.
For some remarks about Q's version o f Hist, and Eul., see C \ Kikvidze, "Istoriat'a da azm at'a'
tck'stisat'vis," Mac'neenisa 2 (1983), pp. 87-92, with Rus. sum., "K ustanovleniiu teksta 'Istorii i
voskhvaleniia ventsenostsev,'" p. 92.
2On Bagratid royal titulature, see: Xaxanashvili, "K 'art'velt' m cp'ct'a tituli, kurt'xeva da regaliebi,"
Moambe 2/7 (1895). pp. 75-88; Javaxishvili, Sak'art'velosmep'e da misi up'lebisistoria', M. Surguladze.
"Politikuri da kulturul-sarcmunoebrivi p'ormulebi k'art'vel m ep'et'a titulaturashi," in K'art'uli
cqarot'mc'odneoba, vol. 8 , pp. 150-160, with Eng. sum., "Political, Cultural and Religious Formulas in
the Titles of Georgian Kings," pp. 159-160; Musxelishvili, "Davit' aghmasheneblis aghmosavluri
titulatura," in Davit' aghmashenebeli: statiebis krebuli, pp. 66-83, with Rus. sum., "Vostochnaia
titulatura tsaria Davida Stroitelia," pp. 82-83; Kapanadze, Gruzinskaia numizmatika, idem., "Novyi tip
561
Before tracing the development Bagratid intitulatio, it is worth briefly reconsidering that which
had existed under the pre-Bagratid monarchs. As we have seen, pre-Bagratid kings, most o f whose reigns
are described by considerably later texts, are customarily furnished the generic title k'art'velt'a mep'e
(^ i 6 o533 C?a)i 33533 ). or "king o f the K'art'velians ."3 This title is accurate insofar as the pre-Bagratid
monarchy never held the far western territories under its hegemony. For augmented effect these kings
might occasionally be provided a fanciful title, as was the case w ith P'am avaz. who on his accession is
described as "king over all K 'a rt'li andEgurisi [i.e., Egrisi/Colchis]."'* Though Classical evidence asserts
that K 'art'velian authority sometimes extended to the region ju st south of Colchis, there is no independent
evidence to suggest that the K' art' velians held sway over Colchis/Egrisi itself. In any event, pre-Bagratid
monarchs seem to have been customarily styled as "kings o f the K'art'velians" until the abolition of the
monarchy by the Persians in the second-half o f the sixth century.
Once K ' art'velian royal authority had fallen into abeyance, the Byzantines rapidly came to a
realization o f the potential for employing the Christian K 'art'velian princes as pawns against the Persian,
and then Islamic, menace. Moreover, as a tool o f diplomacy the Byzantines could also bestow dignities in
such a manner as to sway K 'art'velian internal politics. This was clearly the case with Basil ITs granting
o f competing dignities to Gurgen I and his son Bagrat m .^ In order to secure the K'art'velians as allies
and as protectors o f the eastern frontier, the Byzantine emperor conferred the coveted title o f kuropalates
(KOYPOIIAAATHE; Latin curopalates) upon the first Guaramid, Guaram I (588-ca. 590), prince of
Klarjet'i-Javaxet'i.^ We have already seen how this Byzantine dignity was derived from the Roman post
monety Davida Stroitelia," F F 8 (1956), pp. 338-343; Pakhomov, Monety Gruzir, idem., "Titul
shirvanshakha v Gruzii," in his Kratkii kurs istorii Azerbaidzhana (Baku, 1923), pp. 47-48; and M.
Lort'k'ip'anidze, "Georgia in the XI-XII Centuries," in her Essays on Georgian History, pp. 131-134.
For Bagratid intitulatio in the sixteenth through eighteenth centuries, see M. Berdzenishvili, P'eodaluri
xanissak'art'velos istoriis cerilobit'i cqaroebi (1989), pp. 23-43.
3This form is encountered in Royal List I, p. 82 (for Azoy) and throughout The Life o f the Kings. The
word order is often transposed in medieval texts.
*The Life o f the Kings, p. 246_y: "... 0 i 83033 yct3 3 C3 lji

gi sa Q fib i tyjjoo, [da mep'e
qovelsa k'art'lsa da egursa zeda] = "... and [P'amavaz] became king over all K art'li and Egurisi." This
formula is not in the usual form (i.e.. king of a community).
3Sumbat Davit'is-dze, p. 5 2 2 3 .3 2 = Qauxch'ishvili e d , p. 3S2g_i2: "And the emperor Basil conferred
honors upon them: to Gurgen the magistrate and to Bagrat the kuropalati. By doing this he made the
father and the son enemies o f one another, and thus [Basil] was a sly hypocrite." Davit'is-dze
subsequently reports that Gurgen did not allow himself to fall into Basil's snare and he did not become
envious o f his son's more esteemed position. This situation is also reported by the Armenian historian
Aristakes Lastivertc'i, cap. 1, p. 57 = Bedrosian trans., cap. 1, p. 4.
Ôn the dignity o f kuropalatis, see: Guilland "Curopalate," Byzantina 2 (1970). pp. 187-249 and esp. pp.
215-220; idem., Titres etfonctions de VEmpire byzantin, which contains the aforementioned article; N.
Oikonomides, e d , Les listes preseance byzantines des D f et X? siicles; and Kazhdan, "Kouropalates," in
562
o f cura palatii, the official in charge o f the maintenance o f the palace. The status o f the kuropalates in
Byzantium subsequently became honorific, and it was applied by Justinian I (527-565) to designate his
nephew, Justin II (565-578), as the appointed heir. Thus, kuropalates came on occasion to be used in the
sense o f caesar. Until the end o f the ninth century, this title was usually reserved for members o f the
imperial family. The Kletorologion of Phioltheos (written in 899) ranked the eight most prominent
Byzantine dignities in the following sequence: (1) caesar, (2) nobelissimos, (3) kuropalates; (4) zoste
patrikiar, (5) magistros; (6 ) [patrikios kai] anthypatosr, (7) patrikios; and (8 ) protospatharios? The tcnthcentury Book o f Ceremonies by Constantine VII Porphyrogennitos gives this ranking: (1) caesar, (2)
nobelissimos; (3) kuropalates-, (4) magistros-, and (5) patrikios The same source also discloses the
protocol for addressing the kuropalates o f K 'art' li.^ In any event, the honor of kuropalates remained an
esteemed position.
When K 'art'velian presiding princes were first bestowed the honor of kuropalates (probably from
Guaram I as is recorded in the Georgian tradition), the rank was still extraordinary. Along with the
parallel development in neighboring Armenia, the K'art'velians' holding o f the kuropalate is one o f the, if
not the. earliest examples of an individual outside o f the Byzantine royal family, and a non-Byzantine at
that, to be granted that esteemed status. Guaiam's reign also coincides with the K 'art'velian modification
o f Sasanid silver coinage {drachm-s), steadily progressing from the addition of the presiding princes'
names in Georgian beside the portrait o f the shahanshah on the obverse to the inscription of a Christian
cross above the Zoroastrian fire altar on the reverse. These coins illustrate both the Sasanid context of
contemporary K 'art'velian society as well as the initial stages in the shift in orientation o f the K 'art'velian
(Guaramid) principate towards Christian Byzantium.
The medieval sources for the kuropalate o f K 'a rt'li are Ps.-Juansher. The Works o f Grigol
Xandzt'eli, Royal List III, Sumbat Davitis-dze, The Chronicle o f K'art'li-, the Byzantine historian
Skylitzes; the Arabic-language history o f the Christian Yahya ibn Sa'id: and Georgian numismatic and
epigraphic evidence. For its part the Georgian historical tradition from Ps.-Juansher through the late
eleventh century emphasizes the possession of the honor of kuropalates as well as other esteemed
ODB, vol. 2 (1991), p. 1157.

7 Philotheos,
Kletorologion, pp. 22 and 33-35.
^Constantine VII, On the Ceremonies, cap. 54/45, "OEA AEI IIAPA$YAATTEIN E m nPOATOTH
KOYPOnAAATOY," vol. 2, pp. 3 7 -3 9 .
9Ibid., Bonn ed., cap. 48, "TA AKTA TON EIE TOYE E 0N K O Y E TENOMENQN EIHTPAÔN," pp.
687-688.
563
Byzantine dignities. The following K 'art'velian holders o f the kuropalate are attested in extant Georgian
historical literature (only a representative source[s] are listed here ) : 10
K 'artvelian kuropalates
Editio citato
Guaram I
Sumbat Davit'is-dze. p. 41/374
[Step'anoz I (ca. 590-627, no Byzantine title),

murdered under Heraclius order. Guaramid line
fell into abeyance until Guaram II, power
temporarily given over to Chosroids who were
granted the lesser Byzantine dignity o f patrician):
Adarnase I (627-637/42, patrician); Step'anoz II
(637/642-ca. 650, patrician); an d Adarnase n
(ca. 650-684, patrician)]
Sumbat Davit'is-dze. pp. 42-43/

374-375
684-ca. 693
Guaram II
Sumbat Davit' is-dze. p. 44/376
ca. 693-ca. 748
Guaram HI11
Dynastv/date
Guaramids
588-ca. 590
Nersianids
ca. 748-ca. 760
Adarnase III (his n.n. daughter m. Guaram-Gurgen. [deduced by Toumanoffj 12

the son of Guaram III).
Bagratids
813-830
Ashot I
Sumbat Davit'is-dzc. pp. 44-46/

376-377
842/43-876
Bagrat I
876-881
Davit' I (presiding prince)
881-891
Gurgen I
Sumbat Davit'is-dze. pp. 47-48/

378-379
Sumbat Davit' is-dze. pp. 48-49/
379
10The dates and ordinals o f the following presiding princes and kings are taken from Toumanofif.
11 See also Toumanoff Studies, pp. 401-416. At about this point in the sequence. Royal List III, p. 97,
attests to a certain Arshusha kuropalates. This Arshusha is unknown in other Georgian texts.
12 ToumanofF,
Studies, pp. 401-428.
564
891-923
Adarnase IV (II) (of Bagratid line)

(r. as king o f K 'art'li, 888-923)
[Adyshi Gospel] 13
923-954
Ashot n
954-958
Sumbat I
Sumbat Davit' is-dze. p. 51/381
958-961
Adarnase V (HI)
Sumbat Davit'is-dze, p. 51/381
990-1000
Davit' (Iking) o f Tao/Tavk' (erist'avi o f Upper

Tao/Tayk', r. 966-1000)14
1000-1014
Bagrat IH (erist'avi of Upper Tao/Tayk', coterminous; Sumbat Davit'is-dze. p. 52/38:

king o f A p'xazeti, 978-1014; king of Georgia,
1008-1014)15
fGiorgi I (1014-1027). no Byzantine titles attested] 16
1027-1072
Bagrat IV
Chron. K'art'li. p. 315
1072-1089
Giorgi II 17
Chron. K'art'li, p. 313
As we have seen, the Guaramids initially held the K 'art'velian kuropalate but they temporarily
lost this status after Step'anoz I was murdered for having refused to recognize Heraclius as his overlord.
We do not know whether Step'anoz had been confirmed as kuropalates earlier in his reign, but following
his execution in 627 Heraclius reinstated the Chosroid dynasty and granted them the lesser dignity of
patrician. With the recovery o f the principate by the Guaramids under Guaram Q in 684. the kuropalate
Adarnase I is also named as kuropalates in a colophon o f the Adyshi Gospel (897): see: T aqaishvili in
Adyshi Gospels, introduction, pp. 14-16 (Georgian text and Rus. trans.); and Djobadze, Early Medieval
Georgian Monasteries, p. 42.
Â lthough this Davit', along with his father (Adarnase HI) and his brother (Davit' II). administered
Upper Tao/Tayk', he was a member o f the Bagratid line of Kart'li proper and not o f the line ofTao/Tayk'
(whose male line ended with Gurgen II [d. 941]).
lÂlso attested in stone inscriptions as at X c'ia (1002) and at the K 'ut'at'isi cathedral (1003):
Musxelishvili, "Davit' aghmasheneblis aghmosavluri titulatura," in Davit' aghmashenebeli: statiebis
krebuli, p. 67. The 1003 inscription is also published in Silogava, Dasavlet' sak 'art 'velos carcerebi, vol.
1. pp. 53-54.
l^The Georgian historical tradition does not attribute any Byzantine dignities to Giorgi I. Furthermore,
no coins struck in his name have come down to us. Giorgi was certainly in line to claim the kuropalate,
but during his reign the emperor Basil warred against him, and he may have played a role in the revolt o f
the two Nikephoroi in 1022.
17But Giorgi n is not styled as kuropalates while he was king. This is in accordance with the Byzantine
practice o f a successor to the throne being named as kuropalates.
565
o f K 'a rt'li was reestablished. After Guaram
in it passed briefly to the short-lived Nersianid dynasty and
then entered a period o f interlude until the confirmation o f the Bagratid Ashot I as kuropalates in 813.
The Bagratid presiding princes, and subsequent kings, jealously guarded their possession o f the
kuropalate. As mentioned in the previous chapter, the K 'art'velian Bagratid clan fragmented into three
major branches during the two generations following Ashot I: the lines ofTao/Tayk'. Klaijet'L and
K 'a rt'li (Iberia) proper. It was the line o f K 'art'li that seized supreme control in the K 'art'velian
domains, and only one prince outside o f that branch, Adarnase II o f the line ofTao/Tayk'. held the
kuropalate.
The head o f the ruling princely dynasty be it Guaramid. Chosroid Nersianid. or Bagratid
usually held the dignity o f kuropalates in this period. But the basis o f rulership in K 'art'li. as it had been
in the pre-Bagratid period, remained highly dynastic and based upon the strict principle o f primogeniture,
the exception rather than the rule in Byzantium (though at this time the so-called "Macedonian" dynasty
was entrenched there). The honor of the kuropalate essentially became hereditary in K 'art' li. although we
do possess a few* explicit references to the Byzantine emperor continuing to grant confirmations (including
Guaram I, ^ Ashot,2 Bagrat
and Bagrat IV22). But the process by which the kuropalate was
made hereditary cannot be discerned from extant sources.

It should be noted that Sumbat Davit'is-dze periodically employs the epithet "great" (coocoo, didi)
to describe various personages, including some o f the holders o f the K'art'velian kuropalate. But we may
not suppose that Davit'is-dze had a separate dignity o f "great kuropalates," or protokuropalates (or
perhaps megakuropalatis), in m in d 2^ It is certain that there was only one K 'art'velian kuropalates at
any given time, and the princes subordinate to him were afforded the lesser Byzantine titles of
lO
10It should be noted that the Caliph also confirmed some o f these presiding princes (specifically as prince
and not as holders o f the kuropalate); e.g.. Ashot I was recognized by both the Byzantine emperor and the
Caliph, as were his successors Bagrat I and Davit' I. Thus the bestowal of the kuropalate upon the
K 'art'velian presiding princes did not absolve them from recognizing the growing Islamic presence in
Caucasia.
^Ps.-Juansher, pp. 217-222; and Sumbat Davit'is-dze, p. 41 = Qauxch'ishvili ed.. p. 374.
20 Chron. K'art'li, pp. 2526_9; and Sumbat Davit'is-dze, pp. 44-45 = Qauxch'ishvili e d , p. 376 (Ashot's
power was granted from God and his dignity confirmed by the Byzantine emperor).
2 *Sumbat Davit'is-dze, pp. 52-53 = Qauxch'ishvili e d , p. 382, for Basil elevating Bagrat to the
kuropalate and his father Gurgen I as magistros.

77
The Chronicle ofK'art'li, pp. 294-295 (Bagrat's mother herself went to Byzantium to secure the
kuropalate for her son).
^ G u illa n d "Curopalate," Byzantina 2 (1970), pp. 215-220.
566
magistros2^ (MATIETPOE, the Georgian magistrosi), occasionally a n th y p a to (AN0YIIATOE), and

even hypatos (YIIATOE).
Some high-ranking princes o f the Bagratid family were also endowed with
the K 'art'velian honor o f mcanp 'ali (3i3g.JC3o). an apparent conflation o f the Georgian terms mama.
"father/ and up 'ali. "lord." The tenth-centory Works o f GrigolXandzt'eli. an early Bagratid historicalhagiographical work, knew the title mamp'ali as did Constantine Vff, who rendered it in Greek as
M AM IIAAIE 2 7
The Byzantine Dignities o f Nobelissimos. Sebastos. and Caesar
As was true for Byzantium itself. K 'art'li and then a unified Georgia experienced a
proliferation and inflation o f dignities and honors. After the consolidation o f power by the Bagratids. the
emboldened K 'art'velian presiding princes, and then kings after the re-establishment of royal authority'
under Adarnase H/IV in 8 8 8 ,2**began to take a great interest in their official titles. From Adarnase it is
2 *Kazhdan, "Magistros," in ODB, vol. 2 (1991), p. 1267. Kazhdan says that the first certain reference to
this Byzantine dignity occurs in the text o f Philotheos. At the start o f die tenth century' there seem to have
been fewer than twelve magistroi in Byzantium, but this number soon exploded. Kazhdan does not note
its appearance among the K'art'velians.
^K azh d an , "Anthypatos," in ODB, vol. 1 (1991), p. 111. Anthypatos is the Greek rendering o f the Latin
proconsul. From the ninth century, this term was used as a dignity although earlier it was a post (a
governor o f a special province). Kazhdan does not mention its existence among the K'art'velians.
Medieval Georgian texts corrupt the term as antipatosi and ant 'ipatosi, as well as the conflations
antipatos-patrikiosi and antipatrikiosi (cf. Philotheos1 ITATPIKIOE KAIAN0YIIATOE). Royal List III.
p. 97, also names a certain Varaz-Bakar as apay-patrikiozi, i.e., anthypatos. Toumanoff equated this
dignity with the AIIO YIIATGNIIATPIKIOE. See Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 392-393, note 11. The title
ant'ipatriki is found in Life ofllarion K'art'., cap. 11, p. 3 4 3 ^_^q.
26For the use o f hypatos in Byzantium, see Kazhdan, "Hypatos," in ODB. vol. 2 (1991), pp. 963-964
(equivalent to the Latin consul-, hypatos seems to have been an honorific title already in the sixth century).
The dignity o f hypatos is unknown in Georgian historical literature although it is applied in an inscription
at Juari for some Guaramid princes: see: Shoshiashvili, Aghmosavlet' da samxret' sak'art'velo (V-Xss.J.
p. 35 and #31. pp. 95-97 (Demetre and Adarnase wpatosi (jî^jm bo]); K. Machabeli, "Early Mediaeval
Stelae in Georgia," typescript, to be pub. in Iberica-Caucasica 1, p. 3 (for the seventh-century Grigol
hypatos as well as Demetre and Adarnase); and Djobadze, "The Sculptures on the Eastern Facade o f the
Holy Cross o f Mtzkhet'a," OC 44 (1960), pp. 112-135 and 45 (1961), pp. 70-77.
The Works o f GrigolXandzt'eli, cap. 42, p. 176 (Guaram mamp ali)\ and
Constantine Vfl, DAI, cap. 46, pp. 214-215. Constantine erroneously explains this term as meaning "all
holy," noted in the comm, to the 1949 Budapest ed., p. 177, note 46/3-4.
2 7 E.g., Giorgi Merch'ule,
2*Adarnase was styled as mep'e, "king." This title remained standard throughout the Bagratid period. It
should be noted that from the eleventh/twelfth century the term patroni (36(*)6ci6o) entered Georgian,
probably via the Crusaders. Patroni, or "lord," "patron," could be applied to any high noble or even to the
ruling king/queen.
567
possible to trace the development o f Bagratid intitulatio. Before turning to that issue, we should first
examine the analogous inflation o f preeminent Byzantine dignities among these early K 'art'velian
Bagratid monarchs.
In addition to being mep e-s ("kings), the early monarchs o f all-Georgia are afforded the
following Byzantine high dignities (from the emperor, at least in theory ):29
1000-1014
Bagrat HI
kuropalates
[1014-1027]
[Giorgi I]
* no Byzantine dignities attested
1027-1072
Bagrat IV
nobelissmos? then sebastos
1072-1089
Giorgi II
kuropalates (as co-king and heir), then

nobelissmos, then sebastos. then caesar2 *
1089-1125
Davit II
sebastos (as co-king and heir );2 2 then

panhypersebastos22
The early Bagratid kings o f all-Georgia, from Bagrat HI to Davit' IL, considered the acquisition o f high
Byzantine dignities as paramount, and these honors were quickly inflated from kuropalates to
nobelissimos (NQBEAIEEIMOE, Georgian novelisimosi [6 ori 3 3 CJobo0 e,iboj), and then to sebastos
(EEBAETOE, Georgian sevastosi [ba3 sb(J)cnbo|) and finally to caesar (KAIEAPOE, Georgian keisari
29These Byzantine dignities were customarily attached to the end of the royal intitulatio (for the evolving
formula, see infra).
2Bagrat IV styles himself a s "nobelissimos o f all the East" in a royal charter from 1057/1058: see "Sigeli
bagrat m ep'isa mghvimis lavarisadmi," in Georgian Charters, #4, p. 37: "... a(pi3 lc 5 o b i
iQ3cibA3C53ajobi 6m3gc5obo3cabbi..."
2 1 Kapanadze, "Novyi tip monety Davida Stroitelia," F F 8 (1956), pp. 338-343, with a chart o f the relative
numismatic inscriptions for Bagrat IV and Giorgi Q (p. 340). repr. in Lang, "Notes on Caucasian
Numismatics (Part 1)." NC, 6 th ser. XVII (1957). pp. 137-146. For an enumeration o f Byzantine honors
on Georgian coinage, see also Kapanadze, Gruzinskaia numizmatika, p. 57.
2 2 Zhordania,
K'ronikebi, vol. 2, p. 232. quoting a MS from 1085 AD.
22This title does not appear in any historical work and is preserved only in the Cqarost'avi Gospels copied
at the end o f the eleventh century, see: Pakhomov, Monety Gruzii, pp. 71-74; and Meskhia, Didgorskaia
bitva, p. 46. On a contemporary icon at St. Catharine's monastery on M l Sinai, Davit' is called basileus
(which was rendered in Georgian as mep 'e, but this may have been an expression o f the Georgians
attempt to equalize their mep e with the Byzantine emperor) in a Gk. inscription. See V. Beneshevich,
"Izobrazhenie gruzinskago tsaria Davida Stroitelia na ikone Sinaiskago monastyria," Khristianskii vostok,
1 (1912), pp. 62-64; and D. Kldiashvili, "L'icdne de Saint Georges du Mont Sinai avec le portrait de Davit
Aghmashenebeli," REGC 5 (1989), pp. 107-128.
568
[ j 3 obj>6 o |). The inflation o f these titles is vividly expressed by the anonymous Chronicle o f K'art'li with
regards to Bagrat IV:
This Bagrat was initially kuropalates. and then nobelissimos. and finally he became
sebastos?*
This process culminated in the unique styling o f Davit* II as panhypersebastos (IIANYnEPEEBAETOE).

Significantly, it was during Davit* 's reign that the Georgian Crown abandoned Byzantine dignities
altogether, and none o f Davit* 's ruling successors bore such titles.3^ Thus, on the heels of the Byzantine
defeat a t Manzikert in 1071, the Seljuq raids on Caucasia and Anatolia,3^ and the launching o f the First
Crusade in 1095-1096, the Georgian kings relinquished all direct and. by implication, inherently
subordinating links w ith Byzantium in terms o f intitulatio, thus no longer seeking imperial sanction for
any element o f their own titles and thus from imperial claims over their authority .3 7
In many cases it is not altogether clear whether these titles were explicitly bestowed by the
emperor or whether the Georgian kings usurped them in imitation o f their Byzantine counterparts: the
former possibility is more likely. In any event, the bearing o f ever-more inflated Byzantine honors, while
signifying the strength Bagratid authority, did not explicitly demonstrate the gathering of lands and
communities under Bagratid hegemony.
^*Chron. K'art'li, p. 3 1 5 3 ^ : "flbfl

306)3323 oym 3 ]]6)A3 .*E?i(J)o,
3o3coaci3ico
6 t t 3 3 C?obo9 oibo, jgi 83(6 0 3 o^06s brm bfonb." = esc bagrat pirvel iqo kurapalati. da shemdgomad
novelisimosi. da menne ik'mna sevastos (my emphasis). Nobelissimos is found in various corrupted
forms: novelisimosi (C), novelimosi (AD), noeesilisi (Mm). Bagrat's status o f sebastos is confirmed by
Giorgi M c'ire, The Life o f Giorgi Mt'acmideli. cap. 1. p. 1 0 3 ^ ^ ("... Bagrat, king over the Ap'xaz
[and] sebastos). and cap. 25, p. I 8 O29 ("... our Bagrat sebastos).
3% u t at the Qincvisi church built under T amar (1184-1213) near Gori, we find the high court official
(mcignobart uxuc esi-chqondideli. see infra) Antoni claiming the Byzantine title o f protohypertimos-, I
know o f no other such post-Davit* II example o f Byzantine dignities being used in Georgia. See
Eastmond, Royal Imagery in Medieval Georgia, unpub. typescript, pp. 95 and 102 (note 3).
36O n the Seljiiq campaigns against Georgia, see: Shengelia, Selch 'ukebi da sak 'art 'velo XI saukuneshi:
idem., "The Seljuks and Georgia in the 11th Century," BK 26 (1969), pp. 252-255; Golden, "The Turkic
Peoples and Caucasia," in Suny, ed.. Transcaucasia, Nationalism and Social Change, esp. pp. 53-67 (with
extensive citations); and Cahen, "Une campagne de Seldjukide Alp-Arslan en Georgie," in his
Turcobyzantina et Oriens Christianas, pp. 17-20.
37T he decay o f Byzantine power in Caucasia and the East is reported in The Life o f Davit', p. 161 13 . 15 :
"... for the power of the Byzantines [lit Greeks'] had diminished, and all the lands o f the East had been
subjugated by the Turks..." = Qauxch'ishvili ed., p. 321g_^.
569
Mon-Honorific Accretions Under the Early Kings o f All-Georgia
The non-honoriflc segments o f the intitulatio o f the early kings of all-Georgia reflect their
expansionists agenda. Unlike the pre-Bagratid period, this era produced royally-sanctioned texts other
than history and hagiography. Bagratid royal titulature was integrated into two major sources not found,
or at least not common o r ex tan t in the preceding period: coins and charters, both o f which were issued in
the name o f the monarch. Epigraphic evidence is also insightful. Often the formal title o f the king or
ruling queen is encountered in these officially-issued sources.
A detailed study would be required to examine all o f the extant forms and variations o f Bagratid
intitulatio. Here, I endeavor only to demonstrate major characteristics and trends, and instead o f offering
a comprehensive enumeration o f Bagratid royal titulature I shall provide the following as representative of
the period. First, we shall consider intitulatio from the establishment of the unified monarchy by Bagrat
in up through Davit' n, who ultimately discarded his high Byzantine dignities in favor o f a
more local
formula.
1008-1014
Bagrat
Ap'xazt'a da k'art'velt'a mep'e da kurapalati = "King

o f the Ap'xaz and the K'art'velians and kuropalates
(X c'ia inscription, 1002 AD)
Kurapalati, ap 'xazt 'a da k 'art 'velt 'a mep 'et 'a

= Kuropalates. King of the Ap'xaz and the K'art'velians"
(K 'ut'at'isi cathedral inscription. 1003)
Ap'xazt'a da rant'a mep'e da k'art'velt'a kurapalati

= "King o f the Apxaz and the Rani-s and the kuropalates
o f the Kart'velians" (Nikorcmida cathedral inscription,
1008)
Ap 'xazt a da k art 'velt a mep e, taoysa da rant a da kaxt a

da qovlisa aghmosa\lisa didi kurapalati = "King o f the
Ap'xaz and K'art'velians. ofTao/Tavk'. o f the Rani-s and
the Kaxi-s. and the great kuropalates o f all the East"
(inscription in Kaxet'i. 1010 )
1014-1027
Giorgi I
[no official titulature attested]
1027-1072
Bagrat IV
A p'xfajzta m[e]p'e da novelisimosi = "King o f the

A p'xaz and nobelissimos (numismatic e v id en c e)^
^**The four formulae enumerated here were conveniently assembled by Musxelishvili. "Davit'
aghmasheneblis aghmosavluri titulatura," in Davit' aghmashenebeli: statiebis krebuli. pp. 67-68; see also
Silogava, Dasavlet'sak'art'velos carcerebi. vol. 1, pp. 34-35, 53-54, and 56.
The numismatic inscriptions for Bagrat IV and Giorgi II (and that reconstructed for a coin o f Davit' II)
are summarized by Kapanadze, "Novyi tip monety Davida Stroitelia," W 8 (1956), pp. 339-341 (esp.
chart, p. 340).
570
Ap'x[a]zt'a [mejp'e da sefvjastosi = "King of the Ap'xaz

and sebastos" (numismatic evidence)
Ap 'xazt 'a m fejp e da n[e]bit'a gh[mr]t'is[a]yt 'a,
qfavjlisa aghmfoJs[a]vlet'isa kurapal[a]ti
= "King o f the Ap'xaz, and by the will o f God.
kuropalates o f all the East (Document written under

the order o f the kat'alikos Melk'isedek concerning
the treasury and possessions o f the Georgian Church.
1031/1033)40
Ap'xazt'amep'esa da q[ov]lisa aghmosavlet'isa

novelisimossa... = "King o f the Ap'xaz and nobelissimos
o f all the East" (royal charter to the Mghwme
Lavra, 1057/58)41
1072-1089
Giorgi II
A p'xfajzt'a da k'[a]rt'v[ejlt'a m[e]p'e da n[ove]l[i]sim[o]si

= "King o f the Apxaz and the K'art'velians and
nobelissimos" (numismatic evidence)

Ap'xfajzt'a da k'fajrt'fvejlt'faJ m fejp'fe] da sevfajstosi
= "King o f the Ap'xaz and the K'art'velians and sebastos
(numismatic evidence)
Ap'xfajzt'a da k'fartvelt'Ja m fejp'fe] da kisarosi

= "King o f the Ap'xaz and the K'art'velians and caesar
(numismatic evidence)
Nebit'aghfm rjt'isat'a ap'xazt'a da k'art'velt'a mep'e

= "By the will o f God King o f the Ap'xaz and the
K 'art'velians" (royal charter to Mghwme, 1073)4^
1089-1125
Davit' II
Ap'xazt'a mep'e da sevastos = "King of the Ap'xaz and

sebastos (reconstructed numismatic inscription)
Ap'xazt'a da kart'velt'a [sic!] rant'a da kaxt'a
mep 'e = "King of the Ap'xaz and Kf'Jart'velians. Rani-s
and Kaxi-s"
4*1 (acts of the 1103 Ruisi-Urbnisi ecclesiastical
council)
Nebit 'a ghfm rt 'Jisat 'a ap 'fxajzt 'a da k 'art 'velt 'a,
rant'a da kaxt'a mep 'e = "By the will of God King of
the A p'xaz and the K 'art'velians, of the Rani-s and the
Kaxi-s" (royal charter to Niania Nianis-dze, 1104/1118)44
m r r o fE i b a e i a [e y e ] h a e i h e i a n a t o a [h e ]
O nAFKPATONIANOE = "The believing king of
^G eorgian Charters, #2, p. 30.

41Ibid., #4, p. 37.
42Ibid., # 6 , p. 46.
^ A c ts o f Ruisi-Urbnisi, p. 56; the term k'art'velt'a (îfioJ 3 aC3<i) is erroneously rendered as kart'velt'a
(ji(6m33c?05i). It is significant that in this important document Davit' is not referred to by any
Byzantine titles, suggesting that he had disposed o f them by 1103.
44Georgian Charters, #7, p. 50.
571
all the East, Pankratonianos [i.e., the Bagratid]": and
[Ap'xazt'Ja, k'art'[ve]lt'a, rant'a, [kaxjt'a,

mpq[robe]lsa = "Sovereign o f the Ap'xaz, K'art'velians.
Rani-s, [and] Kaxi-s" (inscriptions from an icon at St.
Catharine's monastery* on M l Sinai, eleventh/twelfth
century)4 5
{Ap'xazis, shak'is, alanisa da rusis mep'et'a mep'e}

= "King o f Kings o f A p'xazet'i, Shak'i. Alania, and
Rus" (1219 AD MS. Tabriz Museum. Iran)
The formulae for the official titles of the eleventh-century Georgian monarchs are relatively
constant, although they* do reflea the inflation and ultimately, the elimination o f high Byzantine
court dignities. Bagratid intitulatio o f this period is routinely constructed around the base phrase
apxazt'a da k'art'velt'a mep'et'a (igbibeo* ega ^
6 0 3 3 5 5 0 )4 8 3 3 3 0 )a), that is, "King o f the Ap'xaz
and the K'art'velians." It is curious that, without exception, the Ap'xaz are afforded first place in the
titles.4** Bagrat m , through his mother Guaranduxt, was heir to the kingdom o f A p'xazet'i.4^ and prior
to his elevation as king o f all-Georgia as the adopted son and heir o f Davit' ofTao/Tayk' in 1008. he had
become the king of the Apxaz in 978. The placement o f the Ap'xaz in Bagratid intitulatio is a memory
of the sequence of Bagrat Ill's acquisition o f authority, from being king o f the A p'xaz and then o f the
K'art'velians. Probably, the Byzantine-inspired love for the rule o f law had permeated the Georgian elite,
and the continued rendering o f Ap'xaz to the first place in Bagratid intitulatio was largely due to legal
considerations.4* We should note that in none of the extant eleventh-century variants of the intitulatio is
the designation Sak'art'velo, or "all-Georgia," found (see infra); instead, we routinely find the names of
the various "Georgian" communities and subject peoples distinctly enumerated.
Already during the reign of Bagrat III we may* d etea the gathering o f additional lands by the
Crown. In the Nikorcmida inscription of 1008, the Rani-s o f eastern Caucasia are listed as one o f the
subject peoples of B agrat Bagrat's successful campaigns against Rani and neighboring Kaxct'i are
4 5 KldiashviIi, "L'icone de Saint Georges." pp. 109-115. The reconstruaed Georgian inscription describes
Davit' as the ruler of the "Ap'xaz. K 'artvelians. Ranis, and Kaxi-s."

^ I t is far from clear what the term "Ap'xaz" denoted in this context. It refered not only to the Ap'xaz
community (its contemporary definition is uncertain in this context), but it also denoted their Bagratid
overlords in A p'xazet'i. In any event in contemporary intitulatio the A p'xaz are considered as a separate
community from the K 'art'velians.
4^ Chron. K'art'li, p. 275.
4 *Cf. Martin-Hisard, "Christianisme et Eglise dans Ie monde georgien," p. 565: "... elle [i.e., Apxazet'i]
constitua la base la plus sure de la domination des rois bagratides qui, pour cette raison sans doute, ne
poterent pendant longtemps que le titre de 'rois des Apkhazes."'
572
related in The Chronicle o f K'art'li, but Davit'is-dze reports that Heret' i-Kaxet' i defected in the reign of
Bagrat's son.4 9 An inscription in Kaxet'i from 1010 appends K axeti and Tao/Tayk (Davit' o f Tao's
former patrimony) to the title, and also qualifies B agrat as kuropalates by styling him as "the great
kuropalates o f all the E ast"

No official titulature survives for Giorgi I, but the long reign o f his son and successor Bagrat IV
clearly demonstrates the inflation o f Byzantine honors: from kuropalates (which he held as co-king and
heir) to nobelissimos, sebastos, and then caesar. These Byzantine titles, as is evident from royal charters,
are often qualified with the phrase "of all the E ast" as had been the case with Bagrat III. Giorgi II. son
and successor o f Bagrat IV, is also afforded an array o f Byzantine dignities, although the phrase "of the
East" is uncommon. Bagrat IV is identified as the king o f the K'art'velians in historical texts, but
numismatic and epigraphic inscriptions emphasize that he was king o f the Ap'xaz while other
communities and subject peoples, including the K 'art'velians themselves, are usually not mentioned.
Finally, under Bagrat IV the phrase "king... by the will o f God..." is often inserted, signifying the
Bagratids* special relationship to God and their divinely-sanctioned rule .50 This claim, without any
acknowledgment o f the Byzantine emperor, is featured in the will o f Davit' n which was presented to the
Shio Mghwme monastery in 1 1 2 3 . This assertion shows that by the late eleventh century the Georgian
kings believed themselves to be monarchs who derived their authority directly from God and not from the
Byzantine emperor, though the emperor might confer high honors and merely confirm them in their
places.
c*y
It should be said that our only extant pre-eleventh century K'art'velian Bagratid history
49 Chron. K'art'li, pp. 278-280; and Sumbat Davit'is-dze, p. 54 = Qauxchishvili ed., p. 383. On the
kingdom o f Rani-Kaxet'i, see: Papuashvili, Rant'a da kaxt'a samep'o (VIII-XIss.), with Rus. sum.,
"Tsarstvo Ranov i Kakhov (VIII-XI w .)," pp. 286-290; M. Lort'k'ip'anidze, "Vozniknovenie novykh
feodal'nykh gosudarstv," in Ocherki istorii Gruzii, vol. 2, pp. 246-280; Mkrtumian, Gruzinskoe feodalnoe
kniazhestvo Kakheti v VIII-XI w . i ego vziamootnosheniia sArmenier, and idem., "K voprosu ob
obrazovanii feodal'nogo kniazhestva Kakhetii," PBH 1/56 (1972), pp. 230-234.
50The development o f this idea should be considered in the context o f the contemporary conception that
K.art' li/Georgia had a special relationship with God. This was noted by Martin-Hisard, "Christianisme et
Eglise dans le monde georgien," p. 585:
Lidfc que le Kartli est un terre de sainted sexprime des la fin du V II^
sitele dans le Martyre dA bo. De son cote, 1'auteur de la Vie des Rois
raconte Fhistoire de son pays en la rattachant k lUistoire Sainte. Plus
tard, on voit apparaitre le them e d'une particuli&re predilection de Dieu
pour la G&>rgie: au XlF si&cle, elle est terre apostolique grace k l'apotre
Andrg; au XQ6 si&le, elle devient la part du monde reservde k la Mere
de Dieu par le C hrist
Test. D avit'll, p. 10 (Rus. trans., pp. 16-17). This claim may also be found throughout Davit' n .
Prayers o f Remorse.
5 ^Cf. Sumbat Davit'is-dze, p. 45 = Qauxch'ishvili ed., p. 376: "And the power which God had granted [to
573
(-hagiography), The Works o f GrigolXandzt'eli, like the early eleventh-century histories, also makes the
Byzantine emperor paramount in the elevation of contemporary K 'art'velian rulers:
At this time, by the will o f God and by the will o f his brothers and by the command
o f the Byzantine emperor Bagrat kuropalates assumed the kuropalate [taking]
the place o f his father, Ashot kuropalates.^
This passage demonstrates that the earliest K'art'velian Bagratids were to an extent dependent upon the
Byzantine emperor, although they still attributed their position in the first place to God and even to the
assent of their immediate family. So The Works o f GrigolXandzt'eli reflects the precarious position o f the
early Bagratids. But by the first decade o f the eleventh century, the Bagratids were firmly entrenched and
had reestablished royal authority. Moreover, as we have seen in the preceding chapter, Georgia literally
struggled against Byzantium throughout the eleventh century so as to limit its dominance. It is not
surprising, therefore, that eleventh-century historians came to conveniently diminish, and in some cases
neglect altogether, the deep dependence o f the earliest Bagratids on the Byzantine emperor. This
culminated in the reign o f Davit' II, who in his own will refused to impart Byzantium any credit for
Bagratid hegemony in K ' art' li/Georgia, and who himself came to discard royal use o f Byzantine dignities.
The official Georgian titles o f Davit' II remained much the same as before, with the Ap'xaz
element being placed first.
For Davit' we possess two noteworthy non-Georgian renderings of his title.
A contemporary Georgian icon a t S t Catherine's monastery on M t Sinai, where Georgian monks were
active in the period, bears the Greek mETO[E] BAEIA[EYE] IIAE[HE] ANATOA[HE] O
HATKPATONIANOE, or "The pious basileus of all the E ast Pankratonianos [i.e., the B agratid|."^
Ashot kuropalates] was confirmed by the will of the Byzantine emperor [lit. Icing o f the Greeks]." We
find later pronouncements as well, such as T am ar having been "crowned by God" and "invested by
C hrist" see Hist, and Eul., pp. 52-53. Georgian Bagratid art for this period also confirms that the
Bagratids believed themselves to possess a special relationship with the divine; see Eastmond, Royal
Imagery in Medieval Georgia, unpub. typescript esp. ch. 4.
^ G io rg i Merch'ule, The Works o f Grigol Xandzt'eli, cap. 24, p. 156.
^*Later generations altered D a v its intitulatio. Thus, an icon at the Gclat'i monastery, apparently no
earlier than the sixteenth century, includes an inscription naming Davit' and the king o f die Ap' xaz,
K'art'velians, Leki-s, and Kaxi-s, and "the Sun of Christianity" (see G.E. Tsereteli, "Polnoe sobranie
nadpisei na stenakh i kaminakh i pripisok k rakopisiam gelatskago monastyria," D V 1/2 [1891], p. 242).
For D av it's association with the Sun and his epithet "the Sun o f sovereignty." see infra and The Life o f
Davit', pp. 165, 173, and 206 = Qauxch'ishvili ed., pp. 323, 329, and 351. The booklet Sruliad
sak 'art 'velos mep 'e davit' aghmashenebeli (1892), p. 3, renders Davits title as "King o f Achara,
Lebanon [i.e., Liwani], Shavshet'i, Erushet'i, Artani, K'obulet'i, Armenia, and all Sak'art'velo" (this title
is a modem invention).
^ T h e re is also a parallel Georgian inscription on the icon. Significantly, Byzantine sources do not
574
T his inscription, apparently made by a Georgian monk, is significant for its application o f the Byzantine
term basileus, or "emperor, for Davit' himself. This might very well suggest that Davit' now considered
him self as an equal to the emperor. As we shall see, other developments would seem to confirm this,
though we lack an explicit statement to this effect in Georgian texts. The parallel Georgian te x t which is
not a direct rendering o f the Greek, merely refers to Davit' as "sovereign" (mpqrobeli). a term, to be
discussed infra, was deemed to distinguish its possessor from a simple mep 'e (king). In any event
Byzantine historical sources do not render Davit' with this title, which was. at this time, reserved for the
Byzantine ruler. A Persian MS o f 1219 AD offers another non-Georgian formula for Davit' II: "King of
Kings o f Ap'xazet'i, Shak'i, Alania, and Rus."5 6 Davit' is called king o f kings, a form encountered in
Georgian historical texts, and first place among his subjects is expectedly afforded to the Ap'xaz
(Tendered here by the toponym A p 'x a z e t'i).^ In contemporary Arabic texts, the all-Georgian kingdom is
often referred to as Ap'xazet'i, so the fact that the K 'art'velians proper are not mentioned is hardly
surprising. Shak'i refers to Kaxet'i; a form o f this designation, Shakki, was used by contemporary Arab
CO
historians.
But the two remaining subject-Iands Alania and Rus* are not encountered in
contemporary Georgian intitulatio for Davit', but they certainly reflect the understanding on the part of
Arab writers that the Georgian monarchs had come to dominate northern Caucasia. For the Arabs.
"Alan" often corresponded to Ovset' i and this is almost certainly the meaning intended here. The
inclusion of Rus puzzling. Although Musxelishvili posited that this was evidence for the Georgian
occupation of the southern Rus'ian "khanate o f Tmutoraqan." whose very existence is a matter o f debate,
the mentioning o f Rus' is more likely a misunderstanding o f the extent o f Georgia's authority in the
north. ^
In the eleventh century, the Georgians and the Rus' had come into contact with one another, and
attribute the title basileus to the Georgian monarchs. Thus Skylitzes refers to Giorgi I as the "archon of
Abasgia" and Bagrat IV as the "archegos o f Iberia" (para. 45 [Basil and Constantine], pp. 366-367 and
para. 11 [Constantine Monomachus]. pp. 447-448 respectively).
5 6 Musxelishvili, "Davit' aghmashencblis aghmosavluri titulatura," in Davit' aghmashenebeli: statiebis
krebuli, pp. 70-71. M. T'odua discovered this MS in 1972 and was first to publish this royal title (1979).
cn
E.g.. "the lord o f the Afkhaz" mentioned by the considerably later Munejjim-bashi but who claims to
have used a contemporary source, the Tarikh al-Bah v/a Sharvan. See Minorsky, Studies in Caucasian
History, p. 17. See also Barthold with Minorsky, " Abkhaz," EI~, vol. 1 (1960), pp. 101-102. Bar
Hebraeus, p. 218, shies the king of all-Georgia as "the king o f the Iberians o f Abkaz;" cf. al-Fariqi. p. 32,
which calls Davit' IT "the king o f the Guij [i.e., "Georgians"] and the Abkhaz."
^^Minorsky, Studies in Caucasian History, pp. 20,31, and 65 (note 1); and idem., "Caucasica TV,"
BSOAS 15 (1953). p. 522.
CQ
-^Musxelishvili, "Davit' aghmasheneblis aghmosavluri titulatura," in Davit' aghmashenebeli: statiebis

krebuli, pp. 70-82.
575
the Rus are known to have made at least two raids into Caucasia/* Yet no contemporary Georgian
source suggests that any part o f Rus' came under the domination o f Davit' II.6 *
Following the reign o f Davit" n , several new innovations appear in Georgian intitulatio. The
initial embellished titles reflect the successive expansion o f the kingdom, but after the Mongols
established domination over Caucasia in the thirteenth century these merely constituted remnants of the
memory o f the greatest extent o f the Georgian kingdom.
1125-1156
Demetre I
"King o f Kings (Arabic inscription on a numismatic

series, ca. 1118-ca. 1131)62
"King o f Kings; Sword o f the Messiah" (Arabic
inscription on an undated numismatic series )63
1156
Davit' HI
"King o f Kings" (Arabic inscription on a numismatic

series)6*
1156-1184
Giorgi IB
Nebit'aghfmrjt isayt'a ap'xazt'a. k'art'velt'a , rant'a

da kaxt'a mep'isa, sharvansha da shahansha da
aghmosaval[i]sa da ch 'rdiloisa mp'lobelisay = "By
the will o f God K ing o f the Ap'xaz. K'art'velians. Rani-s.
and Kaxi-s, sharvanshah and shahanahah. and
master o f all the East and North" (royal charter to
Mghwme, 1170)66
"King of Kings; Giorgi. son of Demetre: Sword of the
Messiah" (Arabic inscription on a numismatic series
bearing the date 1174)66
Nebit a gh[mr]t 'isayt 'a ap 'xazt 'a. k art velt a. rant a.

kaxt 'a da somext'a [mep isa. sharjvanshay [da
6 Minorsky.
Studies in Caucasian History, pp. 76-77.
6 *Although the most recent editor of Davit's vita, Mzek'ala Shanidzc. believes she has reconstructed a
corrupted passage which claims that Davit' ruled over the Varangians. See infra, this chapter.
6 2 Pakhomov,
Monety Gruzii, #45, pp. 75-76.
63Ibid., #46, pp. 77-78.

^ G . Japaridze, "K 'art'uli monetebi arabuli zedcerilebit' (davit' V-is spilendzis monetebi)." Mac'ne 4
(1989), pp. 89-94, with Rus. sum., "Gruzinskie monety s arabskimi nadpisiami (mednye monety Davida
V)," p. 94. This Davit' was given the ordinal "III" by Toumanoff while specialists in Georgia usually
refer to him as "V."
6^Georgian Charters, #11, p. 67. Nebit 'a may be rendered as "by the will o f or "by the grace of."
Should the former be preferred, then the formula may be Islamically inspired. For Giorgi as the sovereign
o f the East and North, see also Hist, and Eul., p. 3 4 . 5 .
6 6 Lang,
Studies in the Numismatic History o f Georgia, #9, pp. 21-22.
576
shahanshay da qovlijsa aghmosavlet'isa da

dasavlet'isa [p'lobit']mpqro[be]lisa = "By the will o f
God King o f the Ap'xaz, K'art'velians, Rani-s, Kaxi-s.
and Armenians, sharvanshah and shahanshah, and
master-ruler" (royal charter to the Georgian Church.
1177)67
1184-1213
T am ar
[NJebit'a ghfmrt'isayjt'a ap'xazt'a da k'art'velt'a,

rant'a, kaxt'a da somext'a mep'e da dedop'[al]i,
sharvansha da shahansha da qfojvlfijsa
aghmosavlet'isa da dasavlet'isa t'uit'mp'lobeli
= "By the will o f God Monarch [mep e] and Queen
[dedop'ali] o f the Ap'xaz, K'art'velians, Rani-s,
Kaxi-s, and Armenians, sharvanshah sad. shahanshah.
and autocrat o f all the East and West" (royal charter
to Gelat'i. 1187)68
[Nebit'aghmrt'isayt'a ap'xazt'a] da k'art'velt'a, rant'a,

kaxt'a da sfojmext'a mep'isa da dedop'falt'dedop'lisa] da qfovjlisa aghmosavlet'isa da
dasavlet'isap'lobit' mfpqrobelisa] = "By the will o f
God Monarch [mep e] and Queen o f Queens o f the
K 'art'velians, Rani-s, Kaxi-s, and Armenians, and masterruler o f all the East and West" (royal charter to Mghwme.
U95/96)69
"The great Queen: Glory o f the World and Faith; T am ar
daughter o f Giorgi; Champion o f the Messiah: May
God increase [her] victories" (Arabic inscription o f a
numismatic series bearing the dates 1187 and 1210) 70
"Queen o f Queens; Glory o f the W orld and Faith; T am ar
daughter of Giorgi: Champion o f the Messiah" (Arabic
inscripion o f a numismatic series bearing the date 1 2 0 0 )7 ^
1213-1222
Lasha Giorgi IV [Nejbit'agh[mr]t'isayt'a ap'xazt'a, k'art'velt'a, rant'a,
kaxt'a da somext'a mep'isa, sharvansha da shahansha da

qfovjlisa aghmosavlet'isa da [dasavjlet'isap'lobit'mpqrobelisa = "By the will of God King of the Ap'xaz.
K 'art'velians, Rani-s. Kaxi-s. and Armenians, sharvanshah
and shahanshah, and master-ruler o f all the East and
West" (royal charter to K 'vat'aq'evi, 1207/22)72
^ 7Georgian Charters, #12, p. 71.

6SIbid #14, p. 77.
69Ibid.. # 2 0 , p.
7 0 Lang,
100 .
Studies in the Numismatic History o f Georgia, #10, pp. 23-25.
71 /Wd., #11, pp. 26-27.
72Georgian Charters, #22, p. 107. The same formula is used in a royal charter to Mghwme (1211/1212)
with the exception that instead o f being styled as master-ruler, the term t'uit'mpqrobeli ("autocrat") is
577
1222-1245
Rusudan
"Queen o f Kings and Queens; Glory o f the World. Kingdom.

and Faith; Rusudan, daughter o f T amar. Champion o f the
Messiah: May God increase [her] victories" (Arabic
inscription from the numismatic series bearing the date
1227)73
Rusudan mep'e = "Monarch [mep e] Rusudan" (letter of
Arsen chqondidel-mcignobart'uxuc'esi to Mgela
Abulaxtaris-dze, 1241/42)^
The immediate successors o f Davit' II maintained the royal formula developed initially in the
time o f Bagrat ID, but modified it to reflect the political expediencies o f the day. M any of the extant
intitulatio emphasize that the Georgian king was the King of Kings, that is to say, the Christian king o f
the Near East and Caucasia, and an equal and not a proxy - o f the Byzantine emperor. Moreover, in
this era of appointing an heir, the title King of Kings pertains specifically to the ruling, or senior,
m o n arch .^ We should recall that Davit' II disposed o f Byzantine honors and the intitulatio of his
successors entirely lack them too. Moreover, post-Davit' royal titles regularly declare that the Georgian
kings ruled by divine sanction, receiving their authority directly from God.
From Demetre I, son o f Davit', new titles in Arabic were regularly inscribed on Georgian
coinage. Demetre and his successor Giorgi n are called the "Sword o f the Messiah." Subsequently, this
formula was expanded (and slightly modified) during the reign o f T a m a r to "the Glory o f the World and
Faith... Champion o f tbe Messiah" and T am ar's daughter, Rusudan, is called "the Glory of the World,
Kingdom, and Faith... Champion o f the M essiah."^ Georgian coins in this period were typically struck
used.
^ L a n g . Studies in the Numismatic History o f Georgia, #13, pp. 30-31.
7X
Georgian Charters, #26, p. 119 (signature 2). The few charters that survive from the reign o f Rusudan
were not issued in the name o f the ruler herself and do not provide the official intitulatio. But in this
charter, written by a high official o f Rusudan's court and signed by her, she styles herself as mep 'e.
^ T o u m an o ff "The Fifteenth-Century Bagratids and the Institution o f Collegial Sovereignty in Georgia,"
Traditio 7 (1949-1951), pp. 209-210. He notes that mep'et'-mep'e corresponds to the BAEIAEYE KAI
AYTOKPATOP o f the Byzantines, and mep'e simply to BAEIAEYE. ToumanofT found co-option (which
was not fixed constitutionally; cf. collegial sovereignty) to have occurred with: Giorgi II, Davit II,
Demetre I, Giorgi III, T am ar, Giorgi IV Lasha, and Rusudan (p. 205).
^ I t is noteworthy that the two female rulers of the period. T am ar and Rusudan, are not afforded the title
"Sword of the Messiah" but rather are called "Champion o f the Messiah." This doubtlessly is a reflection
o f the contemporary Georgian belief that a woman could be mep 'e ("king," but here "monarch") but could
not in actuality lead the army. The change in formula here may reflect this circumstance. This was
noticed independently by Eastmond, Royal Imagery in Medieval Georgia, unpub. typescript, p. 120 (who
also reports that T a m a r was never painted with a sword). For the sword as part o f the contemporary
578
with bilingual legends (Georgian and Arabic). It may seem odd that coins minted during the very apogee
o f medieval Bagratid power should incorporate Arabic legends, but this is a reflection of: (1) the
numerous Muslim subjects brought under the umbrella o f the Georgian Crown; (2) the fact that the
Georgian kings had assumed control o f former Islamic rulers - and the occupied mints alm ost certainly
continued to be dominated by Muslim mintmasters; and (3) the position o f Arabic as the diplomatic
language o f the Near and Middle E ast Usually, contemporary Georgian coins were struck in Islamic style
i.e., without human representations and only rarely incorporated Christian imagery (such as the
Virgin or Christ). Even though the K 'art'velian Bagratids had turned towards Byzantium in terms of
ecclesiastical and political conceptions. Greek was not used for the principal legends o f their coins.
It might be tempting to regard the inclusion o f two Near Eastern titles - sharvanshah (lit the
shahMng o f Sharvan) and shahanshah ( lit the shah o f shah-s/King o f kings) - as an usurpation of
Islamic and Sasanid political ideals. The former represents the staking o f a claim over an Arab-controlled
Caucasian territory, for Sharvan was dom inated by the Georgian kingdom from 1117T 7 Significantly, it
has been demonstrated that the Islamic arts o f Sharvan especially its poetry78 - had a lasting impact on
the Georgian kingdom and that much o f the Islamic influence penetrating Georgia in this period was
transmitted through the conduit leading from Sharvan.7^
The title of shahanshah, as employed here, should not be confused with that o f the Sasanids.
Although its original inspiration and very form is Sasanid, this title had been assumed in this period by
the rulers o f the Armenian city o f Ani (Georgian Anisi).80 In 1123/1124 Davit' II succeeded in
occupying Ani, having driven out its Shaddadid overlords 81 But why was the title shahanshah
incorporated into Georgian royal titulature only under Giorgi HI? After D avit's seizure o f the city, the
Seljuqs who themselves had installed their Shaddadid allies to govern Ani recovered it. and Giorgi n i
Georgian coronation rite, see infra.

77See Minorsky, A History o f Sharvan and Darband in the 10th-l 1th Centuries.
78A. Gvaxaria, "Davit* aghmashenebelis epok'a da k'art'ul-sparsuli literaturuli urt'iert'obis chasaxva."
in Davit' aghmashenebeli: statiebis krebuli, pp. 139-148, with Rus. sum., "Epokha Davida Stroitelia i
zarozhdenie gruzino-persidskikh literatumykh sviazei, pp. 147-148.
7Ôn this title, see Pakhomov, "Titul shirvanshakha v Gruzii," in his Kratfdi kurs istorii Azerbaidzhana,
pp. 47-48.
8E.g., Vardan Arewelc'i, para. 93, p. 218. See Life o f Tamar, p. 130, for a medieval Georgian
association of the title shahanshah with Ani, and the earlier Chron. K'art 'li, p. 279, for a connection of
that title with Armenia.
8 *7he Life o f Davit', pp. 197-198 = Qauxch'ishvili ed., pp. 344-345.
579
is reported to have subdued it once again only in 1I60.87 The Georgian reconquista o f Ani by Giorgi also
is disclosed in non-Georgian sources, like M xit'ar Gosh and Bar Hebraeus.83 In any event, Giorgis
occupation o f Ani gave him the legal basis to the title of the rulers o f Ani. Perhaps the royal Sasanid
overtones o f the title made it all the more appealing. It should be noted that this title is rendered in a
slightly corrupted transliteration (a similar transliterated form o f shahanshah does not occur in earlier
Georgian historical works, even with respect to the Sasanid Great King). In any event, it must not be
co n fu sedw ithm epef-m epe(3aga '93S 3X o r "Kin 8 0 fK inSs*" "Sovereign o f Sovereigns." Mep'et'-
mep'e is first applied to a K'art'velian/Georgian ruler in K'art'lis c'xovreba for Giorgi II (1072-1089).8 *
Though this title is reminiscent o f the "King o f Kings" (shahanshah) o f Sasanid Iran,8^ there is no need
to equate the two. Mep'e is a Georgian title which was employed for all monarchs and leaders. There is
nothing inherently Sasanid in the form mep'et'-mep'e even though it literally has the same meaning as
s h a h a n s h a h The Georgian historical tradition never suggests that mep'et'-mep'e is inextricably linked
to Persian (and non-Georgian) conceptions o f rulership. Moreover, the Georgian Bagratids. at least by the
tim e of Giorgi n , certainly did not apply Persian notions o f kingship, including titles, to themselves. The
only reasonable conclusion, in my opinion, is that mep'et'-mep'e represents the contemporary Georgian
views that: (1) their king was the monarch in the northern sector o f the Near East; (2) their monarch was
a n equal to the basileus this contention is absolutely clear from the Greek inscription from the ML Sinai
icon (we shall return to this possibility); and (3) the senior king (mep'et'-mep'e) and the appointed heirs
(mep e) needed to be distinguished by title.

A new feature of Georgian royal titulature, introduced after the reign o f Davit'. is the
modification o f the older claim o f some kings to be the kuropalates o f "all the East" (i.e.. Bagrat HI,
Bagrat IV perhaps adopted to protest the Byzantine occupation o f Davit' o f Tao's patrimony, see ch. 6 ).
From the reign o f Giorgi m , medieval Georgian monarchs customarily styled themselves as the "absolute
rulers" and "autocrats" (imp'lobeli [dgcgci&QEOo], P lobit'-mpqrobeli [g c jc n b o cn ^ y 6 0 1 6 3 2 9 0 1, and
t'uit'mp'lobeti [0)13003 3gc?m&3C?ol) o f the East.87 This claim reflects the unparalleled position of
on
^Hist. Five Reigns, p. 367j 7 = Vivian trans., p. 53.

8 3 M xit'ar Gosh, Chron., p. 489, who reports that Giorgi seized Ani twice in 1161 and 1174; and Bar
Hebraeus, p. 286, who records that Giorgi "of the Iberians" captured Ani from the "Turks" (i.e., Seljuqs).
^C hron. K'art'li, p. 316j4- Cf. Sumbat Davit'is-dze, p. 52 = Qauxch'ishvili ed., p. 382.

oe
In pre-Bagratid historical texts, the shahanshah is only rarely called mep'et'-mep'e-, e .g , The Life o f
Vaxtang, p. 158j4 (mep'et'a mep'isa).

8^For the tradition o f rulership titles in the Near EasL see Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 44-48. Toumanoff
notes that the title "King o f Kings" and "Great Kings" may be traced to ancient Egypt and Assyria.
87O n these titles, see: Xaxanashvili, "K'art'veli m ep'et'a tituli, kurt'xeva da regaliebi," Moambe 2/7
580
Christian Georgia in Caucasia and in the northern part o f the Near East, whose territories extended from
the Black up to the Caspian Sea, from northern Caucasia up to Iran. Giorgi m also called himself the
m aster o f the North. This title was probably derived from earlier historical works and oral traditions
about the conversion o f the kingdom in which Kart'li was referred to as "the North from the reference
point o f the Holy Land ; 8 8 it may have also designated the expansion o f Georgian hegemony into northern
Caucasia. From the reign o f T a m a r, the standard formula became "of the East and W est" While it
m ight be tempting to link the innovation with T amor's participation in the foundation o f the Empire o f
Trebizond following the fall o f Constantinople to the Latins in 1204, this formula appears already in a
charter dated to 1187 and again in 1195/11%. Such a supposition is therefore invalid. Instead, the
element "West" signifies the swelling authority o f the Georgian kingdom into parts o f eastern Anatolia,
especially Pontus. Moreover, with T amars participation in the establishment of the Empire of Trebizond
(see infra), the title may also be envisaged a further expression of Georgia's self-perceived equalization
with Byzantium . 8 9 That T a m a r ruled much o f the northern part of the Near East was noted in The
Histories and Eulogies which declares that Georgia's authority permeated the "East, West, North, [and]
South ." 9 0
T amar's reign marks the first instance o f a woman to rule over K ' art' li/Georgia .9 * The
established formula for intitulatio was for the most part m aintained9^ However, it should be emphasized
(1895), p. 82; and Javaxishvili, Sak'art'velos mep'e damisi up'lebis istoria, pp. 10 and 43-51. For an
earlier usage of "autocrat" (in this instance, with regards to the Roman emperor), see The Life o f Nino in
C'x. k'art'. mep'et'a, p. 8 2 ^ . Davit' II is called "autocrat" (t'wt'mpqrobeli) in The Life o f Davit', p.
2 19jq = Qauxch'ishvili e d , p. 360j j . q , and is given a similar title on the Mt. Sinai icon. Similarly.
T a m a r is afforded the title t'wt'mpqrobeli and the related t'wt'mp'lobelr, see Hist, and E ui, pp. 38 j j and
4 3 4 . 5 . ^ ven later usages are recorded such as Beri Egnatashvili, p. 4 3 5 2 and for Tim ur (as
t'wt'mpqrobeli) in Cont. K 'C '-2nd Text, p. 455 j 5 . It should be said that the claim to be "autocrat" was
made well before the foil o f Constantinople to the Latin Crusaders in 1204; therefore, this title cannot be
linked to the collapse o f Byzantine authority in Constantinople.
For the compass-direction ingredients o f Georgian intitulatio, see M. Surguladze. "Politikuri da
kulturul-sarcmunoebrivi p'ormulebi k'art'vel m ep'et'a titulaturashi," in K'art'uli cqarot'mc'odneoba, vol.
8 , pp. 150-160, with Eng. sum., pp. 159-160.
8 8 M. Surguladze, "Politikuri da kulturul-sarcmunoebrivi p'ormulebi k 'art'v el m ep'et'a titulaturashi," in
K'art'uli cqarot'mc'odneoba, vol. 8 , pp. 153-154. For Nino being ordered to evangelize the "northern
regions," see The Life o f Nino in C'x. k'art'. mep'et'a, p. 8 5 2 . 3 . *n
Shatberdi codex, the reference to
K 'a rt'li as "the northern land" is explicitly made from the vantage-point o f Armenia; see Shat. Codex ( =
Life o f Nino inMok'. K'art'.), p. 33 13 0 . 3 1 .
8 9 M. Surguladze, "Politikuri da kulturul-sarcmunoebrivi p'ormulebi k 'art'v el mep'eta titulaturashi," in
K'art'uli cqarot'mc'odneoba, vol. 8 . Eng. sum., p. 160.

90 Hist.
andEul., p. 62g_12.
^H ow ever, it appears that women could rule as regents until the mep 'e reached maturity, at least in the
pre-Bagratid period For example, The Life o f the Kings, p. 54, asserts that while Adami (132-135) was a
581
th at T a m a r was styled precisely as mep e, a non-gender specific designation usually translated as "king"
but in her case clearly "monarch." Often T a m a r is sometimes identified as "mep e da dedop'ali." that is.
"monarch and queen." In Old Georgian, dedop 'ali denotes either queen-consorr or princess, but is not
used to designate a woman who held the reins o f power (outside of Georgia, since pre-Bagratid Kart'li
had no women rulers). In any event dedop'ali (gacgoagacjo) is gender specific since it is a compound
consisting o f the terms deda ("mother," "woman") and up 'ali ("lord"). Thus T am ar could lay claim to
both o f these titles. But confusion arising from T amar's elevation and her proper title is manifest in the
Arabic legends on coinage struck in her name, for Arabic does employ a grammatical gender. Although
she is named as "queen" and "Queen o f queens" in them, the Arabic subsequently obfuscates her gender
an d gives "may God increase his victories ."9 3 When T am a r's daughter, Rusudan. came to the throne, the
same confusion is evident, although on her coinage the Arabic legends begin with "Queen o f kings and
queens."
Developments after Rusudan
The Mongol conquest o f Caucasia commenced during the reign o f Rusudan. Following her. the
unified kingdom was fragmented, with competing Bagratid "kings" in the capacity o f Mongol vassals
often claiming the right to rule given territories. Although the political realities had been dramatically
transformed, the petty Georgian monarchs maintained the titulature developed during the elev enth and
twelfth centuries, and continued to elaborate them. It is ironic that only under Mongol domination did the
term Sak'art'velo, or all-Georgia, formally enter the intitulatio of the Georgian monarchs.9-* Thus. Davit'
son ofRusudan, styled him self as: Nebit'a gh[mrt'Jisayt'a ap'xazt'a, k'art'vfejlt'a, rant'a, kaxt'a da
somext'a mep'isa, sharvansha da shahansha da qfovjlisa sak'art'veloysa da ch'rdiloet'isap'lohit'
child his mother Ghadana ruled (the verb is mep 'obda. or "ruled as mep e": her husband had already
passed away).
9 ^ Kek.Inst.MS # Q-964, the so-called Nikorcmida MS o f the
Chronicle o f AII the Kings and Kat 'alikos-es
(1?), copied in 1585, gives:... T'amar mep'isa, dedop'lisa da t'wt'mpqrobelisa qovlisa aghmosavlet'isa da
sak'art'veloysa = " T amar, mep'e and dedop'ali and autocrat o f all the East and Sak'art'velo." Sec also
O-Fond Catalog, vol. 2, pp. 375-377.
Lang, Studies in the Numismatic History o f Georgia, pp. 22-27, esp. p. 24. Lang pointed out that the
"his" in the inscription might refer to Jesus Christ (i.e., "His"). It should be recalled that no Georgian
script incorporated both miniscules and majuscules. This confusion is also manifest for Queen Rusudan,
daughter o f T a m a r, see ibid., p. 30.
9 4 Moreover, the designation Sak'art'velo was used routinely only in histories from the reign o f Tam ar.
In Hist, and Eul., p. 110, we encounter references to the people of Sakartvelo as well as "the kings of
Sak'art'velo" {sak'art'velos mep'et'a
8 3 3 3 0 )4 ], p. I I O ^ ) .
582
mpqrobelisa, or "By the will o f God King o f the Ap'xaz, K'art'velians, Rani-s, Kaxi-s, and Armenians.
sharvanshah and shahanshah, and m aster-ruler o f all Sak'art'velo and the North."9^ This type o f formula
is common through the fifteenth century, although the terms sharvanshah and shahanshah became
corrupted, their original meaning had probably been long forgotten.96
By the end o f the fourteenth century, extremely fanciful claims were inserted into royal titulature.
Giorgi VII (1393-1400), after proclaiming him self a scion o f the King-Prophet David, identifies himself
as: "By the will o f God King, sharvanshah, shanshe [i.e., shahanshah] o f the Rani-s, Kaxi-s. Greeks [i.e..
Byzantines, or perhaps Pontians], Armenians, Svan-s, Ap'xaz, the North, all o f Sak'art'velo, L ixt'Imeret'i [i.e., eastern and western Georgia], the East, the West, the ruler o f all."97 A fifteenth-century
monarch taking the famous name "Vaxtang Gorgasali" further embellished this formula: "Crowned by
God... King o f Kings o f the Rani-s, Kaxi-s, Svan-s, Greeks, Armenians, Megreli-s, K 'art'velians, Jiki-s,
Alans, sharvani and sharvashi [(!), i.e., sharvanshah and shahanshah], King o f Kings o f Lixt'-Im era, the
East, the North, [and] all Christendom, sovereign."9** While the political situation did not coincide with
their claims, the Bagratid kings resolutely styled themselves as monarchs o f all-Georgia and even
extended their claims over eastern parts o f Byzantine Anatolia, well before the M l o f Constantinople in
1453.
Pre-Bagratid historical sources do not relate any particular formula for royal titulature with the
exception of k'art'velt'a mep e, o r "king o f the K'art'velians." Since for the most part our sources are
centuries removed from the events and people they describe, it is not altogether clear whether the reported
intitulatio is accurate or a later interpolation. In any event, it is likely that the pre-Bagratid monarchs
employed only simple titles, and did not bear any Roman/Byzantine titles.
With the establishment o f the Bagratids, and their closer connection to Byzantium, K 'art'velian
and then Georgian rulers came to the realization o f their right to, and the importance o f official and legal
titles. Subsequently, they frantically began to expand their titles with Byzantine honors and then, as
additional subject peoples were annexed to the kingdom, added their ethnyms to the intitulatio.
9^Georgian Charters, #37, p. 167 (1261/62 AD).

96E .g , the 1348 charter o f Andronikos who styled himself as "sharvanshe [and] shanshe;" see
Kakabadze, Georgian ChartersSPB, p. 86. For the corruptions of the title sharvanshah, see Pakhomov,
"Titul shirvanshakha v Gruzii," in his Kratkii kurs istorii Azerbaidzhana, p. 47.
97Undated charter in Kakabadze, Georgian ChartersSPB, p. 117.
9**Royal charter from 1432 in Kakabadze, Georgian ChartersSPB, p. 143; cf. ibid., p. 138 (also for
1432).
583
Once the all-Georgian kingdom was firmly established. Davit' II discarded Byzantine honors
altogether, and the intitulatio became conditioned solely by the communities subjected to o r claimed by
the Crown. Even after the fragmentation o f the united kingdom under Mongol rule, Georgian monarchs
continued to emblazon themselves with the former intitulatio. Thus they staked the claim to be the
absolute rulers o f all-Georgia, even if in the period before the Russian conquest in the eighteenth century.
Georgia was united only once again in the first-half o f the fifteenth century.
Bagratid intitulatio demonstrates: (1) the connection with Byzantium as emphasized by high
Byzantine court titles; (2) the self-recognition that Georgia was a strong kingdom in Caucasia and the
northern part o f the Near East and the subsequent abandonment o f Byzantine dignities, since the local
kings no longer depended on Byzantium, in any way, for their authority; (3) the depiction o f their own
rulers as ultimate monarchs; and (4) the growth of an administration and bureaucracy in the Bagratid
period which encouraged and sustained inflated royal titles.
/ / .
INNOVATIONS OF EARLY BAGRATID KINGSHIP
The activities o f the Bagratid kings, unlike those o f their predecessors (with the notable exception
o f presiding princes described by Ps.-Juansher), were recorded by contemporaries. The historians o f the
earlier era, especially the author o f The Life o f the Kings, had been largely unaware of many of the
realities o f royal authority, social organization, and the like for the periods they addressed. Both preBagratid and Bagratid historians wrote on behalf o f the notion of dynastic kingship and both were imagemakers. But whereas pre-Bagratid historians sought to manufacture (with apparently little contemporary
or near-contemporary evidence) a plausible picture o f the remote past from the pastels of existing
traditions (both local and foreign), their Bagratid counterparts dealt with contemporary individuals,
episodes, and issues, and therefore sought to manipulate the image in favor o f a living dynasty'. To be
sure, historians o f both periods both manufactured and manipulated the past, but the precedence of one
over the other was shifted in the two periods.
According to the Bagratid historical tradition, the ascendancy' o f the Bagratids marked a new era
in the evolution and development of indigenous kingship. N ot only were the K art velian Bagratids
responsible for rescuing the local kingship from the abeyance into which it had stumbled, but that
dynasty's meteoric rise was fueled by their intimate connection with Byzantium. To be sure, in earlier
centuries, Rome and then Byzantium had normally kept a hand in Caucasian politics, but Persia - owing
to its propinquity to and social affinity with K art'll, Armenia, and Albania - had exerted a considerably
greater influence. Even with the ruin o f the Sasanid Persia by the armies o f Islam, an event which was
foreshadowed and accelerated by Heraclius' successes, Sasanid notions o f social organization continued to
be an integral part o f K'art'velian-ness. Thus, as we have seen, the depiction o f K'art'velian monarchs as
584
Sasanid-type rulers persists in Georgian historical literature into the early ninth century. But from the
establishment o f the K 'art'velian Bagratids, and their sanctioning o f historical works by the eleventh
century, the textual imagery o f kingship was transformed from being inherently Persian to resemble more
closely the authority o f the Christian Byzantine emperor.
Now we shall examine some o f the most prominent (non-titulary) innovations o f K art'velian/
Georgian kingship that were introduced by the Bagratids. As is the case with this entire study, we shall
focus upon the textual image. It should be emphasized that for the Bagratid period a relatively great array
o f art survives, and the turn towards Byzantium is vividly expressed in i t Sadly, K 'art'velian royal art for
the pre-Bagratid period does not survive, and thus we do not know how it reflected the Persian orientation
o fK 'a rt'li.99 For the m ost part, contemporary artistic evidence is om itted here, although curious readers
should consult the studies o f A. Eastmond and W. Djobadze.100
Development o f a Royal Administration
W ith the consolidation o f Bagratid rule in K 'a rt'li and the establishment and sustained expansion
o f the all-Georgian kingdom, a relatively complex royal administration was developed ^
The system of
99 We know virtually nothing about the function and extent o f pre-Bagratid royal a r t Might the paucity o f
specimens be an indication that the Bagratids, probably well into their tenure, consciously obliterated such
monuments from the pre-Bagratid past? If we accept this premise as true, then we must ask why preBagratid historical works (e .g , The Life o f the Kings which described pre-Christian K 'a rt'li) survived and
were transmitted in the official historical corpus of K 'C \ Pre-Bagratid (but not necessarily royallyconunmissioned) sculptures are known from Bolnisi (late fifth century), Xandisi and Juari (late sixth
century), Cebelda, Kachagani, Usanet'i, and Ateni Sioni (seventh and eighth centuries), and Gveldesi
(eighth/ninth century). See G. Alibegashvili, "Sculpture," in Beridze, et al., The Treasures o f Georgia.
pp. 163-164.
*See esp. Eastm ond Royal Imagery in Medieval Georgia. See also idem., "Royal Renewal in Georgia:
The Case o f Queen Tamar," in P. Magdalino, e d . New Constantines: The Rhythm o f Imperial Renewal in
Byzantium, 4th-l3th Centuries, pp. 283-293. I have profited greatly by my meetings, travels, and
correspondences with Dr. Eastm ond
**On the contemporary Bagratid administration, see: Javaxishvili, K'art'uli samart'lis istoria, vol. lb,
ch. 2, esp. pp. 116ff, Ant'elava, Davit'isa da t'amarissaxelmcip'o, and esp. pp. 16-86 (unfortunately, this
study is largely undocumented); W.E.D. Allen, History o f the Georgian People, esp. ch. 23, "Court and
Administration," pp. 257-265 (which usually does not differentiate the process o f the development of the
administration and addresses it largely at the time o f its fullest extent in the thirteenth century);
Step'nadze, Sak'art'veloXIIsaukunesa daXIIIsaukunispirvel meot'xedshi, "Saxelmcip'o cqobileba," pp.
156-187; I. Surguladze, Istoriia gosudarstva i prava Gruzii (1968), pp. 48-58 et sqq\ and M.
Lort'k'ip'anidze, "Georgia in the XI-XII Centuries," in her Essays on Georgian History, "The State
System, pp. 168-175. Vaxushti, pp. 17-23 ("Zneni da ch'ueulebani sak'art'velosani"), summarizes the
understanding o f administrative posts in his time (eighteenth century), but his account obscures the
original functions and development o f these offices. The Institution o f the Court, a late medieval
Georgian document, describes the royal hierarchy in some detail. Though it may preserve some old
585
erist'avis that The life o f the Kings attributes to the semi-mythical first K 'art'velian king P'arnavaz
continued to exist throughout the Bagratid era, although other military officials - like the amirspasalari,
or the secretary and commander o f the army1^2 were added to the military structure. As lands and
communities were incorporated into die Georgian kingdom they were absorbed into the administrativemilitary apparatus and ultimately subordinated to the monarch. The erist'av-ates remained, as they had in
the pre-Bagratid period, the backbone o f royal administration. To demonstrate the expansion o f the realm
and its division into erist'av-ates, we may quote from an enumeration o f the most important o f them for
the time o f T am ar
... And at that time the erist'avi-s were:

Baram Vardanis-dze the erist'avi o f the Suans;
Kaxaberi Kaxaberis-dze the erist'avi of Racha and Takueri;
and Ot'agho Sharvashis-dze the erist'avi o f C'xumi;
Amanelis-dze the erist'avi o f Arguet'i;
and Bediani the erist'avi o f Odishi.
[And] on the [eastern] side o f the Lixi [mountains the erist'avi-s were]:
the erist'avi o f Ka rt'li Rati Surameli;
and the erist'avi o f K axet'i Bakur-qma Dzaganis-dze:
and the erist'avi o f H eret'i Asat' Grigolis-dze...
sadihe erist'avi o f Same' xe and the spasalari Boc'o J a q e li ...^
Little is known about the administrative machine o f the early Bagratid Georgian kings except
that their enterprise was buttressed, as it had been previously, by the erist'avi-s. It should be said from the
outset that our sources, written from the perspective o f the monarchy, do not elaborate how the erist 'avi-s
attained their positions. In theory, o f course, they were all appointed and subject to removal by the king,
but theory may very well have deviated from practice (the hereditary nature o f the erist'av-atss, like other
positions in pre-modem K'art'li/Georgia, must not be overlooked. But the process by which the erist'av-
ates became hereditary is poorly documented). In any event, from the reign o f Davit' II we possess
material, this text is relevant for a period considerably later than T am ar.
102This post is attested for Davit' s reign. Cf. the Byzantine spatharios (EIIA0APIOE), l i t "the bearer of
the sword;" Kazhdan, "Spatharios, in ODB, vol. 3 (1991), pp. 1935-1936. In addition, the Armenianderived term zorvari ("general") is sometimes employed, as in The Life o f Davit', pp. 157-158 =
Qauxch'ishvili e d , p. 318.
^ H is t. and Eul., pp. 332Q-34-7.
586
plentiful evidence for the establishment o f a far-flung royal administration, and its growth is illustrated by
the large number o f contemporary charters and documents which have com e down to us.
Davit' effected a number o f reforms which brought about the reorganization o f the Church
(considered in the following section) and the military, and which also resulted in the formation of a welldefined royal bureaucracy. As for the military. Davit' negotiated the resettlement o f 40,000 CumaniQipchaq families in northern Caucasia. These Qipchaqs formed a major pillar in Davit' s standing
army. 104 He also is said to have demanded that his soldiers behave morally, and bawdy entertainments
were prohibited. Davit' established Georgian as the language o f the army even though its ranks consisted
of many non-Georgian troops, especially Qipchaqs, Ovsi-s, and Armenians . 1 0 5 In order to keep his
troops in practice and to prevent them from challenging the Crown (by occupying their time). Davit'
ensured that the army was always engaged in combat.10^ He himself often led his troops into battle. A
network o f informers, both inside and outside his kingdom, was allegedly established. In the final
analysis, M L ort'k'ip'anidze posited that Davit' was responsible for the creation o f a standing Georgian
army as well as a specialized core o f his most loyal troops, the so-called mona-spa. She hypothesized that
the contemporary regular army7consisted o f some 60,000 troops (40,000 o f which were Qipchaqs) while
the mona-spa was made up o f about 5,000 cavalrymen.10^ These numbers are perhaps a bit high, and, in
any case, speculative.
It is from Davit's contemporary biography that we gain our earliest evidence for the appointment
o f the royal (civil) bureaucracy. One of Davit''s chief administrative reforms was to create a new "second
to the king," an act which demoted the spaspeti who had served as the chief advisor in the pre-Bagratid
period. Davit's new official, the mcignobart'uxuc'esi-chqondideli (8 ^ 0 5 6 0 1 6 AtfxDgbwjQgboSaciBcoocoacso), fused the position o f the chief administrative secretary (mcignobart'uxuc'esi. cf. cigni =
"letter, book"; mcignobari = "secretary"; and uxuc'esi = "elder," l i t "oldest [m an]"10*) with one of the
highest ecclesiastical offices in Georgia, the western bishopric o f Chqondidi (chqondideli. lit. "of/from
104 77re Life o f Davit', pp. 184-185 = Qauxch'ishvili e d , p. 337. See also the fascinating study7of Golden.
"Cumanica I: The Qipchaqs in Georgia," AEMA 4 (1984), pp. 45-87.
105 7%e Life o f Davit', pp. 207-208 = Qauxch'ishvili ed., p. 352.
10 ZMd, p. 217 = e d Qauxchishvili, p. 359.
107
M. Lort'k'ip'anidze, Essays on Georgian History, pp. 111-115. On the Georgian army, see also
Vaxushti, pp. 18ff.
108
LyioIbid., p. 169, states that "The institution o f [uxuc asjj... had existed in the Georgian court since ancient
times." However, the term uxuc'esi, as an official o f the monarch, is not attested in the pre-Bagratid
period
587
Chqondidi"). Prior to this, the two offices had been separate . 109 Thus, the institution o f the
mcignobart'uxuc 'esi-chqondideli may in part be regarded as an attempt by the Crown to regulate

ecclesiastical affairs. Moreover, the monarchy also seems to have been taking advantage o f clerical
literacy for more secular ends. The holders o f the office were appointed by the monarch, but once
confirmed they were difficult to remove from power before their own abdication or death.
O ther administrative offices attested for the reign o f Davit' II up to 1184 (the accession o f
T amar) include : 1 111 the mandaturt'uxuc'esi (9i6coj>(*)^jfio3W)bQ3bo; the chief o f the mandaturi-s). whose
title is the only administrative one based upon a Byzantine term (mandator) and whose duties seem to
have included palace affairs and protocol, resembling the Byzantine Grand Domestic; 1 11 the
amirspasalari (a8otf>l>3.ib.iE?,i6o), the secretary and chief commander o f the army, whose title was a
conflation o f the Islamic term amir/emir and upon the Persian for "general" this office may have been
patterned after the Seljuq administration ; 113 and the mechurchlet'uxuc'esi (0a3!3^3c?353b<3Q3bo). the
secretary o f the treasury . 1 13 Thus a bureaucracy, with corresponding secretaries, was developed for the
army, the court, and the treasury. All of the major secretaries were directly supervised by the civilianecclesiastical mcignobart uxuc 'esi-chqondideli.1 14 A t least at first, the supervisory officials o f the
bureaucracy were dependent upon the monarch's appointm ent
1(1% o r an enumeration o f known mcignobart'uxuc'esi-s, bishops o f Chqondidi, and then the holders o f
the single office o f mcignobart'uxuc'esi-chqondideli. see R. Metreveli, Davit' / T aghmashenebeli, esp.
"Chqondidel-mcignobart'uxuc'esis t'anamdebobis daceseba," pp. 131-145. The earliest known
mcignobart'uxucesi is a certain Ept'wme (eleventh century), while the first attested bishop of Chqondidi
is Step'ane Sananoys-dze (tenth century). See also: Javaxishvili. K'art'uli samartiis istoria. vol. lb , pp.
124-140; and Vaxushti, p. 2 7 ^ jq . The later Institution o f the Court, para. 36. p. 19. states that "The
Chqoindidi [sic] is the father o f the king.."
l l 0 Here I am indebted to the analysis of Antelava. Davit isa da t 'amaris saxelmcip'o. esp. p. 76.
111 Javaxishvili, K'art'uli samartiis istoria. vol. lb, pp. 157-167; Allen. History o f the Georgian People.
p. 258; and Vaxushti, p. 21^.g (includes an enumeration o f his subordinates, but this is not applicable to
the period under review presently). M. Lort'k' ip'anidze. Essays on Georgian History, p. 170. says that
this office was essentially "the chief of police."
1 ^ F o r the possible SeljQq antecedent for the office o f amirspasalari, see Golden. "Qipchaqs." p. 61. The
term amir is also incorporated into the K'art'velian/Georgian office amirejibi. See also Javaxishvili,
K'art'uli sam artiis istoria, vol. lb, pp. 140-157.
113 V. Ch'antiadze, "Davit' aghmasheneblis p'inansuli politikis sakitxisat'vis," in Davit'
aghmashenebeli: statiebis krebuli, pp. 36-44, with Rus. sum., "K voprosu o finansovoi politike Davida
Agmashenebeli, pp. 43-44, relates that twelfth-century Georgia maintained trade relations with Arabia,
Byzantium, Italy, Rus, Egypt, Iran, China, Armenia, and others. See also: Javaxishvili, K'art uli
samartiis istoria, vol. lb, pp. 167-179; Vaxushti, p. 219_j ^ and R. Metreveli, T'amari, p. 91.
^ O t h e r minor officials are also attested in contemporary documents. E .g , Hist. andEuL, p. 55 j 7 ,
refers to the meghwnet'uxuc'esi (Sacabacogbgoobo; cf. ghwino [m od ghvino] = "wine"), the chief
588
This administrative structure remained rather static until the reign o f Davit''s great
granddaughter T amar. During the first twenty years or so o f h er reign we begin to hear o f the
msaxurt 'uxuc 'esi (ab ib^fim ^b^Q abo), the secretary supervising the monarch's own wealth. 1
How
this office differed from the mechurchlet'uxuc'esi (secretary o f the treasury) is unclear, but a distinction
might have been made between the treasury o f the realm and the treasury o f a particular monarch. By
1205*1207 T am ar also established the post of at'abegi (iCDibjjao) a title obviously borrowed from
Persian/Turkish ( lit "father-Iord") whose first appointee was the Armenian general Ivane
Mqargrdzeli.11^
The term vaziri (36 *1 0 6 0 ) was introduced into the Georgian court sometime in the twelfth
century . 1*7 W.E.D. Allen suggests that only four court officials were originally considered to be vaziri-s'.
the mcignobart'uxuc'esi-chqondideli, 11 the amirspasalari, the mandaturt'uxuc'esi, and the
mechurchletuxuc'esi. T hat is to say, the most prominent secretaries o f the civil administration were called
vaziri-s. Subsequently, but still during T am ars tenure, the at'abegi was elevated to this status. Allen
also notes that under Rusudan the msaxurt'uxuc'esi was added to the ranks o f the vaziri-s as was the
amiraxori (i3o66bci6o), a prominent assistant to the amirspasalari.

It should be said that we know virtually nothing about the subordinates of the various secretaries.
The sources imply that each secretary maintained his own staff. Should the paradigm o f the
administration be carried down to this level, and there is no reason to think that it should not be, then we
vintner, and the monadiret'-uxuc'esi, at least in the late medieval period, was charged with the
preparation o f royal hunting expeditions. See Javaxishvili, K'art'uli samartiis istoria, vol. lb. pp. 190197.
^ S e e : Javaxishvili, K'art'uli samartiis istoria, vol. lb, pp. 182-190: and Vaxushti, p. 2 0 2 1 . 2 4 1 ^H ist. and Eul., p. 110. Ivane refused the post of amirspasalari which his deceased brother. Zak'aria,
had previously h e ld Ivane him self suggested the creation o f the office o f at'abegi which he described as
"customary in a sultanate and as encompassing the responsibilities o f being a "father and tutor to kings
and sultans." Before his assumption of the at'abag-ate, Ivane had occupied the post of msaxurt'uxuc'esi.
See also: Javaxishvili, K'art'uli samartiis istoria, vol. lb, pp. 179-182; and Vaxushti, p. 27 j j . j j . For the
at'abegi o f Rani/Azerbaijan, who was an official o f the Seljuq Sultan, see The Life o f Davit', p. 195 =
Qauxch'ishvili e d , p. 344.
117
On the Georgian vaziri-s, see: Javaxishvili, K'art'uli samartiis istoria, vol. lb, pp. 116-124; and
Allen, History o f the Georgian'People, pp. 260-261. Allen notes the division of vaziri-s into subgroups
(including by their civilian/military function) on p. 261. The Georgian term is quite obviously based upon
the Arabic wazir. The entire administration was often called the divani, which is the Georgianized form
of the Pers. diwan.
118
For the mcignobart'uxuc'esi-chqondideli explicitly named as a vaziri, see Hist, and Eul., p. 3 2 ^ .
589
may cautiously assume that each secretary possessed a staff strictly organized in a hierarchy. But as to the
structure o f each staff and its number, we may only conjecture.
The Georgian administrative apparatus, forged upon an existing foundation and attaining its
greatest extent only in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, comprised civil/court military, and
ecclesiastical officials. Only one title o f a major official, the mandaturt'uxuc'esi. was based upon Greek,
while the others were Georgian, Persian, Arabic, and even Turkish. The Georgian bureaucracy, both in
function and in name, was no slavish imitation of that o f Byzantium. O f course, the mere use of
Byzantine administrative titles would not necessarily signify that the Georgians had modeled their
administration on that o f Byzantium; the converse also holds true. As we have seen with high court
dignities, from the reign o f Davit' II the Georgians - although they continued to look towards Byzantium
for models to emulate did not blindly imitate their Byzantine neighbors but rather sought to construct a
Christian kingdom based upon some Byzantine notions o f rulership. The contemporary Georgian
administration does not seem to have been based upon Byzantine models, and in any event, the names of
the various officials were not based upon Greek but rather were N ear Eastern in derivation. Moreover, we
should recall that Bagratid sources from the eleventh century contrast sharply with earlier works,
especially those from the pre-Bagratid period which know virtually nothing about court structure. This is
to be expected, for not only did pre-Bagratid historians often write about periods which were far removed
from their own time, but the pre-Bagratid K 'art'velian kings did not rule an all-Georgian kingdom.
Royal Documents, Legal Codes, and Coinage
Bagratid K 'art'li, and then Georgia, witnessed many innovations, one o f the most important of
which was the large scale production o f royal documents as well as the striking o f a coinage specifically in
the name o f the Georgian monarch. * ^
Both of these reflect the solidification o f Bagratid royal authority
as well as the necessity for and expansion o f a royal bureaucracy.
*Â lm ost all extant medieval Georgian MSS were written in the Bagratid period. Under the early
Bagratids, large numbers o f ecclesiastical texts were copied and newly trans. from Gk. and even Arm.
This is not the place to trace Byzantine-Georgian literary relations, but suffice it to say that the Bagratid
period marked a distinct break from the past in this regard. See: Tarchnishvili, Geschichte; Khintibidze,
Gruzinsko-vizantiiskie literatumye vziamootnosheniia, with E n g sum., "Georgjan-Byzantine Literary
Contacts, pp. 297-316; and idem., "Byzantine-Georgian Literary Contacts, BK 36 (1978), pp. 275-286.
Byzantine texts which are now preserved only in Georgian include Hippolytus* Commentary on the Song
o f Songs, Mitrophanus o f Smyrna's Interpretations o f Ecclesiastes, an anti-Latin polemical work by
Eustathius o f Nicaea, a polemic against festivals attributed to the emperor Justinian, several metaphrastic
works o f John Xiphilinus, The Life o f Dio o f Constantinople, and The Martyrdom o f Orentios and His
Companions (see Khintibidze in BK, pp. 285-286).
590
Georgian charters and deeds, both royal and non-royal, are extant only for the Bagratid
period.
The earliest surviving K'art'velian charter has been dated to the mid ninth century, and
consists o f a deed o f purchase in the name of a certain Pavneli and was confirmed by both the Crown and
the Church. From the sixties o r early seventies o f the same century another document survives which
reports a ruling on the obligations of a certain monk named M ik'ael. It is only from the reign o f Bagrat
IV (1027-1072) and especially from the twelfth century that we possess a sizable quantity o f royal
documents, m any o f which were concerned with ecclesiastical privileges and affairs. Particularly well
represented are royal documents issued in conjunction with the status o f two monasteries: Shio Mghwme
near M c'xet'a and G elat'i near K'ut'at'isL The monarch customarily confirmed charters with his/her
own signature and this was normally accompanied with a pronouncement o f their intitulatio.
The necessity o f issuing a relatively large number o f documents contributed to the development
o f mxedruli, a new "civil" Georgian script which was used extensively within the Bagratid civil
administration. But it should be emphasized that the "ecclesiastical" scripts, both asomt'avruli and
especially nusxuri, continued to be used even in royal deeds and charters, although their employment
generally occurred in documents touching upon the Church.
Georgian legal codes are extant only from the later medieval Bagratid period. 121 The earliest
surviving Georgian royal legal text survives from the era o f Giorgi V "the Resplendent" in the fourteenth
century. *2 2 W e possess no evidence that other codes had been compiled previously, and there are no
^2The most useful collection o f these documents is T . Enuk' idze, S. Silogava, and N. Shoshiashvili.
eds., K'art'uli istoriuli sabut'ebi DC-XIIIss. (cited here as Georgian Charters). Several important deeds
and charters were trans. into Rus. by S. S. Kakabadze, Gruzinskie dokumenty IX-XV w. v sobranii
leningradskogo otdeleniia Instituta vostokavedeniia (cited here as Kakabadze, Georgian ChartersSPB).
while others were rendered into Fr. by Brosset, "Etudes sur les chartes," appendix XVI in his Histoire de
la Georgie, vol. 2/2 (18S7). Other important eds. and trans. include: Taqalshvili, "Sigel gruzinskago
tsaria Bagrata IV 1027-1072," ZVOIRAO 9 (1894); idem.. Sak'art'velossidzveleni, vol. 2/1 (Tp'ilisi,
1909), pp. 1-15 et sqq: Kakabadze, "Gramota gruz. tsaria Georgiia III po povody vosstaniia kniazei Orbeli v 1177 g.," IKIA1 4 (1926), pp. 123-125 (parallel Georgian text with Rus. trans.); idem., "Gramota
tsaritsy Tamary Velikoi na im ia Gelat ot 1193 g.," IK1AI3 (1925), pp. 111-120 (parallel Georgian text
with Rus. trans.); idem., "Gramota chkondidskogo arkhepiskopa ok. 1240 goda." in his Saistorio krebuli,
vol. 2 (Tp'ilisi, 1928), pp. 71-80; Zhordania, Istoriuli sabut'ebli shio-mghvimismonastrisa da "dzegli
vahxanis k vabt'a; and Martin-Hisard, "Les Biens dun monast&re gdorgien (IX^-XIII6 siecle): Le
temoignage des acts du monastere Saint-Shio de Mghvime," in Hommes et richesses dans PEmpire
byzantin, vol. 2 ed. by Kravari, Lefort, and Morrisson (1989), esp. appdx. 2, pp. 141-152.
l21For a review o f the history o f Georgian legal codes, see I. Surguladze, Istoriia gosudarstva i prava
Gruzii, pp. 60-81.

l 2 2 Co<fe o f Giorgi V= Purc'eladze ed. (includes Rus. trans., the Eng. trans. o f O. Wardrop, and the Fr.
trans. o f J. Karst). Eng. overview of the text, "The Code o f Giorgi V (the Brilliant)," in D. P'urc'eladze,
Ulozhenie Georgiia V-go Blistatelnogo, pp. 178-182. For a reworking o f Giorgi's reign, see I-ang,
"Georgia in the Reign o f Giorgi the Brilliant (1314-1346)," BSO AS 17 (1955), pp. 74-91.
591
references in Georgian historical literature to laws having been promulgated by Davit' II, T am ar, or their
contemporaries . 123 The b rie f legal code o f Giorgi V, extant independently only in a unique and defective
MS from the seventeenth/eighteenth century, includes a preamble and forty-six separate articles.
Although Giorgi's code com ments upon the proper administrative structure o f the realm, the bulk o f it is
concerned with criminal law and especially with setting forth a systematic schedule o f punishments. The
first attempt to write down a comprehensive set of Georgian laws was m ade only by the eighteenth-century
Vaxtang VI . 12 4 His codex was based upon Biblical (Mosaic), Georgian ecclesiastical, Byzantine (i.e., the
codes o f Leo VI and Constantine VII), Armenian (i.e., the twelfth-century Armenian adaptation o f the socalled Syrian-Roman code an d the code o f M xit'ar Gosh), and local secular law (i.e., the earlier codes of
Giorgi V and Beka-Aghbugha [second-half fourteenth century], the last o f which may incorporate
Georgian laws from the tim e o f Bagrat IV) and was part and parcel o f the intense literary interests o f
Vaxtang and his circle. T he durability o f Vaxtang's codex is testified by the fact that the nineteenthcentury Russian occupation force had the text translated so as to provide imperial officials with an
understanding o f the local laws and to facilitate Georgia's integration into the Empire. In any event,
Vaxtang's code extensively dealt with the prescription o f punishments, including compensation especially
by an elaborate system o f ordeals. Although Vaxtang's laws were in many cases based upon medieval
precepts, both Georgian an d non-Georgian, his codex as a whole does not accurately represent the period
of Davit' II and T am ar.
Although coinage h ad been issued by non-K'art'velian authorities on "Georgian1' territory before
the Bagratids (especially by the Greeks in Colchis/Egrisi and the Sasanids in K 'art'li), currency struck in
the name o f K 'art'velian/G eorgian kings did not appear until the Bagratid period (see photographs!. It is
true that some sixth- and seventh-century Sasanid silver coinage minted in K 'a rt'li had been altered to
incorporate the names o f K 'a rt'v elian princes and even to have the traditional Zoroastrian fire altar
surmounted by a Christian cross. But these coins were struck in the nam e o f the shahanshah Hurmazd IV
and the names of the K 'art'velian princes were clearly subordinate to the portrait o f the Great King.
123For a collection o f pre- an d early-modern legal codicies, see J. Karst, ed. and trans.. Corpus Juris
Ibero-Caucasici, 2 vols., vol. 2/2-213 (1938-1940) for Giorgi V and vol. I (1934-1937) for Vaxtang VI
(including Fr. trans).
I 24Code o f Vaxtang VI. F or the trans. made for the imperial Russian administration, see A.A. Frenkel',
Sbomik zakonov gruzinskago tsaria Vakhtanga VI. For an unpub. Eng. trans. based upon Frenkel', see
Oliver Wardrop, "The Laws o f Prince Vakhtang, of Georgia," Oxf.Wardr. # MS. Wardr.d.3. Vaxtang's
law code was supplemented in 1706 by the Dasturiamali, a document w hich described administrative
procedure. For a review o f th e code o f Vaxtang VI, see Lang, Last Years o f the Georgian Monarchy, pp.
33-46; for the administrative activities o f Vaxtang, see M. K 'ikodze, Vaxtang VI-s saxelmcip'oebrivi
moghvaceoba (1988).
592
3. Giorgi III and T a m a r
4. T a m a r
6 . T a m a r and Davit* Soslani
5. T a m a r
7. Giorgi IV Lasha
S.R usudaa
9. Rusudan
593
Very few of the early Bagratids engaged in m inting coins. The earliest known K 'art'velian
Bagratid coins to be conclusively identified were struck in the name of the kuropalates Davit' o f
Tao/Tayk'.*2^ The obverse has the abbreviated asomt'avruli inscription K'E/ShE/DT, which was
reconstructed by Pakhomov to read K 'fristje shfeicqalje D[avi]t',or "Christ. H ate Mercy on Davit'
The coin's reverse is dominated by a Cross surrounding which is the asomt 'avruli abbreviation KPTE.
This clearly refers to the title k[uro]p[ala]ti, the Georgian rendition o f kuropalates. Bagrat III does not
seem to have minted coins lauding his Byzantine titles, but rather he ordered the striking o f a silver
coinage patterned upon the *Abbasid dirhem.
The series is Islamic in type and therefore no royal
portrait was incorporated. Only one specimen survives and its asomt'avruli inscription refers to "Bagrat,
king o f the Ap'xaz." Lang discovered what he believed to be the prototype for this series, which closely
resembles the dirhem imitation described above, but without any Georgian inscription or reference to
Georgian rulers. 127 No specimens representing the reign o f Giorgi I are extant, but Bagrat IV and then
his son Giorgi II struck coins based upon a Byzantine exemplar with the obverse featuring the M other o f
God (usually with the Greek inscription H ATIA 0EOTOKOE, i.e., "The Holy Mother o f God") and the
reverse having legends which relate the Byzantine honors o f the reigning k in g ^
Coinage in the name
o f Davit' II is exceedingly rare, although that which is extant continued to display an affinity with
Byzantine currency. With the exception o f Bagrat HI, the earliest coinage o f the all-Georgian Bagratid
kings was therefore based upon Byzantine exemplars, but having Georgian legends.
Following Davit' ITs seizure o fT p'ilisi in 1122. a city which at this time must be characterized
as Muslim (and having been outside o f K'art'velian/Georgian control for some four hundred years). ^2 9
that king's son Demetre I abandoned Byzantine numismatic models and began to strike Islamic-type coins.
The coinage became bilingual, having both Georgian and Arabic legends, and Demetre him self even put
on his coins the name of the Sultan o f the Iranian Seljuqs. Mahmud.
The epithet. "Sword o f the
^ P a k h o m o v , Monety Gruzii, pp. 52-53; and Kapanadze. Gruzinskaia numizmatika, p. 55.

