Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Vol. ()(I I
SUBSIDIA
TOMUS 113
BY
LOVANII
L'\ AEDIBUS PEETERS
2003
TilE PRE-CHRISTIAN SllCI'ION 269
part 1). It is true that the early sections of Mok'. k'art'. are plagued by
corruptions, and this may constitute one of them. However, in the
absence of other MSS, this creative interpretation must remain only a
possibility. See also T'aqarshvili, .. lstochniki," pp. 6-7, fn. 2. For the
lranic names of the early K'art 'velian monarchs, see infra, #2/RL/. On
canals and irrigation, see Gegesbidz.e, " lrrigatsiia."
1-8/PBK'
ROYAL U ST I (RLI)
llRLJ
Azoy (r. 330-272 BC according to Gorgadze, though these dates lack
precision). RLI is the only early Georgian text to style Azoy mep'e.
Azoy is identified by PHK' - the te)(t just preceding RLJ , for which see
above- as the son of an unnamed king of Aryan K'art'li, implying that
some sort of K' an'velian kingship bad preceded P'amavaz. But this ear-
lier monarchy bad not been headquartered at Mc'xet'a. Cf. Iqalt'oeli,
quoted supra, who reformulated the phrase to make his "Azove" the
first king of the K'art'velians.
Assuming that be was not a mythical figure, did Azoy actually assume
the throne? A definitive solution to this fundamental question cannot be
attained with materia.ls currently at our disposal. Yet we may observe
that PHK' is silent about the possible royal status of Azoy. He is
depict.ed as the son of a king, and kingship in contemporary western
Asiu customarily descended :along hereditary lines according to primo
geniture. PHK" s silence does not necessarily indicat.e that its author did
not regard him as a monarch. PHK' was conceivably written by the same
author responsible for RLI , and this might explain PHK"s silence; if
tme, PHK' and RLI comprise a single organic tel!:t Wld an.y divisions
between them are artificial. But this is not at all certain, and in any case
the style and structure of PliK ' and RLI are greatly divergent. For its
274 S.H. RAPP
part, U<ings maintains that Azon was neither a king nor even a
K' an' velian. He could make no legitimate claim to the rhrone and
Alexander did not appoint him as monarch.
We may only speculate whether there is a common source lurking
behind PHK'IRLJ and U<ings, and should one have existed what it said
about Azoy/Azon. Another possibility is that PHK'IRLJ and U<ings are
somehow dependent. Should PHK'/RLJ have been the direct source for
LKings, the latter would constitute a refutation that (I) Azoy was the
fll'St king in Mc'xct'a, and that (2) a dynasty preceded even Alexander in
Ayran K'art'li. Why LKings' Azon was vilified is uncenain. In any case,
there can be no question that the memory of P'arnavaz - Azon's
K'an'velian opponent - has been idealized in LKings (see# 2/RLJ).
Should LKings have served as the source for PHK'IRLJ, the latter might
represent a conscious denial of the P'amavaz legend. Despite their dif-
ferences, the two tr.tditions concur that kingship was established in
Mc'xet'a in the early HeUenistic period and this is verified in non-Geor-
gtan sources.
2/RLI
P'amavaz (r. 299-234 BC). Beginning with P'amavaz. l have adopted
the regnal dates of Toumanoff, "Chronology/lbcria," pp. 1-33, pp. 8-9
for P'amavaz. Toumanoff's calculations are the most reasonable, but
for the period of late antiquity all such dates remain speculative. Cf.
the period 284 to 219 BC proposed by lngoroqva, "D-.tvel-k'an ' uli
matiane," pp. 3 14-317; and Sak'art'velos mep'eebi, p. 15. Melik'ish-
vili's work on the early kings of K'an'li has been especially influential,
particularly: "K'art'lis samep'os k' ronologiis"; "K'art'lis mep'et'a";
and "Saistorio tradic'ia." See also this chapter's Excursus B for a table
of early K'art'velian kings, their reigns (as computed by Toumanoff),
and the forms of their names in K'C and Mok'. k'art'.
According to U<ings (Qauxch'ishvili ed., pp. 20-26), P'arnavaz was
the first king of the K 'an'velians and the founder of the P'amavaziani
(~~t'l6~a~'l>o~6o, "of/from/named for P'amavaz") dynasty. The dynastic
tag P'amavaziani is encountered in LKings but never in PHK'IRLJ . The
existence of a real King P'arnavaz, at least as described in LKings, is
highly suspect. P'arnavaz is not aucsted directly in non-Georgian source,
though a "P'amawazean" (<Ptunfnuumll"uu) - i.e., P' arnavazid, LKings'
P' arnavaziani - dynasty is known in early Armenian histories, i.e., The
276 S.H. RAPP
based upon the Pers. word famalz, the di vinely-endowed glory or mdi-
ance believed by the Iranians 10 mark a legi1ima1e ruler. Jl should be
emphasized that lranic influence stemmed nol only from Iran itself but
also from the tribes of northern Caucasia. Thus, P'amavaz's successor
Saurmag bears a name based on a root from the O[v)si-Sarmatian-
Aianic, i.e., " Northern lranic," languages: Androni kashvili. Narkvevebi,
vol. I , pp. 130- 13 1 and 492-493; for Northern Jranic elements incorpo-
raled into Old Geo., see idem, " Skvit ' ur-sarmaluli da alanur-osuri e le-
mentebi k'art ' ulshi ." pp. 40-130, and "Skvil 'ur-alaour-osuri carmo-
mavlobis sakut 'ari saxelebi," pp. 130- 14 1. L Kings also stales that
P'amavaz married a woman from northern Caucas ia; she was one of the
Durdzuks who lived north of the Daria! Pass (Qauxch' ishvili ed., p. 25).