126pakhomov, Monety Gruzii, pp. 53-57.
^27L an g Studies in the Numismatic History o f Georgia, # 8 , pp. 18-19.
12 ^Pakhomov, Monety Gruzii, pp. 57-71; and L ang Studies in the Numismatic History o f Georgia, pp.
19-20. For coins bearing the Greek title "The Holy Theotokos," see Pakhomov. ##18 and 21. pp. 60 and
62. For the Greek title "Blachemae," see Pakhomov, #23, pp. 63-64, the coin o f which was patterned on
that o f Constantine IX Monomachos (1042-1055). Greek was not used for the royal legends o f Georgian
coinage.
n g
A" B u t by the time of Marco Polo the city's Muslim population seems to have been diminished; see Marco
Polo, cap. 5, p. 25, for "Teflis" = T pilisi. Polo reports that the citys inhabitants were mainly Armenian
and Georgian Christians with small communities o f Muslims and Jews.
Ôpakhomov, Monety Gruzii, #45, pp. 75-76. On Demetre's relations with the Muslims, see infra.
594
Messiah," inscribed only in Arabic, appeared on another series issued by Demetre, 131 and, as we have
seen, this phrase became standard on Georgian coins up to the Mongol conquest With the exception o f a
series issued by Giorgi HI having a portrait o f the king and another o f Rusudan having a portrait o f
C h rist 132 Georgian coinage remained Islamic in type until, and even throughout the period o f Mongol
domination.
Generally speaking, after Davit II dispensed with Byzantine honors and after his occupation of
T p'ilisi by which even more Muslims became subjects o f the Crown Georgian coinage, through it
customarily contained Christian formulae, abandoned its sometimes slavish imitation o f Byzantine
currency and became Islamic in type (with the exception o f the coin o f Rusudan). Moreover, in
recognition o f the numerous Muslims who had become the subjects o f the Crown, and of the fact that
Arabic was the diplomatic language of the Near and Middle East, the Christian Georgians customarily
came to inscribe their coins in both Georgian and Arabic. Thus the intense but often incomplete and
misguided imitation o f Byzantium on the part o f the early K 'art'velian Bagratids was subsequently
abandoned and the political realities of the all-Georgian realm were reflected in the evolution o f royal
coinage.
Development o f Secular Literature
Documents o f an administrative nature were not the only new forms o f text to emerge under the
Bagratids. The earliest works o f Georgian secular literature are routinely attributed to the eleventh and
twelfth centuries by modem scholars, but the redating of certain constituent texts in K'art'lis c'xovreba
has compelled us to reevaluate such a supposition. Should we remove historical writing from the rubric of
secular writing, however, the earliest remaining extant works do not predate the era o f Davit II. *3 3
In terms o f this study, Georgian secular literature (minus historical literature) is significant
insofar as its Persian basis would seem to cut across the grain o f the de-Persianizing efforts of the
Bagratids. That is to say, we have already seen how the Bagratids purged newly written historical
literature o f blatant expressions which might attest Georgias/K 'art'lis ancient Persian heritage. O f
131Ibid., #46, pp. 77-78.

LeM 106/3-4 (1993), pp.
314-315, note 13 (p. 315) and figures 6 and 9. The coin o f Rusudan was an imitation o f the nomisma o f
132 E.g., Rapp, "The Coinage o f T am ar, Sovereign o f Georgia in Caucasia,"
Nikephoros i n Botaneiates (1078-1081) but still incorporates an Arabic inscription (on the reverse).
133See the survey based upon Kekelidze's groundbreaking studies - o f R.P. Blake, "Georgian Secular
Literature, Epic, Romantic, and Lyric (1100-1800)," HSNPL 15 (1933), pp. 25-48. And now see Rayfield,
The Literature o f Georgia, pp. 63-86.
595
course, only so much actual purging had to be effected, for Persia was no longer the great political power
it had been under the Achaemenids and Sasanids. In any case, the Georgian Bagratid court became
enamored actually, re-enamored with the genre o f Persian heroic tales following the appearance o f
the Shah-nama and similar works. In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, three major Persian-style epics
appeared in Georgian: the Amiran-darejaniani attributed to Mose Xoneli; the Visramiani of Gurgani
which was translated directly from Pahlavi; and the Vep xistqaosani (Knight in the Panthers Skin) by
Shot'a Rust aveli, who claims to have been rendered this tale into Georgian from a Persian original (!).
Countless sequels and imitations o f these texts later appeared, particularly from the sixteenth century.
Significantly, the popularity o f the Persian epic in the Bagratid court almost certainly contributed to the
continued transmission o f pre-Bagratid texts o f K'art'lis c'xovreba, and especially the vita o f the Christian
Vaxtang Gorgasali. These texts, based in no small part on the prototypes of the Shah-nama. themselves
resonated o f this genre. We should bear in mind, however, that the Bagratids themselves, though they
had a penchant for contemporary Persian literature, nevertheless were depicted in terms reminescent of
the Shah-nama or its predecessors.
Blake was right to note that Georgian secular literature, with the exception o f history, appeared:
... at the m oment that the grecophile movement among ecclesiastical writers was
declining. This had developed into a hyper-hellenized scholasticism which was
capable o f reproducing with great accuracy the most complicated ratiocination o f
the neo-PIatonists, but in so doing distorted and stilted the naturally easy flow
and clear exposition characteristic o f older Georgian writings... The rise o f this
Persian influence coincided with the decline o f Greek cultural hegemony. Greek
influence in Georgia, moreover, had become fundamentally ecclesiastical in its
nature except for the neo-Platonist movement, which appears to have become
popular in court circles . 134
There is no reason to suppose that the Bagratids deliberately turned to Persian literary models as some
check on Byzantine influence; after all. Georgian ecclesiastical writings continued to be greatly influenced
by Constantinople. Rather, the development and dissemination o f the Persian epic throughout the Near
East, and its transmission to the Georgians through the innumerable contacts o f Georgians with Persians
and others, explains the introduction o f the genre into local literature. The reassertion o f Persian literary
models present earlier with the heroic tales known to pre-Bagratid K'art'velian historians and
ecclesiastics - amply demonstrates that Bagratid Georgia remained a part of the Near Eastern w orld no
matter how diligently its rulers attempted to conceal such links in local historical writing.
l34Ibid., pp. 26-27.
5%
The Royal Standard, the Royal Emblem, and Border Markers
In the course o f the eleventh century, the Bagratids took certain measures to identify in physical
terms both themselves and their kingdom as a single, indivisible organism. The use of a royal emblem
and standard as well as the planting o f border markers was part o f the process o f delimiting Georgian
Bagratid power in the Near East from that o f the local nobility as well as foreign enterprises. We know
virtually nothing about royal standards, emblems, border markers, and the like before the reign of T amar
the sovereign whose rule marked the zenith o f medieval Georgian royal authority and, to be sure, we
possess no solid evidence on this question for the pre-Bagratid period.
The earliest potential reference to the royal banner/flagfstandard, the drosha (cg<hpi3.s),^ is in
The Life o f Nino. After Nino arrived in the royal capital o f M c'xet'a, she allegedly witnessed a "pagan"
festival in which the sides o f the mountain upon whose summit was perched the idol Armazi were
decorated with drosha-s. ^ 6 The meaning of drosha in this context is imprecise, for it m ight refer to
decorative banners/flags or to royal standards. ^
In any event, although this episode is concerned with
events in the fourth century, The Life o f Nino was not written down until the early Bagratid period, in the
ninth-/tenth-century. Illuminating in this regard is the fact that the earlier Conversion o f K'art'li is
entirely unacquainted with this festival. The celebration, it would seem, is a later fabrication.
Until the reign o f T amar, we hear virtually nothing about drosha-s. This circumstance,
however, need not imply that drosha-s had not been used earlier. They almost certainly had. But under
T am ar and successive rulers, Georgian historians were compelled to mention them regularly. This is
perhaps explained by the fact that under T a m a r the medieval Georgian kingdom attained its greatest
extent, and the need to delimit Georgia from the outside world became increasingly im portant In any
event at least ten separate references to banners/flags/standards may be found in The Histories and
Eulogies. 138 Sometimes the standards o f opposing armies, like those o f the Caliphate, are intended.
^ C f . the Byzantine term semeion (EHMEION) which could indicate either standard or banner. See
also: Vaxushti, p. 3 0 ^ ^ ; and Kazhdan, "Insignia," in ODB, vol. 2, pp. 999-1000. Drosha was borrowed
from a Persian word (M Pers. drafsh, Av. drafsha) perhaps via the Armenian drosh (npni2)- Cf. Bailey in
Jamasp-ndmag, pp. 594-595.

^^T h e Life o f Nino in C'x. k'art'. mep'et'a, p. 89^.
I^7
Grigolia, Custom and Justice, pp. 27-28, describes the drosha-s found in the modem sanctuaries of the
Xevsuri-s and P'shavi-s (Georgian highlanders): "The drosha [in this instance] is a silver-set pole with a
silver ball (baragchi) at the top, upon which is fixed an iron spear. Around the drosha is wound a piece
o f cloth called sakadrisi, meaning worthy. Instead o f an iron spear, the drosha may have also a cross,
plan or with crucifix." It is possible that some elements o f this description are extremely old.
138For the instances not specifically considered here, see Hist, and Eul., pp. 9 3 7, 56 j, 6 8 j, 7710, and
9 5,.
597
But two passages clearly refer to Georgian drosha-s, some o f which were reportedly associated with the
n am eo f Vaxtang Gorgasali even in the time o f T am ar. During the battle o f Shamk'ori (variant
Shank'ori, just to the west o f Gandza), where the Georgians battled a Seljuq army in 1195, T a m a rs
troops marched behind:
... the drosha o f Gorgasliani [i.e., Gorgasali, or of Gorgasali and his progeny|. which
was bleached with age since [his] campaign in Sindeti. . . 140
Later, committing her troops to campaign in Khurasan under the Armenian M q'argrdzeli brothergenerals Ivane and Zak'aria in 1210, T a m ar
... took the drosha o f Gorgasali ani and Davit' ... and she prayed to the [icon] of the
Mother o f God of Vardzia. She blessed the drosha and the army and she sent them to
Persia. And she gave the drosha to Zak'aria the amirspasalari [i.e the general]...
The Ufe o f Tamar described the assumption o f power by T am ar in the following terms:
... The didebuli-s [i.e., grandees] invested her with a scepter [skiptra\, together with a
wooden cross and the drosha o f Davit' upon which contrary winds had never
blown... ^
Thus, the drosha was used not only as a military standard on the battlefield but also as a prop in the
coronation ceremony (considered infra). Moreover, at least by T amars time, the drosha could be
associated both with D avit', either Davit' II or the King-Prophet David(!). and with the pre-Bagratid king
Vaxtang Gorgasali. Drosha-s are mentioned after T am a rs reign, although the number o f references is
considerably diminished . 143 No specimens of medieval Georgian drosha-s are known to survive. The
l39Ibid., pp. 7116, 742, and 75? .

^ I b id ., p. 7 I 2 . 3 ; cf. Vivian trans., p. 131. For this and the following references, see also Rapp, "The
Coinage o f T am ar, Sovereign o f Georgia in Caucasia," LeM 106/3-4 (1993), pp. 324-325.
^ H is t. and Eul., p. 104g_jQ = Vivian trans., p. 135. Cf. the parallel account o f Life o f Tamar, p.
134io-13 = Vivian trans., p. 78. Qauxch'ishvili believes that part of this passage was lifted from Hist,
and Eul. (see The Ufe o f Tamar, p. 134, footnote 5).
^ U f e o f Tamar, pp. 11525-116^; cf. Vivian trans., p. 56.
143 E.g.,
Chron. Hund. Years, pp. 542 5 a n d 6 7 14 = Qauxchishvili ed , pp. 16915 and 1834.
598
eighteenth-century scholar Vaxushti collected the droshas (in this case, flags) o f the Georgian territories
o f his time. Although these flags may have had medieval archetypes, they should not be equated with
medieval drosha-s . 144
A clue to the sudden fascination in droshas within Georgian historical literature may be derived
from contemporary numismatic evidence. In an earlier essay I suggested that her numismatic series o f
1200 AD incorporated the Bagratid royal emblem (see supra, coin photographs, #6 )
The obverse o f
this series is dominated by a figure which, in my opinion, was modeled upon the Byzantine labarum
(AABAPON), although it also shares certain affinities with the Turkic tamgha. The symbol o f the
labarum was current throughout the Byzantine world. For example, Vladimir I o f Rus' adopted it in the
late tenth century for his Christian kingdom. It is, in fact, possible that the Georgians were acquainted
with the labarum through the Rus', for T am a r's first husband Iurii Bogoliubskii (son o f the deposed kniaz'
o f Suzdal', Andrei Bogoliubskii) was a Rus'ian prince. In any event, the symbol on T amar's coin is
almost certainly a representation o f the labarum and is further testimony to the influence o f Byzantium
upon Bagratid Georgia.
The Bagratid royal emblem, however, does not emblazon all successive monetary issues, and in
fact, it occurs only on selected coins issued by T a m a rs daughter Rusudan, Demetre II (1271-1289), and
his son Davit' (1310).146 Therefore, its adoption as the royal emblem by monarchs after T a m a r was
sporadic.
However, this symbol does appear on contemporary, non-numismatic monuments. ^
In 1938
the noted numismatist D.G. Kapanadze with L. V. Musxelishvili discovered what they characterized as a
border marker at the Chxikvf a church in the region o f T et'ri-cqaro. some sixty kilometers southwest o f
^ S . Gamsaxurdia, N. Shoshiashvili, andZ . Xidureli. Sak'art'velos saxelmcip'o droshebi da gerbebi

(1990). The authors anachronistically project some o f the flags back into the medieval period Thus, a
white flag with an image o f St. George slaying a dragon in the center is reported to have been used from
the fifth (!) to the fifteenth centuries (p. 13). Perhaps the white background is a reflection o f George's
Georgian sobriquet, te tr i, "white." Only one (extant) secular illuminated MS predates the sixteenth
century (i.e., the famous Treatise on Astrology from 1188 = Kek.Inst.MSS # A-65). Therefore, no extant
contemporary or near-contemporary MS provides illuminations of droshas or of other regalia.
145 Rapp, "The Coinage o f T am a r. Sovereign o f Georgia in Caucasia," LeM 106/3-4 (1993), pp. 309-330,
which also reviews the plentiful literature on the subject Note that my assertion that the figure was
possibly current in pre-Bagratid K 'art'li may be valid but my connection o f it to the Juari facades is
incorrect (p. 326).
l46Ibid p. 324.
^ K a p a n a d z e , "Rodovoi znak Bagrationov na gnizinskikh srednevekovykh monetakh," in
Mumizmaticheskii sbomik, part 2 = Trudy gosudarstvennogo istoricheskogo muzeia 26 (1957), pp. 80-81
et sqq; and Rapp, "The Coinage o f T am ar. Sovereign o f Georgia in Caucasia," LeM 106/3-4 (1993), p.
324.
599
T b ilisi ( T p 'i l i s i ) .^ Its inscription, now badly worn, appears to read: "Christ, have mercy upon
T amar." Should this reading be correct, and there is no reason to question it, then this artifact belongs to
the era o f T amar. Two designs were carved into the marker. At the top is a human hand with fingers
extending towards the sky, which surmounts a symbol identical to that appearing on the 1200 numismatic
issue o f T a m a r (see figured Earlier, in 1936, an expedition headed by G.S. Chitaia had excavated a
similar item at Gunia Kala in T ria le t'i near the border o f the Armenian region o f Tashiri. Although it
bore no inscriptions, it did incorporate three symbols. From right to-left were the Bagratid royal emblem,
a cross circumscribed by a circle, and a human hand with fingers extended upwards with its digits being
engulfed in a halo.
What are we to make o f these markers? As Kapanadze convincingly demonstrated, the symbol of
the hand indicated legitimacy to rule, for in Georgian the noun for official or government q elisup 'ali
(
mo d e m variant xelisup 'ali) is a combination o f the terms "hand" (q 'eli, modem xeli)
and "ruler," "lord" (u p 'a li)i^ cf. the noun q 'elmcip'e (j3C59faS3Q, modem xelmcip'e), o r "sovereign."
Moreover, the appearance o f a halo above the hand is striking, for in contemporary Georgian art only the
ruling Bagratids among secular personages were painted with haloes.150 Thus the hand would seem to
indicate the Bagratids, who believed themselves to rule by the sanction o f God. The cross in the center of
the Gunia Kala marker indicates God's sanction to rule, which is consistent with Bagratid ideology o f the
time. The other symbol, identical to that on T amars numismatic series o f 1200. is the Bagratid royal
emblem.
It is not altogether clear how these objects were used, and even if they were actually border
markers. In any case, it should be emphasized that both artifacts were found in regions which constituted
frontier zones in T amars period The Bagratid emblem so prominently featured on them does suggest
that they were commissioned by the Crown.
As circumstantial evidence for their identification as border markers, we may introduce several
passages from the histories o f T amars rule which indicate an obsession with the frontier zone, or
boundary (sazghuari, lwbe>).s6o [m od sazghvari\\ and especially for this period napiri. 6i3orto). Both
o f these terms refer specifically to the edge of the territory o f the realm. Pre-Bagratid historical works
infrequently offer details about the borders, although the one glaring exception is the account of the
^ S h o u l d the church have been the original site o f this marker, it would seem that the church itself
signified the border.
^ K a p a n a d z e . "Rodovoi znak Bagrationov na gruzinskikh srednevekovykh monetakh." in
Numizmatichesldi sbomik, part 2, p. 81.

^ E a s tm o n d Royal Imagery in Medieval Georgia, unpub. typescript, p. 133. For these haloes'
connection to the Bagratids' possession o f sharavandedi, see infra.
Chxikvt'a marker.
Gunia Kala marker.
601
apportionment o f lands to the sons of K 'art'los in The Ufe o f the
Beginning with the twelfth-
century Ufe o f Davit', Georgian historians emphasize the nam ing o f points along the border (as the "small
mountains" o f Lixi/Surami)1^ and especially on surveillance and defense o f the frontier . 153 One o f the
most substantial references to the borders occurs in the thirteenth-century Life o f Tamar:
... The borderlords [monapire-s], who had been established, [were diligent) night [and]
day [lit, "night and day blended together"], and those who were far away pleaded [to be
posted] along the border [.sanapiro]. And the diligence and zeal exhibited by everyone
increased [the frontiers] o f the kingdom:
For the first lower border [position] was Gagi, which was held by Zak'aria
M q argrdzeli, the father o f Varam, and brave [and] experienced m e n ... kept guard over
the border at that place...
Higher up were Dzoraketi and Tashiri, where Zak'aria and Ivane had fought
their initial battles like lions in the upper and lower regions, in every place.
And above [this was] Javaxet'i, where Sargis M q'argrdzeli T mogueli and
Shalva T oreli guarded the borders.
Above [this was] Artani, where the Mesxi-s guarded the border, among them
was Quarquare Jaqeli, the spasaiari [i.e., general] o f Samc'xe, a man of great victories
and loyal to [his] kings.
In the direction o f Shavshet'i [and] Speri was P'anaskerti....
Below, in the direction o f the border, were the Grigolis-dze-s, and especially
Tbeli and the Maq'atlis-dze-s, who kept [the cities of] Gandza and Bardavi in such fear
that even a baby in its mother's [presence] did not cry [aloud], and the Turks did not
[dare] to attack the pastures [sadzovari] along the banks o f the Iori and Mtkuari
[rivers] . . . 1^ 4
This passage delimits not only the precise border defense structure for the Georgian kingdom under
T'am ar, but individual borderlords {monapire-s; sing. 9 pi6 a 3 o 6 3 ) ^ and their very names are preserved
This accounting is unprecedented in medieval Georgian historiography.
^^T he Ufe o f the Kings, pp. 8-9.

^ T h e Ufe o f Davit', p. 167 = Qauxch'ishvili e d , p. 324.
^ T h e defense o f the border was explicitly described as a duty o f the king; see: The Ufe o f Davit', p. 205
= Qauxch'ishvili e d , p. 351; and Hist. Five Reigns, p. 367 j 6 .
154Ufe o f Tamar, pp. 1292 o - 1 3 0 10. My trans. is based upon that o f Vivian, pp. 72-73. For an attempt
to discern the precise "borders" of thirteenth-century Georgia, see M. Berdzenishvili, "Sak'art'velos
saxelmcip'os sazghvrebi XHI saukunis damdegs," in Sak'art'velos rust'avelisxanashi (1966), pp. 52-65
(map p. 53), w ith Rus. sum.. "Granitsy gruzinskogo gosudarstva v nachale XIII veka," pp. 296-297:1
would argue against such a strict conception o f medieval borders and prefer the term "frontier."
^ T h e earlier designation pitiaxshi (if it should indeed be seen in terms o f a borderlord) is not used by
Bagratid historians. M. Lortk'ip'anidze, Essays on Georgian History, pp. 173-174, refers to these
borderlords as "border erist'avi s." Moreover, she notes that this system was likely based upon the Seljuq
602
Badges o f Royal Authority: Regalia and Coronation
The symbolism and ceremony of kingship is rarely discussed in pre-Bagratid historical texts. For
the pre-Bagratid period we possess only a few vague references to crowns, and. as we have seen, the
earliest K 'art'velian kings may have received their crowns from the Seleucid successors o f Alexander. ^
Here we shall examine the regalia and coronation ceremonies related in Bagratid-era historical works. It
should be said that one o f our richest sources for this theme including royal vestments - lies in the
realm of art. But this study is concerned largely with images projected by texts and. therefore, the curious
reader should consult the works o f Eastmond and Djobadze for the evidence o f contemporary Georgian
art
In his 1895 study o f intitulatio, coronation, and regalia, Xaxanashvili enumerated six categories
o f regalia embraced by the thirteenth-century Bagratids: ^
1. crown
(gwrgwini, 5 3 6 ^ 3 0 6 0 )
2 . scepter (sfdptra. l)3 o 3 (*)<fo)
3. globus {k'ueqnis sp'ero, ^ ^ 3 y6 ob bggfici) (lit. "sphere o f the world")

4. throne (taxti, (J)ib(*)o)
5. porphyry and vission (porp'iri and bisoni, 3 ei6 g o 6 o and bobonBo)
6 . flag/banner and sword {drosha and q mali, fo6oi36 and jS iC jo)
(in modern orthography, "sword" is rendered xmali)
Xaxanashvili cited a passage from the Abdulmesiani, written by the thirteenth-century poet Ioane
Shavt'eli, in which several o f these regalia are disclosed: the sword, crown, scepter, vission. and
defense system. Finally, these borderlords were situated only along the southern frontier, whereas the
north was protected by a series o f buffer "states." See also Step'nadze, Sak'art'velo XU saukunesa da XJ1I
saukunispirvel meot'xedshi, pp. 183-185.
156For Armenian insignia at the beginning o f the eighth century, see Thomson in Movses Xorenac'i, p.
188, footnote 3.
^ X ax an ash v ili, "K 'art'velt' m ep'et'a tituli, kurt'xeva da regaliebi," Moambe 2/7 (1895), p. 81. On
Byzantine regalia, see Kazhdan, "Insignia," in ODB, vol. 2 (1991), pp. 999-1000. He lists the following
major elements o f Byzantine insignia: vestments, crown, weaponry, throne, scepter, orb (sphaira), and
akalda (pouch o f purple fabric containing a handful of dust apparently sybolizing the inherent instability
o f temporal power; see Kazhdan, "Akakia," in ODB, vol. 1 [1991], p. 42).
I CO
In the Bagratid era, sharavandedi was sometimes used as a synonym for gwrgwini; on the former, see
infra.
603
porphyry. 1 6 0 These royal symbols are also m entioned in other contemporary sources, and o f
Xaxanashvili's six categories only the globus (Gk. E$AIPA) is absent in contemporary historical
sources . 160
Crowns are featured throughout not only pre-Bagratid but also Bagratid historical works. As we
have seen, no contemporary descriptions or pictorial representation of pre-Guaramid crowns have come
down to us. But for the Bagratids, though we lack any detailed textual description o f royal crowns, artistic
evidence provides several contemporary examples . 161 Excluding the evidence o f frescoes and sculpture,
we possess two depictions o f kings; these occur on separate numismatic series (see photographs ^. 162 The
first was minted ca. 1174 by Giorgi ID, the father o f T a m a r. On the obverse is a representation o f the
king, facing, sitting with crossed legs, with a falcon perched on one arm. Giorgi wears a crown with
pendilia which was reserved in Byzantium for the emperor. Earlier, images o f the brothers Davit' and
Bagrat were raised at the Oshki monastery in which both wore crowns with similar pendilia,16^ From
the tenth century, medieval K 'art'velian Bagratid rulers are customarily depicted in frescoes and
sculptures in Byzantine vestments, although the Georgians did not always follow or even understand
proper Byzantine protocol. The presence o f pendilia for Davit' and Bagrat is perplexing, but in any event
it does demonstrate that they looked towards Byzantine models and not to those of the Near East - in
terms o f conceiving the basis and the symbolism o f their own authority. As for Giorgi, by his time the
Georgian kings were the most powerful Christian rulers in the northern part o f the Near E ast and the
presence o f pendilia on his crown is an accurate reflection o f the prestige and authority o f the Georgian
monarch, who conceived o f himself as a miniature Byzantine emperor. It should be stressed that the
Georgian kings never laid claim over the Byzantine throne, but they did come to portray themselves as
^ I o a n e Shavt'eli, Abdulmesiani, paras. 37-38, pp. 596-597; also in Xaxanashvili, "K 'art'velta m ep'et'a
tituli," p. 81. (Note the Arabic derivation of the tide). The scepter and the porphyry are mentioned by the
contemporary Ch'axruxadze, T'amariani, cap. 10 , para. 6 8 , p. 575, and cap. 18, para. 111, p. 586.
160But the term sp 'ero ("sphere") itself is found in a contemporary work by the Neo-Platonist Ioane
Petrici, Eulogyfo r D avit'll, p. 534.
161See Eastmond, Royal Imagery in Medieval Georgia, unpub. typescript, pp. 130-131, who detects a
change in crown design in art during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.
169
I focus on the evidence o f coinage here since it almost certainly was produced under the direction of
the Crown. The same may not be said for extant art depicting the royal personage. Eastmond, Royal
Imagery in Medieval Georgia, has masterfully demonstrated that, although contemporary art may have
been influenced by the court, its patrons were numerous (and very often were not members o f the royal
family) and the depiction o f kings and queens could be manipulated in the favor o f the sponsors. This
scenario is probably not valid for the striking o f coinage. Therefore, the royal depictions on coins likely
represent a more official portrait, although the mintmasters may have had considerable freedom.
Eastmond, Royal Imagery in Medieval Georgia, unpub. typescript, pp. 10-11.
Davit' n (after Lang; London)
Giorgi in
enjoying a status equal to that o f a Byzantine emperor within their sector o f the Near East, where
Georgian authority had supplanted both that o f Byzantium and the various Islamic enterprises. The other
coin, a unique specimen purportedly minted in the name o f Davit' II (although some have speculated that
it is a counterfeit), also depicts the Georgian king in Byzantine garb and his crown also bears pendilia. 164
A badly damaged painting o f Davit' (as identified tty Eastmond) wearing non-Byzantine vestments
survives in the Ateni Sioni church near Gori. ^
The scepter, as part o f the Georgian regalia, is first attested for T amar. though it certainly could
have been adopted earlier. ^
The Georgian word for scepter is derived from the Greek plural
EKHUTPA A Georgian scepter from this period may be featured in the enamel o f Bagrat IV s daughter
Mart'a-Mariam and her husband Michael VTI Dukas (on the Xaxuli icon), although the identification of
this scepter is not certain.
The Georgian scepter may also be related to the labarum, which is featured
on a coin issue in the name o f T a m a r struck in 1200. It is conceivable that version o f the labarum
became to Bagratid royal emblem in this period and the Georgians may7 have transformed it into a scepter
o r even a military standard. Finally, it should be said that the Tree o f Life, that is to say. the Cross of
Christ, was sometimes symbolically equated with the scepter and arm or o f the monarchs tty contemporary'
historians, and it is conceivable that the Georgian scepter incorporated an alleged fragment of the True
Cross or perhaps was even m ade into its shape.
Porphyry refers to purple robes worn by the reigning monarch. The use of purple vestments was
borrowed from Byzantium and is not attested in local historical texts before the Bagratid/Guaramid
period. The same may be said o f the vission, a piece o f fine cloth also used in the coronation ceremony.
As we shall see. a mid-thirteenth-century Georgian document also refers to the omophorion
(QMO$OPION), ^
a long scarf used in Byzantium only by bishops (and is worn by the kat alikos in the
coronation ceremonies from at least the thirteenth century).
^^L ang, "Notes on Caucasian Numismatics." ArC, 6 th ser., 17 (1957). pp. 144-145. Davit"s portrait is
very similar to that in a fresco in the main church of the Gelat' i monastery near K" ul' atisi. For the four
extant frescoes depicting T am ar (at Vardzia. Bertubani. Qincvisi, and Betania). see Alibegashvili.
Chetyre portreta tsaritsy Tamary, with Ger. sum., pp. 104-108.
^ E a stm o n d , Royal Imagery in Medieval Georgia, unpub. typescript, pp. 23-29.
^^% or references to the scepter o f rulership. see: Hist, andEul., pp. 25g, 38 j 0.69g, 7 8 ^ . 797. and
99 13 - 14; Life o f Tamar, p. H 5 2 5 ; and Chron. Hund. Years, pp. 172ig. I 7 8 3 Q, and 205$ =
Qauxch ishvili, pp. 2823, 287i5 , and 31122^ 7 Xuskivadze, Medieval Cloisonne Enamels at the Georgian State Museum o f Fine Arts, #39, p. 43
(Amiranashvili was the first to suggest this identification).
^^H ist. and Eul., p. 69; cf. Life o f Tamar, p. 126.

169 N. Shevchenko, "Omophorion," in
ODB, vol. 3 (1991), p. 1526.
606
For the Bagratid period, we also possess a few references to thrones. O f great interest is the use
o f old thrones which could have been traced to the Persians o r even to the pre-Bagratid kings. None of
these thrones are extant, and, to my knowledge, none o f them are depicted in (extant) contemporary art.
Since the thrones described in historical texts may link the Bagratids to earlier dynasties, we shall
examine them in more detail infra.
The s tria principle of primogeniture, so prevalent throughout the pre-Bagratid period, was
closely adhered to throughout the Bagratid era. Under the Bagratids, it was typical for the ruling king or
queen to appoint his/her heir still during the ruler's own lifetime. This position was formalized in a
coronation ceremony, the most significant o f those reported ceremonies include: the crowning o f Bagrat
in as heir to Davit o f Tao/Tayk; 170 Giorgi ITs crowning o f Davit II, an a a which was compared by the
anonymous historian to the anointment o f the King-Prophet David ; 171 Davit ITs crowning and robing in
the purple o f his son Demetre I, which was compared to the King-Prophet David establishing his
successor Solomon ; 172 and T Omars crowning as heir by Giorgi HI at the Nacharmagevi palace . 173
Regalia is most often mentioned in connection with coronation ceremonies which occurred for
the crowning o f a new monarch or o f an heir as co-ruler. Beginning with the reign o f T amar. medieval
Georgian historical texts routinely refer to the coronation ceremony . 174 The most detailed description is
found in The Histories and Eulogies:
... [Then Giorgi HI] assembled all o f his kingdom and returned from Ghanuqi to [the
royal residence at] Nacharmagevi. He assembled [people] from his seven kingdoms
[and] he summoned the Queen o f Queens, his fortunate spouse Burduxan and his child
T am ar... [upon whom he conferred] the necklace [maniald] o f all kings and the mown
o f all sovereigns.
1 7 0 CAron.
K'art'li, pp. 275-276.
1 7 1 77?c Life
o f Davit', pp. 165-166 = Qauxch'ishvili ed., p. 324.
1 7 2 77te Life o f Davit', pp. 222-223 = Qauxchishvili ed., pp. 362-363. Davit him self mentions the
coronation o f his son in his will; see Davit H. Testament, p. 11 (Rus. trans., pp. 18-19).
173Hist. and Eul., pp. 20-21.

174In T amaris case, both her coronation as heir and as senior mep 'e is reported. Some scholars have
taken this to be unprecedented and to have arisen because o f T amars gender (she needed to be
consecrated twice to emphasize that she was fit to rule). But the contemporary sources do not adm it such
a circumstance, although both of T amar's biographers are eulogies and generally relate nothing but
goodness about the monarch and her full legitimacy to rule. Since coronation rites are not emphasized
before T a m a r, it is possible that the ceremony gained a new importance when T am a r, a woman, came to
the throne. But it is entirely possible that this double coronation had already been established and it
simply had not been reported.
607
The patriarchs 175 and all the bishops, the didebuli-s o f Imeret'i and Amieret'i.
the vaziri-s and the spasalari-s and the spaspeti-s selected and chose as mep e T am ar...
she possessed the aureole/halo [of kingship] [sharavandedt'a mebebelisat'a]... And
[Giorgi] sat [T am ar] at his right hand as mep'e and queen [dedop'ali], clothing her in a
robe and a brocade [both o f which were made of] gpld, the vission and the zezi [byssus].
[and T amar] was called the Mountain o f God [mt'a gbmrt'isa]... and [Giorgi] placed a
golden crown upon her head, [a crown made] o f pure gold, precious jacin th s...
and emeralds. And the greatest o f people paid great obesiance before her. And the
mep'e [Giorgi] himself gave an oath o f loyalty to her [lit. "he gave an oath having-oneheart and having-one-soul with her"]...17
Thus we learn that the senior king (Giorgi) himself placed a crown, made o f gold and encrusted with
precious gems, on the head o f his heir (T am ar). Moreover, he also adorned her with a royal necklace
(mania/d, & 6 0 6 3 0 ) and a robe and brocade including fine cloth (i.e., the vission and the byssus [zezi.
tyjbo]). All o f this took place at the royal residence before the ecclesiastical officials (patriarchs and
bishops), nobles, and court officials (both military and civilian). All o f them are said to have given their
assent for T am ar's elevation as co-ruler. Moreover, T amar is said to have radiated the "halo" o f royal
authority (sharavandedi,
This notion will be discussed infra, but suffice it to say that its
application to K'art'velian/Georgian monarchs was a Bagratid innovation . 1 7 7 In my estimation,
sharavandedi was almost certainly associated with the haloes which customarily were painted over
Bagratid rulers in contemporary a r t These haloes were reserved among secular figures to the Bagratids
and served to reflect and strengthen their claim to a special relationship with the sacred.
Another coronation ceremony was held upon T am ar's assumption o f the senior position of
rulership.
178
The Histories and Eulogies emphasizes the prominent role o f the Georgian high nobility in
the proceedings. We are told that it was at the time customary for an esteemed representative from
Imeret'i, or western Georgia, to crown the royal candidate, and therefore Anton Saghiris-dze, the
archbishop o f K 'ut'at'isi, crowned T am ar. Following this, T a m a r was invested with her fathers sword
by Kaxaberi, the erist'avi o f Racha and T akueri (who stood on one side of her), and other high nobles
Vardanis-dze (the erist'avi o f the Suans), Saghiris-dze (the archbishop of K 'ut'at'isi). and Amanelis-dze
175O f all-Georgia and A p'xazet'i (see infra).
l76Hist. and Eul., pp. 2 O9 -2 I 9 . My trans. is based upon that o f Vivian, pp. 110-111. A useful glossary of
the names o f gemstones in Old Georgian was compiled by O. Wardrop and pub. in Shot'a Rustaveli, M.
Wardrop trans., p. 369.
177See the eulogizing preface o f Hist, and Eul., p. 5, which emphasizes that legitimate monarchs (like
Giorgi in and T amar) possessed sharavandedi -. the porphyry (robe) and crown are also mentioned.
178
I. Surguladze, Istoriia gosudarstva i prava Gruzii, p. 47.
608
(the erist'avi o f Arguet'i), who all stood on the other s i d e . ^ Significantly, extant contemporary
paintings o f T am ar never depict her with a sword. Nor is she afforded the title "Sword o f the Messiah"
but "Champion o f the Messiah" in the Arabic legends on her coinage (as had been customary for her male
predecessors). Both o f these circumstances doubtlessly reflea the fact that T amar. although she was the
mep'e, was not the actual head o f the army, by virtue o f her gender. So that the army would have a
battlefield leader, contemporary texts relate that she required a male consort
T amars coronation as the senior mep'e is described in The Life o f Tam ar :
... As was proper there was mourning, however, the nobles o f the kingdom did not wish
to continue [their lamentations] when they saw T am a r. They abandoned their
mourning, playing the trumpets as if for [the] Solomon [of old], and they moved into
place the felicitous throne o f Vaxtang, the seat o f the Davit' iani-s [i.e.. the progeny o f
Davit/David], which at the new moon \pirvel mt'avarisa] had been prepared by the
King o f Kings Saboat' Eloim [Sabaoth Elohim] to "hold authority from sea to sea and
from the river unto the ends o f the world [Psalms LXXH.8],
[T amar] was invested
with the scepter by the didebuli-s, together with a wooden cross and the banner/flag of
Davit/David, upon which contrary winds have never blown. And together everyone
[joined in] raising the sword o f her father to T a m a r bestowing [it upon her] at the same
time as [sitting her upon her fathers) throne...182
The aforementioned accounts add further data to our knowledge o f regalia and coronation. From at least
the time o f T amar, the royal sword was invested upon the candidate at coronation (her only association
with the coronation sword). The continued importance o f the royal sword in the coronation ceremony is
attested by the mid thirteenth-century Rank and Order o f the Consecration ofKings (see infra). *8^ The
Life o f Tamar states that the throne was believed to be that o f Vaxtang Gorgasali and his progeny and
used by the Davit' iani-s (the progeny of Davit'/David). This may constitute one o f the few direct
179Hist, and Eul., pp. 26-27.

*8Rapp, "The Coinage o f T a m a r. Sovereign o f Georgia in Caucasia," pp. 318-321. On pp. 320-321,1
reasoned that Davit' Soslani, T amars second husband, had become "heir to the throne" since some
documents call him mep 'e. But this was not necessarily the case. As mep 'e, he was T amars male
consort and the head of the army. But T am ar always remained the senior mep e. Their son Giorgi Lasha
appears to have been heir to the throne from a young age. In any event, it would have been awkward and
unprecedented to have three mep 'e-s had Giorgi been raised to the status o f consecrated heir before Davit'
Soslanis death in 1207.
l^ T h is is a psalm o f Solomon; the "river" in the original Biblical passage refers to the Euphrates.
Life ofT'amar, pp. I ^ q - I ^ . Based upon the trans. o f Vivian, pp. 55-56.
*8^The Rank and Order o f the Consecration ofKings, in Kakabadze, Georgian ChartersSPB, #17, p.
75, which testifies to royal swords, lances, shields, scabbard, and scourges.
609
references in medieval Bagratid-era historical literature to the pre-Bagratid kings o f K 'art'li. Finally,
T am a r is supposed to have been invested with a wooden cross as well as the banner/flag/standard o f
Davit'/David.
From T amar, the coronation o f medieval Bagratid kings is routinely mentioned in K a rt 'lis
c'xovreba. The anonymous Chronicle o f a Hundred Years reports both the coronation of Giorgi IV Lasha
and Rusudan.
There may be no question that the Georgian coronation ceremony and regalia
underwent an intense development in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and this is reflected in its
description by contemporary historians.
It is precisely from this period that documents outlining the protocol o f the Georgian coronation
ceremony were written down. T he earliest extant and most substantial of them, The Rank and Order o f
the Consecration o f Monarchs, derives from the m id thirteenth century and survives in a MS now in the
collection of the Oriental Institute in S t Petersburg. The document confirms the existence o f a wide array'
of regalia. Moreover, it also demonstrates that at sometime in the thirteenth century ecclesiastical
officials began to play a more prominent role in the proceedings, usurping the earlier prominence o f the
high nobility. This shift in emphasis almost certainly occurred during the Mongol occupation in which
the Georgian Church secured for itself a privileged position. The text therefore describes a ceremony
slightly later than that used for T a m a r and her son Giorgi: ^
The rank and order o f the consecration of monarchs is as follows:

O n the evening before the day when the consecration has been planned, the
archbishop should be robed. A nd should the archbishop not be available, it will be
performed by one o f the bishops whose virtue is known to the kat'alikos.
Choristers
should walk before him followed by the robed priests and the deacons [who should
carry] censers and large candles. And walking, the choristers should praise the Cross in
song.
A nd in this way they should go to the monarch's palace taking a crown, scepter.
porphyry [robes], and vission on a tray. These sacred objects should be covered and
with his own hands the [presiding] bishop should convey it into the church and place it
upon the altar.
And he should remove the fine cloth and they should commence at the vespers.
And that night, without sleep, they should perform prayers and services and appeal to
God...
^C h ro n . Hund. Years, pp. 37-38 and 53 = Qauxch'ishvili ed., pp. 151-152 and 168.
185There are numerous parallels between this coronation ceremony of the Bagratids and o f that in
Byzantium. The role o f the church and its prelate, the acclaimation by the multitude, and the proskynesis
(reverence, Latin adoratio) afforded to the monarch following his/her coronation are part and parcel of
the Byzantine protocol. One striking difference is the use o f the sword in the Georgian rite. See M.
McCormick, "Coronation," in ODB, vol. 1 (1991), pp. 533-534,
l86The difference and relationship between the archbishop and the kat'alikos is unclear.
610
[At the ceremony:]

And the kat'alikos and the bishops should w ear [ceremonial] robes, as [should
be the case with] the priests and the deacons.
Then the cross-bearer should bring forth the Tree o f Life and he should be led
by the archdeacons who should hold candles and censers.
And as they approach the palace, the m onarch should bow his head, and they'
should say to the monarch: "Bless us, O holy and autocratic monarch, [and] may your
reign last many years." And then the whole multitude should say this.
Again die monarch should bow his head an d he should say to all o f the
multitude: "And you too should rejoice [for] you are the invincible force which will
overthrow the enemies of the monarch, it is die mom ent to perform this deed that awaits
us..."
And everyone should proceed like this: in front o f the royal bed, and then the
banner/flag/standard and the lance [sftuhr], and then the archdeacon and the cross
bearer, and then the monarch and the multitude.
The amirspasalari, with a girdled sword, should follow on the right and he
should bear the royal sword with two hands. And then the amiraxori and the
187
meabjret'uxuc'esi, ' with girdled swords, should w alk at the side o f the amirspasalari.
And the Chqondideli [i.e.. the highest administrative official] and the at'abeg,
as well as the mt'avari-s, should walk to the left o f the monarch.
And the mandaturt 'uxuc 'esi, *** with the rod o f the mandat 'uri in his hands,
should walk in front o f the monarch, ju st after the cross-bearer.
The ezot 'uxuc 'esi, chuxcharexi, ^ and meabjret 'uxuc 'esi should carry the
royal shield \pari) and scourge [laxti] and scabbard [k'ark'ashi\. they should stand
behind the monarch.
This is the order by which they' should reach the doors of the church, and the
kat'alikos and the bishops should approach and meet them; the kat'alikos. bowing his
head, loudly should proclaim to the monarch: "May your appearance here and your
confirmation of Monarch o f Monarchs in this, your kingdom, be blessed..."
And all the multitude should respond: "Amen."
And then the monarch should give obeisance to the kat'alikos and the
kat alikos should take his right hand. Should the kat 'alikos of Ap' xazet' i not be
present, then [the bishop] of Ishxani or the archbishop [should take his hand]. And they
should lead him and establish him at the royal palace and they should begin to
consecrate the candidate.
And then the kat'alikos o f A p'xazet'i should cover the monarch, but [if he is
unavailable then this should be performed by] the archbishop. Soon after he has been
covered the cross-bearer should take the royal sword [which had been held by] the
amirspasalari and he should place it in the sanctuary leaning it against the Tree o f Life.
And the banner/flag/standard \drosha] and the lance should be placed along
each side of the doors o f the sanctuary...
187
lo 'T h e amirspasalari was the secretary and chief commander of the army; the amiraxori was the chief
assistant o f the amirspasalari-, and the meabjret'uxuc'esi was the secretary o f the armory. On the
contemporary royal administration, see supra.
188-rhe mandaturt'uxuc'esi was the secretary o f palace affairs and ceremonial.
189
loyEzot 'uxuc'esi l it refers to the "Secretary o f the Court" and is probably to be equated with the
ezosmodzghuari ("Master o f the Court"; cf. Basili Ezosmodzghuari, who is often [erroneously] attributed
with The Life o f T'amar). The identification of the chuxcharexi remains an enigma.
611
... [The kat'alikos] should remove the vission from [the monarch] and robe
him with his own hands...
... [Following the pronunciation o f kyrie eleison and the prayer o f the
kat'alikos] they should lead [the monarch] once to the holy altar and he should get down
on his knees and give reverence to the kat'alikos, and all the bishops should surround
them and all o f them should place the omophorion [omp'ori] around his head...
And the kat'alikos should lift the crown from the altar and place it upon the
head o f the monarch, and he should sa y ... "Place this crown o f precious gems on the
head o f he who has sought life from you and may he [enjoy] a continuous [reign] from
now until eternity."
Then he should take the porphyry, make the sign o f the cross over i t and he
[himself] should robe [the monarch].
Then he should take the scepter, make the sign o f the cross over i t and should
place it in the right hand o f the monarch. And he should unfurl the orxao upon
the altar from its right side covering it... And when the priests [and] teachers have
partaken of the Holy Communion, they should allow the very monarch to partake o f the
Holy Communion in the presence o f the priests.
And after they have descended from the doors o f the altar, the amirspasalari
should furnish him with the sword and they should proceed [back] in the
aforementioned order [back to the palace]...
First the queen [dedop'ali] should give obeisance [to the monarch], then to the
kat'alikos, the Chqondideli [i.e., the bishop of Chqondidi], the at'abagi. the
mandaturt'uxuc'esi, the amirspasalari, the mechurchet'uxuc'esi, the msaxurt'uxuc'esi,
and after this to the q 'elosani [lit. "artisans, craftsmen but here perhaps "nobles"] *90
and all the people o f the court [darbazisemi].
And after everyone has paid their respects to him. the cross-bearer should
descend and remove his robes. And for three entire days the monarch should sit upon
his throne while wearing his crown and the porphyry.
But know that no one except for the kat'alikos may preside over this coronation
[ceremony].*9 *
By the mid thirteenth century, and almost certainly earlier, the Georgian Church claimed the
right to lead the coronation ceremony, and especially noteworthy from the quoted text is the final line
where the kat'alikos-patriarch o f all-Georgia asserts his prerogative to lead this ceremony. The
kat Vrf/Aor-patriarch also professed the right to place the crown the new monarch. The Rank and Order o f
*9**Eastmond, Royal Imagery in Medieval Georgia, unpub. typescript, p. 185. prefers "noblemen."
*9 *77e Rank and Order o f the Consecration o f Monarchs, Georgian text in I. Dolidze. K'art'uli
samart'lis dzeglebi, vol. 2 (1965), pp. 50-54; Rus. trans. in Kakabadze, Georgian ChartersSPB. #17. pp.
74-77; and full Eng. trans. with Doildze's Georgian text in Eastmond, Royal Imagery in Medieval
Georgia, unpub. typescript, appendix m , pp. 179-186. The influence o f this type of text is evident in
Chron. Hund. Years, p. 1852g = Qauxch*ishvili ed., p. 293 j j , which is familiar with "the order of
consecration" (cesi kurtxevisa)-, cf. the sixth-century Mart. Evstat'i, cap. 5, p. 3 7 3 2 . 3 3 . for God laying
down the rite of consecration [cesi sharavandedobisay] to the Israelites. A late thirteenth-century text on
the consecration o f holy oil includes an enumeration o f how ecclesiastical hierarchs should sit in the
king's court; see Kakabadze, Georgian ChartersSPB, #19, pp. 81-86; the highest ecclesiastical officials
are given as the kat'alikos of Kart'li, the Ch'qondideli, and the "metropolitan" o f Greater Armenia.
612
the Consecration o f Monarchs reveals substantial details about the proper order o f procession, and
moreover, it demonstrates vividly the participation o f ecclesiastical, court, and military officials, as well as
members o f the nobility. The extensive development o f royal regalia and ceremonial is readily apparent
So our knowledge o f Georgian royal regalia and coronation ceremonies is mostly limited to the
Bagratid period. There are numerous parallels and borrowing from Byzantium at this time. We cannot
justifiably apply the employment o f these particular regalia and ceremonies to the pre-Bagratid era when,
as we have seen, Persian influence was dominant (but Byzantine influence was not altogether absent).
T he development o f regalia and coronation ceremonies is another indication o f the Bagratid Georgian
rulers' drinking from the Byzantine well; but, as is evident from the coronation text, this borrowing at
least after the establishment o f the all-Georgian monarchy was not an indication o f subordination, but
rather was an imitation o f the Byzantine Christian monarch. By the twelfth century the Georgian Crown
was not only emulating the Byzantine emperor in terms o f symbolism and ceremony, but the Georgian
monarchs regarded themselves as being equals to the very emperors within their own domains.
Building Activities
Like their predecessors, the Bagratid princes and kings were responsible for a plethora of
building projects. Bagratid historians devoted much energy in depicting their rulers as pious Christians,
and thus the raising o f churches was frequently attested. The following is an enumeration o f the church
building agenda o f the early K" art' velian/Georgian Bagratids as recorded in eleventh-century historical
texts. It should be noted that on this theme the contemporary written sources are far from comprehensive,
for the period from the ninth through the eleventh centuries was characterized by an explosion in
ecclesiastical building projects, most o f which were directed by members of the Bagratid clan.192
Ruler/Prince
813-830 Ashot I
830-881 Guaram
Editio citato
Sumbat Davit' is-dze, p. 45/377
Chron. K 'art'li,p. 260
Churchfes) Constructed
Church o f Sts. Peter and Paul at
Artanuji
Opiza^92
i Q*y
Several important monasteries were constructed in the southwestern domains under the guidance of
the monk Grigol Xandzt'eli. For his activities, see Giorgi Merch'ule. The Works o f Grigol Xandzt'eli.
1 Q -3
A n inscription at Opiza names "Ashot kuropalates as "the second builder" o f Opiza; he has been
identified as Ashot II (d. 954). See Djobadze, Early Medieval Georgian Monasteries, pp. 9-18.
613
888-923 Adarnase IV (II) Sumbat Davit'is-dze, p. 48/379

Chron. K'art'li, p. 261*9^
Bana*9*
908-918 Ashot II Kuxi
Tbeti*96
Sumbat Davit-is-dze, p. 50/380
915/916-959/960 Giorgi IL Chron. K'art 'li, p. 265

kg. o f A p'xazet'i
959/960-968/969 Leon m
kg. of A p'xazet'i
990-1000 Davit' o f Tao/ Chron. K'art'li, p. 274

Tayk'
978-1014 Bagrat EH
Chqondidi
Mokwi
Xaxuli*9^
Bedia. K 'ut'at'isi
It is noteworthy that all o f the cited churches are situated in western Georgia: Artanuji and Opiza. in
Klaijet'i; Bana and Xaxuli in Tao-Tayk')/Tort'om i; T h e n in Shavshet'i; and Chqondidi. Bedia. Mok'wi.
and K 'u t'at'isi in Imeret' i/Odishi. *98 So important was the monastic community of southwestern
Georgia that a detailed hagiographical work The Works o f Grigol Xandzt'eli, written tty his pupil Giorgi
M erch'ule specially describes its genesis and evolution. The enumeration here confirms the fact that
the K 'art'velian Bagratids arose in the southwestern "Georgian" domains, and moreover, Bagrat Ills
massive building projects at K 'u t'a t'isi and Bedia may be regarded as a manifestation of his accession to
the Ap' xaz throne. These western ecclesiastical foundations were in close proximity to Byzantium, and
their location helps to explain the augmented, direct influence o f the Imperial Church upon that o f
K'art'li/G eorgia in the period and the movement of large numbers of K 'art'velian clerics to foreign
monasteries, especially in Byzantium, Syria, Palestine, Bulgaria, and Cyprus. In any event the churchbuilding projects o f the Bagratids sharply contrasts with that o f the pre-Bagratid monarchs, who
themselves had been based in K 'art'li proper and not in these western domains.
*9*On Bana, see Djobadze, Early Medieval Georgian Monasteries, pp. 78-85.
*9^Later insertion into Chron. K'art'li.
l9 **The Tbet'i cathedral was dedicated to the M other of God; Djobadze, Early Medieval Georgian
Monasteries, pp. 218-231.

I9^Cf. Chron. K'art'li, p. 259, in which a later insertion seems to associate Xaxuli with Davit' I (876881).
198On the construction techniques of the churches in southwestern Georgia, see Djobadze, "The Georgian
Churches o f Tao-KIaijet'i: Construction Methods and Materials (IX to XI Century)," OC, ser. 4 ,6 2
(1978), pp. 114-134.
614
It should be emphasized that the Georgian historical tradition records only a select number o f the
ecclesiastical building activities o f the early Bagratid princes and kings. Notably absent are several
renowned foundations, e.g.: X andzt'a and Shatberdi, founded by the monk Grigol Xandzt'eli in Bagratid
lands (ninth century);199 Nekresi (eighth/ninth century); Oshki,200 Dolisqana,201 Ruisi. and Kumurdo
(tenth century); and Ishxani202 (earlier structure dates to the seventh century; tenth/eleventh century). To
be sure, the monarchs reigning after Bagrat HI continued to build and restore churches. O f particular note
is the rebuilding of Sueti-c'xoveli in the eleventh century,20^ the erection o f Alaverdi,204 Samt'avro.
Samt'avisi, and Nikorcmida in the same century; the academy and monastery o f Gelat'i, Ubisa. and
B et'ania in the twelfth century; the academy at Iqalt'o (eighth/ninth century, with substantial
additions/restoration in the twelfth century); and Metexi (in Tp'ilisi) and Dmanisi (thirteenth century).
The early Bagratids are also credited by contemporary historians with a wide array of "secular"
building and restoration activities. Ashot increased the villages o f his realm and is said to have
rediscovered and restored the fortress o f Artanuji in Klarjet'i which had originally been established by
Vaxtang Gorgasali;20^ the renewed prominence o f Artanuji is well documented by Constantine VII
Porphyrogennitos in his De administrando imperio. Guaram reportedly erected the fortresses o f Odzrqe.
Juaris-c'ixe, and Lomisant'a in Samc'xe,20** while other strongholds were built by court officials and
199Djobadze, "A Brief Survey o f the Monastery o f St. George in Hanzt'a," OC 78 (1994), pp. 145-176;
and Ingoroqva, Giorgi merch 'ule.
200On Oshki (built 963-973) and the important inscriptions for the period 963-1036, see: Djobadze, Early
Medieval Georgian Monasteries, pp. 92-141; and ibid.. T h e Donor Reliefs and the Date of the Church at
Oshki," BZ 69/1 (1976), pp. 39-62.
9ft 1
For the inscriptions at Dolisqana (constructed in 937-958). see Djobadze, Early Medieval Georgian
Monasteries, pp. 57-71.

202Ibid pp. 191-217.
20^Kakabadze, "The Date o f the Building o f the Cathedral T h e Living Pillar," Georgica 1/2-3 (Oct.
1936), pp. 78-91 (with a note by D. Gordeev).
204This name is of interest since it is the literal Turkish rendition o f the name Bag[a]rat, which in
Persian denoted "given by God." Alaverdi was constructed during a period o f sustained Seljuq raids upon
Georgia.
20^Sumbat Davit'is-dze, pp. 44-45 = Qauxch'ishvili e d , pp. 376-377. Giorgi Merchule. The Works o f
Grigol Xandzt'eli, cap. 55, p. 189, reports that Ashot restored Artanuji but does not mention Vaxtangs
connection with that fortress.
2^>Chron. K'art'li, p. 261.
615
nobles (e.g., the construction o f a fortress near the Tbet' i church by its bishop, Saba Mtbevari.20^ and the
raising o f Shuris-c'ixe by some unnamed members o f the nobility).208
"Diplomatic " Marriages
The pre-Bagratid leaders of K 'art'li were believed by later historians to have intermarried into
neighboring dynasties, especially those o f Persia and Armenia, as well as into the ruling clans of
Rome/Byzantium and the various tribes o f northern Caucasia. The author o f The Ufe o f the Kings is
particularly interested in anchoring the local K 'art'velian dynasty in the sea o f Persia and Armenia, and
he indefatigably reports these links.
As we have seen, the K'art'velian Bagratids rose to prominence under Byzantine tutelage in the
southwestern domains. Therefore, we might have expected at least some Bagratid marriage connections
with Byzantine officials, but no examples are documented in the earliest extant Bagratid histories from the
eleventh century. Rather, the Byzantines, though they had granted the esteemed honor of the kuropalate
to the K 'art'velians, do not seem to have regarded the K 'art'velian Bagratids as sufficiently worthy to
warrant high-level marriage ties. It should be said that marriages (to Georgians or others) involving the
Byzantines are extremely rare up to the reign of Constantine VII.209 Sumbat Davit'is-dze documents not
a single Bagratid m arriage link with Byzantium.
202Sumbat Davit'is-dze, p. 58 = Qauxch'ishvili ed., p. 386.

208For Shuris-c'ixe, see Chron. K'art'li. p. 268.
209R. Macrides, "Dynastic Marriages and Political Kinship," in J. Shepard and S. Franklin, eds.,
Byzantine Diplomacy (1992), pp. 267-271. Macrides' comments on the nature of such marriages is
worthy o f note. In expanding the scholarly purview on this theme, she notes that:
... [M ]am age is often singled out and studied in isolation, regarded as 'a mainstay of
Byzantine diplomacy,' 'a common accompaniment to the creation of diplomatic links
in state politics.' as if to imply that there is something inherently 'diplomatic' or
'political' about marriage alliances with foreigners as opposed to those contracted
at home. Besides, as the function o f marriage alliances formed with foreign rulers
appears to be obvious, some basic questions have not been asked, such as the
frequency with which marriages versus other kin alliances were formed and the
benefits which marriages brought or were expected to bring, (pp. 263-264)
It should be noted that in medieval Georgian sources, marriages with foreign dynasties were related
precisely in terms o f political advantage. The importance o f m arriage within K'art'velian clans, and esp.
within the three m ajor branches o f the early K 'art'velian Bagratids, contributed to the solidification o f
power on behalf o f the branch o f K 'art'li proper.
616
Nevertheless, the incipient K ' art'velian Bagratids deemed it expedient to forge alliances and
favorable connections through "diplomatic" marriages.210 Although by the eleventh century the
Bagratids came to shun, o r at least ignore, their non-Davidic predecessors (i.e., the P'arnavaziani-s and
the Chosroids. w ith the exception o f Vaxtang and Mirian), the early Bagratids nevertheless did establish
some ties with the earlier K 'art'velian rulers.2 11 Thus Latav[a]ri, daughter o f Adamase I. was m arried to
Juansher, the last presiding prince o f the Chosroids in the late eighth century.212 Previously, an
anonymous daughter o f Guaram III (a Guaramid) had married Vasak Bagratuni. from whom Adamase
was descended.212 It should be recalled that Sumbat Davit'is-dze mistook the Guaramids as protoBagratids and thus he did not perceive the former as a distinct dynasty. In any event the K 'art'velian
Bagratids could claim, should they have wanted, a connection to the Chosroids, and through them to the
P' amavaziani-s. Although these connections have been established by m odem scholars, the Bagratids
at least by the eleventh century (from which time our earliest extant Bagratid historical texts survive)
were not particularly interested in publicizing such claims since they in no way promoted their ultimate
basis o f authority, their supposed descent from the Old Testament King-Prophet David. We do not know
the attitude o f the earliest K 'art'velian Bagratids because the requisite sources are deficient
A noteworthy feature o f diplomatic marriages under the Bagratids is th a t in contrast to those o f
their predecessors, they came to dispose of marriage links to Persia. O f course, by the time of the
ascendancy o f the K 'art'velian Bagratids at the end o f the eighth century, the Sasanid Empire had long
since been felled by the armies o f Islam.21* Moreover, the Bagratids considered themselves to be
Christian rulers par excellence, and there was nothing to be gained in that respect from a connection w ith
non-Christian Persia. But it is significant that the early K 'art'velian Bagratids (i.e.. those living before
Bagratid ideology was well developed) usually did not seek out diplomatic marriages with these successors
o f the Sasanids, and it should be said that the Bagratids did not customarily hold the Muslim rulers as
210See Toumanoff, Manuel de genealogie, esp. "Rois de Georgie." pp. 121-127 (Bagrat III to Rusudan).
2 1 1The lack of a systematic hostility against the pre-Bagratid rulers on the part o f the early K 'art'velian
Bagratids is also testified to the popularity of Prim. Hist. K'art'li and The Royal Lists which were widely
copied (and perhaps written/compiled) in the early Bagratid period.
212Chron. K'art'li, p. 251.
212Toumanoff Studies, pp. 407-416 and stemma.
2 Â lthough for the Georgians the Persians continued to live on; thus the Seljuqs were routinely referred
to as "Persians" in medieval Georgian historical literature. This is true also for Armenians; e.g., Matthew
of Edessa, n.20, pp. 101-102, for Malik-shah as the "Persian ruler."
617
honorable.21^ This situation represents a reversal in the illustrious position customarily afforded to the
Sasanids by later K 'art'velian (Christian) historians.
Certain categories o f diplomatic marriage persisted from the pre-Bagratid period. Thus, we
encounter several marriage links to the Bagratuni-s of Armenia, e .g . Bagrat I. Guaram. and Gurgen I. all
o f who married daughters o f Smbat VIII; a daughter of Adamase n m arried Abas Bagratuni o f Kars: and
two daughters of Gurgen n (of the Tao/Tayk' line) married the king o f Armenia Abas I and Vasak. the
prince of western Siwnik' respectively. By the time of Bagrat in , intermarriage between the main
Bagratuni family and its K' art' velian/Georgian branch for all practical purposes had been suspended.
This was a reflection o f the destruction o f Caucasian Armenia, its dismemberment and annexation first
into Byzantium and then into Georgia, and the rise of Cilician Armenia in southeastern Anatolia.
Marriage links between the Armenian and K'art'velian Bagratids should be expected, particularly in the
earliest period.2 ^
It should be emphasized once again that although Davit' is-dze, the K 'art'velian
Bagratid historian par excellence, acknowledges a kinship connection between the two, he does not
expound that the family was originally Armenian, and moreover, he relates only that two of the original
Bagratids "entered into a marriage alliance with the kings of Armenia."2 *2
After the death o f Ashot I "the Great" in 830, the K 'art'velian Bagratids dissolved into three
major lines. Following the fragmentation o f the K'art'velian Bagratids into three major lines, the three
maintained close relationships in many arenas, which was manifested in the large number o f marriages
effected between them. The erist'av-zX authority o f the line o f Tao/Tayk' came to an end with Gurgen II
(d. 941) and that o f K laijet'i with Sumbat m (d. 1011). Thus after this period the Bagratids of K 'art'li no
longer felt it necessary to ally themselves with the remaining (now insignificant) scions o f these branches,
and the kings of all-Georgia which emerged in this period redirected their marriage alliances.
Within Caucasia, the K 'art'velian Bagratids also solicited marriage alliances with the monarchs
o f Ap' xazet' i/Abasgia. This kingdom had been established in the last decade o f the eighth century and
maintained very close relations w ith Byzantium, so close that the Ap' xaz Church was counted as being
situated within the jurisdiction o f the patriarch o f Constantinople. Moreover, an eighth-century Ap'xaz
coin further demonstrates this intimate tie to Byzantium since its legend is entirely in Greek:
1J A noteworthy exception is the Seljuq sultan Malik-Shah; see The Life o f Davit', p. 162 =
Qauxch'ishvili ed., p. 321.
216Yet even the earliest surviving Bagratid historical(-hagiographical) text by Giorgi Merch'ule, The
Works o f Grigol Xandzt'eli, does not dwell upon marriage ties between the K 'art'velian and Armenian
Bagratids. In fact, Armenia and Armenians play an extremely limited role in the te x t This set the stage
for the further purging o f K'art'velian/Georgian ties to Armenia in the Bagratid histories of the eleventh
century and later.
2 *2Sumbat Davit'is-dze, p. 41 = Qauxch'ishvili ed., p. 374.
618
KQNXTANTINOE ABAITIAE, o r "Constantine [king] o f Abasgia."2111 Notwithstanding, the

K 'art'velian Bagratids sought alliances, via marriage, with the pro-Byzantine monarchs o f Ap'xazet'i:219
thus, a daughter o f Ashot I m arried King Theodosius I; a daughter o f A dam ase n was married to the
Ap'xaz king Adamase and then his successor Bagrat I; Ashot n m arried the daughter of King
Constantine m ; a daughter o f K ing Adamase o f K 'art'li married the very same Constantine: and Gurgen
I, the father o f the first all-Georgian king Bagrat m , was married to G uaranduxt the daughter o f George
HI. This last union, o f course, enabled Bagrat to lay claim to the Ap' xaz kingdom.
By the time o f Bagrat IV a new period o f diplomatic marriage had daw ned The male
representatives o f the lines o f Tao/Tayk' and Klarjet'i had essentially become extinct, and the kingdom of
Ap'xazet'i had been united to K 'a rt'li. Moreover, Caucasian Armenia was on the verge o f collapse
(though Giorgi I did marry a daughter o f the king of Vaspurakan) and the Georgians would soon begin to
incorporate its remnants within their own realm. Thus, the expediencies o f the m om ent in the context of
the emergence o f a powerful all-Georgian kingdom and the challenges to Byzantine authority in the East
(especially by the Seljuqs), demanded that Bagrat IV seek a spouse from Byzantium, and so he married
Helena - a member of the imperial family at the Georgian monastery o f Bana.2211 This Helena was the
niece of the emperor Romanus in Argyrus (1028-1034)221 M imicking some o f the pre-Bagratid
monarchs, upon Helena's death Bagrat sought a spouse from another community/dynasty so as to
maximize this tool o f diplomacy. He married as a second wife Borena, a relative o f the king of the Ovsi-s
(of northern Caucasia). Incidentally, Bagrat's predecessor Giorgi I had also taken a daughter o f the Ovsi
king as his second wife, demonstrating the contemporary strategic import o f the tribes of northern
Caucasia.
A reciprocal diplomatic marriage link with Byzantium was also established Bagrat IV s
daughter, M art'a (Martha), who later took the name Mariam/Mary, was sent to Constantinople to marry
Michael Dukas, the future emperor.222 According to the Georgian Athonite m onk Giorgi Mt'acmideii,
218
Bghazhba, Izistorii pis'mennosti v Abkhazii, pp. 7-11, who notes that Georgian became more widelyused in Ap'xazet'i from the end o f the ninth century, but Gk. inscriptions (non-numismatic) in A p'xazet'i
are known for the tenth and eleventh centuries. On this coin, see also Lekvinadze. "Vislaia pechat
Konstantina abkhazskogo," Soobshcheniia AM GSSR 16/5 (1955), p. 404. Georgian coins nev er employed
Gk. for their main legends, although occasionally it might be used to identify Christian figures.
21Q r
It is not clear whether all the contemporary Ap'xaz monarchs spoke Georgian. Therefore, their names
here are rendered in E n g (e .g , George instead o f Giorgi).
22CAron. K'art'li, pp. 294-295.
221
Toumanoff "Armenia and Georgia," p. 621.
222
A Alexidze, "Martha-Maria: A Striking Figure in the Cultural History o f Georgia and Byzantium," in
M. Koromila, The Greeks in the Black Sea, pp. 204-212. For a contemporary description of Mart'a, see
619
initially M art'a had been dispatched to th e imperial capital so that the empress Theodora could raise her
as her own ch ild 22-* But once M art'a reached Constantinople, Theodora passed away (in 1056):
coincidentally, Giorgi Mt'acmideli happened to be in Constantinople, and o f the episode he wrote "Knowall that the Queen [dedop ali] has passed away and that the Queen has arrived "2 2 4
With the passage o f a decade. M art'a was married to Michael Dukas, son o f Constantine X
Dukas (1059-1067). Michael came to the throne in 1071 and three years later M art'a, called Mariam/
Mary by the Byzantines, gave birth to a son nam ed Constantine. He was betrothed first to Helena, the
daughter o f Robert Guiscard and subsequently to the famous Anna Komnena.22^ The accession o f
Michael VII Dukas (1071-1078), and his marriage to Mart'a, was commemorated by an enamel which
was eventually incorporated into the massive Georgian Xaxuli icon.22^ Against a gold background the
full-length representations o f Michael and M art'a-M ariam stand facing, with the Greek-only inscription
naming both figures: LTE4>G MIXAHA EYN MAPIAM XEPEIMOY. After Michaels overthrow- in
1078, M art'a was compelled to m ariy th e usurper Nikephoros m Botaneiates (1078-1081). In 1081
M art'a participated in the successful rebellion against Nikephoros, but then having been active in a
conspiracy against Alexios I Komnenos (1081-1118), she was forced into exile. M art'a is thought to have
returned to Georgia on two occasions (1072 and 1081). She was a patron of culture, having supported the
likes of John Italos and having commissioned various texts .22 2
Anna Komnena, Alexiad, HI. 1, vol. I, pp. 136-137. In Byzantine literature, M art'a was known as "MaryMaria[m] o f Alania." This epithet is inexact for M art'a was actually the daughter o f the all-Georgian
king Bagrat IV, though she could have been identified as an Ovsi/Alan through her mother, the second
wife of B agrat The marriage was also reported in Matthew of Edessa, n.65, p. 141. For the place o f
M art'a in the scheme o f Byzantine dynastic marriages, see Macrides, "Dynastic Marriages and Political
Kinship," esp. pp. 270-271. For M art'a-M arias important contribution to Byzantine politics (and her fall
from a position o f influence), see M ullett "The Disgrace of the Ex-Basilissa Maria," BvzSlav 45 (1984).
pp. 202 -2 1 1 .
222Giorgi Meire. The Life o f Giorgi Mt'acmideli, cap. 14, pp. 141^-1422- This passage was interpolated
into two Vaxtangiseuli variants o f K'C', Tk: see Chron. K'art'li, p. 307jg_2g.
224Giorgi Mc'ire, The Life o f Giorgi Mt'acmideli, cap. 14, p. 141 jg .jg : "... csaC9 S*CSO 2,6 6 3 0 (3 6 3 6
BOCSpioêjo 8 3 8 0 1 3 0 0 6 ": insertion in Chron. K'art'li. p. 3072 $; and quoted in Alexidze, "MarthaMaria," p. 205.
^ Zonaras, XVIII.177_g, vol. 3, p. 714. Contemporary Byzantine texts customarily refers to M art'aMaria as "Mary o f Alania" (AAANQN MAPIA).
2 2 6 Xuskivadze. Medieval Cloisonne Enamels at the Georgian State Museum o f Fine Arts, #39, "The
Plaque Representing Emperor Michael VII Ducas and Empress Mary (the Khakhuli triptych)," pp. 42-43
(with color photograph).
2 2 2 Alexidze, "Martha-Maria," pp. 207-210.
620
The powerful king Davit' II appears to have been m arried twice. Only the latter wife.
Guaranduxt, the daughter o f the Qipchaq chief Atrak (At' rak'a), may be precisely identified.2 2 8 This
marriage tie was exceedingly beneficial later when Davit' secured the transfer o f 40,000 Qipchaq families
into northern Caucasia as allies o f the Georgian Crown. Toum anoff has surmised that Davit s first wife
was an Armenian princess, probably named Rusudan.22^ Davit' treated the marriage o f his daughters as
an integral element o f royal policy: thus T am ar (not to be confused with the later reigning queen)
married M inuchihr IE, the king of Sharvan; Kata was married to the Byzantine prince Alexios Bryennios
Komnenos; and a third daughter, Rusudan, married into a collateral Georgian Bagratid line of which
Queen T amars second husband Davit' Soslani is the most renowned representative. The marriages of
T am ar and Kata are commemorated by Davit s biographer
... [Davit'] sent his daughter Kata to Byzantium to marry the son of the Byzantine
emperor. For earlier he had dispatched his first-born daughter, Tam ar, to be the queen
of Sharvan, so that like two luminaries one in the East and one in the West
they should illuminate the sphere o f heaven, with aureoles/coronas like the Sun
[mzeebrt'a sharavandedt'cmi] which came to them from their father.2^
The four known daughters of Demetre I were parceled out among both Christian and Muslim
rulers. We do not know the names of his daughters, although Toumanoff has tentatively identified one of
them as another Rusudan, and she may have been married to the ruler o f Khwarazm. One o f them was
certainly wed to the Muslim ruler of Derbend, while the remaining two were married to Christians: one
was wed in 1154 to Iziaslav, the kniaf o f Kiev (1146-1154) one o f the earliest known contacts between
the Georgians and the Rus2^ * while ca. 1144 the other became the wife o f Andronikos I Komnenos
(1183-1185).232
2 2 8 77?e Life
o f Da\>it\p. 183 = Qauxch'ishvili ed., p. 336. O n Atrak. see Golden. Qipchaqs," pp. 65-66.
2 2 ^Toumanoff, Manuel de genealogie, p. 122.

2 3 0 77?e Life o f Davit', p. 180g_13 = Qauxch'ishvili ed., p. 336. Cf. the Eng. trans. ofThomson, p. 325,
and Vivian, p. 17. It should be noted that sharavandedi is usually rendered in this study as "halo," but in
this context "aureole or even "corona," "brilliance," "radiance" makes more sense. This passage is
reminescent of Eusebius, Oratio, III.4 (Drake trans., p. 87): "Meanwhile, as the light of the Sun shines
upon settlers in the most remote lands by the rays sent off from itself into the distance, so too does
[Constantine the Great1] assign, like beacons and lamps o f the brilliance emanating from himself, this son
here to us who inhabit the East..."
2 2 1On the early contacts between the Rus and Caucasia, see Novoseltsev, "Rus i gosudarstva Kavkaza,"
in V.T. Pashuto, Vneshniaia politika Drevnei Rusi, pp. 216-217.
2 2 2 Toumanofif,
Manuel de genealogie, p. 123.
621
D a v it'm , who ruled for less than a year, was married to an Orbeli princess while his successor
Giorgi m , the father o f T amar, took Burduxan, a daughter o f the Ovsi king, as his spouse.2 2 2 T am ar's
two marriages have been well documented: first, she married lurii Bogoliubskii, the exiled prince and heir
o f Suzdal', and then she wed D avit' Soslani, a member o f a collateral Bagratid branch residing in Ovset' i.
Although T a m a r herself was not wed to a Byzantine, her clan's earlier connections with the imperial
family was exploited in her prom inent role in the establishment o f the Empire ofTrebizond following the
Latin occupation o f Constantinople in 1204,22* Finally, against the clamorings o f the Chinch, T amar's
son and immediate successor Giorgi IV refused to many though he did father at least one illegitimate son.
Davit'. Since Davit' was in his minority when Giorgi passed away, Giorgi's sister Rusudan assumed
power and was married to the Seljuqid prince o f Erzerum, perhaps Mughith-ad-Din .2 2 2
In the earliest period o f B agratid marriage alliances, the Bagratids solicited links with the main
(Armenian) Bagratuni family, but by the early eleventh century this connection ceased, and earlier
associations were downplayed. Simultaneously, the Bagratids effected diplomatic marriages with the proByzantine monarchs o f Ap' xazet' i as well as within the three branches o f their own clan established after
the death of Ashot I. We do possess evidence that a few o f the earliest K 'art'velian Bagratids were
connected by marriage to the Chosroid dynasty, although this tie was not emphasized in contemporary
Bagratid historical literature. The marriage link with the Guaramids was misinterpreted by Davit'is-dze
who reckoned the Guaramids to be proto-Bagratids.
Following the establishment o f the all-Georgian kingdom, several high-level marriages were
arranged between Georgia and Byzantium. But towards the end o f the eleventh century-, the Georgians
realized that Byzantium's actual power in the East was becoming weak, and more practical links were
subsequently forged with the Ovsi-s and Qipch'aqs of northern Caucasia. Simultaneously, the Bagratids
began to conclude diplomatic m arriages with the neighboring Muslim rulers, including those o f Sharvan,
Derbend, and Erzerum.
The pre-Bagratid and the Bagratid historical traditions regard diplomatic marriages in slightly
different terms. The former stresses the importance and desirability of mixing and linking dynasties.
Thus any prince or king that could claim to be related to multiple dynasties is afforded an enhanced
prestige. But Bagratid historical sources are not anxious to describe the K'art'velian/Georgian Bagratids
2 2 2 Hist.. and Eul., p. 4 j_2 2 2 + ToumanoflE, "On the Relationship Between the Founder of the Empire ofTrebizond and the Georgian
Queen Thamar," Speculum 15 (1940), pp. 299-312. which was written in response to Vasiliev. "The
Foundation of the Empire ofTrebizond (1204-1222)," Speculum 11 (1936), pp. 3-37. On T am ar's role in
the establishment of the Empire ofTrebizond, see infra.
Toumanoff, Manuel de genealogie, p. 124.
(who, after all, believed themselves to be descended from K ing David) as having connected themselves to
other dynasties, and thus we do not find an emphasis on non-Bagratid dynastic tags as is the case in preBagratid texts. The family, at least by the end o f the tenth century, was keen to preserve its royal blood,
and Constantine Porphyrogennitos already noted their predilection for intramarriage .2 3 6 Although the
K'art'velian/Georgian Bagratids did intermarry with foreign powers, the Georgian historical tradition
which in this period was written from the Bagratid perspective emphasizes that the Bagratids ruled
precisely because o f their supposed Davidic descent and not because o f any relationship with other
dynasties.
Immemorialization: Calendrical Datesfo r Births and Deaths, and Notices on Burial Places
In the previous chapter we saw how a autochthonous calendrical system, the k'oronikon (as well
as the Georgian Creation date formula), was developed under the early Bagratids. Grumel. and
ToumanofF after him, successfully demonstrated that this system was derived from an ancient Roman
calendar and was not calculated from some watershed in the antiquity o f K 'art' li. Once the k'oronikon
was developed, Georgian historians began to incorporate dates within their works, although some o f them,
like that o f The Chronicle o f a Hundred Years, still refrained from employing dates in any formula. It
should be emphasized that Vaxushti, in his eighteenth-century reworking o f K art 'lis cxovreba ,
incorporates several dates (in the k'oronikon and in the anno mundi formulae) into the pre-Bagratid
section o f his text, but these were estimated by him and do not constitute part of the medieval historical
tradition .2 3 2
Sumbat Davit'is-dze, the earliest known Bagratid historian, makes ample use o f dates. Although
he does not elucidate the genesis o f the k'oronikon. he does emphasize the existence and. perhaps, the
creation o f a Georgian era by rendering his first recorded date, for the assassination of Ashot
kuropalates, in an unusual expanded form:
23<*Constantine VII, DAI, cap. 45, pp. 204-205: "The great ones o f the Iberians take in marriage their
female relatives without impediment, believing that they are preserving the ancient ordinance..."
Vaxushti, pp. 9ffl Vaxushti himself admits that the first recorded k'oronikon date in K'C' recorded the
death o f Ashot "the Great" (p. 9 jg .jg ). For the interpolated date o f P'arnavazs accession as king "of all
Georgia [Sak'art'velo {!}]," see ibid., p. 56
ToumanofF seems to think that some o f Vaxushtis
dates are based upon reliable tradition, perhaps oral. Therefore, in certain instances, he accepts
Vaxushti's calculations in his own attempt to provide dates for the early kings of K 'art'li.
623
... B ut Ashot kuropalates was murdered in the year 6430 after the Creation [of the
worldL in k'oronikon 46, in the thirteenth cycle, in the month of January [on the] 29[th
day ] .2 3 8
This date, which corresponds to 826 AD (and demonstrated by Toumanoff to be four years too early), is
the earliest one in medieval Georgian historical literature applied to a K'art'velian ruler .2 3 9 Following
this notice. Davit'is-dze routinely provides dates, but only in the k'oronikon. The following calendrical
dates are included in his account:2 4 0
Bagratid
KlQConikon A D
46
87
89
94
96
101
102
105
109
111
116
128
129
138
142
826
867
869
874
876
881
882
885
889
891
896
908
909
918
922
Event
Line241
Death of Ashot I
Death o f Ashot kekelay
Death o f Ashot, son o f Guaram mampali
Death of Adarnase, son of Bagrat kuropalates
Death o f Bagrat kuropalates
Death o f Davit', son o f Bagrat kuropalates
Death o f Guaram mampali
Death o f Ashot, son o f Bagrat kuropalates-.
death o f Nasr[a]
Death o f Sumbat Artanujeli
Death of Gurgen kuropalates
Death o f Adamase, son of Gurgen kuropalates
Death o f Davit' erist'avi
Death o f Bagrat Artanujeli
Death of Ashot kuxi
Death o f Davit', son o f Bagrat Artanujeli
n/a
n/a
K 'art'.
K 'art'.
K 'art'.
K 'art'.
K 'art'.
K 'art'.
K 'art'.
Klarj.
Tao
Tao
Tao
Klaij.
Tao
Klaij.
238Sumbat Davit'is-dze, p. 4 6 2 5 _2 g - Qauxch'ishvili ed., p. 37?27-29;

311 ear^ er text using the same
formula, see Giorgi M erch'ule. The Works o f Grigol Xandzt'eli, cap. 83, p. 218, for the date o f the death
of Grigol rendered in both the k'oronikon and the Georgian anno mundi, with the year o f the reigns of the
contemporary patriarch o f Jerusalem and the K 'art'velian kuropalates and kat'alikos. Later historians
might also incorporate a Creation date for emphasis: e.g., the accession o f T am a r given as both 6 6 8 6 of
the Creation era and k'oronikon 403 in Life o f Tamar, p. L16^_20For a Creation date applied to Nino, see ch. 4.
240No attempt is made here to rectify erroneous dates, viz. for the deaths of Ashot I (d. 830) and Davit' o f
Tao/Tayk' (cL 1000).
2 4 ^The sons and grandsons o f Ashot I established three seperate lines of the Bagratid clan: his sons
Bagrat I and Guarani established the line of K'art'li/Iberia; through his son Adarnase II, Ashot's grandson
Gurgen I established the line o f Tao; and also through Adarnase, Gurgen's brother Sumbat I founded the
line o f Klarjet'i/Cholarzene. The following abbreviations are used here: K 'art'. = branch o f K 'art'li; Tao
= branch o f Tao/Tayk'; Klaij. = branch o f K laijet'i; unified = kings of all-Georgia.
624
143
923
157
159
161
163
165
174
178
181
186
188
203
208
937
939
941
943
945
954
958
961
966
968
983
988
992
994
212
214
221
1001
228
231
232
234
245
1008
247
1027
1011
1012
1014
1025
D eath o f K ing Adamase; death o f

Gurgen erist'avi
Death o f King Davit'
D eath o f Ashot, son o f Bagrat Artanujeli
Death o f Gurgen, erist'avi o f erist'avi-s
Death o f Davit' mampali. son o f Sumbat Artanujeli
D eath o f Bagrat magistros
D eath o f Ashot kuropalates
Death o f Sumbat kuropalates
Death o f Adamase kuropalates
Death o f Bagrat, erist'avi o f eristavi-s
Death o f Gurgen, son o f Gurgen
Death o f Adarnase, son o f Sumbat kuropalates
Death o f Sumbat, erist'avi o f erista\>i-s
D eath o f Sumbat, son o f King Bagrat regueni
Death o f Bagrat regueni
Death o f Davit' of Tao
Death o f Gurgen, father o f Bagrat III
Death o f Sumbat (HI) Artanujeli
Death o f Gurgen, brother o f Sumbat (III)
D eath o f King Bagrat
Death o f Byzantine Emperor Basil II; release o f
Bagrat's hostage son, Giorgi
Death o f Giorgi I
K 'art.
Klaij.
K 'art'.
Klaij.
Tao
Klaij.
K 'art'.
K 'art'.
K 'art'.
Kart'.
K 'art'.
Klaij.
K 'art'.
Klarj.
K 'art'.
K 'art'.
K 'art'.
K 'art'.
Klarj.
Klaij.
unified
n/a
unified
Davit" is-dze's extensive use o f calendrical dates may be characterized, with a single exception
(i.e., the death o f Basil n , who had entertained both friendly and hostile relations with Davit' of Tao and
Bagrat HI), as noting the passing o f one Bagratid and the elevation o f another. Although Davit'is-dze's
stemma is incomplete, it does provide both the general structure and relative chronology for the
K 'art'velian Bagratids from the ninth through the early eleventh centuries. It should be noted that
Davit'is-dze does not explicitly refer to the three lines o f the family (of K 'a rt'li proper, o f Tao/Tayk', and
o f Klaijet'i) established by the sons and grandsons o f Ashot I. Instead, he addresses the filiation of all
three lines simultaneously, and this accounts for a certain amount o f confusion. Since the line of K 'art'li
was the first to emerge, and since it ultimately came to monopolize the unified Georgian throne. Davit' isdze begins and ends his account of the historical Bagratids with this line.
The inclusion o f calendrical dates which, incidentally, sometimes include the month and day
(often the name of the ecclesiastical holiday is given), ^
as was the case with Ashot I and Giorgi I - is
In The Life o f Davit'One mentioning o f month names, seasons, and ecclesiastical holidays is common.
Thus we find the Day o f S t John (p. 319 = Qauxch'ishvili ed., p. 159), Easter Day (pp. 323 and 334 =
Qauxch'ishvili e d , pp. 164 and 181), Palm Sunday/Bzoba (p. 334 = Qauxch'ishvili e d , p. 181); the First
Day o f Lem (p. 339 = Qauxch'ishvili e d , p. 187), and the Season/Time o f the Vintage (pp. 321 and 332 =
Qauxch"ishvili e d , pp. 162 and 177). On pre-Christian K 'art'velian tim e keeping, see: Ingoroqva,
"Dzvel-k'art'uli cannart'uli kalendari me-5-8 saukunis dzeglebshi," SMM 5 (1928/1930), pp. 419-430 (he
began the old Georgian calendar with the month Verdzi on 21 March); and K. Patkanov, "NeskolTco slov
625
unprecedented, and it is significant that Davit'is-dze does not limit him self to note the passings o f the
highest K 'art'velian authorities, the holders o f the kuropalate. Rather, he records for posterity not only
the relative sequence and relationship o f the early K'art'velian Bagratid princes and kings, but also
immemorializes their existence by providing precise dates for their passing. Moreover. Davit' is-dze
almost certainly believed that the incorporation o f calendrical dates added legitimacy to his account
which is, as we have seen, semi-mythical before the reign of Ashot I.
So as to further immemorialize his subjects, Davit'is-dze often identifies the burial sites for the
Bagratid princes. Pre-Bagratid historical and hagiographical literature occasionally did this as well, as
was the case with its pivotal figures: K'art'Ios, P'amavaz, Mirian, and Vaxtang. Davit'is-dze. and
subsequent Bagratid historians, more regularly divulge the resting places o f the Bagratid princes.
Davit'is-dze and The Chronicle o f K'art'li document the following royal burial sites:
Ruler/Prince
Burial Site
Editio citato
Ashot I
Artanuji
Sumbat Davit'is-dze, p. 46/377
Guaram
Opiza
Bagrat m
Bedia
Giorgi I
K 'ut'at'isi

Bagrat IV
Chqondidi
Through Bagrat IV the Georgian kings were buried in the western domains. It should be said that even
later kings like Davit' n , Demetre I, and Giorgi in , all o f who were interred at the Gelat' i monastery
near K 'uta t ' i s i ^ were buried in that region. The Chronicle o f K'art'li also reveals that the burial
place for the family o f the famous aristocrat-rebel, Liparit, was located at K ac'xi .^ * 4 From epigraphic
evidence we know that the Orbeli/Orbeliani family maintained a burial vault at the Bet'ania monastery
near Tpi l i s i . ^
o nazvaniiakh drevnykh armianskikh mesiatsev," TVOIRAO 16 (1872), pp. 295-339, esp. pp. 338-339.
^ Gelat' i became a royal burial site for Davit' aghmashenebeli and his immediate successors. For
Demetre and Giorgi, see Hist. Five Reigns, p. 367. T a m a r is said to have gone "to sleep beside her
[forejfathers..;" see Life o f Tamar, pp. 146 and 149.
^
Chron. K'art'li, p. 306.
^ S ilo g a v a , Bet'aniis carcerebi, with Eng. sum., "The Inscriptions of Betania," p. 61-63.
626
Palaces and Seasonal Residences
Pre-Bagratid historical sources do not speak o f any palace for the early K'art'velian monarchs.
Instead, only their connection with the cities o f M c'xet'a and then Tp'ilisi is emphasized, as is their
maintenance o f seasonal residences. Seasonal residences, should they have actually have been utilized,
allowed the kings to keep a hand in the administration o f the entire realm, to escape the harsh weather of
various parts o f K 'art'li, as well as to split the burden o f maintaining the court Thus, the semi-legendary
first king o f the K'art'velians. P'arnavaz, is supposed to have passed the tranquil months o f spring and
autumn in M c'xet'a, those of summer in Cunda (just to the west o f Axalk'alak'i in the southwestern
region of Javaxet'i), and those o f winter in G ach'iani.24** This alleged recollection about P'arnavaz is
almost certainly a later interpolation and is a reflection o f the understanding on the part o f the ca. 800
author. At the same time, this interpolation is most likely grounded in the actual behavior o f local
medieval rulers.
Unlike their predecessors, Bagratid historical texts make several explicit references to the
residences o f kings, although the Bagratids seem to have been no more sedentarized than their
counterparts (see map). Ashot I kuropalates is said to have made his major residences at Tp'ilisi and
Bardavi (these cities were under Islamic rule);2 4 7 Bagrat m lived in the P'anaskerti fortress (in
Tao/Tayk', just north o f Bana);24* Giorgi I maintained a palace (saxli, Iwbcjo; lit. "house") in
K 'ut'at'isi;24^ and Bagrat IV resided in the Samshwlde fortress but Didgori was considered the "summer
royal residence" (sazap'xulo mep'et'a sadgomi. bib*<gb3E?<n 8 3 3 3 0 )* b*og,pi3o).2 ^ 0 Thus the early
kings of all-Georgia maintained residences especially in the western and southwestern regions of the
kingdom, precisely that area from w hich the K 'art'velian Bagratids had risen to power.
The Life o f the Kings, p. 25 j 7 . 2 q The location o f Gach' iani is hotly disputed by modem specialists.
Ingoroqva, Giorgi merch 'ule, p. 471, situated it at the confluence of the Mtkuari and Inja-su rivers. More
recently, Musxelishvili, Sak'art'velos istoriuli oriuli geograp'iisdzirit'adi sakitxebi, vol. 2, located it in
the Lower Debeda valley or along the right side o f the Lower Xrami valley. I wish to thank Dr. G.
Cheishvili for providing these citations.
247Sumbat Davit'is-dze, p. 44 = Qauxch'ishvili ed., p. 376.
2 4 */&/d p. 53 = Qauxch'ishvili ed., pp. 382-383.
2 4 ^ Chron.
K'art'li, p. 290.
2Îbid., p. 307 (Samshwlde) and 3 1 0 ^ . 15 (Didgori).
Reproduced
with permission
of the copyright owner.
BLA CK SEA
Gceun
*ct*
Further reproduction
>/
Oc
-f- Artanuji
;AW
. C c' lS
P'anaskcrt'i
prohibited without p e r m is s io n .
/Kolg
*lo,>rc
'POw,
Ka,S
Bardavi
4 Ani (A nisi)
V Thcodosioupolis
(K arnuk'alaki)
&
J r
4 Maiuikcrt
BAGRATID r o y a l
Re s id e n c e s
Residences
Other Major Settlements
627
628
After the Bagratids had succeeded in gathering the larger part o f Caucasia, northern Iran, and
even portions o f eastern Anatolia under their sway, and following the expulsion o f the Seljuqs. more
permanent seasonal residences were fixed. After the capture o f Tpilisi by Davit' n in 1122. that city
became a royal residence,2 5 1 although in distinction to the pre-Vaxtang Gorgasali position of M c'xet'a.
the exalted status o f Tp'ilisi is not particularly emphasized in twelfth- and thirteenth-century sources.
Under Davit' we learn that Samshwlde and Gach'iani were occupied by the Turks, so these locations
could no longer be employed as seasonal residences.2 5 2 The migratory patterns o f the nomadic Turkish
tribes occupying parts o f Georgia also may have influenced the mobile "capitals o f the Georgian kings.
Two royal residences (sing, sadgomi samep'oy [baco&mdo UiSogcna]) are known for Davit's
reign: Caghulis-t'avi 2 5 2 (located just to the northeast o f Surami and just to the northwest o f the Ruisi
cathedral) and Gegut' i (south o f K' ut' at' isi).25^ Gegut' i remained an important royal residence and is
often attested during the reigns o f Giorgi m and especially his daughter T'am ar .2 5 6
Under Giorgi m we first learn o f Nacharmagevi's status as a royal residence. Nacharmagevi.
situated to the east o f Caghuiis-f avi and roughly north o f the city of Gori, was the site of T amars formal
elevation as heir to her lather ,2 5 6 although it may have even earlier served as a residence, for Davit' IIs
biographer identifies this place as a favorite royal hunting ground .2 5 7
Although the kings and queens o f Georgia established more permanent royal residences in the
period, they often moved seasonably from one place to another. Thus, late in her reign T 'am ar is said to
have spent winter at Duri2 5 8 in Armenia (along the Georgian border) and summer at Kola and C'elis-tba
2 6 *77e Life
o f Davit', p. 193 = Qauxch'ishvili ed., p. 342.
2 5 2 /&/rf., pp. 176-178 = Qauxch'ishvili ed.. pp. 331-332.

2 5 5 /W</., p. 167 = Qauxch'ishvili ed., p. 324.
2 5 *ZW</., pp. 187 and 196 = Qauxch'ishvili ed.. pp. 338 and 344. Gegut'i is also known as a productive
hunting ground. Cf. Ps.-Juansher, p. 242. variant reading (t 16) for Anaseuli MS. erroneously gives
C'ixe-geguti for C'ixe-goji (c'ixe = "fortress"). On Geguti, see: V. Cilosani. "Geguti c'ixc-darbazi." in
I. Javaxishvili, ed., Shot'a rust'avelis epolds materialuri kultura (1938), pp. 449-467.
255Hist, andEul., pp. 16, 22, 49-50. 99-101. and 111.

2 5 6 Zb/rf., pp. 19-20. Other references for T amars reign include
ibid., pp. 51, 54, and 104; and Life o f
T'amar, p. 144.
2 5 7 77?e Life o f Davit', p. 167 = Qauxch' ishvili ed., p. 324. Pre-Bagratid kings are said to have had a
passion for hunting.
258Some scholars have placed Duri in K'uem o Kart'li; e.g., M. Berdzenishvili, Sak'art'velo XI-XII
saukuneebshi, pp. 142-143 and notes 66-67.
629
(in the southwest), sometimes traveling to Gcgut'i and C'xum i (Soxumi, Sukhumi, on the coast of
A p 'x azeti ).2 5 9 H er son and successor, Giorgi IV, on one occasion spent time in C'xumi and moved on
to Tpilisi in the autum n, to Duri in winter, and to Kola in the summer.2 **0
Thus, in the eleventh and twelfth centuries the Georgian monarchs established a scries of
seasonal residences. At first these were principally found in western Georgia, but by the time o f T amar
an axis o f royal fortress-palaces extended from K 'art'li proper to the Black Sea. The chief residences
along this line were at Tpilisi, Nacharmagevi, Caghulis-tavi, Kutatisi/Geguti. and Cxumi. We
should note that pre-Bagratid kings were closely associated with M c'xet'a. whereas their Bagratid
counterparts, although holding Tp'ilisi as a residence after 1 122, were said to have maintained a string of
fortresses situated roughly along an east-west line extending over both sides o f the Surami mountains
through the heart o f Georgia.
III. THE GEORGIAN CHURCH IN THE ELEVENTH AND TWELFTH CENTURIES
The role o f the Georgian Church in the unification, and K'art'velization, o f the all-Georgian
kingdom cannot be overstated. Its network of bishoprics often extended into areas long before they were
penetrated by the administration of the Crown. Since affiliation to the Georgian Church was envisaged as
a central pillar o f contemporary Georgian identity, the Georgian faith (along with the Georgian language,
the language o f both the Church and monarchy) was in many respects the glue holding the community
together, at least from a social perspective.
With the consolidation o f Bagratid power and the emergence o f Georgia in the latter eleventh
century as a formidable kingdom in the northern part o f the Near East, the Georgian Church was
reorganized so as to correspond to the new political reality. Although a comprehensive scholarly
treatment o f the ecclesiastical history of Georgia still awaits its historian , 2 6 1 here I shall offer a brief
examination o f the Church in the eleventh through thirteenth centuries in order to discern how that
institution was transformed to better reflea the rise to prominence of the political organism o f all-Georgia.
2 ^ 9 Hist.
andEul., p.
2 6 0 C/w*ort.
111.
Hund. Years, p. 42 7 .^ ]= Qauxch'ishvili ed., p. 1 5 6 ^ .
261 The most detailed, comprehensive treatment of Georgian ecclesiastical history remains Tamarati,
L'Eglise georgienne. See also P. Ioseliani, Short History o f the Georgian Church.
630
Monastic Foundations Abroad
Bagratid Georgia's turn towards, and imitation of. Byzantium must be considered in the context
o f the establishment o f Georgian monasteries throughout the Near East, the Holy Land, and Byzantium
itself. Georgian monks residing abroad were among the first to come into contact with the wide array of
Byzantine ideas and texts, and partly through their efforts the cultural endowment o f Byzantium was
transferred to Georgia. It should be said that Kart'velian monks, already in the fifth century, established
themselves well beyond the frontiers o f their homeland. This is particularly true for Jerusalem and
Palestine where K 'art'velian monks, including Peter the Iberian, had taken up residence. Significant
contemporary evidence for large numbers o f K'art'velian/Georgian monks working abroad exists only for
the Bagratid period, and especially from the tenth century.2 6 2
The proliferation o f Georgian monks abroad during the Bagratid period is particularly
accentuated both for the reigns o f Davit' II and T am ar. Davit' is said to have:
... filled the lavras, the places o f assembly, and the monasteries not only those in his
own kingdom, but also in Byzantium [lit Greece], Mt. Athos, an d Bulgaria
[Borghalet'i], also in Syria [Asuret'i] and Cyprus [Kwpri], the Black Mountain, and
Palestine with good things, and even the tomb o f Our Lord [meup'isay, i.e., the Holy
Sepulchre in Jerusalem], while he embellished those [inhabitants?] in Jerusalem with
many kinds o f gifts. And even more than this: for on Mt. Sinai, where Moses and Elijah
saw God, he built [agashena\ a monastery and bestowed upon it many thousands of gold
[coins] ...26 3
T am ar likewise harbored a deep interest in foreign monastic establishments:
... She dispatched envoys and she commanded them: "Beginning in Alexandria [to
travel through] all o f Libya and ML Sinai" [and] inquire about the Christian people,
their churches, and their monasteries. As for Jerusalem, what should be said, for she
sent chalices and plates, sacred vestments and much gold to all the churches there for
the benefit o f the monks and the poor...
Further in the lands o f Hellas [Eladia, i.e.. Greece proper] and Mt. Athos, as
well as in Macedonia and Petriconi, in the regions o f Thrace and in all the monasteries
o f Constantinople, Romana, Isauria, Kuruset'i, and all the regions o f the Black
Mountain and Cyprus in all these lands she performed acts o f charity ...2 6 4
2 6 2 G. Peradze, "An Account o f the Georgian Monks and Monasteries in Palestine as Revealed in the
Writings of Non-Georgian Pilgrims," Georgica 1/4-5 (Autumn 1937), pp. 181-184.

2 6 3 77ie Life
o f Davit', p. 208 = Qauxch'ishvili ed., pp. 352-353. Cf. Thomson, trans., pp. 343-344, and
Vivian, p. 36.
631
Many o f the locales mentioned in these two accounts were homes to Georgian monasteries.26^
Chief among them was Iveron (i.e., "of the Iberians) on M t Athos in Greece. Iveron was established
with a grant from the Byzantine emperor Basil II in 980-983 as a consequence o f the aid rendered to him
by Davit' o f Tao/Tayk' during the insurrection o f Bardas Skleros. Iveron rapidly emerged as the center of
contemporary Georgian learning, both inside and outside Georgia itself, and its notable scholar-monks
included Iovane (John), E p't'w m e (Euthymius), and Giorgi Mt'acmideli (George "of the Holy Mountain."
i.e., "of Athos") as well as his pupil Giorgi M e'ire ("the Little," "the Lesser"). The enormous translation
efforts o f the Georgian Athonite monks cannot be exaggerated, though it should be said that they did
compose some original Georgian works (such as Giorgi M t'acmidelis U fe o f Iovane and Ep Ywme).
E p't'w m e and Giorgis translations included works by/about Maximus the Confessor, John of Damascus.
Gregory o f Nyssa, Gregory the Theologian, Dorotheus, Andrew o f Crete, John Chrysostom, Basil the
Great, Sophronius o f Jerusalem, and Photius.266 Iveron maintained regular communication with
monasteries within Georgia itself as well as with Georgian monasteries abroad, like that on Mt. Sinai. In
the thirteenth century, when Georgia fell under the dominion o f the Mongols. Georgian monks were
unable to retain their hold over their Athonite monastery and Iveron came under the domination o f Greek
monks.267
Jerusalem was a favorite place for K'art'velian/Georgian monks from the fifth century. From an
early time, Georgians lived at SL Saba in Jerusalem, and by S32 there was a church administered by' them
26*i//& o f T'amar, pp. 141-142. Cf. the trans. o f Vivian, pp. 85-86.
26% o r Georgian monasteries abroad, see: L. Menabde, Dzveli k'art'uli mcerlobis kerebi, vol. 2, with
Eng. sum., pp. 433-443; idem.. Centers o f Ancient Georgian Culture, "Seats o f Ancient Georgian Culture
Abroad," pp. 41 et sqq. See also: Tarchnishvili, Geschichte, pp. 70-78 (and the entire study for the
literary works o f Georgian monks abroad); K. Salia. "Bref aperû sur les rapports georgiano-byzantins."
BK 33 (1975). pp. 125-135; and Martin-Hisard, "Christianisme et Eglise dans le monde georgien."
266Tarchnishvili, Geschichte, pp. 126-154 (Ep't'wm e) and 154-174 (Giorgi).
267Literature about Georgian activity on Athos is large. Esp. useful is: J. Lefort, N. Oikonomides, D.
Papachryssanthou, with H. Metrdv^li, Actes dlviron, esp. vol. 1, "Des origines au milieu du XI6 siecle"
(1985); H. Mdtrev61i, "Le role de 1Athos dans Hnstoire de la culture georgienne," BK 41 (1983), pp. 1726; Kekelidze, "At'onis literaturuli skolis istoriidan," in his Etiudebi, vol. 2 (1945), pp. 218-236; B.
Martin-Hisard, "Du Tao-KTardzheti a IAthos," B K 41 (1983), pp. 34-46; and Menabde, Dzveli k'art'uli
mcerlobis kerebi, vol. 2, pp. 411-442. See also: Javaxishvili, "K istorii tserkovnykh reform v drevnei
Gruzii (Georgii Athonskii)," ZMNP 351 (Jan. 1904), pp. 358-372; R.P. Blake, "Some Byzantine
Accounting Practices Illustrated from Georgian Sources," HSCP 51 (1940), pp. 11-33; and Khintibidze,
Afonskaia gruzinskaia literatumaia shkola, with Eng. sum., "Georgian Literary School on Mt. Athos," pp.
129-137.
632
within the compound.268 During Arab rule Georgian monks seem to have migrated elsewhere, but in the
early Bagratid period some o f them returned. A large Georgian colony was established at the Monastery
o f the Cross (under the guidance of the Georgian S t Prochorus in I038);269 a sizable number o f
Georgian monks rem ained on the premises until the nineteenth century.270
Georgian monks toiled at a number o f monasteries in Syria, particularly at the Black Mountain
and in the environs o f Antioch. From ca. 1030 Georgian monks became very active there. Among their
numbers were the notable writers/translators Ep'rem M e'ire an d Arsen Iqalt'oeli. Ep'rem Me ire ("the
Lesser") was responsible for rendering a great many Greek works into Georgian including metaphrases of
Ecclesiastes and Ezechiel; dogmatic and polemical works o f Gregory o f Nazianzenus and John o f
Damascus; mystical texts o f Basil the Great, Ps.-Dionysius the Aeropagite, and John Cassian; the vitae o f
Gregory o f Neocaesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and John o f Damascus; and homilies o f Gregory o f
Nazianzenus, John o f Nikomedia, Sophronius o f Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, John of Damascus, and
Basil the G reat271 T . Ot'xmezuri, and other specialists, have demonstrated that Ep' rem M e'ire was the
chief representative o f a literary school which taught that Greek works should be translated as literally as
possible into Georgian, and that even the Greek system o f punctuation should be imitated.272 In fact,
E p'rem M e'ire retranslated certain Greek works already rendered into Georgian by monks at Iveron for
the very fact that, in his opinion, they had not captured the true meaning and essence o f the originals. As
we have seen, E p'rem was also responsible for composing a metaphrastic version o f the Conversion o f
K'art'li in which the issues o f apostolicity and autocephaly were engaged. Along with living on the Black
Mountain near Antioch. Arsen Iqalt'oeli studied at the Byzantine M angana Academy as did his
268See Procopius, On the Buildings, V.ix.6-7, pp. 358-359. for monasteries of the Iberians (K 'art'velians)
and Lazi-s near Jerusalem that were restored by Justinian.
Oxf.Wardr. # MS.Georg.d.2 is a fourteenth-century version o f the typikon of this monastery. Giorgi

M c'ire, The Ufe o f Giorgi Mt'acmideli, p. 144-25-145^, is familiar with Proxore the K'art'velian and his
work at the Monastery o f the Cross in Jerusalem.
270Menabde, Dzveli k'art'uli mcerlobis kerebi, vol. 2, pp. 434-435 (St. Saba) and 436-438 (Monastery' o f
the Cross); and for the Georgian colony at the Monastery o f the Cross, see: E. Metreveli, Masalebi
ierusalimis k'art'uli koloniis istoriisat'vis (XI-XVII ss.)\ and Peradze, "An Account of the Georgian Monks
and Monasteries in Palestine," pp. 209-222.
271Tarchnishvili, Geschichte, pp. 182-198.
277
I am grateful to Dr. T . Ot'xmezuri for our conversations on this matter. See also her "Ep'rem m eiris
targmanebis shem c'vel nusxat'a ert'i t aviseburebis shesaxeb," in P'ilologiuri dziebani, vol. 2 (1995). pp.
144-149, with Eng. sum., "About One Peculiarity o f the Manuscripts o f Ephrem Mtsire's Translations," p.
149; and "Kom entart'a gavlena grigol nazianzelis t'xzulebat'a k 'a rt'u l t'argmanebze," in P'ilologiuri
dziebani, vol. 2 (1995), pp. 150-163, with Eng. sum., "The Influence o f the Commentaries on the
Georgian Translations o f the Works by Gregory Nazianzen," pp. 162-163.
633
compatriot, the noted neo-Platonist Ioane Petrici.273 As we shall see, one o f Arsen Iqalt'oeli's chief goals
was to expose the Monophysite heresy and he participated in Georgian synods to that effect. Among the
Greek works translated by him include texts by George Hamartolos, John o f Damascus. Cyril of
Alexandria, Theodore Abu Qurra (the bishop o f Harran), Leo the Great, the Great Nomocanon. and the
Definition o f Chalcedon?^* A detailed study o f Georgian monks active in the vicinity o f Antioch was
published by Djobadze in 1976.273
On M t Sinai Georgian monks worked at the monastery o f S t Catherine. The biography of
Davit' II claims that he was responsible for building a monastery' there, and this likely accounts for the
existence there o f an icon with an inscription naming h im M t Sinai, along with Iveron, was an
important Georgian literary center, and a relatively large number o f Georgian MSS are still preserved
there including two recently discovered and still unpublished fragments o f M ok'c 'evay k'art'lisav.
While Georgian monks are known to have worked on M t Sinai already in the sixth century, a permanent
Georgian colony seems to have been established only in the ninth century. It swelled in the following
century due to the im migration o f Georgian monks. Perhaps the most noted Georgian scholar-cleric from
M t Sinai is Ioane Zosime, among whose original works is the aforementioned mystical poem dedicated to
the Georgian language.27^

A Georgian monastery was also established in Bulgaria not far from Plovdiv. While dominated
by' "Georgian" monks this center was called Petriconi (Petritsoni, Gk. IBETPIZOE). It was founded in
1083 by Grigol Bakurianis-dze/Bakurian (Gk. Pakurianos) and expanded to become the second largest
monastery in all o f Bulgaria.277 Bakurianis-dze/Bakurian previously had been in the service of the
emperor and had occupied the important post o f Grand Domestic.77** A typikon was drawn up for the
2730 n Petrici, see: Marr, "Ioann Petritsskii, gruzinskii neoplatonik XI-XII veka." ZVOIRAO 19/2-3
(1909), pp. 53-113; and Tarchnishvili. Geschichte, pp. 211-225. Among the works trans. by him include
astronomic and astrological treatises, a grammar o f Georgian (now lost), and philosophical works by
Nemesius o f Emesa. Proclus. and Aristotle.
27- W , pp. 201-211 and 227-232.
273Djobadze, Materialsfo r the Study o f Georgian Monasteries.
276Menabde, Dzveli k'art'uli mcerlobis kerebi, vol. 2, pp. 435-436. On Zosime. see Tarchnishvili,
Geschichte, p. 175.
277
On Petriconi/Bachkovo, see: Lomouri. K istorii gruzinskogo petritsonskogo monastyria (Bachkovskii

monastyr v Bolgariif and Menabde. Dzveli k'art'uli mcerlobis kerebi, vol. 2, pp. 442-443.
27**Anna Komnena, II.4, vol. 1, pp. 96-97 (she states that Bakurianis-dze was "from Armenia"; cf. the
daughter o f Bagrat IV being called "of Alania" this may be a deliberate Byzantine attempt to downplay
the power and importance o f the Georgian Bagratids) and IV.4, vol. 1, pp. 197-202. The same historian,
DC5, vol. 1, p. 442j9_2o reports that "Mary o f Alania" (i.e., Mart'a-Mariam) possessed estates at Petrizos
(i.e., Georgian Petrici). It follows that she was likely involved in the establishment o f Petriconi.
634
monastery in Greek, Georgian, and Armenian. Much has been made about the "ethnic" identity of
Bakurianis-dze/Bakurian, for his family was originally from the Armeno-Georgian region ofT ao/T aykKlarjet'i. There can be no question that his family was Armeno-Georgian. and that merely identifying
him as a "Georgian" or "Armenian Chalcedonian" without further explanation is simplistic and
inaccurate. S. Qauxch'ishvili postulated that the term "Iberian" in the Greek version of the typikon refers
specifically to "Georgians" and not merely to "Chalcedonians."279 Yet it must be said that Bakurianisdze/Bakurian signed the monasterys typikon "in Armenian letters." Clearly', this is a complex question
that cannot be fully tackled here, but Garsolans balanced approach is to be lauded: "The most likely
explanation is that [he] belonged to the mixed Armeno-Iberian [Le., K 'art'velian] Chalcedonian
aristocracy, which dwelt in the border district o f Tayk'/Tao."2* This echoes the conclusion o f M arr in
1906: "Thus, the Armenian Chalcedonians [of Tao/Tayk'-Klaqet' i], having been Georgianized. founded
an orthodox Georgian monastery with exclusionary rules in Bulgaria, as is confirmed by the evidence of
official documents."2*** T hat is to say, Bakurianis-dze/Bakurian, and his compatriots, were
"Georgianized" (Marr uses the term "denationalized") Armeno-Chalcedonians, and so as to be accepted by
the Byzantine establishment, they' depicted themselves as "Iberians," i.e., K' art'velians/Georgians. They
took advantage o f their knowledge o f Georgian (Tao/Tayk' -Klarjet' i was largely bilingual and bicultural)
so as to strengthen their self-portrayal as Orthodox Georgians. Indeed, the Byzantine term "Iberian" at
this time was applied to both Georgians proper and Chalcedonian Armenians (cf. the "Theme of Iberia"
which was dominated by Armenian Chalcedonian inhabitants).
Although K 'art'velian monks had ventured far beyond the confines of K 'art'Ii in the preBagratid period, it is only from the tenth century that an abundance o f them began to take up residence
abroad. A number of Georgian monasteries and monasteries with large Georgian minorities were founded
throughout the Eastern Christian world, from Constantinople and the Balkans, the Holy Land, and Syria.
This Georgian network o f monasteries was unprecedented (though its beginnings may be traced to
279S. Qauxch'ishvih, "Slovo IBHP v tipikone petritsonskogo monastyria." Ivane javaxishvilis dabadebis
100 dist'avisadmi midzghvnili saiubileo krebuli. pp. 242-244. See also A. Shanidze. "Lc Grand
Domestique de l'Occident, Gregorii Bakurianis-dze, et le monastere georgien fonde par lui en Bulgarie."
BK 28 (1971), pp. 133-166. On the self-identity of the Armenian Chalcedonians, see: V. ArutjunovaFidanjan, "The Ethno-Confessional Self-Awareness of Armenian Chalcedonians." REArm, n.s. 21 (19881989), pp. 345-363; and idem., Armiano-vizemtiiskaia kontaktnaia zona (1994), with Eng. sum., pp. 233235 (includes an extensive bibliography).
280GarsoJan, "Pakourianos," in ODB, vol. 3, p. 1553.
^01Marr, "Ark'aun, mongolskoe nazvanie khristian, v sviazi s voprosam ob armianakh-khalkedonitakh."
p. 25. For M ans discussion o f Bakurianis-dze/Bakurian, see pp. 17-25 and 67.
635
K 'art'velian monks who lived abroad in the pre-Bagratid period), and was perhaps the most prominent
contributor to the influx o f Byzantine texts and ideas into the nascent all-Georgian e n te r p r is e .^
Titulature o f the Ecclesiastical Hierarchs
The hierarchs o f the Church in K 'art'li had originally been styled as bishops and archbishops.
By the end o f the fifth century', the K'art'velians won the right to have a kat'alikos head their Church, and
according to the Georgian historical tradition (ca. 800) the earliest kat'alikos-es were consecrated by the
patriarch o f Antioch with the assent of the Byzantine em peror and patriarch o f Constantinople. Be that as
it may, non-K'art'velians occupied the highest rungs o f the K 'art'velian ecclesiastical ladder until the
second-half o f the sixth century, the K'art'velians' assumption o f the control o f the K 'art'velian Church
coincided with the abolition o f the local monarchy by the Persians, and therefore may actually represent
the Persians desire to eliminate obtrusive pro-Byzantine influence over the K 'art'velian ecclesiastical
administration. Moreover, the very ecclesiastical title kat'alikos was intimately associated only with the
Eastern world (in contrast to Byzantium). Other notable kat'alikos-es existed in Persia (the earliest
known kat'alikos, who was independent o f the Church Universal and who received sanction from the
shahanshah), Armenia, and Caucasian Albania.

The Bagratids portrayed their kingdom as an integral part of the Christian-Byzantine world, and
as such they began to obscure K 'art'Ii's ancient Persian heritage. This reorientation was manifest in many
arenas, and it is to be expected that the Georgian Church would be subjected to a facelift, so as to effect its
closer integration into the Imperial Church. But by the time o f Davit' n, the Georgian Bagratids applied
the brakes on the "Byzantinization of Georgia, for it was then feared that the emperor could claim
ultimate authority over it, and that the Georgian Church would again be dominated by outsiders.
It is precisely in this era, in the second-half o f the eleventh century or the early twelfth, that the
Georgian kat'alikos was raised to the rank of patriarch (patriak'i,
The status o f patriarch
was coveted because it denoted an apostolic foundation (the Georgians claimed Andrew), and it also
would have afforded Georgia equal status to the original pentarchs Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria,
Antioch, and Jerusalem. With the establishment o f a Georgian patriarchate, the ecclesiastical structure
was made to mirror that o f Constantinople itself (with emperor and patriarch), and moreover, this move
constitutes a further manifestation of the contemporary Georgian notion that their realm was on a status
equal to Byzantium itself, at least within the northern part o f the Near E ast
285
Another introduction o f Byzantine ideas by these monks might be noted. Georgian illuminated MSS
are extant only from the ninth century and later, i.e., the Bagratid period The illuminations are highly
dependent upon Byzantine models. For a discussion a photographs, see V. Beridze et al., The Treasures
o f Georgia (1984), pp. 109-155.
636
Although The U fe ofVaxtang prominently reports the foundation o f the K 'art'velian kat'alikosate, the raising in status o f the Georgian ecclesiastical hierarch to patriarch is not explicitly documented,
and it is not clear when this event occurred. Moreover, we do not know by whose authority the Georgian
patriarchate was established (the references to Georgian patriarchs in the eleventh-century Chronicle o f
K'art'li are later insertions ).2 8 3 In any event, there is absolutely no contemporary evidence to suggest
that the Byzantines themselves granted the Georgian Church the right to have its own patriarch. And it
seems that the status o f patriarch was not all important to the Georgians, for in this period the Georgian
patriarch was indiscriminately styled in local texts as patriarch, kat'alikos-patriarch, and ka t'a liko s.^
This ambiguity is rife throughout The Histories and Eulogies in which the prelate might in one place be
termed as "the kat'alikos o f K 'art'li" but in another as "patriarch ." 2 8 6 Although the contemporary texts
do not comment directly upon the elevation o f the Georgian prelate, it is possible that this alteration was
partially a reaction to large numbers o f Armenians being subjected to the Georgian Crown, and the fact
that the Armenians had had their own patriarch.
Another problem that arises in this period is the foundation o f a kat 'alikos for Ap' xazet' i. We
possess no explicit contemporary account accounting for the genesis o f this post, although an eighteenthcentuiy Vaxtangiseuli insertion in The Chronicle o f K'art'li attributes it to Bagrat HI, first the king of the
Ap'xaz and then o f all-Georgia .2 8 6 P. Ioseliani suggested that the A p'xaz kat'alikos-ate had been
established already in the ninth century with Byzantine assistance .2 8 7 It is certain that already in the late
pre-Bagratid/early Bagratid period, the western "Georgian" domains were under Constantinopolitan
jurisdiction; the seventh-century Notitia of George of Cyprus is familiar with the eparchy o f Lazika. its
headquarters o f Phasidos, with other centers at Rhodopolis, Abissena, Petra, and Zigana .2 8 8 Several of
the ninth- and tenth-century nodtiae documented by J. Darrouzes also enumerate this eparchy, adding
Saisene, Petra, and Riza, while some relate the existence o f the eparchy o f Abasgia with its center at
2 8 3 Otro/j.
K'art'li, pp. 294 (for Melk'isdeki) and 313 (for Ok'ropiri, Giorgi Taoeli, and Gabriel Sixaruli).
28Ît is possible that the initial references to a patriarch o f Georgia were added by later scribes.
286 E.g.,
Hist, and Eul., pp. 32 and 50 respectively.
286 / 6/d., p. 255 13 , in Vaxtangiseuli MSS bpk and B only.
28 7
Ioseliani, Short History o f the Georgian Church, p. 90. This view was most recently expressed by Sh.
Badridze. "Nekotorye voprosy politicheskogo i sotsial'no-ekonomicheskogo stroia abkhazskogo tsarstva."
in Voprosy istorii narodov Kavkaza: sbomikstatei. posviashchennykhpamiati Z.V. Anchabadze, p. 141,
who traces the A p'xaz kat'alikos-ate to the tenth century.
288George of Cyprus, pp. 3 and 24.
637
Sebastopolis.2 8 9 However, these Byzantine sources do not specifically name the prelate o f Abasgia as
kat'alikos (i.e the Gk. katholikos). We have already seen how A p'xazet'i was afforded first place in
Bagratid intitulatio, and the majority o f contemporary royal residences were in the western regions (i.e..
Imeret' i). Perhaps Bagrat would have wanted to raise the status o f the prelate o f the western region to
such a level in order to reflect the importance of this area. But it is entirely possible that while
Ap'xazet'i/Abasgia was under heavy Byzantine influence, the emperor him self might have wished to raise
its hierarch to a status equal with the K'art'velians so as to check the authority o f the latter .290 There
was not, however, an independent Ap'xaz monarch at this time, so we may not posit that a special prelate
was needed for this region in order to conduct the consecration ceremony.
The medieval Georgian sources, written from the royal Georgian/K'art'velian perspective, do not
enlighten us on this question. W e do know that the Ap'xaz kat'alikos-ate continued to exist even after the
establishment of the Georgian patriarchate. In fact, the existence o f a western kat'alikos may' have
necessitated the raising o f the all-Georgian prelate to a more distinguished status .2 9 * In the mid
thirteenth century the A p'xaz kat'alikos played a prominent role in the royal coronation ceremony, an
event which, as we have seen, the Church began to dominate in this period .2 9 2 However, in the secondhalf of the same century, the A p'xaz kat'alikos (at least by that title) is completely unknown in a
document outlining the ceremony accompanying the consecration of the chrism .2 9 2 This may' indicate a
shift in the place of the A p'xaz kat'alikos within the Georgian hierarchy, although this is not necessarily
the case. In any event, the question o f when a kat'alikos o f Ap'xazet'i was established must remain
unanswered, though it is entirely possible that this occurred already in the ninth/tenth century.
The conundrum o f the raising o f the status o f the bishop of Chqondidi in Imeret'i (i.e.. the land
to the west o f the Surami mountains) also remains unsolved As we have seen, at some time in the
289 E.g.,
Notit. episcop.. pp. 205-212, 217-218,227, 231-233, 241, 249-251, 259, and 264-266. Martin-
Hisard. "Christianisme et Eglise dans le mond georgien," p. 554, footnote 20, states that the identification
of Saisene is unknown, but Rhodopolis is the Georgian Vardis-c'ixe, ZiganaGudava. and Sebastopolis
C'xumi. The site of Petra is not far from modem Bat umi.
290 Cf. E.K. Adzhindzhal, "K istorii abkhazskoi avtokefal'noi tserkvi," in Reziume soobshchenii XVIII
mezhdunarodnyi kongress vizantinistov (Moskva, 1991), vol. 1, pp. 8-9, who says that Byzantine evidence
suggests an autocephalous status for A p'xazet'i (granted by Constantinople) already in the seventh/eighth
century.
291
In this case, the traditional notion o f a kat'alikos being autocephalous would seem to have been
transformed. The prelates o f A p'xazet'i and all-Georgia are referred to as "both kat'alikos-es" in Chron.
Hund. Years, p. 4 3 12. i 4 = Qauxch'ishvili e d , p. 157 j j_ j2. See also the proceeding note.
2 9 2 77ie Rank and Order o f the
Consecration o f Kings, in Kakabadze, Georgian ChartersSPB, pp. 74-77.
292The Consecration o f the Chrism, in Kakabadze, Georgian ChartersSPB, pp. 81-86.
638
eleventh or twelfth centuiy, but probably under Davit' tt. the bishopric of Chqondidi was joined with the
administrative office o f mcignobart'-uxuc'esi creating a single administrative post. The mcignobart-
uxuc 'esi-chqondideli often acted as the monarchs chief advisor, and by joining this preeminent
administrative post with a high ecclesiastical post the Crown had a direct route by which to influence
ecclesiastical affairs (i.e., caesaropapism). O f course, should the post be occupied by a powerful
ecclesiastic, the Church might seize an enormous measure o f influence over the realm o f politics, as was
the case with the patriarch Mik' ael a contemporary o f T araar who usurped the bishopric of
Chqondidi and then forced the queen to confirm him as mcignobart -uxuc 'esi-chqondideli. Before this,
the monarch had selected his/her own candidate for the joint post In this case, a recalcitrant ecclesiastic
forced the hand o f the Crown by seizing the bishopric o f Chqondidi and claiming what was legally his.
Like pre-Bagratid historical works, Bagratid-era histories occasionally provide the name o f the
Georgian kat a/Z/ros/patriarch, although these references are sporadic and are made only if they contribute
to the narrative. Accordingly, it is nearly impossible to assign precise dates o f tenure for the Georgian
prelates o f the time.
Ecclesiastical Documents and a Further Comment on the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy
From the 1030s we possess a number o f ecclesiastical documents, o f which some were produced
internally by the Church while others were written in royal scriptoria (which themselves employed some
ecclesiastics). To be sure, the K 'art'velian Church must have produced administrative documents for
internal consumption (i.e., rules, protocol) in the pre-Bagratid period, but no such texts are extant.
The ecclesiastical documents drawn up in the eleventh through thirteenth centuries are concerned
with a matrix o f issues from delineating the possessions o f a specific congregation or monastery to the
granting o f tax im m unity by the Crown.29* A rather large collection o f these documents survive for the
Shio Mghwme monastery near M c'xet'a which was originally built by one o f the Thirteen Syrian
Fathers;29^ other religious institutions which are well represented include Sueti-c'xoveli and the Gelat'i
monastery near K' ut' at' isi.
One particularly interesting document was written in the second-halfof the thirteenth century
and is concernedwith the properprocedure for consecrating holy oil.296 Containedwithin this text is a
The Ufe o f Davit', p. 209
= Qauxch'ishvili ed., p. 353. For these ecclesiastical documents, see: Georgian Charters; and Kakabadze,
2 9 *Davit' ITs abrogation o f taxes upon the church is noted in his biography; see
Georgian ChartersSPB.
2 9 ^Zhordania, Shio mgh. monast.; and Martin-Hisard, "Les Biens dun monastere georgien (IX ^X IlF
siecle)," in Hommes et richesses dans IEmpire byzantin, vol. 2, esp. appendix 2, pp. 141-152 (for texts).
2 9 ^77?e
Consecration o f the Chrism, in Kakabadze, Georgian ChartersSPB, pp. 81-86.
639
ranking o f Georgian bishops. A t the head is the kat'alikos of Georgia, who is not afforded the title o f
"patriarch." Following him was the bishop o f Chqondidi (representing the entire church administration in
the western domains) and then the "metropolitan o f Greater Armenia." Thus, these three hierarchs seem
to have formed a sort o f trinity heading the Georgian Church, with the kat'alikos as the father and
superior o f the others. It is noteworthy that the Armenians - presumably Chalcedonian ones are
assigned an important representative within the hierarchy, and that this official is styled as metropolitan.
Ironically, the status o f metropolitan had been forced upon the K'art'velians by the Armenians during the
events surrounding Dwin III in 607/608. Could the styling of the Armenian prelate represent a deliberate
Georgian attempt to "get even" for the schism? The other subordinate Georgian and Armenian bishops
enumerated, in order o f dim inishing hierarchical position, are those representing:
I. M ac'queri
2. Alaverdi
3. K'isiqi
4. Kurmurdo
S. Ninocmida
6 . Ishxani
7. Ancha
8 . Tbeti
9. C 'urc'qabi
10. Cqaros-tavi
11 . Erushet'i
12. Manglisi
13. C 'inc'qaro
14. Rust'avi
IS. C'ilkani
16. K'acari
17. Utbnisi
18. Ruisi
19. Samt'avro
20. Nik'ozi
21. Valashkert'i
22. Bolnisi
23. Kars
24. Xarach'ashi
25. Tp'ilisi
26. C'alki
27. Bana
28. Ch'erem-k'alaki
29. Dmanisi
30. Dadasheni
31. Gishi
We should emphasize that this list is relatively late and reflects the condition o f the Georgian Church
under Mongol rule (and after the reign o f T araar). a time when that institution actually flourished while
the monarchy was fragm ented.^^ In any event, we cannot blindly apply this ranking to the preceding
period
997
A similar situation is assumed by some scholars to have existed during the principate; e.g., Djobadze,
"The Sculptures on the Eastern Facade o f the Holy Cross of Mtzkhet'a," part 1, OC 44 (1960), p. 118.
640
Shift in Liturgy
Liturgical practice is not discussed in surviving medieval Georgian historical literature, and
therefore our consideration o f it will be extremely limited. But even a cursory examination o f this
question is pertinent, for the contemporary models upon which the K ' art' vel ian/Georgian liturgy is based
provide additional evidence for the reorientation o f Bagratid Georgia more fully towards Byzantium.
The fundamental study o f Georgian liturgical practice was written by the eminent scholar K.
Kekelidze already in 1908.^* Kekelidze discerned two major periods o f Georgian liturgical practice up
through the thirteenth century. In the first period, which extended through the eleventh century, the
liturgy o f the K 'art'velian Church was based upon that o f Jerusalem and Antioch. That is to say. early
Christian K 'a rt'li looked to the south, to Syria and Palestine, for its liturgical rites. We have little extant
evidence for this period, although the Grand Lectionary o f Jerusalem was translated into Georgian at the
time, and the Klaijet'ian Polycephalon preserves some Syro-Palestinian formulae. From the eleventh
century we may trace the second period during which the Georgian Church adopted the Byzantine liturgy.
The Constantinopolitan Great Synaxary became the dominant influence and was translated into Georgian
by the Athonite Giorgi Mt'acmideli.
The dominance o f the Syro-Palestinian rite in pre-Bagratid K 'a rt'li is preserved in Georgian
iadgari-s, or tropologia, the most ancient of which was published and discussed in 1980 by E. Metreveli
et al.2^9 This "Jerusalem iadgari" incorporates all the poetical texts o f the liturgical year for the Church
o f Jerusalem and dates from the fifth to the eighth century. The document is now preserved only in
Georgian, hence its importance. This text, along with others in Georgian (i.e.. the Jerusalem Lectionary,
the Liturgy o f St. James, and mravalt 'avi-s/polvcephala, like the so-called Klarjet'ian Polycephalon), are
clear testimonies of the prevalence o f the Jerusalem-Syrian liturgy in pre-Bagratid K 'art'li.
Djobadze studied medieval Georgian eucharistic bread stamps and was able to document this
shift in liturgical p r a c tic e .^ The legends left by their impressions confirm that until the mid eleventh
century the Georgian Church practiced the Syro-Palestinian liturgy. Thereafter, the Byzantine - or "St.
Kekelidze, Liturgicheskie gruzinskie pamiatniki v otechestvennykh knigokhranilishchakh i ikh

nauchnoe znachenie. See also Tarchnishvili, Geschichte, "Liturgie." pp. 439-448 (this study is based
upon the earlier work o f Kekelidze).
2 ^ S e e also the review of A. Wade, "The Oldest Iadgari: The Jerusalem Tropologion. V-VIII c" OCP 50
(1984), pp. 451-456.
^D jobadze, "Medieval Bread Stamps from Antioch and Georgia," OC 63 (1979), pp. 163-176.
641
John Chrysostom's liturgy became current in Georgia and was employed down through the seventeenth
century.3 0 1
We know little about pre-Bagratid Georgian hymns. However, Rayfield has recentlydemonstrated that "the main body o f Georgian hymns extant from the tenth century [i.e.. the early
Bagratid period] are translations o f the Byzantine Greek canon."30^ Thus, the renowned tenth-century
Kartvelian hymnographers Ioane M inch'xi (fl. 925) an d M ik 'el Modrekeli (fl. 970) turned towards
Constantinople, and not Syria/Palestine, for their models.3 0 3 It would seem probable, in light o f
liturgical practice, that pre-Bagratid hymnography had also cast its gaze to the south rather than west. In
any event, the intense influx o f ideas from Byzantium in the Bagratid period is also manifested in the
inspiration o f Georgian hymns.
Georgian Ecclesiastical Councils
No formal K 'art'velian ecclesiastical councils are attested in Georgian historical o r ecclesiastical

literature for the pre-Bagratid period Moreover, Georgian texts from that era do not engage the topic of
ecclesiastical councils and their importance, including the various ecumenical councils of the Universal
Church. It should be said outright that modem Georgian specialists often point to the attendance of
Stratophilos, the bishop o f Pityus (Bichvint' a) which was later comprehended within Ap' xazet' i, at the
First Ecumenical Council at Nicaea in 325 as proof that the early "Georgian Church participated in the
imperial ecclesiastical administration. But the extant attendance lists o f that council describe Stratophilos'
see as a dependency o f the Eparchy o f Pontos Polemdniakos and it is clear that he was not a representative
o f the Church in K 'art'li based at M c'xet'a.30'* In fact, we possess no evidence that bishops from that
organization participated in any o f the Seven Ecumenical Councils. It should be noted that all o f these
councils were convened in the pre-Bagratid period Had any o f them occurred in the Bagratid period (in
30*By the early eleventh century, Constantinopolitan liturgies in the names o f Sts. Peter, Jacob, and John
Chrysostom had been translated into Georgian; see Liturg. Iber. Antiq. No references to K 'art'velian/
Georgian rulers and ecclesiastical figures were inserted into the extant texts. See also: Liturgy o f St. John
ChrysostomGeorgian, Jacob trans.; and Lit. Antiq. Iber., pp. 64-83.
30^Rayfield Literature o f Georgia, pp. 12-26. quotation from p. 14. Rayfield also says that "Georgia's
hymns stand at the apex o f its cultural heritage" (p. 13).
303On these two figures, see Tarchnishvili, Geschichte, pp. 115-116 and 118-121.
3 0 4 E. Honigmann, "La liste originale des peres de Nicee," Byzantion 14 (1939), p. 46. The three bishops
representing the EIIAPXIAE nONTOY IIOAEMQNIAKOY were AOITINOE NEOKAIEAPEIAE,
AOMONOE TPATTE ZOYNTOE, and ETPATOSIAOE m TYOYNTOE. Making Stratophilos a
"Georgian represents an anachronistic projection o f Georgian unity into Late Antiquity.
642
which ties to Byzantium were much stronger than in the preceding era), Georgian participation would
have been more likely.
We might have anticipated K 'art'velian synods to follow in the wake o f the schism with Armenia
in 607/608 (the Armenians had held councils even before this time in which K 'art'velian bishops
occasionally participated), but in that period the K 'a rtvelian monarchy had been abolished by the
Persians, and a K 'art'velian king could not have convened the council as was the practice in Byzantium
and Persia. Moreover, Persian rule would have made a gathering like this a dangerous affair. Not a
single formal K' art'velian/Georgian ecclesiastical council is attested before the reign o f Davit' II. It
should be emphasized that no council is testified immediately after the schism with Armenia. Any
supposition that such a council was convened so as to determine some "grand strategy" in the wake o f the
fissure is unwarranted.
After Georgian power had been consolidated throughout Caucasia in the eleventh century', some
learned Georgians depicted their realm as a Christian kingdom that was the equal o f Byzantium itself but
specifically within the context o f the purview o f Georgian royal authority, i.e.. the northern portion o f the
Near E ast We have already seen that: Davit' II dropped the use o f (subordinate) Byzantine titles, and in
an inscription on an icon from M t Sinai he was styled specifically as basileus (emperor): Davit' II and
some of his successors are portrayed artistically as wearing pendilia on their crowns, a prerogative o f the
basileus-, the Georgian kings and ruling queens began to style themselves as "autocrats" above whom no
earthly monarch stood; the Georgian Church appointed for itself a patriarch; and, significantly, there is
no explicit statement o f subordination to Byzantium in contemporary Georgian texts.
In an effort to further mimic the authority and function o f the Byzantine emperor. Davit' II
congregated the first attested Georgian Church council at Ruisi-Urbnisi (just to the west of Gori) in 1103.
As is well known, ecumenical councils were customarily summoned tty emperors, and thus Davit' was
seizing for him self on his territory, this prerogative o f the Byzantine monarchs. This constitutes the first
instance of a Georgian/K'art'velian ruler calling an ecclesiastical council. To be sure, other nonByzantine kings acted in the same fashion, and Caucasian councils had been held centuries before. But
when set in the context o f the attempt to equalize the Georgian monarch with the emperor (at least within
the purview o f the authority o f the Georgian Crown), the summoning o f these councils was part and parcel
o f the imitation of, and attempt to achieve equalization with, the basileus.
The assembling o f the Ruisi-Urbnisi synod is reported in The Life o f Davit'. It should be said
that it is neither afforded a name nor specifically dated. Moreover, it is not explicitly declared to be the
first Georgian ecclesiastical council. Davit' reportedly summoned the kat'alikos, chief priests, hermits,
teachers, and scholars o f the kingdom in order to cleanse the Church o f corruption. Especially
troublesome for the king was the prevalence o f nobles, some hostile to the Crown, occupying ecclesiastical
positions uncanonically. Davit' supervised the removal o f many o f these nobles, establishing
qualifications for bishops, and correcting other errors in accordance with the ecumenical councils "like
643
Constantine 'the Great'" (who had called and presided over the First Ecumenical Council at Nicaea).
Tenures for ecclesiastical posts were established (including thirty-five years for bishops, thirty for priests,
and twenty-five for deacons). This was not the practice in Byzantium . 3 0 5
Fortunately, the acts o f the Ruisi-Urbnisi council are extant and have been published .3 0 6 Its
preface is particularly important, for it provides an "official" summary o f ecclesiastical history prior to
1103. It commences with a brief statement confirming that Davit' himself, as king, had convened the
council. Then, several episodes are related, including the victory of Christianity over paganism and
idolatry, the preaching of the apostles, the acts o f Constantine "the Great," the evangelization o f K 'a rt'li
by Nino (called Nunn[e]), and the alleged activities o f Eustathius of Antioch in K 'art'li.
Significantly, the preface o f the acts o f the Ruisi-Urbnisi synod also include a brief descnption of
the Seven Ecumenical Councils.3 0 2 It was precisely in this period that we may detect an interest in the
ecumenical councils. Thus various frescoes, especially that at the Gelat'i monastic complex originally
built by Davit' H, depict them,30** while some o f their acts were translated into Georgian, like those o f the
Sixth Ecumenical Council translated by the Athonite monk Ep't'w m e at Iveron.30 9 An excerpt from the
acts o f the Sixth Ecumenical Council was inserted into the text of Ps.-Juansher in some eighteenth-century'
Vaxtangiseuli MSS (bp and B ).3 30 These acts were not, however, part o f the original work. It should be
said that the acts of the Sixth Council succinctly review those of the five preceding synods, and thus this
document may have served as the basis and model for the preface of the acts for Ruisi-Urbnisi. A brief
overview is also incorporated into The Ufe o f Giorgi M t'acmideli31 1 We have already seen that the
^ 17
Great Nomocanon was also translated into Georgian in this period.
3 0 5 Step'nadze,
Sak'art'veloXIIsaukunesa daXIIIsaukunispirvelmeot'xedshi, p. 6 6 .
306dcte o f Ruisi-Urbnisi, pp. 54-72. These acts were originally discovered by Ioseliani; see his Short
History o f the Georgian Church, pp. 111-113. See also Javaxishvili, K'art'uli samart'lis istoria. vol. la.
pp. 39-46.
30^'Acts o f Ruisi-Urbnisi, p. 59.

3 0 % astm ond,
Royal Imagery in Medieval Georgia, unpub. typescript, pp. 31-34.
3 0 9 Xaxanashvili, Pravila VI vselenskago sobora (v gruzinskoi redaktsii) (1903), oflprint from Drevnostei
vostochnykh, vol. 2/3, text pp. 5-63. For the Greek text, see Acts o f the 6th Ecum. Coun., esp. pp. 344-
346 for "a definition of the faith."

3 3 0 Ps.-Juansher, pp. 231 jq-23222- This insertion includes some interpolations about Georgia (i.e.,
Sak'art'velo), a name which was anachronistic for the period under consideration.
3 * ^Giorgi Me'ire.
The Ufe o f Giorgi Mt'acmideli, cap. 25, p. 179.
3 12See also Martin-Hisard, "Christianisme et Eglise dans le monde g&rgien," p. 593.
644
The acts o f subsequent medieval Georgian ecclesiastical councils have not survived. 3 13 But we
do know that other councils were summoned, although it is not clear whether they were on the same scale
and treated with the same import, as that of Ruisi-Urbnisi. Thus, towards the end of the reign o f Davit' II.
the king summoned a council in order to hear the case against the Armenian Monophysites: the kat'alikos
o f K 'art'li. Ioane, and the noted monk Arsen Iqalt'oeli (who had translated some anti-Armenian/
Monophysite polemic from G reek) participated. The council assumed the form of a debate, and the king
himself argued the case for the Georgian (Chalcedonian) faith. In the end, "as Basil the Great had once
done at Athens," Davit' worsted the Armenians and they retreated in humiliation .3 ^ D a v it'm . who
ruled for a few months in 1156, is alleged by the Armenian historian M xit'ar Gosh to have intended to
summon a council in order to define "Orthodoxy." But the Georgian nobles reportedly became anxious
no doubt recalling the mass expulsions from, and limitations o n holding, ecclesiastical posts imposed by
Davit' II in 1103 and poisoned the king.3
T am ar summoned a council in 1184-1185 to effect the
removal o f the kat'alikos Mik'ael who was accused o f seizing his position illegally. Mik'ael seems to
have occupied the bishopric o f Chqondidi so that he could intentionally usurp the position o f mcignobart '-
uxuc'esi-chqondideli (i.e., the monarch's chief secretary).3 ^ T am ar brought the respected Nikol[a]oz
Gulaberisdze from Jerusalem, and he, along with Antoni Saghirisdze, the archbishop o f K 'ut'at'isi, heard
the case against M ik'ael. T a m a r wished to remove M ik'ael from the proceedings, but this was
disallowed, and in the end the case against Mik'ael was not successful.
Polemic and the Armenian Question
The eleventh/twelfth century also witnessed among Georgian clerics the germination o f an
interest in polemical writing, especially that which defined heresy .3 ^
This movement was fueled by
3 ^Tarchnishvili, Geschichte, "Akten der Nationalsynoden," pp. 436-438. After 1103. the next council
for which acts are extant was convened in the mid sixteenth century.
3^*The Life o f Davit', pp. 213-214 = Qauxch'ishvili e d , pp. 356-357.

3 ^ M x it'a r Gosh,
Chron., p. 488.
316Life o f T'amar, pp. 117-119.

3 l7 Georgia was the home o f large Muslim and Jewish communities as well. Moreover, we have some
indication that "paganism," at least among alpine communities, was still present during the reign of
T am ar. Hist. andEul., p. 11l j ^ , divulges that: "In those times... the Dido-s were eating strangled
animals and raw meat, and they practice polyandry [lit. "the wom en keep more than one husband"]; some
o f them worship an invisible devil, others a black dog which has no symbol [unishnosa]...-, cf. the E n g
trans. of Vivian, pp. 141-142.
645
Georgian monks who worked abroad, most notably on M l Athos and M l Sinai, as well as in
Constantinople, Jerusalem, Syria, Bulgaria, and Cyprus. We should recall that there is no indication that
K 'art'velian clerics had begun to produce significant invective against the Arm enians following the
schism at the Third Council o f Dwin in 607/608.-*18 Thus, this type o f polemic seems to have been a
Bagratid innovation.
We have already seen that the earliest known original Georgian polemical work, written against
heretical Christians, was produced tty Arsen Sap'areli ("of Sap'ara") precisely in the period under
review .3 1 9 His tract is aimed at the Armenian Monophysites, a great many o f whom in Sap'areli's time
had been incorporated into the Georgian kingdom. It is worth emphasizing that Georgian clerics felt it
necessary to produce such polemic against the Monophysites only after the establishment o f an allGeorgian kingdom and its systematic annexation of much o f Greater Armenia.
In the era o f Sap'areli, other Georgian clerics began to take an interest in heresy and in
producing polemic against iL It is precisely in this period that native historical and ecclesiastical texts
began to emphasize the need to battle heresy, and we have seen how Davit' II him self called a council to
deal with the question o f Armenian Monophysites. Non-Georgian texts about the nature o f and fight
against heresy also began to be translated into Georgian, especially by the m onks on M l Athos and in
Syria. One o f these works is a m id eleventh-century tract against the Armenian Monophysites composed
by the Byzantine writer Niketas Stethatos. It was translated into Georgian by Arsen Iqalt'oeli, who, as we
have seen, participated in Davit''s anti-Monophysite synod 3 2 0 Notwithstanding, we possess little
indication as to the battle against heresy within the Georgian community, especially among the various
tribes inhabiting northern Caucasia .3 2 1 In official documents, heresy was usually defined in terms o f
31 Cf. Rayfield, Literature o f Georgia, pp. 27-28: "Apart from combatting Persian, Jewish, and Arab
religions, the Georgian church from the seventh to tenth century' was fighting its way back to mainstream
Orthodoxy and bitterly repudiating heretical Armenian Monophysites, with whom Georgian ecclesiasts
had hitherto peaceably coexisted" Also cf. Tarchnishvili. Geschichte, p. 89. who assumes that Kwrion
had written polemic already at the time o f the schism.
3 19 Cf. Novoseltsev, Genezisfeodalizma v stranakh Zakavkaz'ia, p. 12, who dates Arsen Sap'areli to the
ninth century (along with the Armenian Uxtanes). Martin-Hisard "Brebis, boucs/loups et chiens: une
hagiographie georgienne anti-armenienne du debut du X siecle," REArm, n.s. 23 (1992), pp. 209-235
(esp. pp. 218-219), detects a n anti-Armenian stratum in the Mart. Gobron, w ritten perhaps already in the
tenth century. However, the author herself admits that the earliest extant MS containing this text was
copied in 1713. Therefore, we cannot state with any certainty if the comments in question were part o f the
original version.
320See M. Rap'ava, "Grigol nazianzelis homiliebi, rogorc' cqaro nikita stit'atis antimonop'izituri
txzulebisa," in P'ilologiuri dziebani, vol. 2, pp. 81-108, with Eng. stun., "The Homilies o f Gregory
Nazianzen on the Source o f the Antimonophysite Work by Nikita Stytathis," pp. 107-108. On Georgian
polemic, see Tarchnishvili, Geschichte, pp. 368-386.
- ^ Fine, The Bosnian Church, examines the nature o f heresy among the Bosnians, a community similar
646
Monophysitism, Nestorianism, Arianism, etc., that is to say, those heresies which had been/were
confronted by the Imperial Church and which had been decried by the Ecumenical Councils.
The introduction o f polemic (against heresy) into the foreground o f Georgian ecclesiastical
literature was a further indication o f the attempt o f the Georgian Church to m ore closely model itself upon
the Imperial Church. O f course, the issue o f Monophysitism became a very palpable one with the
integration of large numbers o f Armenians into the all-Georgian kingdom. Therefore, w hile the adoption
o f polemic by Georgian ecclesiastics may itself have been a reflection o f an attem pt to imitate the interests
o f Byzantine clerics, the fact remains that Georgian churchmen also adopted the weapon o f polemic so
that it could be hurled at the Armenian Monophysites. Moreover, we should not underestimate the
influence o f the Crusaders in the N ear East with their zeal in establishing the "true" faith in the Holy
Land. This drive must have had some effect upon the Georgian Church, and although the pertinent texts
o f K'art'lis c'xovreba relate almost nothing directly concerning the Crusaders, the biography of Davit' II
does couch the restoration o f K 'a rt'li within the framework of the First Crusade .3 2 2
Bound up with the issue o f polemic is the question of how the Georgian Church came to grips
w ith the large number of Monophysite Armenians incorporated into the Georgian kingdom in the course
o f the eleventh and twelfth centuries. As we have seen, the official position o f both the Church and
Crown was that Monophysites were heretics. Therefore, their "reconversion" to Chalcedonianism should
be sought. As we have seen, to attain this goal, Davit' II summoned a council late in his reign so that a
clear pronouncement might be made that Monophysitism was heretical and unacceptable to God. To this
end, the royal biographer could describe the Armenians as "an evil race."32 3 Allegedly taking the form of
in several respects to that o f the contemporary Georgians. Both communities inhabited mountainous
lands situated far from Byzantine centers and both peoples were overwhelmingly rural. The religious
syncretism detected by Fine in Bosnia is applicable for K'art'li/Georgia as well. Moreover, he
demonstrates that theology was a relatively m inor issue for the Bosnians. On this point, pre-Bagratid
K 'art'li is similar to medieval Bosnia; but this changed in the Bagratid period, for by the eleventh century
the Georgians attempted to participate fully in the Byzantine world, including the realm o f theology. But
Georgian interest in theology was usually in terms o f the Ecumenical Church, although the Monophysite
problem was an exception whereby theology was directly related to the local situation.
3 2 2 77re Ufe
o f Davit', p. 168 = Q auxch'ishvili ed., pp. 325-326. Georgia's relationship with the
Crusaders is poorly understood even today. The best work on the subject remains; Z. Avalishvili.
Jvarosant'a droidan: ot'xi saistorio narkvevi. It should not be forgotten that to the Crusaders the "True
Faith" was the Christian religion o f Rome; polemic was exchanged between the Latin and Greek
churches, although it should be noted that the Georgians did not strongly condemn the Latins. In fact,
Giorgi Mt'acmideli, serving as the abbot o f the Iveron monastery on Mt. Athos, declared before Emperor
Constantine X that the pope o f Rome was infallible (!); Giorgi Me'ire, Ufe o f Giorgi Mt'acmideli, pp.
179-180. The Crusaders fascination with Georgia is reflected in the Prester John legend; some scholars
have attempted to associate Davit' n with John. E.g., see J. Richard, "L'extreme orient legendaire au
moyen age: roi David et p iitre Jean," Annales dEthiopie 2 (1957), pp. 225-242.
3 2 3 7 te
Ufe o f Davit', p. 2 1 3 ^ = Q auxch'ishvili ed., p. 356, ,_I7.
647
a debate in which the king himself is said to have participated, the Armenian Monophysite clergy in
attendance were worsted. But we have no further indication that the Georgian Church successfully
introduced its Chalcedonian faith to the Monophysite Armenians. Certainly, the Georgian Church did
find an audience in Armenia, especially in the Armeno-Georgian marchlands (as Tao/Tayk') where intercultural contact was most intense, for large numbers o f Chalcedonian Armenians resided there.
Nevertheless, we are largely in the dark as to any organized attempt within Armenia itself to introduce
Chalcedonianism.
It should be said that the Chalcedonian Armenians, especially those in the region o f Tao/Tayk.
were an important bridge between the K'art'velians/Georgians and Armenians in the period following the
schism formalized at Dwin m . Although the Armenian Church mandated in the seventh century that
contacts with the K 'art'velians should be severed completely, a wide array o f interaction remained, and
the Chalcedonian Armenians were particularly important in this regard.
In a fascinating study published in 1944, Abuladze examined the literary relationship between
the Armenians and the K'art'velians in the ninth and tenth centuries, that is to say. in the early
K 'art'velian Bagratid period .3 2 4 To set the context, Abuladze provided the following periodization for
their relations. In the first period, the fifth through the eighth centuries, there was great influence from
Armenian literature upon the Georgian, and this was especially pronounced for the period before Dwin III
in the sphere o f ecclesiastical works, including translations o f the Bible. The ecclesiastical schism did not
suddenly disengage these contacts, and the second period, commencing only from the ninth and extending
into the tenth century,32^ witnessed a shift in the center o f K 'art'velian power from Kart'li proper to
Tao/Tayk' -Klarjet' i in the southwest In this region large numbers o f Chalcedonian Armenians cam e into
close contact w ith the K'art'velians. In terms o f Georgian-Armenian literary relations, this period was
dominated by a number o f Armenian works being translated into Georgian, presumably by Armenian
Chalcedonians, o r at least at their behest. Abuladze counted no fewer than eleven Armenian
hagiographical texts which were translated into Georgian in the ninth and tenth centuries. Some
Georgian works also passed into Armenian in this period, most noteworthy among them is The
Martyrdom ofShushcmiki. Apparently, the corpus o f works attributed erroneously to Dionysius the
Aeropagite was transmitted to the Armenians through a Georgian intermediary. In Abuladze's third
period, the eleventh to the thirteenth centimes, there was a "mutual influence." although Georgian
3 2 4 Abuladze, K'art'uli da somxuri literaturuli urt'iert'obaIX-Xss-shi, with Rus. sum., "Gruzinoarmianskie literatumye sviazi v IX-X v.v.," pp. 0200-0208.
O f course. I would make the second period extend from the schism up to the reign of Ashot. In this
period, esp. ca. 800, Armenian traditions and texts were exploited by the earliest Georgian historians so as
to create a distinct Georgian historical tradition.
648
Bagratid culture was dominant. In any event, in the early Bagratid period it is clear that a large number
of Armenian works were translated into Georgian. This doubtlessly echoes a n attempt on the part o f the
K'art'velians to understand th e Armenians from a religious perspective, but it is noteworthy that
Armenian historical texts (e .g , those o f Movses Xorenac'i, Agat'angeghos) w ere not rendered into
Georgian.
Many Armenian Chalcedonians were accepted into or at least by the Georgian Church and
could become active within it. Z. Sxirtladze found Armenian (and Greek) inscriptions at the Sabereebi
monastery within the Davit' Garesji (mod. Gareji) complex in Kaxet'i.32^ Sxirtladze believed that these
inscriptions conclusively demonstrate that Armenian Chalcedonians were p re sen t Even more illustrative
is the fact that Armenian - presumably Chalcedonian craftsmen effected substantial restoration work at
the Ateni Sioni cathedral near Gori at the end o f the tenth century .3 2 7 These craftsmen, as well as other
Armenians, left numerous inscriptions, and we know the names of the workers Todosak. Aharon, and
Giorg Z. Alek'sidze, in attempting to silence a modem Armenian ciaim that Ateni Sioni and Juari in
M c'xet'a (which served as a model for the former) had been designed by Arm enians, attempted to show
that Ateni Sioni was not built by these Armenian workers. Rather, the Arm enian inscriptions clearly state
that they "restored it. In any event, it is evident that at least in ninth- and tenth-century K 'art'li.
Chalcedonian Armenians were accepted as de facto members o f the Orthodox, Chalcedonian K'art'velian
Church. This is absolutely possible, for this was not a nationalistic period. Religious affiliation was
regarded as the key to community in this instance.
We have already seen that by the time o f Davit' II, who came to the throne as the senior mep e in
1089, the Armenian Monophysites were being branded as heretics, although it is unclear if any "official"
drive had been launched to effect their reconversion, including persecution. Although the Georgian
sources usually rebuked "the Armenians" (Monophysites are clearly intended), contemporary Armenian
works reveal that a more balanced policy' was implemented, even by Davit' himself. Ironically, such a
passage was inserted into the medieval Armenian adaptation o f K'art'lis c'xovreba. which itself is a
product o f continued Armeno-Georgian literary' relations in this period:
Z. Sxirtladze, Sabereebisp'reskuli carcerebi, with E n g sum., "Mural Inscriptions o f Sabereebi," p.

145.
327
'Z. Aleksidze, Atenis sionis somxuri carcerebi, with E n g sum., "Armenian Inscriptions o f the Ateni
Sioni," pp. 119-127. See also G. Abramishvili, Step'anoz mamp'alisp'reskuli carcera atenis sionshi, with
E ng sum., "Mural Inscriptions o f Stepanoz Mampal in the Ateni Sioni," pp. 68-70. This sum. was repr.
in BK 37 (1979), pp. 363-365.
649
... [DaviH loved the Armenian people and their churches and a certain scholar, the
v a rd a p e t^ at Haghbat named Sarkawag He used to confess his sins to him; and

lowering his venerable head he would be blessed by him. He would sit with him and
embrace his neck, and he would say; "I am wasting away and smell badly from my old
age; remove yourself from me lest you be bothered." But the king would kiss him and
say; "May this odor never fail me, honorable father." He bestowed on him a ullag e near
the monastery to support him. When the latter blessed the king, placing his hands on
his head he would say: "I have found David my servant, and with holy oil I have
anointed him," as far as ten verses (? ).3 ^ 9
Although this Sarkawag is not more positively identified, he almost certainly was a Chalcedonian
Armenian. The twelfth-century Armenian historian Matthew o f Edessa lauds Davit' II:
... This king Davit' displayed very great courage in wars against the Persians [read:
Seljuqs/Turks]. M ary times he vanquished the infidel forces and shattered their
strength... Davit' was a saintly and virtuous king and endowed with all types of pious
and righteous behavior, moreover, he shone forth as a sympathizer o f the Armenian
nation. He gathered around him remnants o f the Armenian troops. Also, he founded an
Arm enian city in Georgia and called it Gora building many churches and monasteries
there. Thus he treated the Armenian nation with great deference and consideration .3 3 0
Thus Davit' H, who him self is said in Georgian texts to have led the charge against Monophysitism, is
reported by Armenian sources to have been the friend of the Armenian community, and moreover, to have
established an "Armenian city" within the confines of Georgia proper. But. did this Armenian community'
include Monophysites? Unfortunately, without further evidence this question must remain unanswered.
In any event, this episode is not documented in the extant versions o f his Georgian-language biography.
There seems to have been a great deal of toleration for Armenians, and even Armenian
Monophysites, within the Georgian kingdom of the eleventh through thirteenth centuries. After all. the
Monophysites were still largely confined to their homeland in Armenia. Under T'am ar, two Armenian
generals Zak'aria and Ivane M q'argrdzeli became the most decorated military commanders in all o f
Georgia.33 * Their father, Sargis, had served as the amirspasalari (head o f the army) of the all-Georgian
^V a rd a p et was a religious instructor, "doctor." For the institution o f vardapet in early Armenia, see
Thomson, " Vardapet in the Early Armenian Church," LeM 75/1-2 (1962), pp. 367-384.
3^ Arm. Adapt. K 'C \ p. 255 = Thomson, trans., pp. 348-349. Sarkawag vardapet is probably the
celebrated Yovhannes Sarkawag vardapet (d. 1129). I wish to thank Prof. K. Bardakjian for alerting me
to this identification.
330Matthew o f Edessa, 111.94, p. 231.
331See J.M. Rogers, "The Mxargrdzelis Between East and West," BK 34 (1976), pp. 315-326. For the
650
realm and had been granted the area o f Lore in Armenia as his domain . 3 3 2 The two brothers split their
faiths, perhaps deliberately. Z ak'aria remained a Monophysite while Ivane adopted Chalcedonianism:
... [they were] by faith Armenian, still they adhered to Orthodoxy in all [respects].
Ivane w as well-versed in letters, and accordingly he [became] familiar with the
crookedness o f the Armenian faith; he was [re]bapdzed and he became a
True C hristian . 3 3 3
Still, Zak'aria occupied the position o f amirspasalari of the Georgian kingdom; his success on the
battlefield seems to outweighed any concern about his religious affiliation; "And [although] he was by
faith an Armenian, still he possessed every virtue, [both] divine and hum an.n33^ Ivane first held the post
o f msaxurt'uxuc esi and then became the first at'abagi of Georgia.3 3 3 T he M q'argrdzeli-s personally
administered much o f Arm enia from Ani, and therefore the bulk o f Armenian Monophysites within the
Georgian kingdom were ruled directly by Armenians loyal to the all-Georgian Crown and not by Georgian
nobles and military men appointed by the court.33* This was an attempt to win the loyalty of all
Christian Armenians, both Chalcedonian and Monophysite.
The image in eleventh- through thirteenth-century Georgian historical works o f Monophysitism
as a heresy that should be opposed seems to be largely rhetorical. The Georgian Church certainly sought
to curtail Monophysitism, and would have liked to have effected its elimination, but the fact that so many
contention that the M q'argrdzeli-s were ultimately descended from the Babir tribe o f the Mesopotamian
Kurds, see: Kirakos Gandzakec'i. cap. 4, p. 118; Vardan Arewelc'i, para. 82, p. 211; and Minorsky,
Studies in Caucasian History, p. 102.
332Hist. andEul., p. 33.

333 The Life o f T'amar, p. 123 13 . 15 . Cf. the Eng. trans. o f Vivian, p. 63, and the perspective of the
Armenian historian Kirakos Gandzakec' i, cap. 4, pp. 119-120, who states that Ivane "fell into heresy"
while Zak'aria remained "Orthodox." On this, see also Vardan Arewelc'i, para. 82, p. 211.
33 *Hist. andEul., p. HO 3 . 4 ,
JArmenian historians are also familiar with these appointments; e.g., Kirakos Gandzakec'i, cap. 4, p.
118.
336Ani was ruled by the descendants of Z ak'aria (often referred to as the Zak'arids) throughout much of
the first-half o f the thirteenth century: T.Kh. Akopian, Ani stolitsa srednevekovoi Armenii: istoriia i
sudba gorodishcha, "Ani pri Zakbaridakh (1199-1236 gg.)," pp. 194-252; and Minorsky, Studies in
Caucasian History, esp. pp. 90-103. For the relations of Georgians and Armenians in the thirteenth
through the eighteenth centuries, see G. Maisuradze, K'art'veli dasomexi xalxebis urt'iert'oba XIII-XVIII
saukuneehshi, with Rus. sum ., "Vziamootnosheniia gruzinskogo i armianskogo narodov v XIII-XVIII
vekakh," pp. 327-330.
651
Monophysites had been incorporated into the kingdom made containment more practical than eradication.
To guarantee the loyalty o f the Arm enian Monophysites, the Georgian kings and queens seem not to have
organized persecutions against them , although occasionally high-level pronouncements would be made
reassure the Chalcedonian majority that their faith was truly Orthodox. But it is significant that no
persecutions are reported in the wake o f such anti-Monophysite declarations. Moreover, the Georgian
monarchs granted what might be construed as concessions to the Armenian Monophysites. including their
direct rule by the Armenian M q'argrdzeli-s (one o f whom, Zak'aria, was Monophysite) under T amar.
This is the only instance o f an identified Monophysite holding a high position o f authority' in the Georgian
realm, although it is probable that other loyal Monophysites served in the lower rungs of the
administration.
During the period o f Mongol suzerainty over Georgia, which commenced in the 1230s. another
Christian actor became active in Georgian politics: the Roman Catholic Church .3 3 7 Under Rusudan an
erratic diplomatic relationship was established with Pope Honorius in, although W.E.D. Allen suggested
that her mother T amar actually planted the seeds for this relationship by endowing churches in Cyprus
"and France... [and this] may have been a diplomatic gesture to the Latin powers ." 3 3 8 Allen's supposition
is highly speculative, and the Georgian texts themselves are unaware that T am ar endowed any
ecclesiastical establishments in France. In any event, no substantial material aid to assist the Georgians in
their struggle against the Mongols was forthcoming, although a dialogue was maintained. In 1240
Rusudan appealed to Pope Gregory IX for assistance and promised in return to place the Georgian Church
under Roman jurisdiction. Franciscans and Dominicans began to infiltrate Georgia and preach
Catholicism. The Roman Catholic bishopric o f Smyrna was transferred to Tp'ilisi by John XXII in 1328
during the reign of Giorgi V, and the first Roman Catholic bishop o f Georgia was John o f Florence. In
1330 Peter Gerald, an English Dominican and Roman Catholic bishop, was established at Soxumi
(Sukhumi) in A p'xazet'i .3 3 9 Relations with the West were gradually expanded. Thus in 1437-1439 a
Georgian bishop attended the Council o f Florence and twenty years later the papal legate o f the E ast
Ludovico o f Bologna, brought a delegation from Georgia and Trebizond to witness the coronation o f Louis
XI.34 Some Georgians converted to Catholicism, perhaps the most famous example is that o f SulxanSaba Orbeliani who himself visited Constantinople, the Vatican, and France. But Latin assistance, be it in
337 Tamarati,
L'Eglise georgienne, esp., pp. 403 etsqq.
3 3 8 Allen,
History o f the Georgian People, p. 329.
339 Toumanof "Georgia, Church in A ncient" in
NCE, vol. 6 (1967), p. 365.
340 A. Bryer, "Ludovico da Bologna and the Georgian and Anatolian Embassy o f 1460-1461," BK 19-20
(1965), pp. 178-198.
652
defense o f Georgia against the Mongols or the Ottomans, was extremely limited and did not result in
material aid. Rome took advantage o f Georgia's weakness and disunity so as to further infiltrate the
region. Even in the earliest period o f the papal-Georgian relationship, the Georgians treated the papacy
suspiciously, but respectfully, and no serious hopes were maintained that the Roman see could lift Georgia
out o f its misery. Unlike Armenian Monophysites, large communities o f Catholics did not reside in
Georgia, although an ever increasing number o f Catholic priests were making their way to the East. Since
Catholicism was not regarded as a serious threat against the Georgian Church (at least in the thirteenth
century), and the pope potentially might be a source o f aid, the Latins were not subjected to the sort of
virulent polemic that was directed against the Monophysites in this period.
IV PORTRAITS OF TWO GREAT SOVEREIGNS: DAVIT IIAND TAMAR
Following the abolition o f the K'art'velian monarchy, the memory of Vaxtang I Gorgasali was
transformed from that o f a relatively weak, but nevertheless courageous, ruler into a strong monarch who
personally engineered a peace between Byzantium and Persia. By the time that the semi-mythical story of
Vaxtang was consigned to parchment ca. 800, K 'art'li and all o f Caucasia had already endured nearly two
centuries o f Islamic rule. These crises further amplified the memory o f Vaxtang. and his accumulated
historical image projected him as the pre-Bagratid K 'art'velian hero.
Political crises also magnified the images o f Davit' II and his great granddaughter T'amar. for by
the mid thirteenth century the whole o f Caucasia was subjected to Mongol overlordship. But unlike
Vaxtang, Davit' II and T amar were powerful monarchs in their own times, and although their virtues are
exaggerated in contemporary historical texts, the fact remains that they built a pan-Caucasian empire
which extended from the Black up to the Caspian seas, from northern Caucasia up to Armenia and
northern Iran.
In modem Georgia the three most celebrated medieval rulers are Vaxtang. Davit' II. and T amar.
They have been transformed into national symbols representing a strong, uncompromising, unified
G e o r g ia .^ It is significant that these sovereigns were also commemorated in the pre-modem period
Thus, both modem nationalists and medieval writers eulogized and misunderstood these figures, raising
them to an almost sacred level.
In closing this study, we should direct our attention to the reigns o f Davit' and T am ar so as to
juxtapose some features o f kingship during the apogee o f medieval Bagratid rule with that o f the pre-
^ E .g ., Davit' was proclaimed to be "the symbol o f Georgian unity" on the front page o f the Russianlanguage Vestnik Gruzii, 8 Feb. 1991.
653
Bagratid period. These two monarchs are described fay three contemporary texts: Davit''s reign is
celebrated in the anonymous, twelfth-century Life o f Davit' while T amar's activities attracted two
anonymous thirteenth-century historians who composed The Histories and Eulogies and The Life o f
Tamar respectively.
The Qualities o f a Good Monarch

The Life o f Davit' and subsequent medieval Bagratid-era historical works, in contrast to their
pre-Bagratid antecedents, routinely digress so as to expound the qualities of a good monarch. The interest
in this theme is indicative of the near-contemporary nature o f our sources (whereas the pre-Bagratid
works are often far removed from their subjects and written in a period in which the kingship itself had
fallen into abeyance) as well as o f the deliberate fashioning o f the conception of kingship under the
Georgian Bagratids. To be fair, pre-Bagratid histories relate some of the essential features o f kingship,
especially the king's personal participation in battle, his sanction and protection o f religion (be it the preChristian "pantheon" o f gods or the Christian God), and especially his blood-right Generally speaking,
these qualities are universal to kingship regardless o f place or time, and it is not extraordinary that we
should find these features applied to the Bagratid kings o f Georgia.
From the twelfth century medieval Georgian historical works comment upon the precise virtues
o f a good king. Stress is routinely placed upon the establishing of "order" (cesi, fabo). So as to achieve
this end, kings should be fearless and steadfast, and should possess foresight, experience, and wisdom.34^
The king should also be of superior intelligence, and as we shall see, this point is especially pronounced
for Davit' II, who is said to have been obsessed with reading. T araar is attributed with divine wisdom,
extreme intelligence, and humility; her courage was also legendary (though, according to the conventions
o f the time, she could not lead her troops into battle), and she herself is said to have raised a lion . 343 We
may summarize the virtues of kingship with two contemporary passages:3 4 4
... For those who thirsted to see [Davit' Els] pleasantness, goodness, and wisdom
gathered before him from the ends o f the world. Who was so pleasant to meet, who
3 4 ^7i&e Life
3 4 3 ///sr.
and Eul., pp. 61-62.
344Passages like this might be envisaged as a model for later kings to emulate. For the apparent trans. or
adaptation of an Islamic "mirror for princes" into Georgian (which pleads for justice and mercy), the socalled Mep 'et 'a salaro or The Treasure o f Kings, see Blake, "Georgian Secular Literature," HSNPL 15
(1933), p. 41. Rayfield, Literature o f Georgia, p. 116, dates the Georgian version of this text to the
seventeenth century.
654
so charming in conversation and so agreeable in silence? He was handsome o f form

and even more elegant in the adornment o f his body; upright o f stature and noble
o f figure; powerful in [bodily] strength, and even stronger in acuteness; delightful
in smile, and even more so in distress; graceful of aspect, fearsome like a lion in
striking terror; wise in understanding, wiser in decision; simple in demeanor,
methodical in conduct, turning to anger quietly, using praise to instruct, yet not
swamping any o f the virtuous immeasurably. He was stately with regard to the
proud, and humble with the meek; even to his enemies he was amiable and beloved
because o f the virtues that h e possessed. Who had attained to such an extent
a single one o f those virtues; who o f all [men] has gathered them all. each one in
perfection? It is impossible even to admire, let alone imitate, all those in which he
became perfect He was like a ship filled with an invaluable cargo o f virtues, but
unable to leave for Gadira. ^
O f T am ar it is said that:
What need is there to speak o f her deeds when they were known from shore to shore, as
- to borrow the words o f a sage is testified by everything that we have seen?
I do not blame someone for attempting an act beyond one's abilities... Who can
speak o f her according to her merit? Which o f her virtues should be praised first, which
one last? Her boundless modesty, unrivaled majesty, laudable serenity, measured
severity, gracious sympathy, compassionate clemency, guileless innocence, true
uprightness, unostentatious generosity, and universal benevolence, and paramount
among all o f her qualities fear of God and faithfulness in His service: to all o f these
she attained as no other could. Every kingdom in the vicinity o f K 'a rt'li is a testimony
to this: how many impoverished monarchs did she make rich, how many did she restore
to their thrones, how many did she bring back from exile to reign, and how many did
she release who had been condemned to death ? 346
Throughout the biography o f Davit' and subsequent medieval histories, detailed accounts of the
Georgian monarchs bestowing largesse and offices upon their subjects are commonplace. This is, of
course, a reflection both o f the Crown's attempt to maintain the loyalty o f the nobles and army and o f the
military successes o f Georgia. The nobles and soldiers participated in the king's court, and they often
were invited on royal hunts.
Bagratid-era histories also feature the earliest extant descriptions o f feasts (sing, nadimi,
5o>c?o3o) held at the court. It is significant that no banquets are documented for the reign o f Davit", and if
we are to believe his biographer, then it would appear that Davit found them to be abhorrent before God
However, during the reign of T amar at the very zenith o f medieval Bagratid authority some details
34^The Life o f Davit', pp. 219-220 = Q auxchishvili e d , pp. 360-361. The trans. here is that of
Thomson, pp. 350-351; cf. the trans. o f Vivian, p. 45. Thomson, p. 351, footnote 114. equates Gadira
with Gades (Cidiz).
3 4 6 Ii/e
o f Tamar, pp. 146-147. My trans. is based upon that o f Vivian, p. 92.
655
are divulged. At afeast heldfor a Muslimprince who hadreputedlyMen in love withTamar, several
entertainments arementionedincluding singing, music, and the presentationofgifts.^ Several of
Tamars Muslimclient-rulers tookpart in a later celebration:
... a feast was readied [which included] entertainment ofan excellence and beauty
beyonddescription. There were singing poets, performingacrobats, presents of
expensive linen for [the Muslim] leaders andtheirmen. They' remainedfor a week of
feasting andcarousing, exchanging presents, huntingandwatchinggames, which
evokedwords ofpraise fromAmir-Miranand his nobles and ulama-s. for "Iraq.
Azerbaijan, andIrando not produceplayers like these" ..348
But feasts couldalsobe usedto insult unruly Muslims. The captureofGandza is describedas follows:
Insucha waythe favors of Godwere showereduponthem, [forwhen] the arrivedbefore
Gandzathe citizens came out to meet themandtopetitionfor peace, and they
voluntarily surrenderedthe city. The conveyedDavit' [Soslani, T araars second
husband] to the palace [darbazi], sitting himuponthe throne ofthe Sultan, they
soundedthepanjanobat'i [i.e., a drum] andprepareda great [feast] ofpork.349
Royal banquets arealso common throughout the thirteenth-centuryKnight in the Panthers Skin by Shot'a
Rust'aveli. Its KingRostevan is made to say to his daughter andheir "... spending on feasting and wine
is betterthan hoardingour substance. That which we give makes us richer, that which is hoarded is
lost"330 Thus, theking suggests to his heir that feasting was bothappropriateanddesirable.
There canbe no question that some formof feasting was present in the courts of the pre-Bagratid
kings andpresidingprinces, but the fact remains that no contemporary descriptionof themsurvives.
Furthermore, we must takecare so as not to equatenadimi, the feasting relatedin medieval Georgian
historical works, with the modemsup ra
cf. Arabicsujre). The termsup 'ra is not applied in
any extant medieval historical text, and moreover, its strict protocol witha tablemaster (t 'amada,
os3oiOi) regulatingan extensive, ritualized series oftoasts is completelyunattestedin the pre-modem
period. Tobe sure, thesup'ra which seems to have been fashioned largelyby nobles in the nineteenth
century and seems tohave become part of an inclusive all-Georgianidentity only in the early Soviet
p. 43 ^.jg.
348/A/</., pp. 6616-672- My trans. is based upon that of Vivian p. 128.
349//&ofTamar, p. 127
33 Shota Rust'aveli, Urushadze trans., para. 50, p. 21, and Georgiantext, p. 16:"... b3i-3i3i-coocoiC5
^^H ist. andEul.,
Sgbifijo, 336*
bagitfjjijjgoi?!
âbiQi g^bggd, 3g5oi;
656
period is alm ost certainly based upon some antecedents, but we possess absolutely no evidence that the
structure of the m odem
sup'raexisted in the medieval period.35 *

glaxafd.
Attention is also paid to secure the loyalty o f the non-nobles and to provide for the poor (
a c j i b ^ o ).3 5 2 Davit* reportedly provided for their well-being, and daily he would fill a small purse with
coins and distribute them secretly to the poor. On one occasion his biographer reports that Davit* donated
some 24,000
drahkani-s to a fund for the poor.3 5 3
In order to aid monks who had fallen ill. that king is
supposed to have constructed a hospital where he used to visit the patients in person.35^ Demetre I and
Giorgi in are likewise said to have conferred alms upon the disadvantaged .3 5 3 T amar donated money to
TheHistoriesandEulogiesfocuses upon her military successes (though

executed through her two consorts) and we know about T amor's charitable activities largely from The
LifeofTamar.
the poor.35* It is noteworthy that
Very little is related about infrastructure, although Davit* is said to have built roads and
bridges .3 5 2 Roads are rarely named in medieval Georgian historical works o f time o f Davit* and T amar.
Although the historical record does not provide us with substantial details to the development and
maintenance o f infrastructure, the demands o f the all-Georgian kingdom were great in this regard .358
Supra,ASSC
sup'ra.
supra.
t'amada
John
Axali aght'k'ma
sup'ra t'amada
sup'ra
3 5 1 D.A. Holisky, "The Rules o f the

1 (1989), pp. 22-40. on
Holisky suggests that
the "custom has a long history, intertwined with Georgian history its e lf (p. 38, note 3). This comment
would seem to reflect the Georgians' own perception o f the great antiquity o f the
It should also be
noted that in
Georgian translations, the term
is used in
II.9 to describe the
m aster o f a feast During this celebration in Galilee Jesus is said to have turned water into wine. See:
"Saxareba ioanesi," (II.8-9),
4 (1990), p. 9; an d
(1982), pp. 218-219 (my
thanks to Dr. P. Crego for bringing this to my attention). The terms
and
are also absent in
Rust* aveli. I am indebted to many Georgian acquaintences for their opinions on the
and especially
to
K. Church.
recentmodem
inMnat'obi
ch'emidzma,
3 5 2 Variant glaxa: cf. "peasant" glexi (aEjflbo).
For a recent consideration o f the development o f the

peasantry in the succeeding period, see D. Megreladze.
11
(1991). with Rus. sum., "Krest'ianstvo Gruzii v XIII-XV w .," pp. 175-176.
353
Sakart velosglexobaX I-.Wsaukuneebshi
TheLifeofDavit', pp. 208-209 = Qauxchishvili ed., p. 353.
3 5 f/h/c/., p. 176 = Qauxch ishvili ed., p. 331.
FiveReigns, pp. 365g (Demetre) and 36713.

3 5 ^Z//e ofTam
ar, pp. 125, 129-130,140, and 147. See also R. Metreveli, T'amari, pp. 92-93.
3 5 2 77e LifeofDavit', p. 209 = Qauxch'ishvili ed., pp. 353-354. The Beslet* i bridge was constructed in
the twelfth century and still stands today. For a photograph, see R. Metreveli, T'am
ari, p. 79.
E.g., on the extensive network of canals during the reign o f T am a r, see R. Metreveli, T'am
ari, p. 84.
3 5 5 ///sr.
657
The silence might reflect the fact that roads, bridges, and the like were simply taken for granted, and that
the focus o f histories o f this period was upon the royal image.
One of the most prom inent features of royal authority under Davit' and T a m a r is the constant
engagement of their military forces.369 Contemporary historians make it abundantly clear that the very
existence o f the all-Georgian kingdom depended upon the perpetual engagement o f the troops. This was
required for three main reasons: that they would not be stripped o f their potency; that they would not have
time to plot against the monarchy, and that the non-Georgian units in the army would not have the
opportunity to defect
This point brings us to Giorgi IV Lasha, the son and successor o f T a m a r. He was an ineffective
king on many counts. He was deemed immoral by his subjects (he refused to marry even after fathering
an illegitimate son) and alcoholism probably cost him his life. The accounts of his tenure contain the only
serious criticisms of a Bagratid ruler, yet they are brief and cautiously worded. His reign contrasts sharply
with those o f Davit' and T amar, marking the beginning o f the decline o f the medieval Georgian
monarchy. The most resounding contemporary reproach o f Giorgi is that while he was "brave, manly,
strong, arrogant, bold, forceful, headstrong, and munificent" he was also "fond o f entertainment, wine,
and good-eating." The anonymous Chronicle o f a Hundred Years discloses that "there was peace in his
kingdom, so [that the people began to] drink and eat [in excess]..."360 Essentially, Giorgi failed to keep
his troops occupied, and following the lead of the king the soldiers began to drown themselves with food,
wine, and entertainments. This historian foreshadows the impending Mongol invasion by concluding
that:
And so it came to pass that the Georgian community, when they became content they
turned to fornication and drunkenness, and foolish, unsuitable m en now resided in the
royal palace. Although the kat'alikos and the t'avadi-s [i.e., high nobles] of the
kingdom, especially the at'abagi Ivane, considered this a matter o f great concern, none
[of them] could endure to remain [at the palace] so they departed, and each took up his
own residence. This behavior was the cause o f many crimes which resulted in the
destruction o f Georgia...361
359For an enumeration o f the battles fought during the reign o f T am a r, see M.G. Janashvili, Tamar
mep e, pp. 49-69. It should be noted that Janashvili occasionally uses the non-contemporary title mep'ek'ali ("female mep'e") for T a m a r. See also D. Karichashvili, Tamar mep'e (1184-1213).
360
Otron. Hund. Years, p. 4223_28= Qauxch'ishvili ed., pp. 156 j8-1572; cf. the trans. of Vivian, p. 102.
361/b/d., p. 43g.l8 = Qauxch'ishvili ed., p. 1579 . 5. My trans. is based upon that o f Vivian, pp. 102103.
658
Notwithstanding this lamentation, the position o f Giorgi Lasha as king, for all o f his shortcomings, was
never called into question by contemporary historians, for as the son o f T a m a r he was the rightful holder
o f royal authority.
Solar and Astral Imagery and the Concept o f Sharavandedi
The Bagratid monarchs o f the medieval Georgian kingdom are depicted, both textually and
monumentally, as uniquely legitimate. A diverse range of metaphors and comparisons were employed by
contemporary writers with regards to th e Bagratids so as to set the legitimacy and ability of that dynasty in
the context of "world" history. These w ill be examined shortly. Comparisons which associate the dynasty
with the Sun and cosmos, is worthy o f special attention. One o f the few points where textual an d artistic
evidence clearly converge is the solar a n d astral imagery developed and fostered under the Georgian
Bagratids. Here, however, we shall lim it our analysis to textual evidence.
The Life o f Davit' associates th at great monarch with the Sun (mze, dbg). Indeed, he was "the
Sun o f all Sovereignty"362 and is compared directly to the Sun itself as being both brilliant and necessary
for life.363 Similar connections are m ade for T am a r, for she is likened to the Sun and Apollo,364 and is
repeatedly described as being "the Sun o f Suns" and "the Light of Lights."365 T a m a r and her second
husband, the Bagratid Davit' Soslani, together are said to be as radiant as the Sun.366 Moreover. T a m a r
was also "the Sun of K 'art'Ii."367 Indeed, solar imagery is commonplace in the Georgian literature o f the
time, and is particularly prevalent in the numerous works of the Georgian monks residing on M l Athos.
in hagiography (e.g., The Life ofllarion the K'art'velian and the reworked Life o f Peter the Iberian), and
in the poetry lauding Davit' II (Shavt'elis Abdulmesiani) and T a m a r (Ch'axruxadzes Tamariani).
^^The Life o f Davit', p. 165 = Qauxch'ishvili ed., p. 323. For a later inscription at Gelat'i describing
Davit' as "the Sun of Christianity," see supra. It should be said that pre-Bagratid kings could also be
associated with the Sun. E.g.: P 'am avazs dream in which he anoints himself with the essence o f the Sun:
Aristarchus, first-century BC dynast o f Colchis, who wore a radiate crown; and the legendary Aefites (of
the Jason and the Argonaut myth) was understood to be the son o f the Sun (for these last two examples,
see Braund, Georgia in Antiquity, pp. 37-38).
3637%e Life o f Davit', pp. 173 and 206 = Qauxch'ishvili ed , pp. 329 and 351.
364///sr. and Eul., p. 32.
365E.g., ibid., pp. 51 and 109. For T a m a r as "the mep e of mep e-s, the Sun of Suns, and the Queen of
Queens," see p. 103.
366jL//& ofT'amar, pp. 122 and 140.
367Here K 'artli should probably be understood as "Georgia." See ibid., p. 146.
659
Other astral imagery is used to describe the marriage o f D a v it's two daughters (they were "like a pair o f
lum inaries")^* and T amar herself is compared to the brilliance o f Venus. ^
It is precisely during this period that a new description was applied by Bagratid monarchs to
themselves: sharavandedi (<3.i(fN>3.i6g3oo; variants sharavandi. sharavandedobay). This term is
unquestionably Iranian in origin, and is related to the M P ers. s h a h r a v a n d The word sharavandedi
may have been used already in the pre-Bagratid period, for the sixth-century Martyrdom o f Evstat 7 relates
that God set down the cesi sharavandedobisay (fyjbo 3j>6i3J>6c2a5caBobiQ), or the "rite of consecration/
coronation, for the Israelite k i n g s . B u t it is unknown i f the original version o f this text included this
phrase, for The Martyrdom o f Evstat Vlike the preponderance extant pre-Bagratid texts survives only
in Bagratid-era MSS. That is to say, it is possible that the term sharavandedi was introduced into the text
by a Bagratid-era scribe. But I do not think this was the case, particularly since the term is not applied to
any local pre-Bagratid rulers and since it is used only in a n abstract sense. Enlightening in this regard is
the rare use o f sharavandedi in some medieval Georgian translations of the Bible. In the Oshki Bible o f
the second-half o f the tenth century, sharavandedi is occasionally used as a synonym for "crown" (or even
"to reign"), and this is precisely the definition given by Abuladze in his Old Georgian l e x i c o n . B u t
even Biblical texts do not assist us greatly with respect to the pre-Bagratid period, for the Oshki Bible, like
other extant medieval Georgian Bibles (with the exception o f some fragments), is a production o f the
^*T he Life o f Davit', p. 180 = Qauxch'ishvili ed., p. 334.

Hist, and Eul., p. 59 j j_j2- * should think that this phrase was inspired by a similar, slightly earlier
passage (not about T amar) by Giorgi Me'ire. The Life o f Giorgi Mt'acmideli. cap. 4. p. 1 1 6 ^ : vit'arc'a
mt'iebi brcqinvida. But comparisons to Venus were made already by the tenth-century Giorgi M erch'ule.
The Works o f GrigolXandzt'eli, cap. 2, p. 126 (brcqinvides vit'arc'a mt'iebni, "like the brilliance o f
Venus"), and cap. 49, p. 186 ( vit'arc'a mt'iebi shoris varskvlavt'a. "like Venus among the stars").
*170
Andronikashvili, Narkvevebi, pp. 392-398, with references to medieval usages o f this word; and
Sarjveladze, Dzveli k'art'uli enis lek'sikoni, pp. 228-229 (who notes multiple usages in the Bagratid
period but only one certain pre-Bagratid reference in Mart. Evstat 7 [see infra]). Cf. S.-S. Orbeliani, vol.
2, p. 279. The Ir. origin o f this word is interesting, for it denies the intimate connections of the Bagratids
with the N ear Eastern world even though they consciously sought to depict themselves in their own
histories as more connected to the Byzantine commonwealth.
*171
lMart. Evstat 7, cap. 5, p. 3 7 ^ 2 . 3 3 ; cf. Lang trans., p. 104, who does not offer comment upon (or
transliteration of) this phrase. It is interesting that the oldest MS has rendered sharavandedi as
sharadelobisay, sharavandedi is the only obvious correction for this rendition. It should also be said that
this source, cap. 7, p. 4 3 2 . 3 , is also familiar with the term brcqinvale (see infra).
072
Abuladze, Dzveli k'art'uli enis lek'sikoni, p. 471, with excerpts from relevant texts including the
Oshki Bible. The use of sharavandedi in the Oshki Bible is noted in Esther II. 17 and VIII. 15. The
former example refers to the king crowning Esther "with the crown o f queenship" (daadgna sharavandi
sadedop'loni t'avsamissa, n>sstsyfbi> 3 iA i 30>6 coo bijgaejoiojExtBo ro ^ b i 3obbi).
660
Bagratid era .3 7 3 Thus it is not altogether clear whether the earliest versions o f the Georgian Bible
employed the term sharavandedi. In any event, it does seem possible - and I should think likely that
sharavandedi was used sparingly in the pre-Bagratid period, and that it simply had the meaning of
"crown" and "to reign."
The notion of sharavandedi, merely connoting rulership. was modified under the Bagratids.
perhaps as early as the second-half o f the tenth century. Modem specialists have not thought it necessary
to reevaluate the concept o f sharavandedi, even though its occurrence in Georgian texts explodes in the
eleventh century under the Bagratids. With this study's attempt to demonstrate that the Bagratids
consciously depicted themselves and their realm as a break in the Georgian historical tradition (and to
some extent this is in fact the case), it becomes necessary to consider whether the frequent application o f
the term sharavandedi and its application to the Bagratids themselves coincides with a change in the
word's meaning.
It is evident that under the Bagratids the term sharavandedi, still possessing the earlier meaning
o f "crown" or "rule," became linked to solar imagery. Both D avit' and T a m a r, and mam- of their
successors, are said to have exuded sharavandedi. This implied that they were monarchs, but this
description also credited them with possessing "aureoles" or even the "corona" o f the Sun. In this manner
T am ar is said to have "like the Sun enveloped everyone in the light radiated by her sharavandedi [i.e.,
halo/corona/ aureoles/radiance o f rulership]."3 7 4 In addition, the truncated title o f one of T am ars
contemporary biographies is The Histories and Eulogies o f [Those Possessing] Sharavandedi (Istoriani
daazmani sharavandedt'ani,a\3tyn#nifoa joa a1i3a6o 8 A<*jA3 A6 cg3e>A6o ).373 D avit'him self uses the
term in his Will o f 1123.37(*
I would suggest that the imagery was even more complex than an association with the Sun, for in
my view sharavandedi also signifies the "haloes" which usually encompass Bagratid rulers in
contemporary a r t Eastmond detected remnants o f a halo around a portrait o f Ashot n ( d 918) at the
Tbet' i cathedral. Should the fresco be contemporary, then it would seem that the K 'art'velian Bagratids
were already depicting themselves as being surmounted by haloes in the early tenth century. Moreover, it
3 7 3 Tarchnishvili, Geschichte, pp. 313-328. The tenth century (i.e., the early Bagratid period) witnessed
the production o f numerous Georgian Bibles. This activity went hand-in-hand with the K'art'velian
monarchy's turn towards Byzantium; thus, the Georgian Bible was widely copied and even retranslated
from the Gk. during this period (earlier trans. had been from the Arm.).
3 7 4 I//fe ofT'amar, p.
sharavandt'a).
hife o f Davit', p. 206g = Q auxchishvili e d , p. 351 ^ (mzisa
375This title is often rendered as Hist, and Eul.

37<*Test: o f Davit' II, p. 10 (Rus. trans. p. 16).
661
would seem that the haloes present on contemporary border markers (see supra) also signified the
sharavandedi.
The sharavandedi was usually reserved for Georgian Bagratid monarchs 3 7 7 and infrequently for
important Georgian saints. But other renowned individuals were able to partake in the solar imagery and
even be compared to the Sun itself.37* Such figures are often said to be brcqinvale (6 6 ^ 0 6 3 *2 5 3 ). or
"brilliant," "shining," "radiant," "resplendent"3 7 9 In fe et brcqinvale is an older concept than
sharavandedi, for only the former is found in the earliest extant Bagratid historical(-hagiographical)
work, the tenth-century Works o f GrigolXandzt'eli. This feet would seem to suggest that in the tenth
century sharavandedi had not yet been applied to the Bagratids and it is likely that they had not yet been
associated so closely with the Sun. In any event, the term brcqinvale is connected to the Sun and other
astral bodies, and it is applied to both royal and non-royal subjects. Unlike sharavandedi, it does not
necessarily denote a monarch. Thus, while T am a r could be described as having both sharavandedi and
brcqinvale, the holy m an Ilarion was only brcqinvale?* It should be noted that a later king, the
fourteenth-century Giorgi V is called brcqinvale ("the Resplendent") even in his own time, and this term
seems to have been adopted by him as a sobriquet Likewise, the medieval A p'xaz equivalent o f
brcqinvale, lasha (2 5 *8 4 ), was adopted by Giorgi IV, the successor and son o f T a m a r.3**
Although there is an ancient tradition in the Near East (and elsewhere) o f associating monarchs
with cosmic phenomena, I believe that the Bagratids' intense interest in associating themselves with the
Sun represents, at least in part, a transmission o f ideas from Byzantium. Byzantine emperors of this
period were often associated with the Sun. Thus, Manuel I Komnenos (1143-1180) is said to be a "new
377We should again emphasize that the concept o f sharavandedi was not applied to pre-Bagratid kings in
our earliest (likewise pre-Bagratid) sources. Neither the Vaxtang VI Commission nor Vaxushti (both
eighteenth century) inserted the term into their reworkings of the pre-Bagratid section of K 'C\
37*Zosime M tacm ideli, Hymns to Ep't'wmeMt'acmideli, cap. 2, para. 4, p. 509, states that E p 'twme
was "like the Sun" (vit'ar mzisa). In Giorgi Merch'ule, The Works o f Grigol Xandzt'eli. cap. 7 6 ,p. 213,
we find a comparison to "the heat o f the Sun" (vit'arc'a mzisa mc'xinvarebaman). The "brilliance o f the
Sun" {mzisa brcqinvale, discussed in this paragraph) is employed in The Life o f Nino in Mok'. k'art'.-, see
Shat. Codex., pp. 351^j an d 354g.
379The etymology o f this word is not attested in Andronikashvili, Narkvevebi. For its usage and meaning
in Georgian New Testament texts, see Molitor, Glossarium Ibericum. vol. 1. p. 31. It should be noted that
Molitor does not document the presence of the term sharavandedi in these sources.
lOA
JWLife o f Ilarion the K'art'., cap. 1, p. 9. actually begins with the word brcqinvale. Ilarion is repeatedly
described as possessing brcqinvale.
3 **/fcr. andEul., p. 5 8 3 . 4 : " ... &*60 a - 6 *o253&32!?*O2 Lxnqntroob* 009 *6 3 8 *6 * *3 6 *603 * 36003 *" =
"the illuminator/enlighener/radiance o f the world in the Ap'sari [i.e., A p'xaz] tongue." It should be noted
that the earliest MSS o f this text, the Mm variants, do not incorporate the phrase "the Ap'sari tongue."
662
S u n . " ^ In the Byzantine context, such comparisons represented a transfer of the symbolism o f the Sun,
used to express the divinity o f Christ, to the person o f the emperor. It is likely that solar symbolism
penetrated the Georgian court from Byzantine models, or that it at least further justified existing Georgian
paradigms. Indeed, in contemporary texts written at the Georgian Iveron monastery on Mt. Athos. solar
imagery is quite frequent Comparisons are often made between the great saints produced by Iveron and
the Sun, and these saints are often described as being "brilliant [like the Sun]" (brcqinvale)?^ O f
course, there is also the possibility that the Sasanid notion o f famah rendered this type o f symbolism even
more potent and appropriate, although the contemporary Georgian sources do not comment upon this.
According to the arguments advanced in this study, the adoption by the Bagratids o f a blatantly Persian
concept would not have been likely, yet the Crown's non-Christian subjects might have associated it with
famah , which was still recognized owing in part to the popularity of the Shah-nama. It is odd that The
Knight in the Panther's Skin o f Rust'aveli, which is modeled on the genre of the Persian epic, does not
employ the term sharavandedi. In any event, the Bagratid concept of sharavandedi nevertheless
demonstrates Georgia's Persian heritage and inclusion in the Near Eastern world, for the term itself is
Persian. Thus, the Middle Persian loan-word was transformed by the Christian Bagratids (who
themselves denied Georgia's Persian heritage) into what may have been, at least in part, a Byzantine
concept
Davit' and T am ar were Christians, and solar/astral epithets and comparisons are often uttered in
unison with more Christian-sounding descriptions. Thus T a m a r was "the Sun of Suns, the Light of
Lights, an innocent lamb, like C hrist like [the King-Prophet] D a v id ..." ^ To emphasize T am ar's piety,
one historian proclaims her to have possessed not only the sharavandedi but also to have been "the
Mountain of G o d ." - ^
^ P . Magdalino, The Empire ofManuellKomnenos, 1143-1180, pp. 417-418,436, etsqq.

E.g., Giorgi M e' ire. The Life o f Giorgi M t 'acmideli\ Zosime M tacmideli, Hymns to Ep 7 wme
Mt'acmideli\ and Basili M t'acmideli, Hymn to Ep't'wme Mt'acmideli, esp. cap. I, para. 2, p. 516, for the
comparison "like the brilliance o f the Sun" (... vit'arc'a mze brcqinvale,... goaistiQs 97>a
6 6 ^yo 6 3 iC5 a), cf. cap. 3, para. 4, p. 518 and Life o f Peter Iber. Georgian, cap. 11. p. 2 3 0 -34. 3 5 ,
brcqinvida vit'arc'a mze (this source, though about a considerably earlier figure, was written no earlier
than the eleventh century).
^
Hist. andEul., p. 5 1 j j . ^ .
JO',Ibid., p. 2 1 5 . 5 . I W0U14 add that modem nationalists have also seized upon the image of
sharavandedi. E.g.. the so-called quasi-political group named "the Society o f Davit' aghmashenebeli''
(founded ca. 1990) published a newspaper entitled Sharavandi. In its first issue, dated August 1990, the v
in the title Sharavandi was surrounded by a halo, and the remainder of the page was a reproduction of the
famous fresco o f Davit' n a t Gelat'i's main church. In this image, Davit' has a halo painted around his
head.
663
Royal Epithets, Metaphors, and Renewal
The twelfth and thirteenth centuries witnessed the establishment o f a pan-Caucasian Georgian
Empire which extended from the Caspian to the Black seas. Unparalleled in Georgian history, the
scholars o f the time could not rely upon pre-Bagratid explanations for the contemporary political
situation, for never in the history of Caucasia had the entire isthmus been ruled by a single local monarch.
The search for appropriate epithets, metaphors, and comparisons to account for and describe the allGeorgian and all-Caucasian Bagratid kingdom commenced in earnest following the quick succession o f
military victories by Davit' H. Moreover, the comparisons made with a diverse range o f figures
Classical, Christian, Byzantine, and to a lesser extent Persian and Islamic demonstrates the familiarity
o f contemporary Georgian scholars with the varied traditions o f the region.
Perhaps the most famous royal epithet in all o f pre-modem Georgian history is that of Davit' II.
Aghmashenebeli (se^SgBa& acpo ) ,- ^ 6 as we have seen, is difficult to render into English: most
frequently it is translated as either "the Builder" or "the Rebuilder." 3 8 7 Modem Georgian nationalists
prefer the latter term so that they may depict Davit' as reestablishing the alleged u n ified Georgian
kingdom o f his predecessors, especially o f P'am avaz and Vaxtang. But no pre-Bagratid ruler had
succeeded in uniting all o f Georgia, and the consolidation o f the whole o f Caucasia was unprecedented.
Even in the context o f Davit's biography, the epithet aghmashenebeli should be rendered as "the
Builder," at least in terms o f assembling the kingdom. But, "the Restorer" is also applicable in terms o f
his restoring daily life in Georgia to its usual paces. In several instances The Life o f Davit' laments that
Georgia had been devastated by the Seljuqs. Not only had buildings been toppled and churches
desecrated, but a great part o f the population had been eradicated, and those who survived had fled.
Therefore, on the eve o f Davit''s rule many regions o f Georgia had been depopulated: "For Davit' became
king at a time when K' art' Ii had been devastated and with the exception o f those within a few fortresses
no men remained in the land/villages [sop'eli], and no buildings [remained standing ]." 3 8 8 The final verb
386This term is italicized because it is a later Georgian term applied to D avit'. Cf. "Gorgasali" which is
not italicized in this study, it was used by near-contemporary historians for Vaxtang, and moreover, it is
not a Georgian, but Persian, compound. Moreover, "Gorgasali" was oflen used independently to refer to
Vaxtang such is not the case for aghmashenebeli.
3 8 7 Cf. E. Kochlamazasbvili, "Davit' aghmasheneblis zedcodebis gagebisat'vis," J V 1 (1990), pp. 47-51,
who suggests that the meaning o f the sobriquet is actually closer to the Georgian amaghordzinebeli, or
"the Regenerator" or "the Reviver."
38827re life o f Davit', p. 1 6 6 n -13 = Qauxch'ishvili ed., p. 3 2 4 ^ .1 3 - The depopulation of K 'artli in the
eleventh century (during Seljuq raids) is yet another reason why Ap' xazet' i/Imeret' i had emerged as the
core o f the kingdom (cf. royal titulature in which A p'xazet'i is always given first place). For other
664
in this passage, "buildings," is the participle shenebulebay, o r "that which has been built." Clearly, the
root of the epithet aghmasbenehfli is related to this verbal form. In any event. K 'art' li and Georgia were
restored, and an all-Georgian kingdom including Tp'ilisi and Kaxet'i/Heret'i/Rani was for the first time
established, only during the reign o f D avit'.
How may we account for the fact that the epithet aghmashenebeli does not arise in The Life o f
Davit 7 Within this text, the only association o f Davit' with it is in a later (i.e.. eighteenth-century)
Vaxtangiseuli rendition o f its title. But the earliest MSS, AMQm, omit this epithet from the title.
Those Vaxtangiseuli MSS which incorporate folio headings usually employ the phrase "Davit'
aghmashenebeli' for distinguishing this monarch's biography. But this evidence is rather late. More
revealing are the brief contemporary eulogies for Davit' by Arsen Iqalt'oeli and Ioane Petrici in which
aghmashenebeli is conspicuously a b s e n t . I n contemporary works Davit' is usually called "the Great."

Aghmashenebeli was a later creation (and not used during his lifetime), although precisely when the
epithet was first applied remains indeterminate.
Since Bagratid authority over all Caucasia was unprecedented, the models that m ight be
extracted from pre-Bagratid historical works were largely incompatible. Moreover, as we have seen, by
the eleventh century the Georgian Bagratids consciously sought to distance themselves from their nonDavidic predecessors, and thus the employment o f such paradigms ~ should they have been applicable would probably not have been executed. Notwithstanding twelfth- and thirteenth-century historians
adopted Biblical and Classical comparisons for Davit' II and T a m a r in an attempt to relate the vast and
unprecedented reach of their hegemony in Caucasia and the northern part o f the Near East and their
alleged renown throughout the world.
The majority o f the comparisons may be grouped under the Biblical/Christian rubric. Many of
the Biblical metaphors are derived from the O ld Testam ent.^* Thus Davit' II is said to: have a voice
like a lion's roar, rush like a whirlwind, as to be like Goliath(!)/a goliat'i1
and E lia z a r,- ^ be more
accounts relating the Seljiiqs devastation o f Georgia, the most ferocious o f which were called the
t'urk'obay (mgrt^mBaa) or "Turkish [conquest]," see The Life o f Davit', pp. 159-161, 166, 168, and 198199 = Qauxch'ishvili ed., pp. 319-321. 324, 325-326, and 346-347.
90Q
The Life o f Davit', apparatus criticus, p. 157 = Qauxch'ishvili ed., apparatus criticus, p. 318.
Arsen Iqalt'oeli, Epitaph o f Davit' II, p. 535; and Ioane Petrici, Eulogyfor Davit' II, p. 534.
Although the epithet aghmashenebeli is used in the titles of these texts, it does not appear within the texts
themselves. The titles appear to have been a later (?modem) interpolation.
1Q1
For the possibility o f Old Testament themes being used in the decoration of contemporary Georgian
palaces, see Eastmond, Royal Imagery in Medieval Georgia, unpub. typescript, pp. 126-128.
5Q5
Davit's comparison to Goliath is odd. It is possible that the pre-Bagratid notion that kings should be
goliat 7-s ("goliaths," "giants") influenced this comparison. I f so, the comparison might actually read
665
learned than Besel o r Ethan;394 resemble Moses in judgment, and DavitMs worsting o f the Armenian
Monophysites in a debate is likened to the Red Sea's overwhelming o f the Egyptians;395 and to have had
subjects who were so interested in hearing his pronouncements and judgments that they climbed into trees
like Zacchaeus.396 D a v it's virtue and purity are compared to that o f Anthony, while his debating skills
are likened to that o f Basil the G reat397 As for T am ar, she is said to have: been a second Hezekiah in
humility;39** not been exceeded in deed by any other woman, and therefore she is compared to David (for
his innocence and justice), Abraham (for his calmness), and Jesus (for His charity):399 and to have
surpassed the Byzantine em peror Theodosius the Great in his upholding o f the Holy Law.400 From the
references here, it is evident that the author o f The Life ofT'am ar is considerably more interested than his
counterpart in m aking such comparisons than that o f The Histories and Eulogies.
As should be expected, Davit' II and T a m a r are often equated with the Old Testament kings
David and Solomon, from whom the Georgian Bagratids claimed to have been directly descended; it
should be said that contemporary Byzantine emperors were also compared to David and Solomon.401
Davit' is supposed to have been like his namesake in wisdom and like Solomon in judgment, and Davit''s
crowning of his son and successor is equated with David's raising o f Solomon.402 For her part, T amar
reportedly possessed the innocence o f David and to have been "a second Solomon" in terms of her
prescription o f justice.403
"like a goliati" (cf. Thomson, trans.. p. 321).
393The Life o f Davit', p. 173 = Qauxchishvili ed., p. 329.

394/A/rf p. 205 = Q auxch'ishvili ed.. p. 351.
395/fc/d., pp. 207 and 214 = Qauxch'ishvili ed.. pp. 352 and 357.
39<*Ibid., p. 210 = Qauxchishvili ed., p. 354.
397Ibid., pp. 207 (Anthony) and 214 (Basil the Great) = Qauxch'ishvili ed.. pp. 352 and 357.
39Ûfe ofT'amar, p. 134.

399Ibid., p. 141.
400Ibid., p. 147.
^ M a g d a lin o , The Empire o f Manuel I Komnenos, esp. ch. 6, "The Emperor and His Image." pp. 413488. For Manuel being compared to David, Solomon, and Constantine "the Great," see pp. 415-416,436,
and 447-450.
*2The Life o f Davit', pp. 182, 207, and 223 = Qauxch'ishvili ed., pp. 335, 352, and 363.
403Life ofT'amar, pp. 141 and 148.
666
Both Davit' n and T a m a r are also associated with the first Roman Christian emperor,
Constantine "the G reat" The earliest comparison is applied to Davit' in the context o f his summoning of
the 1103 Ruisi-Urbisi synod, the first recorded Georgian ecclesiastical council. Davit' is said to have been
"like Constantine th e Great," that is to say. Davit' imitated Constantine's summoning o f the First
Ecumenical Council at Nicaea in 325 4 4 Later, Davit', as a Christian king, "received the grace of
apostleship like Paul and like Constantine the G r e a t T a m a r was a "second Constantine" in
religious matters.4**
This last m etaphor may be significant for Eastmond understood it to be evidence that the
Byzantine notion o f royal renewal had been adopted by the Georgian Bagratids.4^ Using historical and
especially artistic evidence, Eastmond suggested that Byzantine royal renewal had been injected into the
Georgian notion o f royal a u th o r ity by the twelfth century. Moreover. Eastmond attempted to equate the
illuminatrix o fK artli, Nino, with Constantine, thus making Nino a symbol o f royal renewal. He posited
that Nino, as a woman connected with K 'a rt'li (she seems to have been from Cappadocia), became a
model for T am ar. To compensate for the fact that T a m a r was the first female to occupy the Georgian
throne, a new pattern had to be created, and in Eastmomfs estimation the image o f Constantine was cast
upon Nino.4** As refreshing as this theory is, the fact remains that no historical text, fresco, or sculpture
incontestably confirms it, although it is true that a invigorated cult o f Nino seems to have existed during
T amars rule, and extant pictorial representations o f Nino date only from this time. In extant historical
texts, T amar is compared to renowned men, and Eastmond is right to underscore that in historical works
her gender is regarded as irrelevant And again, we should keep in mind that only one o f T am a r's
biographers, the anonymous author o f The Life ofT'amar, exhibits a deep interest in associating the
Queen with Constantine (and other figures for that matter).
4 4 77re Life
o f Davit', p. 172 = Qauxch'ishvili ed., p. 328. Cf. Eastmond, "Royal Renewal in Georgia:
The Case o f Queen Tamar," p. 284, who believes the Georgian Bagratids began to envisage themselves as
the descendants o f Constantine "the G reat"
4 ^77re Life
4(/& ofT'amar, p. 117.

^ E a s tm o n d , "Royal Renewal in Georgia: The Case of Queen Tamar," pp. 283-293.
4**Perhaps the most famous contemporary justification for T am ar's rule was incorporated into Shot'a
Rust'aveli's Knight in the Panther Skin, Urushadze trans., q u at 39, p. 20. Writing about a female heir
designate, the poet relates the attitude that "Woman she is, but a woman bom to rule over a kingdom:
Truly our hearts declare her worthy to be our sovereign; Her noble deeds, like her radiance, shed
brightness and warmth like the Sun shines; The lion's whelp is a lion, be it male o r female."
667
Davit' and T am ar are also likened to a number o f non-Biblical, non-Christian figures. The most
often encountered comparisons in the biographies o f the two rulers is to Alexander the G reat Davit' II is
described as "a second Alexander" when he decided to resettle 40,000 Qipcbaq soldiers and their families
along Georgia's northern border. This event is reminescent o f the gate Alexander built in northern
Caucasia.4 0 9 As we have seen. Davit' could also be called "a new Alexander" and is said to have even
surpassed Alexander. His biographer was compelled to make this declaration since Davit' both was a
Christian and he had commanded only a small force o f Georgians and Alexanders accomplishments
would have been severely curtailed had he commanded such an arm y .4 1 0 T a m a r is compared to
Alexander by both o f her biographers. She reportedly possessed the vigor and forethought of Alexander,
and even Persians are made to concede that she was "like Alexander ."4 1 1 One o f T am ars victories is
characterized as being more substantial than that of Alexander over the Persian king Darius 4 ^
Rarely, other Classical figures are made worthy o f comparison to Davit' and T amar.
demonstrating the infiltration o f Roman and Byzantine traditions and texts into Georgian circles under
the Bagratids. Thus, in terms o f his promotion o f and love for books, Davit' was like another Ptolemy.41^
Davit's military prowess is understood to have exceeded even th a t o f Achilles .4 1 4 For her part. T amar is
compared with Aphrodite (a rare comparison to a female) and Apollo.41^ A contemporary' poet usuallyidentified as Ch'axruxadze, relates that neither "Aeneas nor Hom er nor Plato... nor Zoroaster nor feven]
Aristotle" would possess the ability to relate fuller her accomplishments and virtues .416
4 0 9 777e
Life o f Davit', pp. 182-183 = Qauxch'ishvili ed., pp. 335-336.
4 10 77te Life
o f Davit', pp. 186 and 216-217 = Qauxch' isbvili ed., pp. 338 and 358-359.
41 ^Hist. andEul., pp. 2-3 (where it is emphasized that although Alexander had been a "pagan" he had
been favored by God), 34,63, and 76; and see ibid., p. 7 ^ , ^ , for a reference to the legend of Alexander
as preserved in the Iskandar-nama ("the history o f Iskandar").
41^//& ofT'amar, p. 128.
4 1 ^77re Life
o f Davit', p. 200 = Qauxch'ishvili ed., p. 347. This is likely a reference to Ptolemy II whose
interest in literature at Alexandria was legendary. Movses X orenac'i, 1.2, p. 67 (and note 1), refers to
Ptolemys literary activities.
4 1 4 77e Life
o f Davit', p. 202 = Qauxch'ishvili ed., pp. 348-349.
* lSHist. and Eul., p. 32.

4 1 6 Ch'axruxadze, T'amariani, M arr ed , pp. 41-42,49-50, and 53. and quoted in Vasiliev. "The
Foundation o f the Empire o f Trebizond (1204-1222)," Speculum 11 (1936), p. 14 and footnote 2. Both
Ch'axruxadze, Lolashvili ed., cap. 17, quat. 100, pp. 583-584, an d Hist, and Eul., p. 1lg, refer to
Zoroastros, who is said to have been the first king (in the latter) an d astronomer o f the Persians (in both;
cf. the earlier traditions o f Nimrod). See Hist, and Eul., p. 2 ^ . for a reference to Homer, and p. 3 jg, for
references to Socrates and Plato.
668
These royal metaphors and comparisons are products o f the Bagratid era. We should recall that
pre-Bagratid historical works situated K ' art' li within the Persian cultural and political w orld Although
the K'art'velian kings after the 330s were Christian, local historians continued to style their rulers as
essentially Sasanid-style kings u p through the rise of the Bagratids. From at least the eleventh century,
the Bagratids consciously shunned their connection with the Persian world and therefore it is to be
expected that comparisons o f B agratid kings to Persian heroes would be restricted if not absent In fact
direct contemporary comparisons o f Davit' and T amar to Persian heroes and monarchs in historical texts
are not to be found although th e biographer o f Davit' mentions that his subject surpassed even the
legendary Bahrain Gor in the art o f warfare and Giorgi m is associated with his b ra v e ry .* ^ D a v it's
spaspeti is compared to events in the "tales o f K'aixosro o f old"*** This is the extent o f associations
with the Persians. The unwillingness to connect Bagratid Georgia with the Persian world contrasts
sharply with pre-Bagratid historical texts.
It is worth emphasizing that neither Davit' nor T amar are explicitly compared with any preBagratid K 'art'velian ruler, although the memory of the hero-king Vaxtang Gorgasali was persistent at
their courts (see infra) .* 19 W e have already had the opportunity to show that medieval Bagratid
historians were not keen to perpetuate the memory of the pre-Bagratid monarchs o f K 'a rt'li in their own
works, although the pre-Bagratid historical tradition continued to be transm itted through the initial texts
o f K'art'lis c'xovreba. But very few references are made to pre-Bagratid rulers in Bagratid era histories.
The pre-Christian K 'art'velian kings are all but ignored and even the pre-Bagratid Christian monarchs
are rarely mentioned with the exception o f Vaxtang and the Guaramids (who were mistakenly identified
by Sumbat Davit'is-dze as proto-Bagratids).
Only one medieval B agratid historical text makes any significant references to the pre-Bagratid
past of K 'art' li. The highly eulogistic preface o f The Histories and Eulogies endeavors to prove beyond
any doubt that Giorgi III, who him self had usurped the Crown, and his daughter T a m a r (the first woman
to rule K'art'li/Georgia) were legitimate monarchs. This text is uncharacteristic in its urgency to prove
^ T h e Life o f Davit', p. 202 = Q auxch'ishvili e d , pp. 348-349; and Hist, and Eul., p. 6 2 *
^^T h e Life o f Davit', p. 185 = Qauxch'ishvili e d , p. 337. The "chroniclers and heroes o f old" are
mentioned at ibid., pp. 198-199 = Qauxch'ishvili ed , p. 342, but these are not necessarily Persian.
^* 9 Cf. Eastmond Royal Imagery in Medieval Georgia, unpub. typescript, p. 126, who believes that visual
depictions o f Vaxtang Gorgasali were probably "well-established and easily recognizable in Georgia."
Moreover, Eastmond says that "Vaxtang Gorgasali is mentioned in the chronicles as a parallel for the
queen" but no such exact parallel exists in the extant literature. The contemporary poem o f
Ch'axruxadze, T'amariani, Lolashvili e d , para. 71, p. 576, and para. 93, p. 582, laud Vaxtang and his
family (tomi, l i t "race").
669
beyond any conceivable doubt that Giorgi ID and T a m a r were the only legitimate candidates. Its author
describes the his own text as a vasiloghrap'ia (saboffxnQftigoA), i.e., a description/history o f the
"emperors" (cf. basilographiar, Gk. basileus, "emperor, king").42 From the outset, Giorgi and T am ar
are associated with "the original David," that is, the O ld Testament King-Prophet DavidS
Then, the
progression to Bagratid rule is traced through three dynasties (cf. the Trinity) the progeny o f David
(Davit'iani), the Chosroids (Xuasroiani), and the Bagratids (rendered in the Greek form
Pankratoniani).4 2 2 The identification o f these Chosroids is vague. Either this passage refers to the
progeny o f Mirian HI and later Vaxtang (who are later called Gorgasliani)4 2 3 or to some dynasty o f
Persia .4 2 4 In either case, this is a unique claim in medieval Bagratid historical literature, and later in the
same text this fact is not mentioned again. Subsequently, some o f the episodes o f early K 'art'velian
history are related N im rod and his defeat by Haos, is recalled but significantly K 'art'los is not
m entioned Haos is remembered here because he him self was the ultimate master of all o f Caucasia a
claim that was not thrust upon K 'art'los and this reflected in a round-about manner, the political
realities o f T am ar's time. It should be said that later in the account, Heros and Bardos (another of the
eponyms in The Life o f the Kings), are also m entioned These two references constitute our only medieval
Bagratid notices about the legendary primogenitors mentioned in the pre-Bagratid historical tradition .4 2 5
The author o f The Histories and Eulogies possessed at least a basic familiarity with Persian
literature, although it is not altogether clear whether it represents a recognition that the pre-Bagratid past
had been cast in Persian terms, or whether it merely demonstrates the love for Persian poetry at the
contemporary Georgian court Several o f its heroes, some probably recollected through the popular Shah-
42//Ist. and Eul., p. 2 jg-3. In the same passage, the author says that he will commemorate Giorgi III
and T am ar in much the same way that Plutarch wrote about Alexander the Great. It is significant that
our author never refers to the medieval (pre-Bagratid) tradition o f Alexander's invasion o f K 'art'li, and
that he does not know Alexander through Ps.-Callisthenes (apparently a source for the earlier Georgian
tradition). Cf. Giorgi M e'ire, The Life o f Giorgi Mt'acmideli, cap. 25, p. I78j_^, for a reference to the
Cignni sevastosisani (ô&66o bg3ilj(J)Oibobo>6o), or The Books o f the Sebastoi.
4 2 *///.#.
and Eul., p. 1yj-
422Ibid., p. 2q_jq. Vaxtang and "the race o f Vaxtang" ([vaxtangis tomi, 3 6 b(*)^6 gob (JjoiBo) are lauded by
the contemporary Ch'axruxadze, T'amariani, cap. 11, p a ra 71, p. 576; and cap. 16, para. 93, p. 582.
4 2 3 /h/d p. 4 13.
4 2 4 M. L ort'k' ip'anidze.
Essays on Georgian History, p. 135, identifies these Chosroids as royal Persians.
and Eul., p. 2 (for Nimrod and Haos) and 583_g (for Heros and Bardos). Nimrod is also
mentioned by the contemporary Shavt'eli, Abdulmesiani, cap. 6 , para. 46, p. 559, and cap. 11, para. 91,
pp. 610-611 (which associated Nimrod w ith the Tower o f Babel); and Ch'axruxadze, T'amariani, cap. 16,
para. 90, p. 581.
4 2 5 //irf.
670
nama, were known to the author: Nimrod, Spandiar, T ah a m t'a, Siaoshi, and Zoroastrios.42* The author
also mixed comparisons to Christian and non-Christian heroes, as is evident in the following passage
about the search for a husband for T am a r. It should be said that the author evidently had a good
knowledge of Classical Byzantine, Persian, and Islamic literature. N. Berdzenishvili called him "a son of
Byzantine-Arabic literature. "4 2 2 A sim ilar deep familiarity with these sources is not exhibited in preBagratid historical texts:
... [the nobles sought to find a husband for T amar who would] be o f times of
heroes and goliat'i-s, from when the foreign Hellenes [elint'a] had shed blood,
o r the wanderings o f desperate lovers [minjnurt'a] maddened [with love] for
women:
like Taham for Tumian [vit'ar t'amt'a t'umianist'ws],
like Amiran for Khuarashan [vit'ar amiran xorashnist'ws],
like Khusrau-Shansha for Banua [vit'ar xosro-shansha banuistws],
like the Knight o f the Sun for the Sun [Daughter?] of the Kbazars
[vit 'ar mzachabuk mzisat 'ws xazart asa],
like Jacob for Rachael and Joseph for Asenath [v/7 'ar iakob rak 'elist 'ws da
ioseb asanet'ist'ws],
[like] David for Bathsheba and Abishag [davit' bersabest'ws da abisaldst ws].
like Pelops, the emboldened warrior, fpr Hippodameia, daughter of Oenomaus
[vit'arpelopi mq'nedmbrdxoli ipodamist'ws, onomaos asulisa],

like Pluto for Persephone [vit'ar pluton persep'onist'ws],
like Ramin for Vis [vit 'ar ramirt visistws],
like Pridon for Sharion-Amavaz [vit'arp'ridon shabrinos-amavazist'ws], [and]
like Shadber for Ainliet [vit'ar shadber ainliet 'ist ws].4^
The Histories and Eulogies also contains one o f the few' references to bumberazi-s in Bagratid-era
historical literature .4 2 9 But the reigns o f Giorgi and T a m a r are not cast in a pre-Bagratid matrix.
Although the historian may have been attempting to further stress Georgia's political independence from
Byzantium by emphasizing Georgia's link to the Near East, this point is not particularly apparent in the
remainder of his work. In any event, the hybrid image was striking, unparalleled, and memorable.
No other medieval Bagratid text in K'art'lis c'xovreba refers so clearly to the pre-Bagratid
historical tradition. But outside o f that officially sanctioned historical corpus, some authors revived
4 2 <*Hist.
and Eul., pp. 2-11.
4 2 2 Berdzenishvili,
Sak'art'velos istoriis saldt'xebi, vol. 9 (1979), p. 123 (and pp. 123-195 for his analysis
of this source).
4 2 ^ Hist.
and Eul., pp. 35j3*36jq. Based upon the trans. o f Rayfield, Literature o f Georgia, p. 94.
4 2 9 Ibid., p. 9 12.
671
certain pre-Bagratid personae and events. Obviously, Nino's conversion o fK 'a rt'li is a favorite topic, and
to relate her deeds also meant to describe the Christianization o f Mirian and Nana .'*3 0 We have already
seen how the Nino legend was rewritten and altered from the late fourth-century version (Rufinus). but the
most elaborate reworkings appeared in the Bagratid period. The Life o f Nino. as attached to The Life o f
the Kings to form the corpus C'xorebay k'art'velt'a mep'et'a and as appearing in Mok'c'evay k'art'lisay.
is the most obvious example.
As we have seen, numerous metaphrastic versions o f Nino's vitae appeared from the twelfth
century. Particularly noteworthy are those o f Arsen Iqalt'oeli and the kat'alikos-patiiaich Nikoloz I.
Arsen Iqalt'oeli's tract is especially important for us, because that author appended to it a brief political
history o f Georgia.* 3 ^ By his own admission his sources were Netarisa ninos c 'xovrebcty (The Life o f the
Blessed Nino), K'art'lisay mok'c'evasay (The Conversion ofK'art'li, either the corpus or the text), and
Hambavasa mep'et'asa {The Story o f the Kings, probably The Life o f the Kings or perhaps a generic
reference to K'art'lis c 'xovreba). His account commences with a reminder that Nino had Christianized
K 'art'li. Iqalt'oeli begins K 'art'velian history not with K 'art'los (who was completely unknown here) but
with the alleged invasion o f Alexander the G re at Here, the author either was recapitulating The Primary
History o f K'art'li (the first text o f Mok'c'evay k'art'lisay) or he merely skipped ahead in The U fe o f the
Kings (and ignored the tale o f K' art' los and Haos/Hayk). Alexander is said to have established Azo[y].
"the son o f the king o f Ar[y]an-K'art' li," who proceeded to take control o fK 'art'li, introducing idol
worship. Then Iqalt'oeli divulged his own source: "And this Azo[y] was the first king o f the K 'art'velians
a n d ... M irian was descended from h im ... and all o f the kings ofK 'art'li were descended from these
kings ."* 3 3 Pamavaz is entirely omitted in this account There is no question that for this passage
Iqalt'oeli gives precedence to the tradition of Mok'c'evay k'art'lisays first tex t The Primary History o f
K'art'li. O f importance here is the fact that although The Primary History may in fart reflect an ancient
pre-Bagratid tradition, it appeared in Mok'c'evay k'art'lisay, a corpus which had been assembled in the
(early) Bagratid era before there was any systematic distaste for the pre-Bagratid past.
Iqalt'oeli proceeds to trace the rise o f Zoroastrianism. Mirian. and Nino, and then to emphasize
the rule o f Vaxtang Gorgasali (whom he calls by the corrupted form "Gorgosani"). Iqalt'oeli's interest in
Vaxtang is consistent with the penchant for that ruler's legendary biography (and oral traditions) at the
*30Nikoloz I, Sueti-c'xoveli, p. 69, anachronistically refers to Mirian as "the king o f all Georgia"
(64 ^ 4 6 o 3<?ep(,iQb4 y01323064 Saga, sak'art'uiloysa qovelisa mep'e).
*3 *Arsen Iqalt'oeli. Metaphr. Nino, pp. 390-395.
* 3 2 /4. p. 391: "eoi abfl J>bPi3 3 * 6 6 3 0 6 3 3 2 3 0 6 3 3 3 ^ 4 6 0 )3 3 2 3 0 4 e4 * 8 0 6 0 4 8 3 0 2 3 0 6 8 3 0 2 5 0 )4 5 * 6 ('1320483633 8 3 3 3 0301 8 0 6 0 4 6 ... 34 301332360 8353360 ^ 4 6 0 )2 5 0 6 * 6 0 4 8 * 0
8 3 3 3 0 )4 8 3 0 2 5 0 6 -8 3 0 2 3 6 0 4 6 0 4 6 ."
672
contemporary Bagratid court Moreover, the author, him self a noted monk, stresses that Vaxtang had
been responsible for building the stone structure o f Sueti-c'xoveli in M c'xet'a. Vaxtang is said to have
been interred in that church (which is reported in the extant version o f his biography), and his grave
reportedly had his image carved upon i t 4 3 3 Following Vaxtang's death. K 'art'li was successively
invaded by the Persians, Heraclius, and the Muslims. The Arab army's blockage o f the roads joining
Antioch and K 'a rt'li was believed to have been the reason for the de facto autocephaly o f the Georgian
Church which was recognized by the Antiochene patriarch Theophylakt Iqalt'oeli concludes his account
by berating Byzantium for its lapse into Iconoclasm and by praising K 'a rt'li for not having fallen victim
to that heresy. Essentially, Iqalt'oeli points to the K 'art'velians' superiority to the Byzantine iconoclast
emperors, and he states that the K'art'velians even h ad to consecrate the bishop for the Goths because of
the situation in Byzantium.
Arsen Iqalt'oelis account is exceedingly important for it represents the way a learned Georgian
cleric o f the eleventh century understood Georgia's p a s t K 'art'los and P'am avaz are not remembered as
the fathers o f the community. Rather, Azofy] is made to be the first king, and all the successive kings of
K 'a rt'li even, it would seem, the Bagratids (!?), although this is not explicitly stated - are said to have
descended from him. Perhaps this is an indication that the memory o f K 'art'los and P'am avaz persisted
at this time, and since they were pre-Christian heroes they were potentially dangerous to the Christian
Church. Therefore, the preference for the tradition o f Azo[y] and the silence on K 'art' ios and P'amavaz
might represent an attempt to devalue and remove the tradition o f K 'art'los and P'am avaz and to replace
it with the less threatening Azo[y]. In any event, the alleged invasion o f Alexander is taken as the
departure point for the beginning o f K 'art'velian history, and the Christian Vaxtang Gorgasali is the great
pre-Bagratid king. The account o f Iqalt' oeli, the compiling o f Mok c 'evay k 'art'lisay. the continued
transmission o f the pre-Bagratid texts o f The Ufe o f the Kings and C'xorebay vaxtang gorgaslisa, and the
editorial work o f Leonti Mroveli all demonstrate that although the pre-Bagratid tradition was not
particularly revered in Bagratid Georgia, nevertheless there was "Georgian" history before the Bagratids.
The Saint-King
Perhaps no other point so graphically illustrates the fact that the Bagratids consciously
abandoned Persian models o f kingship as does the absence of Sasanid-style hero-monarchs - the
bumberazi-kinfg in Bagratid-era historical literature. That is not to suggest that Bagratid kings were
not expected to lead their troops into battle and to enter into displays o f their military expertise, yet none
4^ T h is should not be confused with the supposed grave o f Vaxtang now marked before the altar in Sueticxoveli.
673
o f the Bagratid kings axe called bumberazi-s, none o f them are said to have entered into what might be
considered a bumberazi duel, and none o f them led warriors who are called, or even imitated,
bumberazi-s.*^
The K'art'velian/Georgian Bagratids wished to portray themselves as a dynasty separate from
those o f pre-Bagratid K 'art'li, as uniquely legitimate, and as specifically Christian. Since they had grown
to power under Byzantine tutelage, it is not surprising to find that blatant expressions o f connections to
the Persian cultural world were discarded. The bumberazi, and its umbilical cord extending deep into the
antiquity o f Persia, was thus eliminated as a principal feature o f local royal authority. In any event,
bumberazi combat was alien to the Byzantine world, and the early Bagratids who sought to imitate
Byzantine conceptions o f authority could gain no benefit by perpetuating that Persian institution.
The early Bagratids, according to the few surviving texts from the period, do not seem to have
adopted o r adapted the institution, o r symbolism, o f bumberazi. K ' art-lis connection with the ChristianByzantine world was a palpable one. In the beginning at least, its rulers were confirmed as kuropalates by
the emperor him self and after the all-Georgian monarchy was established. Georgian kings became related
to the emperors through diplomatic marriages. But Davit' II and subsequent monarchs began to distance
themselves from Byzantium. To be sure, Christian Georgia was to resemble Byzantium in many respects,
but by the late eleventh century, slavish imitation was abandoned and the Georgians stripped themselves
o f any connections which Byzantium might use to claim ultimate authority over them. In this context.
Davit' relinquished once and for all the use of high Byzantine honors tty Georgian kings.
The time was ripe for the introduction o f a new dimension o f Georgian kingship which would
emphasize Georgia's connection to the Christian world while avoiding the concession o f subordination to
the Byzantine emperor. As we have seen, it was precisely in twelfth century that three important
innovations which stressed Georgia's attachment to Christianity but downplayed subordination to
Byzantium were introduced in Georgia: e.g., (1) the raising o f the status o f the kat 'alikos to that of
patriarch so that no one could question the autocephaly and apostolicity of the Georgian Church
(unfortunately, we do not know o f Byzantium's involvement or reaction to this event): (2) the dropping of
Byzantine titles; and (3) the canonization of two Georgian rulers, Davit' II and T'am ar.
The canonization o f Georgian monarchs and the institution o f bumberazi arc enormously
different, and I am not suggesting that canonization simply replaced the tradition o f bumberazi-s.
However, each institution is representative of the two major periods of medieval K'art'velian/Georgian
In feet, the very term bumberazi is rarely used in Bagratid-era historical literature; esp. Hist, and Eul.,
pp. 9 ^ 2 an d 40g. Likewise, the term goliat'i is rarely encountered; see ibid., pp. 3 1 5 .1 5 (for the Persian
goliat'i-s Spandiar, T ah a m t'a, and Siaoshi) and 5 ^ (for T rdat).
674
history. The bumberaziAangs are known only in the pre-Bagratid tradition while saint-kings are known
only in the medieval Bagratid tradition.
We should first offer a word about the pre-Bagratid K 'art'velian prince A rch'il. Arch'il 11(4
785/786) is styled as "king" both by Ps.-Juansher and in the brief Martyrdom ofArch 'il. but as we have
seen, the former, who is unusually accurate and a near-contemporary, continues to name the presiding
princes o f K'art' li as "kings" even after the abolition o f the monarchy in the second-half o f the sixth
century. Arch'il's vita, which itself m ay have been written as late as the eleventh century, glorifies its
subject to the fullest possible extent, an d thus A rch'd is tendentiously designated as king. Be that as it
may, Arch'il was martyred by the Muslim governor o f the province o f Armeniya, and shortly after his
death he was canonized but we are not sure whether this happened in under the Bagratids or their
predecessors. Notwithstanding, this is the earliest known concrete example o f a K 'art'velian prince
having been made into a sain t But A rch'il was not a king, and this point is demonstrated in the tenthcentury Georgian ecclesiastical calendar from M t Sinai in which Arch' il is commemorated on 15
January: "... and Arch'il was martyred in K 'a rt'li ;"4 3 5 he is not called "king." Although Arch'il is an
example o f a pre-Bagratid prince having been canonized, the fact remains that Davit' II was the first
K'art'velian/Georgian monarch to have been contemporaneously made a saint .4 3 6
As should be expected, the piety o f Davit' II and T am a r is never cast into doubt in their own
eulogizing vitae. Their comparisons with Biblical and Christian persons emphasize this circumstance.
Both o f them are repeatedly said to have possessed divine favor and grace, and, as we have seen, T a m a r
herself is compared with Christ and was "the Mountain o f God." Davit' seems to have been the first
Georgian king to have summoned a formal ecclesiastical council, and by this art he w as likened to
Constantine "the G reat" Moreover, Davit' was responsible for ordering the construction o f the monastic
complex o f Gelat'i near K 'ut'at'isi, and it is called "a second heaven... a second Jerusalem... [and] a
second Athens" (see photographs ) .4 3 7 Both o f the sovereigns' contributions to the church and acts o f
charity to the poor are emphasized. Finally, during the eleventh and twelfth centuries Georgian historians
begin to feature Georgia's inclusion w ithin the Christian community and the fact that the Georgian kings
were protectors o f all Christendom, in imitation of the Byzantine emperor.43**
4 3 5 Garitte,
Palest.-Georgian Cal., p. 44 (comm., pp. 131-132).
436The only potential exception may be M ihran/M irian in, the first Christian K 'art'velian king. By the
early modem period he was regarded as a saint; we cannot be sure about his status in the medieval period,
and especially in the pre-Bagratid era.
4 3 ^77ie Life o f Davit', pp 174-175 = Qauxchishvili e d , pp. 329-331. This might very well be regarded
as an usurpation/imitation o f the status o f Constantinople, since the tenth-century Giorgi Merch'ule,
Works o f GrigolXandzt'eli, cap. 12, p. 145, refers to the Byzantine capital as the "second Jerusalem."
4 3 8 7%e Life o f Davit', pp. 158 and 160 = Qauxch'ishvili e d , pp. 318-319 and 320;
Hist, and Eul., p. 258
The monastery of Gelat'i near K'ul'aisi (K'ut'at'isi) built by Davit II.

(for the "Christian race"); and Life ofT'amar, p. 124 (for the "Christian people") and 141.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
676
Fresco from the m ain church at the G elati monastery near K ut aisi (K 'u t'a tisi). The figure to the far
right is Davit' II. In its present state, this fresco is relatively young.
677
Since D avit''s attainment of the status o f saint is related in considerably more detail than
T am ar's ,4 3 9 we should give a brief accounting o f the alleged basis for his canonization. Davit- is
supposed to have earned "eternal sainthood." Several vignettes follow this pronouncement, which went on
to lament that Davit' had frequently committed such worthy acts and that the ones incorporated into his
account were "like a single drink of water from the M tkuari [River]."44 Davit' is commended for having
ordered a retranslation o f the Gospels into Georgian, and in this feat he is likened to Ptolemy .4 4 4 His
love for books is emphasized, and the king allegedly read the Apostolary twenty-four times in a single
year. Davit' is described as having been absolutely obsessed with reading, to the point that he read
constantly during campaigns, even while on horseback. On one occasion the king was informed about the
procession o f a caravan from Gandza, and wishing to attack the Turks who were leading it. he set an
ambush. Once the Georgians had attacked the caravan, the battle erupted on either side o f the king, yet he
sat contently on his horse reading a book. Only a loud shout alerted the king, and he engaged the enemy.
his sword becoming so twisted in the melee that he could not replace it within its scabbard44^
Davit' is identified as "one o f God's own," for divine favor was shown to him on several
occasions in which he faced certain death. His biographer imparts two of these episodes. In the first.
Davit' is said to have been thrown from his horse while hunting in Muxrani and to have been near death.
After three days (cf. Christ rising from the dead) he regained consciousness and speedily recovered. The
second occasion occurred during the siege o f some fortress in K ' art' li. As the king stood near his tent
clad only in a shirt, an opposing solider shot an arrow at him. striking his chest. Davit' emerged
unscathed, however, for the bolt was deflected by a small necklace o f the Archangel which he customarily
wore.
44a
Considerably later. Davit' is portrayed as a pre-eminent Georgian saint. In synaxaria from the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, a vita commemorating his deeds was placed side by side with
439T a m a r is not expressly named as a saint in her vitae, but she is counted among their ranks in the late
twelflh-/early thirteenth-century Vani Gospels, Kek.Inst.AfS # A-1335. ( 272. This reference seems to
make T a m a r a saint already in her own lifetime (!). My thanks to Dr. N. K'ajaia for this reference.
4 4 7%e Life
o f Davit', p. 200 = Qauxch'ishvili ed., p. 347; Davit' is said to have received "the grace of
apostleship" and is compared with Paul and Constantine the Great at ibid.. p. 209 = Qauxch'ishvili e d . p.
354.
4 4 ^Giorgi M t'acmideli, The Life oflovane and Ep't'wme, cap. 13, p. 61 ^ . j g . laments the shortage of
books in K 'art'li/G eorgia prior to the literary activities o f the Athonite Ept'wme: "... [there was] in the
land o fK 'a rt'li a great shortage of books and many [important] books were [altogether] not to be found
[in Georgian]..."
^ F o r Davit''s love o f books, see ibid., pp. 200-205 = Qauxch'ishvili e d , pp. 347-350.
4 4 3 / 6 /d , pp. 221-222 = Qauxch'ishvili e d , pp. 361-362.
678
biographies o f Georgian saints like Nino, Shushaniki, Evstat'i, the Thirteen Syrian Fathers, and the
Georgian Athonite monks.*'**
W e should emphasize that it did not become the custom for all successive Bagratid kings to
become saints upon their death. This remained the exception rather than the rule, and this contrasts
sharply w ith the pre-Bagratid notion that all legitimate monarchs were bumberazi-s. Moreover, the fact
that some Bagratid kings abdicated their thrones and became monks should not necessarily be considered
as evidence in favor o f saint-kings. Rather, the practice o f a feeble king being forced into exile by
becoming a m onk was relatively common in Byzantium, and the taking o f the monk's cowl by Demetre I
and possibly by Giorgi II - should probably be regarded in this light.**-5
Eastmond has explored the theme o f the Bagratid saint-king as it relates to contemporary
Georgian a r t He has demonstrated that o f secular figures only the Bagratids were painted with haloes,
and their position relative to Christian figures reflected their own perception that they served as the
conduit between sacred power and this world. Usually, Bagratid kings and queens were painted on a
larger scale than other persons and they were rendered more space. In short, "the royal panels deliberately
blurred the divide between this world and the next as a means o f enhancing the sanctity o f the
[Bagratids]." All o f these devices served to associate the Bagratid monarchs with the ranks o f the saints,
but the Bagratids - by virtue of Bagratid ideology - were still not immediately regarded as living
saints .**6 In arty event, it is also noteworthy that in this period very few native saints were canonized .* * 7
This seems to have further associated the Bagratids, especially the ones that were actually canonized, with
the saints.
Finally, we should again consider the image of Vaxtang Gorgasali. We have already seen that
C'xorebay vaxtang gorgaslisa serves as a bridge o f sorts between the pre-Bagratid and Bagratid historical
traditions and their respective understandings o f the context o f K' art'velian notions of kingship and social
***See DzK'ALDz, vol. 4 (1968), pp. 271-284.

** 5 ///sr. Five Reigns, p. 3669_j0. For the possibility that Giorgi II abdicated and became a monk, see
Eastmond, Royal Imagery in Medieval Georgia, unpub. typescript, pp. 23-24. It should be emphasized
that the forced tonsuring o f rulers or heirs as a method o f deposition became relative common under the
Bagratids, mimicking the practice in Byzantium.
** 6 Eastmond, Royal Imagery in Medieval Georgia, unpub. typescript, pp. 133-138.
**7And few hagiographic texts extoling the activities of Georgian saints were composed in the period. A
notable exception is the compilation and edition o f The Lives o f the Thirteen Syrian Fathers. It should be
noted that the Shio Mghwme monastery near M c'xet'a was a favorite ecclesiastical institution o f the
contemporary Bagratids and this monastery had been founded tty one o f the Thirteen Syrian Fathers. For
an eulogy o f Shio Mghwme attributed to King Demetre I, In Praise o f Shio, p. 538 (the first letter o f the
initial five lines spell Shiois, "of Shio").
679
organization. Vaxtang's ca. 800 biographer projects him as a specifically Christian king who recognized
the ultimate suzerainty o f Byzantium (at least religiously), but who simultaneously remained loyal to the
Persian heritage o f K 'a rt'li. The Christian pre-Bagratid monarchs were thus afforded a unique position,
for they were both Christian and bumberazi-s. Essentially, Vaxtang is portrayed as a s a in t and his
biography is best term ed a semi-legendary historical work written in the form of hagiography. But we
possess no evidence that Vaxtang was raised into sainthood in the medieval period. In any event
Vaxtang's biography is a link between the two traditions and demonstrates the progression towards the
potential for the canonization o f the Georgian king. Moreover, since Vaxtang was the only pre-Bagratid
king to be regularly glorified in medieval Bagradd-era works, it is entirely possible that the Bagradds
themselves regarded Vaxtang as a precursor o f the Bagratid saint-monarch.
The Cosmopolitan Kingdom**^
One o f the most fascinating aspects o f medieval Georgian history, both pre-Bagratid and
Bagratid, is the cosmopolitan, heterogeneous character ofK 'art'velian and then Georgian society. In preBagratid historical literature K 'a rt'li is intimately linked with the major political powers and societies of
the Near East and Anatolia, and often the boundaries o f the community are blurred (cf. the medieval
understanding o f the genesis o f the Georgian language).
Before offering some general remarks on the cosmopolitan nature o f the Bagratid Georgian
kingdom, it is worth recalling that the English term "Georgian is highly problematic. In Georgian, the
designation k'art'veli in its earliest usage referred to the inhabitants o f K 'a rt'li proper while in the
eleventh/twelfth century it could also designate any subject o f the all-Georgian kingdom .4 4 9 Although
the new term Sak'art'velo (i.e., the all-Georgian realm) gained currency only in the eleventh century, the
toponym K 'art'li was also used in this sense (in this study, "Georgia invariably refers to the all-Georgian
kingdom). It is well beyond the scope o f this study to consider the process of K 'art'velization that
accompanied the unification o f Georgia, that is to say, that process by which the various "Georgian"
communities were joined together, and how the dialect o f K 'art'li emerged dominant.
^ ^ T h e Armenians, the largest "minority" in the all-Georgian realm, are not specially considered here
since we have discussed their place previously in this chapter.
449This is interesting in light o f the fact that the kings and queens o f the all-Georgian kingdom rendered
the Ap'xaz in the first place in their own intitulatio. Moreover, as we have seen, western Georgians were
often afforded prominence at court; their nobles were responsible in the beginning for crowning the king
at the coronation ceremony, and it should be said that the bulk of contemporary royal palaces were
situated in the w est The Arabs often identify to the all-Georgian community as the Abkhaz, i.e., the
Ap'xaz.
680
Whereas pre-Bagratid historical works exhibit no inhibition in admitting that sizable

communities o f non-K'art'velians were settled within the kingdom, and that these communities were
inextricably bound with the history and very existence o f K 'a rt'li, Bagratid-era texts are more likely to
emphasize that non-Georgians were outsiders, and that unless they were assimilated into Georgian society
and its Church, they could present a threat to Georgia.
As in the pre-Bagratid period, the Bagratid kingdom was in incessant contact with the various
tribes o f northern Caucasia, e.g.. the Ovsi-s, the Suans (Svans), and the Cumani-Qipchaqs. The last tribe,
it should be remembered, was anachronistically incorporated into The life o f the Kings by' an eleventhcentury editor, probably Leonti Mroveli. In any event, during the reign of Davit' II the Qipchaqs became
an important factor in Georgian politics, for ca. 1118 that king negotiated the voluntary, peaceful
resettlement o f 40,000 o f their warriors along the northern frontier o f G e o r g ia .^ Davit' had earlier
married Guaranduxt, daughter o f the Qipchaq chieftain AtrSk, and this connection was largely responsible
for his success. This resettlement solved the problem o f a lack o f manpower in contemporary Georgia,
and 5000 o f the best Qipchaqs were selected to serve as the king's personal bodyguard. Although factions
o f these Qipchaqs occasionally opposed the Crown, the loyalty o f a good many of them was secured with
mass baptisms which, Davit''s biographer tells us, often occurred "voluntarily. The impact o f the
Cumani-Qipchaqs on twelfth- and thirteenth-century Georgia was examined by P. Golden in 1984.*^
W ith the expansion of Georgian authority throughout the Caucasian isthmus, large numbers of
Muslims became subjects of the Georgian king. This was a complicated situation, for Georgia had been
occupied and invaded by various Islamic enterprises, including the Caliphate itself and most recently by
the Seljuq Turks. Moreover, the Muslims were infidels from the Georgian perspective, and we find no
pronouncements in Bagratid literature on Islam, like the curious example o f Vaxtang (in his biography)
justifying Zoroastrianism as essentially monotheistic.
As in the case of the Monophysite Armenians, both toleration and persecution were the lot of the
Muslim subjects o f the Georgian C ro w n .* ^ As we have seen, some diplomatic marriages were
established between the Bagratid kings o f all-Georgia and neighboring Muslim enterprises, although they
The Life o fD a vit\ pp. 183-185 = Qauxch'ishvili ed., pp. 335-337. Davit' is associated with the land
o f the Gog and Magog (i.e., northern Caucasia) in the twelfth-century "Anselli Cantoris S. Sepulcri," in
PL 162 (1889), col. 730: "Porto David rex Georgianoram, qui cum sius praedecessoribus portas Caspias
tenuit et custodivit, ubi sunt inclusi Gog et Magog, quod et filius ejus adhuc facit, eujus terra et regnum
contra Medos et Persas est nobis quasi antemulare..."
Golden, "Qipchaqs," pp. 45-87. See also idem., "The Turkic Peoples and Caucasia," in Suny, ed.,
Transcaucasia, pp. 44-67.

Cf. M. Lort'k'ip'anidze, Essays on Georgian History, p. 128: "The Georgian court adopted a policy of
ethnic and religious tolerance."
681
were relatively unusual. It is not altogether clear from the sources, but it is likely that Bagratid husbands
demanded the conversion o f their Islamic brides. The largest concentrations o f Muslims were along the
southern and eastern frontiers o f Georgia, and these areas were usually administered as dependent client
kingdoms. This was the case with Shirvan. and in actuality, much o f Greater Armenian came to be
governed in this fashion by the Mq'argrdzeli-s. Thus, at least along the frontiers, the Georgian kings
pursued an agenda o f establishing or confirming in their places dependent local rulers.
But parts o f K 'a rt'li proper, and especially the city o f Tp'ilisi, had been occupied by the armies of
Islam for nearly 400 years, and in this period Tp'ilisi was a Muslim city (with a sizable Armenian
population), and largely remained so even after Davit' ITs conquest 4 5 3 The fact that Tp'ilisi's population
was dominated by non-Georgians contributed to the all-Georgian kings continuing to maintain other,
more substantial royal palaces, especially in the western domains.
Contemporary Georgian texts do not state whether Islam was officially tolerated. However.
Davit"'s biographer takes pride in noting that his subject engendered the joining together of many
communities: "... under [his] protection communities \em i\, races [tomni], and languages [encmi\ were
gathered together the kings and sovereigns o f Ovset'i and Armenia, the lands o f the Qipchaqs and the
Franks/?Varangians, Shirvan and Persia..."4 5 4 Generally speaking, though the Muslims were infidels
and therefore deserving o f punishment, organized, official persecution was probably to have been limited
to the field o f warfare.
Under T am ar several attacks were directed against the Muslims, ostensibly on account o f their
religion. Usually, the relevant accounts are cast in the context o f retribution and revenge. After the
M q'argrdzeli brothers successfully occupied the Armenian city o f Ani, they marched upon the "sultan of
Ardebil. Having carefully calculated an Islamic holiday, the Georgian army attacked on that very evening
as prayers were being offered. The sultan and his family were murdered as were 12,000 of his best
soldiers who had been praying within the mosques. All o f this, our historian reveals, was in revenge for a
similar Muslim attack upon Ani .4 5 5 To demonstrate Georgian prowess, the Mq'argrdzeli-s hanged the
4 5 3 See: Minorsky with Bosworth, "al-Kurdi." EI~, vol. 5/85-86, pp. 486-497; and the earlier essay of
Minorsky, "Tiflis," in E l1, vol. 8 , pp. 752-763.
4 5 4 77ie Life
o f Davit', pp. 2 1 8 jg -2 1 9 2 = Qauxch'ishvili ed., p. 36 O3 . 5 . Qauxch'ishvili reads the term

fp'Jranget'isani, o r "people from the land of the Franks" whereas Shanidze gives [vjranget'isani, or "the
people from Vranget'i," i.e., the Varangians. All extant variants have p'ranget'isani, although in context
it would make more sense to group the Varangians with the Qipchaqs (i.e., peoples situated to the north of
Caucasia). It should be noted that in the mxedruli script, p *(3 ) and v (3 ) could be easily confused or
miscopied. The fact remains, however, that Davit"s historian makes no independent claim that he ruled
over the Varangians or the Rus\
455Hist. andEul., p.
102.
682
"melik of Miana" from a m inaret until dead as they pillaged his city.45** After capturing the city o f
Gandza, Davit' Soslani T* amars second husband himself sat upon the throne o f that city's "sultan"
while a great feast o f pork was ordered, in contravention of Islamic law .4 5 7 Letters exchanged between
T a m a r and Nukardin, the "sultan o f Greece" (i.e.. the son ofKilij-ArsIan II). are couched in terms o f
blaspheming the other's religion .4 5 8
To effectively adm inister Muslim areas, the Georgian Crown was compelled to offer certain
"concessions." Although contemporary Georgian historical sources report amiable relations between
Muslim rulers and Georgian kings once the former had submitted to the latter, they do not document any
acquiescence with regards to the religious status o f the Muslims. However, the so-called History o f
Mayyafariqin written by al-Fariqi is enlightening in this regard Al-Fariqi served as an advisor to

Demetre L the son o f Davit' H, ca. 1153/1154. Demetre reportedly abrogated the taxes of Tp'ilisi's
Muslim population, and forbade that pigs should be brought into the Muslim quarter. According to alFariqi, Demetre also:
... struck dirham s [i.e., coinage] for them, on one side o f which stood the names o f the
sultan and the caliph, and on the other side stood the names o f God and the Prophet...
[whereas] the king's own nam e stood on a side o f the dirham. It was cried in the town
that [the king] permitted [to shed] the blood o f him who harmed a Muslim. He granted
them the call to prayer, the prayers and the reading [of the Q ur'an] in public, and also
guaranteed that on Fridays sermons and public prayers should be held and prayers be
said from the pulpit for the caliph and the sultan, and for no one else. He also
guaranteed that no Georgian o r Armenian, or Jew should enter the baths o f Ism ail in
Tiflis. He assessed a Georgian at the rate of 5 dinars per annum, a Jew at 4 dinars, and
a Muslim at 3 dinars. He was extremely kind to the Muslims; he honoured the scholars
and suffs by respecting their ?rank and [granting them] what they do not enjoy even
among the Muslims... And I saw how the king of the Abkhaz, Demetre, in whose
service I was, arrived in Tiflis and sojourned there some days. The same Friday he came
to the cathedral mosque and sat on a platform opposite the preacher and he remained at
his place while the preacher preached and the people prayed and he listened to the
khutba, all o f i t Then he went out and granted for the mosque 200 gold dinars... And I
witnessed on his part such esteem towards the Muslims as they would not enjoy even if
they were in Baghdad ...4 5 9
It should be said that none o f these concessions are reported in K'art'lis cxovreba .4^
A56Ibid p. 108.
4 5 7 i//&
o f Tamar, p. 127j3_20-
A5*Ibid pp. 133-135.

4 5 9 A1-Fariqi, pp. 33-34.
683
Jewish colonists had settled in K 'a rt'li and throughout Caucasia from an early time, and this fact
was known to pre-Bagratid historians, especially those o f the corpus C'xorebay k'art'velt'a mep 'et'a. In
Bagratid-era histories through the thirteenth century we read virtually nothing about these communities,
although they continued to exist (and pay yearly taxes in Tp'ilisi, as is attested in the aforementioned
account o f al-Fariqi). Moreover, contemporary Bagratid historians do not venture to link that dynasty
with the Georgian Jews. After all, the Georgian Bagratids claimed to have been descended directly from
Jewish kings. But Bagratid Georgia was a Christian kingdom. We have no indication whether the Jews
were persecuted o r left unmolested in this period, and any scholarly comment on this subject must be
consigned to the realm o f speculation.
Georgia Uncompromised
Vaxtang Gorgasali is portrayed by his later biographer as a "mediator," who had engendered a
peace between the Persian and Byzantine empires. Vaxtangs mammoth and heroic role as a mediator is
almost certainly a later embellishment, but this alleged status does accurately reflect K art' li's precarious
position between the Persian and Christian (Byzantine) worlds. Under the early Bagratids. the pendulum
swung in the direction of Byzantium, yet this study has attempted to demonstrate that from the late
eleventh century the Georgian monarchs strove to distance themselves from Byzantium insofar as the
latter could claim ultimate authority over all Christendom.
The Georgia o f Davit' II and T amar was an extensive enterprise, and there can be no question
that it was the most powerful kingdom in Caucasia and the northern sector o f the Near East. There are
numerous, sometimes euphoric, expressions o f this nascent political entity in Georgian historical writing,
and perhaps one o f the most potent is the claim that Georgian authority had now eclipsed that of other
great powers in the E ast Davit's biographer relates that his subject:
... made the sultan his tributary, and the Byzantine emperor a member of his own
household; he annihilated the heathens, destroyed the barbarians, reduced kings to be
[his] subjects and [lesser] sovereigns to be [his] slaves; he put the Arabs to flight [and]
plundered the Ishmaelites; he ground the Persians to dust and turned their mt avari-s
[i.e., nobles] into peasants. And, I shall say briefly that the former kings, [those] judges
[msajulni], giants \goliat'ni\, and heroic men, famous for a long time, courageous and
strong, he subjected all o f these so th at they became like wild beasts [in comparison] .****
**Hist. Five Reigns, "C'xo[v]reba[y] demetre m ep'isa." pp. 365-366.

^ T h e Life o f Davit', p. 206jo_jg. Cf. the trans. o f Thomson, pp. 342-343, and Vivian, p. 35. It is
interesting that Davit' s biographer employs the word barbarozi which has clearly been borrowed from the
Gk.
684
This passage asserts that Davit' subdued not only the Seljuq sultan, but also the Byzantine emperor!
Moreover, he is supposed to have reduced other kings to be subordinate to him; he put to flight the Arabs;
and he destroyed the "Persians. Finally. Davit' reportedly excelled even the heroes and kings o f the Old
Testament (e.g., Nimrod). But it should be noted that this passage seems not to refer to the pre-Bagratid
kings of K 'art'li.
The megaphone o f exaggeration was not relaxed for T amar. The anonymous author o f The Life
o f Tamar states that tribute was secured for the Georgian monarchy from an enormous area: from
southern K 'art'li "up to Iraq [Eraqi]... and from Baghdad up to Maragha. and the very Caliph was [so]
afraid [that] he begged the Creator for mercy."4*^ The same historian also discloses T am ar's success
over the Muslims:
The Nile was rising and Egypt became impoverished. Ishmael was deprived. Hagar in
confusion, Isaac favored. That is what one [man] said o f another, and I repeat these
[words] as an introduction, for the power o f the Muslims [Mohmadiant asa\ was
declining, and their tambourine [ebani] was left unplayed, whereas the Christians'
instruments [orghanoni] resounded throughout [the land]. The Muslims [Musurmant'a]
abandoned hope, and lacking strength, they tried everything so that they might gain
clemency for themselves from the merciful T am ar... 3
Accordingly, T amar is said to have brought the Caliph into full submission. The Life o f Tamar also
documents the establishment o f a series o f client kings:
... how m any impoverished monarchs did [Tam ar] make rich, how many did she restore
to their thrones, how many did she release who had been condemned to death? To this
the houses o f Sharvan and Darubandi, o f the Ghundzi, the Ovsi-s, the K'ashagi-s, [and
the inhabitants of] K am u-k'alak'i [i.e., Theodosioupolis/Erzerum/Karin] and Trapizoni
[i.e., Trebizond], for they were in debt [to T am ar] that they lived in freedom from their
enemies.4***
In addition to establishing client kings and rulers in Muslim territories. The Ufe o f Tamar
claims that T amar was responsible for setting the rulers o f the Byzantine cities o f Theodosioupolis and
^ L i f e o f Tamar, p. 1 2 4 3 . 5 ; cf. the trans. of Vivian, p. 64. This passage also emphasizes the Georgians
being part of the "Christian people" ( 3 6 0
eri k'ristianet'a), ibid., p. 1248.
463Ibid., p. 13l24-132j; cf. the trans. o f Vivian, p. 76.
4<4Ibid., p. 147g_j3; cf. the trans. o f Vivian, pp. 92-93.
685
Trebizond in their places. T amar's involvement in the establishment o f the Empire o f Trebizond in 1204
(which outlasted the Byzantine Empire itself whose capital finally fell in 1453), following in the wake o f
the Latin capture o f Constantinople in the same year, has already attracted able scholars like A. A.
Vasiliev and Toumanoff. ToumanofFs contribution (1940), written in response to that o f Vasiliev (1936).
remains the most detailed and successful consideration.4*- T am ar was in fact related to the Komnenoi
(but herself not descended from them), for a sister o f T amar's father Giorgi IQ had married Andronikos
Komnenos. Significantly, Bagratid names immediately appeared in Andronikos' line, confirming the
bond. The exceptional reception o f Andronikos at the court o f Giorgi HI ca. 1170 also suggests that some
Komnenoi and Georgian Bagratids maintained intimate relations.4**
The Life o f Tamar relates the pretext for T amar's involvement According to i t T am ar assisted
the Komnenoi to establish an enterprise in Trebizond directly as a response to the plundering o f monks
who had been given substantial donations by the Georgian court. According to the Georgian source, the
emperor Alexios m Angelos ("Alek'si angari") was himself responsible:
... she was angry with the Byzantine emperor, [therefore T am ar] dispatched a few
[troops who were stationed] on that [side of] the Lixi mountains, and they occupied
Lazia, Trebizond, Limon, Samsun, Sinope, Kerasunt, Kitiroa. Amastria, Heraclea, and
every locale o f Paphlagoia and Pontos, and she bestowed [these regions] upon her
kinsman [nat'esavsa r'vma] Alexios Komnenos, the son of Andronikos, who at that
time had taken refuge with mep e T amar.4**^
Thus T amar is credited with having deployed her troops along the northern littoral o f Anatolia, and once
occupying the area, she bestowed it upon Alexios Komnenos, who in turn became the first "Grand
Komnenos" o f Trebizond.4* The consequences were enormous: T amar's supposed role in the
^^T oum anoff, "On the Relationship between the Founder o f the Empire o f Trebizond and the Georgian
Queen Thamar," Speculum 15 (1940), pp. 299-312; and Vasiliev, "The Foundation o f the Empire of
Trebizond (1204-1222)," Speculum 1 1 (1936), pp. 3-37.
^ Hist.. and Eul., pp. 16-17. Cf. Vasiliev, "The Foundation o f the Empire of Trebizond," p. 5 (his trans.
is based upon the now superceded ed. o f Brosset).
467life o f Tamar, p. 142^.23- Cf- th EnS- trans. o f Vivian, pp. 86-87. This passage explicitly states
that T am ar was related to die Komnenoi; however, her relation to them was legal, for she herself was not
descended from them. The historian o f the Trebizond Empire, Michael Panaretos, reveals the biological
relationship o f the Georgian Bagratids and the Komnenoi, and even Andronikos' visit to the Georgian
co u rt The Georgians role is limited to some "Iberian troops" which marched with Alexios to Trebizond;
see Michael Panaretos, Khakhanov ed., p. 19.
^ O n the history o f Trebizond, see W. Miller, Trebizond: The Last Greek Empire o f the Byzantine Era
1204-1461. See also Bryer, The Empire o f Trebizond and the Pontos. The contemporary sources from
Trebizond (esp. Panaretos) admit Georgia's role in the establishment of that empire. However, this role is
686
establishment o f Trebizond not only demonstrated the military prowess o f Georgia, but it also could be
construed as a situation in which a Byzantine ruler assumed power under the tutelage of the Georgian
monarch. Thus the Bagratids had made a full circuit since their holding o f the kuropalate. Furthermore.
The life o f T amar may indirectly tie the M l o f Constantinople in 1204 to T amar's support o f the
Komnenoi:
... when the Franks [i.e., the Crusaders] realized that the Byzantines had been deprived o f all
support from the East, the Venetians came forth and seized the imperial city [i.e.,
Constantinople] from them, usurping imperial authority, and the wretched Alexios [Angelos]
took refuge... in Bulgaria .4**9
Several o f the Grand Komnenoi contract marriages with th e Georgian Bagratids and other noble
families.4^
For example, Manuel I (1238-1263) wed a Georgian nam ed Rusudan. These marriages
continued down to the very collapse o f Trebizond in 1461. It is evident that Georgia and Trebizond
maintained relations throughout the tatters existence. However, M. L ort'k ip anidze's assertion that
Trebizond "became a buffer-state that was virtually entirely dependent on Georgia and bore the bombastic
name o f the Trebezond [sic] empire" is overstated and unsubstantiated4^
The Bagratid kings o f all Georgia, by the time o f Davit' H, could claim to have reduced the great
powers, or at least their remnants, to mere vassals, at least in Caucasia and eastern Anatolia. Similar
claims could not have been, and were not, enunciated in the pre-Bagratid period O f particular note is the
role o f T am ar in the establishment o f Trebizond one o f the Byzantine successor "empires" which arose
following the Latin capture o f Constantinople. T am ar seized upon her family's kinship link with the
Komnenoi and her armies helped to establish Alexios Komnenos as the first ruler o f the Empire o f
Trebizond In some respects, T amar could now legitimately claim, at least in Georgian eyes, to be in an
even more powerful position that Byzantium itself. Constantinople fell in 1204 and was not recovered in
mentioned only briefly. This might indicate that: (1) Georgia's involvement was secondary to that o f the
Komnenoi and their supporters; or, (2) Georgia's involvement had been enormous but that the Greek
sources wished to downplay (as contemporary Byzantine proper ones did) the importance and strength of
Georgia.
^ Life o f Tamar, p. 142-143; cf. the Eng. trans. of Vivian, p. 87.

4 ^Xaxanashvili, e d , trans., and comm., Trapezundskaia khronika Mikhaila Panareta, vol. 23 o f Trudy
po vostokovedeniiu, appendix 2, pp. 50-51; and M. Kurshanskis, "Relations matrimoniales entre Grandes
Comngnes de Trebizonde et princes georgiens," BK 34 (1976), pp. 112-127. One Georgian family still
remembers its descent from the Komnenoi: Andronikashvili (cf. Andronikos).
Essays on Georgian History, p. 166. Cf. "... [Georgia]... had become a rival and
successor o f the Byzantine empire in the Middle East" (ibid., p. 124).
4 ^*M. Lort k ip anidze,
687
her lifetime (1261), and she had been responsible, at least according to Georgian sources, for the very
establishment o f the successor "state" of Trebizond. I should think that the Georgians' own recollection o f
their involvement in the establishment of Trebizond is, for the most part, an accurate one, for no other
Christian kingdom in the region o f Trebizond was as powerful as T*amar's Georgia.
It seems to me that the Georgians, by the twelfth century, came to regard their monarch as an
equal to the basileus, the Byzantine emperor. Although we lack an explicit statement to this end in
contemporary Georgian literature, the equalization o f the two rulers is all too apparent The Georgian
Crown, under Davit' n . refused to accept further Byzantine dignities which would indicate submission to
the emperor. A contemporary icon from M t Sinai specifically names him, in Greek, as basileus (and The
Histories and Eulogies refers to itself as a vasiloghrap 'ia, a history o f Georgian emperors). and he is
portrayed (along with some o f his successors) in art with a crown having pendilia. The appearance o f
terms designating "autocrat" in the Bagratid intitulatio solidified the nascent idea that the Georgian
monarchs were unsurpassed, at least in the context o f Caucasia and the northern part o f the Near E ast At
the same time, the Georgian Crown raised the status o f the prelate o f its church to patriarch to further
m irror the emperor and patriarch in Constantinople. The life o f Davit' professes that Davit' n made the
Byzantine emperor a member o f his own household. This does not necessarily indicate subordination, but
more probably equalization . 4 7 2 And, o f course, we must consider T amar's involvement in the
establishment o f the Empire o f Trebizond following the fall o f Constantinople to the Crusaders in 1204.
From the Georgian perspective, T am ar had breathed life into a mangled Byzantium, intervening in its
internal affairs. The Georgian Bagratids had come full circle: they had arisen with Byzantine assistance:
4 7 2 Cf. the extravagant claims o f the Solomonids o f Ethiopia. In the Kebrd Ndgdst, para. 20, p. 16. their
version of Sumbat Davit' is-dze's ideological declaration, we read that:
From the middle of Jerusalem, and from the north thereof to the south-east is
the portion o f the Emperor o f Rom [i.e the Byzantine emperor]; and from the
middle o f Jerusalem from the north thereof to the south and to western
India is the portion o f the Emperor o f Ethiopia. For both o f them are the seed
o f Shem, the son o f Noah, the seed o f Abraham, the seed o f David, the
children o f Solomon. For God gave the seed o f Shem glory because o f the
blessing o f their forefather Noah. The Emperor o f Rom is the son o f Solomon,
and the Emperor o f Ethiopia is the firstborn and the eldest son o f Solomon.
The implication is, o f course, that the "Emperor" o f Ethiopia is ultimately superior to his counterpart in
Constantinople. Though Georgian sources never divide the world between the jurisdictions o f the rulers
o f Georgia and Byzantium (like the Kebrd Ndgdst), both the Bagratid and Solomonid traditions regard
their rulers as basileis in their own domains. Moreover, the Ethiopian tradition demonstrates the
legitimacy o f the Solomonids by their possession o f the Ark o f the Covenant, while Byzantium could
claim the True Cross. The Bagratids, as we have seen, developed the legend that Christ's Tunic and the
M antle of Elijah could be found in Georgia. See also Shahid, "The Kebra Nagast in the Light o f Recent
Research," pp. 133-178.
they came to imitate Byzantium; and finally, by the twelfth century, they portrayed their own monarch,
both textually and artistically, as an equal o f the Byzantine basileus473
473But this was the very apogee o f the medieval Georgian kingdom, for T am a rs rule was followed by
that o f her largely ineffective son Giorgi IV Lasha, and then, under the equally enfeeble Rusudan, the
Mongols sealed the collapse o f the all-Georgian monarchy. The further development o f Georgian royal
institutions and ideology was impeded. The memory o f the all-Georgian kingdom persisted throughout
the late medieval and early modem periods, and was encouraged by the brief reunification engendered
under Alexander I in the first-half o f the fifteenth century. Just as the unification o f Georgia by the
Bagratids had been stimulated by an outside great power (Byzantine), the reunification o f Georgia in the
nineteenth century was spurred on by the Christian, and Orthodox, Russian Empire. The beginnings o f
Georgia's reunification may be traced to the concerted effort o f the Russians to annex all o f Caucasia
beginning with the abrogation o f the 1783 peace treaty and the incorporation o f eastern Georgia directly
into the Empire in 1801 (But it should be said that the Russian Empire applied the principle o f divide and
conquer to the newly acquired Georgian provinces. Thus, the eastern and western halves o f Georgia were
consciously divided into two separate gubemiia , that o f T b ilisi and that o f K 'ut'aisi.). The Georgians
briefly gained independence from Russia and the nascent USSR in 1918-1921 when Noe Zhordania
headed the Republic of Georgia. Following the Bolsheviks seizure of the country, the incorporation o f
Georgia as a republic within the Soviet Union guaranteed the existence o f a Georgia throughout much o f
the twentieth century, and now, through the efforts o f the late nationalists Merab Kostava and Zviad
Gamsaxurdia, a second Republic o f Georgia has been bom.
689
E p il o g u e
Although the antecedents o f proto-" Georgian" tribes may be traced well back into the preHellenistic period, a local written historical tradition enshrining the collective past of these
communities did not emerge until after the Christianization o f the K 'art'velian monarchy in the fourth
century. Several neighboring peoples, including the Persians and the Romans, possessed their own
scripts. Amwzic-Aramaic inscriptions excavated in M c'xet'a testify that some elite K'art'velians were
acquainted with established alphabets. But we possess absolutely no evidence that Georgian was written
in non-Georgian letters. The development o f indigenous written traditions could occur only after the
Christianization o f K 'a rt'li and the consequent (deliberate) invention o f a Georgian script potentially
within h alf a century o f the conversion o f King Mihran/Mirian ca. 337. All Georgian historical texts, as
well as all Georgian MSS, are products of the Christian period, regardless o f the eras which they describe,
though before Christianization history had presumably been transmitted orally.
Hagiography is the earliest form o f original Georgian literature. In the fifth century the priest
Iabob C'urtaveli wrote The Martyrdom ofShushaniki. In the next century, an anonymous author
composed The Martyrdom o f Evstat 7. These texts are peculiar in that both Shushaniki and Evstat' i are
non-K'art'velians. In the case of the former, the Armenian Shushaniki was actually murdered by her
apostate K 'art'velian husband. This circumstance demonstrates not only the absence of nationalism in
ancient and medieval Caucasia, but also the fact that specifically K 'art'velian traditions are not the focus
o f the earliest local writers. Moreover, it should be said that the oldest hagiographies fail to mention
K 'art'velian monarchs in any regard. The Martyrdom ofShushaniki, whose narrative is contemporary
with the lengthy reign o f Vaxtang I Gorgasali, is entirely unacquainted with him.
The earliest authors o f original Georgian texts were Christian clerics. If surviving works are any
indication, it would seem that exceedingly few original texts were composed in early Christian K 'art'li.
At first glance, this may seem odd in light o f the literary efflorescence occurring in Armenia, especially in
the fifth century. However, the early ecclesiastical hierarchy in K' art' li was dominated by nonK 'art'velians, especially Greeks, Armenians, Christian Persians, and Syrians. The non-K' art' velian
clergy had no vested interest in developing, and propagating, specifically K 'art'velian historical traditions
(even original hagiographical works, Christian by definition, are extremely rare). Instead, its literary
output was concentrated narrowly upon the translation o f Biblical, exegetical, and other Christian texts
from Armenian, Greek, and Syriac. The place o f Armenian is especially significant, for the earliest
690
Georgian Bibles were translated precisely from that language. This is not unexpected however, since the
contemporary Armenian Church dominated all o f Christian Caucasia.
K 'art'velians only gradually infiltrated the highest rungs of the ecclesiastical hierarchy in
K'art'li. According to Georgian historical texts which were written later. K 'art'velians took control o f the
local church organization in the sixth century, and a noble family or two monopolized for a time the
bishopric of M e'xet'a, the highest ranking see. There is no reason to doubt this claim. Although bluntly
stated in the texts, this episode presumably represents the transformation o f the Church in K'art'li into the
K'art velian Church. Tensions began to mount with the Armenian Church, for it had hitherto claimed
ultimate predominance over all Caucasia. Throughout the sixth century, the Armenians convened
ecclesiastical councils, so as to debate the dogmatic position o f the Caucasian churches o f Armenia.
K'art'li, and Albania, and to solidify the predominant position o f Armenia in the region. Through this
period, the K 'art'velians (and Albanians) had followed blindly the Armenian line in its denouncements of
Chalcedon. By' the end o f that century, the K'art'velians came to act increasingly independently o f
Armenia in ecclesiastical matters, and consequently angry letters laced with accusations were exchanged
between the prelates o f Armenia and K 'art'li. Finally, in 607/608 at the council o f Dwin III. the chief
bishop o f Armenia formally excommunicated Kwrion, his K 'art'velian counterpart The reasons for the
schism are complex and still not altogether understood even today. However, the "K'art'velization" o f the
Church in K 'art'li would seem to have alerted the increasingly native clergy to Armenian domination.
Moreover, the relatively feeble position o f the contemporary K 'art'velian monarchy stimulated Vaxtang I
to seek Byzantine protection at this time. This alliance might have required a formal break with the
Armenian Church on dogmatic grounds. Still, it has been suggested by van Esbroeck that the first
kat'alikos, Petre, was actually the ex-Antiochene patriarch Peter the Fuller, and. in any case, that Petre
could be termed as anti-Chalcedonian (cf. the displaced archbishop M ik'ael). A t least from the Armenian
perspective, real feelings about theology were involved, though the contemporary K 'art'velian attitude is
less than evident in the confused received narratives. Soon after, and certainly by ca. S80, the Persians
succeeded in abolishing the K 'art'velian monarchy, and a succession o f presiding princes, who in the
beginning were probably on friendly terms with the Sasanids, rose to fill the vacuum. Ironically, it was at
this time that the usually pro-Byzantine Guaramid princely dynasty emerged in 588. Dwin m must
therefore be regarded as both a religious and a political phenomenon.
Following the fissure w ith Armenia, numerous calamities befell K 'art' li. The Persians, as noted,
liquidated the K 'art'velian monarchy sometime in the sixth century. Not all o f Vaxtang's successors
wanted to maintain close ties w ith Byzantium. The emperor Heraclius, en route to Persia, actually
invaded Christian K 'art'li. H is K hazar mercenaries sacked the city o f Tp'ilisi and the presiding prince
Step'anoz I was murdered because he had not acknowledged Byzantine supremacy. Within a few decades,
K 'art'li and all o f Caucasia were brought under the umbrella of Islam. To be sure, Islamic raids had a
destructive dimension, but although the monarchy remained suspended, the K 'art'velian Church
691
flourished. It was precisely in this period o f flux, in the seventh and eighth centuries, that K 'art'velian
writers began to direct their attention to articulating specifically K 'art'velian traditions. It should be
noted that the re-channeling o f creative energy in a time o f crisis, in this case away from the weak
political sphere to the cultural/ecclesiastical one, is not unique: it occurred not only in other places, but
also in Georgia at other times (e.g.. in the eighteenth century).1
These writers, at least initially, were still ecclesiastics, and they labored to explain how the
K 'art'velian com m unity became Christian.^ That is to say, the earliest K 'a rtvelian historians (through
written traditions) regarded proper K 'art'velian history to have commenced only from the Christianization
o f the Crown. The Conversion ofK 'art'li, which is now preserved only in the Bagratid-era corpus o f
Mok'c 'evay k'art'lisay, describes how King Mihran/Mirian HI accepted the Christian God. Its
anonymous seventh-century author declares that K 'art'li had become Christian at the moment o f the
king's conversion. Actually, it is supposed that K 'art'li's fate had been sealed when Nino had set foot in
K 'art'li. This is, o f course, a flagrant simplification. The conversion o f the monarch, and the securing of
his support, was extremely useful, but in actuality the earliest stages o f Christianization proceeded more
gradually.
The Conversion o f K'art'li should not be divorced from pre-existing traditions, for ultimately it
may be traced to - if not based upon the Ecclesiastical History o f Rufinus (late fourth/early fifth
century); the precise relationship o f The Conversion o f K'art'li and the account by Rufinus is, however,
unknown. Later, The Conversion o f K'art'li was greatly embellished in the ninth/tenth century Life o f
Nino (the tradition o f Nino that is now the keystone of the modem "popular" understanding o f the event)
and several dependent metaphrastic versions appeared from the eleventh/twelfth century. I have
examined the various layers o f development, though the relationship o f the various texts and traditions in
some cases remains a conundrum. W hat is clear is that The Conversion o f K'art'li represents the earliest
extant written Georgian tradition o f Nino, while the more famous Life o f Nino is a later Bagratid
elaboration.
It should be emphasized that The Conversion o f K'art'li endeavors to describe, and on some
counts to invent, a specifically K 'art'velian tradition of that community's own Christianization.
Following Dwin m the K 'art'velians did not squander their literary efforts in polemic against the
Armenians. However, The Conversion o f K'art'li might be regarded as masqueraded polemic, for, in my
view, it essentially constitutes an abandonment, or at least a massive and highly selective rewriting, of
*Cf. the cultural efflorescence am ong early (modem) Armenian and Georgian nationalists.
2In this light, we should pause to consider that if the Armenian tradition o f M ashtoc's invention of the
Georgian alphabet is an interpolation, then it represents a later (post-Dwin) Armenian claim that the
Georgians owed their script, and by implication their written traditions, to an Armenian cleric.
692
traditions transmitted from the Armenian Church. Furthermore, unlike preceding hagiography, the
K 'art'velian king is a prom inent actor, the text being imbued with the pre-modem K'art'velian/Georgian
notion that the monarch is the very embodiment o f the community. In a sense, then. The Conversion o f
K'art'li might be regarded as history, although it is better term ed as historical hagiography.

Around the year 800, a new genre o f Georgian literature was developed, historical writing. It
represents, in some ways, a radical break with hagiography. This history focuses narrowly upon the king
and the abstract notion o f kingship, while hagiography is first and foremost intended to promote
Christianity. However, historians built their works upon the literary foundations laid by earlier
hagiographers. The term c 'xorebay was used throughout the period not only to denote the written "life''
(i.e.. vita; biography) o f a saint but the "history" o f the Kart'velian rulers. Some historical tracts, like
The Life o f Vaxtang, are closely patterned on hagiography. In this text, Vaxtang's progression to a king
loyal to Christian Byzantium is divulged, his journey paralleling the topos o f the evolution o f a sinner into
a sain t The brief Martyrdom o f Arch 'il is reminescent o f The Conversion o f K'art'li, with its
commingling o f hagiography and history'. However, some historical texts broke free o f the hagiographic
mold. Obvious examples o f this are The Life o f the Kings and The Primary History o f K'art 7/, which
disclose only the pre-Christian K'art'velian p a st This is a departure from The Conversion o f K'art'li, and
the subsequent Life o f Nino, which reckon that the Christian past was the only history worthy of
documentation.
Pre-modem Georgian historical literature is in many ways defined by three ca. 800 texts which
were incorporated into K'art'lis c'xovreba: The Life o f the Kings, The Life o f Vaxtang, and the untitled
continuation by Ps.-Juansher. In the initial chapters o f this study, I labored to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that these works were not written in the Bagratid period, in the eleventh century, as is popularly
held (especially in Georgia itself). Rather, as Ingoroqva, Tarchnishvili. Toumanoff, and others suggested
before me, I argued they were actually composed on the eve o f Bagratid rule. Should these texts date from
ca. 800. then they represent a distinct pre-Bagratid historical tradition. This is significant for the
K'art'velian Bagratids, beginning with Ashot I (813-830), came to dominate central Caucasia until the
Russian conquest o f the nineteenth century'. For a long time most scholars envisaged the three
aforementioned works as relics o f the Bagratid p a st which extended for a millennium. The continuum of
Georgian history was understood to have been preserved by texts written only in the Bagratid period, and
thus, completely subject to Bagratid interpretation.
We should pause to consider the sudden appearance o f Georgian historical writing around the
turn of the ninth century. Like so many of the issues considered here, we cannot offer any firm answers,
but can point only to the most probable scenarios. First, this genre emerged during the long period that
the K'art'velian Crown was in abeyance. It seems that these ca. 800 histories not only enshrine the shared
past of the community but also call for the restoration o f the monarchy. By ca. 800, the presiding princes
of K 'art'li usually looked to Byzantium for protection and support. Perhaps the rise o f the kingdom of
693
Ap'xazet'i, and the establishment o f a branch o f the Bagratids in K 'art'li, galvanized this orientation.
The appearance of Movses Xorenac' i's comprehensive history o f the Armenian community in the early
eighth century may have brought some K 'art'velian bookmen closer to the realization that K 'art'li's
history should similarly be recorded. Moreover, fascination in the Sasanid past at th e ' Abbasid court at
this time may have infiltrated K 'a rt'li and served as a reminder o f its old Persian heritage. That tradition
might have seemed useful to reinforce the resistance to Islamic rule that was already being expressed
culturally, especially in hagiography (e.g., The Martyrdom ofHabo). Finally, Georgian historical writing
developed in the post-Dwin HI environment, one in which the K'art'velians came to develop and to
defend more fully their own traditions. But the triad of ca. 800 histories was composed some two
centuries after the schism, and it is not at all clear why so much time should have elapsed before this
genre's appearance. Part o f the answer lies in the feet that initially local historians extended proper
K 'art'velian history only back to the victory o f Christianity. At first, the pre-Christian period was not
deemed worthy o f commemoration.
How may we characterize the pre-Bagratid historical tradition?3 Its constitution is bipartite:
emphasis on the Crown and Persia. Extant pre-Bagratid historical literature, though written during the
interregnum, unequivocally depicts the monarch as the pinnacle of society. This view pervades Bagratid
texts as well. Accordingly, medieval Georgian historical texts are dlitist to say the least Historical
writing is thus a tool to record and to advance royal legitimacy, even in the absence o f the Crown during
the principate (cf. the p opularity o f texts about early Persian and Sasanid history in the 'Abbasid period).
The emphasis on Persia in these early K 'art'velian historical texts, even those addressing the Christian
period, distinguishes pre-Bagratid histories from their Bagratid counterparts. But this Persian orientation
or rather, common social, cultural, and political features - did not necessarily manifest itself in political
allegiance to Persia. Since the substratum o f these works is dominated by portraits of K 'art'velian kings,
it is not surprising, therefore, to find that indigenous monarchs and their authority are painted in terms
colored Persian, especially as bumberazi-s and goliat'i-s (i.e.. Sasanid hero-rulers). Moreover,
contemporary non-Georgian sources make it abundantly clear that ancient and early medieval K 'art'li had
taken shape in the context o f the northern part o f the Near East, a region dominated by Persia. Therefore,
K 'art'li was a member o f the Persian world, albeit a Christian one after the 330s.^ Thus ca. 800, some
<5
We should, quite obviously, take care in depicting either the pre-Bagratid or Bagratid historiographic
period as monolithic. E.g.. as we have seen, within the pre-Bagratid tradition we possess a number of
disparate texts: some only addressed Christian history, some only pre-Christian hikory; and most had
little knowledge of Rome, with the notable exception o f Ps.-Juansher.
*In other words, the local sources, composed a t a relatively late date, attest to Near Eastern connection of
K 'art'li. I have argued that the memory of this tie was an accurate one, though many o f the details are
later fabrications. The silence o f the local tradition about the influx o f Graeco-Roman civilization should
not be taken to denote its absence. However, whereas Egrisi/Colchis received many o f its Graeco-Roman
694
four hundred years after the Christianization o f the monarchy, and even some two centuries after the
establishment of the usually pro-Byzantine Guaramid princely dynasty, native historians continued to
depict their rulers and community, both former and contemporary, as essentially Persian. Still at the
beginning o f the ninth century, K 'art'velian historians did not see that the Persian heritage o f K 'a rt'li
precluded it from being devotedly Christian, and that heritage had evidently not been forgotten. The
Byzantine and Persian interpretation, o f course, was of mutual exclusion towards one another. It must be
admitted that, for the most part, the Persian portrayals o f K 'a rt'li that have come down to us are ca. 800
recollections. Though they may accurately recollect K 'a rt'lis ancient Persian heritage, the fact remains
that their imagery is largely a later creation.
The Life o f the Kings summarizes the remote K 'art'velian past from its provenance up through
the Christianization o f Mihran/Mirian. It purports to describe the pre-Christian history o f the community
that had been neglected by The Conversion o f K'art'li. Although some oral traditions probably existed,
there is no evidence that earlier written Georgian testimony was extant ca. 800, with the exception o f the
assumed existence of an ancient king lis t Accordingly, our author was forced to create an ancient history
o f the K 'art'velian community from received, non-Georgian traditions. Although the first K 'art'velian
historical texts had emerged in the wake o f the schism with the Armenians, he nevertheless plundered
Armenian texts (originals, translations, and adaptations) and traditions so as to calculate and elucidate the
origin o f K ' art' li. The Armenian adaptation of Hippolytus Chronicle was particularly important in this
regard (just as the Armenian version of Socrates' Ecclesiastical History was likely employed by the author
o f The Conversion o f K'art'li). Thus, notwithstanding the break with the Armenians. ArmenoK 'art'velian literary contacts persisted, even into the Bagratid era, and were instrumental in the very
sculpting o f a K 'art'velian tradition. And we have seen how this post-Dwin relationship was not limited
to the literary sphere; e.g., a permanent branch of the Bagratuni family was established in K 'a rt'li after
772, and the Armenian M q'argrdzeli brothers Ivane and Zak'aria were the most successful of T a m a rs
generals.
Eponyms, the usually legendary founders o f a community, were commonly embraced throughout
Christendom. Taking the Old Testament and certain Armenian traditions as a point o f departure, the
author o f The Life o f the Kings deduced that his invented K 'art'velian primogenitor, K 'art'los. had been
the brother o f Hayk, the founder o f Armenia.'* Since Hayk had already been depicted as the son o f
features from its Greek colonists, K 'art' li partook o f them through Seleucid, Arsacid, and then Christian
intermediaries. Regardless, I believe that ancient and early medieval K 'art'li continued to share more in
common with the Persian/Near Eastern world than with that o f Greece/Rome/Byzantium.
*One other explanation for the derivation o f the K 'art'velians relationship to the Armenians, at least in
terms o f modified Biblical traditions, is that the tradition that the Bagratuni family was descended from
Hayk' (and were not Jews, this according to Prim. Hist. Armenia) was adopted and adapted under the
K 'art'velian Bagratids. This would make The Life o f the Kings an early Bagratid-era work, perhaps late
695
Japheth in the line o f Noah, K 'art'los was easily inserted into Biblical tabula populorum. Thus, the
K'art'velians are classified as an ancient community direct!}' linked to Biblical history. Other regions and
prominent settlements o f the greater K 'art'velian realm were then associated with the immediate progeny
o f K 'art' los, thus suggesting that all o f them belonged to the K 'art'velians. Though the K' art'velians had
broken free o f Armenian domination, our author realized that he could not plausibly make K 'art'los the
older brother o f Hayk. Thus, he fashioned him as a younger sibling. This had the implication that early
K 'art'li was technically subordinate to Armenia. How medieval K'art'velians reacted to this caveat is
unclear, but by the early modem period certain Georgians took offense at this relationship and vandalized
several MSS o f K'art'lis c'xovreba in order to prevent the further transmission of the tale in this form (the
Vaxtangiseuli Rumianc'eviseuli [R] MS is particularly striking in this regard). Regardless, the original
authors usually positive assessment of Armenia and Armenians is striking, especially in light o f Dwin HI.
This may be a n indication that our Christian author was not a cleric. Notwithstanding, he almost
certainly did not regard the schism as having disconnected K 'a rt'li and Armenia forever. In fact, he does
not mention the break at all, and regardless of his own unspoken feelings about 607/608. it is evident that
he did not w ish to inject his own narrative with the ill-feelings which had arisen (to be fair, however, his
history is concerned only with the pre-Christian past, and it would have been anachronistic to address
Dwin m . However, had he wished to do so, the author could have fabricated ancient antagonisms so as to
explain later events).
Following the narrative of the K 'artlosiani-s, the author o f The Life o f the Kings evokes a
Persian model for subsequent early K'art'velian history. His first king o f the K'art'velians, P'arnavaz. is
made to rebel against Azon, the tyrannical governor who had been installed by Alexander the Great.
P'arnavaz is described as a Persian-style monarch, as are his successors. As indicated by his name and
his good fortunes, he allegedly possessedfamah, the "divine grace" understood by the Persians to mark a
legitimate ruler. He is also said to have anointed himself w ith the very essence of the Sun, a mythical
episode imbued with symbols characteristic o f Persian, and related Caucasian, civilization. Whether or
not P'arnavaz reflects a faded and manipulated memory o f a historical monarch, his reign as reported is.
quite obviously, highly idealized. Although some Georgian scholars have been tempted to read the
P'arnavaz tale literally, in fact it was deliberately sculpted to construct the prototypical K 'art'velian king.
Thus P'arnavaz is supposed not only to have raised the chief idol Armazi, but also to have invented the
Georgian script and to have created the administrative-military network o f erist'avi-s (regional
governors). This does not preclude the possibility that there actually existed a king P'arnavaz in the
period However, the received account, and its imagery, is a considerably later creation Certainly, there
ninth or tenth century. However, internal evidence, especially the complete absence of any mention of the
K 'art'velian Bagratids, argues against this.
696
was a first K 'art'velian king, and he probably flourished in the early Hellenistic period He may, or may
not, be the P'arnavaz o f The Life o f the Kings (perhaps the memory o f Azoy in Mok'c'evay k'artlisay is
actually one o f an earlier kingship). On the basis o f that text alone, we cannot make a firm conclusion.
Unlike P'arnavaz himself, many o f the Pamavaziani-s, his immediate successors, are found in
non-Georgian sources, thus confirming their existences. Though the details o f their reigns provided in
The Life o f the Kings are suspect, I have attempted to demonstrate that their generic depiction as Persiantype monarchs is nevertheless tenable. We should recall that a different tradition o f the origin o f the
K 'art'velian monarchy is preserved in The Primary History ofK 'art'li and in Royal List I, each o f which
now survive only m M ok'c'evay k'art'lisay. P'arnavaz is portrayed in them as the first native king to rule
from Me 'xet'a, while the family o f Azoy is said to have earlier held royal authority in "Aryan K 'art' li." or
"Persian K 'art'li." These brief sources, which may in fact be based upon The Life o f the Kings, are
completely stripped o f any Persian trappings. This is consistent with Bagratid-era historiography in
which the local kings are never described as shahanshah-s. Because o f the lateness of the extant MSS. we
are not in a position to definitely conclude which tradition is earlier.
The ancient Persian heritage of K 'art'li usually did not extend into, or was not imagined as
extending into, the religious sphere. To be sure, Armazi, the K 'art'velian counterpart to the Persian
Ahura-Mazda, is conceived o f having been the chief idol o f the pre-Christian pantheon. Yet the local
sources do not explicitly suggest the Armazi/Ahura-Mazda connection. Be that as it may, it was
customary to regard the Persians as honorable without passing judgment on Zoroastrianism (though the
Christian Vaxtang, in his legendary biography, is said to have justified his alliance with the Persians by
identifying Zoroastrianism as essentially monotheistic). Extant Georgian historical works were written
well after the disintegration o f Sasanid Iran itself and it follows that the Persians were no longer a threat
in the authors times and could more easily be depicted in positive terms. This contrasts, for example,
with fifth-century Armenian historical sources which were composed at a time when the Persians were a
threat to local Christians. In addition, fifth- and sixth-century Georgian hagiography, with its obvious
Christian agenda (and written also during the time o f Persian domination), disregards any intimate
association o f K 'art'li w ith Persia and instead assails the latter for its persecution o f Christians and
promotion o f Fire-Worship. This pre-Bagratid hagiography, though its texts are few, was transmitted
throughout the Bagratid period. This was possible precisely because o f its lack o f association to Persia
and even to the pre-Bagratid monarchs. Moreover, the pre-Bagratid saints took Christian names,
shunning their former, Persian-based ones. Significantly, no analogous "purification" was reported for the
early Christian (pre-Bagratid) K 'artvelian kings.
The Christianization o f Mihran/Mirian marks the end o f The Life o f the Kings. The nonChristian nature o f that text was evidently troublesome to clerics and Bagratids alike. But instead o f
rejecting it, Bagratid-era editors and scribes Christianized i f reinventing an already invented p a st The
brunt o f this effort was directed by the eleventh-century archbishop Leonti Mroveli, who was probably also
697
responsible for appending to the text a version o f the ninth-/tenth-century Life o f Nino. He may have also
composed the brief narrative which I have termed The Life o f the Successors ofMirian. The Life o f the
Kings, already a part o f the earliest version o f K'artTis c'xovreba (along with the two texts o f C'xorebay
vaxtang gorgaslisa). was combined with The Life o f Nino and The Life o f the Successors ofMirian to
form the corpus C'xorebay k'art'velt'a mep'et'a. Additional Biblical and Christian items were inserted
into The Life o f the Kings by the King Vaxtang VI Commission in the early eighteenth century.
The Life o f Vaxtang is remarkable on several counts. First, written by an author during the
interregnum who yearned for the re-establishment o f the monarchy, it portrays Vaxtang as a great king
whose authority was unrivaled. The historical Vaxtang was possibly a courageous monarch, but his
greatness, a t least as expressed by his later biographer, is greatly exaggerated. Though The Life o f
Vaxtang m ight be accused o f being fallacious, it is actually quite useful as an expression o f the opinions o f
the author. In a sense, this text might be regarded as a "m irror for princes." The author contends that
even early C hristian K'art'velian kings, as late as Vaxtang, conceived o f their authority in Persian terms.
Thus, the notion o f the Sasanid hero-king, expressed by the Old Georgian words bumberazi m dgoiiat'i,
is applied to early Christian monarchs. K 'art'velian rulers also continued to bear Persian names (both
Vaxtang and Gorgasali are derived from Persian), although some Guaramids adopted Christian ones (e.g..
Step'anoz). Then, by ca. 800 the status o f the K 'art'velian Church within the ecumenical church became
an issue. In Vaxtang's time, the K 'art'velian kat'alikos-ate had. in fa c t been established. However, the
later biographer took the liberty o f injecting into the Life the burning questions of his own day (like
autocephaly) so as to discuss the contemporary situation. It is entirely possible that the earliest
kat'aiikos-es, back in the late fifth and early sixth centuries, had been consecrated by the patriarch of
Antioch. But, in any case, Antiochene-K'art'velian ecclesiastical relations existed in the author's time.
Moreover, the historian exploited Vaxtang's supposed greatness to account for the expansion of the local
ecclesiastical organization. Finally, he engages the various dimensions o f contemporary K'art'velian selfidentity, especially the Persian and the Christian. He believed that one could be a K'art'velian, a
Christian, and still adopt certain facets of Persian-ness. However, The Life o f Vaxtang, through the
example o f Vaxtang, contends that the K 'art'velian monarch should recognize the ultimate authority of
the Byzantine emperor (who proclaimed himself; and was widely acknowledged, to be the head o f the
Christian world). This attitude foreshadows the orientation o f the K 'art'velian Bagratids who, arising
under Byzantine tutelage, would draw more directly from Byzantine civilization than their predecessors.
The imagined Vaxtang is the only pre-Bagratid K 'art'velian king, other than the first Christian
Mirian, who is regularly commemorated in medieval Bagratid texts. The reasons for this situation are
complicated. The life o f Vaxtang portrays its subject as a great king, a defender of Christianity, and as an
ally o f Byzantium. Moreover. Bagratid-era references to Vaxtang are usually devoid of the Persian
trappings which characterize his ca. 800 biography. After all, the Bagratids found these features
unsuitable, especially for a Christian monarch. Vaxtang was imagined to have swept away the old order.
698
especially through his ultimate "conversion'' to Byzantine civilization, which accorded with the way the
Bagratids conceived o f their own experience. The Davidic references in The Life o f Vaxtang presaged the
origin claim o f the K 'art'velian Bagratids. Moreover, Persian literature became popular at the Bagratid
Georgian court from the early twelfth century. The Persian flavor o f The Life o f the Kings. and the
similarity o f the description o f Vaxtang and Persian heroes like Bahrain Gor, contributed to its notoriety.
Ps.-Juansher, the latest o f the known pre-Bagratid historians, wrote a brief continuation to the
legendary account o f Vaxtang. His untitled history is extraordinary in that it is the first extant historical
text to be nearly contemporary w ith the events it describes. Moreover, in it is preserved the earliest
definite reference to the Bagratids, a branch o f which permanently established itself in the K 'art'velian
domains only in the last quarter o f the eighth century. The eleventh-century Chronicle o f K'art'li. written
in the Bagratid period, is also an intermediate source between the pre-Bagratid and Bagratid periods, for.
relating the rule o f the last pre-Bagratid presiding princes, it does not scorn them, or lessen their right to
rule, for merely not being Bagratids (and thus the offspring o f the Old Testament David).
The orientation o f K 'art'li, at least in terms o f conceptions o f authority', shifted under Bagratid
rule, and this is duly reflected in Bagratid-era historical literature. The Bagratids were a new element in
K 'art'velian politics. They were not immediately descended from the pre-Bagratid K 'art'velian dynasties
(e.g., P'arnavaziani-s, Chosroids), though Sumbat Davit' is-dze erroneously imagined the Guaramid
princes to be proto-Bagratids. From the start, the K 'art'velian branch of the Bagratids found itself highly
dependent upon Byzantium. And it is to Byzantium, and increasingly less to the Near East, that the
Bagratids looked for political models. Accordingly, the pre-Bagratid model o f the Sasanid shahanshah
was supplanted by that o f the Byzantine basileus. This reorientation is also expressed in the religious
sphere. For example, under the Bagratids the K'art'velian Church disposed o f its traditional use o f the
Syro-Palestinian liturgy and adopted that o f Constantinople.
The K 'art'velian Bagratids were outsiders. Instead o f obscuring this circumstance and allowing
it to constrict their authority, they played upon it to project themselves as making a radical discontinuity
with the pre-Bagratid past.** It should be said that how the Bagratids o f K'art 'li transformed themselves
into K'art'velian Bagratids is not specifically addressed in the sources, and we know extremely little about
this process except that it seems to have been achieved rapidly (the bicultural milieu of the ArmenoK art'velian marchlands was instrumental). Unfortunately, no historical works survive from the early
Bagratid period, so we may only conjecture about the attitudes o f the earliest K 'art'velian Bagratids
towards their pre-Bagratid counterparts. However, native hagiography from the tenth century (i.e., Giorgi
M eich'ule) and non-Georgian sources (e.g., Constantine VH's De administrando imperio) confirm the fact
that the Bagratids who migrated to K 'a rt'li considered themselves to be the direct descendants o f the Old
^Geary, Phantoms o f Remembrance, pp. 23 et sqq., for the example o f post-Carolingian Europe.
R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f the copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout p erm ission.
699
Testament King-Prophet David. This claim had never been advanced by the pre-Bagratid kings and
presiding princes. Ironically, this myth was developed from an existing Armenian Bagratuni tradition
which held that the family was o f Jewish descent The K 'art'velian Bagratids merely continued this
deliberate concealment o f local, Perso-Armenian origin. Be that as it may. in different ways both the preBagratid and Bagratid historical traditions are invariably bound up with those o f neighboring Armenia.
When Arsen Sap'areli composed his polemical work against the Armenians in the eleventh century, he
essentially adopted techniques developed in the pre-Bagratid period. He did not seek the evaporation of
Armenian traditions but turned them on their head, selectively citing them so as to defend the K 'art'velian
position by means o f their evidence. It is worth emphasizing that while the pre-Bagratid kings (or at least
their historians writing in the pre-Bagratid period) sought to establish intimate connections, sometimes
dynastic, with Persia, the Bagratids came to deny dynastic connections with Persia as well as any
preceding dynasty, except for that o f David himself.
K 'art'velian Bagratid historical writing is now extant only from the eleventh century, after their
consolidation o f power and the establishment o f an all-Georgian kingdom (Sak'art'velo) in 1008 under
Bagrat tH. Thus, the earliest known Bagratid historians already knew that the dynasty would successfully
unite all o f Georgia and much o f Caucasia and the northern part o f the Near East, and this sense o f unity
is often projected back to the early days o f the K 'art'velian Bagratids. By the eleventh century, and
perhaps even earlier, the Bagratids had come to consciously ignore the obvious Persian trappings o f the
pre-Bagratid kings.* As noted, the medieval Bagratid historians rarely mention the pre-Bagratids. Doing
so would have denied their ideology of discontinuity with the ancient and early medieval rulers o f K 'art'li.
Moreover, the Bagratids proclaimed that their authority ultimately rested in their biological descent from
The pre-Bagratid historians wrote under Arab domination. A comparison should be made with the
Perso-Islamic dynasties of the Tahirids and the Buyids. Each o f these claimed a connection to both the
Arabic-Islamic and the Persian past. Although the Christian K 'art'velians had no reason to find a link to
the Arabs, the ancient Persian heritage of their land was well remembered by them even ca. 800. The
interest in the Persian past a t the 'Abbasid court may have provoked the K 'art'velians to remember their
sim ilar p a st See Bosworth, "The Heritage o f Rulership in Early Islamic Iran and the Search for Dynastic
Connections with the Past," Iran 11 (1973), esp. pp. 56ff.
o
It is worth mentioning again the ramifications o f my pre-Bagratid texts actually being Bagratid ones
(though I think ample evidence exists to conclusively show this was not the case). The Persian trappings
o f The Life o f the Kings, The Life o f Vaxtang, an d the continuation by Ps.-Juansher would be
extraordinary in Bagratid historical literature. How could we explain it? The popularity o f Persian epics
at the Bagratid court would be a contributing factor, under their influence, perhaps early "Georgian"
history was conceived in Sasanid terms, and this only happened to coincide with ancient K 'art'lis actual
Persian orientation. It is also conceivable that my pre-Bagratid histories were composed just prior to the
popularity o f Persian literature, and thus the Persian image o f pre-Bagratid rulers may have been intended
to make them detestable to the Bagratids and their subjects. But why would the Bagratids devote so much
effort to commemorate a period for which they had no love? After all, the brief Royal Lists are certainly
Bagratid-era productions, and they reveal only the most skeletal o f details.
700
David. Since the pre-Bagratid kings could not make this connection, in the eyes o f the Bagratids they
were not authentic monarchs. Because the pre-Bagratid kings were envisaged merely as miniature
shahanshah-s, whether they be "pagan" or Christian, most Bagratids (at least after they had cast their net
o f hegemony7over m uch o f Caucasia) ignored their predecessors.
But no m atter how hard they tried, the Bagratids could not entirely conceal their Near Eastern
heritage. Several Bagratid names, like Bagrat, Sumbat. and Ashot, are based upon Persian ones, as had
been the case in pre-Bagratid nomenclature. Their familys origin, as has now been demonstrated by
Adonc' and Toumanofif is Perso-Armenian. Arabic (but never Greek, the language o f the Byzantines)
was customarily used in conjunction with Georgian in numismatic inscriptions. From a careful
examination o f extant texts, Toumanoff deduced that the early Bagratids even established marital links
with earlier K 'art'velian dynasties (i.e., the P'amavaziani-s and the Chosroids, whom they later came to
shun), and that the K 'art'velian Bagratids essentially superseded the Guaramid princes, taking possession
o f their lands and their right to rule.
The early Bagratids opened the floodgates to Byzantine civilization, but levees began to be raised
in the early eleventh century when the Bagratids came to perceive some forms o f Byzantine influence as
outright interference and when the Byzantines came to see that the Bagratids. should they turn against the
empire (as was the case with Davit' ofTao/Tayk"'s assistance to the rebel Bardas Phokas), as serious
threats to their hegemony in the E ast Byzantine dignities and honors had been solicited by the early
Bagratids, and though these inflated exponentially in the course o f the eleventh century, Davit' II
discarded them altogether so as to eliminate the inherent subservient status. Simultaneously, the textual
(and artistic) image o f the Georgian monarchs began to emulate more fully that o f the Byzantine basileis.
It is my contention that, by the time o f Davit' II, the Georgian monarch conceived o f himself/herself as an
equal to (but not the superior of) the emperor, a t least within his/her own realm. This is yet another
example o f the adoption o f foreign traditions and models (cf. the earlier, selective use o f the Armenian
traditions to invent a specifically K'art'velian ones) so as to explain and legitimate the situation in. and
the experience of. K'art'li/G eorgia.
The identification o f a separate pre-Bagratid tradition is crucial, for it shows why some o f our
extant texts do not reflect the specifically Bagratid understanding o f history.^ Medieval Georgian
historical writing was not immutable, neither inside nor outside o f the categories o f pre-Bagratid and
Bagratid literature. To be sure, each historian had his own experiences, biases, abilities, and goals. Some
had much to say about Christianity, others little; some wrote about remote antiquity, while others made
contemporary figures and events their subjects; some described pre-Bagratid monarchs and rulers (writing
9Although we have identified several pre-Bagratid texts, the fact remains that o ur extant MSS were all
copied in the Bagratid period, and thus subject to potential (Bagratid-era) scribal editing
701
during the prinripate), others those o f the Bagratids. Pre-Bagratid historians tended to regard their
community and kingship as essentially Persian, albeit Christian after the fourth century, while their
Bagratid counterparts emphasized the nexus o f Georgia and the Byzantine commonwealth. Though at
first this relationship with Constantinople was one o f subordination, it became in the eleventh century one
o f equality. In short, we must refrain from fossilizing any* period o f medieval Georgian historical writing,
no matter how long or b rief no matter how ancient o r recent
Both periods o f historical w riting are characterized by their unequivocal support of the
monarchy. The issue o f patronage and whether the textual portraits painted by Georgian historians were
controlled by ihe local rulers is worth pondering. Extant pre-Bagratid literature was composed during the
prinripate, and it is unlikely that either the weakened descendants o f the fallen Chosroid dynasty or the
presiding princes were in a position to promulgate rigid historiographic paradigms in which to couch
themselves and their authority. No extant colophon or notice suggests patronage. Furthermore, we know
exceedingly little about the authors, editors, and copyists, and often not even their names. I think the
anonymity was intentional. By c a 800, it was understood that the memory o f kings should be
commemorated in historical texts. Histories o f the monarchs were deemed natural and necessary. They
were, essentially, textual icons. Accordingly, early historians did not include their names, for information
about them would alert the reader to the recentness o f the texts (especially in the case o f pre-Bagratid
kings). Digressions identifying the author might detract from the stria emphasis on the king. In any
event, the portrayals o f pre-Bagratid kingship as essentially Persian do not necessarily denote royal and
princely intervention in the writing of history'. Except for Ps.-Juansher, pre-Bagratid historians wrote
about events and persons far removed from their own time. Should these histories have had sponsorship
from rulers, then they may represent "rulership as it should again be. The situation under the Bagratids
is no more clear. At the beginning of their rule we know exceedingly little about the place and role o f
history, for no surviving work o f Bagratid-era history predates the eleventh century, a time when
historians seem to have enjoyed a certain latitude. The strictly legitimist tra a of Davit' is-dze contrasts
noticeably with The Chronicle o f K'art'li, which, unlike the former, describes the reigns o f the last preBagratid presiding princes. Davit' II an d T am ar seem to have exerted a greater influence over their
historians, although how they did this is unknown. Like those o f their predecessors, the identifications of
Bagratid historians, for the most part, rem ain a mystery. Eastmond has brilliantly established that royal
control o f artistic images o f royal authority was very limited in the period, and we should ask whether the
same holds true for historiographical ones.
However, unlike frescoes in a given distant church,
historical texts could be transported anywhere. Scriptoria could copy these texts for dissemination
throughout the kingdom. Potentially, historical writing would seem to have been a tool o f propaganda
*Eastmond, Royal Imagery in Medieval Georgia, unpub. typescript, esp. ch. 5.
R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.
702
more easily manipulated a r t Yet this also raises the question as to where historical texts were composed.
It seems to me that we cannot suppose they were written at the court, though this may actually be the case.
All these remarks are necessarily vague, for contemporary and near-contemporary MSS and other
requisite evidence are absent. In any case, the Bagratid monarchs. at least from the time o f D avit'. took a
more active interest in how history was written about their dynasty, but beyond that we may only
conjecture.
In many instances, especially in pre-Bagratid historical texts, semi-legendary narratives
dominate. ** The nature and change o f these myths reflects historical, or historiographical,
transformation, especially in the eras in which they were written down. ^ This is true for both the preBagratid and Bagratid eras. In this lig h t the received myth of K 'art'los represents a ca. 800 effort to
explain the ethnogenesis o f the K'art'velians, who by the time o f the composition o f The Life o f the Kings.
were the dominant tribe in the "Georgian" domains. This attempt to unearth the origin o f K 'art'li was in
some respects a reaction to the earlier Conversion o f K'art'li (and then The Life o f Nino) which seems to
suggest that real K 'art'velian history was limited to that of Christian K 'art'li. The pre-Christian past was
worth forgetting. The interpolation o f K 'art'los into established Biblical traditions was no accident.
K 'art' los was meticulously sculpted, so as to account for the situation in Caucasia in the author's time, or
at least, the situation as it ideally should be. Thus various eastern "Georgian" regions were clearly
subordinated to K 'art'los and his progeny, and by implication, to K 'art'li. Yet it is ironic that in the wake
o f Dwin m the author was compelled to utilize established Armenian traditions (this in light o f my
contention that the K 'art'velians seized upon the post-Dwin milieu to create their own traditions): from
them he could create a plausible K 'art'los, but in the process he could not easily conceal the existence and
superiority o f the Armenian eponym.
A narrative o f the pre-Christian K 'art'velian kings, who are described in Persian terms,
immediately follows the tale o f the eponyms. As is common in other lands of medieval Europe and Asia,
Alexander the Great came to be linked with important moments in K'art'velian history. Not only was the
establishment o f that monarchy (according to The Life o f the Kings) associated directly with Alexander,
an event which did actually occur at about this time, but the metamorphosis of the K 'art'velian
community from a primitive to a civilized "state" was thought to have happened as a consequence. The
description o f the imagined Vaxtang, a Christian pre-Bagratid king, resonates with the ca. 800
understanding of the various, seeming incompatible strands of self-identity. For depending upon the
* *1 have argued against a purely literal reading o f Georgian historical texts, irrespective o f their dates o f
composition.
1)
Belich, Malang Peoples: A History o f the New Zealanders, p. 25. For myth-making during periods o f
crisis, see Morgan, "From a Death to a View: The Hunt for the Welsh Past in the Romantic Period," pp.
43-100.
703
expediencies o f the moment, an}- ingredient could be emphasized, diminished, or entirely discarded. This
circumstance was almost certainly true for the imagined and the historical Vaxtang alike. Moreover, the
historical Vaxtang's exile in Byzantium and his request for aid from the emperor was transmuted into an
admission by the imagined Vaxtang that Christian Ka r f li should necessarily acknowledge the ultimate
authority o f Christian Constantinople.
Generally speaking, Bagratid-era historians are contemporaries or near-contemporaries o f their
subjects, whereas pre-Bagratid ones are not (with the notable exception o f Ps.-Juansher). But this
peculiarity does not preclude the Bagratids from fabricating and disseminating their own mythology.
Davitis-dze is perhaps the best example o f this phenomenon, for he classically articulates the claim that
the K artvelian Bagratid clan was directly descended from the King-Prophet David. The provenance of
the Kartvelian/Georgian community is completely ignored. Instead, Davitis-dze underscores that the
Bagratids, originally Jews, were descended from a different line o f Noah. Thus, Old Testament
genealogies are deemed the ultimate ancient truth by both pre-Bagratid and Bagratid historians, but they
are used to express and explain divergent realities. By the eleventh century, when Bagratid power had
coalesced, that dynasty refrained from explaining its rise and legitimacy- in the terms used by the preBagratid monarchs (or at least their pre-Bagratid historians). Instead, the family represented itself as
making a distinct break with a past that was inherently Persian, and executing a turn towards Christian
Byzantium. So as to demonstrate the change, the Bagratids effected many innovations, including a
specifically Georgian calendrical system, the k'oronikon, which is actually based upon an old Roman
system, as well as the invention o f two new Georgian scripts, nusxuri and mxedruli. Moreover, that an
author describes a contemporary- monarch does not necessarily indicate that his account is devoid of myth.
The examples o f Davit II and his great-granddaughter T a m a r are especially pertinent to this point, for
although they were certainly powerful rulers in their own right (cf. Vaxtang), specific images were
meticulously fashioned for them. Obfuscating this already- convoluted situation is the fact that Georgian
historical literature was written for and by the monarchy. As a result, the Crown, its representatives, and
its agenda are rarely scrutinized.
Medieval Kartli, and then Georgia was a cosmopolitan entity. Pre-Bagratid historians are
more willing than their counterparts to reveal the marriage o f cultures which characterizes the region.
However, the wide array o f non-Georgian traditions that were used to forge a specifically Georgian one is
apparent in both periods. It should be said that, with few exceptions, local historians are extremely
faithful to received non-Georgian histories. Armenian traditions and literature, both original and adapted,
is especially pronounced in The Life o f the Kings. Hayk s relationship to Kartlos and the provenance of
the Kartvelians as calculated in the Armenian version o f Hippolytus' Chronicle are curious in light of
the ecclesiastical break o f 607/608. Clearly, the schism did not preclude the adoption of Armenian
traditions, yet it is fascinating that these traditions are only minimally manipulated and embellished.
Even the tradition o f Nino may be based, at least in part, upon Armenian traditions, for the author of The
704
Conversion o/K 'art'li conceivably relied upon the Armenian version o f Socrates ecclesiastical history, or
even the dependent account o f Movses Xorenac' i. O f course, it is also possible that the author exploited
Rufinus account directly. Later, The Life o f Nino's description o f K 'art'velian idolatry may have been
inspired by Xorenac i. A specifically Georgian tradition o f Alexander the G reat which has him invading
K 'artli. was ultimately fashioned from Greek legends. But in this case, the K 'art'velian historian
contorted received tradition. Persian heroic tales, transmitted in the now-lost forerunners o f the Shah-
nama, inspired, or at least shaped, the description o f pre-Christian K 'art'velian kingship. Later.
Byzantine traditions were param ount For example, the inflation o f the purview o f the apostle Andrew's
mission by Byzantine clerics was subsequently adopted by the Georgians so as to demonstrate that their
church was apostolic and rightly' autocephalous. Finally, we should recall that the dawn o f Georgian
historical writing occurred precisely under Islamic rule.
Georgian historians also wished to portray their community as being on equal terms with others
that were more famous. The author o f The Life o f the Kings invented the eponym K" art' los in such a way
so as to demonstrate that the K 'art'velians could be traced directly to the time o f the Flood. Pre-Bagratid
historical texts often equate the experiences o f the Jews and the K'art'velians, though, in the end. the
K'art'velians. upon their Christianization, were deemed to exceed the Jews. The authority of the rulers of
early K 'art'li, up to the Bagratid period in the late eighth century, was conceived in terms o f that o f the
Persian shahanshah. In fact, the K 'art'velian kings are portrayed as miniature shahanshah-s, though the
Sasanids would have denied the possibility that multiple Great Kings could coexist. Mihran/Mirian. who
is erroneously portrayed as the son o f the shahanshah, is even said to have claimed his father's lot upon
his death, yet Mihran/Mirian relinquished his claim following a struggle with his brother. That is to say.
according to The Life o f the Kings. M ihran/M irian was in line to become the very shahanshah.
Subsequently, the imagined Vaxtang is even made to excel the Great King and his Byzantine counterpart,
the basileus, for he is said to have negotiated a lasting peace between the two. This event is spurious, but
what is important here is that the ca. 800 K 'art'velian author endeavors elevate Vaxtang. and K'art'velian
kingship, to a position nearly equal to those o f Persia and Byzantium. Significantly, the K 'art'velians
concrete turn towards Byzantium is also attributed to Vaxtang, this foreshadowing the ascendancy o f the
Bagratids. The Bagratids. at least tty the eleventh century, usually dispensed o f obvious Persian trappings
and began to imagine their authority in terms o f that of the Byzantine emperor. In my view, by the
twelfth century, the Bagratid monarchs understood themselves to be equals o f the basileis (this is
particularly evident from the use o f the word basileus for Davit' II in the Greek inscription on a Georgian
icon from M t Sinai). This development parallels that of the pre-Bagratid kings who apparently supposed
themselves to be shahanshah-s in their own places, and like this instance it was impossible from the
Byzantine perspective. While the K 'art'velians, and then the Georgians, tapped into their neighbors'
historical traditions and the conceptions o f royal authority, these emulations were neither blind nor
haphazard: though the K'art'velians/Georgians sometimes misinterpreted, consciously or not. that which
R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission of th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout p erm ission .
705
they borrowed, nevertheless they adjusted these traditions and conceptions so as to give them a distinctly
K 'art'velian flavor.
The goal o f this study has not been to provide a coherent account o f that which actually
transpired in ancient and early medieval K 'a rt'li and Georgia, but the manner by which allegedly
historical events and persons were explained, understood, interpreted, fashioned, and sometimes even
created by local medieval historians. In a sense, I have endeavored to impart an intellectual history of
how and why medieval historians shaped and reshaped the past. Modem nationalists hold no monopoly
on the rewriting o f history. It has been argued that the myths and images o f medieval K 'art'velian history'
were themselves perfectly historical for generation after generation came to regard many o f them as the
truth (as was intended by the authors). The writing and transmission o f history is a potentially powerful
force, although the historians themselves, even today, are too often forgotten in the knot o f emotions
accompanying the tale. In terms of pre-Bagratid texts, it is to the authors and their times that we have
most often looked here, for the textual portraits they painted, though usually based (at least in part) upon
received traditions, reflected their own situations and conceptions. Bagratid texts, though contemporary
w ith their subjects, are nevertheless imbued with methodically crafted imagery. In the final analysis, both
pre-Bagratid and Bagratid historians sought to sculpt, manipulate, and sometimes even invent a past
which would not only satisfy their aspirations, but which would serve as a homogenized shared past, a
glue holding together the community. Both traditions emphasize the role o f the monarch as the
embodiment o f the K 'artvelian realm. But whereas the pre-Bagratid tradition highlights the common
descent o f K'art'Iosiani-s, the P'amavaziani-s. and the K 'art'velian community, the foreign extraction o f
the Bagratids, and their claim to be the offspring o f David, demanded an accent on their royal Jewish
origins. The Bagratid past was intended to be the very' past o f the K 'art'velian community, though it did
not attempt to explain from whence the K 'art'velians had originally come. The continued transmission in
K'art'lis c'xovreba of the pre-Bagratid tradition o f the provenance of the K 'art'velian community proves
that the Bagratids did not seek to eliminate it completely. However, since they envisaged historiography
as the tool and mouthpiece o f the Crown, the Bagratids did not deem it necessary to emphasize these old
traditions in Bagratid-era works. Essentially, the pre-Bagratid past was treated as ballast; it was
m aintained in the Bagratid-era versions o f K'art'lis c 'xovreba so that the origin of the K'art'velians was
explained in the local historical tradition, but it could be thrown overboard (i.e., simply ignored in this
case) when expedient. O f course, the pre-Bagratid kings, from the Bagratid perspective, had no form of
legitimacy greater than their own: their supposed descent from David and their special attachment to
Christianity.
Literature is a legitimate gauge o f orientation. However, the degree o f accuracy is incumbent
upon the successful analysis o f literary works within their respective historical contexts. It is not
sufficient, in my view, to simply engage the narratives which historical writings im part Without a
serious consideration o f the authors and the periods in which their histories were composed (and the
R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission of the copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout p erm ission .
706
chains o f MSS transm itting the texts), modern specialists needlessly impede themselves in their quest to
recover the p ast This is obviously relevant for ancient and medieval "Georgia." The development
evolution, and transmission o f Georgian historical literature reflects not only the shift in orientation (at
least ideologically) from the Persian/Near Eastern to the Byzantine world, but also how medieval
Georgian scholars seized the opportunity to disclose and invent traditions for their own community.
While pre-modem texts explicitly recite events like the Christianization o f K 'a rt'li, Heraclius invasion,
and the establishment o f Bagratid authority, stories such as the promulgation o f written Georgian
historical traditions in th e wake o f the schism with Armenia and the reorientation o f local political
thinking from a Persian/Near Eastern to a Byzantine context and the very dating o f the requisite texts
are largely irrevocable in the absence o f an investigation o f the historical contexts.
R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout p erm ission .
707
EXCURSUS A
Chronological Table o f K'art'velian and Georgian Rulers
LITERATURE: Toumanoff, "Chronology o f the Early Kings of Iberia," Traditio 25 (1969). pp. 1-33 (from
which the dates in this study are extracted); idem., Studies (1963); idem., Manuel de genealogie et de
chronologie (1976), and supplement (1978); G.A. Melik'ishvili, K istorii drevnei Gruzii (1959). esp.
"Tsarskii spisok khroniki 'Moktsevai K artlisai' i voprosy khronologii istorii Kartliiskogo tsarstva." pp. 4762; A. Gugushvili. "The Chronological-Genealogical Table of the Kings o f Georgia," Georgica 1/2-3
(O ct 1936), pp. 109-153; Vaxushti; and, the Fr. trans. o f Brosset Hist, de la Georgie, 2nd p a rt "Histoire
modeme (1856).
The Pre-Bagratid Kings of K art li According to Medieval Georgian Historical Sources

The division and names o f pre-Bagratid royal dynasties as well as regnal dates is after Toumanoff.
Toumanoffs
K'artiis c'xovreba
Mokslevay kstrfllisay.
Dale
Armeaian.K'aaJis.
CLxaareba
n.n. father o f Azoy
[Alexander] *
[Azon, erist'avi]
Azoy
[Azon]
PARNAVAZIANI-S (PHARNABAZIDS)
BC 299-234
234-159
P'amavaz (I)
Saurmag(I)
P'am avaz
Saurmag
P'am aw az
Sayurmak
P'A R N A V A ZIA N I-S/N EBR O rIA N I-S (NIM RODS, also SECOND PHARNABAZID DYNASTY)
159-109
109-90
Mirvan (I)
P'amajom
M irvan
P'am ajob
Mruan
P'aranjom
*In Royal List II, p. 82, Azoy, "the son o f the king o f Aryan Kart'li" is named as "the first king in
M c'xet'a." No other Georgian historical work suggests that P'amavaz was not the first K 'art'velian king.
708
ARSHAKUNI-S (ARTAXIADS)
90-78
78-63
63-30
30-20
20BC-1 AD
Arshak (I)
Artag
Bartom = P'arnavaz (II)
Mirvan (II)
Arshak (II)
Ars[ak]
Arik
Bratman
Mirvan
Arsuk
Artak
Artak
Barton
Mruan
Arbak
P'ARNAVAZIANI-S (THIRD PHARNABAZID DYNASTY)

1-58 AD
Aderki = P'arsman (I)
58-106
?[Mirdat (I)]
Rok
Adrik
START OF THE DYARCHY fi.e., DIVIDED KINGSHIP)2
a. Bartom
b. K 'artam
a. Bratman
b. K'arram
a. Bartos
b. K 'art'am
a. P'arsman
b. Kaos
a. P'arsm an
b. Kaoz
a. P'arsman
b. Kayos
a. Azork
b. Armazeli
a. Arsok
b. Amazaer
a. Azuk
b. Azmayer
106-116
a. Amazasp (I)
b. Derok
a. Amazasp
b. Deruk
a. Hamazasp
b. Deruk
116-132
a. P'arsm an (II) k'ueli

b. Mirdat
a. P'arsm an k'ueli
b. Parsman avaz
a. P arsm an
b. Mihrdat
__
[Xsep'amug = ?Mirdat (Melikishvili. K istorii, p. 58) + Armazic bilingual]
a. Rok
b. Mirdat
--
Ghadami
P'arsm an
Amazasp
Admi
TP'arsman?
Hamazasp
END OF THE DYARCHY

132-135
135-185
185-189
Adami
P'arsman (HI)
Amazasp (II)
2Toumanoff believes that the memory of a divided kingship in K 'art'li (reported by The Ufe o f the Kings
and the Royal List 1) is patently incorrect. Toumanoffs chronology here is:
AD 58-106
106-116
116-132
Mihrdat
Amazasp
P'arsman k'ueli
(?)
[named as ruling with Derok/Deruk]
[named as ruling with Mirdat/P' arsman/Mihrdat]
R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission of the copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout p erm ission.
709
ARSHAKUNIANI-S (ARSACIDS)
189-216
216-234
234-249
249-265
260-265
265-284
Rev (I)
V ach'e
Bakur (I)
M irdat (II)
R evmart'ali
Vache
Bakur
M irdat
Vroy
Vach'e
A sp'agar
? Lev (father o f M irian)
Asparagur
Mirvan/Mirean
Mihran
fAmazasp (HI), anti-king]

Asp'agur (I)
XOSRO(V)IANI-S (CHOSROIDS)
284-361
345-361
Mirian (HI)
[Rev (II), co-king]
[Rev]
361-363
[Saurmag (II)-ignored by local tradition; nam ed in Ammianus Marcellinus]
363-365
365-380
380-394
394-406
B ak'ar (I)
Mirdat (HI)
Varaz-Bak'ar (II)
T rd a t
406-409
409-411
411-435
435-447
447-522
522-534
534-547
547-561
561-?
?-ca. 580
P'arsm an (IV)
Mirdat (TV)
A rch'il (I)
Mirdat (V)
Vaxtang (I) Gorgasali
Dach'i
Bakur (II)
P'arsm an (V)
Parsm an (VI)
Bakur (III)
TBakur, ?son o f Rev
T rdat (brother o f Bakur)

?Varaz-Bakur
TBakur, son o f T rdat
P'arsman, son o f T rd a ts sister'
Mirdat
Archil
Mirdat
Vaxtang Golgasari
Dachi Uzharmeli
Bakur
Parsman
P'arsman
Bakur
Bahk'ar
Mirdat
Varza-Bak'ar
Trdat
P arsman
Mirdat
Archil
Mirdat
Vaxt'ang Gurgasal
Dach'e
n.n. [Bakur] (p. 187)
P'arsman
P'arsman
by 580 K 'A R T VELIAN KINGSHIP ABOLISHED B Y PERSIA
The Pre-Bagratid Presiding Princes ofK'art'li

The division and names o f pre-Bagratid royal dynasties as well as regnal dates is after Toumanoff.
GUARAMIDS
588-ca. 590
ca. 590-627
Guaram (I)
Step'anoz (I)
XOSRO[V}lANI-S (CH O SRO m S, again)

627-637/642
637/642-ca. 650
ca. 650-684
Adamase (I)
Step'anoz (II)
Adamase (II)
GUARAMIDS (again)
684-ca. 693
ca. 693-ca. 748
Guaram (II)
Guaram (III)
Ps.-Juansher also refers to:M i[h|r.

A rch'iin,
andlovaneJuansher
in this period.
NERSIANIDS
ca. 748-ca. 760
Adamase (III)
ca. 760-772, 775-779/780 Nerse
GUARAMIDS (again)
779/780-786
Step'anoz (IH)
711
Bagratid Presiding Princes ofK'art'li

The K 'art'velian Bagratids arose in the diasterous aftermath o f the uprising o f 771/72. Toumanoff has
determined that a daughter o f the Guaramid Guaram III married Vasak Bagratuni. and from this union
could be traced the K 'art'velian Bagratid Adamase I. It should be noted that I follow Toumanoffs system
o f ordinals. However, they are somewhat confusing for they sometimes were multiplied for different
branches o f the K 'art'velian Bagratids. or had non-presiding princes (not listed here) counted, or were
reset with the eclipse o f the principate. For a stemma o f the Bagratids, see Excursus C.
813-830
842/843-876
876-891
881-891
Ashot (I)
Bagrat (I)
Davit' (I)
Gurgen (I)
Bagratid Mep'.e-s ofK aif li

This enumeration includes only those K 'art'velian Bagratids holding the title o f mep'e (king/monarch).
Conspicuously absent is Davit' of Tao (Davit' [II]) whom Toumanoff considered as only kuropalates and
not king.
888-923
923-937
937-958
954-994
994-1008
Adamase (I/H)3
Davit' (I/II)
Sumbat (D
Bagrat (H)
Gurgen (D (a contemporary o f the kuropalates Davit' o f Tao. d 1000)
Bagratid Mep'e-s of Georgia (Sak'art'velo)

1008-1014
1014-1027
1027-1072
1072-1089
1089-1125
1125-1155/1156
1155/1156
1156-1184
1184-1213
1213-1223
1223-1245
Bagrat (HI)4
Giorgi (I)
Bagrat (IV)
Giorgi (II)
Davit' (II/III/IV)
Demetre (I)
Davit' (EH)
Giorgi III
T'amar
Giorgi (IV) Lasha
Rusudan
^This Adamase also held the kuropalate from 891 until his death.
4Bagrat became king o f Ap'xazet'i already in 978 and kuropalates o fK artli in 1000 (following the
death o f Davit of Tao).
712
EXCURSUS B
Further Remarks on the MSS o f K'art lis c xavreba
The following analysis is not intended to serve as a comprehensive accounting o f all o f the extant
MSS of K'art 'lis c xavrebcr, however, all major redactions are included here, as well as all complete or
nearlv-complete MSS which were copied prior to the nineteenth century. I have personally examined all
o f the following MSS except for TBs. *
a. Pre-Vaxtangiseuli MSS
i. THE ARMENIAN ADAPTATION (Arm/A, etc.) <1279-1311

(A rm enian Patmut'iwn Vrac',
U.pujg)
MSS
DATE
LOCATION
Arm/A
Arm/B
Arm/C
Arm/D
Arm/Venice
Arm/Paris
[Arm/Brosset
1279-1311
1674
1684
1840
18352
1855
1841
Matenadaran. Erevan #1902

Matenadaran. Erevan #3070
Matenadaran, Erevan #5501
Matenadaran, Erevan #7084
Venice #218
Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, #210
Brosset's Chronique armenienne
(as published)]
As early as the eleventh century (and in any case by the twelfth), K'art'lis c'xovreba was
translated into Classical Armenian from the original Georgian. Attributed w ith the title Chronique
armenienne by Brosset, the Armenian version o f K'art 'lis c 'xovreba is not an exact translation but rather
an adaptation, at times diverging from the extant Georgian texts. It should be emphasized that medieval
*1 have studied black and white photographs o f TB as well as the published version o f B. I know o f s only
through secondary literature.
MSS are enumerated here not in strict chronological sequence but rather with regards to their basis for
published critical editions.
713
Armenian scribes embraced the art o f adaptation, and that their refashioning o f non-Armenian texts was
not limited to K'art'lis c'xovreba. The earliest extant MS o f the Armenian adaptation was copied in the
period 1279-1311, and this MS, o r a very close relative, served as the exemplar for the six other extant
MSS, two of which date Grom the second-half o f the seventeenth century, and the remaining four from the
nineteenth century. All of the MSS break abruptly in m id sentence during The Life o f Davit'.
The importance of the Armenian adaptation cannot be overstated. Its existence proved beyond
any doubt that K'art'lis c'xovreba was originally compiled in the medieval period, predating the King
Vaxtang VI Commission by several centuries. Arm/A predates the earliest Georgian MS o f K'art'lis
c xovreba, the Anaseuli redaction o f the late fifteenth century, by nearly three hundred years. Although
the Classical Armenian text diverges from the extant Georgian MSS on many specific points, its
correspondence with the Georgian proves the antiquity o f the Georgian tex t 3
The Armenian version o f K'art'lis c'xovreba served as a source for later medieval Armenian
historians, such as the thirteenth-century historian-compiler M xit'ar Ayrivanec' i.4 The late thirteenth/early fourteenth-century history o f Step'anos Orbelean mentions K'art 'lis c 'xovreba by name and appears
to have employed the Georgian version directly.
E d itio n s The critical text o f Abuladze, K'art'lis c'xovrebis dzveli somxuri t argmani (1953),
provides a parallel Classical Armenian text with a modem Georgian trans. as well as the corresponding
Old Georgian text from the main redactions o f the Georgian MSS o f K'art 'lis c 'xovreba. Extensive
indicies are also included Abuladze's work now supercedes the older e d o f A. T iroyan. Hamarot
patmut'iwn Vrac' (1884).
Translations: A full English trans. was published by R. W. Thomson, Rewriting Caucasian
History: The Medieval Adaptation o f the Georgian Chronicles (1996). A privately published Eng. trans..
based upon the e d o f T iroyan, has appeared as R. Bedrosian. The Georgian Chronicle (1991). A French
trans. was made in lS5lbyBrosset,AdditionseteclaircissementsdrHistoire de laGeorgie (1851). pp.
1-61.
Commentary: Abuladze, K'art'lis c'xovrebis dzveli somxuri t'argmani, introduction, pp. 01-032;
Thomson, Rewriting Cauc. Hist., introduction; ibid., "The Armenian Version o f the Georgian
Chronicles," JSAS 5 (1990-1991), pp. 81-90; Toumanoff, "Medieval Georgian Historical Literature." pp.
Ûnfortunately Qauxch'ishvilis e d o f K'C' (1955, 1959) makes little mention o f the Armenian
adaptation. R. Thomson's Eng. trans. o f that work promises to study the divergences and will provide
parallel translations o f the Classical Armenian and Old Georgian texts.
4The sections o f M xit'ar Ayrivanec' i's History which are dependent upon the Armenian adaptation were
published as an appendix in Abuladze's edition. See Arm. Adapt. K'C' = Abuladze, K'art 'lis c 'xovrebis
dzveli somxuri t'argmani (1953), pp. 257-261. See also M xit'ar Ayrivanec'i.
5Very few MSS o f K'C' have been published separately. The critical e d of Qauxch'ishvili, K'C'1, takes in
to account all of the earliest MSS with the notable exception o f Q.
714
161-162; idem.. Studies, pp. 21-23 et sqq; and Bedrosian, The Georgian Chronicle, translator's note. pp.
i-iii.
1L ANASEULI (A) 1479-1495, not later th a n 1500

Kekelidze Institute o f MSS, T bilisi, Q-795
Numbered by page (not f), 470pp. Defective at start, pages 1-12 damaged. Mxedruli script. Various
watermarks. Ends with a hagiographical work on the Thirteen Syrian monks who established
monasticism in K 'a rt'li in the sixth century (pp. 426#). Copied for Queen Ana (Anne), wife of
Alek'sandre I (1476-1511), king ofK axet'i.
The Anaseuli, or "Queen Anna," redaction (A) is the earliest extant Georgian MS o f K'art'lis
c'xovreba. The A variant was discovered in 1913 by Javaxishvili who removed this MS from Jarabakur
Orbeliani's library located in the village o f Lamisqana. Like the other pre-Vaxtangiseuli MSS. it was
probably employed by Vaxtang VTs Commission o f "learned men" in their re-editing of K'art 'lis
c'xovreba.
A begins in mid sentence well into The Life o f the Kings? Because o f this defect we may only
speculate as to both the title o f this text as well as the title, if any, o f the entire corpus.
Edition: S. Qauxch'ishvili. ed. and comm.. K'art'lis c'xovreba: ana dedop'liseuli nusxa (1942).
Official Description: Q-Fond Catalog, vol. 2 (1958), pp. 226-227.
Commentary: Qauxch'ishvili. ed. and comm., K'art'lis c'xovreba: ana dedop'liseuli nusxa,
introduction: idem.. K'C'^, introduction, p. 015; K. Grigolia. Axali k'art'lis c'xovreba, p. 108; and
Toumanoff, "The Oldest Manuscript o f the Georgian Annals: The Queen Anne Codex (QA). 1479-1495,"
Traditio 5 (1947), pp. 340-344.
iiL CHALASHVILISEULI OLD (C) 16th century

Kekelidze Institute of MSS, T bilisi, Q-207
614 ( ( (total codex). Defective at start, replaced by more recent folios (i.e., Chalashviliseuli - New [cl).
Mxedruli script. Various watermarks; notably 141 is a blank page having a watermark consisting o f a
crown supported by two standing lions in profile it is similar to the seventeenth-century "Amsterdam"
watermark (S.A. Klepikov, Filigrani na bumage russkogo proizvodstva XVIIl-nachala XX veka [1978J,
pp. 24-26). The entire codex, both the old and the new sections, are named for the eighteenth-century
scribe Eraj Chalashvili (2v and 295v, colophons in Russian and Georgian), even though he was
responsible only for the new leaves.
Â begins in mid sentence in The Life o f the Kings at K'C'^, p. 35^
715
Two redactions o f K'art'lis c'xovreba, the Chalashviliseuli and the P'alavandishviliseuli

redactions, each consist o f two distinct MSS. The Chalashviliseuli codex (designated by C/c) is the
earliest and was copied in the sixteenth century; the more recent part o f this redaction was copied in 1731.
Unlike its P'alavandishviliseuli counterpart the Chalashviliseuli codex is comprised o f both preVaxtangiseuli (C) and Vaxtangiseuli (c) sections.
Within the Chalashviliseuli codex (both C and c). the old section occupies CC2 - 12 . 214-216. and
272-614. while the new section occupies 1143-213 and 217-271; thus-. C, the older o f the two. served as
the core o f the codex. The appearance an d texture o f the leaves is appreciably different between C and c.
The old section, C, is defective for The Life o f the Kings, The Chronicle ofK'art ii. and The Life o f Davit'.
Official Description: Q-Fond Catalog, vol. I (1958), p. 228.

Commentary: Grigolia, Axali k'art'lis c'xovreba, pp. 108-114; and AT'C'^, introduction, pp. 015016
iv. MARIAMISEULI (M ) 1633-1645/1646

Kekelidze Institute o f MSS, T bilisi, S-30
470 (L At start of K'art'lis c'xovreba proper is a later marginal notation in Russian, in purple ink.
mentioning that this is the start o f the corpus and that this copy had been ordered by the Queen Mariam
(52r). Final leaf (1 470) is defective. Mxedruli scrip t Queen Mariam mentioned throughout: her name
has been inserted into the text in several places, often being attached to headings.
The Mariamiseuli redaction o f K'art'lis c'xovreba is the earliest complete Georgian MS o f that
corpus. Although two earlier Georgian MSS are ex tan t both A and C are defective for the beginning of
The Life o f the Kings. As we shall see, the remaining pre-Vaxtangiseuli MS. the Mc'.xetian redaction (Q).
is also damaged for this work. Therefore, modem critical editions of K'art 'lis c 'xovreba are completely
dependent upon M. as well as the Classical Armenian adaptation Arm/A. for the beginning o f The Life o f
the Kings.
M, along with the later Q and m. have been identified by modem scholars as being copied
ultimately from a common exemplar, they are know n collectively as the M c'xet'ian recension .7 That is to
say, MQm are closely related, and o f these MSS M is the earliest.
In contrast to all other extant pre-Vaxtangiseuli MSS of K'art'lis c'xovreba, M commences with
non-historical, apocryphal works, including a medieval Georgian version o f the Syriac Book o f the Cave
o f Treasures. The beginning of K'art 'lis c 'xovreba proper is distinguished by wavy borders and then an
7Not to be confused with the accepted name o f Q, the Me' xetian redaction or MS.
716
opening statement in red ink, namely "In the name o f the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit I shall
begin to narrate The Ufe o f the K'art'velian Kings and o fthe Forefathers and Ancestors [C'xorebasa
k'art'uelt'a mep'et'asa da pirvelt'agant'a mamat'a da nat'esavt'a ]" (52r).

Edition: E. Taqaishvili. ed., K'art'lis c'xovreba: mariam dedop'lis varianti (1906). NB:
T aqalshvili's rendering o f the text as it appears in the MS i.e.. without spaces, punctuation, artificial
headings, and the like makes the printed version both extremely accurate as well as dreadfully difficult
to use.
Official Description: S-Fond Catalog, vol. I (1959), pp. 43-44.
Commentary: Grigolia, Axali k'art'lis c'xovreba, pp. 114-116.
v. THE M C X E T IA N REDACTION (Q ) 1697

Kekelidze Institute o f MSS, T b ilisi, Q-1219
2 0 1 {<!. Defective at start, and at other {daces; wanting for the reign o f Aderiri in The Ufe o f the Kings.
Nusxuri script; several Tlater marginal notes in mxedruli. Unlike other Georgian pre-Vaxtangiseuli MSS
(ACM), the M c'xet'ian redaction employs red ink only occasionally.

As the only pre-Vaxtangiseuli MS discovered after the publication of Qauxch'ishvilis critical
editions o f 1955 and 1959, the so-called M c'xet'ian redaction has made it necessary for a complete
reworking o f Qauxch'shvili's work. Updated editions o f the component histories o f K'art'lis c'xovreba
taking into account Q are gradually appearing .8 This MS is believed to represent the so-called
"Mcxet'uri" (i.e., "Mc'xet'ian") MS mentioned in a charter dated 1546; therefore, it is known in
scholarly literature as the M c'xet'ian variant
Q is the only pre-Vaxtangiseuli MS written in the earlier, ecclesiastical nusxuri script. Yet the
mere fact that Q is written in nusxuri does not necessarily suggest that it is directly based upon an earlier
exemplar than ACM. However, the earliest (now lost) versions o f K'art'lis c 'xovreba were surely
composed in nusxuri, and Q may have been copied from a nusxuri original; but this is not a certainty, for
it is possible that Q*s scribe may have transcribed a mxedruli document into nusxuri. So although the
nusxuri script o f Q makes the MS appear more ancient than ACM, we must treat it with extreme caution.
Recent scholarship, by M. Shanidze and others, has demonstrated that MQm consist o f a single
group o f MSS, all produced directly from a common (lost) exemplar. Furthermore, this M c'xet'ian
recension and the old section o f the Chalashviliseuli codex (C) are based upon a common exemplar. The
Regretably, the Georgian abbreviation for the M c'xet'ian redaction is the Latin "Q" which seems to be
the logical abbreviation for Qauxch'ishvilis critical, published edition.
717
Anaseuli (A) redaction, on the other band, is related only to CMQm via a MS which was very close to the
original MS o f K'art'lis c'xovreba. or even the prototype itself.
Official Description: Not yet described in a published catalog.

Commentary: A.E. Klimiashvili, "Novyi spisok K artlis Tskhovreba' 1697 goda." Moambe 24/3
(1960), pp. 371-376. Not enumerated in K. Grigolia, Axali k'art'lis c 'xovreba.
b. Major Vaxtangiseuli MSS
vu RUM IANC' EVISEULI (R) 1699-1703/1709

Kekelidze Institute of MSS, T b ilisi, H-2080
468 ((. Mxedruli scrip t Various watermarks. Red cover, on spine "Gruzinskoe letoopisani [sic]
sobrannoe kartalinski tsarem Vakhtangom Shestym." 468v has several, unintelligible scribbles
(apparently in Georgian) as well as one which mentions "King Solomon."
The Rumianc'eviseuli variant o f K'art'lis c'xovreba is the earliest extant Vaxtangiseuli MS. It is
named not for a scribe, but rather for Nikoloz Petrovich Rumiantsevskii, whose museum in Moscow
possessed the MS until its return to Georgia in 1923. A tri-lingual (French, Russian. Georgian)
inscription announces that this MS was given as a gift to Rumiantsevskii by the K' art'velian king
Teim uraz (lr). Like all Vaxtangiseuli MSS, R begins with the preface o f Vaxtang VI introducing the
work and announcing the new edition (lv); although, unlike other Vaxtangiseuli variants, the preface in
R has Vaxtang speaking in the first person! No exemplar for the Vaxtangiseuli recension has been
identified, but its first-person preface may be an indication o f its direct connection with the commission.9
And it should be emphasized that Vaxtangiseuli MSS themselves were subject to constant modifications;
thus we find palpable differences (especially with respect to insertions) even within this recension.
R differs from earlier MSS by its high degree o f organization. T he conventions o f red ink.
marginal notations, headings, and titles became standard for subsequent Vaxtangiseuli MSS. Most later
MSS do include headings at the top center of each page, but R lacks these. It seems to have been the R
redaction which introduced a series o f "footnotes" to the initial text of K'art'lis c'xovreba, namely The
That is to say, we have not identified any of the extant Vaxtangiseuli M SS as the actual model
constructed by the K ing Vaxtang VI Commission. The question o f the precise text, or texts, promulgated
by the commission remains a mystery although it is likely that R, with its first-person preface, was directly
produced by i t
R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout p erm ission .
718
Life o f the Kings. These "footnotes," like the other conventions o f R, are also characteristic o f later MSS
o f the Vaxtangiseuli recension . 10
We do not know the nam e o f the scribe who copied the Rumianc'eviseuli variant However. R is
singular among Vaxtangiseuli M SS in that its scribe took certain liberties w ith the text. Most noteworthy
is his reordering o f the peoples o f Caucasia, as given in the initial sentence o f The Ufe o f the Kings, so
that the K'art'velians and not th e Armenians were mentioned first (2r). * * Whereas all other MSS
give the name o f the primogenitor o f the Armenians (Haos/Hayk) first and th at o f the K 'art'velians
(K'art'los) second, R reversed their order.
These later alterations were not limited to the initial tex t The remainder o f The Ufe o f the Kings
has numerous instances o f patriotic vandalism intentional defacings: ink blots, over-writings, and blatant
re-writings. Most o f these occur w ithin the textual headings designating the commencement o f a king's
reign. Traditionally, several o f these kings were o f Armenian extraction, and where it was stated that
their pedigree was derived from "the kings o f the Armenians," this phrase has been blotted out (22v-35r).
and, in a few cases, actually covered with a thin strip of paper (23r, 26r). Written above the obliteration is
the d y n a s t i c tag "Arshakuniani" bu t completely avoiding any direct reference to Armenia . 12
Official Description: H-Fond Catalog, vol. 5 (1949), pp. 50-51.

Commentary: Grigolia, Axali k'art'lis c'xovreba, pp. 123-135; and A.S. Khakhanov, Gruzinskie
rukopisi Rumiantsevskogo Afuzeia (1897).
viL T EIM URAZISEULI (T) ca. 1700/1705-1724

Oriental Institute, S t Petersburg M-24
346 ((. Nusxuri script with some mxedruli, esp. in the opening leaves and in some marginalia. Various
watermarks. Limited use o f red ink. Black and white photographs of this MS are available at the
Kekelidze Institute o f MSS, T b ilisi (Rt-II; No. 18; 3 vols.), although 81r is wanting.
This MS takes its name from the T eimuraz Collection. It was composed not later than 1724. at
which time it was taken to S t Petersburg by the exiled King Vaxtang VI. A notation in Georgian.
10These footnotes are enumerated in Grigolia, Axali k'art'lis c'xovreba, p. 134. In R they occur at It 2r,
2v, 3r, 5r, 5v, 8 v, 9v, and lOr.
^ Ibid., p. 125, misquoted this opening statement o f The Ufe o f the Kings, rendering it in the expected
form (i.e., the Armenians are enumerated first, and then the K'art'velians).
*2In some instances "Arshakuniani" (i.e Arsacid) is rendered "Arbakuniani." The use o f "b" for the
expected "sh" resulted from the feet that in the original nusxuri script o f K'C', the letters "b" and "sh" are
easily confused.
719
Armenian, and Greek mentions that a certain Giorgi copied a few of the leaves (99r). The M S is replete
with graffiti in the initial and terminating leaves; one o f them from the year 1724 mentions Alek' sandre,
king o f Im eret'i . 13 Marginalia were added to this MS as late as 1811 (345r). The initial three leaves o f
the work are filled with various signatures and marginalia, much of which is in mxedruli.
Like the Rumianc'eviseuli variant, the T eimuraziseuli MS represents a very early version o f the
Vaxtangiseuli recension. Much o f T reflects the editorial work of the Vaxtang VI Commission. However.
T aqalshvili suggested that the MS is completely unedited from the end o f the history o f T a m a r to the
terminus o f the document. T aqalshvili believed that this terminating, unedited portion o f T was copied
directly from the Mariamiseuli redaction (a pre-Vaxtangiseuli variant). Dating T to the period 17001705, he believed that this redaction represents an extremely early, almost preliminary, version o f the
Vaxtangiseuli recension.
The T eimuraziseuli MS is one o f only two extant MSS of K'art'lis c'xovreba which is composed
entirely in the older nusxuri script, the other being the pre-Vaxtangiseuli M c'xet'ian variant (Q).
Official Description: R.R. Orbeli, Gruzinskie rukopisi Instituta Vostokovedeniia (1956), pp. 1518.
Commentary: T aqalshvili, Opisanie rukopisei Obshchestva rasprostraneniia gramotnosti sredi

gruzinskago naseleniia, vol. 2/1 (1906), p. 52; and Grigolia, Axali k'art'lis c'xovreba, pp. 155-168.
viiL P 'A L A V A N D ISH V IL IS E U L I-O L D (P) 1719-1744

Kekelidze Institute o f MSS, T b ilisi. H-988
273 U (total codex). Defective at start, replaced by leaves from P'alavandishviliseuli New (p). Nusxuri
script with added mxedruli. Red ink employed for emphasis. Scribal note at 6 6 v mentions Z ak' aria (in
nusxuri) while an adjacent mxedruli note mentions Nikoloz Urbneli (i.e., "of Urbnisi").
The P'alavandishviliseuli codex (P/p) is comprised o f an old and a new section, m uch like the
Chalashviliseuli codex (C/c). Unlike the Chalashviliseuli codex, both P and p are part o f the
Vaxtangiseuli recension.
P, like Q and T, is composed in the older nusxuri script This older section of the
P'alavandishviliseuli codex is also referred to as the Urbnisi MS (Georgian: "Urbnuli xelnaceri) since it
was kept at the Urbnisi cathedral, not far from Gori. Within the P'alavandishviliseuli codex, P falls
entirely within C'xorebay k'art'velt'a mep'et'ar, beginning with The History o f Vaxtang Gorgasali, the
remainder o f the codex is represented by p. Even within C'xorebay k'art'velt'a mep'et'a leaves from the
more recent p have been inserted. The surviving leaves o f P are found at leaves 15-16,19-59, and 61-66.
^G rig o lia, Axali k'art lis c xovreba. p. 157.
720
It should be emphasized that the leaves o f P conveying the beginning o f The Ufe o f the Kings have been
removed (TIost) and exchanged with those o f the later p.
The nusxuri o f this MS was evidently difficult for some readers. Thus, in order to facilitate the
reading o f this text, mxedruli m arginal notes are provided throughout P. especially opposite of regnal
headings.
The P'alavandishviliseuli codex (P/p) formed the basis for the edition and French translation of
Brosset, as well as the MS (B) produced for that publication.

Commentary: Grigolia, Axali k'art'lis c'xovreba, pp. 168-170.
ix. C H A L A S H V IL IS E U L I-N E W (c) 1731

Kekelidze Institute of MSS, T bilisi, Q-207
614 H (total codex). Defective, begins in mid sentence within The Life o f the Kings which breaks off
before the end. Mxedruli script Watermarks throughout Scribal notes in Georgian and Russian for c
(1731) at 2v and 295v.
The Chalashviliseuli codex (C/c) consists of two distinct MSS, the earlier C (see above) and the
more recent c. The Chalashviliseuli codex is unique in that unlike the other codex (i.e., P/p) it consists of
both pre-Vaxtangiseuli (C) and Vaxtangiseuli (c) sections. The new section occupies 1143-213 and 217271. The entire codex is named for the scribe Eraj Chalashvili who is nam ed in two related bilingual
(Russian and Georgian) passages at 2v and 295v.
The entire codex is solidly based upon the older C, except for the inserted, newer leaves of c
which are found within The U fe o f the Kings, The Chronicle o fK 'artli, and The Ufe o f Davit. It should
be emphasized that although the initial leaves of The Ufe o f the Kings are part o f c, that c itself is
defective and that work begins in mid sentence.
Official Description: Q-Fond Catalog, vol. 1 (1958). p. 228.

Commentary: Grigolia, Axali k'art'lis c'xovreba, pp. 111-114; and K'C'K introduction, pp. 019020.
x. M A C H 'A B LISEU LI (m) 1736

Kekelidze Institute o f MSS. T bilisi, H-2135
409 M, but numbered internally by page (818 pages). Mxedruli script. Various watermarks. Begins with
a non-historical work. Terminates with a hagiographical work about the activities of the Thirteen Syrian
721
Fathers who introduced monasticism to K 'art'li in the sixth century, pp. 805-815 (see supra. A). Frequent
use o f red ink on nearly every page.
The M ach'abliseuli variant is part o f the MQm. o r "M c'xet'ian." recension: these three MSS are
clearly related and were copied from a common exemplar, although it should be emphasized that among
them only m contains evidence o f the editorial changes rendered by the Vaxtang VI Commission.
Therefore, although m belongs to the pre-Vaxtangiseuli M c'xet'ian recension, it also exhibits traits
common to the Vaxtangiseuli edition, and therefore m belongs to both o f these groups. The
Mach'ablisheuli MS was copied in 1736 by Giorgi M ach'abeli, who is mentioned in several colophons
(pp. 95,100, and 665, all in red ink).
Like the M variant, to which m is related by a common exemplar or perhaps even directly, m
commences with a non-historical work. The initial history o f K'art'lis c'xovreba. The Life o f the Kings.
begins only on page 36. Among the complete MS o f K'art'lis c'xovreba. only m offers a modified
opening passage o f The U fe o f the Kings, although it presents no new information.
The term inating pages o f the MS, pp. 816-818, have several scribbles as well as a crude drawing
o f Russian church domes at p. 818. Restorative work on the MS is documented by a Russian inscription
at p. 816.

Commentary: Taqalshvili, "Apokrip'uli mot'xroba romelic' cin udzghis k 'art'lis c'xovrebis
mach'abliseul xelnacers," S. Janashias muzeumis moambe 18B (1953) (NB: unavailable to the author):
K C 't. introduction, pp. 020-021: and M. Shanidze in The Life o f Davit , pp. 128-144 et sqq.
l i. JANASHVILISEUL1 (D) mid 18th century

Kekelidze Institute of MSS. T bilisi. S-4730 ^
408 i t Defective throughout. Mxedruli script. Various watermarks.
The Janashviliseuli redaction is named for the scholar M.G. Janashvili who at one time possessed
this MS. An ownership inscription was written on the inside o f the front cover and is dated 29 Dec. 1907.
The abbreviation for the MS, D, is derived from the popular transliteration of the name 3 5 6 6^330200 as
"Djanashvili" in Latin characters (or perhaps from the Russianized flxaHamBwiH, "Dzhanashvili).
The precise date o f the MS is unknown, although Grigolia believed that D demonstrates a greater
textual development and organization that R, and that D was copied after R (1699-1703/9).
*^Misprinted as S-4770 in the table preceding the text in K'C'^ but corrected in K'C
722
D is a defective MS, beginning in m id sentence within The Ufe o f the Kings. Between 2v and 3r
several leaves are missing: thus the MS skips from The Ufe o f the Kings to within The Ufe o f Vaxtang
Gorgasali; thus the entire, inserted Ufe o f Nino and The Ufe o f the Successors o f Mirian is missing.
Several leaves are also absent between 4v and 5 r. The existing initial and terminating leaves o f the MSS
are unbound, and this may explain the loss o f some o f them.
D exhibits the editorial changes characteristic o f other Vaxtangiseuli MSS. Unique to D is an
excerpt from the beginning o f Shot'a R ust'aveli's thirteenth-century epic poem, Vepxistqaosani. or The
Knight in the Panthers Skin (47v).

Official Description: S-Fond Catalog, vol. 6 , p. 77.
Commentary: T aqalshvili, Opisanie rukopisei Obshchestva rasprostraneniia gramotnosti sredi
gruzinskago naseleniia, vol. 2/1-4 (Tiflis, 1906-1912), #134, pp. 114-132; Grigolia. Axali k'art'lis
c'xovreba, pp. 136-147; andATC'^, introduction, pp. 018-019.
rii. SAEKLESIO M U ZEU M ISA (E) 1748

Kekelidze Institute o f MSS, T b ilisi, A-131
Numbered by page (not by 0. 596 pp; some fragments, esp. at the end (pp. 591-596). Defective at start.
Mxedruli script Various watermarks.

This MS is named for the Ecclesiastical Museum in T b ilisi which formerly possessed it. It is
defective for the initial portion o f The Ufe o f the Kings and breaks off abruptly with the anonymous
Chronicle o f a Hundred Years which details the period o f Mongol dominion over Georgia.
The initial two leaves o f this MS contain scribbles and marginalia, the most prominent among
them being several cursive, stylized "E"'s, likely the Russian E. The second leaf has the inscription "The
Section [Containing] K'art'lis c'xovreba [K'art'lis c'xovrebis nacili](numbered as "p. 02").
Official Description: A-Fond Catalog, vol. I 2 (1976), pp. 145-148.

Commentary: Grigolia. Axali k 'art 'lis c 'xovreba, pp. 170-173.
xiii. P'ALAV ANDISHV ILISEULI - NEW (p) 1761

Kekelidze Institute o f MSS, T bilisi, H-988
273 M (total codex). Defective at start and itself replaces several missing/lost leaves o f the earlier P.
Mxedruli script. Various watermarks (an interesting watermark of a ship appears on (118).
The P'alavandishviliseuli codex (P/p) consists o f two separate MSS which have been put
together; both MSS are o f the Vaxtangiseuli recension. Unlike the Chalashviliseuli codex, P/p is
723
distinguished by the employment of both nusxuri (P) and mxedruli (p) scripts; P/p is the only redaction o f
K'art'lis c'xovreba in which both scripts are employed for the m ain text.
The older P is the basis for C'xorebay k'art'velt'a mep'et'a, the initial history' o f K'artlis
c'xovreba, no leaves o f P appear in subsequent works. However, even within P some leaves o f p have
been inserted. Thus, the beginning o f The Ufe o f the Kings begins with leaves from p and not P. p
commences in m id sentence for this work. P occupies only ( ( 5-16,19-59, and 61-66, while the remainder
o f th e M S is p a r to f th e la te r p . It should be emphasized that M 17 and 18 are part o f p and appear to have
been deliberately' replaced, for these leaves deal with the reign o f K ing Aderki who was a contemporary of
C hrist The account o f Aderki was subject to extreme editing in the eighteenth century', and the later
scribe doubtlessly wished to "update" this narrative.

Commentary: Grigolia. Axali k'art 'lis c 'xovreba, pp. 180-185.
riv. BARAT'ASHVTLISEULI (b) 1761

343 ( ( ( 6 8 6 pages). Mxedruli script Various watermarks, esp. on the two pages o f blue paper placed at
the beginning and the end o f the MS (M 01 and 343). Scribal notation at the bottom o f 96v the priest
Ioane and the year 1760; scribal attribution dated 1761 at 343r (repr. in K'C'~, pp. 539-540). Terminates
with the non -K'art'lis c'xovreba work. "Loc'vaman anna" (342v-343r).
As one o f the most beautifully produced Vaxtangiseuli variants o f K'art'lis c'xovreba. the
Barat'ashviliseuli MS is striking for both its attention to aesthetics as well as textual organization. Red
ink is employed throughout to emphasize various passages, including the characteristic preamble of
Vaxtangiseuli MSS. Asomt'avruli (i.e., ecclesiastical majuscules) letters distinguish the beginning of
texts or o f emphasized accounts, while the main text is in mxedruli. Some passages are also emphasized
by the use o f the asomt'avruli script, as at 171r. Headings appearing at the top center o f most pages
indicate content. In the later histories, dates which are cited in the text are often written marginally in
Arabic numerals.
Official Description: S-Fond Catalog, vol. 1 (1959), pp. 33-36.

Commentary: Not enumerated in Grigolia, Axali k'art 'lis c 'xovreba.
724
xv. DADIANISEULI (d) 18th century

Kekelidze Institute o f MSS, T bilisi, S-3S4
Numbered by page (not by t), 602 pp. Mxedruli script. Various watermarks.
The Dadianiseuli redaction exhibits the customary traits o f other Vaxtangiseuli MSS.

Commentary: Not enumerated in Grigolia, Axali k'art'lis c'xovreba.
xvi. SXVITORULI (s) second-half o f the 18th century

House-museum o f the poet Akaki Ceret'eli
321 M. Defective in several places. Mxedruli script. Various watermarks.
This MS is named for Sxvitori, the village in which it was found. The s redaction had been part
o f the personal archive o f Davit' Rostomis-dze Ceret'eli but is now housed in the house-museum of the
famous Georgian poet Akaki Ceret'eli (Tsereteli).
The s redaction is typical o f other Vaxtangiseuli but it incorporates a large number o f marginal
notations (some 90 o f them were documented by Grigolia).
Although the Sxvitoruli MS was employed in the critical edition o f Qauxch'ishvili. it is not
directly incorporated into my study.
Official Description: None.

Commentary: G rigolia Axali k'art'lis c'xovreba, pp. 147-155.
xviL [N.N. redaction o f the second-half of the 18th century]

Kekelidze Institute o f MSS, T bilisi, Q-383
291 ((. Mxedruli script Various watermarks. On blue parchment
Q-383 was written after 1764 a date which is mentioned at 288v an d was not employed by
Qauxch'ishvili in his critical edition. This is the earliest extant MS of K'art'lis c'xovreba to contain any
miniatures. Q-383 commences with a miniature at the top o f lr, being a cross w ith flowers.
Significantly, this cross is not in the form o f the so-called "Cross o f St. Nino" (which has its arms
symmetrically angled downward) but rather is the traditional form (with its arms protruding from the base
perpendicularly). This may be evidence that the Cross of S t Nino was a rather late invention, probably
725
first appearing in the hagiographical collection o f Sabinin (Sak'art 'uelos samot xe [1882]). The cross
appearing at the beginning o f Q-383 is the only miniature to appear in the MS.
Although this MS is written in the mxedruli script, asomt'avruli is used occasionally for
emphasis, and after The Life o f Nino (as contained in C'xorebay k'art'velt'a mep'et'a) nusxuri marginal
notes usually in black ink indicating the succession o f K 'art'velian monarchs are common.
K'art'lis c'xovreba proper terminates at 284r. From 287r to the end o f the MS are several
addenda. A king list entitled "M ep'et'a qovlisa iberiisat'a anu sak'art' velosat'a"("The Kings o f All-Iberia
or Georgia") beginning with P'am avaz (P'amaos) occupies 287r-289r.
Official Description: Q-Fond Catalog, vol. 1 (1957), pp. 401-402.

Commentary: Not enumerated in Grigolia, Axali k'art 'lis c "xovreba.
xviii. [N.N. redaction o f 1822]

Kekelidze Institute o f MSS, Tbilisi, S-5316
Numbered by page (not by (), 712 pp. Mxedruli script Various watermarks, similar to Q-383. Spine of
original binding broken, but a fragment is preserved which reads "TPy3HHCKAH HCTOPHff", i.e..
"Georgian History" in Russian. Colophon offers the date 1 September 1822 (mentioning Rostam
Ioseliani) at IIv and p. 698 with a later inscription made in 1860 at Ir.
S-5316, and subsequent Vaxtangiseuli MSS, include a title page reading Mot 'x 'roba
sak'art'velosa, or The Tale o f Georgia (and not K'art'lis c'xovreba) (IIv).

The unnamed Q-383 MS (q.v.) is the earliest extant redaction o f K'art'lis c'xovreba to include a
miniature, which itself does not relate to the text but rather represents generic Christian iconography. S5316 is the only other extant MS to incorporate miniatures. Although the scribe intended several
miniatures to be inserted, only a few o f them were completed. The Ufe o f the Kings commences with an
extraordinary miniature o f Torgamah (Georgian T'argamos) and his eight sons, who according to that
source were the primogenitors o f the major communities of Caucasia (p. 1; see photograph in main text o f
this study!. This Georgian tradition o f the diluge describes the Armenian primogenitor Haos/Hayk as the
ultimate superior of his brothers including the eponymous ancestor o f the K ' art'velians, Kart' los (by
virtue o f Haos being the oldest o f all the brothers). The artist responsible for this miniature has remained
faithful to the text. Torgamah is placed in the center with Haos situated to his lather's immediate right.
K 'art'Ios is painted not to his father's left, but rather, to the right o f his brother Haos. The order o f the
figures, left to right, is: Movakan, Bardos, K'art'Ios, Haos, Torgamah, Lekos, Heros (given as Eeros),
Kavkas, and Egros. All o f them bear shields and swords and wear helmets (with feathers), armor, and
robes. These warriors are standing on a hill with houses as well as a Romanesque statue placed behind.
R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission of the copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout p erm ission.
726
Significantly, no miniature was planned for P'amavaz, the semi-legendary first king o f Kartli.
This may be a reflection o f the fact that the memory o f P'arnavaz was elevated to almost divine status only
later by m odem Georgian nationalists. The next two miniatures appear side by side at p. 52. Situated at
the beginning o f The Ufe o f Nino, the left miniature portrays S t Nino on a hill near a village. She has a
halo and holds a cross o f vines, yet this cross is not in the "Georgian" style. Jesus sits in a cloud overhead
and above him is the Greek abbreviation for Jesus C hrist To Nino's tight is a separate miniature of S t
George slaying a dragon. He sits on horseback, has a halo, and a n unintelligible Russian(?) inscription is
written in the upper-right comer.
Miniatures were planned to exalt the activities of the hero-king Vaxtang I. a contemporary o f the
Byzantine emperor Zeno. At the beginning o f the account of K ing Vaxtang 1 is a large blank space (p.
106) while another is found during the narrative of Vaxtang's struggle against the Ovsi tribe (p. 112).
We must treat these miniatures with extreme caution for they only represent the nineteenthcentury understanding o f these historical figures. We have no indication that the earliest redactions of
K'art'lis c'xovreba contained miniatures, but lacking near-contemporary Georgian MSS, we cannot state
this with absolute certainty.
S-5316 is typical o f other Vaxtangiseuli MSS in terms o f organization, with a large number of
borders distinguishing texts throughout As with Q-383, S-S316 terminates with several non-K'art 'lis
c 'xovreba works. At p. 698 is a short account o f early K 'artvelian contacts with Russia. The regnal list
o f Q-383 is repeated at pp. 699-702, but S-5316 gives it the lengthier title (after Vaxushti) "Mepeta
qovelisa iveriisata anu sak a rtv elo sata gina giorgiisata romelta ese sami saxelni k~qanasa amas ecoda
q~ta sakartvelot'a" ("The Kings o f All-Iberia or Sakartvelo or [Even] 'Georgia' which Are the Three
Names for All-Georgia"). This enumeration also serves as an index since page numbers for the account of
each king is provided.
Unlike any preceding redaction, S-5316 also has a map (between pp. 702-703). Entitled "Karta
sak'artveloysa" ("A Map o f Georgia"), it is in Georgian with colors used to designate boundary lines.
The boundaries o f Georgia are rendered with a peach-colored line and included with it are Ap' xazet' i.
Imeret i, and Samegrelo south to Bat'umi. Significantly, Axalc'ixe, A xalk'alak'i, and Tao-Klaijet'i are
included within Ottoman domains. But the anonymous cartographer did count much of northern Armenia
and Azerbaijan (including the city o f Baku and the region o f Daghestan) within Georgian domains! He
also made the entire Georgian Military Highway, reaching to Vladikavkaz and "Mozghogi," part of
Georgia. Settlements, roads, and rivers are identified and distances are rendered in versts. This map is
purely the product o f the nineteenth century and does not represent the historical realities of medieval
Georgia.
This MS was copied in the Russian city o f Riazan in 1822 by Rostom Ioseliani (pp. 698 and IIv).
Beginning in 1801 with K 'art'li, Georgia was systematically annexed by the Russian Empire, in violation
727
o f the Treaty o f 1783. An entire shop devoted to copying Georgian texts may have existed in Riazan' for
another MS o f K'art 'lis c 'xovreba (S-5314; see infra) is known to have been produced there. ^

Commentary: Not enumerated in Grigolia, Axali k'art'lis c'xovreba.
xix. [N.N. redaction o f 1833-1834]

379 ({. Mxedruli script Various watermarks; one often repeated (as at 11 90.102. 256. and 360) reads
"1830." Scribal attribution notation at 36 l r resembles the style of that o f S-5316 (p. 698).
Like its predecessor and close relative S-5316 (and perhaps, its direct exemplar). S-5314
commences with a title page reading The Tale o f Georgia. The script o f the unnamed S-5314 is hurried
and generally sloppy. Although it does not contain any miniatures, the blank spaces at the beginning of
both The Life o f the Kings (4r) and The Life o f Nino (33v) suggests that miniatures were intended to be
inserted at a later time. This betrays the dependence o f S-5314 upon the earlier S -5316.
S-5314, like the earlier Q-383 and S-5316, ends with several non -K'art'lis c 'xovreba works,
including the familiar regnal list (361v-363r).
This MS was copied in Riazan', Russia, by the priest Dimitri Ok'riashvili (361r); S-5316 (q.v.)
was also produced in Riazan'.
Official Description: S-Fond Catalog, vol. 1 (1959). p. 239.

Commentary: Not enumerated in Grigolia. Axali k 'art 'lis c 'xovreba.
xx. BRO SESEULI (B) 1839

Oriental Institute, St. Petersburg, M-18
347 ((. Mxedruli script. On the spine is printed "Wakhtang. Histoire de la Georgie."
The eminent scholar o f Georgian history, M.-F. Brosset, with the assistance o f D. Ch'ubinashvili
(Chubinov), produced his own MS in 1839. The B redaction was based primarily upon the
P'alavandishviliseuli codex (P/p), consulting the T and R MSS. In any event, he B redaction was wholly
^Portions o f K'C' were trans. into Rus. as early as the 1770s. A fragment o f the Vaxtangiseuli version
The life o f the Kings which has been dated to 1777; SPB. Or.InstMS # H -l. See Orbeli, Gruzinskie
rukopisi Instituta vostokovedeniia, pp. 19-20.
728
dependent upon Vaxtangiseuli MSS. It was copied in S t Petersburg by Simon Tabidze and Giorgi
Maisuradze. B forms the basis for Brosset's edition and French translation of K'art'lis c'xovreba (1849).
Edition: Brosset with Chubinashvilt eds., Hist, de la George (1849).

Translation: French: Brosset trans., Hist, de la George (1849).
Official Description: Orbeli, Gruzinskie rukopisi Instituta Vostokovedeniia. pp. 18-19.
Commentary: Grigolia, Axali k 'art 'lis c xovreba, pp. 190-194.
ex cu rsu s c
K'art'velian Bagratid Stemma
1. The origin o f the K 'art'velian Bagrarids according to Sumhat Davifis-dze. Note that several
generations have been omitted between Adam-David; DavidJoseph; and JosephSolomon. This
Solomon is not the Biblical Solomon, but rather the father o f seven sons, four o f whom fled from Palestine
to Caucasia. Note also that Davit'is-dze has mistaken the Guaramids to be Bagratids; thus Guaram (I)
through Guaram (II), with the exception o f Adamase (a Chosroid, who was actually returned to power by
Heraclius), are Guaramids. For the non-legendary stemma, see Toumanofif, Studies.
ADAM
I
KING-PROPHET DAVID
JOSEPH
SOLOMON
SAHAK
To Kaxet' i
ASAM
To Kambechani
VARAZVARD
To Kambcchani
STEP' ANOZ (I)
GUARAM (I)
3 OTHERS
Erist'avi
Kuropalates
DEMETRE
Erist'avi; mt'avari
ADARNASE
Mt'avari
STEP' ANOZ (II)
Erist'avi; mt'avari
GUARAM (II)
Erist'avi; kuropalates
(see *2)
730
*2. K'art'velian Bagratid princes in the line o f Guaram (TO according to Sumhat Davit'is-dze.
Underlined: Adarnase (I) (the first historical K'art'velian Bagratid given by Davit'is-dze); Ashot (I) "the
Great" (d. 826 [Davit'is-dze reports 830], the first K'art'velian Bagratid to rule as presiding prince): and
Adarnase IV (II) (restores royal authority in 888).
GUARAM (ID
VARAZ-BAKUR
NERSE
P'lLIPE
STEP'ANOZ ADARNASE ffl
I
ASHOT 0) "THE GREAT"
ADARNASE (II)
(see *3)
BAGRAT (I)
DAVIT (D ADARNASE
ASHOT
GUARAM
NASR
ASHOT
ADARNASE IV (II)
mep'e
(see *4)
K'artvelian Bagratid princes in the line of Adarnase
according to Sumhat Davitis-dze
ADARNASE (II)
GURGEN 0 ) ASHOT KEKELAY
ADARNASE (III)
ASHOT
KUXI
SUMBAT (I)
ARTANUJELI
BAGRAT (D
ARTANUJELI
DAVIT
ARTANUJELI
r~
ADARNASE
GURGEN
ASHOT
GURGEN
D A V IT
SUMBAT
BAGRAT
ASHOT
D A V IT 0 )
BAGRAT ARTANUJELI
SUMBAT (HI)
ARTANUJELI
BAGRAT
GURGEN
DEMETRE
732
*4. K 'artvelian Bagratid kings and princes in the line o f Adarnase TV 01) according to Surnbat Davit isdze. Underlined; Adarnase IV (II) (restores royal authority' in 888, first Bagratid mep'e in Kartli);
Davit' o f Tao/Tayk' (d. 1000); Bagrat HI (adopted son o f Davit' o f Tao/Tayk', unifier eastern and western
"Georgia," ca. 1008).
ADARNASE IV fin
DAV IT H
ASHOT
BAGRAT
SUMBAT I
BAGRAT (II)
REGUENI
ADARNASE m
BAGRAT (I)
ADARNASE
I
DAVIT'
D A V IT O F
TAO/TAYK'
SUMBAT
GURGEN
BAGRAT III
GIORGII
BAGRAT IV
733
GLOSSARY
Georgian terms (main entries only), even those that were ultimately borrowed from other languages, are
italicized here. It should be noted that the convention o f italicization employed here differs from that in
the main text o f this study.
Arsacids
Dynasty o f Persian and Armenian origin, the Armenian Arshakuniani-s. In K'art'U

a branch o f the Arsacids ruled as kings from Rev I (189-216) until A sp'agur I
(265-284). The K 'art'velian Arsacids were related to the P'am avaziani-s. They
were replaced by the K 'art'velian Chosroid (Xuasroiani) dynasty founded by
Mihran/Mirian m (284-361).
Autocephaly
Denotes that a church is independent in its internal affairs.
Aznauri
Literally a "free" person, although The Ufe o f the Kings explains the original
meaning o f the term as the Roman mercenary "soldiers o f Azon." This word is
first attested in the fifth-century Martyrdom ofShushcmild. It seems to be based
upon the Armenian azat, meaning "free." but used in the sense of "noble."
Originally, the aznauri-s were o f lower rank than the m tavari-s (q.v.). although
both could be used in the sense o f "aristocrat."
B agratids
Armeno-Persian family known already to fifth-century Armenian historians. Although

some Bagratids resided in the Armeno-K'art'velian marchlands from an early time, a
permanent K 'art'velian (and then, Georgian) branch of this family was established only
in the last quarter o f the eighth century. Ashot I (813-830) was the first B agratid to
rule the K 'art'velians. The Armenian form "Bagratuni" used here to refer to the main
branch (and original grouping) o f the clan.
Basileus
Greek, plural basileis. From the seventh century, denotes only the Byzantine
emperor. Before this time, it could be applied to other rulers (like the shahanshah).
Bumberad
Champion duelist. According to this study, bumberazis were a prominent feature

of the pre-Bagratid conception o f K 'art'velian royal authority. Kings were expected
to fight in bumberazi combat, and their troops always included several bumberazis.
Bumberazis were limited to the Persian cultural world (including K 'a rt'li) and were
never applied to Rome/Byzantium. Pre-Bagratid kings were portrayed as bumberazis
aoAgoliat'is ("giants," q.v.) in imitation o f the Sasanid hero-monarchs. The term
is based upon Arabic and therefore cannot predate the seventh century.
734
Chalcedon
Location o f the Fourth Ecumenical Council of the Christian C hurch held in 4S1.
In this study, the "Chalcedonian" refers to its adherents, and "Chalcedonianism
refers to the pronouncement o f the council that Christ had two natures, human and
divine, which were indivisible (thus, Chalcedonianism is sometimes called
Dyophysitism). Cf. Monophysitism (q.v.). It should be noted that the Council o f
Chalcedon also granted patriarchal status to Jerusalem.
Chosroids
Dynasty o f Persian extraction (Georgian form Xuasro[v]iani) who ruled as kings in

K 'a rt'li from M ihran/M irian in (284-361) until the abolition o f the monarchy by the
Persians (probably under Bakur III [7-580]). Vaxtang I Gorgasali (ca. 447-ca. 522) was
a member o f this dynasty. From its inception, the K 'art'velian Chosroids were
usually Christians.
Dedop'ali
Queen-consort. Ruling queens (i.e., T amar and Rusudan) were afforded the title
o f mep e (q.v.). Dedop ali. like the Byzantine augusta, was also applied to (royal)
princesses. In addition, female saints (i.e., Shushaniki and Nino) are styled as
dedop'ali-s.
Didebuli
From didi, "great" Toumanoff rendered the term as "grandee," "magnate." Its
usage may be traced to the Bagratid period; in K'art'lis c 'xovreba it is first
encountered in the eleventh-century Chronicle o f K'art'li. Therefore, it seems
to have been a Bagratid creation distinguishing the higher nobility (the didebuli-s)
from the lower aristocratic stratae.
Ecumenical
Council
Refers to any o f the universal ecclesiastical councils held in Byzantium (seven were
recognized by the Orthodox and Georgian Churches). The first council was held
at Nicaea in 325 to discuss questions o f dogma and organization. They formed the
basis, along with the Bible, o f the Christian faith in the East. See also Chalcedon
(q.v.).
Eri
Denotes both the arm y (later usually called lashk'ari) and the people. In Biblical
and ecclesiastical texts, eri often refers to the "multitude." or "host."
Erist'avi
Lit. "the head o f the eri (army/people)." Erist'avi-s served as regional governors
for the K 'art'velian kings. Their position was nominally dependent upon the favor
o f the monarch but it was, from an early time, made hereditary. According to the
Georgian historical tradition, the earliest K'art'velian erist'avi-s were appointed by
the semi-legendary first king P'am avaz. Toumanoff refers to erist'avi-s as "dukes."
Goliat'i
L it "goliath," or g ia n t Often used in conjunction with bumberazi (q.v.).
735
H agiography
The written record o f the life and acts o f a saint; a Christian biography. This genre
would have been considered by its promoters as history, albeit in an explicitly Christian
guise. Here, h ag io g ra p h y is usually differentiated from the more secular-based
history.
K'art'li
Eastern "Georgian" province, containing both the cities o f M c'xef a and Tp'ilisi. The
Romans and Byzantines referred to the area as Iberia, although by the tenth century
Iberia could also refer to the theme o f Iberia as well as some regions inhabited by
Chalcedonian Armenians.
K'art'lis
c'xovreba
L it The Life o f K'art'li but called The Georgian Royal Annals by Toumanoff. The
majority o f medieval Georgian historical works are incorporated into this corpus. It
consists o f numerous works, the earliest o f which date from ca. 800 (The Life o f the
Kings and C'xorebay vaxtanggorgaslisa). These earliest (pre-Bagratid) texts appear to
have constituted the earliest version o f K'art'lis c'xovreba; after the eleventh century-.
Bagratid histories were appended to this core. Substantial editing o f the pre-Bagratid
texts occurred in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. In this time, an Armenian
adaptation o f the corpus was completed; ironically, the earliest surviving MS of the
corpus is a copy o f the Armenian adaptation (written 1279-1311) while extant
Georgian MSS date only from the late fifteenth century. A massive editorial
campaign was launched under the initiative o f King Vaxtang VI in the first decade
o f the eighteenth century. Changes introduced by his commission further
obfuscated the feet that K'art'lis c'xovreba was comprised o f several distinct
texts, although all o f them are in support o f the monarchy. Brosset's edition and
translation was made from this Vaxtangiseuli (q.v.) recension. Notable texts not
included within K'art'lis c xovreba a re Mok'c'evay k'art'Usay and The Monument
o f the Erist'avi-s (which was written in support o f the erist'avi-s and not the
Crown).
K'art'losiani-s
Dynastic tag for the progeny o f the mythical eponym o f K 'art'li, Kart'los. Used only
in The Life o f the Kings, this term refers to the rulers o f the K 'art'velian community.
K'art'velian
Attributive form for K 'art'li. This form is properly for animate nouns: in this study
"K'art'velian" is used to refer to anything/anyone from K 'art'li. This attributive is
preferred over "Georgian" for the pre-Bagratid period (with the exception of the
"Georgian language" and "the Georgian historical tradition" which are properly
anachronistic for the pre-Bagratid era).
Kat'alikos
Variant, kat'alikor, Greek KA0OAIKOE, Latin catholicus. Usually applied to the

head o f Eastern Churches (e.g., K 'art'li, Armenia, Persia). Later Persian documents
claim that the bishop o f Seleucia-Ktesiphon was already styled kat'alikos in 410;
this status is known in Greek documents from the sixth century. The K'art'velian
kat'alikos-ale was established in the late fifth century; before this, the ecclesiastical
hierarch o f the K 'art'velian Church was styled as bishop or archbishop.
K ut'at'isi
Mod. K 'ut'alsi. Major city of Imeret'i (i.e., the western "Georgian" domains).
Major center and royal city under the Bagratids.
736
Mamasaxlisi
L it "father o f the house." According to The Life o f the Kings, the mamasaxlisi of
M c'xet'a held semi-royal authority over that city prior to the establishment of
the K 'art'velian throne. In the medieval period, mamasaxlisi was often used as
the title for the Father Superior o f a monastery. The Classical Armenian equivalent
is tanuter.
Mc'xet'a
Pre-Bagratid capital o f the K 'art'velian monarchy; its oldest quarter was named
Armazi. In the Bagratid period M c'xet'a continued to be a major center for the
Georgian Church with the kat'alikos-al cathedral Sueti-c' xoveli being located there.
Mep'e
Georgian designation for a monarch. In this study, mep'e is usually rendered as

"king" for m ale rulers. It should be noted that Georgian lacks a grammatical
gender; thus, women Georgian monarchs (i.e., T a m a r and Rusudan) were afforded the
title o f mep'e in contemporary sources. The designation mep'e was used for both
pre-Bagratid and Bagratid, and Georgian and non-Georgian rulers.
M etropolitan
High ecclesiastical post attested already in the acts o f the First Ecumenical Council
(325). Originally, the see o f a metropolitan usually corresponded with civil
provinces. In the context o f this study, the Armenian Church considered this
position to be subordinate to a kat'alikos (q.v.). At the Third Council of Dwin in
607/608, the Armenian prelate demoted his K 'art'velian counterpart to
metropolitan, ranking him even below the kat'alikos o f Albania. Later, under
the Georgian Bagratids, the Caucasian Armenian prelate was assigned this
title, clearly subordinating him to the Georgian patriarch-fca/ alikos.
Mok'c'evay
k'art'lisay
A historical corpus independent o f K'art'lis c'xovreba (q.v.) which was probably

compiled in the tenth century; the earliest redactions (e.g., the Shatberdi codex) were
copied at that time. In its extant form it is a Bagradd-era compilation. It consists
of the core text o f The Conversion ofK'art'li, as well as The Primary History o f
K'art'li, three Royal Lists, and The Life o f Nino.
Monophysite
An adherent o f Monophysitism. Monophysites professed that Christ was o f a

single divine nature (cf. Chalcedon, [q.v.]). Monophysitism may be traced to
the first-half o f the fifth century; the term itself is unknown until the seventh century.
The strongholds o f Monophysitism were Syria, Egypt, an d Armenia. The issue of
Monophysitism plagued Imperial politics for some two centuries. Several attempts at
eradication and compromise failed, and the Monophysite Churches eventually left the
fold o f the Imperial Church. Some emperors, like Anastasius I (491-518), professed
Monophysitism openly, though ultimately Chalcedonianism was regarded as the
Orthodox faith.
Mt'avari
L it, "head," "chief. This term is attested already in the fifth-century Martyrdom
ofShushaniki. Later t'avadi (q.v.) was used in the sam e sense (and also "prince").
Originally, mt'avari-s were ranked higher than the noble aznauri-s (q.v.).
737
Mtkuari
Also M tkwari, often called Kura. Major river in K 'art'li/G eorgia. Flows from Javaxet' i
in the south, to M c'xet'a and Tp'ilisi, and then south to Rust avi and into modem
Azerbaijan. Its course formed the basis for the E-W trade artery through K 'art'li.
N orthern
Caucasia
The lands and peoples situated to the north o f the main range o f the Caucasus
mountains (i.e., to the north o f Imereti and K 'artli). Included within its purview are
Ovset'i (Alania), Suanet'i (Svanet'i), Durdzuket'i, the Khazars, and the Qipchaqs.
In Georgian sources, northern Caucasia is simply called "Caucasia."
P'amavaziani-s The progeny and successors to P'arnavaz, the semi-mythical first long o f the
K 'art'velians according to the tradition o f The Life o f the Kings.
Pre-B agratid
The period before the permanent establishment of the K'art'velian/Georgian Bagratid

clan in the last quarter of the eighth century.
Pre-Vaxtang
see Vaxtangiseuli
-iseuli
Saberdznet'i
"Greece," usually employed to refer to the Byzantine Em pire (esp. Constantinople

and Anatolia).
Sak'art'velo
All-Georgia. Sak' art' velo emerged as a political reality only from the rule of Bagrat III
(d. 1014), when the thrones o f Ap'xazet'i and K 'art'li/T ao were joined into a single
entity. It is anachronistic to speak o f Sak'art'velo before the era o f Bagrat. Cf.
K'art'li.
Shahanshah
L it, "Shah o f shahs." Refers to the Great King o f Persia/Iran. The Sasanid monarchs
possessed this title.
Sharavandedi
In the B agratid period, associated with the Bagratids an d important Georgian saints
to denote their special connection to the sacred. Sharavandedi literally denoted
the aureoles o r corona o f the Sun, and, according to this study, was probably
depicted graphically as the haloes often painted over Bagratid rulers. The term
also bad the connotation of "one who is crowned," which, according to
contemporary thinking, necessarily denoted divine sanction.
Somxet'i
Variant Somxit'i. Georgian designation for Caucasian Armenia.
Sparset'i
Parthia, Persia, Iran.
Spaspeti
The second to the king in pre-Bagratid K 'art'li. Toumanoff renders this term as
"High Constable."
738
Sueti-c'xoveli
The Church o f the Life-Giving Pillar located in Me' xet-a. Its first structure was
reputedly raised by Mirian HI. Later, Vaxtang is said to have raised a stone church
on its site. The church standing today dates from the tenth century and later.
7"argtutwsiani-s The progeny o f Togarmah (Georgian T argam os), esp. those who allegedly settled
w ithin the confines o f Caucasia. The K 'art'losiani-s (q.v.) were a branch o f the
T argamosiani-s.
7"trvadi
L it "head," "chief." This term was sometimes used as a synonym for mt avari
(q.v.), and later acquired the meaning o f "prince." Toumanoff renders this term
as princeps and "prince."
T hem e
Byzantine themata. Originally, this term w as used in Byzantium for armies, though in
the late seventh century it came to denote the territory on which they were stationed.
The existence o f a theme, like the so-called Iberian Theme which was established in
western Caucasia by the Byzantines in the eleventh century, necessarily signifies
the penetration and presence o f the Byzantine administrative machine.
Tp'ilisi
Mod. T b ilisi, Arabic/Russian Tiflis. Seat o f the K 'art'velian kings from the sixth
century and royal city o f the all-Georgian B agratid kingdom from its conquest
by Davit' II in 1122. (The city had been ruled by a Muslim amirate).
Vaxtangiseuli
Attributive ("of/from Vaxtang") referring to the recension o f MSS of K art 'lis c 'xovreba
(q.v.) which were edited by a commission appointed by Vaxtang VI. This "commission
o f learned men" was active in the first decade o f the eighteenth century. MSS copied
before this commission, or not incorporating the changes introduced by it, are
called "pre-Vaxtangiseuli."
Zoroastrianism Fire-worship. The "official" faith o f Sasanid Iran.
739
B ib l i o g r a p h y
For the systems o f transliteration used in this study, see "Note on Transliteration" in the introduction.
Because o f the wide range o f languages represented by the contemporary and modem works enumerated
here, certain inconsistencies occur. Author's names are usually transliterated from the language o f the
cited work; but when works by the same author in multiple languages are cited, the transliteration o f the
author's name is generally rendered from the author's native tongue. Changes in orthography and
Russianized variants (esp. at the beginning o f the twentieth century) are noted in brackets. Thus the
names Javaxishvili (Georgian), Dzfaavakhishvili (Rus.) and Dzhavakhov (Russianized) are all equivalent,
as are Janashia-D zhanashia and Xaxanashvili-Khakhanov. Publishing information is usually rendered
from the language o f the work, resulting in some apparent inconsistencies; changes in official orthography
are also left uncorrected. Thus T b ilisi (mod. Georgian) may be rendered as T p'ilisi (old Georgian),
Tbilisi (new Rus.), and Tiflis (old Rus.); the publishing house M ec'niereba is the Rus. Metsniereba (here
abbreviated M ec'. from the Georgian) likewise Xelovneba and Khelovneba. Location o f publishing
houses is normally rendered in the language o f the work; thus Moskva (Rus.) = Moscow.
Abbreviations
Languages:
Arm.
Av.
Fr.
Ger.
Gk.
Ir.
Armenian
Avestan
French
German
Greek
Iranian
Lat.
N.Pers.
O.Pers.
Pers.
Phi.
Rus.
Latin
New Persian
Old Persian
Persian
Pahlavi
Russian
AA
AB
AE
AEMA
AJAH
American Anthropologist
Analecta Bollandiana
Annales d'Ethiopie
Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi
American Journal o f Ancient History
AN
Akademiia nauk
ANRW
ANSMN
AO
AQ
AR
ASEER
ASR
ASSC
ATS
BA
BAR
BCNH
Aufstieg und Niedergang der Rdmischen Welt - Rise and Decline o f the Roman World
American Numismatic Society Museum Notes
Analecta Orientalia
Armenian Quarterly
Armenian Review
The American Slavic and East European Review
American Slavic Review
Annual o f the Societyfo r the Study o f Caucasia
[University o f Pennsylvania] Armenian Texts and Studies
Byzantina Australiensia
BAR International Series
Bibliotheque Copte de Nag Hammadi
740
BEFAR
BEHE
BIHEB
BK
BMGS
BOH
ByzSlav
BSOAS
BZ
CAH
CAJ
CFHB
CHI
CUS
CMH
CQ
CRHA
CSCO
CSHB
CSSH
DGTSSSR
DHA
DMA
DOP
DOS
DrV
DV
DzK'ALDz
DzK'EDz
DzK'M
DzK'MDz
EDzXM
EEM
EHR
E l1
El2
Elran
FHG
GhM
GRBS
HA
HEIOHC
HIS
HJAS
HSCP
HSNPL
HT
HTR
HUS
UG
IKIAI
ISSSR
Bibliotheque des Ecoles Franqaises d Athenes et de Rome

Bibliotheque de PEcole des Hautes Etudes
Bibliotheque de IInstitut hellenique detudes byzantines et post-byzantines de Venise
Bedi Kartlisa: Revue de kartvelologie
Byzantine and Modem Greek Studies
Bibliotheca Orientalis Hungarica
Byzantinoslavica
Bulletin o f the School o f Oriental and African Studies
Byzantinische Zeitschrift
Cambridge Ancient History
Central Asian Journal
Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae
The Cambridge History o f Iran
Columbia Lectures on Iranian Studies
Cambridge Medieval History
Classical Quarterly
Centre de Recherches dHistoire Ancienne
Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium
Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae
Comparative Studies in Society and History
Drevneishie gosudarstva na teritorii SSSR: materialy i issledovaniia
Dialogues dhistoire ancienne
Dictionary o f the Middle Ages
Dumbarton Oaks Papers
Dumbarton Oaks Studies
Drevnei vostochnykh
Drevnosti vostochnyia = Trudy vostochnoi kommissii imperatorskago moskovskago
arkheologicheskago Obshchestva
Dzveli k'art'uli agiograp'iuli literaturisdzeglebi
Dzveli k'art'uli enis dzeglebi =Pamiatniki drevnegruzinskogo iazyka
Dzveli k'art'uli mcerloba
Dzveli k'art'uli mcerlobis dzeglebi
Epigrap'ikuli dzeglebi daxelnacert'aminacerebi
East European Monographs
English Historical Review
Encyclopedia o f Islam. First edition. 1913-1936.
Encyclopaedia o f Islam. New edition. Leiden: E.J. Brill, I960-.
Encyclopaedia Iranica. London-New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 1985-.
Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum
Ghukasean Matenadaran [Tbilisi]
Greek Roman, and Byzantine Studies
Handes Amsorecry
Hautes etudes islamiques et orientates dhistoire comparee
Harvard Iranian Series
Harvard Journal o f Asiatic Studies
Harvard Studies in Classical Philology
Harvard Studies and Notes in Philology and Literature
Hratarakut'iwn T'ip'lisi enk Hayeren grk'eri hrat. [SPB]
Harvard Theological Review
Harvard Ukrainian Studies
Istochniki po istorii Gruzii
Izvestiia kavkazskogo istoriko-arkheologicheskogo Instituta = Bulletin de Vlnstitut
Caucasien dHistoire et dArcheologie
Istoriia SSSR
741
WOIAO
Izvestiia vostochnago Otdeleniia imperatorskago arkheologicheskago Obshchestva
Izd-vo
Izdatel'stvo
JA
JNES
JANES
JHS
JOB
JSAS
JTS
JV
K'C'
K'CK
K'C'S
KES
K'ISK
K'LCK
K'SMDz
LC
LCL
LeM
Mac'ne
Journal asiatique
Journal o f Near Eastern Studies
Journal o f the Ancient Near East Society
Journal o f Hellenic Studies
Jahrbuch der Osterreichischen Byzcmtinistik
Journal o f the Societyfo r Armenian Studies
Journal o f Theological Studies
Jvari vazisa (sruliadsak'art'velossapatriarko)
K'art 'lis c xovreba
K'art'uli carcerebis korpusi
K'art'lis c'xovrebis simp'onia-lek'sikoni
Kavkazskii etnograficheskii sbomik [Kavkasiis et'nograp'iuli krebuli]
K'art'uli istoriuli sabut'ebis korpusi
K'art'uli lapidaruli carcerebis korpusi
K'art'uli saistorio mcerlobis dzeglebi
Lapidaruli carcerebi
Loeb Classical Library
Le Musion
Sak'art'velosssr mec'nierebat'a akademiismac ne = Izvestiia Akademii NaukGruzii
[series utilized here: History/ethnography/art (Macne), literature (.M ac'ne-lit.). and
language (Mac'ne-enisa)]
Materialy po arkheologii Kavkaza
Monumenta Biblica et Ecclesiastica
MAK
MBE
Mec.
Gamomcemloba mec'niereba = Izd-vo Metsniereba, as well as books published

through the main presses o f the Georgian Academy o f Sciences
MHE
Miscellanea Historiae Ecclesiasticae
Mlala
Materialy po iafeticheskomu iazykoznaniiu
MoambeMarr Akad N. Maris saxelobis enis, istoriisa da materialuri kulturis institutis moambe =
Izvestiia Instituta iazyka, istorii i materialnoi kul'tury im. akad. N.Ia. Marra
MoambeMSS Sak'art'velos ssr mec'nierebat'a akademiis xelnacert'a institutis moambe
Institute
MSKI
Masalebi sak'art'velos da kavkasiis istoriisat'vis
MSP
Michigan Slavic Publications
NAA
NarodyAzii i Afriki [recently renamed Vostok]
NC
The Numismatic Chronicle
NCE
New Catholic Encyclopedia
NEMBM
Notices et Extraits des Manuscrits de la Bibliotheque Nationale
NJA
Nouveau Journal Asiatique
NNM
[.American Numismatic Society] Numismatic Notes and Monographs
NPNF
Nicaene and Post-Nicaene Fathers
NTS
New Testament Studies
OAW-PHK
Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse
OC
Oriens Christianus
OCA
Orientalia Christiana Analecta
OCP
Orientalia Christiana Periodica
OJA
Oxford Journal o f Archaeology
ORGSGN
PBH
PESLOV
PG
PGIL
PGP
Obshchestva rasprostraneniia gramotnosti sredi gruzinskago naseieniia

Panda-Banasirakan Handes = Istoriko-filologjcheskii zhumal
Publications de VEcole Speciale des Langues Orientates Vivantes

Patrologiae Graecae, ed. J.-P. Migne
Pamiatniki gruzinskoi istoricheskoi literaturi
Pamiatniki gruzinskogo prava
742
PHS
PIOL
PL
PMAE-RTS
PO
PPS
PPV
RB
REArm
REB
REGC
RESEE
RGSSP
RH
RHA
ROC
ROL
SBE
SE
SEG
SELAF
SH
SHEPL
Shromebi
SLAA
SIC
SICK
SIGK
SIUC
SI
SKPA W
SKIM
SMMat
SMOMPK
SMSANE
SP
Persian Heritage Series

Publications de I'Institut Orientaliste de Louvain
Patrologiae Latinae, ed. J.-P. Migne
Peabody Museum o f Archaeology and Ethnology (Harvard Univ.), Rus. trans. series
Patrologia Orientalis
Pravoslavnyi palestins/di sbomik
Pamiatniki pis'mennosti vostoka
Realities Byzantines
Revue des etudes armeniennes
Revue des etudes byzantins
Revue des itudes georgiennes et caucasiennes
Revue des itudes Sud-Est Europeennes
Royal Geographic Society Supplementary Papers
Revue Historique
Revue de IHistoire des Religions
Revue de IOrient chretien
Revue de IOrient Latin
Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica
Sovetskaia etnografiia
Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum
Sociite d'Etudes linguistiques et anthropologiques de France
Subsidia Hagiographica
Studies in History, Economics and Public Law [Columbia University]
T'bilisis shromis cit 'eli droshis ordenosani saxelmcip o universitetis shromebi
Studies in Islamic Art and Architecture
Sak'art'velos istoriis cqaroebi
Sak'art 'velos istoriis cqaroebis komisia
Sak'art'velos istoriuli geograp'iis krebuli
Sak 'art velos istoriis uc 'xouri cqaroebi
Saalburg Jahrbuch
Sitzungsberichte der Kdniglich Preussischen Akademie der Mssenschaften zu Berlin
Sak'art'velos muzeumis moambe = Bulletin du Musee de Georgie
Sahak Mesropean matenadaran
Sbomik materialov dlia opisaniia mestnostei i piemen Kavkaza
Sources and Monographs: Sourcesfrom the Ancient Hear East
Studia Patristica
SPB
S t Petersburg
SSC
SSCISSM
SSK
SSMG
Studies on Society in Change

Settimane di Studio del Centro Italiano di Studi Sullato Medioevo
Sbomik svedenii o Kavkaze
Sak 'art 'velos saxelmcip 'o muzeumis gemebi
SSR
SSSR
Sovetskaia Sotsialisticheskaia Respublika

Soiuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik
ST
SVTQ
SZK
TIEIUP
TM
TRAGF
TrudyJavax.
Studi e Testi
St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly
Studien zur Kulturkunde
Travaux de I'Institut detudes iraniennes de IUniversiti de Paris
Travaux et Mimoires
Teksty i razyskaniia po armiano-gruzinskoijilologii
Truzy AN GSSR Institut istorii im. I A . Dzhavakhishvili = Shromebi iv. javaxishvUis
sax. istoriis instituti
TUG
T'bilisis universitetis gam om cemloba (Publishing house o f T b ilisi University)
TUGAL
Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Altchristlichen Literal
743
TVOIRAO
Trudy vostochnago otdeleniia imperatorskago russkago arkheologicheskago

obshchestva
UCP/CS
UCSSh
VC
VDI
VE
W
YNES
ZDMG
ZhMNP
ZVOIRAO
University o f California Publications, Classical Studies
Uc'xouri cqaroebi sak'art'velosshesaxeb

Vetera Christianorum
Vestnik drevnei istorii
Vizantinovedchesfde etiudy
Vizantiiskii vremennik
Yale Near Eastern Studies
Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenldndischen Gesellschaft
Zhumal Ministerstva narodnago prosveshcheniia
Zapiski vostochnago otdeleniia imperatorskago russkago arkheologicheskago
obshchestva
CONTEM PORARY SOURCES
No effort has been made to provide a comprehensive enumeration o f all available printed editions of
contemporary texts. Rather, only those cited in this study are listed. In those few cases when multiple
Georgian editions o f the same text are referenced in this study (i.e Sumbat Davit'is-dze. The Life o f King
o f Kings Davit', The Chronicle o f a Hundred Years), the first edition cited is the one normally referred to
in the notes. NB: If translations constitute the only published version cited here, then they are not so cited
(by "trans.") in the notes; this is particularly true for languages other than Georgian.
Manuscripts (MSS):
RELEVANT MANUSCRIPT CATALOGS:

* REPUBLIC OF GEORGIA
Kekelidze Institute o f Manuscripts, Tbilisi (KeklnstM S)

Four major fondy contains medieval MSS at this repository (named for former collections):
A
H
=
=
Ecclesiastical Museum ( saeklesio muzeumis p ondi)

Museum o f the Historical and Ethnographical Society (Saistorio-
State Museum o f Georgia, new fondy (Sak 'art velos saxelmcip 'os
Library o f the Society for the Propagation and the Spread o f Literacy
among the Georgian Population (Cera-fdt'xvisgamavrc'elebeli
saet 'nograp io sazogadoebis muzeumis p 'ondi)

muzeumis axali p'ondi)
sazogadoebis bibliot'eias p 'ondi)

1. A-Fond.
K'art'ulxelnacert'a aghceriloba: qop'ili saeklesio muzeumis (A) kolek'c'iisa, ed. E. Metreveli.
Published in T b ilisi by M ec'. Vols. published: l j (##1-100), 1973; 12 (##101-200), 1976; 13
(##201-300), 1980; 14 (##301-400), 1985; a n d 2 j (##401-500), 1986. F o r##501-800 s e e T .
Zhordania, ed., Opisanie rukopisei Tiflisskago Tserkovnago Muzeia, vol. 2 (Tiflis, 1902); for
##801-1040 see ibid., ed. by M. Janashvili, vol. 3 (Tiflis, 1908). See also vol. 4 (##10411450, 1954); vol. 5 (##1451-1804, 1955).
744
2. H -Fond
Sak'art'velossaxelmcip'o muzeumisk'art'ulxelnacert'a aghceriloba: sak'art'velossaistorio da

saet'nograp'io sazogadoebisqop'ili muzeumisxelnacerebi (Hkolek'c'ia). Tbilisi: Mec'.:
vol. 1 (1946), I. Abuladze, ed. (##1-500); vol. 2 (1951), Abuladze, ed. (##501-1000); vol. 3
(1948), K. Kekelidze, ed. (##1001-1500); vol. 4 (1950), Kekelidze. ed. (##1501-2000): vol. 5
(1949), A. Baramidze, ed. (##2001-2500).
3 . O -Fond
Sak'art'velos saxelmcip 'o muzeumis k'art'uli xelnacert'a aghceriloba: muzeumis xelnacert 'a
axali (Q) kolek'c'ia. T bilisi: M ec'. Vol. 1 (##1-500), 1957; vol. 2 (##501-1000), 1958.
4. SJond
K'art'ulxelacert'a aghceriloba: qop'ili k'art'velt'ashoriscerakit'xvisgamavrc'elebeli
sazogadoebis (S) kolek'c'iisa, ed. E. Metreveli. T b ilisi: Mec'. Vols.: vol. 1 =##1-1110 (1959):
vol. 2 = ##1111-1544 (1961); vol. 3 =##1545-2511 (1963); vol. 4 = ##2514-3192 (1965); vol. 5
= ##3226-4541 (1967); vol. 6 = ##4542-5003 (1969); vol. 7 = ##5004-5388 and 1492, 3058
(1973).
NB: The aforementioned catalogs are cited in the form x-Fond Catalog.
Central State Historical Archive, Tbilisi (Cent.HistArchMS)

5. K. Kekelidze, e d , C'entraluri saxelmcip'o saistorio ark'ivi: k'art'ul xelnacert'a kolek'c'iis
aghceriloba. 2 vols. (##1-340; 341-714). T b ilisi: Sak'art'velos ssr shss saark'ivo, 1949 and
1950. (f. 1446 only). See also V.Ia. Kacbarava, Sh.K. Ch'xetia, D.N. Maqgaladze, and
S.S. Lekishvili, eds., Tsentralnyi gosudarstvennyi istorichesldi arkhiv: putevoditel'. 2nd
e d Tbilisi: Izd-vo Sabchota Sakartvelo, 1976. See esp. pp. 227-281.
* OUTSIDE THE REPUBLIC OF GEORGIA

For a review o f the repositories in Europe, see: I. Tabaghua, Sak'art'velo evropis ark'ivebsa da
cignsac'avebshi. 3 vols. T bilisi: M ec'., 1982-1987, with Fr. sum., "La Georgiedans les
archives et dans les bibliotheques de rEurope;" and Jean Sumon, "Repertoire des bibliotheques
publiques et privees dTEurope contenant des manuscrits georgiens," Orientalia n.s. 3 (1934), pp.
98-104. The enumeration here is not intended to be exhaustive: rather, it includes only those
repositories directly relevant to this study.
(SinMS)
K'art'ul xelnacert'a aghceriloba: sinuri kolek'c'ia. E d by E. Metreveli. Vols. 1-3. T bilisi:
M ec'., 1978, 1979, 1987 [incomplete]. See also: Gerard Garitte, Catalogue des Manuscrits
georgiens littiraires du Mont Sinai, CSCO, vol. 165/subsidia 9 (Louvain, 1956); and N. Ia.
M arr, Opisanie gruzinsidkh rukopisei Sinaiskago monastyria. Moskva, 1940.
6 . S inai-S t. Catherine's Monastery.
7. St. Petersburg/Oriental Institute (SPB.Or.InstMS)

R.R. Orbeli, e d , Gruzinskie rukopisi Instituta Vostokovedeniia. Vol. 1. Moskva-Leningrad: Izdvo AN SSSR, 1956. (##1-161)
8. Oxford-W ardrop Collection. Bodleian Library. (Oxf.Wardr.)

David Barrett, Catalogue o f the Wardrop Collection and o f Other Georgian Books and
Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library. O xford Oxford UP, 1973.
745
9. LondonBritish Library (Brit.LibMS)

D A I Lang, Catalogue o f Georgian and Other Caucasian Printed Books in the British Museum.
London: British Museum, 1962.
10 CambridgeUniversity Library. (CambrMS)
R.P. Blake, "Catalogue o f the Georgian Manuscripts in the Cambridge University Library." HTR
25/3 (Jul. 1932), pp. 207-224.
11. Indiana U niversitv-W .ED . Allen Collection, Lilly Library. (H.EDAllen.MS)

MSS and important printed materials enumerated in Stephen H. Rapp, Jr.. "Highlights of
Georgian History Holdings at Indiana UniversityBloomington," ASSC 3 (1991), pp. 41-64.
Published Contemporary Georgian Sources:
Abuladze, ed.,Arm. Hagio. Georgian
Ilia Abuladze, ed. and comm., K'art'uli da somxuri
literaturuli urt'iert'obaIX-Xss-shi: gamolcvleva da tek'stebi.

T b ilisi: M ec'., 1944.
Acts o/Ruisi-Urbnisi
"1103 c. dzeglis-cera ruis-urbnisis krebisa." in T . Zhordania.
K'ronikebi da sxva masala sak'art'velos istoriisa da

mcerlobisa. Vol. 2. Tp'ilisi, 1897. Pp. 54-72.
Acts o f the 6th Ecum. Coun. Georgian
A.S. Khakhanov, ed., Pravila VI Vselenskago Sobora (v

gruzinskoi redaktsii). Offprint from DrV. vol. 2/3. Moskva.
1903.
Agaf angeghos-Georgian
Gerard Garitte, "Sur un fragment georgien dAgathange,"
LeM 61 (1948), pp. 89-102. See also Robert P. Blake.

"Catalogue o f the Georgian Manuscripts in the Cambridge
University Library," HTR 25/3 (Jul. 1932), pp. 216-221
(CambrMS # Georgian MS.5 = MS.Add. 1890.3).
Alek'sandriani
Revaz Mirianashvili, ed., Alek'sandriani. T b ilisi: M ec'..

1980. Rus. sum., pp. 197-202.
Alexander of CyprusGeorgian
Alek'sandre kviprelis k'ronika Pl-XIV ss. xelnacerebis

mixedvit'). Ed. and comm, by Tamila Mgaloblishvili.
Antiochos Strategos
Frederick C. Conybeare, trans. "Antiochus Strategos'

Account o f the Sack o f Jerusalem in A.D. 614," EHR 25
(1910), pp. 502-517.
Arsen Iqalt'oeli, Metaphr. Nino
"C xoreba da mok'alak'oba da ghvacli cmidisa da ghirsisa

dedisa ch'venisa ninoisi, romelman k'adaga k'riste, ghm ert'i
chveni, k'veqanasa ch'rdiloisasa da gananat'la nat'esavi
k 'a rtv elf a," in Lolashvili, Dzveli k'art'uli literatura, pp.
352-396.
Arsen Iqalt'oeli, Epitaph o f D a vit'll
"Davit' aghmasheneblis epitap'ia," in Lolashvili, Dzveli
k'art'uli literatura, p. 535.
746
Arsen Sap'aieli
Gmqop'isat'wsk'art'velt'a da somext'a. E d by Zaza

Alek'sidze. SIC ,vol. 17 = K'SMDz,vol. 1. T b ilisi: Mec'..
1980. Eng. sum., pp. 206-208.
Athos Parch. Coll. (1074)
At'onisiveriismonastris: 1074 c. xelt'nacemi aghapebit'.

E d by A. Xaxanashvili. T b ilisi. 1901.
Basil M f acmideli, Hymn to Ep't'wme
M t 'acmideli
"GaJobani cmidisa mamisa chvenisa ep't'vim i

mt'acmidelisani," in Lolashvili. Dzveli k'art'uli literatura,
pp. 516-525.
Beri Egnatashvili
"Axali k 'art'lis c'xovreba. pirveli tek'sti," in K 'C '-, pp. 326442.
Brosset, e d , Hist, de la Georgie
M.-F. Brosset with D. Chubinashvili, e d and trans., Histoire

de la Georgie depuis Tantiquite jusquau XIX? siecle. Vol. 1.
"Histoire ancienne, jusqu'en 1469 de J.-C." SPB. 1849. (Five
vols. total, 1849-1858). See individual texts for specific
references.
Ps.-Callisthenes-Georgian
Istoriisa alek'sandres mep'isa makedoniisa da qovlisa

aghmosavlet'isa da dasavlet'isa, ch'rdiloet'isa da qovlisa
samq'ret'isa da t'wt'mpqrobelsa m ep'et' mep'isa. E.g.,
Oxf.Wardr. # MS.Wardr.e.18 (unpub.).
Cave o f TreasuresGeorgian
Ciala Kourcikidze, e d , La Caveme des Tresors: version

georgienne. CSCO, vol. 526 = Scriptores Iberici, vol. 23.
Louvain: Peeters, 1993. Fr. trans., Jean-Pierre Mahe, trans..
La Caveme des Tresors: version georgienne. CSCO, vol.

527 = Scriptores Iberici, vol. 24. Louvain: Peeters. 1992.
Chaxruxadze, T'amariani
"K'eba m ep'isa t'amarisi," in Lolashvili, Dzveli k'art'uli

literatura, pp. 557-586. See also N.Ia. Marr, e d and comm.,
in "Drevnegruzinskie odopistsy (XII v.)," TRAGF 4 (1902),
pp. 73-140. Rus. trans. by Sh. Nuc'ubidze in A.A.
Gvakhariia, e d , Drevne-gruzinskaia literatura (V-XVIII v.).
Tbilisi: T U G , 1982. Pp. 296-304.
Chron. Hund. Years
Asclovani matiane, e d by Revaz Kiknadze. SIC, vol. 48 =

K'SMDz, vol. 6 . Tbilisi: M ec'., 1987. Eng. sum., "T he
Chronicle o f One Hundred Years' by a Georgian Anonymous
14th-Century Historian," pp. 247-250. See also the eariier
e d o f Qauxchishvili, "Zhamt'aaghmcereli" ("The
Chronicler o f a Bygone Time"), in K ' C pp. 151-325.
Fr. trans. by Brosset, Histoire de la Georgie, pp. 481-644.
Modem Aim. trans. by P. Muradyan, Zhamanakagrut'yun
Vrac' (1207-1318). Erevan: Haykakan SSH GA
Hratarakch'ut'yun, 1971. Partial Eng. trans. as the vita
o f Giorgi Lasha by Vivian, Georgian Chron., pp. 97-103.
Chron. K'art'li
"Matiane k'art'lisay," in K'C'^, pp. 249-317. Rus. trans.,

Matiane Kartlisa, trans. by M.D. L ort'k'ip'anidze. PGIL,
vol. n.a. Tbilisi: Mec'., 1976. See also the Rus. trans. of
747
G.V. Tsulaia, Letopis Kartli. PGIL, vol. 4. Tbilisi: M ec'..

1982. Ed. and Fr. trans. by Brosset. Hist, de la Georgie, pp.
184-236 (ed.)/256-345 (trans.). Eng. trans. by Thomson.
"The Book o f Kartli," in his Rewriting Cauc. Hist., pp. 255308.
[Short] Chronicles
- The "short chronicles" that follow are attached to larger

ecclesiastical texts (usually as marginalia) and are anonymous
unless otherwise noted.
Chron. 13th cent.
"Mokle c'nobebi sak'art'velos istoriidan," in E. Taqalshvili.

ed., Dzveli sak'art'velo, vol. 2 (Tpilisi, 1913). pp. 54-66.
Chron. 446-1855
In E. Taqalshvili, "Istoricheskiia pripiski dvukh kinklosov

i khronologicheskii perechen sobytii po nekotoiym drugim
istochnikam - materialy dlia istorii Gruzii." SMOXIPK 21
(18% ), pp. 57-60. NB: Five short chronicles provided in this
article are bound together in the following o rd e r 1444-1820.
1444-1702, 1658-1791, 1728-1828, and 446-1855.
Chron. 1072-1605
E. T aqaxshvili, ed. and trans., "Khronika Eristovskago

Akathista," SMOMPK 29 (1901), pp. 95-114.
Code o f Giorgf V
D.L. P'urc'eladze [Purtseladze], Ulozhenie Georgiia V-go

Blistatelnogo. SICK, vol. 44. Tbilisi: Mec., 1988. With
parallel Geo. text and Rus. trans., with Eng. and Fr. trans. in
the notes. Fr. trans. in G. Charachidze, Introduction a Ietude
de la fiodalite georgienne 0e code de Georges le Brillant).

HEIOHC, vol I. Genfcve: Librairie Droz, 1971. Pp. 141-155.
Code o f Vaxtang VI
D.L. P'urc'eladze, Zakony Vakhtanga VI. PGP, vol. 1.

Tbilisi: M ec'., 1980. Fr. trans. in Corpus Juris IberoCaucasici (see infra). Eng. trans.. "The Laws o f Prince
Vakhtang, o f Georgia. Handwritten, unpublished, by Oliver
Wardrop. Trans, from the Rus. rendering o f A.S. Frenkel',
Sbomik zakonov gruzinskago tsaria Vakhtanga IT (Tiflis,
1885). See also, e.g., Oxf.Wardr. # MS.Wardr.d.3.
Cont. K'C'2nd Text
"Axali kartlis cxovreba, meore teksti," in K 'C'-, pp. 443476.
Cont. K'C'3rd Text
"Axali k 'art'lis c'xovreba, mesame tek'sti, " in K'C'-, pp.

477-540.
Conv. Arm.Georgian
"Mokc'evay somext'a," in Zhordania, K'ronikebi, vol. 1.

Pp. 19-27.
The Conversion o f K'art'li
For the composite text, and other eds. and trans., see
A/ok', k'art'.
Conv. K'art'li
Part three o f the composite text known as Mok 'c 'evay

k'art'lisay. In DzK'ALDz, vol. 1 (T bilisi, 1964), pp. 83 12 ~
91j4_ See also Shatberdi Codex, pp. 3 2 I 3 2 - 3 2 4 3 4 .
748
Ger. trans. by Gertrud Pitsch, "Die Bekehrung Georgiens:

Mokcevay Kartlisay," BK 33 (1975). pp. 288-337.
Corpus Juris Iber. -Cauc.
C'urtaveli, Mart. Shush.
J. Karst, ed. and trans., Corpus Juris Ibero-Caucasici. 2

vols., multi-part. Strasbourg, 1934-1940. Includes: vol. l / l.
Code o f Vaxtang VI (pub. 1934); vol. 1/2-1 commentary for
1/1 (pub. 1935); vol. 1/2-2. commentary for 1/1 (continued.
1937); vol. 2/1, Code o f Aghbougha and the Bagrat-Davidian
Statutes (1938); vol. 2/2, Commentary for the Code o f
Aghbougha, Code o f King Giorgi V (1938); and, vol. 2/3.
Commentary for Code o f Giorgi V, Nomocanon of the
Kat'alikosate o f K 'a rt'li (1940).
Iakob C'urtaveli, "Camebay shushanikisi dedop'lisay," in
DzK'ALDz, vol. 1 (1964), pp. 11-29. See also Iakob

C'urtaveli, Shushanikis cameba = Iakob Tsurtaveli. The
Martyrdom o f Shushanik, e d by Ot ar Egadze. T bilisi:
Xelovneba, 1983. In O ld Georgian (pp. 6-74). Modern
Georgian (pp. 75-113), Rus. (pp. 114-153, trans. K.
Kekelidze). Lat. (pp. 154-182. trans. P. Peeters), Eng. (pp. 1
183-224, trans. Elisabeth Fuller), etc. Also partially trans.
into Eng., Jacob o f C'urtavi, "The Passion of St. Shushanik."
in Lang, Georgian Saints, pp. 45-56. Additional Rus. trans.
by V.D. Dondua, trans. with Z.N. Alek'sidze. comm, and
intro., Iakov Tsurtaveli: Muchenichestvo Shushanik. IIG. vol.
11 = PGIL.. vol. 1. Tbilisi: Mec'.. 1978.
C'x. k'art'. mep'et'a
In K'C'K pp. 3-138. This composite text consists of: Life

o f the Kings. Life o f Nino in C'x. k'art'. mep'et'a. and Life
Succ. Mirian. Partial Rus. trans.. [Mroveli Leonti], Zhizn
kartliiskikh tsarei: izvlechenie svedenii ob abkhazakh,
narodakh Sevemogo Kavkaza i Dagestana. trans. by G.V.
Tsulaia. Moskva: Nauka. 1979.
C'x. vox. gorg.
In K C 'l, pp. 139-244. This composite text consists of:

Life o f Vaxtang and the continuation by Ps.-Juansher. Rus.
trans.. [Dzhuansher Dzhuansheriani]. Zhizn I akhtang
Gorgasala. trans. by G.V. Tsulaia. PGIL. vol. 7. Tbilisi:
Mec'.. 1976. Partial Fr. trans. in B. Martin-Hisard "Les
Arabes en Georgie occientale au VIIle s.." BK 40 (1982), pp.
120-127.
Davit' Bagrationi, 1st. Gruzii
Istoriia Gruzii, e d (in Rus.) by Apolon Rogava. Tbilisi:

Mec'., 1971.
Davit' II, Prayers o f Remorse
Davit' aghmashenebeli, Galobani sinanulisani. T bilisi:

T U G , 1989. Includes Rus. and Ger. trans. entitled David
Stroitel', Pokcdannyi kanon and Dawit der Erbauer,
Reuegesdnge respectively. Eng. trans. by Dodona Kiziria,
"The Prayers o f Remorse o f King David IV the Builder,"
LeM 107/3-4 (1994), pp. 335-347.
Demetre L, In Praise ofShio
Dimitri mep 'e, "K'eba shio mghvimelisa," in Lolashvili,

Dzveli k'art'uli literatura, p. 538.
749
Divan
Divani mep'et'a, ed. and Rus. trans. in G.A. Amichba,

Abkhania i abkhazy srednevekovykh gruzinskikh
povestvovatelnykh istochnikov. Tbilisi: M ec'., 1988. Pp. 2224. See also: E. Taqalshvili, ed., Dzveli sak'artvelo. vol. 3.
Tp'ilisi, 1911-1913. Pp. 28-54. Fr. trans. by idem., in "Le
sources des notices du patriarche Jerusalem Dosithee sur les
rois dAphkhazie," JA 210 (1927), pp. 357-368.
Dumbarton Oaks Menaion
G. Garitte, "Le menee georgien de Dumbarton Oaks." LeM

72/1-2 (1964), pp. 29-64. See also R.P. Blake, "A Georgian
Menaion from Palestine," Byzantinisch-neugriechische
JahrbQchen 18 (1945-1949), pp. 97-104.
Ep'rem M e'ire, Conv.
Ucqebay mizezsa k'art'velt'a mok'c'evisasa, t'u romelt'a

cignt'ashina moiq'senebis. Ed. b y T . Bregadze. T bilisi:
Mec'., 1959. Partial Eng. trans. in W. Djobadze. Materials
fo r the Study o f Georgian Monasteries, pp. 59-62.
Garitte, ed., Palest.-Georgian Cal.
Gerard Garitte, ed., trans., and comm., Le Calendrier

Palestino-Giorgien du Sinaiticus 34 (X? siecle). SH, vol. 30.
Bruxelles: Societe des Bollandistes, 1958.
GenesisGeorgian
B ak'ar Gigmeisbvili and C'otne Kikvidze. eds.. Cignni

dzuelisa aght'k'umisani. Part 1 = Shesak'misay
gamoslvat'ay. DzK'MDz, vol. 11 j. T b ilisi: M ec'.. 1989.
Georgian Charters
Enuk'idze, T ., V. Silogava, and N. Shoshiashvili, eds..

K'art'uli istoriuli sabut'ebi EC-XIU ss.. K'ISK, vol. I = SIC.
vol. 30. T b ilisi: Mec'.. 1984.
Giorgi M e'ire, Life o f Giorgi Mt'acmideli
"C'xorebay giorgi mt'acmi[n]delisay," in DzK'ALDz. vol. 2

(1967), pp. 101-207. Partial Eng. trans. in: W. Djobadze,
Materialsfo r the Study o f Georgian Monasteries, pp. 50-59;
and in Lang, Georgian Saints, pp. 165-168.
Giorgi Mt'acmideli, Life o f lovane and
"C'xorebay iovanesi da ep't'wmesi," in DzK'ALDz, vol. 2

Ep't'wme (1967), pp. 38-100. Partial Eng. trans. in Lang, Georgian
Saints, pp. 155-165. Fr. trans. by B. Martin-Hisard, "La
Vie de Jean et Euthyme et le statut du monastere des Iberes de
lAthos," REB 49 (1991), pp. 67-142.
Giorgi Merch'ule, Works o f Grigol
"Shromay da moghuacebay ghirsad-c' xovrebisay cmidisa da
Xandzt'eli netarisa mamisa ch'uenisa grigolisi ark'imandritisay

xandzt'isa...,"ed.byN .Ia.M arr. 77L4GF7(1911), pp. 1-82.
See also "Shromay da moghuacebay grigolisi ark'im andrit
isay xanc't'isa da shatberdisa aghmashenebelisay, in
DzK'ALDz, vol. 1 (1964), pp. 248-319. Rus. trans. by Marr,
"Zhitie sv. Grigoriia Khandztiiskago," TRAGF7 (1911), pp.
83-151. Repr. in A.A. Gvakhariia, ed., Drevne-gruzinskaia
literatura (V-XVUIv.). Tbilisi: T U G , 1982. Pp. 107-204.
Partial Eng. trans in Lang, Georgian Saints, pp. 134-153.
750
Goguadze, e d , Metaphrasts
Dzveli metap'rasuli krebulebi. E d . trans., and comm, by

Nargiza Goguadze. DzK'MDz, vol. 7. Tbilisi: Mec., 1986.
Rus. sum., pp. 543-545; Fr. sum., "Traductions anciennes de
metaphrases, pp. 546-548.
Gospels o f Adyshi
E. T aqaishvili, A.S. Xaxanashvili. and P.S. Uvarov. eds..

"Adyshskoe evangelie, M AK 14 (1916). Rus. intro., pp. 720. With photographic reproductions.
Gospels o f Bertay
R.P. Blake and Sirarpie der Nersessian. "The Gospels of

Bert'ay: An Old-Georgian MS. o f the Tenth Century,"
Byzantion 16 (1942-1943). pp. 226-285.
Grand Led. Jerus.
M. Tarchnishvili, "Le Grand Lectionnaire de Ieglise de

Jerusalem (Ve-V lllc siecle)." CSCO. vols. 188 (1959). 189
(1959), 204 (1960), and 205 (1960).
Hippoiytus, Chron. Georgian
Ilia Abuladze, e d and comm., "Ipolite romaelis kronikonis

dzveli kartuli versia," Moambe-MSS Institute 3 (Tbilisi,
1961), pp. 223-243. See also Shat. Codex, "Ipolite romaeli:
k'ronikoni," pp. 196-202.
Hist, and EuI.
"Istoriani da azmani sharavandedtani," K'C~. pp. 1-114.

Rus. trans. by K. Kekelidze, "Istoriia i voskhvalenia
ventsenostsev," in his Etiudebi, vol. 12 (Tbilisi: Mec'.,
1973), pp. 164-232. Partial Eng. trans. in Vivian, Georgian
Chron., pp. 107-142. Fr. trans. by Brosset, Hist, de la
Georgie, pp. 383-480.
Hist. Five Reigns
[Lasha giorgis-droindeli mematiane], in K'C'^, pp. 365-371.

Earlier e d by Ivane Javaxishvili. Lasha-giorgis-droindeli
mematiane = Chronicon Anonymum Tempore Regis LashaGeorgii Scriptum. Tp'ilisi, 1927. Partial Eng. trans. o f the
vitae o f Demetre I, Davit IB, and Giorgi III in Vivian,
Georgian Chron., pp. 49-54. E d and Fr. trans. by Brosset.
Hist, de la Georgie, pp. 263-268 (ed)/381-382 (trans.), up
through Davit III only.
Institution o f the Court
Q 'elmcip 'is karis garigeba. E d by E. T aqaishvili =

Monumenta Georgica, IV/1. Tp'ilisi: T U G , 1920.
Ioane Petrici, Eulogyfo r Davit' II
"Shesxma davit'isat'vis aghmasheneblisa," in Lolashvili,
Dzveli k'art'uli literatura, p. 534.

Ioane Zosime, Praise o f the Georgian
Lang.
"K'ebay da didebay k'art'u lisa enisa," in Lolashvili, Dzveli

k'art'uli literatura, pp. 457-458. Eng. trans. in Donald
Rayfield The Literature o f Georgia: A History. Oxford
Clarendon Press, 1994. Pp. 17-20.
Janashvili, e d , Georgian Sources on hi.
Cauc. and Rus
M. Dzhanashvili [Janashvili], "Izvestiia gruzinskikh Ietopisei

i istorikov o sevemom Kavkaze i Rossii - opisanii Osetii,
Dzurdzukii, Didoetii, Tushetii, Alanii i Dzhiketii - o tsariakh
Khazaretii - Alguziani," SMOMPK 22 (1897), pp. 1-196,
with additional notes to p. 206. Follow-up article, "Izvestiia
751
gruzinsikih Ietopisei i istorikov o Khersonise. Gotthii. Osetii.

Khazarii, Didoetii i Rossii," SMOMPK 26 (1899), pp. 1-104.
Jerusalem Iadgari
Udzvelesi iadgari, ed. by E. Metreveli, C '. Chankieva, and

L. Xevsuriani. DzK'MDz, vol. 2. T bilisi: Mec., 1980.
Juansher
See C 'x vox. gorg. (and its components: Life o f Vaxtang

and Ps.-Juansher)
Kakabadze, trans. Georgian ChartersSPB Gruzinskie dolcumenty IX-XV w . vsobranii leningradskogo

otdeleniia Instituta vostokovedeniia AN SSSR. Trans, by S.S.
Kakabadze. Moskva: Nauka/Glavnaia redaktsiia vostochnoi
literatury, 1982
K'art'lis c'xovrebaArmenian adaptation See Arm. Adapt, o f K 'C' under Arm. texts.
K'C'1
Simon Qauxch'ishvili, ed., K'art'lis c'xovreba. Vol 1.

T bilisi: Saxelgami, 1955. Eng. trans. (except for the text by
Sumbat Davit'is-dze) by Thomson. Rewriting Cauc. Hist.
Ger. trans. by Gertrud Patsch. Das Leben Kartlis, Eine
Chronik aus Georgien 300-1200. Leipzig: Dietenchsche
Verlags-buchhandlung, 1985.
K'C
Simon Qauxch'ishvili, ed., K'art'lis c'xovreba. Vol 2.

T bilisi: Sabchot'a sak'art'velo, 1959. Partial Eng. trans. by
Vivian, Georgian Chron.
K'C'Queen Anna
Simon Qauxch'ishvili, ed., K'art'lis c'xovreba: ana

dedop'liseuli nusxa. T b ilisi: M ec'., 1942.
K'C'Oueen Mariam
E. Taqaishvili. ed., K'art'lis c'xovreba: mariam dedop 'lis

varianti. Tp'ilisi, 1906.
Klarj. Polyceph.
T am ila Mgaloblishvili, ed. and comm., Klarjuli mravalt'avi.

DzK'MDz, vol. 12j. T b ilisi: M ec'., 1991. Eng. sum., "The
Klardjeti Polycephalon," pp. 466-490.
Lang, trans., Georgian Saints
David Marshall Lang, trans.. Lives and Legends o f the

Georgian Saints. 2nded. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimirs
Seminary Press, 1976 (London, 1956).
Leonti Mroveli
See C'x. k'art'. mep'et'a (and its components: Life o f the

Kings, Life o f Nino in C'x. k'art'. mep'et'a, and Life Succ.
Mirian). See also Life o f Arch il.
Life ofArch'il
"Camebay cmidisa da didebulisa mocamisa arch'ilisi, romeliese iqo m ep'e k'art'Iisay," in DzK'ALDz, vol. 2 (Tbilisi:
Mec'., 1967), pp. 208-212. See also K 'C '1, pp. 245-248.
Life o f Davit'
"C'xorebay m ep'et'-m ep'isa davit'isi," ed. and comm, by

M zek'ala Shanidze. SIC, voL 62 = K'SMDz, vol. 9. T bilisi:
Mec'., 1992. See also K 'C '1, pp. 318-364. Eng. trans. in
Thomson, Rewriting Cauc. Hist.., pp. 309-353; cf. the
trans. of Vivian, Georgian Chron., pp. 1-47. Ed. and Fr.
752
trans. by Brosset, Hist, de la Georgie, pp. 236-263 (ed.)/

345-381 (trans.). Ger. trans. by M. Tseretheli, "Das Leben
des KOenigs der KOenige Dawith (Dawith n, 1089-1125),"
BK 2-3 (1957), pp. 45-73.
Life o f Davit' Garesj.
"C'xovreba davit' garesjelisay," in DzK'ALDz. vol. 1 (1964).

pp. 229-240. Partial Eng. trans.. "A Forerunner o f St.
Francis: David o f Garesja," in Lang, Georgian Saints, pp. 8393. Rus. trans., "Zhitie prepodobnago Davida garedzhiiskago
chudotvortsa osnovatelia gruzinskoi thivaidy," in M. Sabinin.
ed. and trans., Polnoe zhizneopisanie sviatykh gruzinskoi
tserkvi. Part 1. SPB, 1871. Pp. 123-140.
Life ofllarion K'art'.
"C'xorebay da mok'alakobay cmidisa da netarisa mamisa

ch'uenisa ilarion k'art'velisay," in DzK'ALDz. vol. 2 (1967).
pp. 9-37.
Life oflavane led.
"C'xorebay cmidisa m am isa ch'uenisa iovane zedadznelisay."

in DzK'ALDz, vol. 1 (1964), pp. 191-217. Rus. trans.. "Zhitie
prepodobnago Ioanna zedazniiskago chudotvortsa
nachaln'nika siriiskikh ottsev," in M. Sabinin. ed. and trans..
Polnoe zhizneopisanie sviatykh gruzinskoi tserkvi. Part 1.
SPB, 1871. Pp. 67-89.
Life o f the Kings
The initial text o f C'x. k'art'. m ep'eta, in K'C'K pp. 3-71.

Ed. and Fr. trans. by Brosset, Hist, de la Georgie. pp. 15-64
(ed.) /15-89 (trans.). Eng. trans. by Thomson. Rewriting
Cauc. Hist., pp. 2-84.
Life o f Nino in C'x. k'art'. mep'et'a
The second text o f C'x. k art'. mep'et'a, in K'C'^, pp. 72-130.

Eng. trans. in Thomson, Rewriting Cauc. Hist., pp. 84-145.
Fr. trans. with earlier Georgian ed. by Brosset, Hist, de la
Georgie, pp. 64-101 (ed.) / 90-l32(trans.).
Life o f Nino in Mok'. K'art'.
In "Mok'c'evay k'art'lisay." DzK'ALDz, vol. I (1964),

pp. 81-163. Earlier ed. o f E. Taqaishvili, Axali varianti cm.
ninos c'xovrebisa ani meore nacili k'art'lis mok'c'evisa.

Tp'ilisi. 1891.
Life o f Nino, Wardrop, trans.
Eng. trans., "The Life o f St. Nino," trans. by Marjory

Wardrop. SBE 5 (1903), pp. 1-66.
Life ofPetre Iber.Georgian
N. Marr, ed. and trans., C'xovrebapetre iverisa

moghvacemep 'is-culis da maiumel episkopozis me-V
saukunesi = Zhitie Petra Ivers tsarevicha-podchizhnika i
episkopa Maiumskago Vveka. PPS, vol. 16/2. SPB, 1896.
See also "C'xorebay da m ok'alak'obay cmidisa da netarisa
mamisa ch'uenisa petre k'art'velisay, romeli iqo dze
k'art'velt'a mepisay" in DzK'ALDz, vol. 2 (1967), pp. 213263.
UfeofRazhden
"Cameba da ghuacli cmidisa didisa mocamisa razhdenisi," in

Sabinin, ed., Sak'art'uilos samot'xe, pp. 169-180.
753
Life ofSerapion
Rus. trans., Vasilii Zaizmeli, "Zhitie Serapiona Zarzmeli."

trans. by K. Kekelidze in his Etiudebi, vol. 12. T bilisi:
M ec'., 1973. Pp. 129-163.
U feofShio
"C'xorebay da m ok'alak'obay ghirsisa mamisa ch'uenisa

shioysi da evagresi," in DzK'ALDz, vol. 1 (1964). pp. 217229. Rus. trans., "Zhitie prepodobnago Shio mgvimskago
chudotvortsa pokrovitelia gruzinskago tsarstva" in M.
Sabinin, ed. and trans., Polnoe zhizneopisanie sviatykh
gruzinskoi tserkvi. Part 1. SPB, 1871. Pp. 91-122.
Life Succ. Mirian
The terminating portion o f Car. k'art'. mep'et'a, in K'C'^. pp.

130-138. Earlier Georgian ed. by Brosset, Hist, de la
Gtorgie, pp. 133-144. Eng. trans. by Thomson, Rewriting
Cauc. Hist., pp. 146-153 (identified as part o f The Life o f
Nino).
Life o f Tamar
"C'xovreba m ep'et'-m ep'isa t'amarisi," in K'C'~, pp. 115150. Eng. trans. by Vivian, "Life o f Queen Tamar, i 1841212," in Georgian Chron., pp. 55-96. Rus. trans.. Zhizn
Tsaritsy Tsarits Tamar, trans. by V.D. Dondua. with comm,
by M.M. Berdzenishvili. PGIL, vol. 5. Tbilisi: M ec'., 1985.
Eng. sum., pp. 70-71.
Life ofVaxtcmg
The initial and longest part o f C or. vox. gorg., in K'C'^, pp.
139-204. Earlier Georgian ed. with Fr. trans. by Brosset,
Hist, de la Georgie, pp. 108-149 (ed.)/144-200 (trans.). Rus.
trans. from Qauxchishvili's ed. by G.V. Tsulaia,
[Dzhuansher Dzhuansheriani], Zhizn' Vakhtanga Gorgasala.
PGIL, vol. 6 = IIG, vol. 43. Tbilisi: Mec., 1986. Pp. 57-94.
Eng. trans. by Thomson. Rewriting Cauc. Hist.., pp. 153-223.
Liturg. Iber. Antiq.
Michael Tarchnishvili, "Liturgiae Ibericae Antiquiores." in

CSCO, vols. 122-123 = Scriptores Iberici 1/1. Louvain.
1950.
Liturgy o f St. James-Georgian
Fred. C. Conybeare and Oliver Wardrop, "The Georgian

Version o f the Liturgy o f SL James." ROC 8 (1913), pp. 396410, and 9 (1914), pp. 155-173.
Liturgy o f St. John ChrysostomGeorgian, Andre Jacob, trans. and comm., "Une version georgienne
trans. Jacob inedite de la liturgie de saint Jean Chrysostome, LeM 72/1-2
(1964), pp. 65-119.
Lolashvili, ed., Dzveli k'art'uli literatura
I. Lolashvili, ed., Dzveli k'art'uli literatura dzeglebi. T bilisi:

Sabchot'a sak'art'velo, 1978.
Mart. Abibos
"Martwlobay abibos nekreselisay," in DzK'ALDz, vol. 1

(1964), pp. 240-248.
Mart. Child. Kola
"Martwlobay q n n a t'a kolaelt'ay," in DzK'ALDz, vol. 1

(1964), pp. 183-185. Eng. trans., "The Nine Martyred
Children o f Kola," in Lang, Georgian Saints, pp. 40-43.
754
Mart. Davit' and Constantine
"Camebay da ghuacli cm idat'a da didebult'a mocamet'a

davit' da kostantinesi," in DzK'ALDz, vol. 3 (1971). pp. 248263. Fr. trans., "Martyre des saints David et Constantin, in
B. Martin-Hisard, "Les Arabes en Georgie occidentale au
V lllc s.," pp. 127-138. Rus. trans., "Stradanie i podvigi
sviatykh slavnykh muchenikov Davida i Konstantina kniazei
argvetskikh," in M. Sabinin, ed. and trans.. Polnoe
zhizneopisaniesviatykhgruzinskoitserkvi. P a r t i . SPB.
1871. Pp. 154-165.
Mart. Gobron
Fr. trans. by B. Martin-Hisard in "Brebis. boucs/loups et

chiens: une hagiographie georgienne anti-armenienne du
d& ut du X* siecle," REArm, n.s. 23 (1992), pp. 220-233.
Mart. Evstat'i
"Martwlobay da mot'minebay evstat'i mc'xet'elisay." in
DzK'ALDz, vol. 1 (1964), pp. 30-45. Cf. Sabinin.

Sak'art'uilos samot 'xe, pp. 313-322. Partial Eng. trans.,
"The Passion o f S t Eustace the Cobbler," in Lang, Georgian
Saints, pp. 95-114.
Mok'c'evay k'art'lisay
The texts collectively known as Mok c evay k 'art 'lisav are:

(1) Prim. Hist. K'art'li.', (2) Royal List I: (3) Conv. K'art'li:
(4) Royal List IP, (5) Royal List III:; and (6) Life o f Nino
M ok\ k'art'.
"Mok'c'evay k'art'lisay," in DzK'ALDz, vol. 1 (1964), pp. 81163. See also Shatberdi Codex, pp. 320-355. Georgian text
also published twice by E. T aqalshvili: Mok'c'evay
k'art'lisay in the series "Opisanie rukopisei" o f the ORGSGN,
SMOMPKAl (1910), pp. 44-% , #439; and in his Sami
istoriuli xronika. Tp'ilisi, 1890. Pp. 1-39. Rus. trans..
"Obrashchenie Gruzii (v khristianstvo)." Ed. and trans. by
E.S. T aqalshvili. Part 1 o f his "Istochniki gruzinskikh
letopisei: tri khroniki." SMOMPK 28 (1900). pp. l-l 16.
T aqaishvilis trans. has recently been republished with new
notes added by M.S. Chxartishvili as Obrashchenie Gruzii.
PGIL, vol. 7 = IIG, vol. 59. Tbilisi: M ec'.. 1989.
Mon. Erist'.
In Zhordania. K'ronikebi. vol. 2, pp. 1-40. Rus. trans. by S.S.

Kakabadze, Pamiatnik eristavov = Dzegli erist avt'a. PGIL,
vol. 2 =IIG, vol. 12. T bilisi: M ec'., 1979. Eng. sum., pp.
53-54. Fr. trans. by Brosset "De l'origine des eristhaws du
Ksan," in his Additions et eclaircissements a I'Histoire de la
Georgjie. SPB, 1851. Pp. 372-385.
Nikodimosi Apocrypha
A. Khakhanov, ed. and trans., "Evangelie Nikodima

(gruzinskii apokrif iz Tsagerskago sbomika XVI v.)," DV 3/1
(1907), pp. 1-20. See also C 'iala K 'urc'ikidze. ed.,
Nikodimosis apokrip uli cignisk'art'uli versia. Tbilisi:
M ec'., 1985.
Nikoloz I, Sueti-c'xoveli
Father Vasil Karbelashvili, ed., Nikoloz I (1149-1160 c.)

k'art'lis kat'alikoz-patriark'is mier shedgenili "safatxavi
suetis c 'xovelisay k 'uart 'isa saup loysa da kat olike
755
eklesiisa. Tpilisi, 1908. See also Sabinin, Sak'art'uelos

samot'xe, pp. 69-117.
Ambavi k'art'lisani. E d by Elene C'agareishvili. S7C, vol.
25 = K'SMDz, vol. 3. T b ilisi: Mec*., 1981. Eng. sum.,
Papuna Orbeliani
"Ambavni Kartlisani CHistory o f Georgia') by Papuna

Orbeliani." pp. 251-254.
Istoriia Gruzii - Sak'art'velos c'xovreba. Rus. trans. by R.K.

Kiknadze and V.S. Puturidze. UG, vol. 66 = PGIL, vol. 8.
P'arsadan Gorgijanidze
Tbilisi: Mec*., 1990. Eng. sum., p. 184.

Peeters, ed., Hist, monast.
Paul Peeters, "Histoires m onasdques georgiennes," AB 36-37

(1917-1918). Includes the vitae of: Iovane and Ept'w m e
(pp. 8-68): Giorgi M tacmideli (pp. 69-159); Serapion of
Zarzma (pp. 159-207); and Grigol X andzt'eli (pp. 207-309).
Prim. Hist. K'art'li
Part one of the composite text known as Mok'c'evay

k'art'lisay, in DzK'ALDz, vol. 1, pp. 81-82.
Ps.-Juansher
The brief continuation o f The Life o f Vaxtang Gorgasali,

in K'C'I, vol. 1 (1955), pp. 204-244. Older ed. and Fr. trans.
by Brosset, Hist, de la Georgie, pp. 149-181 (ed)/200-252
(trans). Rus. trans. by G.V. Tsulaia, [Dzhuansher
Dzhuansheriani], Zhizn Vakhtanga Gorgasali. PGIL, vol.
6 = IIG, vol. 43. Tbilisi: Mec*., 1986. Pp. 95-107. Eng.
trans. by Thomson, Rewriting Cauc. Hist., pp. 225-251.
Qauxch'ishvili, ed., Georgian Sources
on Byzantium
Simon Qauxch'ishvili, e d , Dzveli k'art'uli cqaroebi

bizantiisshesaxeb. Vol. I. T b ilisi: Mec*., 1974.
Royal List I
Part two o f the composite text known as Mok'c'evay

Royal List H
Part four of the composite text known as M ok'cevay

Royal List III
Part five o f the composite text known as Mok 'c evay

Rusudaniani
Trans, from Georgian into Rus. by A.N. Bestavashvili.

Moskva: Izd-vo Nauka, 1988.
Sabinin, e d , Sak'art'uelos samot'xe
M. Sabinin, Sak'art'uilos samot 'xe. SPB, 1882. Repr.

Tbilisi, 71990.
Sabinis-dze, Mart. Habo
Ioane Sabinis-dze, "Camebay haboysi, in DzK'ALDz, vol. 1,

pp. 46-81. Partial Eng. trans., "The Martyrdom of Abo, the
Perfumer from B aghdad" in Lang, Georgian Saints, pp. 116133. Rus. trans., "Zhitie i stradanie sviatago slavnago
muchenika Abo tiflissakago," in M. Sabinin, e d and trans.,
Polnoe zhizneopisanie sviatykh gruzinskoi tserkvi. Part 1.
SPB, 1871. Pp. 166-178.
756
Shah-nama-^Georgian
Iustine Abuladze, ed., Shah-names m u mep 'et'a cignis:

k'art'uli versiebi. DzK'M, vol. I. T b ilisi, 1916.
Shat. Codex
E . Gigineishvili and E. Giunashvili, eds., Shatberdis krebuli

Xsaufcunisa. DzK'klDz, vol. 1. T bilisi: M ec'.. 1979.
Shavteli, Abdulmesiani
Ioane Shavt eli, "Abdulmesiani, t'am ar m ep'isa da davit'

soslanis shesxma, in Lolashvili. Dzveli k art'uli literatura.
pp. 587-615. See also ed. and comm, by N.Ia. Marr in
"Dtevnegmzinslde odopistsy (XII v.)," TRAGF A (1902),
pp. 1-72. Rus. trans. by S. Lipkin in A.A. Gvakhariia, ed..
Drevne-gruzinskaia literatura (V-XVUI v.). Tbilisi: T U G ,
1982. Pp. 284-295.
Shot'a Rust'aveli
Vep'astqaosmi, ed. by A. Baramidze. K. Kekelidze, and

A. Shanidze. T bilisi: Saxelgami, 1957 (several other eds.).
Eng. trans.: Shota Rustaveli, The Knight in the Panther's
Skin, trans. by Venera Urushadze w ith an intro, by David M.
Lang. T bilisi: Sabchot'a Sak'art'velo, 1986; The Man in the
Panthers Skin, trans. by Marjory Scott Wardrop with Oliver
Wardrop. Tbilisi: Literatura da Khelovneba, 1966 (repr.
London, 1912) with excellent index o f Georgian
transliterated terminology; Shotha Rust'hveli, The
Knight in the Tiger's Skin, trans. by Marjory Scott Wardrop
w ith E. Orbelyani and S. Jordanishvili. Moscow: Co
operative Publishing Society o f Foreign Workers in the
U.S.S.R., 1938 (with intro, by Pavle Ingoroqva); and,
The Lord in the Pmther's San, trans. by R.H. Stevenson.
Albany, NY: State University o f New York Press, 1977.
Siege o f Cple.
M.G. Dzhanashvili [Janashvili], ed. and trans.. "Osada

Konstantinopolia skithami. koi sut' russkie, i pokhod
imperatora Irakliia v Persiiu," SMOMPK 27 (1900), pp. 1-64.
NB: Trans, from the Gk. in the 11th century. Parallel
Georgian text and Rus. trans.
S.-S. Orbeliani
Sulxan-Saba Orbeliani, Lek'sikoni k'art'uli. Text prepared by

Ilia Abuladze. 2 vols. T bilisi: Merani, 1991 and 1993.
Sumbat Davit' is-dze
C'xovreba da ucqebay bagratoniant'a. Ed. by Goneli

Araxamia. SIC, vol. 61 = K'SMDz, vol. 8. Tbilisi: Mec'.,
1990. See also: "C'xovreba da ucqeba bagratoniant'a," in
K 'C 'J. pp. 372-386; and "C'xovreba da ucqeba

bagrationat'a," in E. T aqaishvili, ed., Sami istoriuli xronika.
T p'ilisi, 1890. Pp. 41-79; and "Cxovreba da ucqeba
bagrationat'a," in E. Taqaishvili, ed. and comm., Sumbat
davit'is dzis k'ronika tao-klarjet'is bagrationt'a shesaxeb.

MSKI, vol. 27. T bilisi: M ec'., 1949. Rus. trans.: Istoriia i
povestvovanie o Bagrationakh, trans. by M.D.
L ort'k'ip'anidze. PGIL, vol. 3. Tbilisi: M ec'., 1979; and
"Zhizn i izvestie o Bagratidakh, tsariakh nashikh
g r u z i n s k i k h . t r a n s . by E. T aqaishvili in his "Istochniki
gruzinskikh Ietopisei-tri khroniki," SMOMPK 28 (1900), pp.
117-182.
757
T aqaishvili, ed., Sak'art'velos sidzveleni
E. Taqaishvili, ed., Sak'art'velos sidzveleni. 3 vols.

Tp'ilisi, 71909-1920. Indexed by M. Davlianidze, Ek'vtime
t'aqaishvilis "sak'art'velos sidzvelenis"I, II da III cignebis

pirt 'a da geograp 'iul saxelt'a sadzieblebi. T bilisi: Mec'..
1970.
Tbet'i Synod. Rec.
T.P. Enukidze, trans.. Tbet'is suit'a matiane. T bilisi: Mec..

1977. Eng. sum., pp. 54-58.
Teim uraz Bagrationi
Axali istoria. Ed. and comm, by Lela M ik'iashvili. KSMDz,

vol. 4 = SIC, vol. 33 T bilisi: M ec'., 1983.
Test. D avit'II
T Zhordania, ed. and trans., Zaveshchanie tsaria Davida
Vozobnovitelia dannoe Shio-Mgvimskoi lavre v 1123 g.

Tiflis, 1895. Georgian text and Rus. trans.
Thomson. Rewriting Cauc. Hist.
Robert W. Thomson, Rewriting Caucasian History: The

Medieval Armenian Adaptation o f the Georgian Chronicles
(The Original Georgian Texts and The Armenian
Adaptation). Oxford: Clarendon Press, 19%. The trans. of
the Arm. adaptation is cited as Arm. Adapt. K'C' (see Arm.
texts infra).
Typikon ofPetriconiGeorgian
Akaki Shanidze, K'art'velt'a monasteri bulgaret'shi da misi

tipikoni: tipokonis k'art'uli redak'c'ia = Gruzinsfdi monastyr'
v Bolgarii i ego tipik: gruzinskaia redaktsiia tipika.
DzK'EDz, vol. 13. T bilisi: M ec'., 1971. With Georgian text
and Rus. trans., including extensive comm.
Vaxushti
Simon Qauxch'ishvili, ed., K'art'lis c'xovreba, vol. 4 =

Batonishvili vaxushti aghcera samep'osa sak'art'velosa.
T bilisi: Sabchot'a Sak'artvelo, 1973. Partial Rus. trans.,
Vakhushti Bagrationi, Istoriia tsarstva gruzinskogo, trans.
by N.T. Nakashidze. Tbilisi: M ec'. 1976.
Visramiani
Visramiani: The Story o f the Loves o f Vis and Ramin. Trans,

from the Georgian version by Oliver Wardrop. London:
Royal Asiatic Society, 1914.
Vita
See Life...
Vivian, trans.. Georgian Chron.
Katharine Vivian, trans., The Georgian Chronicle: The

Period o f Giorgi Lasha. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert,
1991.
Wisdom o f Balahvar
David Marshall Lang, The Wisdom o f Balahvar: A Christian

Legend o f the Buddha. London: George Allen and Unwin
Ltd., 1957.
Xoneli, Amiran-Darejaniani
R.H. Stevenson, trans., Amiran-Darejaniani: A Cycle o f

Medieval Georgian Tales Traditionally Ascribed to Mose
Khoneli. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958.
758
Zbam t' aaghmcereli
See Chron. Hund. Years.
Zhordania, ed., K'ronikebi
T . Zhordania, K'ronikebi da sxva masala sak'art'velos

istoriisa da mcerlobisa. 3 vols. Vol. 1 = T p ilisi, 1893; vol.
2 = "1213 clidam 1700 clamde. "T p ilisi. 1897; vol. 3 =
"1700 clidan XIX saukunis 60-ian clebarade." ed. by- Givi
Zhordania an d S hot'a X anf adze. T b ilisi: M ec'.. 1967. Vol.
3 includes a comprehensive index.
Zhordania, ed.. Shio mghw. monast.
T . Zhordania. ed., Istoriuli sabut'ebi shio-mghvimis

monastrisada "dzegli" vahxanis k vabt a. T b ilisi. 1896.
Zosime M t'acm ideli, Hymns to Ep 'twme
"Dasdebelni cm idisa mamisa chvenisa ep 't'v im e

m t'acm idelisani," in Lolashvili, Dzveli k'art'uli literatura,
pp. 507-515.
Mt'acmideli
Rublished-ContempQiary Annenian.Texls:
A gat'angeghos
[AgathangelosJ. History o f the Armenians, trans. by R. W.

Thomson. Albany: State University o f New Y ork Press,
1976. Includes parallel Arm. text. (Other variants in Gk..
Arabic, and Georgian, q.v.). C ritical Arm. text: Patmut'iwn
Hayots' = History o f the Armenians. Fasc. o f the 1909 Tiflis
ed. by G. Ter-M krtch'ean and S t Kanayeants' w ith an intro,
by Thomson. Delm ar, NY: Caravan Books, 1980. See
also The Teaching o f St. Gregory (trans. published
separately).
A nanias Shirakec'i
The Geography o f Ananias o f Shirak (Ashxarhac 'oyc'): The

Long and the Short Recensions, trans. by Robert H. Hewsen.
W iesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 1992. F r. trans.,
Le Geographie de Moise de Corene d'apres Ptolemee, trans.

and ed. by Axsene Soukry. Venice: Im prim erie Arm enienne.
1881. NB: O ften erroneously attributed to Movses X orenac i.
Anonymous Story-Teller
Eng. trans., R.W . Thomson, trans., "The Anonymous StoryTeller (Also Known as Pseudo-Shapuh')," REArm, n.s. 21
(1988-1989), pp. 171-232. Arm. text and Rus. trans.,
Istoriia anonimnogo povestvovatelia: Pseudo-Shapukh

Bagratuni. Trans, by M.O. Darbinian-M elOdan. Erevan:
Izd-vo AN Arm ianskoi SSR, 1971.
Aristakes Lastivertc i
Rus. trans., A ristakes Lastiverttsi, Povestvovanie vardapeta

Aristakes Lastiverttsi, trans. by K.N. Iuzbashian. PPV, vol.
15. Moskva: Nauka, 1968. Eng. trans. by Robert Bedrosian,
Aristakes Lastivertc'i's History. New York: Sources o f the

Arm enian Tradition, 1985. Arm. text by K.N. Yuzbashyan
[Iuzbashian], Patmut'ivm Aristakisi Lastivertc'woy. Erevan,
1963, and the older ed., Patmut'iwn Aristakeay vardapeti
Lastivertc'woy. GhM, vol. 6. Tiflis, 1912. Fr. trans.,
Aristakes de Lastivert, Recit des malheurs de la nation
759
armenienne, trans. by M arius C anard and H aig Beiberian.

Bruxelles: Editions de Byzantion, 1973.
Arm. Adapt. K'C'
I. Abuladze, ed. and G eorgian trans., K'art'lis c'xovrebis

dzveli somxuri t'argmani. T b ilisi: T U G . 1953. See also A
T iro v an. ed., Hamarotpatmut'iwn Vrac'. Venice. 1884.
Eng. trans. in Thom son, Rewriting Cauc. Hist. Thomsons
pub. includes a parallel Eng. rendering o f the Georgian tex t
Privately pub. Eng. trans. The Georgian Chronicle, trans. by
Robert Bedrosian. New York: Sources o f the Arm enian
Tradition, 1991. (Since Thom son provides parallel trans.
o f the G eorgian and A rm . texts., an d since he m arks the
pagination o f Q auxch'ishvilis G eorgian ed., the component
texts o f the Arm enian adaptation are not specially cited).
Arm. Anon. Chron.
Ananun Zhamanakragutiwn. Venice, 1904.
Asoghik
[Asolik/Step anos o f Taron], Step'annosi Tardnec'woy

Asoghkan Patmut'iwn tiezarakan, ed. by S. M alxaseanc'. HT.
vol. 20. SPB, 1885. Rus. trans. by N. Em in, [Asokhik],
Vseobshchaia istoriia Stepanosa Taronskago. Moskva.
1864. Fr. trans., Histoire Universelle. trans. bv E. Dulaurier.
PESLOV, vol. 18. Paris, 1883.
Book o f Letters
Girk' t'ght'oc': Matenagrut'iwn naxneac'. SXlAln. vol. 5.

Tiflis, 1901. M odem G eorgian trans., Epistolet'i cigni =
Liber Epistolarum, ed. and trans. by Zaza A lek'sidze.
T b ilisi: M ec'., 1968. Parallel Arm. text and Georgian trans.
Ps.-CallisthenesArm enian
Eng. trans. by Albert M ugrdich W olohojian. The Romance o f

Alexander the Great by Pseudo-Callisthenes: Translated
from the Armenian Version. New York-London: Columbia
UP, 1969.
Eghishe
[Elishe]. Eng. trans. by Robert W. Thomson, History o f

Vardan and the Armenian War. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
UP, 1982. A rm e d .. Eghishei Vasn VardanayewHayots'
Paterazmin = The History o f Vardan and the Armenian War.
Fasc. o f the 1957 Erevan ed. by E. Ter-M inasean w ith an
intro.by Thomson. Delm ar, NY: Caravan Books. 1993.
Epic Hist.
Eng. trans. by Nina G. G arsolan, The Epic Histories

Attributed to P'awstos Buzand (Buzandaran Pamut'iwnk').
Cambridge, M A H arvard UP, 1989. Arm. ed., P'awstosi
Buzandac'woy Patmut'iwn Hayoc' = Buzandaran
Patmut'iwnk' (The Epic Histories) also known as Patmut'iwn
Hayoc' (History o f Armenia) Attributed to P'awstos
Buzandac'i. Fasc. o f th e SPB 1883 ed. by K '. Patkanean with
an intro, by N ina G. G arsolan. Delm ar, NY: Caravan Books,
1984. See also P 'awstosi Biwzandac woy patmut 'iwn Hayoc'.
Venice, 1933.
G hazar P 'aip ec'i
[Lazar Parpeci]. Eng. trans. by Robert W. Thomson, The

History o f Ghazar P 'arpec 7. A tlanta: Scholars Press, 1991.
760
Arm. text, Ghazaray P'arpets'woy Patmut'iwn Hayots' ew

T'ught' ar Vahan Mamikonean = History o f the Armenians
and the Letter to Vahan Mamikonean. Fasc. o f the 1904
Tiflis ed. by G. Ter-M kxtch'ean and S. M alkhasean w ith an
intro, by D ickran Kouym jian. Delm ar. NY: C aravan Books.
1985.
Ghewond
[Lewond]. Eng. trans. fay Zaven Arzoum anian. History o f

Lewond the Eminent Vardapet o f the Armenians.
Wynnewood. PA: S t Sahag and S t M esrob Arm enian
Church, 1982. Arm. te x t Patmut'iwn Ghewondeay meci
vardapeti Hayoc', ed. by I. E zeanc'. SPB. 1887.
Grigor o f Akanc'
E n g trans., History o f the Nation o f the Archers (The

Mongols), trans. by Robert P. Blake and Richard N. Frye.
Cambridge. MA: H arvard UP. 1954. Reprinted from
H JAS 12/3-4 P e c . 1949), pp. 269-443.
Hippolytus, Chron. A rm enian
See Arm. Anon. Chron.
Kirakos Gandzakec'i
Rus. trans., Istoriia Armenii, trans. and comm, by L.A.

Khanlarian. PPV, vol. 53. M oskva: Nauka. 1976. Arm. text
Patmut'iwn Hayoc' arareal Kirakos vardapeti

Ganjakec'woy. GhM.vol. 3. Tiflis, 1909. Fr. trans. by M.
B rosset Deux Historiens Armeniens: Kiracosde Gantzac,
XII? s., Histoire d'Armenie: Oukhtanes d ' O u r h a , s . ,
Histoire en Trois Parties. SPB. 1870.
Koriwn
Vark' Mashtoc'i. Erevan: Erevani ham alsarani hratarakch'ow t'yow n. 1981, w ith E n g (Koryun. The Life o f
Mashtots) and Rus. trans. (K oriun. Zhitie Mashtotsa). See
also Vark' Mashtots'i. Fasc. o f the 1941 Erevan ed. by M.
Abeghian with an intro, by K rikor H. M aksoudian. Delmar.
NY: Caravan Reprints, 1985. Includes a repr. o f the Eng.
trans. and Armianskii konkordans, part 2, "Koriun Zhite
M ashtotsa," ed. by E. Dem irchian. Erevan: Izd-vo AN
ArmSSR. 1972.
Life o f A/moArmenian
"The Arm enian Version o f D jouansher." trans. by F.C.

Convbeare. SBE 5 (1903), pp. 67-88. NB: From the Arm.
adaptation o f K 'C '.
Matthew of Edessa
[M att'eos U rhayec'i], E n g trans. by Ara Edmond

Dostourian, Armenia and the Crusades (Tenth to the Twelfth
Centuries): The Chronicle o f Matthew o f Edessa. Lanham,
MD-New Y ork' National A ssociation for A rm enian Studies
and Research/University Press o f Am erica, 1993. Revised
version o f 77?e Chronicle o f Matthew o f Edessa: Translated
from the Original Armenian, with a Commentary and

Introduction. Ph.D. Diss., R utgers University, 1972. Arm.
text, Patmut'iwn M att'eos Urhayec'woy. Jerusalem , 1869.
Movses Dasxuranc' i
[Moses K aghankatuac'i]. E n g trans. by C.J.F. Dowsett,
The History o f the Caucasian Albanians by Movses
761
Dasxuranc'i. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1961. Arm. text, Movsesi

Kaghankatuac'woypatmut'iwn Aghuanic' ashxarhi, ed. by
M. Em in. GAM, vol. 8. Tiflis, 1912.
Movses X orenac'i
[Moses o f Chorene]. Eng. trans. by Robert W. Thomson.

[Moses K horenats'i], History o f the Armenians. Cambridge.
MA-London: Harvard UP. 1978. Arm. text. Srboy horn
meroy Movsesi Xorenac'way patmut 'iwn Hayoc'. GAM. vol.
10. Tiflis, 1913; repr. w ith an intro, by Thom son, as Delmar.
NY: Caravan Books, 1981.
M x it'ar Ayrivanec-i
Arm . text with Rus. trans. by K. Patkanov,

"Khronograficheskaia istoriia sostavlennaia Otsom
M ekhitarom , vardapetom Airivanskim ," TVOIRAO 14
(1869), pp. 224-418. Mod. Georgian trans., K'ronograp'iuli
istoria, trans. by Liani D avlianidze-Tatishvili. SIUC, vol. 14
= SIC, vol. 57. T b ilisi: M ec'., 1990.
M x it'ar Gosh, Chron.
C.J.F. Dowsett, trans. and comm., "The A lbanian Chronicle

o f M xitar Gosh," BSOAS 21 (1958), pp. 472-490.
Patkan'ian, trans., Opyt istorii sasanidov
K. Patkan'ian, trans. and comm., "Opyt istorii dinastii

sasanidov po svedeniiam, soobshchaemym arm ianskim i
pisateliam i," TVOIRAO 14 (1869), pp. 1-96.
Prim. Hist. Armenia
Eng. trans. by Robert W. Thomson, "Prim ary History." an

appendix to his trans. o f Movses X orenac'i, pp. 357-368.
Sam uel o f Ani
F r. trans., Samoel d'A ni, "Tables Chronologiques." in

M arie-Felicite Brosset, trans., Collection d historiens
armeniens. Amsterdam: APA-Philo Press. 1979. A twovols.-in-one repr. o f the SPB 1874-1876 ed.
[Ps.-J Sebeos
Eng. trans. privately pub. by Robert Bedrosian, Sebeos

History. New Yoric Sources o f the A rm enian Tradition,
1985. Arm. texts, Patmut'iwn Sebeosi episkoposi i Herakln,
ed. by K. Patkanean. SPB, 1879; and in GhM, vol. 7. Tiflis.
1913. Fr. trans. by Frederic M acler. Histoire dHeraclius
par IEveque Sebeos. Paris: Im prim erie nationale, 1904.
Rus. trans. by K. Patkan'ian, Istoriia Imperatora Irakla
sochenenia episkoposa Sebeosa pisatelia VII veka. SPB,
1862.
Step'annos Orbelean
Fr. trans. by M -F. Brosset, Histoire de la Siounie par

Stepannos Orbelian. 2vols. SPB, 1864-1866. Arm. text,
Patmut'iwn nahangin Sisakan arareal Step'annosi Orbelean
ark'episkoposi Siwneac', ed. by K. Shahnazarean. Paris,
1859.
Step'annos of Taron
See Asoghik.
Teaching o f St. Gregory
Eng. trans. by Robert W. Thomson, The Teaching o f Saint

Gregory: An Early Armenian Catechism. Cambridge, MA:
H arvard UP, 1970. NB: an excerpt from A gat'angeghos.
762
T ovm a A rc'runi
Eng. trans. by Robert W. Thomson. [Thomas Artsruni].
History o f the House ofArtsrunik'. D etroit: Wayne

State U niversity Press, 1985. Arm. text, T'ovmay vardapeti
Arcnmioy patmut'iwn tann Arcruneay. T iflis. 1917
Uxtanes
Eng. trans. by Zaven Arzoum anian in two vols.: Bishop

Ukhtanes o f Sebastia, History o f the Patriarchs and Kings o f
Armenia, port 1 o f U xtanes' History o f Armenia. F t
Lauderdale, FL. 1988; and History o f the Severance o f the
Georgiansfrom the Armenians, part 2 o f U xtanes' History o f
Armenia. Ft. Lauderdale, FL, 1985
V ardan A rew elc'i
Eng. trans. by Robert W. Thomson, "The H istorical

Com pilation o f V ardan Arewelci," OOP 43 (1989), pp. 125226. Arm . text. Hawak'umn patmut'ean Vardaneay
vardapeti lusabaneal. Venice. 1862: repr. w ith an intro, by
Thom son as Delm ar, NY: Caravan Books, 1991.
Yovhannes D rasxanakertc'i
[John (VI) the K at'alikos]. Eng. trans.. History o f Armenia,

trans. by Rev. K rikor H. M aksoudian. A tlanta: Scholars
Press, 1987. Arm. text, Yovhanrtu kat'oghikosi
Drasxanakertec'woypatmut'iwn Hayoc'. GhXf, vol. 5. T iflis.
1912; repr. w ith an intro, by M aksoudian as Delmar, NY:
Caravan Books, 1980
Ps.-Yovhannes M amikonean
Eng. trans. by Levon Avdoyan, The History ofTaron

(Patmut'iwn Taronoy). A tlanta: Scholars Press. 1993. Arm.
text, Patmut'iwn Taronoy zor torgmaneay Zenob Asori.
Venice. 1889.
Published Contem porary Greek (including Byzantine) and Latin Texts:
Acts o f the Ecum. Councils
Acts o f the 6th Ecum. Corn.
Henry R. Percival. ed., The Seven Ecumenical Councils o f the

Undivided Church, NPNF, 2nd ser., vol. 14. G rand Rapids.
MI: Wm. B. Eerdm ans Publishing Co., 1900 (1983 repr.).
"The Sixth Ecum enical CounciL" in Acts o f the Ecum.
Councils, pp. 325-353.

A gat'angeghos-G reek
Guy Lafontaine, trans. and ed., La Version grecque ancienne

du Uvre armenien dAgathange. PIOL, vol. 7. Louvain-laNeuve: U niversite C atholique de Louvain, 1973.
Agathias
The Histories. Agathiae Myrinaei Historiarum Libri

Quinque, ed. by Rudolfiis Keydell. CFHB, vol. 2. Berlin:
W alter de Gruyter, 1967. Eng. trans. by Joseph D. Frendo.
CFHB, vol. 2A. Berlin-New York: W alter de Gruyter, 1975.
Ammianus M arcellinus
Histories, ed. and trans. by John C. Rolfe. LCL, 3 vols.

Cam bridge, MA; Harvard UP, 1935.
763
Anna Komnena
[ANNA THE KOMNHNHE] AA E2IA E, ed. by Ludovicus

Schopenus. CSHB, vols. 39-40. Bonn, 1839-1878. Eng.
trans. by E.R.A. Sewter. The Alexiad o f Anna Comnena.
New York: Penguin Bodes, 1988 repr. (1969).
Apollonius Rhodius
[AIIOAAQNIOY POAIOY] APTONAYTIKON = The

Argonautica, trans. by R.C. Seaton. LCL. New York: G.P.
Putnam 's Sons, 1912.
Augustine, City o f God
S t Augustine, The City o f God Against the Pagans,

ed. and trans. by G.E. M cCracken, W.M. Green, P. Levine,
et al. LCL, 7 vols. Cam bridge, MA: H arvard UP, 19571972.
Bel and the Dragon
"Bel and the Dragon," in R.H . C harles, ed.. The Apocrypha

and Pseudepigrapha o f the Old Testament. Vol. 1. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1963 repr. (1913). Pp. 652-664.
Berossus, Babyloniaca
Eng. trans. by Stanley M ayer B urstein, The Babyloniaca o f

Berossus. SMSANE, vol. 1/5. M alibu, CA: Undena, 1978.
Bible
Unless otherwise stated, the follow ing ed. is utilized: Gk. Old
Testam ent: Henry Barclay Swete, ed., The Old Testament in
Greek According to the Septuagint. 3 vols. Cambridge:
Cambridge UP, 1925-.
Ps.-Callisthenes
K arl MQller, ed.. The Fragments o f the Lost Historians o f

Alexander the Great: Fragmenta Scriptorum de Rebus
Alexandri Magni. Pseudo-Callisthenes, Itinerarium
Alexandri. Chicago: Ares Publishers, 1979 repr. (Paris.
1846).
Cassius Dio
Dio's Roman History, trans. by Earnest Cary and Herbert

Baldwin Foster. LCL, 9 vols. New York: G.P. Putnam's
Sons, 1914-1927.
Constantine VII, DAI
Constantine (VII) Porphyrogenitus. De administrando

imperio, Gk. text ed. by Gy. M oravcsik, Eng. trans. by R.J.H.
Jenkins. Revised ed. CFHB, vol. 1. W ashington, DC:
Dumbarton Oaks, 1967. Vol. 2 = Commentary. London: The
Athlone Press, 1962.
Constantine VII, On the Ceremonies
Constantin VII Porphyrog6nete, Le Livre des Ceremonies,

trans. by Albert Vogt. 2 vols. Paris, 1935 and 1939.
Chronicon Paschale
Eng. trans., Chronicon Paschale 284-628 AD, trans. by

M ichael Whitby and M ary W hitby. Liverpool: Liverpool UP,
1989.
Death o f Pilate
"The D eath o f Pilate," in M ontague Rhodes James, trans.,

The Apocrypha! Hew Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1955. Pp. 157-159
764
Epiphanius
"IIEPI TOY BIOY KAI TON nPA ZEQ N KA1TEAOYE

TOY AHOY KAI IIA N EY iH M O Y KAI HPOTOKAHTOY
TON AHOETOAON ANAPEOY," in P G , vol. 120 (1880),
cols. 215-260.
Euripides, Medea
[EYPIIIIAOY] MHAEIA, ed. by Denvs L. Page. Oxford:

Clarendon Press, 1938. Eng. trans.. The Medea o f Euripides.
trans. by G ilbert M urray. New Y ork: O xford UP, 1912.
Eusebius, Chron.
A lfred Schoene, ed., Eusebi Chronicorum, liber prior. Vol.

1. Berlin, 1875 (repr. D ublin-Zurich: W eidm ann Verlag.
1967).
Eusebius, Eccl. Hist.
Trans, by K isropp Lake (vol. 1) and J.E.L. O ulton (vol. 2).
LCL. Cambridge, MA: H arvard UP, 1980 repr. (1926).

Eusebius, Oratio
Eusebius Pam phyli, Oratio de laudibus Constantini.

ed. by I. Heikel. Leipzig, 1902. Eng. trans. by H.A. Drake.
In Praise o f Constantine: A Historical Study and Hew

Translation o f Eusebius' Tricennial Oration. UCP/CS,
vol. 15. Berkeley-Los Angeles: U niversity o f California
Press, 1976.
Eustathios o f Thessaloniki
The Capture o f Thessaloniki, trans. by John R. M elville

Jones. BA, vol. 8. Canberra: A ustralian Association for
Byzantine Studies, 1987.
Gan, trans., Classical Sources on Cauc.
K, Gan, "Izvestiia drevnikh grecheskikh i rim skikh pisatelei

o Kavkaze," SMOMPK 4 (1884), pp. 1-248, 4 (1884), pp. 1248. and part 2 subtitled "V izantiiskie pisatelei, A. Lazika i
Iberia" (trans. o f loanne G. Strittero), SMOMPK 9 (1890).
Genesius
Iosephi Genesii Regum Libri Ouattuor = [IQEE4>

rENEEIOY] BAEIAEION TOM OI A. CFHB, vol. 14.
Berlin: W alter der Gruyter, 1978.
Georgius o f Cyprus
Henrich Gelzer, ed., Georgii Cyprii Descriptio Orbis

Romani. Leipzig, 1890 (repr. as Am sterdam : Editions
Rodopi, 1970).
GrumeL ed., Regestes
V. Grumel, ed., Les Regestes des Actes du Patriarcat de

Constantinople. Vol. 1, Les Actes des Patriarchesr, fasc. 2,
Les Regestes de 715 a 1043. Rome: Socii Assumptionistae
Chalcedonenses, 1936.
Hippolytus, Chron.
A dolf Bauer, Die Ckronik des Hippolytos in Matritensis

Graecus 121 = TUGAL, voL 29. Leipzig, 1906.
loannes Lydus
CSHB, vol. 31. Bonn, 1837. Especially his "IIEPI

AP3QN THE PQM AIONIIOAITEIAE," pp. 119-272, and
"IIEPI AIOEHMEIQN," pp. 273-382. See also Simon
765
Q auxch'ishvili, ed., "Ioane Iide," SMM VIII (1935), pp.

284-288, parallel Gk. text and G eorgian trans.
Isidore, De Ortu
Sancti Isidori, "De Ortu et O bitu Patrum ," in his Opera
Omnia = PL, vol. 83 (1862), cols. 129-156.

Josephus, Against Apion
The U fe Against Apion, trans. by H.SLJ. Thackeray. LCL.

Cam bridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1993 repr. (1926).
Josephus, Jewish Antiq.
Trans, by H .S tJ. Thackeray. LCL. Cam bridge. MA: Harvard

UP, 1966 repr. (1930-1965).
Kedrenos
Georgius Cedrenus, [TEOPnOY TOY KEAPENOY]

EYNO I IETOPIQN. CSHB, vols. 34-35. Bonn. 18381839.
Latyshev, trans., Izvestiia drevnikh
pisatelei
V.V. Latyshev, trans., Izvestiia drevnikh pisatelei

grecheskikh i latinsMkh o Skithii i Kavkaze = Scythica et
Caucasica e Veteribus Scriptoribus Graecis et Latinis. 2
vols. SPB, 1900-1906.
Ufe o f Daniel the Stylite
T h e Life and Works o f O ur Holy Father, St. D aniel the

Stylite," in Elizabeth Dawes and Norman H. Baynes, trans..
Three Byzantine Saints. Crestwood. NY: St. V ladim ir's
Press, 1977. Pp. 7-71.
M alalas
Eng. trans. by Elizabeth Jeffreys, M ichael Jeffreys, and Roger

S cott The Chronicle o f John Malalas. BA, vol. 4.
M elbourne: Australian Association for Byzantine Studies.
1986.
M eander the Guardsman
The History o f Meander the Guardsman, ed. and trans. by

R.C. Blockley. Liverpool: Francis Cairns. 1985.
La Narratio de Rebus Armeniae
G erard G aritte, ed.. Diegesis: La Narratio de Rebus

Armeniae. CSCO, vol. 132, subsidia 4. Louvain. 1952. Gk.
te x t pp. 26-47.
Neilos Doxapatrios
"NEIAOY AOSAHATPIOY TA 2IE TON IIATPIAPXIKON

0PONGN," in Gustav Parthey. ed., Hieroclis Synecdemvs et
Notitiae Graecae Episcopatwm accedvnt Nili Doxapatrii

Notitia Patriarchatwm et Locorvm Nomina Immvtata.
Amsterdam: A dolf M. Hakkeit, 1967 (repr. o f B erlin, 1866).
Pp. 265-308.
Nicaene Attendance List
E. Honigm ann, "La liste originate des peres de Nicee,"
Byzantion 14(1939), pp. 17-76.

Nicholas Mystikos, Letters
N icholas I, Patriarch of Constantinople, Letters. Ed. and

trans. by R.J.H. Jenkins and L.G. W esterink. CFHB, vol.
6. W ashington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 1973.
766
Nikephoros, Brev.
Nikephoros, Patriarch o f Constantinople, Short History =

IETOPIA EYNTOMOE, trans. by Cyril Mango. CFHB.
voL 13. W ashington, DC: Dum barton O aks, 1990.
Niketas o f Paphlagonia
"[NKHTA TOY HASAATONOEJ TON IIANY

A1IOETOAQN ETKOMIAETIKOl AOTOI AAAOITE
TINEE EOPTAETIKOI," in P G . vol. 105 (1905). "In
Laudem S. Andreae," cols. 53-80.
Notit. episcop.
Jean Darrouzes, ed. and comm. Notitiae episcopatuum

ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae. Paris: Institut Franâis
d'Etudes Byzantines, 1981.
Novels o f Justinian
S. Q auxch'ishvili, ed., "Iustinianes novelebi," S M I/V III

(1935), pp. 280-283, parallel Gk. text w ith Georgian trans.
Oikonomides, ed., Listes
Nicolas Oikonomides, ed., Les listes preseance byzantines

des IX? etX? siecles. Paris: Centre N ational de la Recherche
Scientifique, 1972.
Origen, Exeg. Genesis
"[TON QPITENOYE] EIE THN TENEEIN EZHTHTIKON."

in PG, vol. 12 (1857), cols. 91-92.
Patrakova/Chemous, eds.. Kavkaz v
antichnykh avtorov
V.F. Patrakova and V. V. Chem ous. eds.. Kavkaz i Don v

proizvedeniiakh antichnykh avtorov. Rostov-na-Donu: Izd-vo
Russkaia Entsiklopediia, 1990.
Peter the Patrician
Petrus Patricius, "IETOPIAI," in FHG. ed. by Carolus

MuUerus, vol. 4 (1885), pp. 181-191.
Philotheos. Kletorologion
[SIAOQEOYJ KAHTOPOAOTION = J.B. B un. ed.. The

Imperial Administrative System in the Ninth Century. New
York: Burt Franklin. 1964 repr. (1911).
Plutarch. Lives
[IIAOYTAPXOY] BIOIHAPAAAHAOI, trans. by

Bernadotte Perrin. LCL, 11 vols. Cambridge. MA: Harvard
UP. 1914-1926. esp.: Pompey I, pp. 116-325; Lucullus II. pp.
470-611; andAntony IX, pp. 138-333.
Priscus
Priscus Panites, "IETOPIA BYZANTIAKH." in FHG, ed. by

Carolus M ullerus, vol. 4. Paris. 1885. Pp. 69-110.
Procopius, Buildings
[IIPOKOmOYI IIEPI KTIEMATQN, trans. by H.B. Dewing

with Glanville Downey. LCL, vol. 7 o f Procopius series.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1971 repr. (1940).
Procopius, Seer. Hist.
[HPOKOIIIOY] KAIEAPEOE ANEKAOTA, trans. by H.B.

Dewing. LCL, vol. 6 o f Procopius series. Cambridge. MA:
Harvard UP, 1935.
Procopius, Wars
[IIPOKiniOY] KAIEAPEOE Y IIEP TON IIOAEMQN,

trans. by H.W. Dewing. LCL, vols. 1-5 o f Procopius series
767
Cam bridge, MA; Harvard UP, 1914-1928. For Procopius'

accounts on K 'a rt'li, see: Simone Q auxch'ishvili. "Prokopi
kesarielis cn o b eb i sak'art'velos shesaxeb," in SM M V I
(1929-1930), pp. 315-372, VH (1931-1932), pp. 121-192,
VIE (1933-1934), pp. 225-279.
Prophet, vitae fab.
Theodoras Scherm ann, e d , Prophetarum vitae fabulosae,
indices apostolorum discipulorumque Domini Dorotheo,

Epiphanio, Hippolyto, Aliisque Vindicata. Leipzig, 1907.
Psellus
[MIXAHA EAAOY] XPONOrPAA = M ichel Psellos.

Chronographie, e d by Emile R enauld 2 vols. Paris:
Societe (TEdition Les Belles Lettres, 1926 (repr. 1967), w ith
parallel Gk. text and Fr. trans. Eng. trans. by E.R.A. Sewter,
The Chronographia o f Michael Psellus. London: Routledge
and K egan Paul, 1953.
Q auxch'ishvili, e d , Georgika
Simone Q auxch'ishvili, e d , Georgika: bizantieli mcerlebis

cnobebi sak'art'velos shesaxeb = Georgica: Scriptorum
Byzantinorum excerpta ad Georgium pertinentia. 8+
vols. T b ilis i: Mec., 1961-
Rufinus
Historia Ecclesiastica in PL, vol. 21. Paris, 1849,1.10, cols.

480-482. L at. text also in e d by Peeters in "Les debuts"
(1932), pp. 27-30. Eng. trans., "Historia Ecclesiastica o f
Tyrannius Rufinus," in Lang, Georgian Saints, pp. 15-19.
Sibylline Oracles
"The Sibylline Books," in R.H. Charles, e d , The Apocrypha

and Pseudepigrapha o f the Old Testament. Vol. 2. O xford
Clarendon Press, 1963 repr. (1913). Pp. 368-406.
Skylitzes
loannes Scylitzes, EYNOIE IETOPIQN, e d by Ioannes

Thum . CFHB, vol. 5. Berlin: W alter de Gruyter et Socios.
1973.
Socrates
Historia Ecclesiastica in PG, vol. 67 (1864).
Sozomen
Historia Ecclesiastica in PG, vol. 67 (1864).
Strabo
[ETPABONOE] TEOrPAfKON = The Geography o f

Strabo, trans. by Horace Leonard Jones. LCL, 8 vols. New
York: G.P. Putnam 's Sons, 1917-1949.
Sysoev, e d , Classical Inscr.
V. Sysoev, "Grecheskiia (i rimskiia) nadpisi," SMOMPK 22

(1897), pp. 50-69.
Theodoret
EKKAHEIAETKHE IETOPIAE AOTOIHENTE =

Ecclesiastical History, in PG, vol. 82 (1864). Cols. 8811278.
Theophanes, Chron.
Eng. tran s., H arry Turtledove, trans.. The Chronicle o f

Theophanes. Philadelphia: The University o f Pennsylvania
Press, 1982.
768
Theophanes of Byzantium
Theophanes Byzantius, "Fragm enta," e d by Carolus

M uellerus, FHG, vol. 4. Paris, 1885. Pp. 270-271.
Theophanes Continuatus
O I META 0EOSANH N, e d Im m anuel Bekker. CSHB.

vol. 33. Bonn, 1838.
Theophylakt Simokatta
Eng. trans. by M ichael W hitby and M ary W hitby. The

History o f Theophylact Simocatta. O xford Clarendon Press.
1986.
Typikon o f Petriconi-~Greek
Paul Gautier, e d and trans., "Le Typikon du Sebaste Gregoire

Pakourianos," REB 42 (1984), pp. 5-145, w ith parallel Gk.
text and Fr. trans. and index.
Will o f Eustathius Boilas
Speros Vtyonis, Jr., "The W ill o f a Provincial M agnate,

Eustathius Boilas (1059)," OOP 11 (1957). pp. 263-277.
Xenophon, Anabasis
[2ENO$GNTOE] KYPOY ANABAEIE, trans. by Carleton

L. Brownson. LCL. Cambridge, MA: H arvard UP. 1992
repr. (1922).
Zonaras
Ioannes Zonaras, [IQANNOY TOY ZONAPA] XPONIKON

= Epitomae historiarum. e d by Theodoras BOttner-Wobst and
M aurice Pinder. CSHB, vols 44-46. Bonn, 1841-1897.
Contemporary Published Svriac (C hristian). Hebrew, and Ethiopian Texts:
Bar Hebraeus
The Chronography o f Gregory Abu'l Faraj, the son o f Aaron,

the Hebrew physician, commonly known as Bar Hebraeus, e d
and trans. by Ernest A. W allis Budge. 2 vols. London:
O xford UP, 1932 (repr. as Amsterdam: Philo Press, 1976).
Book o f the Bee
Eng. trans. and e d by Ernest A. W allis Budge, The Book o f

the Bee. O xford Clarendon Press, 1866.
Book o f Jubilees
[OI IQBHAAIOI = H AETTTH TENEEIE]. Eng. trans. in

R.H. Charles, e d , The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha o f
the Old Testament., vol. 2. O xford C larendon Press, 1979
(repr. o f 1913). Pp. 1-82.
Ps. -CallisthenesEthiopian
Eng. trans. and e d by E. A. W allis Budge, Life and Exploits

o f Alexander the Great, Being a Series ofEthiopic Texts. 2
vols. English trans in vol. 2. London, 1896.
Ps. -CallisthenesSyriac
Eng. trans. and e d by Ernest A. W allis Budge, The History

o f Alexander the Great, Being the Syriac Version o f the
Pseudo-Callisthenes. Cambridge, 1889, repr. Amsterdam:
APA-Philo Press, 1976.
769
Cave o f Treasures
Eng. trans. by E.A. W allis Budge, The Book o f the Cave of
Treasures: A History o f the Patriarchs and the Kings Their

Successorsfrom the Creation to the Crucifixion o f Christ.
London: The Religious Tract Society. 1927. Syriac text ed
by Su-M in Ri, La Caveme des Trisors les deux recensions
syriaques. CSCO, vols. 486-487. Scriptores Svri. vols. 207208. Louvain, 1987.
Jam es o f Edessa
Eng. trans. by E.W . Brooks, "The Chronological Canon of

Jam es o f Edessa," ZDMG 53 (1899), pp. 261-327, w ith errata
p. 550; and further comm.. ZDMG 54 (1900), pp. 100-102.
John o f Ephesus
Eng. trans. by P. Payne Smith, The Third Part o f the

Ecclesiastical History o f John Bishop o f Ephesus [from the
Original Syriac], Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1860.
John o f NQriu
Eng. trans. by R-H. Charles, The Chronicle o f John, Bishop

ofNildu translatedfrom Zotenbergs Ethiopic Text. Oxford:
W illiam s & Norgate, 1916.
Joshua the Stylite
Eng. trans., The Chronicle o f Joshua the Stylite Composed

in Syriac in A.D. 507, trans. by W. W right Cam bridge:
Cam bridge UP. 1882.
Kebrd Nagdst
Eng. trans. by E. A. W allis Budge, The Queen o f Sheba and

Her Only Son Menyelek (I). London: Oxford UP, 1932.
Ufe o f Peter Iber.Syriac
Partial Eng. trans., "A M ilitant Ascetic: Peter the Iberian.

Bishop o f Mayuma by Gaza," in Lang, Georgian Saints, pp.
58-80.
I Macc.
[MAKKABAION], Eng. trans. "The F irst Book o f

M accabees," in R.H. Charles, e d . The Apocrypha and
Pseudepigrapha o f the Old Testament. Vol. 1. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1983 (repr. o f 1913). Pp. 59-124.
M ichael the Syrian
Chronique de Michel le Syrien, Patriarche Jacobite

d'Antioche (1166-1199), e d and trans. by J.-B. Chabot.
4 vols. Paris, 1899-1910 (repr. Bruxelles: C ulture et
C ivilisation, 1963). Fr. trans. vols. 1-3; Syriac text vol. 4.
Pigulevskaia, trans., Syriac Sources
Rus. trans. and comm, by N. Pigulevskaia, Siriislde istochniki

po istorii narodov SSSR. M oskva-Leningrad: Izd-vo AN
SSSR, 1941. See esp., "Kavkaz m ezhdu Iranom i Vizantiei,"
pp. 80-90.
Synodicon Orientale
Syriac Chron. to 813
Synodicon Orientale, e d and trans. by J.-B. C habot

NEMBN, vol. 37. Paris, 1902.
Eng. trans. and e d by E.W . Brooks, "A Syriac Fragm ent"
ZDMG 54 (1900), pp. 195-230.
770
Eng. trans. and ed. by E.W . Brooks, "A Syriac Chronicle o f

the Year 846," ZDMG 51 (1897), pp. 569-588.
Rus. trans. by N.V. Pigulevskaia, "Iz anonimnoi siriiskii

khroniki 1234 g.," in her Vizantiia i Iran, pp. 252-289.
Pigulevskaia's trans. includes only chs. 76-125. covering the
reign o f M aurice to the death o f Heraclius.
VfiObus, e d , Syriac/Arabic Docs.
A rthur Vddbus. Syriac and Arabic Documents Regarding

Legislation Relative to Syrian Asceticism. Stockholm: Este.
1960.
Zacharias o f M itylene
Eng. trans. and ed. by F.C. H am ilton and E.W . Brooks, The
Syriac Chronicle Known as that o/Zachariah ofMitylene.
London: M ethuen and Co., 1899 (repr. as New Yorfc AMS.
1979).
Other Published Contemporary N ear Eastern Texts:
Agat-angeghosArabic
Rus. trans. and comm, by N .Ia. M arr, "Kreshchenie arm ian,

gruzin, abkhazov i alanov sviatym Grigoriem ," ZVOIRAO 16
(1904), pp. 63-211, Arabic text w ith Rus. trans.
Albiruni
The Chronology o f Ancient Nations: Athdr-ul-Baldya o f

Albiruni, ed., trans., and comm, by C. Edward Sachau.
London, 1879 (repr. Frankfurt: M inerva GmBH, 1969).
al-Baladhuri
Eng. trans by Philip Khuri, trans.. The Origins o f the Islamic

State [Kitab Futuh al-Buldan o f al-Baladhuri], 2 vols.
SHEPL, vols. 163 and 163a. New York: Columbia UP, 1916
and 1924.
Blair, ed., Inscriptions
Sheila S. Blair, The Monumental Inscriptionsfrom Early

Islamic Iran and Transoxiana. SIAA, vol. 5. Leiden: E.J.
B rill, 1992.
Iskandamama
Eng. trans. by Minoo S. Southgate. Iskandamamah: A

Persian Medieval Alexander-Romance. PHS, vol. 31. New
York: Columbia UP, 1978.
al-Fariq!
Eng. trans. by V. M inorsky, "Caucasica in the History o f

M ayyafariqin," BSOAS 13 (1949-1950), pp. 27-35.
Jamasp-namag
H.W. Bailey, ed., trans., and com m ., "To the Zhamaspnamak," 3 5 0 4 5 6(1930-1932), pp. 55-85 and 581-600.
Karaulov, ed., Arabic Geographers on
Georgia
N .A Karaulov, "Svedeniia arabskikh geografov IX i X vekov

po R.Kh. o Kavkaze, Arm enii i Aderbeidzhane," SMOMPK
38 (1908), pp. 1-130. See also idem., "Svedeniia arabskikh
pisatelei o Kavkaze, Arm enii i Aderbeidzhane." Part I =
"Ar-Istakhrii," SMOMPK 29 (1901), pp. 1-73; part 3-6 = "Ibn
771
Khordadbe, Kudama, Ibn-Ruste, Al-Yakubi," SMOMPK

32 (1903), pp. 1-63.
M acarius III, Travels
Eng. trans. by F.C. Belfour. The Travels o f Macarius,

Patriarch o f Antioch: Written by His Attendant Archdeacon.
Paul o f Aleppo, in Arabic. Part 5 (includes G eorgia).
London: O riental Translation Fund o f G reat-B ritain and
Irelan d 1834. Arabic text e d w ith Rus. trans. by P. Zhuze.
Gruziia v 17 stoletii po izobrazheniiu Patriarkha Makariia.

K azan': T sentral'naia tipografiia. 1905. Fr. trans. by Olga de
Lebedew, Histoire de la Conversion des Georgiens au
Christianisme par le Patriarche Macaire d'Antioche (Codex

689 du Vatican). Rome: Casa E ditrice Italians. 1905.
M arquart, e d , Eranshahr
J. M arkwart w ith G. M essina, A Catalogue o f the Provincial

Capitals o f Eranshahr (Pahlavi Text, Version and
Commentary). AO, vol. 3. Rome: Pontifico Istituto Biblico,
1931.
Paikuli Inscr.
Helmut Humbach and Prods O. SkjaervB. The Sassanian

Inscription o f Paikuli. 3 parts. W iesbaden: Dr. Ludwig
Reichert V erlag, 1978-1983.
Al-Qalaqashandi
Rus. trans. by V. Tizengauzen, "Zametka El'kal'kashandi o

gruzinakh," ZVOIRAO 1 (1886). pp. 208-216.
Res Gestae Divi Saporis
Andre M aricq. e d , "Res Gestae Divi Saporis, in his Classica

et Orientalia. Paris: Librairie O rientaliste Paul Geuthner,
1965.
Shah-nama
Eng. trans. by Reuben Levy, The Epic o f the Kings: ShahNama, the National Epic o f Persia by Ferdowsi. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1967.
Smith, trans., Izdubar Legends
Eng. trans.. George Smith, trans. and comm.. The Chaldean

Account o f Genesis. New York: Scribner. A rm strong, and
Co., 1876. Pp. 167-192.
Sprengling, Third Century Iran
M artin Sprengling, Third Century Iran: Sapor and Kartir.

Chicago: O riental Institute, 1953.
al-Tabari
Eng. trans. by G. Rex Smith, The History o f al-Tabari

(Ta'rikh al-rusul wa'l-muluk). vol. 14 = The Conquest o f Iran.
Albany: State University o f New York Press, 1994.
Yahya ibn S a'id
Rus. trans. and e d by V.R. Rozen, Imperator Vasilij

Bolgarobojca: Izvlechenija iz Letopisi Jccd Antioxijskago =
Imperator Vasilii Bogaroboitsa: izvlecheniia iz letopisi Iakh"i
Antiokhiiskago. SPB, 1883; reprinted as London: Variorum,
1972.
772
O ther Published Contemporary Texts:
Gregory o f Tours
Eng. trans. by O.M . D alton, History o f the Franks. 2 vols.

Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1927.
Life o f Constantine/Cyril
The Vita o f Constantine and The Vita ofMethodius. T rans.

an d comm, by M arvin K antor and R ichard S. W hite.
MSP, vol. 13. A nn Arbor, University o f M ichigan Press.
1976.
M arco Polo
Ed. and Eng. trans. tty W illiam M arsden and Thom as W right.
The Travels o f Marco Polo the Venetian. Garden City, NY:
International Collectors Library, 1948.
Rus. Prim. Chron.
Eng. trans. tty Samuel Hazzard Cross and Olgerd P.

Sherbowitz-W etzor, The Russian Primary Chronicle:
Laurentian Text, Cam bridge, MA: T he Medieval Academy o f
Am erica, 1973 e d
Num ism atic Evidence:
Abram ishvili, T am ar. Sak'art'velossaxelmcip'o muzeumispart'uli monetebiskatalogi. T b ilisi: M ec'.,

1974. Eng. sum., pp. 142-145; Rus. sum ., "Katalog parfianskikh monet Gosudarstvennogo
muzeia G ruzii," pp. 109-141.
Brosset, M. "Neizdannaia seldzhuko-gruzinskaia moneta." TVOIAO 1/1 (1858). pp. 69-70.
Dundua, G. Numizmatika antichnoi Gruzii. T b ilisi: M ec'.. 1987.
. Sakart'velossamonetogandzebi (romauli xanismonetebi sop', ekidan da sep'iet idan). T bilisi:
M ec'., 1979.
. "Sakart'veloshi gavrc'elebuli alek'sandre makedonelisa da lim isak'es saxelit' mochrili
monetebi," Mac ne 1 (1973), pp. 51-65. Rus. sum.. "M onety Aleksandra M akedonskogo i
Lizim akha, rasprostrannye v Gruzii," pp. 64-65.
D zhalagania, Irina [Jalagania]. Inozemncda moneta v denezhnom obrashchenii Gruzii V-XIII w . Tbilisi:
M ec'., 1979.
. Monetnye klady Gruzii: klad sasanidsldkh i vizantiisldkh monet iz Tsiteli tskaro (pervaia chast').
Tbilisi: M ec'., 1980.
Gdbl, R obert Sasanidische Numismatik. Vol. 1, HandbOcher der Mittel-asi&tischen Numismatik.
Braunschweig: Klinkhardt & Biermann, 1968.
Kapanadze, D.G. Gruzinskaia numizmatika. M oskva: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1955.
. K'art'uli numizmatika. T b ilisi: T U G , 1969. Eng. sum ., "Georgian Num ism atic Summary,"
pp. 204-227.
773
. "K lokalizatsii m onetnykh dvorov i tsentrov m onetnoi chekanki v drevnei Gruzii,"

Soobshcheniia AN GSSR 23/4 (1959), pp. 507-512.
Kapanadze, D. and K. Golenko. "K voprosu o proiskhozhdenii Kolkhidok," VDI4 (1957), pp. 87-95.
Lang, D avid M arshall. "Coins o f Georgia in Transcaucasia Acquired by the Am erican N um ism atic
Society: 1953-1965," ANSM N 12 (1966), pp. 223-232.
. "Notes on Caucasian Numismatics (Part I)," N C ,6 th ser., XVTI (1957), pp. 137-146.
. Studies in the Numismatic History o f Georgia in Transcaucasia. Vol. 130, NMM. New York:
The Am erican Num ism atic Society, 1955.
Pakhomov, E.A. Monety Gruzii. Tbilisi: M ec'., 1970 (repr. from SPB, 1910). An unpublished Eng.
trans. o f this w ork by H. B artlett W ells is available a t the museum o f the Am erican N um ism atic
Society in New York.
. "O monete K orike kuropalata," IK1AJ 3 (1925), pp. 37-45.
Paruck, Furdoonjee D J. Sasanian Coins. New Delhi: Indological Book Corp., 1976.
Tsotselia, M edeia [Cocelia]. Katalogsasanidsla'fch monet Gruzii. Tbilisi: M ec'., 1981.
. "O m onetnykh dvorakh sasanidskogo Irana," Soobshcheniia AN GSSR 77/1 (1975), pp. 233-236.
Eng. sum ., "Concerning the Mints o f Sasanian Iran," p. 236.
Epig rap hicand Archaeological Evidence:
Abram ishvili, Guram. Step'anozmamp'alisp'reskuli carcera atenissionshi. SIC. vol. 5; EDzXM, vol. 1.
T b ilisi: M ec'., 1977. Eng. sum., "M ural Inscription o f Stepanoz M ampal in the A teni Sioni,"
pp. 68-70.
Abram ishvili, G. and Zaza A lek'sidze, eds., P'reskuri carcerebi. Vol. I, Atenis sioni. K'CK, vol. 3:
EDzXM, vol. 8. T b ilisi: Mec., 1989.
A lek'sidze, Zaza. Ateniasionissomxuri carcerebi. SIC. vol. 6; EDzXM. vol. 2. T b ilisi: M ec'., 1978.
Eng. sum ., "A rm enian Inscriptions o f the Ateni Sioni," pp. 119-127.
Alpago-Novello, A., V ahtang Beridze. J. Lafontaine-Dosogne, et al., Art and Architecture in Medieval
Georgia. Publications d'Histoire de IA rt et d'Archeologie de TUniversite Catholique de

Louvain, vol. 21. Louvain-la-Neuve: Institue Superieur dArcheologie et dH istoire de lA rt
College Erasme, 1980.
Beridze, Vaxtang. Dzveli k'art'uli xurot'modzghvreba. T b ilisi: Xelovneba, 1974.
C eret'eli, Giorgi [Tsereteli]. Mc'xet'isberdznuli carcera verpasianesxanisa. T b ilisi: M ec'., 1958.
. "The M ost A ncient G eorgian Inscriptions in Palestine," BK 36-37 (1961), pp. 111-130.
. CJzdvelesi k'art'uli carcerebi palestinidan. T b ilisi: M ec'., 1960. Eng. The Most Ancient
Inscriptionsfrom Palestine, pp. 75-94 (cf. his 1961 article in BK).
774
C eret'eli, K onstantine [C onstantine Tsereteli], "Aram aic Am ulet from M tskheta." Unpub. typescript, ca.
1995.
. "A rm azian Script," to be published in vol. 1 o f Iberica-Caucasica.
. Shenishvnebi carmans bilingvis arameul tek'stze = Zamechaniia k arameiskomu tekstu
aramazskoi bilingvy. T b ilisi: M ec'., 1992.
Didi pitiunti: ark'eologiuri gat'xrebi bichvintashi Velikii Pitiunt. 3 vols. T b ilisi: M ec'.. 1975. 1977.
and 1978. Eng. sum s.: vol. 1, pp. 569-580; vol. 2, pp. 409-418; and vol. 3, pp. 257-267.
Djobadze, W achtang. Early Medieval Georgian Monasteries in Historic Tao, Klarjet'i, and Shavshet'i.
Stuttgart: F ranz Steiner, 1992.
Henning, W.B. "The G reat Inscription o f Shapur I," BSOAS 9/4 (1939), pp. 823-849.
Javaxisbvili, K '. Urbnisisnak'alak'arisgliptikuri dzeglebi. SSMG, vol. 5. T b ilisi: M ec'.. 1972. Rus.
sum., "Pam iatniki gliptiki gorodishcha Urbnisi," pp. 86-143.
Khrushkova, L.G. "Dve rannekhristianskie trekhapsidnye baziliki Abkhazii," Kratkie soobshcheniia
[Rossiiskaia Akademiia NaukJ, voL 209 = Arkheologiia Srednei Azii, Sibin i Kavkaza (Moskva:
Nauka. 1993), pp. 101-107.
Kldiashvili, D arejan. "Licone de Saint Georges du M ont Sinai avec le portrait de Davit
Aghm ashenebeli," REGC 5 (1989), pp. 107-128.
M achabeli, K.G. Serebrianye fialy iz Armaziskhevi (iz istorii antichnoi torevtild Gruzii). Tbilisi:
M ec'., 1970. Fr. sum ., "Les coupes dargent d1Arm aziskhevi Gdorgie," pp. 70-72.
M azhnikov, S. "Pam iatniki drevnosti goroda Samshvilde," SMOMPK 13 (1892), pp. 3-13.
M episaschwili, R ussudan and W achtang Zinzadse. Georgien: Wehrbauten und Kirchen. Leipzig: Veb
E.A. Seem ann V erlag, 1987.
M iller, V.Th. "D revne-osetinskii pam iatnik iz kubanskoi oblasti," MAK 3 (1883), pp. 110-118.
M irianashvili, Nino. Shida k'art'lis materialuri kulturis istoriisan (aghaianis ark'eologiuri dzeglebi):
Mastaldsisark'eologiuri ek'spedic'iisshromebi, II. T b ilisi: M ec., 1983. Rus. sum ..
"M aterial'naia kul'tura Shida Kartli (Arkheologicheskie pam iatniki s A gaiani)," pp. 113-117.
M olitor, Joseph. Monumenta Iberica Antiquiora. CSCO, vol. 166, subsidia v. 10. Louvain. 1956.
Includes "Index Ibericus Latinus-Graecus," pp. 94-141.
Mtskheta: itogi arfcheologicheskikh issledovanii, e d by A.M. Apakidze, G.F. Gobedzhishvili, A.N.

Kalandadze, and G.A. Lomtatidze. Vol. 1 = Arkheologicheskie pamiatniki Armazis-khevi po
raskopkam 1937-1946gg. Tbilisi: M ec'., 1958. Eng. sum ., "Archaeological Excavations at
Arm azis-Khevi N ear M zkhetha in 1937-1946," pp. 275-282.
M uradian, P.M. [M iwradyan], Armianskaia epigrafika Gruzii: Kartli i Kakheti. Erevan: Izd-vo AN
AnnSSR, 1985.
. Hayastani vrac'eren arjanagrawt'yovmnere. Erevan: Erevani ham alsarani
hratarakch'ovvt'yow n, 1977. Rus. sum., "Gruzinskaia epigrafika Arm enii," pp. 279-297.
775
"Opisanie kam ennykh krestov, stolbov i statui, sobrannykh E.D. Felitsinym i G.I. Kulikovskim." MAK 7
(1898), pp. 137-142.
Q auxch'ishvili, T . Berdznuli carcerebi sak'art'veloshi. T b ilisi: M ec'.. 1951.
Rostomov, IP . "Akhalkalakii uezd v arkheologicheskom otnoshenii (s kliuchom k cteniiu nadpisei
drevnei Dzhavakhetii i kaitoi)," SMOMPK 25 (1898), pp. 1-133. with additional notes by E.
T aqaishvili, pp. 134-136.
Sharashidze, K 'ristine, ed. and comm.. Samxret' sak'art'velos istoriis masalebi (XII1-XVss.). T b ilisi:
M ec'., 1982.
Shoshiashvili, N ed., Aghmosavlet' da samxret'sak'art'velo (V-Xss.). LC, vol. 1. T b ilisi: M ec'. 1980.
Silogava, Valeri. Bet'aniis carcerebi. T b ilisi: M ec'., 1994. Eng. sum ., "The Inscriptions o f Betania."
pp. 61-63.
. Bolnisisudzvelesi k'art'uli carcerebi. T b ilisi: M ec'., 1994. Eng. sum., "The Oldest Georgian
Inscriptions o f Bolnisi," pp. 93-109.
. Dasavlet' sak'art'velos carcerebi nakv I (DC-X1II ss.). EDzXKt, vol. 5; K'LCK, vol. 2. T b ilisi:
M ec'., 1980.
. Kumurdo tadzris epigrap'ika. T b ilisi: M ec'., 1994. Eng. su m .,, "Kumurdo: Inscriptions o f the
Church," pp. 114-125.
. Svanet'iscerilobit'i dzeglebi: istoriuli sabut'ebi dasult'a matianeebi. Vol. I. T b ilisi: M ec'.,
1986.
SpideL, M ichael P. and Tem uri T. Todua, "Three Inscriptions from Pityus on the Caucasian Frontier," SJ
44 (1988), pp. 56-58.
Sxirtladze, Z. Sabereebisp'reskuli carcerebi. SIC, vol. 35; EDzXbf, vol. 7. T b ilisi: M ec'., 1985. Eng.
sum ., "M ural Inscriptions o f Sabereebi," p. 145.
T aqaishvili, E. [Takaishvili] "A ntiquities o f Georgia," Georgica 1/4-5 (Autumn 1937), pp. 96-116.
. Arkheologicheskaia ekspeditsiia 1917-go goda v iuzhnye provintsii Gruzii. Tbilisi: M ec'., 1952.
. "Arkheologicheskiia ekskursii, razyskaniia i zam etki," SMOMPK 43/2 (1913). pp. 1-176.
. "Dereviannyi antim ins M etekhskoi tserkvi v Tiflis," SMOMPK 22 (1897), pp. 213-216.
. "Four Basilican Churches o f the Q virila Valley," Georgica 1/2-3 (O ct 1936), pp. 154-173.
. "K hristianskiepam iatniki-ekskursiiaE .T okaishvili[sic!] 1902 g."MAK 12(1909).
. "Zaizm skii monastyr1, ego restavratsiia i freski," SMOMPK 35 (1905), pp. 1-80.
Ttetiakov, P.N. and A.L. M ongait. Contributions to the Ancient History o f the U.S.S.R., with a special
reference to Transcaucasia. PMAE-RTS, vol. 1/3. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum, 1961.
776
T sereteli, G.E. "Polnoe sobranie nadpisei na stenakh i kam niakh i pripisok k rukopisiam Gelatskago
m onastyria," D V 1/2 (1891), pp. 223-278. Parallel G eorgian text and Rus. trans.
X axanashvili, A.S. [Khakhanov], "Ekspeditsii na Kavkaze 1892,1893 i 95 g ," MAK 7 (1898). pp. 1-65.
Art aud Other Contemporaiy Evidence:
A liashvili, N.A., G.V. Alibegashvili, and A .I. Vol'skaia. Rospisi khudozhnika Tevdore v verkhnei
Svanetii. Tbilisi: M ec'., 1966.
. ZhivopiscmaiashkolaSvaneti. Tbilisi: M ec'., 1983.
A libegashvili, G.V. Chetyreportreta tsaritsy Ternary. Tbilisi: M ec'., 1957. Ger. sum ., pp. 104-108.
A m iranashvili, Shalva [Chalva Am iranachvili]. "A perfu sur 1identification du personage reproduit sur
la genune conservee au B ritish M useum, (119712). avec inscription pekhlevienne." BK 28
(1971), pp. 167-171.
. "Georgian A rt," BK 26 (1969), pp. 170-190.
. Georgian Metalworkfrom Antiquity to the 18th Century.London-New York: Hamlyn. 1971.
. Istoriia gruzinskoi monumental'noi zhivopisi. Vol. I.Tbilisi: Sakhelgaxni, 1957.
Beridze, Vaxtang. "Les monum ents darchitecture du T ao-K 'lardzeti," REGC 5 (1989), pp. 169-202.
Beridze, Vaxtang, Gaiane Alibegashvili, Aneli Volskaja, and Leila Xuskivadze. The Treasures o f
Georgia, trans. by Bruce Penman. London: Century Publishing, 1984.
Chubinashvili, G.N. Iz istorii srednevekovogo iskusstva Gruzii: izbrannye trudy. Moskva: Sovetskii
khudozhnik, 1990.
Eastm ond, Antony. Royal Imagery in Medieval Georgia. College Station, PA: Penn State UP. [1997],
NB: C ited here in an unpub. typescript generously provided by the author.
Estopahan, Sebastian Cirac. Skylitzes Matritensis. Vol. 1, "Reproducciones y m iniaturas." BarcelonaM adrid, 1965.
Frye. R ichard N ., ed., Sasanian Remainsfrom Qasr-i Abu Nasr: Seals, Sealings, and Coins. Cambridge,
MA: H arvard UP, 1973.
Grabar, Andr6 and M. M anoussacas. L'lllustration du manuscrit de Skylitzis de la Bibliothique Nationale
de Madrid BIHEB 10 (Venice, 1979).
H arper, Prudence Oliver. The Roval Hunter: Art o f the Sasanian Empire. New York: The Asia Society,
1978.
H arper, Prudence O. and P ieter Meyers, Silver Vessels o f the Sasanian Period. Vol. I, Royal Imagery.
New York: The M etropolitan M useum o f A rt, 1981.
Henning, W.B. "A Sassanian Silver Bowl from Georgia," BSOAS 24 (1961), pp. 353-356.
777
Medieval Cloisonne Enamels at [the] Georgian State Museum o f Fine Arts = Shua saukuneebis tixruli
minank'ari sak'art'velos xelovnebissaxelmcip'o muzeumshi, ed. by Leila Zaalis asuli
Xuskivadze. T b ilisi: Xelovneba, 1984. In Georgian, Eng., an d Rus.
M episaschwili, Russudan and W achtang Zinzadse. Die Kunst des alten Georgien. Leipzig: Edition
Leipzig, 1977.
Saqvarelidze, T . XIV-XnCsaukuneebis k'art'uli ok'romchedloba. Part 1, A7F-AT7 saukuneebi. T b ilisi:
M ec'., 1987. Rus. sum., "Gruzinskoechekannoe iskusstvo XIV-XIX vekov: chast' pervaia (XIVXVI veka)," pp. 183-184.
Smith, R.R.R. Hellenistic Royal Portraits. Oxford: C larendon Press, 1988.
T er Ghewondean, Hayk. Ardashesean Ark'ayatohmi t'akere ewAnonc' Takume = Die Kronen der
Artaxiaten und ihre Entstehung. Vienna: M xit'arean Tparan, 1989.
Thierry, J.-M . "Les monuments du Tayk, de Tao-Klardjeti et des districts avoisinants." Bvzantion 44
(1984), pp. 421-428.
Thierry, M. and N. Thierry. "Notes d'un deuxieme voyage en Georgie turque," BK 25 (1968), pp. 51-65.
Thierry, Nicole. "Iconographie sacree et profane en Transcaucasie: caracteres ponctuels dans
influences," SSCISSM, vol. 43b (1996). Pp. 963-1013.
. "A propos des monuments du T ao," REGC 8-9 (1992-1993), pp. 241-262.
. "Le souverain dans le programems d'eglises en Cappadoce et en Georgie du X an XIII6 siecles,"
REGC 4 (1988), pp. 127-170.
Tuite, Kevin, ed. and trans.. An Anthology o f Georgian Folk Poetry. Rutherford. NY: Fairleigh
Dickenson UP, 1994.
Urushadze, N ina. Drevnegruzinskoe plasticheskoe iskusstvo. Tbilisi: Izd-vo Khelovneba. 1988. Eng.
sum ., "Plastic A rt in Ancient Georgia," p. 166.
Xidashvili, M anana. C'entraluri amier-kavkasiisgrap'ikuli xelovneba adreuli rfdnisxanashi.
T b ilisi: M ec ., 1982.
LINGUISTICS, LANGUAGE AIDS, AND DICTIONARIES
Abuladze, Ilia. Dzveli k'art'uli enislek'sikoni (masalebi). T b ilisi: M ec'., 1973.

. K'art'uli cerisnimushebi:paleograp'iuli albomi. 2nded. T b ilisi: M ec'., 1973.
A ndronikashvili, M zia. Narkvevebi iranul-k'art'ul enobrivi urt'iert'obidan. Vol. 1 (all pub.). T b ilisi:
T U G , 1966. Eng. sum., "Studies in Iranian-G eorgian Linguistic Contacts," pp. 547-571.
Aronson, Howard I. Georgian: A Reading Grammar. Corrected ed. Columbus, OH: Slavica, 1990.
778
Bedrossian, M atthias. New Dictionary Armenian-English. Beirut: L ibrairie du Liban. 1985 repr.
Benveniste, Em ile. Titres et noms propres en iranien cmcien. TTEIUP, vol. 1 Paris: Libraire C.
Klincksieck, 1966.
Chericesi, E. Georgian-English Dictionary. Oxford: University o f O xford, 1950.
C h'ubinashvili, D avit' [Chubinov]. K'art'ul-rusuli lek'sikoni = Gruzino-russkii slovar. 2nd. ed.
Prepared by Akaki Shanidze. T b ilisi: Sabchot'a S ak'art'velo, 1984.
Gippert, Jo st IranicaArmeno-Iberica: Stueben zu den iranischen Lehnwdrtem im Armenischen und
Georgischen. OA W-PHK, vol. 606 (2 fesc.). Vienna: V erlag der O sterreichischen Akademie der
W issenschaften, 1993.
Godel, R obert An Introduction to the Study o f Classical Armenian. W iesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert
Verlag, 1975.
Hillery, P.J. "Georgian: The K artvelian Literary Language." Pontypridd, W ales: Languages Information
C entre, 1994.
Hiibschmann, H. Armenische Grammatik. Leipzig, 1897 (repr. 1962).
Im naishvili, I. K'art'uli ot'xt'avissimp'onia-lek'sikoni. T b ilisi: T U G , 1986.
Jensen, Hans. Altarmenische Grammatik. Heidelberg: Carl W inter, 1959.
Justi, Ferdinand. Iranisches Namenbuch. M arburg, 1895 (repr. Hildesheim : Georg Olms
Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1963).
Kekelidze, K. "G ruzinskii liturgichesldi slovar*," repr. in his Etiudebi. vol. 14 (1986). pp. 199-216.
Lampe, G.W .H, ed. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961-1968.
LiddeU. Henry George and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
1968 repr.
M arr, N. Grammatika drevneliteratumogo gruzinskogo iazyka. Mlala. vol. 12. Leningrad. 1925.
Mcignobrobay k'art'uli: asomt'avruli, nusxuri, mxedruli. T b ilisi: K 'a rt'u li sabchot'a enc'iklopedia,
1989.
M eillet Antoine. Esquisse d'une Grammaire comparee de I'Armenien classique. Vienne: Imprimerie des
Pp. M ekhitaristes, 1903.
M olitor, Joseph. Altgeorgisches Glossar zu Ausgewdhlten Bibltexten. MBE, vol. 6. Roma: Pontificium
Institution Biblicum , 1952.
. Glossarium Ibericum in quattuor Evangelia et Actes Apostolorum Antiquioris versionis etiam
textus Chanmeti et Haemeti complectens. CSCO, vols. 228 (subisidia 20), 237 (subsidia 21), and
243 (subsidia 23). Louvain, 1962 (pts. 1-2) and 1964.
P'enrixi, H ainc' and Zurab Sarjveladze. K'art 'velur enat'a etimologiuri lek'sikoni. T b ilisi: T U G , 1990.
779
Robinson, Theodore H. Paradigms and Exercises in Syriac Grammar. 4th ed. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1991 repr. (1962).
Sarjveladze, Zurab. Dzveli k'art'uli enis lek'sikoni: masalebi. T b ilisi: T U G , 1995.
Shanidze, Akaki [Akaki Schanidse], Grammatik der altgeorgischen Sprache. p art 1. Trans, by Heinz
Fahnrich. T b ilisi: T U G , 1982. NB: This is the Ger. trans. o f Dzveli k'art'uli enis gramatika.
. K'art'uli enisgramatikissap'udzvelebi. V6L I,Morp'ologia. 2 n d e d T b ilisi: T U G , 1973
Sophocles, E.A. Greek Lexicon o f the Roman and Byzantine Periods (From B.C. l46toA.D. 1100).
2 vols. New York: Frederick U ngar Publishing Co., 1957 repr. (1887).
Sulxan-Saba Orbeliani See supra, CONTEMPORARY SOURCES.
Thom son, Robert W. An Introduction to Classical Armenian. 2nd e d Delm ar, NY: C aravan Books.
1989.
Tschenkeli, Kita. EinJUhrung in die Georgische Sprache. 2 vols. Zurich: A m irani V erlag, 1958.
Vogt, Hans. "Armenien et Georgien," HA 75 (1961), pp. 531-540.
. Esquisse dune Grammaire du Georgien modeme. Oslo, 1936.
Zorell, Franz. Grammatik zur Altgeorgischen BibelQbersetzung. Roma: M. B retschneider. 1930.
MODERN STUDIES
Abashidze, Erekle. "K 'art'lis istoria m ok'c'evay k 'a rtlisayski,'" Mac'ne 3 (1988), pp. 127-135.
. K 'art'lisc'xovrebiscarmok'mnisa daganvit'arebissakit'xebi. T b ilisi: M ec'., 1993.
Abdaladze, Alek'sandre. Amierkavkasiispolitikur ert'eult'a urt'iert'obaIX-XIsaukuneebshi. T bilisi:
M ec'., 1988. Rus. sum., "V ziam ootnosheniia politicheskikh obrazovanii Zakavkaz'ia v IX-XI
vekakh," pp. 278-281.
. K'art'lis c'xovrebada sak'art'velo-somxet'is urt'iert'oba: udzvelebi droidan XII saukunis
dasacqisamde. T b ilisi: M ec'., 1982. Rus. sum., "'K artlis Tskhovreba1i gruzino-arm ianskie
vzaimootnosheniia," pp. 225-228.
Abram ishvili, Guram. "M ural Inscription o f Stepanoz Mampal in the A teni Sioni," BK 37 (1979), pp.
363-365.
Abram ishvili, G. and Zaza Aleksidze. "A N ational M otif in the Iconographic Program m e D epcited on the
Davati Stela," LeM 103/3-4 (1990), pp. 283-292.
Abuladze, Ilia. "K otkrytiiu alfavita kavkazskikh albantsev," Moambe IV /1 (1938), pp. 69-71.
. [Abouladze]. "APropos de I'article de P. Mourdian: 'L'inscription arm & iienne de l'glise de
Djvari,'" RkArm, n.s. 6 (1969), pp. 373-391. Repr. from Mac'ne 4 (1968), pp. 171-189.
780
Adler, W illiam . Time Immemorial: Archaic History and Its Sources in Christian Chronographyfrom
Julius Africanus to George Syncellus. DOS, vol. 26, W ashington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks. 1989.
Adontz, N icholas [Adonc']. Armenia in the Period o f Justinian: The Political Conditions Based on the
Naxarar System. Trans, and additions by N ina G. Garsoian. Lisbon: Calouste Gulbenldan
Foundation, 1970.
. "Las Dalassenes," part 5 o f "Notes arm eno-byzantines," in his Etudes armeno-byzantines.
Lisbon: Bibliotheque arm enienne de la Fondation Calouste Gulbenkian. 1965. Pp. 163-177.
. Histoire d'Arminie: les origines d u X f siecle au Vfr (Av. J.C.). Paris, 1946.
Adontz, N. and H. Gregoire. "Nicephore au Col roide," Byzantion 8/1 (1933), pp. 203-212.
AdzhindzhaL E.K. "K istorii abkhazskoi avtokefalnoi tserkvi," in Reriume soobshchenii A1111
mezhdunarodnyi (congress vizantinistov. Vol. 1. Moskva, 1991. Pp. 8-9.
Akopashvili, G. P'eodaluri urt'iert'obisistoriidan A7-A7/sssak'art'veloshi. T b ilisi: Mec.. 1984.
. Raindoba shua saukuneebissak'art'veloshi. T b ilisi: Mec., 1992. Rus. sum., "Rytsarstvo v
srednevekovoi Gruzii," pp. 167-168.
Akopian, T.Kh. Ani: stolitsa srednevekovoi Armenii. Erevan: Izd-vo Erevanskogo Universiteta. 1985.
Alasania, Giuli. "Hagiograp'iisa da saistorio m cerlobis shedarebit'i shescavlisat'vis." Mac'ne 4 (1983).
pp. 73-91. Rus. sum., "K sravnitelnom u izucheniiu gruzinskoi agiografii i istoricheskoi
pism ennosti," p. 91.
. "T C arflis c'xovreba1da him nograpia." Mac'neenisa 3 (1985), pp. 84-102. Rus. sum ..
"Sochineniia sbomika TCartlis Tskhovreba1(Tstoriia Gruzii') i gim nografiia," p. 102.
. Klassifikatsiia gruzinskikh pismennykh istoricheskikh istochnikov. Tbilisi: Mec.. 1986.
. "Ricxvi da mistika dzvel k artul saistorio m cerlobashi," Mac'ne 4 (1984), pp. 28-45. Rus. sum ..
"Chislo i m istika v drevnegruzinskoi istoricheskoi pis'm ennosti," p. 45.
Aleksidze, A. [Alexidze]. "M artha-M aria: A S triking Figure in the C ultural History o f Georgia and
Byzantium," in M arianna Koromila, The Greeks in the Black Sea. Athens: IIANOPAMA. 1991.
Pp. 204-212.
. "VizantiiaKavkaz: nekotorye aspekty kul'turnykh vzaim osviazei," in VE. Tbilisi: Mec., 1991.
Pp. 3-12. Fr. sum., "ByzanceCaucase: Q uelques aspects des relation cultureUes," p. 12.
Alekisdze, A. and Sh. Buijanadze. Masalebi sak'art'velos istoriuli geograp'iisa da toponimikisat'vis.
Vol. I, "X-XVIIss-is istoriuli dokum entebis m ixedvit." T b ilisi: M ec., 1964.
Alek' sidze, Zaza. "Ambavi kartlisa da natesavisa m at' isa," in Amierkavkasiis istoriis problemebi.
T b ilisi: Mec., 1991. Pp. 79-84. Rus. sum ., "Istoriia K artli i eeplem eni," p. 84.
. "Kavkasia da kristianuli aghm osavleti IV da VI droshis krebebs shoris"Shromebi 241 (1983),
pp. 213-218. Eng. sum., "Caucasia and the C hristian East in the Period o f the 4th and 6th
Oecumenical Councils," p. 218.
781
. "The New Recensions o f the 'Conversion o f Georgia' and the L ives o f the 13 Syrian Fathers'
Recently D iscovered on ML Sinai," in SSCISSM, vol. 4 3 a =II Caucaso: Cemiera fra Culture dal
Mediterraneo alia Persia. Spoleto: Presso la Sede del Centro, 1996. Pp. 409-426.
. "V axtang gprgasalsa da m ik'ael m tavarepiskoposs sak itx isatvis." in Dziebani sak'art'velosa
da kavkasiis istoriidan. T b ilisi: Mec 1976. Pp. 88-98.
Alexander, Paul J. Religious and Political History and Thought in the Byzantine Empire: Collected
Studies. London: Variorum Reprints, 1978.
. "The Strength o f Em pire and Capital as Seen Through Byzantine Eyes," Speculum 37 (1962).
pp. 339-357 an d repr. in his Variorum, with an additional note (1978).
Allen, W .E.D. "The A ncient Caucasus and the O rigin o f the Georgians," The Asiatic Review (London.
Oct. 1928), pp. 544-557.
. "Ex Ponto V. Heniochi-Aea-Hayasa," BK 8-9 (1960), pp. 79-92.
. A History o f the Georgian People. London: Routledge and K egan Paul, 1971 repr. (1932).
. "Towns o f A ncient Georgia," Asiatic Review 81 (January 1929), pp. 57-64.
Allen, W .E.D. an d A nthony M ango. Russian Embassies to the Georgian Kings (1589-1605). 2 vols. The
Hakluyt Society, 2nd ser., vols. 138-139. London: The Hakluyt Society, 1970.
Ambrosi, A rchim andrite. "Chelishis varianti 'k 'a rt'lis m ok'c'evisa,'" in Dzveli sak'art'velo, ed. by E.
T aq aish v ili. Vol. I. T p'ilisi, 1909. Pp. 1-29.
Amichba, G.A. Abkhaziia i abkhazv srednevekowkh gruzinskikh povestvovatelnykh istochnikov. Tbilisi:
M ec., 1988.
A nch'abadze, G iorgi. "E t'nonim xazaris m nishvnelobisat'vis Tc'art'lis c'xovrebashi," in G. Alasania,
ed., K'art'uli cqarot'mc'odneoba. VoL8. T b ilisi: M ec'., 1993. Pp. 40-48. Eng. sum.. "The
M eaning o f Khazar* in the Chronicle fCartlis Tskhovreba," pp. 47-48.
. "Pokhod kartliiskogo tsaria v Prikubane v seredine VI v.: vymysel ili fakt?," in Voprosy istorii
narodov Kavkaza: sbomik statei, posviashchennvkh pamiati Z. V. Anchabadze. Tbilisi: M ec'..
1988. Pp. 124-135.
Anchabadze, Z.V. Istoriiai kuTturadrevneiAbkhazii. Moskva: Nauka, 1964.
Anderson, B enedict Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread o f Nationalism.
London-New York: Verso, 1983.
Anderson, Andrew R unni. Alexanders Gate, Gog and Magog, and the Inclosed Nations. Cambridge,
MA: The M ediaeval Academy o f America, 1932.
Andriolo, K arin R. "A Structural Analysis o f Genealogy and W orldview in the O ld T estam ent" AA 75/5
(Oct. 1973), pp. 1657-1669.
Angold, M ichael. The Byzantine Empire 1025-1204: A Political History. London-New York: Longman,
1984.
782
A nt'elava, Ilia. XI-XIVss. k'art'uli saistorio cqaroebi. T b ilisi: Mec*., 1988. Rus. sum ., "G ruzinskie
istoricheskie istochniki XI-XTV w ., pp. 157*159.
. Davit'isa da t'amarissaxelmdp'o. T b ilisi: M ec'., 1991.
A p'ak'idze, A ndria. Goroda drevnei Gruzii. T b ilisi: M ec'., 1968.
. M c'xet'ak'art'lissamep'osdzveli dedak'alak'i. T b ilisi: M ec'.. 1959.
A p 'c'iauri, N. "Grigol gam nanat'lebis k'adagebat'a sazghvrebi," in Amierkavkasiis istoriis problemebi
(T b ilisi: M ec'., 1991), pp. 85-102. Rus. sum ., "G ranitsy propovedovaniia G rigoriia
Prosvetitelia," p. 102.
A p'rasidze, G iorgi. Sak'art'veios shua saukuneebis k alak'ebi PJ-XUIss.). T b ilisi: M ec'., 1984. Rus.
sum ., "Srednevekovye goroda Gruzii XI-XHI w .," pp. 144-146.
A p'xazava, Noe. "Alanebi da sak'art'velo: oset'-sak 'art'v eio s u rt'iert'o b is sakit'xisat'vis,n Mac'ne 3
(1991), pp. 7-26.
Araxam ia, G oneli. Dzveli k'art'uli sagvareulo matianeebi (cqarot'mc'odneobit'igamokvleva). T b ilisi:
M ec'., 1988.
. "K 'a rtlis c'xovrebs' pirveli m atianis m oc'ulobis sak it'x isat'v is, Mac'ne 2 (1987), pp. 59-76.
Rus. sum ., "K voprosu ob ob"eme pervoi letopisi K artlis tskhovreba," pp. 75-76.
. "M e p 'e t'a c'xovreba bagrationebis shesaxeb," in Istoriul-cqarot'mc'odneobit'i dziebani.
T b ilisi: M ec'., 1989. Pp. 69-76. Rus. sum ., "Nachalnaia letopis K artlis tskhovreba o
B agrationakh," p. 76.
. "M ep*et'a cxovrebis tekstis dadgenis zogiert'i sak it'x i," Mac ne I (1989), pp. 138-150. Rus.
sum .. "Nekotorye voprosy ustanovleniia teksta Z hizni gruzinskikh tsarei, p. 150.
. "M ok'c'evay k 'art'lisay da c'x o v reb ak 'artv e lt'a m ep 'et'a," in Istoriul cqarot'mc'odneobit'i
gamokvlevebi. T b ilisi: M ec'., 1991. Pp. 47-69. Rus. sum ., "Obrashchenie K artli i Z hizn
kartliiskikh tsarei," p. 69.
"Armenia and Iran," in Elran, vol. 2. London-New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1987. Pp. 417483.
A rutiunova-Fidanian, V.A. [Arutjunova-Fidanjan, A rutiunova]. Armiano-vizantiiskaia kontaktnaia
zona (X-XI w .). Moskva: Nauka/Vostochnaia literatura. 1994. Eng. sum ., pp. 233-235.
."The Ethno-Confessional Self-Awareness o f A rm enian Chalcedonians," REArm, n.s. 21 (19881989), pp. 345-363.
. "Iz istorii severo-voctochnykh pogranichnykh oblastei vizantiiskoi imperii v XI veke," PB H 1/56
(1972), pp. 91-102.
. "Some Aspects o f the M ilitary-Adm inistrative D istricts o f Byzantine Adm inistration in Arm enia
D uring the 11th Century," REArm, n.s. 20 (1987-1987), pp. 309-320.
. "Term inologicheskoe oboznachenie novoi sotsialno-adm inistrativnoi struktury na vostoke
vizantiiskoi im perii (X-XI w .)," W 53 (1992), pp. 43-52.
783
A shurbeili, S.B. "Drevnearmianskie pis'm ennye istochniki V-VII w . o plem enakh i narodakh Kavkaza."
inIstochnikovedcheslde razyskaniia 1985. Tbilisi: M ec'., 1988. Pp. 226-233.
Asmussen, J.P. "Christians in Iran," in CHI. Vol. 3(2). Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1983. Pp. 924-948.
A valishvili. Z. [Avalichvili, Avalov]. "N otice sur une version georgienne de la Cavem e des Tresors."
ROC, 3rd ser., 6(26)/3-4 (1927-1928), pp. 381-405.
. "Le succession du curopalate D avid d lb ere , dynaste de Tao," Byzantion 8/1 (1933), pp. 177-202.
. Jvarosant'a droidan: ot'xi saistorio narfcvevi. T b ilisi: Sabchot'a sak'art'velo, 1989 (repr. o f
Paris, 1929).
Axvlediani, Givi. 'K'art'lis c'xovrebisp'olkloruli cqaroebi. T bilisi: S ak'artvelo, 1990.
Baakashvili, T am ar. "K 'art'ul-bizantiuri liteiatu iu li u rt'iert'obis istoriidan," Mac'neenisa 1 (1987),
pp. 124-131. Rus. sum ., "Iz istorii gruzinsko-vizantiiskikh literaturnykh otnoshenii. p. 131.
Badian, E. "Alexander in Iran," in CHI, vol. 2 Cam bridge: Cambridge UP, 1985. Pp. 420-501.
Badridze, Shot'a [Chota]. "Contribution a lTustoire des relations entre le Tao et Byzance (les annees 70
du X*5sitele)," BK 33 (1975), pp. 162-190.
. "Nekotorye voprosy politicheskogo i sotsialno-ekonomicheskogo stroia abkhazskogo
tsarstva," in Voprosy istorii narodov Kavkaza: sbomik statei, posviashchennykh pamiati Z. V.
Anchabadze. Tbilisi: M ec'., 1988. Pp. 136-146.
. Sak'art'veios urt'iert'obebi bizantiasa da dasavlet'evropist'an (X-XUIss.). T b ilisi: M ec'.,
1984. Rus. sum., "Vzaim ootnosheniia G ruzii s Vizantiei i Zapadnoi Evropoi," pp. 176-178.
Bailey, H.W. "Caucasica," 77^45 (1943), pp. 1-5.
. Zoroastrian Problems in the Ninth-Century Books: Ratanbai Katrak Lectures. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1943.
Bakradze, Dim itri. "Bagrat m eot'xe 1027-1072. T b ilisi, 1880.
. "Sak'art'velo andria m oc'ik'ulis dros." T b ilisi, 1880.
Bakradze, D. and N. Berzenov [B erdzenishvili]. Tiflis v istoricheskom i etnograficheskom otnosheniiakh.
SPB, 1870.
Balcer, Jack M artin. A Prosopographical Study o f the Ancient Persians Royal and Noble c. 550-450 BC.
Lewiston, NY: Edwin M ellen Press. 1993.
Bammel, E rn st "Das Buch Nimrod," Augustinianum 32/2 (Dec. 1992), pp. 217-221.
Baram idze, A. P'irdousi da misi shah-name: mokle istoriul-literaturuli mimoxilva. T p 'ilisi: T U G , 1934.
. "Teimuraz Bagrationi i voprosy razvitiia pervobytnoobshchinnogo stroia gruzinskikh piem en,"
Moambe 26/5 (1961), pp. 631-638.
Baram idze, A.G. andD .M . Gam ezardashvili. Georgian Literature. Tbilisi: T U G , 1968.
784
Baram idze, Revaz. "Die A nfinge der georgischen L iteratur (D as Lefaen des Pamawas')." Georgica
10 (1987), pp. 39-43.
. P'amavazmandzlierhqok'ueqanat'visi. T b ilisi: S ak'art'velo, 1992. Rus. sum .. "Pam avaz i
ego rol' v usilenii mogushchestva strany." pp. 42-30.
Baratov, S. Istoriia Gruzii. Vols. 2 and 3. Istoriia srednikh vekov. SPB, 1871.
B ardavelidze, V.V. Drevneishie religioznye verovaniia i obriadavoe graficheskoe iskusstvo gruzinskikh
piemen. Tbilisi: M ec'.. 1957.
B arnes, T.D. "Emperors and Bishops," AJAH 3 (1978), pp. 53-75.
B artold ,V .V . [W. Barthold). "Kavkaz, Turkestan, Volga," IK1A1A (1926), pp. 1-9.
B artold, V.V. and V. Minorsky, "Abkhaz." El2, vol. 1. Leiden: E.J. B rill, 1960. Pp. 100-102.
B edrosian, Robert. "China and the Chinese according to 5-13th Century Classical Armenian Sources,"
AR 34 (M ar. 1981), pp. 17-24.
. "The Spaspetut'iwn in Armenia in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries," AR 36 (Sum. 1983), pp.
6-45.
Benveniste, E. "Lorigine du vishap arm enien," REArm, o.s. 7/1 (1927), pp. 7-9.
Beradze, Tam az Nikolevich. Moreplavcmie i morskcda torgovlia vsrednevekovoi Gruzii. Tbilisi: M ec'..
1989.
Berdzenishvili, M am isa. Met'ert'mete saukunis k'art'uli saistorio cqaroebi sak'art'veios soc'ialurekonomikuri istoriisshesaxeb. Tbilisi: M ec'., 1979. Rus. sum., "Gruzinskie istochniki XI veka
0 sotaiaTno-ekonomicheskoi istorii G ru zii" pp. 117-123.
. P'eodaluri xanissak'art'veios istoriis cerilobit'i cqaroebi. T b ilisi: M ec'.. 1989. Rus. sum.,
"Pis'mennye istochniki po istorii G ruzii feodal'noi epokhi." pp. 87-88.
. "S ak'artveios saxelracip'os sazghvarebi X III saukunis damdegs." in Sak'art'velo rust'avelis
xanashi. T b ilisi: M ec'., 1966. Pp. 52-65. Rus. sum., "Granitsy gmzinskogo gosudarstva v
nachale XIII veka," pp. 296-297.
. Sak'art'veloXI-XIIsakuneebshi. T b ilisi: M ec'., 1970.
B erdzenishvili N. Gzebirust'avelisepok'issak'artveloshi. T b ilisi: M ec.. 1966.
. Sak'art'veios istoriissakit'xebi. T b ilisi: M ec. Vols. and eds. used in this study are:
1st ed.: vol. 7 (1974) and vol. 9 (1979); 2nd ed.: vol. 8. (1990). The m aterials in the last
relating to the A p'xaz and A p'xazet'i have been censored.
B erdzenishvili N.A., V.D. Dondua, M.K. Dum badze, G.A. M elikishvili and Sh.A. Meskhia. Istoriia
Gruzii. Vol. 1. Tbilisi: Gosudarstvennoe izd-vo uchebno-pedagogicheskoi literatury, 1%2.
B erdzenishvili N., I. Dzhavakhishvili [Javaxishvili], and S. D zhanashia [Janashia], Istoriia Gruzii. P art
1 (all published). Tbilisi: Gosudarstvennoe izdrvo Gruzinskoi SSR, 1946.
785
Bibikov, M.V. "V izantiiskie istochniki po istorii Rusi, narodov sevem ogo Prichem om or'ia i sevemogo
Kavkaza (XH-XIII w )," DGTSSSR 1980. M oskva: N auka, 1981. Pp. 5-151.
B ickerm an,E . "The Seleucid Period," in CHI. Vol. 3/1. Cam bridge: Cam bridge UP, 1983. Pp. 3-20.
B irdsall, J. N eville. "T h e M artyrdom o f S t Eustathius o f M zketha and the Diatessaron: An
Investigation," NTS 18 (1971-1972), pp. 452^56.
Bivar, A.D.H. "The Political History o f Iran Under the A rsacids, in CHI. Vol. 3/1. Cambridge:
Cam bridge UP, 1983. Pp. 21-99.
Blake, Robert P. "Catalogue o f the Georgian M anuscripts in the Cam bridge University Library," HTR
25/3 (JuL 1932), pp. 207-224.
. "G eorgian Secular L iterature, Epic, Romantic, and Lyric (1100-1800)," HSNPL 15 (1933), pp.
25-48.
. "G eorgian Theological Literature," JTS 26 (O ct 1924), pp. 50-64.
. "Grade S cript an d Georgian Scribes on M t Athos," HTR 25 (1932), pp. 273-276.
. "K hanm eti Palim psest Fragm ents o f the O ld G eorgian V ersion o f Jerem iah," HTR 25/3 (Jul.
1932), pp. 225-272.
. "Notes on the T ext o f the Georgian and Arm enian Gospels," in Quantulacumque: Studies
Presented to Kisropp Lake. London-Baltimore, 1937. Pp. 355-363.
. "Some B yzantine Accounting Practices Illustrated from G eorgian Sources," HSCP 51 (1940), pp.
11-33.
Blaum, Paul A. The Days o f the Warlords: A History o f the Byzantine Empire A.D. 969-991. Lanham.
MD-New Y ork: University Press o f America, 1994.
Bloch, R. Howard. Etymologies and Genealogies: A Literary Anthropology o f the French Middle Ages.
Chicago: T he University o f Chicago Press, 1983.
Bogveradze, A nri. K'art'lispolitikuri da soc ialur-ekonomikuri ganvit'areba IV-VIIIsaukuneebshi.
T b ilisi: M ec'. 1979.
. "T ao-klarjet'is bagrationt'a saxlshi brdzolis istoriidan EX saukunis ukanasknel meot'xedshi,"
Mac'ne 2 (1987), pp. 30-41.
Boltunov, A.I. "K voprosu ob Arm azi," VDI2 (1949), pp. 228-240.
Bosworth, A.B. "A lexander the G reat Part I: The Events o f the R eign," in CAH, 2nd ed., vol. 6.
Cam bridge: Cam bridge UP, 1994. Pp. 791-845.
Bosworth, C lifford Edmund. "The Heritage o f R ulership in Early Islam ic Iran and the Search for
Dynastic Connections w ith the P ast" Iran 11 (1973), pp. 51-62.
. The Islamic Dynasties: A Chronological and Genealogical Handbook. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
UP, 1967.
. "al-Kabk," in /2, vol. 4 (1978), pp. 341-351.
786
Bott&o, Jean. Mesopotamia: Writing, Reasoning, and the Gods. Trans, by Zainab B ahrani and M arc
Van De Mieroop. Chicago: U niversity o f Chicago Press, 1992.
Bournoutian, George A. A History o f the Armenian People. Vol. 1, Pre-History to 1500A.D. Costa
Mesa, CA: M azda Publishers, 1993.
. "Sebeos: A Historical Controversy," AR 28 (Sum. 1975), pp. 138-146.
Boyle. John Andrew. "Kirakos o f G anjak on the M ongols," CAJ 8 (1963), pp. 199-214.
Bragvadze, Zurab. "P'am avazis politika kolx et'is m im art' da sainds nak'alak'aris istoriis zogiert'i
sakit'xi," Mac'ne 3 (1991), pp. 86-96. Eng. sum ., "Parnavazs Policy in Colches [sic!] and
Problems Relevant to the History o f th e A ncient Town o f Sairkhe," p. 96.
Braund, David. "The Caucasian Frontier: M yth, Exploration and the Dynamics o f Im perialism ." in The
Defence o f the Roman and Byzantine East: Proceedings o fa colloquium held at the University o f
Sheffield in April 1986. BAR, vol. 297/1. London, 1986. Pp. 31-49.
. Georgia in Antiquity: A History o f Colchis and Transcaucasian Iberia 550 BC-AD 562. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1994.
. "Hadrian and Pharasm anes," Klio 73/1 (1991), pp. 208-219.
. "Procopius on the Economy o f Lazica," CQ 41/1 (1991), pp. 221-225.
. Rome and the Friendly King: The Character o f the Client Kingship. New Y ork: St. M artin's
Press, 1984.
Brock, Sebastian. "Christians in the Sasanian Em pire: A Case o f Divided Loyalties." in his Syriac
Perspectives on Late Antiquity. London: V ariorum 1984, repr. from Stuart M ews, ed.. Religion
and National Identity in Studies in Church History XVIII (Oxford. 1982), pp. 1-19.
. "The Christology o f the C hurch o f the E ast in the Synods o f the Fifth to the E arly Seventh
Centuries: Prelim inary Considerations and M aterials," in his Syriac Perspectives on Late
Antiquity (cited supra), repr. from Aksum-Thyateira: A Festschriftfor Archbishop Methodios,
ed. by G. Dragas (London, 1985), pp. 125-142.
. "Syriac Historical W riting: A Survey o f the M ain Sources," in his Syriac Perspectives on Late
Antiquity (cited supra), repr. from Journal o f the Iraqi Academy (Syriac Corporation) V
(Baghdad, 1979/1980), pp. 297-326.
. "Syriac Sources for Seventh-Century History," BMGS 2 (1976), pp. 17-36.
Brosset, M -F. "Additions au M em oire' sur les docum ens originaux concem ant Georgie," NJA (1832),
pp. 168-190.
. Chronique giorgienne. Paris, 1830.
. "De la chronologie technique gdorgienne, ecclesiastique et civile," Bulletin de IAcademie
Imperiale des Sciences de Saint-Petersbourg 22 (1875), pp. 455-488.
. Etudes de Chronologie technique. Vol. 11/13, Memoires de lAcademie Imperiale des Sciences
de St-P&tersbourg, 7th ser. SPB, 1868.
787
. "Histoire des B agratides ggorgiens, d'apres les auteurs arm gniens et grecs, jusqu'au
commencement du XI6 siecle," in his Additions et eclmrdssements a I'histoire de la Georgie.
SPB, 1851. See especially "A ddition IX," pp. 138-188."
B ryer, Anthony. "Some Notes on the Laz and Tzan," BK 21-22 (1966), pp. 174-195. and 23-24 (1967).
pp. 161-168.
Burney, C harles and D avid M arshall Lang. The Peoples o f the Hills: Ancient Ararat and Caucasus.
London: W eidenfeld and Nicolson, 1971.
C See also Ts
C anard, M arius. "L'aventure caucasienne du spathaire Leon le fiitur em pereur Leon HL" REArm, n.s. 8
(1971), pp. 353-357, repr. as study 22 in his Byzance et lesMusulmcms du Proche Orient.
London: Variorum R eprints, 1973.
. "Arm iniya," E p , vol. 1. Pp. 634-650.
C arile, Antonio. "II Caucaso e llm perio B uzantino (secoli V I-X I)," in SSCISSM. vol. 43a = II Caucaso:
Cemiera fra Culture dal Mediterraneo alia Persia. Spoleto: Presso la Sede del Centro. 1996.
Pp. 9-83.
Cary, George. The Medieval Alexander. Ed. by D.J.A. Ross. Cam bridge: Cam bridge UP, 1956.
C eret'eli See also Tsereteli
C eret'eli, G. [Tsereteli]. "Armazskoe pis'm o i problem a proiskhozhdeniia gruzinskogo alfavita,"
Epigrafika Vostoka 2 (1948), pp. 90-101 and 3 (1949), pp. 59-71.
C eret'eli, Konstantine. "'Sirielisa1da 'asurelis1aghm nishvneli et'n ik u ri term inebi k 'art'u lsh i," in Ivane
javaxishvilis dabadebis 100 clist'avisamdi midzghvnili saiubileo krebuli = Iubileinyi sbomik
posviashchennyi 100-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia akademika IA . Dzhavakhishvili. T b ilisi:
M ec'., 1976. Pp. 177-188.
C h'ach'anidze, V. Petr Iver i arkheologicheskie raskopki gruzinskogo monastyria v Ierusalime. Tbilisi:
M ec'., 1977. Eng. sum ., "Petre the Iberian and Excavations o f a G eorgian M onastery in
Jerusalem ," pp. 221-233.
Cbabot, J.-B. "Pierre l'lberien eveque m onophysite de M ayouma (Gaza) a la fin du V sifccle," ROL 3
(1895), pp. 367-393 (repr. as Bruxelles, 1964).
Charachidzg, Georges. Introduction a I'etude de la Jeodalite georgienne (le code de Georges le
Brillant). HEIOHC, vol. 1. Gengve: Librairie Droz, 1971.
. "Le symbolisme de l'arbre et de la vigne en Georgie," BK 23-24 (1967), pp. 105-118.
. Le systeme religieux de la Georgie palenne: analyse structurale d'une civilisation. Paris:
Francois M aspero, 1968.
C haranis, Peter. "Arm enians and Greeks in th e Byzantine Em pire," AR 25 (Spr. 1972), pp. 24-32.
. The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire. Lisbon: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, 1963.
788
Chaumont, M arie-Louise. "A lbania," EI~. Vol. 1, pp. 806-810.
. Recherches sur I'Histoire d'Armenie de Vavenement des Sassanides a la conversion du royaume.
Paris: Librairie O rientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1969.
Cheishvili, Giorgi. "Levkot'eas sam loc'velos adgilmdebareobis sakit'xisat'vis," Shromebi-istoriia 310
(1992), pp. 35-47. Eng. sum ., "On the Location o f the Temple o f Leucothea." pp. 46-47.
. "Pariadres adgilm debareobisat'vis," Mac'ne 3 (1986), pp. 118-127. Rus. sum ., "K voprosu o
lokalizatsii Pariadra," p. 127.
. Samxret'-dasavlet'sak'art'veios (mesxet'is) istoriuli geograp'iissakit'xebi antikur xanashi.
T b ilisi, 1994. Rus. sum ., "Voprosy istoricheskoi geografii Iugo-Zapadnoi G ruzii (M eskheti) v
antichnuiu epokhu," pp. 21-22.
Chilasbvili, Levan. K'alak'i p'eodalur sak'art'veloshi. Vol. 1. T b ilisi: M ec'., 1968. Rus. sum.,
"Goroda v feodal'noi G ruzii," pp. 130-141.
Chrysos, Evangeios K. "The T itle BAEIAEYE in Early Byzantine International R elations," DOP 32
(1978), pp. 29-75. NB: See especially part 2, "The C lient Kingdoms o f th e Em pire in the East":
Armenia, pp. 36-39; and L azika/Iberia, pp. 39-41.
C h xartishvili, M arina. "Araki sin d t'a m ep'isa," in Giuli Alasania, ed., K'art'uli cqarot'mc'odneoba.
Vol. 8. T b ilisi: M ec'., 1993. Pp. 55-67. Eng. sum., "The Parable o f the K ing o f [the] Sinds," p.
67.
Ch'xeidze, T eo . Aghzrdisinstituti sasanuriranshi. T b ilisi: M ec'., 1979. Rus. sum ., "Sistem a
vospitaniia v sasanidskom Irane," pp. 60-69.
. Imennoe slovoobrazovanie vpersidskom iazyke. Tbilisi: Mec., 1969.
. "Iranuli cannom avlobis sak u t'ari saxelebi k'art'ulshi," Mac'ne 4 (1987), pp. 95-105. Rus. sum.,
"Iranskie antroponim y v gruzinskom ," pp. 104-105.
. Narkvevebi iranuli onomastikidan. T b ilisi: M ec'., 1984. Rus. sum ., pp. 90-92.
Cilosani, V. "G egut'i c'ixe-darbazi," in I. Javaxishvili. ed., Shot'a rust'avelis epok'is materialuri
kultura. T b ilisi: G am om c'em loba tek 'nik a da shroma, 1938. Pp. 451-467.
C ' inc'adze, Iase. "C'nobebi ru set'is shesaxeb k 'a rt'u l cqaroebshi da sak'art'veios shesaxeb rusul
cqaroebshi XL XH, X m ss.," MoambeMarr 4/2 (1938), pp. 73-100.
C 'inc'adze, M arina. "Sak'art'velo da k 'art'v eleb i X-XI saukuneebis sparsul cqaroebshi," Mac'ne 4
(1984), pp. 84-94. Rus. sum ., "G ruziia i gruziny v persidskikh istochnikakh X-XI vekov," pp.
93-94.
C kit' ishvili, Otar. "About the H istory o f Arab-Georgian Socio-Economic and P olitical Interrelations (7th
-8th Centuries)," REGC 1 (1985), pp. 127-140.
Cowe, S. Peter. "Generic and M ethodological Developments in Theology in C aucasia from the Fourth
to the Eleventh Centuries W ithin an E ast Christian Context," in SSCISSM, vol. 43b = II
Caucaso: Cemiera fra Culture dal Mediterraneo alia Persia. Spoleto: Presso la Sede del
Centro, 1996. Pp. 647-683.
789
Dabrowa, Edward. "Roman Policy in Transcaucasia from Fompey to Dom itian," in D.H. French and
C.S. Lightfoot eds., The Eastern Frontier o f the Roman Empire. BAR, vol. 553(i).
London, 1989. Pp. 67-76.
D agron, G ilbert "Forms et fonctions du pluralism e linguistique &Byzance (D ^ -X I^ siecle)." TM 12
(1994), pp. 219-240.
. "M inorities ethniques et religieuses dans l'O rient byzantin &la fin du X et au XIe siecle:
I'inunigration syrienne," 7 2 /6 (1976), pp. 177-216.
Deeters, G., G.R. Solta, and V ahan Inglisian. Armenisch und Kaukasische Sprachen. Handbuch der
Orientalistik, vol. 7. Leiden-Kdln: E.J. B rill, 1963. Includes D eeters, "Georgische Literatur."
pp. 129-155.
Demogrqficheskaia situatsiia v Prichemomor'e v period velikoi grechekoi koionizatsii: Materialy II

Vsesoiitznogo simpoziuma po drevnei istorii Prichemomoria Tskhaltubo1979. T bilisi:
M ec'., 1981. Eng. sum ., pp. 395-431.
Devreesse, Robert. La Patriarcat dA ntioche depuis la paix de Teglise jusqua la conquete arabe. Paris:
Librairie Lecoffre, 1945.
Dictionary o f the Middle Ages. Ed. by Joseph R. Strayer. New York: Charles Scribners Sons. 1986.
Didebulidze, Z.Sh. Kul'tumye vziamosviazi narodov Gruzii i tsentralnogo Predkavkazia v X-XII vekakh.
Tbilisi: M ec'., 1983.
Dj - See also J
Djobadze, W achtang Z. "A B rief Survey o f the M onastery o f St. George in H anzt'a," OC 78 (1994), pp.
145-176.
. "The Georgian Churches o f T ao-K laijet'i: Construction Methods and M aterials," OC 62 (1978).
pp. 114-134.
. Materials for the Study o f Georgian Monasteries in the Western Environs ofAntioch on the
Orontes. CSCO, vol. 327, subsidia 48. Louvain, 1976.
. "Medieval Bread Stam ps from A ntioch and Georgia," OC 63 (1979), pp. 163-176.
. "Observations on the A rchitectural Sculpture o f Tao-K laijet'i Churches Around O ne Thousand
A D .," in Studien zur spdtantiken und byzantinischen Kunst Friedrich Wilhelm Deichmann
gewidmet. V oL2. Bonn: Dr. R udolf Habelt GMBH, 1986. Pp. 81-100.
D ondua,V . Saistorio dziebani. Vol. 2 o f Istoricheskie razyskaniia. T b ilisi: Mec., 1973.
Doresse, Jean. The Secret Books o f the Egyptian Gnostics: An Introduction to the Gnostic Coptic
Manuscripts Discovered at Chenoboskion. New York: Viking Press, 1960.
Dowling, Archdeacon. Sketches o f Georgian Church History. London: Society for Prom oting C hristian
Knowledge, 1912.
Dowsett, C.J.F. "Arm enian H istoriography," in Bernard Lewis and P.M. H o lt eds., Historians o f the
Middle East. London-New York: Oxford UP, 1962. Pp. 259-268.
790
Drijvers, Hans J.W . "The Persistence o f Pagan C ults and Practices in Christian Syria," in his East o f
Antioch: Studies in Early Syriac Christianity. London: Variorum , 1984.
Dronke, Peter. Dante and Medieval Latin Traditions. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. 1986.
Dunlop, D.M . "B ardha'a," EI~, vol. 1. Pp. 1040-1041.
. The History o f the Jewish Khazars. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1954.
Dvornik, Francis. The Idea ofApostolicity in Byzantium and the Legend o f the Apostle Andrew.
Cam bridge, MA: H arvard UP, 1958.
Dzh - See also J
Dzhanashia See also Janashia
D zhanashia, S.N. [Janashia]. "Abkhaziia v sostave kolkhidskogo tsarstva i Laziki: obrazovanie
'abkhazskogo tsarstva,'" Mac'ne 2 (1991), pp. 18-49.
Dzhanashvili See Janashvili
Dzhaparidze, Vaxtang. [Jap'aridze]. Arkheologicheskie pamiatnifd feodal'noi Gruzii. 3 vols. Tbilisi:
Mec*., 1969 (vol. 1).
Dzhavakhishvili See Javaxishvili
Dziebani sak art velosa da kavkasiis istoriidan. T b ilisi: Mec., 1976.

E.K. [Bishop K wrion/Kirion], Dvenadtsativekovaia religioznaia borba pravoslccmoi Gruzii s Islamom.
Tiflis, 1899.
Eastmond, Antony. "Royal Renewal in Georgia: The Case o f Queen Tam ar," in Paul M agdalino. ed.. New
Constantines: The Rhythm o f Imperial Renewal in Byzantium, 4th-13th Centuries. London:
Variorum , 1994. Pp. 283-293.
Edwards, Robert W. "The Fortifications o f Artvin: A Second Prelim inary Report on the M archlands o f
N ortheast Turkey," DOP 40 (1986), pp. 165-182.
. "The V ale o f Kola: A Final Prelim inary Report on the M archlands of Northeast Turkey," DOP
42 (1988), pp. 119-141.
Em in,N .O . "Evreiskie pereselentsy v drevnei Arm enii," in his Izsledovaniia i stati. Moskva. 1896. Pp.
117-121.
. "M akhomed po arm ianskim istochnikam ," in his Izsledovaniia i stat'i. Moskva, 18%. Pp. 335354.
. "Ocherk religii i verovanii iazycheskikh arm ian," in his Izsledovaniia i stat'i. Moskva, 1896.
Pp. 7-60.
Eriashvili, Zhuzhuna. Udzvelesi soc ialur-religiuri institutebi sak'art velos mt'ianet'shi. T b ilisi:
M ec'., 1982. Rus. sum., "Drevneishie sotsialno-religioznye instituty vgornykh raionakh
G ruzii," pp. 191-1% .
791
Erickson, John H. "Autocephaly in Orthodox C anonical L iterature to th e T hirteenth Century," SVTO

15/1-2 (1971), pp. 28-41.
Eritsov, A. "Istoricheskii ocherk torgovykh putei soobshcheniia v drevnem Zakavkaz'u"5S/T 1 (1871), pp.
33-57.
van Esbroeck, M ichel. "The Credo o f Gregory the W onderworker and its Influence through Three
Centuries," SP 19 (1989), pp. 255-266.
. "Eglise georgienne des origines au moyen age," B K 40 (1982), pp. 186-199.
. "Les eglises orientales non syriennes," LeM 106/1-2 (1993), pp. 97-117.
. "On the Etym ology o f Georgian bzoba: The B ranch and the Box-Tree," in Studio Caucasologica
I: Proceedings o f the Third Caucasian Colloquium in Oslo, July 1986, ed. by Fredirik
Thordarson. O slo: The Institute for Comparative Research in Hum an Culture/Norwegian UP.
1988. Pp. 42-50.
. "Euthyme lH agorite: le traducteur et ses traductions," REGC 4 (1988), pp. 72-107.
. "Lazique, M ingrelie, Svandthie et Aphkhazie du IV au IX sidcle," in SSCISSM, vol. 43a = II
Caucaso: Cemiera fra Culture dal Mediterraneo alia Persia. Spoleto: Presso la Sede del
Centro, 1996. Pp. 195-222.
. "Primautd, P atriarcats, Catholicossats, Autocephalies en O rient," in II Primato de! Vescovo di
Roma nel Primo Millennio = voL 4, Pontifico Comitato di Scienze Storiche: Atti e Documenti.
Citttk del V aticano: L ibreria Editrice Vaticana, 1991. Pp. 493-521.
. "La religion georgienne pre-chretienne," inANRW. vol. 18. Berlin-N ew York: W alter de
Gruyter, 1990. Pp. 2694-2725.
. "The Rise o f Saint Bartholomew's Cult in Arm enia from the Seventh to the Thirteenth
Centuries," in Thom as J. Sam uelian and M ichael E. Stone, eds.. Medieval Armenian Culture.
Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982. Pp. 161-178.
. "Le roi Sanatrouk et l'apotre Thaddee." REArm, n.s. 9 (1972), pp. 241-283.
. "La Stavrotheque de Sahakdoukht," Communication de M. van Esbroeck au n Symposium
International de l'A rt Georgien a Tbilissi. Unpub. typescript
. "Vakhtang G orgasali et 1'eveque M ikael de M tskhetha." Unpub. typescript.
Evans, A rthur J. "M ycenaean Tree and Pillar Cult and its M editerranean Relations," JHS 21 (1901), pp.
99-204.
Fahnrich, Heinz. Geschichte Georgiens von den Anfrlngen biszurMongolenherrscha.fr. Aachen: Verlag
Shaker, 1993.
Farag, Wesam A. Byzantium and its Muslim Neighbors during the Reign o f Basil II. Ph.D. Diss.,
University of Birmingham, 1979.

Fessenden, Reginald Aubrey. The Deluged Civilization o f the Caucasus Isthmus. Boston, 1923 (later
supplem ent New York: 1933).
792
Feurstein, Wolfgang. "VBlker d er Kolchis: Aspekte ihrer M ythologie u n d M figlichkeiten eines

Vergleichs," in C atherine P aris, ed., Caucasologie et Mythologie Comparee: Actes du Colloque
International duCNRSH fr Colloque de Caucasologie (S&vres, 27-29juin 1988). SELAF, vol.
23. Paris, Peeters, 1992. Pp. 127-137.
Fine, Jr., John V.A. The Bosnian Church, A New Interpretation: A Study o f the Bosnian Church and Its
Place in State and Societyfrom the 13th to the 15th Centuries. EEM. vol. 10. Boulder. CO:
East European Q uarterly, 1975.
. The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Surveyfrom the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century. Ann
Arbor: The U niversity o f M ichigan Press, 1983.
Forsyth, John Harper. The Byzantine-Arab Chronicle (938-1034) ofYahya b. Sa'idal-Antaki. Ph.D.
Diss., The University o f M ichigan, 1977. 2 vols.
Foss, Clive. "The Persians in A sia M inor and the End o f Antiquity," EHR 90 (1975), pp. 721-747.
Frend, W.C.H. "The M issions o f th e E arly Church 180-700 A.D." MHE, vol. 3. Ed. by D erek Baker.
Louvain: Publications U niversitaires de Louvain, 1970. Pp. 3-23.
. The Rise o f the Monophysite Movement. Cambridge: Cam bridge UP, 1972.
Frye, Richard N. "Arran" [C aucasian Albania], / , vol. 1. Pp. 660-661.
. "The Charisma o f K ingship in Ancient Iran," Iranica Antiqua 4 (Leiden, 1964), pp. 36-54.
. The Heritage o f Persia. Cleveland, OH-New York: W orld Publishing, 1963.
. The Golden Age o f Persia: The Arabs in the East. London: W eidenfeld and Nicolson. 1975.
. "Pahlevi H eterography in A ncient Georgia?," in Archaeologica Oriental/a in Memoriam Ernst
Herzfeld. Ed. by G eorge C. M iles. Locust Valley, NY: J.J. A ugustin, 1952. Pp. 89-101 + plate
XX.
. "The Political H istory o f Iran under the Sasanians," in CHI. Vol. 3/1. Cambridge: Cambridge
UP, 1983. Pp. 116-180.
Gabashvili, Valerian. "K 'art'ul-sparsu li kulturuli urt'iert'obani (X s.)," Mac'neenisa 4 (1983), pp. 3345. Rus. sum., "G ruzino-persidskie kultumye sviazi (X v.)," p. 45.
Gadd, C.J. Ideas o f Divine Rule in the Ancient East = The Schweich Lectures o f the B ritish Academy,
1945. London: B ritish Academy, 1948.
Gadlo, A.V. Etnicheskaia istoriia sevemogo Kavkaza X-XUI w . SPB: Izd-vo SPB Universiteta, 1994.
Gamkrelidze, G.A. Karkheologii dolinyFasisa (Rioni). Tbilisi: M ec'. 1992.
. "From Colchian M ythology (O chopintre-A Pan-Type God)." P re-p rin t Tbilisi, 1990.
Gamqrelidze, T amaz. [G am krelidze]. Ceris anbanuri sisterna da dzveli k'art'uli damcerloba =
Alfavitnoepismo i drevnegruzinskaiapismennost. T b ilisi: T U G , 1989. Eng. sum. on flaps.
793
. "On the H istory o f the T ribal Names o f Ancient Colchis (On the historical-etym ological relation
o f the ethnym s 'Apxaz-IAbazg- a n d 'AbazalApswcr1)," REGC 6-7 (1990-1991), pp. 237-245.
Gamsaxurdia, K onstantine. [Gam sakhurdia] David StroiteV: istorichesldi roman-tetralogiia. Trans, by
E. A naiashvili, G . G agareli, V. E l'sner, M . Gamsaxurdia, A. Fokin, an d L . Platonova. Vol. 3-4.
Sobranie sochenenii. T bilisi: M erani, 1974-1975.
. Desintsa velikogo mastera. Trans, by Fat'my Tvaltvadze. Vol. 2 Sobranie sochenenii. Tbilisi:
M erani, 1972.
. "Veretragna, t'raetao n a da 'c'xovreba vaxtang gorgaslisa," Mac'ne 1 (1988), pp. 113-120.
Rus. sum., "V eretragna, Traetaona, i Zhizn* Vakhtanga Gorgasala," p. 120.
Gamsaxurdia, Svimon, N odar Shoshiashvili, and Zaza Xidureli. Sak'art'veios saxelmcip 'o droshebi da
gerbebi. T b ilisi: M erani, 1990.
Garitte, Gerard. Documents pour Ietude du livre dAgathange. ST, vol. 127. C itta del Vaticano:
Biblioteca A postolica V aticana, 1946.
. "L iterature spirituelle georgienne," in Dictionnaire de spirituelite. Paris, 1967. Pp. 244-256.
. "La Passion des saintes Rhipsim iennes en georgien (Agathange, ch. XIII-XIV)," LeM 75 (1962),
pp. 233-251.
. "Les recents catalogues des m anuscrits georgiens de Tiflis," LeM 74/3-4 (1961), pp. 387-422.
Garsoian, N ina G. Armenia Between Byzantium and the Sasanians. London: V ariorum Reprints. 1985.
. "Armenia: H istory of," in DMA, vol. 1. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1982. Pp. 474-487.
. "Armenia in the Fourth Century: An Attempt to Re-define the Concepts 'A rm enia' and
Loyalty'," REArm, n.s. 8 (1971), pp. 341-352.
. "Byzantium an d the Sasanians," in CHI. Vol. 3/1. Cambridge: Cam bridge UP, 1983. Pp. 568592.
-. "The Early-M edieval A rm enian City: A n Alien Element?," JANES 16-17 (1984-1985), pp. 6783.
-. "Iran and C aucasia, in Ronald G rigor Suny, ed., Transcaucasia, Nationalism and
Social Change. A nn A rb o r M ichigan Slavic Publications, 1983. Pp. 7-23.
-. "The Iranian Substratum o f the 'A gat'angelos' Cycle," in Garsoian, T. M atthews, and
R. Thomson, eds., East o f Byzantium: Syria and Armenia in the Formative Period. W ashington,
DC: Dum barton Oaks, 1982. Pp. 151-174.
-. "The Locus o f th e D eath o f K ings: Iranian ArmeniaThe Inverted Im age," in R ichard G.
Hovannisian, ed., The Armenian Image in History and Literature. M alibu, CA: Undena
Pub., 1981. Pp. 27-64.
. "Pakourianos," iaODB, vol. 3 (1991). P. 1553.
-. "Prolegomena to a Study o f the Iranian Aspects in Arsacid Arm enia," HA 90 (Vienna, 1976), pp.
177-234.
794
. "Secular Jurisdiction over the A rm enian Church (Fourth-Seventh Centuries)," HUS 7 (1984), pp.
220-250.
. "Some Prelim inary Precisions on the Separation o f the A rm enian and Im perial Churches," in
K A G H rH 'lPIA : Essays Presented to Joan Husseyfo r Her 80th Birthday. Camberiey, Surrey:
Porphyrogenitus, 1988. Pp. 249-285.
Garsoian, Nina and Bernadette M artin-H isard. "Unite et diversite de la Caucasie medievale (IV^-XI s.)."
in SSCISSM, vol. 43a = II Caucaso: Cemiera fra Culture dal Mediterraneo alia Persia. Spoleto:
Presso la Sede del Centro, 1996. Pp. 275-361.
Geary, Patrick J. Phantoms ofRemembrance: Memory and Oblivion at the End o f the First Millennium.
Princeton: Princeton UP, 1994.
Geiushev, R.B. Khristianstvo v kavkazskoi Albanii. Baku: Elm , 1984.
"Georgia," in Encyclopedia Judaica. Vol. 7. Jerusalem, 1971. Pp. 423-427.
Gervers, Michael and Ramzi Jibran B ikhazi, eds., Conversion and Continuity: Indigenous Christian
Communities in Islamic Lands, Eighth to Eighteenth Centuries. Papers in Mediaeval Studies,

vol. 9. Toronto: Pontifical Institute o f Mediaeval Studies, 1990.
Ghambashidze, D avit'. Gelat'ismonasteri da c'xovrebisaghcerloba mep'isdavit'IIIaghmashenebelisa.
Kutals [K 'ut'aisi], 1893.
G honti, Alek'sandre. "Dzveli k 'a rt'u li t'arighebi," Drosha 12 (1977), p. 10, repr. w ith vocabulary notes
in Aronson, Georgian: A Reading Grammar, pp. 360-363.
Giorgadze, G. At'asighvt'aebisk'veqana (xet'ebi daxet'uri c'ivilizac'ia). T b ilisi: M ec'.. 1988.
G ippert, Jost "Old Arm enian and C aucasian Calendar Systems," ASSC 1 (1989), pp. 3-12.
Giunashvili, Dzh. "Apkaz" [A p'xaz], in Elran, vol. 1. London-New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul,
1985. Pp. 222-224.
G oiladze, Vaxtang. K'art'uli eklesiis sat'aveebt'an. T b ilisi: Sakartvelo, 1991.
. Vaxtanggorgasali damisi istorikosi. T b ilisi: M ec'., 1991. Rus. sum ., "Vakhtang Gorgasali i
ego istorik," pp. 205-207.
Golden, Peter B. "Cumanica I: The Q ipchaqs in Georgia," AEMA 4 (1984), pp. 45-87.
. Khazar Studies: An Historico-Philological Inquiry into the Origins o f the Khazars. BOH, vols.
XXV/1 and XXV/2. Budapest: Akadem iai Kiado, 1980.
. "The Oghuz Turkic (Ottom an/Safavid) Elements in Georgian: Background and Patterns," in
Abraham Ascher, Tibor Halasi-Knn, and Bela K. Kir&ly, eds., The Mutual Effects o f the Islamic
and Judeo-Christian Worlds: The East European Pattern. SSC, vol. 3. Brooklyn, NY:
Brooklyn College Press, 1979. Pp. 183-208.
. "The Turkic Peoples and Caucasia." Kennan Institute for A dvanced Russian Studies, The
Wilson Center, #92. W ashington, DC, ca. 1980.
795
Gordeziani, Rism ag. K'art'uli t'vit'shegnebis ch'amoqalibebisproblema. T b ilisi: T U G , 1993.

Gorgadze, S.R- "Cerilebi sak'art'veios istoriidan." Part 1 = "M ep'e aderiri da, egret' codebuli, orm ep'oba dzvel iverashi," in Dzveli sak'art'velo, ed. by E. T aq alsh v ili. VoL 1. T p'ilisi. 1909.
Pp. 43-68. P art 2 = "Aderiridan m irianamde," in ibid. Vol. 2. T pilisi, 1911/13. Pp. 1-84.
. Sak'art'veios dzveli istoria: sistematuri kursi sashualo skolisat'vis. K 'u t'a isi. 1920.
Gosselin, Edw ard A. The Kings Progress to Jerusalem: Some Interpretations o f David during the
Reformation Period and their Patristic and Medieval Background. Vol. 2 o f Humana Civilitas.
M alibu, CA: Undena Publications, 1976.
Goubert, Paul. Byzance avant IIslam. VoL 1, Byzance et VOrient. Paris, 1951. Esp., "Byzance et la
Georgie," pp. 225-246.
Gozalishvili, G.K. "O drevnem torgovom puti v Zakavkaze," TrudyJavax. 2 (1956), pp. 153-160.
Greenfield, J.C . "A ram aic in the Achaemenian Em pire," in CHI, vol. 2 (Cam bridge: Cambridge UP,
1985), pp. 698-713.
Gr^goire, H. "The Am orians and M acedonians 842-1025," in CMH, vol. 4/1. Cambridge: CUP, 1966.
Pp. 105-192.
. "Le A rm eniens entre Byzance et ITsIam," Byzantion 10 (1935). pp. 665-667.
Griffith, Sidney H. "The M onks o f Palestine and the Growth o f C hristian Literature in Arabic." in his
Arabic Christianity in the Monasteries o f Ninth-Century Palestine. London: Variorum, 1992.
Repr. from The Muslim World 78 (1988), pp. 1-28.
Grigolia, Alexander. "The Caucasus and the Ancient Pre-Greco-Roman C ulture W orld," BK 34-35
(1960), pp. 97-104.
. Custom and Justice in the Caucasus: The Georgian Highlanders. Philadelphia, 1939.
Grigolia, G. "Dzveli kolxet'is sakalak'o c'entrebis (Petra) lokalizac'iis sakitxebi," SIGK 7 (1989), pp.
37-81. Rus. sum ., "Voprosy lokalizatsii gorodskikh tsentrov (Petra) drevnei Kolkhidy," p. 81.
Grigolia, K onstantine. Axali k'art'lis c'xovreba. Vol. 1, Narkvevebi sak'art'veios istoriis
cqarot'mc'odneobidan. T b ilisi: T U G , 1954.
G rigorian, G.M . Ocherki istorii Siunika IX-XV w . Erevan: Izd-vo AN Arm ianskoi SSR, 1990.
Grousset, Rene. Histoirede IArmenie des origines a 1071. Paris: Payot, 1973.
GrumeL V. La Chronologie. Vol. 1, Traite detudes byzantines. Paris: Bibliotheque Byzantine/Presses
U niversitaires de France, 1958.
Gugushvili, A. "The Chronological-Genealogical Table o f the K ings o f G eorgia," Georgica 1/2-3
(Oct. 1936), pp. 109-153.
. "Ethnographical and Historical Division o f Georgia," Georgica 1/2-3 (Oct. 1936), pp. 53-71.
Guilland, Rodolphe. "C hartulaire et Grand Chartulaire," RESEE IX (1971), pp. 405-426.
796
. "Curopalate," Byzantina 2 (1970), pp. 187-249.

. "Patrices du regne de Basil n," JOB 20 (1971), pp. 83-108.
. Titres etfonctions de I'Empire byzantin. London: Variorum Reprints. 1976.
Gulbekian, E.V. "The Significance o f th e N arrative D escribing the Traditional O rigin o f the A rm enians."
LeM 86/3-4 (1973), pp. 365-375.
Gulia, D. Istoriia Abkhazii. Tiflis, 1925.
Gvasalia, Jondo [Dzhondo], Aghmosavlet' sak'art'veios istoriuli geograp'iis narkvevebi (Shida k'art'li).
. Istoricheskaia geografiia vostochnoi Gruzii (Shida Kartli). Tbilisi: T U G , 1991. Eng. sum ..
"Historical Geography o f E ast G eorgia (Shida K artli)," pp. 211-221.
Gvaxaria, A lek'sandre. "K 'art'ul-sparsuli literaturuli u rt'iert'o b is sat'aveebt'an." in M. T o d u a. ed..
Sparsul-k'art'uli c'dani. T b ilisi: M ec'., 1987. Pp. 3-13. Rus. sum ., "U istokov gruzino
persidskikh literatum ykh sviazei," p. 13.
Hakobyan, T .X . Aniipatmiwt'yiwn. Erevan: Erevani ham alsarani hratarakchiw t'yiw n. 1980.
Haldon, J.F. Byzantium in the Seventh Century: The Transformation o f a Culture. Cam bridge:
Cam bridge UP, 1990.
H annestad, K. "Les Relations de Byzance avec la Transcaucasie et l'Asie centrale aux 5e et 6e siecles,"
Byzantion 25-27/2 (1955-1957), pp. 421-456.
Hanson, R.P.C. The Search for the Christian Doctrine o f God: The Arian Controversy 318-381.
Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988.
Ham ack, Adolf. The Mission and Expansion o f Christianity in the First Three Centuries. T rans. an d ed.
by James Moffatt. 2 vols. New Y ork: G.P. Putnam 's Sons, 1908.
H arris, A lice C.. ed. The Indigenous Languages o f the Caucasus, vol. 1 = The Kartvclian Languages.
Delm ar, NY: Caravan Books. 1991. Includes: J. Neville Birdsall. "Georgian Paleography." pp.
87-128, and Heinz Fahnrich. "O ld Georgian." pp. 131-217.
von Hauxthausen, Baron August. The Tribes o f the Caucasus with an Account ofSchamyl and the
Murids. Trans, by J.E. Taylor. London, 1855.
Heiser, Lothar. Die georgische orthodoxe Kirche und ihr Glaubenszeugnis. Trier: Paulinus-V erlag,
1989.
Herzfeld, Ernst. The Persian Empire: Studies in Geography and Ethnography o f the Ancient Near East
Edited From the Posthumous Papers by Gerold Walser. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1968.
Hewitt, G. "Georgian: A Noble Past, A Secure Future," in I. Kreindler, ed., Sociolinguistic Perspectives
on Soviet National Languages: Their Past, Present, and Future. Vol. 40, Contributions to
the Sociology o f Language. B erlin-N ew York-Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter, 1985. Pp. 163179.
797
. "The V alid and Non-V alid A pplication o f Philology to History," REGC 6-7 (1990-1991). pp.
247-263.
Hewsen, R obert H. "Ethno-History and the A rm enian Influence upon the Caucasian Albanians." in
Thom as J. Samuelian, ed., Classical Armenian Culture: Influences and Creativity. ATS, vol. 4.
A tlanta: Scholars Press, 1982.
. "Introduction to Arm enian H istorical Geography," REArm. n.s. 13 (1978-1979). pp. 77-97.
. "Introduction to Armenian H istorical G eography IV: The Vitaxates o f Arsacid A rm enia. A
Reexam ination of the Territorial Aspects o f the Institution," REArm, n.s. 2 1 (1988-1989). pp.
271-319 (part 1), and REArm, n.s. 22 (1990-1991), pp. 147-183 (part 2=IV. The V itaxate of
M oskhia: The Iberian M arch).
. "Moses o f Khoren as a Historical Source," AR 39/2 (Sum. 1986), pp. 49-70.
. "The Primary History ofArmenia: An Exam ination o f the Validity o f an Immemorially
Transm itted Historical Tradition." History in Africa 2 (1975), pp. 91-100.
H itchins, K eith. "The Caucasian Albanians and the A rab C aliphate in the Seventh and Eighth
Centuries," BK 42 (1984), pp. 234-245.
Hobsbawm, E ric and Terence Ranger, eds., The Invention o f Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge UP,
1984.
Holisky, Dee Ann. "The Rules o f the Supra or How to D rink in Georgian," ASSC I (1989), pp. 22-40.
H oningm ann, E. "The Patriarch o f Antioch," Traditio 5 (1947), pp. 135-161.
Husseinov, R auf A. "Sources svriaques de rhisto ire de la Transcaucasie aux X^XIV siecles." BK 32
(1974), pp. 255-264.
Inadze, M. "Pirvel c'nobebi k 'a la c'k ' kwtias shesaxeb," in Kavkasiur-axloaghmosavluri krebuli, vol. 7.
T b ilisi: M ec'., 1984. Pp. 152-161. Eng. sum ., "The Earliest Information Concerning K utaiaK utaisi," p. 168.
. Prichemomorskiegoroda drevnei Kolkhidy. Tbilisi: M ec.. 1968. Eng. sum .. "The Coastal
C ities o f Ancient Colchis," pp. 268-269.
. "K voprosu o skeptukhiiakh kolkhidskogo tsarstva," Moambe 26/6 (1961). pp. 783-790.
Ingoroqva, Pavle. "D zvel-k'art'uli carm art'uli kalendari." SKIM 6 (1929-1930), pp. 373-446, and 7
(1931-1932), pp. 260-336.
. Giorgi merch'ule: k'art'veli mcerali meat'e saukunisa. T b ilisi: Sabchot'a mcerali, 1954.
. "K 'art'u li mcerlobis istoriis mokle m im oxilva." Mnat'obi 1 (1939), pp. 163-188; 2 (1939), pp.
141-173; 4 (1939), pp. 94-138; 9 (1939), pp. 97-141; and 10-11 (1939), pp. 197-272.
. "The Path o f Development o f Georgian L iterature and Rnsfhveli," in Shot'ha Rust'hveli,
The Knight in the Tigers Skin, trans. by M arjory Scott W ardrop with E. Orbelyani and S.
Jordanishvili. Moscow: Co-operative Publishing Society o f Foreign Workers in the U.S.S.R.,
1938. Pp. x-xxiv.
798
Inostrantsev, K. "D revneishiia arabskiia izvestiia o prazdnovanii N auruza v sasanidskoi Persii."

ZVOIRAO 16/1 (1904), pp. 020-045.
Ioseliani, Platon. Opisanie drevnostei goroda Tiflisa. Tiflis, 1866.
. A Short History o f the Georgian Church. Trans, by Rev. S.C. M alan. London. 1866. repr. as
Jordanville, NY: Holy Trinity M onastery. 1983.
Isaac, Benjam in H. The Limits o f Empire: The Roman Army in the East. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1990.
Iuzbashian, K.N. Armianshe gosudarstva epokhi Bagratidovi Vizantiia IX-XI w . Moskva: Nauka. 1988.
. [Karen Y uzbashian]. "Le Caucase e t les Sassanides," in SSCISSM, vol. 43a = II Caucaso:
Cemiera fra Culture dal Mediterraneo alia Persia. Spoleto: Presso la Sede del Centro. 19%.
Pp. 143-167.
J See also D zh, D j
Jam beria, Zurab. "D acerili m elk'isedek kat'alikosisa svetic' xovelisadm i.1rogorc' saistorio cqaro
(sabut'is personologia)," in K'art'veli xabas tradiciuU sameumeo da sulieri kultura
(et'nograp'iuli krebuli). T b ilisi: Mec., 1987. Pp. 153-159. Rus. sum.," M tskhetskii dokument
XI veka k ak istoricheskii istochnik (personologiia dokum enta)," p. 159.
Janashia, [L.-]N. Lazar p arpec'is c'nobebi sak'art'veios shesaxeb. UCSSh, vol. 6. T b ilisi: M ec'.. 1962.
. Istoriul-cqarot'mc'odneobit'i narkvevebi. T b ilisi: M ec., 1986.
Janashia, N.S. "T he Religious Beliefs o f the Abkhasians," Georgica 1/4-5 (Autumn 1937), pp. 117-153.
Janashvili, M.G. [D zhanashvili] "Etimologiia kartvel'skikh etnograficheskikh i geograficheskikh im en."
SMOMPK 27 (1900), pp. 123-128.
. "Iveriitsii v Ispanii," SMOMPK 27 (1900), pp. 155-158.
. "Izgnanie Adama iz raia, Nimrod i sem' poslepotopnykh narodov: Kniga Nimroda," SMOMPK
29 (1901), pp. 19-44.
. "K artlis-tskhovrebaZhizn' Gruzii," SMOMPK 35 (1905), pp. 113-235.
. K'art'uli mcerloba. Part 2. Tpilisi, 1909.
. Tamarmep'e. Tpilisi, 1917.
Japaridze, G och'a. "Kartuli monetebi arabuli zedcerilebit (davit V-is spilendzis monetebi)," Mac'ne 4
(1989), pp. 89-94, w ith Rus. sum., "Gruzinskie m onety s arabskdmi nadpisiami (mednye monety
Davida V )," p. 94.
. "Ramdenime epizodi demetre I-is zeobis xanidan arabul istoriul cqaroebshi," Mac'ne 2 (1992),
pp. 117-125. Rus. sum., "NeskolTco epizodov iz epokhi tsarstvovaniia Demetre I v arabskikh
istoricheskikh istorchnikakh, p. 125.
JaqelL T am ar. "Sauplo xe alva," JV2 (1990), pp. 29-33.
799
Javaxishvili, Ivane [D zhavakhishvili. Dzhavakhov]. "Andria mocik 'ulisa da c~a ninos moghvaceoba
sak'art'veloshi, Moambe 5 (1900), pp. 55-70 and 6 (1900), pp. 18-50.
. "Drevnegruzinskaia istoricheskaia literature," in vol. 8 o f his Txzulebani t'ormet tomad
[CoUected W orks]. T b ilisi: T U G , 1977. Pp. 429-434.
. Dzveli k'art'uli saistorio mcerloba (V-XVIII ss.), book 1 o f his Istoriis mizani, cqaroebi da
met'odebi cinat' da axla. In vol. 8 o f his Txzulebani t'ormet tomad. T b ilisi: T U G . 1977. Pp.
19-372.
. Dzveli somxuri saistorio mcerloba. T p'ilisi: T U G , 1935.
. [J. Javakhishvili]. "The Folk-Tales and Ancient Pagan Religion o f the G eorgians. trans.
by M ichael Tseretheli. The Quest 3/2 (Jan. 1912), pp. 225-237.
. Gosudarstvennyi stroi drevnei Gruzii i drevnei Armenii. TRAGF, vol. 8. SPB, 1905.
. "K istorii tserkovnykh reform v drevnei Gruzii (Georgii Athonskii)," ZhMNP 351 (Jan. 1904).
pp. 358-372.
. "Istoriia tserkovnago razryra m ezhdu Gruziei i Armeniei v nachala V P veka. O ffprint from
Izvestiia imperatorskoi akademii nauk. SPB, 1908. Pp. 433-536.
. K'art'uli numizmatika da metrologia. Tpilisi, 1925.
. K'art'uli samart'lis istoria. 2 vols.. Tpilisi: T U G , 1928-1929.
. K'art'veli eris istoria. 2 n d ed . Tpilisi, 1928. See also his K'art'vel eris istoria. books 1-2
(Tpilisi, 1913).
. p . Dschawachoff] w ith A. von Ham ack. "Das M artyrium des heiligen Eustatius von M zchetha
(Aus dem Georgischen ubersetzt)," SKPAW tt (1901), pp. 875-902.
. "Ob odnom anonim nom gruzinskom istorike XTV veke," in vol. 8 o f his Txzulebani t'ormet
tomad. T b ilisi: T U G , 1977. Pp. 435-438.
. "Propovednicheskaia deiatel'nost' ap. Andreia i cv. Niny v G ruzii, ZhMNP 333 (1901), pp. 77113.
. Sak'art'veios ekonomiuri istoria. T p'ilisi, 1907.
. Sak'art'veiosmep'e da misi up'lebisistoria. Tpilisi, 1905.
. Sak'art'veiossazghvrebi: istoriuladda t'anamedrove t'valsazrisit'. T p 'ilisi: Saxeim cip'o
stamba, 1919.
. [J. Javakhishvili]. " S t George and the Moon-God," trans. by M ichael Tseretheli. The Quest 3/3
(Apr. 1912), pp. 528-545.
. "Terminy iskusstv i glavneishie svedeniia o pam iatnikakh iskusstva i m aterialnoi
kul'tuiy v drevnegruzinskoi literature, in h is Masalebi k'art'veli eris materialuri kulturis
istoriisat'vis, vol. 1, "M sheneblobis xelovneba dzvel sak'artveloshi." T b ilisi: M ec'., 1946.
Repr. ftaaxKhristianskii vostok 3/1 (1914), pp. 17-31.
800
Jenkins, Romilly. Byzantium: The Imperial Centuries, AD 610-1071. Toronto: University o f Toronto
Press, 1987 repr. (1966).
Johnson, M arshall D. The Purpose o f the Biblical Genealogies. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge UP,
1988.
Jones, A.H.M. Constantine and the Conversion o f Europe. Toronto-London: University o f Toronto
Press/M edieval Academy o f Am erica, 1978 (repr. from 1948).
Junker, H. "Das Awestaalphabet und d er U rsprung der arm enischen und georgischen Schrift," Caucasia
2 (1925), pp. 1-91 and 3 (1926), pp. 82-121.
Kaegi, W alter E. Byzantium and the Decline o f Rome. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1968.
. Byzantium and the Early Islamic Conquests. London-New York: Cambridge UP, 1992.
Esp. ch. 8, "Byzantium, Arm enia. Arm enians, and E arly Islam ic Conquests, pp. 181-204.
Kakabadze, Sargis. Chertyfeodalnago stroia i krest'iansMia povinnosti v Gruzii v kontse srednikh
vekov. Tiflis, 1912.
. Cmida nino da misi mnishvneloba sak'art'veios istoriashi. T p 'ilisi, 1912.
. "The Date o f the B uilding o f the C athedral o f T h e Living Pillar1," Georgica 1/2-3 (Oct. 1936).
pp. 78-91.
. Davit'aghmashenebelis mematianis vinaoba. T p 'ilisi, 1913.
. O drevne-gruzinskikh letopistsakh Xl-go stoletiia. Tiflis, 1912.
. "K istorii nazvaniia gor. Tiflisa," Saistorio krebuli, vol. 2. T p 'ilisi, 1928. Pp. 60-70.
. Me-XHIsauk. pirvel naxevrissak'art'veios kat'alikozebi. T p 'ilisi. 1913.
. Saistorio dziebani. T b ilisi: Saxelm cip'o gam om c'em loba, 1924.
. T'amar mep'e da misi mnishvneloba sak'art'veios istoriashi. T p 'ilisi. 1912.
. Vaxtang gorgasali da misi xana. T b ilisi: TU G /N ekeri, 1994 repr. (1958).
. Vinaoba mesxuri davit'nis k'ronifds avtorisa. T p 'ilisi, 1912.
Kalandadze, A. "Armazis ark'eologiuri ekspedic'iis cinascari angarishi," Moambe 2/3 (1937), pp. 365400.
K alistrate, M.M. Xopis monasteri da misi istoriuli cqaro 1089-1125 c. Axal-Senaki, 1894.
Kaloev, Boris Aleksandrovich. Osetiny (istoriko-etnograficheskoe issledovanie). M oskva: Nauka, 1967.
Kamer, Stephen A. Emperors and Aristocrats in Byzantium, 976-1081. Unpub. Ph.D. diss., Harvard
University, 1983.
Kam inskaia, I.V. "Labinskie varianty torgovykh dorog severo-zapadnogo Kavkaza," W 49 (1988), pp.
201-204.
801
K apanadze, D.G. "Rodovoi znak Bagrationov na gruzinskikh srednevekovykh monetakh," in

Ntmuzmaticheslai sbomik. Ed. by D.B. Shelova. P art 2. Moskva, 1957. Pp. 77-81.
Kaplan, Steven. The Monastic Holy Man and the Christianization o f Early Solomonic Ethiopia. SZK.
voL 73. W iesbaden: Franz Steiner V erlag, 1984.
K arbelashvili, Polievktos. Ierark'ia sak'art'veios ekklesiisa kat'alikosni da mghvdelt'-mt'avami. Book 1.
T b ilisi, 1904.
K arichashvili, D. "D avit' kuropalatis genealogia," in Dzveli sak'art'velo. ed. by E. T aqalshvili. Vol. 1.
T p 'ilisi, 1909. Pp. 30-35.
. T'amarmep'e (1184-1213). T p'ilisi, 1893.
. "V in unda iqves 'sum batis k'ronikis' avtori?," in Dzveli sak'art 'velo. ed. by E. T aqaishvili. Vol.
1. Tpilisi, 1909. Pp. 36-42.
Karst, Joseph. Litterature georgienne chretienne. Strasbourg: Librairie Bloud & Gay, 1934.
. Mythologie armeno-caucasienne et hetito-asianique. Strasbourg-Zurich: P.H. Heitz, 1948.
'"K 'artlis c'xovrebis problem ebi," Mac'ne 4 (1987), pp. 170-191. NB: a "roundtable" discussion o f
problem s related to K'art 'lis c 'xovreba. Includes: Goneli Araxam ia, "K ' art' lis c ' xovrebis1
dasacqisi nacilis shedgenilobis shescavlis m et'odisat'vis," pp. 171-173; Anri Bogveradze, "Leonti
m rovelis e rt'i istoriuli-politikuri k o n c'ep 'c'iis shesaxeb (leonti-juansheris identip'ikac'iisat'vis),"
pp. 173-177; S hot'a Badridze, "'K 'a rt'lis c'xovrebis ark'auli nacilis interpretac'iis sakit'xebi,"
pp. 177-180; E disher Xoshtaria-Brose, "K 'a rtlis c'xovrebis dasacqisi ciklis kompoziciis
shesaxeb," pp. 180-183; Davit' M usxelishvili, "T C art'lis c'xovrebis shedgenilobisat" vis," pp.
183-184; Giorgi Anch abadze, "Juansher da m isi c'xovreba vaxtang gorgaslisa," pp. 184-188;
A lek'sandre Abdaladze, "Cxovreba k 'a rt'v e lt'a m ep'et'as arm enop'iluri tendenc'iis
m izezebisat'vis," pp. 188-191.
Kasradze, K 'art'lo s. P'amavaz. T b ilisi: Xelovneba, 1986. NB: historical novel.
K'art'uli istoriograp'ia. Vol. 1. T b ilisi: M ec'., 1968. Includes: A. Bogveradze, "K 'art'lis c'xovrebis
pirveli m atiane da m isi avtori," pp. 8-44; A rch'. Baramidze. "Isev Ieonti mrovelis txzulebis e rt'i
adgilis ganm artebisat'vis," pp. 45-63; and K. Grigolia, "Zham t'aaghm cereli da misi t'xzulebis
sam ec'niero m nishvneloba," pp. 64-105.
K aukhchishvili See Q auxch' ishvili
Kazhdan, Alexander. "Akakia," in ODB, vol. 1 (1991), p. 42.
. "Antbypatos," in ODB, vol. 1 (1991), p. 111.
. "The Arm enians in the Byzantine R uling Class Predom inately in th e Ninth through Twelfth
Centuries," in Medieval Armenian Culture. Ed. by J. Sam uelian an d Michael Stone. Chico, CA:
Scholars Press, 1982. Pp. 439-451.
. "Herm es Trism egistos," in The Oxford Dictionary o f Byzantium. Vol. 2. New York-Oxford:
O xford UP, 1991. P. 920.
. "Hypatos," in ODB, voL 2 (1991), pp. 963-964.
802
. "Insignia," in ODB, vol. 2 (1991), pp. 999-1000.

. "Kouropalates," in ODB, vol. 2 (1991), p. 1157.
. "M agistros," ODB, vol. 2 (1991), p. 1267.
. Sotsial'nyi sostav gospodstvuiushchego klassa Vizantii XI-XU w .. M oskva: Nauka. 1974.
. "Spatharios," in ODB, vol. 3 (1991), pp. 1935-1936.
. "Sphaira," in ODB, vol. 3 (1991), p. 1936.
Kekelidze, Kom eli S. [Kekelidse, Kekelidz]. "Ashot didi kuropalatis k'ronologiisat'vis," in his Etiudebi
(full citation infra), vol. 8 (1962), pp. 251-257.
. "Ashusha pitiaxshis bechdis careens gagebisat'vis." in his Etiudebi, vol. 1 (1956). pp. 147-154.
Repr. from Literaturuli dziebani, vol. 5 (1949).
. Die Bekehrung Georgiens zvm Christentum. Leipzig, 1928.
. "Cerilebi dzveli k 'a rt'u li literaturis istoriidan," in his Etiudebi, vol. I (1956), pp. 63-98. Esp.
part A, "M ok'cevay k 'a rtlisay-s shedgeniloba. cqaroebi da erovnuli tendenc'iebi." pp. 63-83.
. "Chronique cfHippolyte et lliisto rien georgien Leonti M roveli," BK 17-18 (1964). pp. 88-94.
. "Dzveli k 'a rt'u li celicadi," in his Etiudebi, vol. 1 (1956), pp. 99-124.
. Etiudebi dzveli k'art'uli literaturis istoriidan. NB: The following vols. were used in this study:
vol. 1 (T b ilisi: T U G , 1956); vol. 2 (T b ilisi: T U G , 1945); vol. 3 (T b ilisi: T U G , 1955). vol. 4
(T b ilisi: T U G , 1957); vol. 7 (T b ilisi: M ec'., 1961); vol. 8 (T b ilisi: T U G , 1962); vol. 9
(T b ilisi: M ec'., 1963); vol. 10 (T b ilisi: M ec'., 1968); vol. 11 (T b ilisi: M ec'., 1972); vol. 12
(T b ilisi: M ec'., 1973); vol. 13 (T b ilisi: M ec'., 1974); vol. 14 (T b ilisi: T U G . 1986). Trans,
title = Studies in Ancient Georgian Literature (Collected Works).
. "Ideia bratstva zakavkazskikh narodov po genealogicheskoi skheme gruzinskogo istorika XI
veka Leonti M roveli," in his Etiudebi, vol. 3 (1955), pp. 96-107.
. K'art'uli literaturis istoria. 2 vols. T b ilisi: T U G , 1941 and 1958. Vol. 1 = "Dzveli mcerloba;"
vol. 2 = "Dzveli literature."
. "K 'art'v elt'a m ok'c'evis m t'avari istoriul-k ronologiuri sakit'xebi," in his Etiudebi, vol. 4
(1957), pp. 252-292.
. "Leonti m rovelis literaturuli cqaroebi," Tp 'ilisis universitetis moambe 111 (1923), pp. 27-56.
Repr. in his Etiudebi, vol. 12 (1973), pp. 10-31.
. "Liturgicheskaia spravka po voprosu ob avtokefalii gruzinskoi tserkvi," in his Etiudebi, vol. 7
(1961).
. Liturgicheskie gruzinslde pamiatnila v otechestvennykh knigokhranilishchakh i ikh nauchnoe
znachenie. T iflis: Tipografiia Bratstvo, 1908.
. Pamiatnila drevnegruzinskoi agiograficheskoi literatury. Tbilisi: M ec'. 1956.
803
. "'Shakh-nam e' Firdousi v gruzinskoi literature," in his Etiudebi, vol. 13 (1974), pp. 112-115.
. "Shenishvnebi dzveli k 'a r tu li literaturis istoriidan," in his Etiudebi, vol. 1 (1956). pp. 250-282.
. "Vaxtang gorgaslanis istorikosi da m isi istoria," Ch'ueni mecrtiereba 4 (T p'ilisi. 1923), pp. 1747. Repr. in his Etiudebi, vol. 4 (1957), pp. 187-201.
. "Vin aris mokcevay k 'a rt'lisa y s glonk'or," in his Etiudebi, vol. 3 (1955), pp. 37-39.
. "K voprosu Ierusalim skom proiskhozhdenii gruzinskoi tserkvi," in his Etiudebi, vol. 4 (1957).
pp. 358-363.
. "X alxt'a klasipikac'isa d a geograp' iuli ganrigebis sakit'xebi k 'a rt'u l mcerlobashi." in his
Etiudebi, vol. 1 (1956), pp. 168-182.
Kekelidze, K. w ith A. Baramidze. Dzveli k'artuli literaturis istoria (V-XVUI ss.). T b ilisi: T U G . 1969.
KeUy, J.N.D. Early Christian Doctrines. Revised ed. San Francisco: H aper & Row, 1978.
K h - See also X
Khakhanov - See Xaxanashvili
K hazaradze - See Khazaradze
Khindasheli, M .Sh. "Antropomorfhye bozhestva rannezem ledelcheskikh piem en iuzhnogo Kavkaza," in
Kavkasiur-axloaghmosavluri krebuli, vol. 7. T b ilisi: M ec'., 1984. Pp. 139-145. Eng. sum .,
"The Anthropomorphic D ivinities o f the Early Agricultural Tribes o f the South Caucasus," p.
164.
Khintibidze, Elguja. Afonskaia gruzinskaia literatumaia shkola. Tbilisi: Ganatleba. 1982. Eng. sum ..
"Georgian Literary School on M l Athos," pp. 129-137.
. Gruzinsko-vizantiiskie literatumye vziamootnosheniia. Tbilisi: T U G , 1989. Eng. sum.,
"Georgian-Byzantine Literary Contacts," pp. 297-316.
Kiknadze, Revaz. Sak'art'velosistoriis cqarot'mc'odneobissakit'xebi. Vol. 1. T b ilisi: M ec'., 1982.
Kiknadze, Vazha. Sak'art'veloXIVsaukuneshi. T b ilisi: M ec'., 1989, Rus. sum., "G ruziia v XIV veke,"
pp. 176-178.
Kiknadze, Zurab. "P'am avazis sizm ari," Mac'ne-enisa 1 (1984), pp. 112-120. Rus. sum ., "Son
Parnavaza," p. 120.
. "Die Folkloristischen V arianten der 'Bekehrung Georgiens," BK 42 (1984), pp. 222-231.
K ik o d z e , M anana. Vaxtang Vl-issaxelmcip'oebrivi moghvaceoba (politikur-ekonomikuri da
soc'ialur-kulturulisak'mianoba). T b ilisi: M ec'., 1989. Rus. sum ., "Gosudarstvennaia
deiatelnost Vakhtanga V I," pp. 196-202.
Kikvidze, C 'otne. "Tstoriaf a da azmat'a* tek'stisat'vis," Mac'ne-enisa 2 (1983), pp. 87-92. Rus. sum .,
"K ustanovleniiu teksta Tstorii i voskhvaleniia ventsenostsev,'" p. 92.
K lim iashvili, A.E. "Novyi spisok 'K artlis Tskhovreba' 1697 goda," Moambe 24/3 (1960), pp. 371-376.
804
Kobidze, D avit'. K'art'ul-sparsuli literaturuli urt'iert'obani. Vol. 2. T b ilisi: T U G , 1969.

Kochlamazashvili, E k'vt'im e. "D avit' aghm ashenebliszedcodebis gagebisat'vis," J V 1 (1990), pp. 47-SI.
Kohl, Philip L. and Gocha R. Tsetskhladze. "Nationalism. Politics, and the Practice of Archaeology in
the Caucasus," in Kohl and Clare Fawcett, eds.. Nationalism, Politics, and the Practice o f
Archaeology. Cambridge*. Cambridge UP, 1995. Pp. 149-174.
Kojababian, G. The Relations Between the Armenian and the Georgian Churches According to the
Armenian Sources, 300-610. D.Phil. Diss., Oxford U niversity, 1977.
Kopaliani, V. Sak'art'velosa da bizantiispolitikuri urt'iert'oba 970-1070 clebshi. T b ilisi: M ec'., 1969.
Rus. sum ., "G ruzino-vizantiiskie politicheskie vziam ootnosheniia v 970-1070 gg.," pp. 310-320.
Kouymjian, D. "M xit'ar (M ekhithar) o f Ani on the Rise o f the Seljuqs." REArm, n.s. 6 (1969). pp. 331353.
Kramers, J.H. "The M ilitary Colonization of the Caucasus and A rm enia under the Sasanids," BSOAS 8
(1935-1937), pp. 613-618.
Krumbacher, Karl. Geschichte der byzantinischen Utteratur vom Justinian bis zum Ende des
ostrdmischen Reiches (527-1453). 2 vols. New York: B urt F ranklin. 1958 (repr. 1897).
Kuhrt, Amdlie and Susan Sherwin-W hite, eds., Hellenism in the East: The Interaction o f Greek and NonGreek Civilizationsfrom Syria to Central Asia after Alexander. London: Duckworth, 1987.
Kulakovskii, Iulian. "K hristianstvo u Alan," W 5/1-2 (1898), pp. 1-18.
K 'urc'ikidze, C 'iala. "Kvlav Tc'artTis c'xovrebis' xelnacerebis apokrip'ul t'x zu leb at'a shesaxeb," Mac'ne
-enisa 1 (1990), pp. 49-64. Rus. sum., "Eshche raz ob apokrifakh v rukopisiakh 'K artlis
Tskhovreba,"1pp. 63-64.
Kurshanskis, M ichel. "Relations m atrimoniales entre Grande Com nenes de Trdbizonde et princes
georgiens," BK 34 (1976), pp. 112-127.
Kvachadze, M anana, N ino N atradze, Zurab Saijveladze, M aia Ch' xenkeli, and T am ar Xazhomia, eds..
LeontiMroveli: C'xovreba k'art'velt'a mep'et'a [da] arch'iliscameba. K'art'lisc'xovrebis

simp'onia-lek'sikoni, vol. 1; SICK, vol. 36, T b ilisi: M ec'., 1986.
Lang, David M arshall. "A rm azi," in Elran, vol. 2 (London-New Y ork: Routledge and Kegan Paul,
1987), pp. 416-417.
. "Georgia in the Reign o f G ioigi the Brilliant (1314-1346)," BSOAS 17 (1955), pp. 74-91.
. The Georgians. New York-W ashington, DC: Frederick A. Praeger, 1966.
. "Iran, Arm enia and Georgia," in CHI. Vol. 3/1. Cam bridge: Cam bridge UP, 1983. Pp. 505536.
. Landmarks in Georgian Literature: An Inaugural Lecture Delivered on 2 November 1965.
London: School o f O riental and African Studies, 1966.
. The Last Years o f the Georgian Monarchy 1658-1832. New York: Columbia UP, 1957.
805
. "Recent W ork on the G eorgian New Testam ent," BSOAS 19/1 (1957), pp. 82-93.
. "St. Euthym ius the Georgian and the Barlaam and Iosasph Romance," BSOAS 17 (1955), pp.
306-325.
. Review o f Cyril Toum anoff, Studies in Christian Caucasian History in Speculum 42 (Jan.
1967), pp. 194-196.
Lang, D M and G.M. M eredith-Owens. "Amiran-Darejaniani: A G eorgian Romance and its English
Rendering," BSOAS 22/3 (1959), pp. 454-490.
Lavrov, L.I. "'Obezy' russkikh letopisei," SE 4 (1946), pp. 161-170.
Lefort, Jacques, Nicolas Oikonom ides, Denise Papachryssanthou, and H elene M etreveli, Acres d'lvirion.
2 vols. Archives de IA thos, vols. 14 and 16. Paris: P. Lethielleux, 1985 and 1990.
Lehmann-Haupt, C.F. "On the O rigin o f the Georgians," Georgica 1/4-5 (A utum n 1937), pp. 43-79.
Lekvinadze, V.A. "Oboronitel nye sooruzheniia Sebastopolisa," 4 1 (1966), pp. 203-210.
. "Pontiiskii lim es," VDI2 (1969), pp. 75-93. Eng. sum ., pp. 92-93.
Lewis, Andrew W. Royal Succession in Capetian France: Studies on Familial Order and the State.
Cambridge, MA: H arvard UP, 1981.
Lindner, Rudi Paul. "W hat Was a Nomadic Tribe?," CSSH 24 (1982), pp. 689-711
Livesey, Steven J. and R ichard H. Rouse, "Nimrod the Astronom er," Traditio 37 (1981), pp. 203-266.
Loraia, Vera. "Xis kultisat'vis sak'art'veloshi," SMM3 (Tpilisi, 1927). pp. 164-178. Fr. sum., "Sur le
culte de l'arbre en Georgie," p. 178.
Lominadze, B. "Saxelm cip'osa da eklesiis u rt'iert'o b a VHI-XII saukuneebis sak'art'veloshi," in
Sak'artvelorust'avelisxcmashi. T b ilisi: Mec., 1966. Pp. 66-92. Rus. sum.,
"Vzaim ootnosheniia m ezhdu tserkov'iu i gosudarstvom v G ruzii V III-X II w " pp. 297-299.
Lomouri, N odar Iu. "History o f the Kingdom o f Egrissi (Lazica) from its O rigins to the Fifth Century
A D .," BK 26 (1969), pp. 211-216.
. "Iz istoricheskoi geografii drevnei Kolkhidy," VDI 4 (1957), pp. 96-110.
. Kistoriigruzinskogo Petritsonskogo monastyria. T bilisi: M ec'., 1981.
. K istorii pontiiskogo tsarstva. P a rti. Tbilisi: M ec'., 1979.
. "Die Neuen Ausgrabungen in der Stadt ArchSopolis in W estgeorgien," in From Late Antiquity
to Early Byzantium: Proceedings o f the Byzantinological Symposium in the 16th International

Eirene Conference. Ed. by V ladim ir Vavrinek. Praha: Academia, 1985. Pp. 137-142.
. "Osnovnye rezultaty arkheologicheskogo izucheniia drevnego Arkheopolisa," in VE. Tbilisi:
M ec'., 1991. Pp. 96-112. Eng. sum., "Excavations a t Nokalakevi and th eir Significance in
Studies o f the History o f Georgia," pp. 110-111.
806
. Sak'art'velosa dabizantiis urt'iert'oba Vsaulcuneshi. T b ilisi: M ec'., 1989. Rus. sum..
"G ruzino-vizantiiskie vzaim ootnosheniia v V veka," pp. 86-89.
Lordkipanidze See also L o rt'k 'ip 'an id ze
Lordkipanidze, Guram. Kolkhida v VI-II w . do rt.e.. Tbilisi: M ec., 1978.
Lordkipanidze, G.A., N .Sh. Kiguradze, and T.T. Todua. "Rannekhristianskaia stela iz Pitsundy." ID I 3
(1990), pp. 63-67. Eng. sum ., p. 67.
L ort'k 'ip'an idze, M ariam D. [Lordkipanidze]. Essays on Georgian History. Tbilisi: M ec'.. 1994.
. Georgia in the 11th-12th Centuries. Trans, by David Skvirsky. Tbilisi: Ganatleba Pub., 1987.
Repr. in her Essays (1994). NB: This is a trans., undocum ented version o f her Istoriia Gruziia
IX-nachala XIII veka. Tbilisi: M ec'., 1974.
. "Iz istorii vizantiisko-gruzinskikh vzaimootnoshenii (70-e gody XI v.)," VIAO (1979). pp. 9295.
. K'art'li Vsaukunismeore naxevarshi. T b ilisi: M ec'., 1979. Rus. sum ., "K artli vo vtoroi
polovine V veka," pp. 100-113.
. P'eodaluri sak'art'velospolitikuri gaert'ianeba (IX-Xss.). T b ilisi: M ec.. 1963.
. Raarisk'art'lisc'xovreba?. T b ilisi: T U G , 1989.
. "T bilisis saam iros istoriidan, in Mimomxilveli, vol. 2. T b ilisi: M ec'., 1951. Pp. 185-201.
Rus. sum., "Iz istorii tbilisskogo em irata," pp. 200-201.
L o rt'k'ip'anidze, M. and I. Katcharava. A Glimpse o f Georgian History. Tbilisi: The Georgian Society
for Cultural R elations with Com patriots Abroad, 1983.
L ort'k'ip'anidze, M. andD .L . M usxelishvili, eds., Ocherid istorii Gruzii. Vol. 2, Gruziia v IV-X
vekakh. Tbilisi: M ec'., 1988.
L o rt'k'ip'anidze, O t'ar. "The Fortification o f Ancient Colchis (Ancient Black Sea Littoral)," in La
Fortification dans VHistoire du Monde Grec. Ed. by Pierre Leriche an d H enri Treziny. Paris:
Editions du C entre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1986. Pp. 179-184.
. Georgian Civilization: Whence Does Its History Start? = K art 'uli c 'ivilizac 'ia: saidan icqeba
misi istoria? T b ilisi: Bersuma, 1993.
. Gorod-khram Kolkhidy. Moskva: N auka, 1984.
. Nasledie drevnei Gruzii. Tbilisi: M ec'., 1989.
. "Vani: An A ncient City o f Colchis," GRBS 32/2 (Sum. 1991), pp. 151-195.
Lukonin, V.G. "Political, Social and A dm inistrative Institutions: Taxes and Trade." in CHI, vol. 3/2
(1983), pp. 681-746.
M acCormack, Sabine G. Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity. Berkeley-Los Angeles: University of
California Press, 1981.
807
M ach'abeli, K. "Early M ediaeval Stelae in Georgia in the Context o f East C hristian A rt" typescript. To
be published in vol. 1 o f Iberica-Caucasica.
. "NeskolTco pam iatnikov sasanidskoi torevtiki v Gruzii," Mac'ne 3 (1972), pp. 48-72.
Macrides. Ruth. "Dynastic M arriages and Poltical K inship," in J. Shepard and S. Franklin, eds..
Byzantine Diplomacy. London: Variorum , 1992. Pp. 263-280.
Magdalino, Paul. The Empire o f Manuel I Komnenos, 1143-1180. Cambridge: Cam bridge UP, 1993.
M ahe, Jean-Pierre. Hermes en Haute-Egypte. 2 vols. BCNH, vols. 3 and 7 repectively. Quebec: Les
Presses de IUniversite LavaL 1978 and 1982.
. "Quadrivium et Cursus d'etudes au VH6 siecle en Armenie et dans le monde bvzantin." T M 10
(1987), pp. 159-206.
. "La rupture arm eno-georgienne at debut du VH6 siecle et les reecritures historiographiques
des D ^-X I6 siecles," in SSCISSM vol. 4 3 b =II Caucaso: Cemiera fra Culture dal
Mediterraneo alia Persia. Spoleto: Presso la Sede del Centro, 1996. Pp. 927-961.
M aisuradze, Guram . K'art 'veli da somexi xalxebis urt 'iert 'oba XUI-XVI1I saukuneebshi. T b ilisi: M ec'..
1982. Rus. sum ., "Vzaim ootnosheniia gruzinskogo i armianskogo narodov v XIII-XVIII
vekakh," pp. 327-330.
M akalat'ia, Sergi. Mesxet'-javaxet'i: istoriul-et'nograp'iulinarkvevi. Tpilisi: P 'ederac'ia. 1938.
Mamedov, T.M. Albaniia iAtropatena po drevnearmianskim istochnikam (IV-VTI w .). Baku: Izd-vo Elm.
1977.
Mamulia, Giorgi. K'art'liseklesia V-VIsaukuneebshi. T b ilisi: Mec.. 1992. Eng. sum .. "The K artlian
Church in the 5th-6th Centuries," pp. 94-96.
. "Vaxtang gorgaslis saeklesio politikis shesaxeb." Mac'ne 1 (1990). pp. 61-73. Eng. sum ..
"Concerning the C hurch Policy o f Vakhtang Gorgasal." p. 73.
M am ulia Guram. "K 'a rt'lis c'xovrebis cqaros dadgenisat'vis," Moambe 33/1 (1964). pp. 251-256. Rus.
sum ., "K opredeleniiu istochnika K artlis TskhovTeba," p. 255.
. Klasobrivi sazogadoebisa da saxelmcip 'os ch 'amoqalibeba dzvel k 'art 'Ishi. T bilisi:
M ec'., 1979. Eng. sum ., "The Em ergence o f a Class Society and State in Ancient K artli
(Iberia)," pp. 184-191.
. Patronqmoba. T b ilisi: M ec'., 1987. Rus. sum ., "Gruzinskii vassalitet," p. 193; and Fr. sum .,
"La vassalitd ggorgienne," p. 194.
. "Leonti m rovelis da juansheris cqaroebi (p'alauri epos leonti m rovelis da juansheris saistorio
t'xzulebebshi cqaros stru k 'turu li analizi)," Mac'ne 4 (1964), pp. 241-275.
. "Sumbat davit'is-dzis e rt'i cqaros sakit'xisat'vis," Cruzinskoe istochnikovdenie 3 (Tbilisi, 1971),
pp. 115-116. Rus. sum ., "K voprosu ob odnom istochnike Sumbata, syna Davida," p. 116.
Manandean , H.A. [M anandian]. "Les invasions arabes en Armenie (Notes Chronologiques)," Byzantion
18 (1946-1948), pp. 163-195.
808
. The Trade and Cities o f Armenia in Relation to Ancient World Trade. Trans, by Nina G.
G arsolan. Lisbon: C alouste Gulbenkian Foundation, 1965.
M anvelishvili, Al. Dzveli k'art'uli mcerloba. San Francisco, 1987.
Markus, R.A. The End o f Ancient Christianity. New York: Cam bridge UP. 1990.
M arquart, Joseph. [M arkw art]. "D ie Bekehrung Iberiens und die beiden aitesten Dokumente der
iberischen K irche," Caucasia 7 (1931), pp. 111-167.
. "Die Genealogie d er B agratiden und das Zeitalter des M ar Abas und Ps. Moses Xorenac' i,"
Caucasia 6/2 (1930), pp. 10-77.
. Osteuropaische und Ostasiatische StreijzUge: Ethnologische und Historisch-Topographische
Studien zur Geschichte des 9, und 10, Jahrhunderts (ca. 840-940). Hildesheim: Georg Olms.
1961 (repr. o f L eipzig, 1903).
M arr, N.Ia. "Ark'aun, m ongol'skoe nazvanie khristian, v sviazi s voprosom ob arm ianakh
khalkedonitakh," W 12 (1906), pp. 1-68.
. "A rm ianskiia slova v gruzinskikh Deianiiakh Pilata," ZVOIRAO 17 (1906), pp. 024-029.
. "Bogi iazycheskoi G ruzii po drevne-gruzinskim istochnikam ," ZVOIRAO 14/1 (1902), pp. 1-29.
. "Dnevnik poezdki v Shavshetiiu i Klardzhetiiu," TRAGF1 (1911). part 2, pp. 1-216.
. "Ioann Petritsskii, gruzinskii neoplatonik X3-XII veka," ZVOIRAO 19/2-3 (1909), pp. 53-113.
. "Iz gruzino-persidskikh literatum ykh sviazei," Zapiski Kollegii Vostokovedov 1 (Leningrad,
1925), pp. 111-138.
. Kavkaz i pamiatnifd ego dukhovnoi kul'tury. Petrograd, 1919.
. "K voprosu o veliian ii persidskoi literatury na gruzinskuiu," ZhMNP 310/2 (1897), pp. 223-237.
M artin-Hisard, Bernadette. "Les A rabes en Georgie occidentale au VTII6 s.: Etude sur l'ideologie
politique georgienne," BK 40 (1982), pp. 105-138.
. "L'A ristocratie georgienne et son passe: Tradition epique et references bibliques (V I^-X I6
siecles)," BK42 (1984), pp. 13-31.
. "Brebis, boucs/loups et chiens: une hagiographie georgienne anti-arm enienne du debut du
Z f sfccle," REArm, n.s. 23 (1992). pp. 209-235.
. "Le Biens d'un m onastere georgien (D ^-X Ili0 siecle): Le tem oignage des acts du m onastfre
Saint-Shio de M ghvim e," in Hommes et richesses dans VEmpire byzantin. Vol. 2, Vll^-XV
sitele, ed. by V. K ravari, J. Lefort and C. M orrisson. Series vol. 3 o f RB. Paris: Editions P.
Lethielleux, 1991. Pp. 113-152.
. "Christianism e et E glise dans le tnonde georgien," in Histoire du Chrisdanisme des origines
a nosjours. Ed. by J.-M . M ayeur, C. and L. Pietri, A. Vauchez, and M. Venard. Vol. 4.
Paris: Centre N ational des Lettres, 1993. Pp. 549-603.
809
. "Continuite et C bangem ent dans le B assin O riental d u Pont Euxin (TV^-V s.)," in From Late
Antiquity to Early Byzantium: Proceec&ngs o f the Byzantinological Symposium in the 16th

International Eirene Conference. E d. V ladim ir V avrinek. Praha: Academia, 1985. Pp. 143147.
. "Le D it des M iracles de Saint Shio,' m oine georgien du VI6 siecle." VC 23/2 (1986). pp. 283327, w ith trans. pp. 303-323.
. "Domination arabe et libertes arm eniennes (VlF-IX siecles)." in G. Dedeyan. ed.. Histoire des
Armeniens. Toulouse, 1982. Pp. 185-214.
. "La langue slave, la langue georgienne et Byzance au Xeme siecle," Bvzantinoslavica 50/1
(1989), pp. 33-45.
. "Le roi georgien V axt'ang Gorgasal dans ITiistoire et dans la ldgende," in Temps, Memoire,
Tradition au Moyen Age: A ctesduX U f Congres de la Societe des Historiens medievistes de

I'enseignment Superieur Public. Aix-en-Provence: U niversite de Provence, 1983. Pp. 207-242.
. "Du Tao-K .lardzheti k 1'Athos: M oines gorgiens et realties sociopolitiques (D ^-X I6 siecles)."
BK 41 (1983), pp. 34-46.
M cCormick, M ichael. "A nalyzing Imperial Ceremonies," JOB 35 (1985), pp. 1-20.
. "Coronation," in ODB, vol. 1 (1991), pp. 533-534.
M cGing, B.C. The Foreign Policy ofMithridates VI Eupator, King o f Pontus. Leiden: E.J. B rill. 1986.
M egrelidze, Darejan. Sak'artvelosglexobaXIII-XV saukuneebshi. T b ilisi: Mec., 1991. Rus. sum.,
"Krest'ianstvo G ruzii v XHI-XV w " pp. 175-176.
M elikishvili, Giorgi A. Kistorii drevnei Gruzii. Tbilisi: M ec., 1959.
. "Naimenovanie goroda Fasisa i vopros ob etnicheskom sostave naseleniia drevnei Kolkhidy,"
VDI 1 (1966), pp. 82-86.
. "O naim enovaniiakh nekotorykh gorodov drevnei G ruzii," in Voprosy istorii narodov Kavkaza.
Tbilisi: Mec., 1988. Pp. 57-64.
. P 'eodaluri sak 'art velos politikuri gaert 'ianeba da sak 'art 'veloshi p 'eodalur urt 'iert 'obat 'a
ganvit'arebiszogiert'i safat'xi. T b ilisi: Mec., 1973. Rus. sum ., "Politicheskoe ob"edinenie
feodal'noi G ruzii i nekotorye voprosy razvitiia feodal'nykh otnoshenii v Gruzii," pp. 133-158.
. Sak'art'velos, kavkasiisa da maxlobeli aghmosavlet'is udzvelesi mosaxleobissakit'xisat'vis.
T b ilisi: Mec., 1965.
. Sak'art'veloshi klasobrivi sazogadoebisadasaxelmcip'oscarmok'mnissakit'xisat'vis.
T b ilisi: Mec., 1955.
. "K voprosu sotsial'no-eknonm icheskom stroe drevnei Iberii (K artli)," VDI 4 (1977), pp. 188195.
M elikishvili, G.A. andO .D . Lordkipanidze, eds., Ocherki istorii Gruzii, vol. 1 = Gruziia s drevneishikh
vremen doIVv. n.e. Tbilisi: Mec., 1989.
810
M elik'set'-B ek, L.M . Tiflis, ego osnovtmie i kratfdi istoricheskii ocherk. Tiflis, 1925.
. "N eskolko slov o term ine somex," Khristianskii vostok 6/1 (1917), pp. 93-94.
M elitauri, K.N. [M elit'auri]. Kreposti dofeodal'noi i ramefeodal'noi Gruzii. 2 vols. Tbilisi: M ec'.. 1969
and 1971.
M enabde, L. Centers o f Ancient Georgian Culture. Tbilisi: G anatleba, 1968.
M anage, V X ., "Firdaw si," in El2, vol. 2. Pp. 918-921.
M eskhia, Shota A. [M esxia]. Didgorskaia bitva. Tbilisi: M ec'., 1974.
M etreveli,E . [H eleneM 6trevli], M asalebiierusalimisk'artulikoloniisistoriisat'vis(XI-XllIss.).
T b ilisi: X elnacert'a instituti, 1962.
. "Le role de IA thos dans Ihistoire de la culture georgienne," BK 41 (1983), pp. 17-26.
M etreveli, Roin. Georgia: Overview. T b ilisi: T U G , 1993.
. "La reine T am ar dans le folklore georgien," BK 27 (1970), pp. 126-134.
. T'amari. T b ilis i: M ec'., 1992. NB: In Eng., Georgian, and Rus..
M etzger, Bruce M. The Early Versions o f the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission, and
Limitations. O xford: Clarendon Press, 1977. Esp. ch. 4, "The G eorgian Version," pp. 182-214.
. "A Greek an d A ram aic Inscription Discovered at Armazi in G eorgia," JN E S 15/1 (Jan. 1956),
pp. 18-26.
M galobilshvili, T a m ila . "The Ideological Situation in 3rd-4th Century Iberia and How it is Expressed in
Georgian L iterature." Unpub. typescript. Ca. 1995.
. "K 'ristianuri k 'a rt'li IV -V ss-shi," Mac'neenisa 1 (1988), pp. 102-117. Rus. sum.,
"R annekhristianskaia K artli (IV-V w .)," p. 117.
M ichael, Ian. "Typological Problem s in Medieval Alexander Literature: The Enclosure o f Gog and
Magog," in P eter Noble, Lucie Polak, and C laire Isoz, eds., The Medieval Alexander Legend and
Romance Epic: Essays in Honour o f David JA . Ross. M illwood. NY: K rans. 1982. Pp. 131147.
M illar, Fergus. The Roman Near East 31BC-AD 337. Cambridge, M A: H arvard UP, 1993.
M iller, Patricia Cox. Dreams in Late Antiquity: Studies in the Imagination o f a Culture. Princeton:
Princeton UP, 1994.
M inorsky, V. "Caucasica II: (The Georgian M aliks o f A har and The Princes Orbeli in Persia)," BSOAS
13 (1949-1950), pp. 868-877.
. "Caucasica III: The Alan Capital Magas and the Mongol Cam paigns," BSOAS 14 (1952), pp.
221-238.
. "Caucasica IV (Sahl ibn-Sunbat of Shakki and A rran and T he Caucasian Vassale o f M aizuban
in 344/955)," BSOAS 15 (1953), pp. 504-529.
811
. A History o f Sharvan and Darband in the 10th-11th Centuries. Cam bridge: W. HefFer and
Sons, L td , 1958.
. "Khaqani an d A ndronicus Cotnnenus," BSOAS 11/3 (1945), pp. 550-578.
. Studies in Caucasian History. London: Taylor's Foreign Press. 1953.
. "Tiflis," in E l1, vol. 8. Leiden-New York: E.J. Brffl, repr. 1987 (1913-1936). Pp. 752-763.
Minorsky, V. w ith CJE. B osw orth,"Al-Kunfi." in El^, vol. 5/85-86. Pp. 486-497.
M itchell, Stephen. Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor. 2 vols. O xford Clarendon Press.
1993.
M krtumian, A.G. K voprosu ob obrazovanii feodalnogo kniazhestva K akhetii," PB H 1/56 (1972). pp.
230-234.
. GruzinskoefeodaVnoe kniazhestvo Kakheti v VIH-XI w . / ego vziamootnosheniia sArmeniei.
Erevan: Izd-vo AN AnnSSR, 1983.
M krtum ian, G.G. = M krtum ian, A.G.
de Montpereux, Frederic Dubois. Voyage autour du Caucase, chez les Tcherkesses, et lesAbkases, en
Colchide, en Georgie, en Armenie et en Crimie. 6 vols. Paris, 1839-1843.
Moravcsik, G. "Byzantine C hristianity and the M igrating M agyars," ASEER 5 (1946), pp. 29-45.
Mosshammer, Alden A. The Chronicle o f Eusebius and Greek Chronographic Tradition. Lewisburg:
BucknellU P, 1979.
M ullett, M argaret. "The 'D isgrace' o f the Ex-Basilissa M aria." ByzSlav 45 (1984), pp. 202-211.
M uradian, P.M. [M ouradian, M uradyan]. "Encore au suject de l'inscription arm enienne de l'dglise de
Djvari," REArm, n.s. 6 (1969), pp. 393-411.
. "Khronologiia sistem letoschislenii po arm ianskim istochnikam : gruzinskii khronikon," Kavkaz
i Vizantiia 6 (1988), pp. 61-71.
M usxelishvili, D avit L. [M uskhelishvili]. Iz istoricheskoi geografii vostochnoi Gruzii. Tbilisi: Mec .,
1982. Fr. sum ., pp. 91-93.
. "K 'art'v elt'a tv itsaxelcodebis istoriisat'vis," Mac'ne 2 (1992), pp. 5-19 and 3 (1992), pp. 9-25.
Rus. sum. appended to the latter, "K istorii sam onazvaniia gruzin," p. 25.
. Sak'art'velos istoriuligeograp'iisdzirit'adi sakit'xebi. 2 vols. T b ilisi: M ec'., 1977 and 1980.
Russian sum s., "Osnovye voprosy istoricheskoi geografii G ruzii," pp. 230-235 ( v . l ) and 245-251
(v. 2).
Myers, Henry A. Medieval Kingship. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1982. Esp. "Royal M ystique: Old
Testam ent Im agery and Popular Nostalgia," pp. 137-147.
Nalbandian, V.S. Tbilisi v armianskikh literatumykh pamiatnikakh drevnikh i srednikh vekov. Erevan:
Armgosizdat, 1961.
812
Nasonov, A.N. "Tmutorokan' v istorii vostochnoi Evropy X veka," Istoricheskie zapisfd, vol. 6. M oskva:
Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1940, pp. 79-99.
Natroev, A. Mtskhet i ego sobor Sveti-Tskhoveli: istoriko-orkheologicheskoe opisanie. Tiflis, 1900.
Neale, John M ason. A History ofthe Holy Eastern Church. Vol. 5 = The Patriarchate o f Antioch.
London: Rivingtons. 1873 (repr. 1976).
der Nersessian, Sirarpie. Armenia and the Byzantine Empire: A BriefStudy o f Armenian Art and
Civilization. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1945.
Neusner, Jacob. "Jews in Iran," in CHI, vol. 3/2. Cam bridge: Cambridge UP, 1983. Pp. 909-923.
. "The Jews in Pagan Armenia, JAOS 84 (1964). pp. 230-240.
Nikoladze, Ev. Sak'art'velos eklesiis istoria. K 'u t aisi, 1918.
N ikolaishvili, V., G. Giunashvili, and K. X im shiashvili. "M zis tadzris gamosaxulebis aghm och'ena
m c'xet'ash i (carm oadgina akademikosa a. ap 'ak 'id zem 24.8.1987)," Sak'art'velos ssr
mec'nierebat'a akademiis moambe 132/1 (1988), pp. 209-212. Eng. sum., "Discovery o f the
Tem ple o f the Sun in Mtskheta," p. 212.
Nock, A.D. Conversion: The Old and the New in Religion from Alexander the Great to Augustine
o f Hippo. London-New York: Oxford UP, 1933.
Noonan, Thom as S. "Byzantium and the Khazars: A Special Relationship?," in J. Shephard and S.
Franklin, eds., Byzantine Diplomacy. London: Variorum , 1992. Pp. 109-132.
Novosel'tsev, A.P. "K voprosu o makedonskom vladvchestve v drevnei Gruzii," in Ivane javaxishvilis
dabadebis 100 clist'avisamtS midzghvnili saiubileo krebuli = Iubileinyi sbomikposviashchennyi
100-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia akademika I A . Dzhavakhishvili. T b ilisi: Mec., 1976. Pp. 104109.
. "Drevnearm ianskii perevod Biblii kak istochnik po istorii narodov Zakavkaz'ia (nekotorye
predvaritel'nye itogi issledovaniia)," DGTSSSR 1975. Moskva: Nauka, 1976. Pp. 57-64.
. Genezisfeodalizma v stranakh Zakavkaz'ia. M oskva: Nauka/GIavnaia redaktsiia vostochnoi
literatury, 1980.
. Khazarskoe gosudarstvo i ego rol' v istorii vostochnoi Evropy i Kavkaza. Moskva: Nauka,
1990.
. "Nekotorye voprosy istoriografii drevnei i rannesrednevekovoi narodov Zakavkaz'ia," ISSSR I
(Jan.-Feb. 1974), pp. 64-82.
. "Rus1i gosudarstva Kavkaza," in V.T. Pashuto, Vneshniaia politika Drevnei Rusi. Moskva:
Nauka, 1968. Pp. 216-217.
. "Strany Zakavkaz'ia i Khazariia v VHI-pervoi polovine IX w .," in Sak'art'velo da
aghmosavlet'i. T b ilisi: Mec., 1984. Pp. 186-194.
813
Nutsubidze, Sh.1. [N uc'ubidze]. Petr Iver i antichnoe filosofskoe nasledie: problemy Areopagitiki.
Tbilisi: L iteratura i iskusstvo, 1963. Eng. sum ., T h e M ystery o f the Pseudo-Dionysius the
Aeropagite," pp. 160-163.
Ochiauri, G.A. and I.K. Surguladze. "Kavkazsko-iberiiskikh narodov m ifologiia," in S.A. Tokarev. e d .
Mify narodov mira. Vol. 1. Moskva: Izd-vo Sovetskaia Entsiklopediia. 1980. Pp. 603-607.
Ostrogorsky, George. History o f the Byzantine State. Trans, by Joan Hussey. New Brunswick. NJ:
Rutgers UP, 1969 (revised ed.).
O t'xm ezuri, T am ar. "E p'rem m e'iris t'argm anebis shem c'vel n u sx a t'a e rt'i t'aviseburebis shesaxeb," in
P'ilologiuri dziebani, vol. 2 (T bilisi: K. Kekelidzis saxelobis xelnacert'a instituti, 1995). Pp.
144-149. Eng. sum .. "About One Peculiarity o f the M anuscripts o f Ephrem M tsires
Translations," p. 149.
. "K om entarf a gavlena grigol nazianzelis t'xzu lebat'a k 'a rtul t'argm anebze," in P'ilologiuri
dziebani, vol. 2 (T b ilisi: K. Kekelidzis saxelobis xelnacert'a instituti. 1995). Pp. 150-163. Eng.
sum ., "The Influence o f the Commentaries on the G eorgian Translations o f the W orks by
Gregory N azianzen," pp. 162-163.
Outtier, Bernard. "La C hristianisation du Cauease," in SSCISSM, vol. 43a = II Caucaso: Cemiera fra
Culture dal Mediterraneo alia Persia. Spoleto: Presso la Sede del Centro, 1996. Pp. 553-570.
The Oxford Dictionary o f Byzantium - ODB. Ed. by Alexander P. Kazhdan. 3 vols. New York-Oxford.
1991.
Paichadze, Giorgi G. Nazvanie Gruzii v russkikh pis'mennykh istoricheskikh istochnikakh. Tbilisi:
M ec'., 1989. Eng. and sum. sums., p. 65.
., ed. Sak'artvelosa da k'art'velebis aghmnishvneli uc'xouri dak'art'uli termiologia.
T b ilisi: M ec'., 1993. E n g and Rus. sums, for each entry. Included are: Shot'a A sat'iani.
"Istoriuli sam xret'-dasavlet' sak'art'velos onom astika asurul da urartul cerlobit' cqaroebshi." pp.
10-20 = E n g "Onom astics o f Historical South-W estern Georgia in Assyrian and U rartian
W ritten Sources," p. 20; N ana Xazaradze, "M esxi et'n ik u ri term inis istoriisat'vis," pp. 21-42 =
E n g "Towards the History o f the Ethnic Term Meskhi." pp. 41-42; Meri Inadze, "Term inebi
Tcobd da kolxeti antikur mcerlobashi," pp. 43-55 = E n g "The Term s Colchians and Colchis in
C lassical Sources," pp. 54-55; Valeri Vashakidze. "Term inebi 'iberia' da 'iberebi' antikur
cqaroebshi," pp. 56-72 = Eng. "The Terms Iberia' and T h e Iberians' in Classical Sources." pp.
71-72; Nodar Lom ouri, "Sak'art'velos saxelcodebani bizantiur cqaroebshi," pp. 73-91 = E ng
"The Designation o f Georgia in Byzantine Sources," pp. 90-91; Giorgi C eret'eli. "S ak'artvelos
iranul saxelcodebat'a istoriisat'vis," pp. 92-106 = E n g T o w ards the Iranian D esignation o f
Georgia," pp. 105-106; T 'eo Ch'xeidze, "Sak'art'velos da k 'a rtvelebis aghm nishvneli terminebi
sashualo sparsulsa da p art'u l enebshi," pp. 107-120 = E nglish T h e Term s D esignating
Georgia and G eorgians in M iddle Persian and Parthian," pp. 118-120; G och'a Jap aridze,
"K 'art'velebisa da sak'art'velos arabuli saxelcodebebi." pp. 121-145 = E n g "The A rabic
Designations o f the G eorgians and Georgia, pp. 144-145; K onstantine C eret'eli, "T C artvelisa
da 'sak'art'velos' aghm nishvneli terminebi aram eulsa da ebraulshi," pp. 146-152 = E n g T erm s
Designating 'G eorgia' and 'Georgian' in Aram aic and Hebrew," pp. 151-152; Elene
C 'agareishvili, "T C artvelisa1da 'sak'art'velos* aghm ishvneli term inebi sotnxur cerilobit'
cqaroebshi," pp. 153-209 = E n g T h e Designations o f the Georgians' and Georgia in Armenian
W ritten M onum ents," p. 209; Karlo Tabatadze, "Sak'art'velos da k 'art'velebis ag h m n ishvneli
term inebi X-XV ss. sparsuli cqaroebis m ixedvit'," pp. 210-254 = E n g T erm s D esignating
'Georgia1and 'G eorgians' in Persian Historical Sources o f the 10th-15th Centuries, pp. 253-254;
Gia Gelashvili, M zia M galoblishvili, and Giorgi Paichadze, "Sak'art'velos da k'art'velebis
814
aghm nishvneli term inebi evropul enebshi," pp. 294-309 = Eng. "The Term s Georgia and
Georgians in E uropean Languages, pp. 308-309; O tia Kaxadze, "Term ini 'egrisi' (eguri. egri.
egrisi)," pp. 378-389 = Eng. "The Term Egrisi (Eguri, E gri, Egrisi)," pp. 388-389; and D avit'
M usxelishvili, "K 'artvelt a t'vit'saxelcodebis istoriisat'vis," pp. 337-377 = Eng. "Towards the
H istory o f the Self-D esignation o f the Georgians," p. 377.
Papuashvili, T en g iz . Rant'a da kaxt'asamep'o (VI1I-XIss.). T b ilisi: M ec'.. 1982.
Pataridze, Lela. "C'xovreba cmidisa ninoysi": k'art'lis gak'ristianebis kulturul-istoriuli sakit'xebi.
T b ilisi: M ec'., 1993. Rus. sum., "'Zhitie sv. Nino': kul'tum o-istoricheskie voprosy
obrashcheniia K artli v khristianstvo." pp. 95-99.
Patkanov, K .P. "Neskollco slov o nazvaniiakh drevnikh arm ianskikh mesiatsev," TVOIRAO 16 (1872).
pp. 295-339.
Peeters, Paul. "Les debuts du christianism e en Georgie d'apres les sources hagiographiques," AB 50
(1932), pp. 5-58.
. "H istoires m onastiques georgiennes," AB 36-37 (1917-1918).
. "Jerdm ie, dveque de lib erie perse (431)," AB 51 (1933), pp. 5-33.
. "Les K hazars dans La Passion de S. Abo de Tiflis," AB 52 (1934), pp. 21-56.
. "Pour l'histoire des origines de I'alphabet arm ^nien," REArm 9 (1929), pp. 203-237.
. "Sainte Sousanik m artyre en Armeno-Georgie," AB 53 (1935), pp. 5-48 and 245-307.
Peradze, Gregory. "An A ccount o f the Georgian M onks and M onasteries in Palestine as Revealed in the
W ritings o f N on-G eorgian Pilgrim s," Georgica 1/4-5 (Autum n 1937), pp. 181-246.
Pigulevskaia, N.V. Vizantiia i Iran na rubezhe VI i VII vekov. M oskva-Leningrad: Izd-vo AN SSSR,
1946.
P'ilologiuri dziebani = Recherchesphilologiques, ed. El. M etreveli. T b ilisi: K. K ekelidzis saxelobis

xelnacert'a instituti, 1995. NB: essays on the works o f Gregory o f N azianzenus with Eng. sums.
Pirt'a anotirebuli lek'sikoni:XI-XVIIss. k'art'uli istoriuli sabut'ebismixedvit'. 2 vols (to date). T b ilisi:
M ec., 1991 and 1993.
Pokrovskii, N ikandr. Kratldi ocherk tserkovno-istoricheskoi zhizni pravoslavnoi Gruzii. Tiflis. 1905.
Pritsak, Om eljan. "The Turcophone Peoples in the Area o f the Caucasus from the Sixth to the Eleventh
Century," in SSCISSM, vol. 43a = II Caucaso: Cemiera fra Culture dal Mediterraneo alia
Persia. Spoleto: Presso la Sede del Centro, 1996. Pp. 223-246.
Purtseladze, D. Istoriko-arkheologicheskoe opisanie Bodbiiskago sobora sv. Nina, prosvetitelnitsy
Gruzii. Tiflis, 1888.
Q auxch'ishvili, S.G. [K aukhchishvili]. "Berdznuli m am akac't'asaxelebis gadm oc'em isat'vis
k 'a rt'u lsh i," in Arili = Festschrift Prof. Dr. Iwane Dschawachischwili. T p 'ilisi, 1925. Pp. 89106. Ger. Sum., "Zur Obergabe der griechischen M annernam en in Georgischen," pp. 105-106.
815
. "Slovo I0rip v tipikone petritsonskogo m onastyria," in Ivane javadshvilis dabadebis 100

clist'avisamdi midzghvnili scuubileo krebuli = Iubileinyi sbomikposviashchennyi 100-letiiu so
dnia rozhdeniia akademika I A . Dzhavakhishvili. T b ilisi: M ec'., 1976. Pp. 242-244.
Ramsay, W illiam M. Asianic Elements in Greek Civilization. London, 1928.
. The Historical Geography o f Asia Minor. RGSSP, vol. 4. New York: Cooper Square Publishers.
1972 repr. (1890).
Rap'ava, M aia. "Grigol nazianzelis hom iliebi, rogorc cqaro nikita stit'ad s antim onop'izituri
t'xzulebisa, in P'ilologiuri dziebani, vol. 2 (T b ilisi: K. Kekelidzis saxelobis
xelnacert'a instituti, 1995), pp. 81-108. E nglish summary, "The Hom ilies o f Gregory
Nazianzen on the Source o f the Andm onophysite Work by N ikita Stytathis. pp. 107-108.
Rapp, Jr., Stephen R "The Coinage o f T am ar, Soverign o f Georgia in Caucasia: A Prelim inary Study in
the Numismatic Inscriptions o f Tw elfth- and Thirteenth-Century Georgian Royal Coinage," LeM
106/3-4 (1993), pp. 309-330.
. "[Georgian H istorical Literature]," in Robert G. Hoyland, Seeing Islam as Others Saw It: A
Survey o f the Non-Muslim Sources Relevant to Early Islam in History. Princeton: Darwin
Press, 1997. Excursus 5.
Ratiani, Prokop'i. Tbileli berebi. T b ilisi: M ec'., 1989. Rus. sum., "Vosstanie tbilisskikh gorozhan v XI
v."
Rayfield, Donald. "Georgian Dendronym s," BK 42 (1984), pp. 248-252.
. The Literature o f Georgia: A History. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994.
Richard, Jean. "Lextrem e-orient tegendaire au moyen age: roi David et Pretre Jean," AE 2 (1957), pp.
225-242.
Robakidze, A.I. "Kavkazovedcheskie problem y gruzinskoi etnografii." KES, vol. 4. T bilisi: M ec'., 1972.
Pp. 5-23.
Rogers, J.M . "The M xargrdzelis Between East and W est," BK 34 (1976), pp. 315-326.
Rostovtzeff, M. Iranians and Greeks in South Russia. New York: Russell and R ussell, 1969 repr. (1922).
Runciman, Steven. The Emperor Romanus Lecapenus and His Reign. Cambridge: Cam bridge UP, 1929.
Russell, James R. "On the O rigins and Invention o f the Armenian Script," LeM 107/3-4 (1994), pp. 317331.
. "Pre-Christian A rm enian Religion," in ANRW, vol. 18. Berlin-New York: W alter de
Gruyter, 1990. Pp. 2679-2692.
. "Some Iranian Im ages o f K ingship in the A rm enian Artaxiad Epic," REArm, n.s. 20 (19861987), pp. 253-270.
. Zoroastrianism in Armenia. HIS, vol 5. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1987.
Sabinin, Gobron (M ikhail). Istoriia gruzinskoi tserkvi do kontsa VI veka. SPB, 1877.
816
Sak'art'velo rust'avelis xanashi: rust'avelis dabadebis 800 clist'avisadmi midzghvnili krebuli. T b ilisi:
M ec'., 1966. Rus. sums., pp. 293-312. Includes: M. Dumbadze, "Sak'art'velos istoriuli
sinam dvile da shot'a rust'aveli," pp. 5-31; M. L o rt'k'ip 'anid ze, "Soc'ialuri u rt'iertobis
istoriidan XII s. sak'art'veloshi," pp. 32-51; M. B erdzenishvili. "Sak'art'velos saxelm cip'o
sazghvrebi XIII saukunis damdegs," pp. 52-65, m ap p. 53; B. Lominadze. "Saxelm cip'osa da
eklesiis u rtie rtoba VUI-XEI saukuneebis sak'art'veloshi," pp. 66-92; R. Kiknadze. Kidev e rt'i
k 'a rt uli cqaro lasha giorgis istoriisat'vis," pp. 93-104; B. Silagadze. "XH-XHI ss. sak'art'velos
istoriis zogiert'i sakit'xi ibn al-asiris c 'n o b at'a shuk'ze, pp. 105-143; Z. Anch'abadze and M.
C in e'ad ze. "Sak'art'velo da ch 'rd ilo et'a kavkasia XU saukunesa da XHI saukunis I
naxevarshi," pp. 144-160; K '. C h'xataraishvili, "Uc'xoelebi XII saukunis sak'art'velos
lashk'arshi," pp. 161-186; I. G dzelishvili, "R ust'avelis epok'is k 'a rt'u li sop'eli." pp. 187-198;
D. M usxelishvili, "T bilisis am irtam irobis institutisat'vis," pp. 199-221; G. C 'k'itishvili,
"Istoriani da azmani sharavandedt'ani-s e rt'i adgilis nakit'xvisat'vis," pp. 222-227; V. Dondua.
"'V ep'xistqaosani' da t'am aris istorikosebi," pp. 228-241; L. Davlianidze. "Mat e urhaelis
c'nobebi davit' aghm asheneblis shesaxeb," pp. 242-252; G. M aisuradze, "E rt'i somxuri cqaro
dem na up'lisculis ajanqebis shesaxeb, pp. 253-266; O. Zhuzhunadze, "Sak'art'velosa da ruset'is
u rt'iert'o b is istoriidan XII saukuneshi," pp. 267-280; an d Z . Buniiatov, "Gruziia i Shirvan v
pervoi polovine XU veka (Stranichka iz istorii epokhi Shota Rustaveli)," pp. 281-292.
Sak'art'velos eklesiis kalendari. T b ilisi: Sruliad sak'art'velos sapatriark'o, 1991.

Salia, K alistrat. "Bref aperû sur les rapports georgiano-byzantins," BK 33 (1975), pp. 119-161.
., ed., "Georgia, an Introduction." Special issue o f BK, vol. 30. Paris, 1975.
. History o f the Georgian Nation. Trans, by K atharine Vivian. 2nd ed. Paris: Prix de
FAcadfrnie Franâise, 1980-1983.
Sanakoev, I. "KartveFskiia legendy," SMOMPK 19 (1894), pp. 141-154. Includes "Ob Iisuse Khriste.
proroke Ile i sv. Georgie," pp. 152-154.
Sandalgian, Joseph. Histoire documentaire de IA rmenie des ages du paganisme (1410AV-305 APR.
J.-C.). 2 vols. Rome: Im prim erie du Sdnat, 1917. Repr. New York: AMS Press, 1974.
Sanikidze, Levan. Atek'sandre makedoneli. T b ilisi: T U G , 1984.
. Sak'art'velos istoria: t'valis ert'i gadavlebit'. T b ilisi: Samshoblo, 1994.
Saijveiadze, Alek'sandre. "Ramdenime dakvirveba mamamdzudze, uxue'esi, m oxue'ebuli term inebis
shesaxeb," in Istoriul-cqarot'mc'odneobit'i dziebani. T b ilisi: M ec'., 1989. Pp. 18-27.
Rus. sum., "NeskoFko nabliudenii nad drevnegruzinskim sotsiaFnymi term inam i
'memamdzudze,' 'ukhutsesi,' 'm okhutsebuli,'" pp. 26-27.
Sarjveladze, A., Zurab Sarjveladze, and T a m a r Xazhom ia. Juansheri: C'xovreba vaxtang gorgaslisa.
K'C'S, vol. 2. T b ilisi: M ec'., 1986.
Saridssian, Karekin, The Council ofChalcedon and the Armenian Church. London: SPCK, 1965.
Saroukhan, A. Firdowci et Tinjluence iranienne dans la litterature georgienne. Vienna: Im prim erie des
P.P. M echitharistes, 1936.
Schlumberger, Gustave. L E popie byzantine a la fin du dixieme siecle. Part 2, "Basile II: Le Tueur de
Bulgares." Paris, 1900.
817
Schm itt, Rudiger. "Arm enische Personennamen und geograpische Namen: eine Ubersicht." in SSCISSXf,
vol. 43b -11 Caucaso: Cemierafra Culture dal Mediterraneo alia Persia. Spoleto: Presso la
Sede del Centro, 1996. Pp. 685-709.
Schrier, O tnert J. "Syriac Evidence for the Rom an-Persian W ar o f 421-422," GRBS 33/1 (Spr. 1992), pp.
75-86.
Schultze, K . "Das M artyrium des Heiligen Abo von Tiflis," TUGAL 28/4 (1905), pp. 1-41.
Shahbazi, A. Shapur. Ferdowsi: A Critical Biography. Costa M esa, CA: M azda Publications/Harvard
UP, 1991.
Shahid, Irfan. "The Iranian Factor in Byzantium D uring the R eign o f H eraclius," DOP 26 (1972). pp.
293-320.
. "The Kebra Nagast in the Light o f Recent Research," LeM 89 (1976), pp. 133-178.
Shanidze, A. [Chanidze]. "Le Grand Domestique de l'O ccident, G regorii Bakurianis-dze. et le monastere
georgien fonde par lui en Bulgarie, BK 28 (1971), pp. 133-166.
. "Iazyk i pis'm o kavkazskikh albantsev." Moskva: Izd-vo Vostochnoi literatury, 1960.
. "Novootkrytyi alfavit kavkazskikh albantsev i ego znachenie dlia nauki," Moambe IV/1 (1938).
pp. 1-62. Fr. sum ., pp. 66-68.
Shanidze, M zek ala. "G ruzinskii gomileticheskii sbom ik X II veka kak prim er gruzino-vizantiiskikh
kul'tum ykh sviazei," in VE. Tbilisi: M ec'., 1991. Pp. 33-40. Eng. sum ., "A Georgian
C ollection o f Hom ilies (X m th C en t) as an Exam ple o f G eorgian-Byzantine Cultural Relations,"
p. 40.
Shepard, J. "Scylitzes on Arm enia in the 1040s, and the Role o f Catacolon Cecaumenos,"/?4 rm. n.s. 11
(1975-1976), pp. 269-311.
Shervashidze, L.A. andL .N . Solov'ev, "Issledovanie drevnego Sebastopolisa," 4 3 (1960), pp. 171-179.
Shevchenko, Ihor. "Hagiography o f the Iconoclast Period," in Iconoclasm: Papers Given at the 9th
Spring Symposium o f Byzantine Studies (Univ. o f B irm ingham , 1975), ed. by A. Bryer and
J. H errin. Birm ingham , 1977. Pp. 113-131. Repr. as study #5 in his Ideology, Letters and
Culture in the Byzantine World. London: Variorum R eprints, 1982.
Shevchenko, N. "Omophorion," in ODB, vol. 3 (1991). p. 1526.
Silagadze, Beniam in. Arabt'a batonobasak'art'veloshi (arabuli c'nobebismixedvit'). T b ilisi: M ec'.,
1991.
Silogava, V aleri. "D avit' aghmashenebelis shiom ghvim isadm i anderdzshi damocmebuli dzveli k 'a rt uli
sabut'ebi da anderdzis damocmeba dzvel k 'a rt'u l sabut'ebshi," Mac'ne 1 (1990), pp. 115-138.
Eng. sum ., "O ld G eorgian Documents M entioned in D avid the B uilder's W ill to the
Shiom ghvim e Laura and Reference to the W ill in O ld G eorgian Documents, pp. 136-138.
Smith, G.J. an d A.J. Sm ith. "Jason's Golden Fleece," OJA 11/1 (1992), pp. 119-120.
Sruliad sak 'art 'velos mep e davit' aghmashenebeli. Tp' ilisi, 1892.
818
Stepnadze, Jemal. Sak'art'velo XIIsaukunesa daXIIsaukunispirvel meot'xedshi. T bilisi: M ec'.. 198S.

Rus. sum., "Gruziia v XII v. i pervoi chetverti XIII v.," pp. 188-189.
. "XI-XII saukuneebis sak'art'velos m ep'et'a titulebis gagebisat'vis." in Dziebani sak'art'velosa
da kavkasiis istoriidan. T b ilisi: Mec.. 1976. Pp. 156-165.
Stone. Michael E. "The Armenian Apocryphal Literature: Translation and Creation." in SSCISSM. vol.
43b = II Caucaso: Cemiera fra Culture dal Mediterraneo alia Persia. Spoleto: Presso la Sede
del Centro, 1996. Pp. 611-646.
Suny, Ronald G. The Making o f the Georgian Nation. Bloomington. IN: Indiana UP. 1988 (rev. ed.
1994).
.. ed., Transcaucasia, Nationalism and Social Change: Essays in the History o f Armenia,
Azerbaijan, and Georgia. Rev. ed. Ann Arbor. MI: University o f M ichigan Press. 1996.
Surguladze, I. "Ert'i sak'orcilo cesis m it'osuni da soc'ialuri bunebisat'vis," in Mac'ne 1 (1989). pp. 3049.
. K'art'uli xalxuri omamentis simbolika. Tbilisi: Samshoblo, 1993. Rus. sum., pp. 210218; Fr. sum., pp. 219-228.
. "Zoomorp'uli simbolikis shescavlisat'vis (iremi-lomi)," in Tbilisis shromis cit'eli droshis
ordenosani saxelmcip'o universiteti shromebi 243 (1983), pp. 121-134.
Surguladze, Mzia. Bagrationt'a samep 'o saxli. [Genealogical tables prepared by the author and
Mixeil K 'avt'aria]. T b ilisi: Kandeli. 1995.
. "Politikuri da kulturul-sarcmunoebrivi p'ormulebi kart'vel m ep'et'a titulaturashi." in G.
Alasania, ed., K'art'uli cqarot'mc'odneoba. vol. 8. T bilisi: M ec'.. 1993. Pp. 150-160. Eng.
sum., "Political, Cultural, and Religious Formulas in the Titles o f Georgian Kings." pp. 159-160.
Tamarati, Michel. UEglise georgjenne des originesjusqu'a nos jours. Rome, 1910.
Tamrat. Taddesse. Church and State in Ethiopia 1270-1527. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1972.
Taqalshvili. E. [Takaishvilij. Dzveli sak'art'velo. 4 vols. Tp'ilisi. 1909-1915.
. "Georgian Chronology and the Beginnings of Bagratid Rule in Georgia." Georgica 1/1 (Oct.
1935), pp. 9-27.
. "Antiquites georgiennes." Byzantion 10/2 (1935), pp. 655-663 and 12/1-2 (1937). pp. 197-206.
. Sumbat davit'isdzis k'ronika tao-klarjet'is bagrationt'a shesaxeb. T b i l is i 1949
Tarchnishvili. Mich[a]el. "Die Anfhnge der schriftstellerischen Tatigkeit des hi. Euthymius und der
Aufstand von Bardas Skleros," OC 38 (1954), pp. 113-124.
. "La decouverte d'une inscription georgienne de 1'an 1066," BK 26-27 (Nov. 1957), pp. 86-89.
. "Le Dieu Lune Armazi," BK 11-12 (1961), pp. 36-40.
819
. "Die Entstehung und Entwicklung der itirchlichen Autokephalie Georgiens." LeM 73 (1960).
pp. 107-126.
. Geschichte der kirchlichen georgischen Literatur. Studi e Testi. vol. 185. Citta del Vaticano:
Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1955.
. "Die Legende der heiligen Nino und die Geschichte des Georgischen Nationalbewusstseins." BZ
40 (1940), pp. 48-75.
. "Le soulevement de Bardas Skldros." BK 17-18 (1964). pp. 95-97.
. "Sources armeno-georgiennes de l'histoire ancienne de 1'eglise de Georgie." LeM 60/1-2 (1947).
pp. 29-50.
. "Un vestige de l'art georgien en Egypte," BK 6-7 (1959), pp. 24-26.
Ter-Ghevondian. A N . [Ter-GhewondyanJ. Armeniia i arabskii khalifat. Erevan: Izd-vo Armianskoi
SSR. 1977.
. The Arab Emirates in Bagratid Armenia. Trans, by N.G. Garsolan. Lisbon: Calouste
Gulbenkian Foundation, 1976.
. "Bibliographique du dialogue islamo-chretien VI.5: Auteurs chretiens armeniens." in R. Caspar.
ed., Islamo-Christiana 6 (Rome, 1980), pp. 279-287.
Ter-Minassiantz. Erwand. Die armenische Kirche in ihren Beziehungen zu den syrischen Kirchen his
zum ende 13 Jahrhunderts. TUGAL, vol. 26/4; Neue Folge. vol. 11. Leipzig. 1904.
Thelamon, Francois. "Histoire et structure mythique: la conversion des Iberes." RH 247 (1972). pp. 5-28.
. "Notes d'un voyage en Georgie turque." BK 8-9 (1960). pp. 10-29.
Thomson, Robert W. "The Armenian Image in Classical Texts," in Richard G. Hovannisian. ed.. The
Armenian Image in History and literature. Malibu. CA: Undena Publications. 1981. Pp. 9-25.
. "The Armenian Version o f the Georgian Chronicles." JSAS 5 (1990-1991). pp. 81-90.
. "The Formation o f the Armenian Literary Tradition." in N.G. Garsoian. T. Mathews, and R. W.
Thomson, eds.. East o f Byzantium: Syria and Armenia in the Formative Period. Washington.
DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 1980. Pp. 135-150.
. "Georgia," in ODB, vol. 2 (1991), pp. 840-841.
. "Georgian Literature," in ODB, vol. 2 (1991). pp. 843-844.
. "The Influence o f their Environment on the Armenians in Exile in the Eleventh Century," in
Proceedings o f the XIIIth International Congress ofByzantine Studies, Oxford 5-10 September
1966. London: Oxford UP, 1967. Pp. 432-438.
. "Jerusalem and Armenia," in Proceedings o f the 1983 Oxford Patristic Conference. Ed. by E. A
Livingstone. Leuven, 1986. Pp. 77-91.
. "The Maccabees in Early Armenian Historiography," JTS 26 (1975), pp. 329-341.
820
. "A Medieval Arm enian View o f the Physical World; The Cosmology- o f Vardan Arewelc'i in His
Chronicle, REArm, n.s. 23 (1992), pp. 191-208.
. "Mission, Conversion, and Christianization: The Armenian Example." HUS 12/13 (1988/1989).
pp. 28-45.
. "Muhammad and the Origin o f Islam in Armenian Literary Tradition." in D. Kouymjian. ed..
Armenian Studies in Memorian Haig Berberian. Lisbon; Calouste Gulbenldan Foundation.
1986. Pp. 829-858.
. "The Origins o f Caucasian Civilization; The Christian Component," in R.G. Suny. ed.,
Transcaucasia, Nationalism and Social Change. Ann A rbor M ichigan Slavic Pubs.. 1983. Pp.
25-43.
. Studies in Armenian Literature and Christianity. Brookfield. Vermont: Variorum. 1994.
. "The Transformation o f Athanasius in Armenian Theology (A Tendentious Version of the
Epistula ad Epictetum," LeM 78 (1965), pp. 47-69.
. "Vardapet in the Early Armenian Church," LeM 75/1-2 (1962). pp. 367-384.
. "The W riting o f History: The Development o f the Armenian and Georgian Traditions." in
SSCISSM, vol. 43a = II Caucaso: Cemierafra Culture dal Mediterraneo alia Persia. Spoieto:
Presso la Sede del Centro. 1996. Pp. 493-520.
Toumanoff, Cyril. "Armenia and Georgia," in CMH. vol. 4/1. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1966. Pp.
593-637.
. "The Background to Mantzikert." in Proceedings o f the XHIth International Congress o f
Byzantine Studies, Oxford S -l0 September 1966. London: Oxford UP. 1967. Pp. 411-426.
. "The Bagratids o f Iberia from the Eighth to the Eleventh Century." L e i / 74/1-2 (1961). pp. 5-42.
and 74/3-4 (1961), pp. 233-316.
. "Caucasia and Byzantine Studies," Traditio 12 (1956), pp. 409-425.
. "Christian Caucasia between Byzantium and Iran: New Light from O ld Sources," Traditio 10
(1954), pp. 109-189.
. "Chronology o f the Early Kings of Iberia," Traditio 25 (1969), pp. 1-33.
. "Chronology o f the Kings o f Abasgia and Other Problems," LeM 69 (1956), pp. 73-90. Includes
"Date o f the Death o f the Curopalates Ashot the Great o f Iberia," pp. 83-85.
. "The Early Bagratids: Remarks in Connexion With Some Recent Publications." LeM 61/1-2
(1948), pp. 21-54.
. "The Fifteenth-Century Bagratids and the Institution o f Collegial Sovereignty in Georgia."
Traditio 7 (1949-1951), pp. 169-221.
. "Georgia, Church in Ancient," in NCE, vol. 6. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. Pp. 361-369.
. "Iberia on the Eve of BagratidRule," LeM 65 (1952), pp. 17-49 and 199-258.
821
. Manuel de genealogie et de chronologie pour Thistoire de la Caucasie chretienne. Rome. 1976.
Revised as Les dynasties de la Caucasie chretienne. Rome, 1990.
. "Medieval Georgian Historical Literature (Vllth-XVth Centuries)." Traditio I (1943). pp. 139182.
. "The Oldest Manuscript o f the Georgian Annals: The Queen Anne Codex (QA). 1479-1495."
Traditio 5 (1947), pp. 340-344.
. "On the Relationship Between the Founder of the Empire o f Trebizond and the Georgian Queen
Thamar," Speculum 15 (1940), pp. 299-312.
. "The Third-Century Armenian Arsacids: A Chronological and Genealogical Commentary."
REArm, n.s. 6 (1969), pp. 233-281.
. Review o f Gerard Garitte's Documents pour Vetude de livre dAgathange (1946). in Traditio 5
(1947), pp. 373-383.
. Review of Ernest Stein's Histoire du Bas-Empire (1949), in Traditio 7 (1949-1951). pp. 481-490.
. Studies in Christian Caucasian History. Washington. DC: Georgetown UP, 1963.
Toumanoff, C. and W_Z. Djobadze. "Georgian Literature and Art," in NCE, vol. 6. New York: M cG raw Hill. 1967. Pp. 369-371.
Toynbee, Arnold. Constantine Porphyrogenitus and His World. London: Oxford UP. 1973.
Trapsh, M .M "Nekotorye itogi arkheologicheskogo issledovaniia v Sukhumi v 1951-1953 gg.." S.4 23
(1955), pp. 206-227.
Trever, K.V. Ocher/dpo istorii i kul'ture kavkazskoi Albanii IVv. do n.e. - 171 v. n.e. MoskvaLeningrad: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1959.
Ts - See also C
Tsagareli. A. Svedeniia o pamiatnikakh gruzinskoi pismenosti. 3 parts. SPB, 1886. 1889, and 1894.
Tsereteli See also Ceret'eli
Tsereteli. M. "The Asianic (Asia Minor) Elements in National Georgian Paganism." Georgica 1/1 (Oct.
1935), pp. 28-66.
Tsetskhladze, Gocha R. "The Cult o f Mithras in Ancient Colchis," RHR 209/2 (1992). pp. 115-124.
. "Greek Colonization of the Eastern Black Sea Littoral (Colchis)," DHA 18/2 (1992) = CRHA,
vol. 120, pp. 223-258.
Tsetskhladze, Gocha and D.C. Braund. "The Export of Slaves from Colchis," CQ 39/1 (1989), pp. 114125.
Tsintsadze, K. Avtokefaliia tserkvi gruzinskoi fistoricheskii ocherk II-X I w.J. Tiflis, 1905.
Tskitishvili, O.V. "Islam i Gruziia v rannee srednevekov'e," in Amierkavkasiis istoriis problemebi.
T bilisi: Mec ., 1991. Pp. 115-131.
822
Tsulaia, G.V. Abkhaziia i abkhazy v kontekste istorii Gruzii (domongoTskii period). Moskva:
RAN/Institut etnologii i antropologii, I99S.
Vashakidze, Valeri. Elinisturi xanisk'art'lissamep'ossoc'ialuri istoriidan (Istoriulicqarot'mc'odneobit'igamokvleva). T bilisi: Mec.. 1991. Rus. sum.. "Iz sotsial'noi istorii
kartliiskogo tsarstva ellinisticheskoi epokhi," pp. 141-149.
. "Mepeta cxovreba' da berdznuli aleksandriani." in Istoriul-cqarot me odneobit7
gamokvlevebi. T b ilisi: Mec., 1991. Pp. 37-46. Rus. sum.. "Grecheskii Hom anob Aleksandre'
i 'Zhizn' Kartliiskikh Tsarei," p. 46.
Vasiliev, A.A. "The Foundation o f the Empire ofTrebizond (1204-1222)," Speculum 11/1 (1936). pp. 337.
. The Goths in the Crimea. Cambridge, MA: The Medieval Academy o f America, 1936.
. Justin the First: An Introduction to the Epoch o f Justinian the Great. Cambridge. MA: Harvard
UP, 1950.
Vernadsky, George. Kievan Russia. New Haven-London: Yale UP, 1972 repr. (1948).
Vinogradov, V.B. "O real'nosti gruzinskogo vliianiia na severno-zapadnom Kavkaze v X-XIII w "
Mac'ne 4 (1987), pp. 162-169.
Vivian, K. "Vepkhistqaosani: Elements from Eastern and Western Cultures," BK 39 (1981). pp. 216-221.
Voprosy istorii narodov Kavkaza (sbomik statei, posviashchennykh pamiati Z. V. Anchabadze). Tbilisi:
Mec., 1988.
Voronov. Yuri. "Mariam Lordkipanidze, T he Abkhazians and Abkhazia'" (review article). In George
Hewitt, ed., Caucasian Perspectives. Munchen: Unterschleissheim, 1992. Pp. 259-264.
Vryonis, Jr., Speros. "Byzantine Images o f the Armenians," in Richard G. Hovannisian, ed.. The
Armenian Image in History and Literature. Malibu, CA: Undena Publications. 1981. Pp. 65-81.
Wade, Andrew. "The Oldest Iadgari: The Jerusalem Tropologion. V-Vin c.," OCP 50 (1984), pp. 451456.
Walter, Christopher. "The Origins o f the Cult of Saint George," REB 53 (1995), pp. 295-326.
von Wesendonk, O.G. "tJber georgisches Heidentum," Caucasia: Zeitschriftfh r die Erforschung der
Sprachen und Kulturen des Kaukasus 1 (1924), pp. 1-102. With "NachtrSge zxun georgischen
Heidentum," 2 (1925), pp. 121-130.
Whitby, Michael. The Emperor Maurice and His Historian: Theophylact Simocatta on Persian and
Balkan Warfare. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988.
Will, Edouard. "The Succession to Alexander," in CAH, 2nd ed., vol. 7/1. Cambridge: Cambridge UP,
1984. Pp. 23-61.
Wilson, Robert D. Genealogy and History in the Biblical World. YNES, vol. 7. New Haven: Yale UP,
1977.
823
Winkler, G. "O ar Present Knowledge of the History o f Agat'angeghos and its Oriental Versions,"
REArm, n.s. 14 (1980), pp. 125-141.
X - See also Kh
Xaxanashvili, A.S. [Khakhanov. Chachanowj. Drevneishie predely razseleniia gruzin po maloi Grtaii.
Moskva, 1890.
. "Gruzinskaia povest ob Aleksandre Makedonskom i serbskaia Aleksandriia." ZhMNP 289/9
(1893). pp. 241-252.
. "Kart'v elt'a m ep'et'a tituli. kurt'xeva da regaliebi," Moambe 2/7 (1895), pp. 75-88.
. Ocherki po istorii gruzinskoi slovesnosti. 2 vols. Moskva, 1895 and 1897.
Xaxutaishvili. D. Iberiisk'alak't'a istoriissakit'xebi. T b ilisi: M ec'., 1966. Rus. sum.. "Voprosy istorii
gorodov Iberii," pp. 216-246.
. Up'lisc'ixek'alak'ikldeshi. T bilisi: M ec'., 1989.
Xazaradze, Nana [Khazaradze]. "K istorii termina tabal assiriiskikh pis'mennykh istochnikov." in
Kavkasiur-axloaghmosavluri krebuli, vol. 7. T b ilisi: M ec'., 1984. Pp. 93-101. Eng. sum..
"The Term Tabal of Assyrian Evidence," pp. 170-171.
. Ocherki drevnei istorii meskhov. Tbilisi: M ec'., 1992. Eng. sum., "Essays of the Meskhians
Ancient History," pp. 179-181.
. Sak'art 'velos dzveli istoriis et 'no-politikuri problemebi (mosxebi). Tbilisi: Mec., 1984. Eng.
sum., "Ethno-Political Problems o f the Ancient History o f Georgia (The Moschi)," pp. 197-199.
Xoshtaria-Brosse[t], Edisher. "Dzveli k'art'uli mcerlobis dzeglebshi gamoqenebuli terminebis eris da
misgan nacarmoebi 'erisaganis', 'eriskac'is' da 'saeros' soc' ialur-samart' lebrivi aspek'tebi."
Mac'ne 2 (1990), pp. 123-129. Eng. sum.. "The Social and Legal Meanings of the Term rEri'
and its Derivates Erisgani', Eriskatsi' and 'Saero' in Old Georgian Written Sources," p. 129.
. "'K 'art'lis c'xovrebis dasacqisi c'iklis shescavlis shedegebi da tek'stshi arsebuli minacerebis
interpretac'iis c'd a (amosavali debulebebi da argumentebi)." in K'art'uli cqarot'mc'odneoba.
T bilisi: M ec'., 1993. Pp. 81-87. Eng. sum., "The Results o f the Study of the First Cycle o f
'Kartlis Tskhovreba' and an Attempt o f Interpretation o f the Existing Entries of the Text." pp. 8687.
. "Leonti mrovelis cqaroebis da k 'a rt'lis c'xovrebis dasacqisi c'iklis shedgenilobis
sakit" xisat' vis," Mravalt 'avi 16(1991), pp. 181-188.
Yarshater, Ehsan. "Iranian Common Beliefs and World-View," in CHI, vol. 3/1. Cambridge: Cambridge
UP, 1983. Pp. 343-358.
. "Iranian National History," in CHI, vol. 3/1. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1983, pp. 359-477.
., ed., Persian Literature. CLIS, vol. 3. Albany, NY: Bibliotheca Persica, 1988.
Zak'araia, Parmen [Zak'araia], Drevnie kreposti Gruzii. Tbilisi: Merani, 1969.
. Krepostnye sooruzheniia Kartli. Tbilisi: Mec., 1968.
824
Z ak'aria,P . andT .K apanadze. C'ixegojiark'eopolisinok'alak'evixurot'modzgfnreba. T b ilisi:

Mec., 1991.
Zak'araia, P., V. Lekvinadze, andN . Lomouri, "Fouilles de NokalakeviArcheopolis." BK 37 (1979). pp.
194-202.
Zekiyan. B.L. "La rupture entre les eglises georgienne et armenienne au debut du V lT siecle." REArm.
n.s. 16 (1982), pp. 155-174.

Rap

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rap

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INFORMATION TO USERS

Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality

illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins,

IMAGINING HISTORY AT THE CROSSROADS:

Stephen Harold Rapp, Jr.

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment

UMI Number: 9722070

UMI M icroform 9722070

300 N o rth Zeeb Road

Stephen Harold Rapp, Jr.

"Constantinople is a rotten city. Chiaberi and I learned a lot in the

The Georgian Messenger,

For my mother and father,

Stephen H. Rapp, Jr.

Note on the Sources

Modem Studies on Medieval Georgian Historical Literature

Non-Historical Georgian Texts and Non-Textual Evidence

Note on Armenian Sources

THE PRE-BA GRA TID PERIOD.

C hapter One. Forging the P re-B agratid Historical Tradition.

I. The Dawn o f Georgian Historical Writing

II. The Corpus of Mok c 'evay k 'art 'lisay

The Original Core

Constituent Texts o f the Corpus

m . The Corpus o f C'xorebay k'art 'velt'a mep et 'a Traditionally Attributed

The Identification o f Leonti Mroveli. the Traditional Author o f

C'xorebay k'art'velt'a mep'et'a

Sources and Influences

a. Local Georgian Sources

c. Greek Sources/Influences Explicitly Cited

d. Armenian Influences and Sources

e. Unacknowledged Influences: The Deluge Universe!

Internal Evidence for Dating The Ufe o f the Kings

The Date o f The Ufe o f the Kings

The Corpus o f C 'xorebay vaxtang gorgaslisa Tradi tionally

The Title o f C 'xorebay vaxtang gorgaslisa

The Author, Date, and Composite Nature o f the Text

The Sources o f C 'xorebay vaxtcmg gorgaslisa

A The Book o f Nimrod

The Earliest Georgian Reference to the K 'art'velian Bagratids

The Dates o f the Constituent Texts

C h ap ter Two. T he Algebra of O rigins.

The Origin of the K 'art'velians and Post-Diluvian K 'art'Ii

The Sons of Togarmah and the O rigin o f Caucasia

The Immediate Progeny o f K 'art' los

Stemma of the Eponymous Ancestors o f Caucasia

The Roman Empire in Pre-Bagratid Georgian Historical Texts

The Persian Context Admitted: K 'a rt'Ii as Part o f the Persian

Cosmopolitanism Admitted and Explained

Intellectual Vandalism: Scribes, Patriotism, and the Legend of

The Mythical Conquest o f K 'art'li by Alexander the Great and the

Georgian Sources on Alexander's Invasion o f K 'art'li

The Narrative o f the Mythical Conquest o f K 'art'li by Alexander

Azon/Azoy and the Two Georgian Traditions o f the Establishment

A Further Consideration o f the Dates o f the Medieval Traditions

Alexander in Succeeding Georgian Historiography

Chapter Three. Representations o f Pre-Christian Kingship.

P'amavaz Becomes King

P'amavaz as the Patron of the Georgian Language and the

n. The Secular Image o f Pre-Christian K 'art'velian Kingship

Divine Fortune: T he Persian Conception o f Famah

Kings as Sasanid Royal Heroes

Me' xet' a and the Mobility of Kings

Kings as Creators and Pinnacles o f Administration