ln his trans. of Shirakac ' i (p. 117, n. 79}, Hewsen identifies the Dur-
dzuks, Arm. Durckk ', as the ancestors of the lngushcs. Sec also Kurt-
s ikidze/Chikovani, " Pankisi,'' pp. 10- 12, for the Durdzuks as Vaioaxs
(Vainakhs), i.e., the ancestors of the Chechcns and lngushes.
LKings' P'arnavaz possessed fa m all : while living in exile, the future
monarch discovered a hidden cave in which was stored a mass of trea-
sure; he had a dream in which he anoinled himself wilh the essence of
lhe Sun ; and he ful fi lled his desliny by vanquishing the tymnnical Azon.
LKings also maintains that P'amavaz had a d istinguished genealogy. On
his falhcr's side he was descended directly from Mc'xet'os, son of lhe
mythical K'an 'velian eponym K' an ' los, and his father's family had held
the position of mamasaxlisi (a~a~lJ~b<::>olJo, "father o f the house," the
leaders of Mc'xet'a prior to lhe establis.h menl of royal authority; cf.
Arm . uuwter, wwfmwtr > P'am avaz's mother was an lranian from lhe
region of Isfahan. RLI does no1 disclose any information about lhe
ancestry of P' amavaz and like PHK' it is complet.e ly ignorant about
K'an ' los.
The P'amavaz of LKings is alleged to have :
I. established an alliance with K'uji, later the lord of Egrisi (the Colchis of
Classical writers - K'uji is unattested elsewhere):
2. embr~ced 1000 Roman defectors from Azon's camp (these soldiers
were later named a:nauris, >'bw'C)t'i6o. which, in the medieval period
designated the high nobility: LKings' etymology linking them to Azon
is patent!y false);
3. submitted to the Seleucids, the Hellenistic successors of Alexander in
Syria and Mesopotamia (LKings affords their ruler the generic name of
Antiochos, for which see Toumanoff, Studies. pp. 80-8 1 and Melik' ish-
vili. K i.florii, pp. 298-301);
278 S.H. RAPP
great feast of dedication [satp'arebay] for the idol which had been
erected." Much later, in the ninth/tenth century, LNino describes the
statue of Annazi as "a man of bronze standing; allached to his body was
a golden suit of chain-armour, on his head a strong helmet; for eyes he
had emeralds and beryls, in his hands he held a sabre glittering like
lightning, and it turned in his hands" (Qauxch' ishvili ed., p. 89, Thom-
son trans., p. 98). The eighth-century Armenian historian Xorenac'i
(MX, U.86) also claims that an idol named Aramazd (Geo. Annazi) was
worshipped by the K' an'velians (see also # l/RLI).
Beeause we lack contemporary records, it is not cenain that the early
K'an'velians ever worshipped an idol/deity named Armazi. However,
the word "Armazi" itself suggests a linkage to the Iranian and/or
Anatolian worlds. At ftTSt glance. Armazi might se-e m to be connected
to the Zoroastrian supreme god Ahura Mazda (NB: Annazi is said to
be the supreme K'an 'velian deity). ln his Zoroastrianism in Armenia,
James Russell has shown the deep penetration of Zoroastrian ism in
neighboring Armenia. Although Russell has not thoroughly explored
the possibility, medieval Georgian texts and contemporary archaeolo-
gical evidence hint that the same holds true for K'an'li. And we
should not forget that localized forms of Iranian culture were embraced
by the tribes of nonhem Caucasia. the Kuban, and the Bosphorus :
Charachidz~. "Survivances." But the name Armazi may (also?) be con-
nected to the Anatolian world. Melik'ishvili (K istorii, pp. 111- 112 et
sqq) equates Armazi with the Hittite Anna, the god of the moon. More-
over, he posits that the K'an'velian idol Zadeni (see RLl #5) is actually
a reflection of the Anatolian Santash/Sandon. Annazi's identi ficat ion as
the local variant of the Hittite moon-god is attractive in the light of
Javaxishvili 's compelling theory that the early K'an'velians venerated
the moon as their chief deity. According to Javaxishvili, the attributes of
this moon god subsequently were fused with the Christian St. George (in
Eng. see his "St. George"). So the Georgian Annazi might actually be a
syncretic deity representing a combination of local K'an 'velian, Iranian,
and Anatolian elements. On the Hittite connection, see also Giorgadze,
At'asi ghvt'aebis k'veqana and esp. his "Triadebi." I wish to thank
Giorgi Cheishvili for wisely cautioning me against the cenain equation
of Armazi and Ahura Mazda.
Mamulia, Klasobrivi, with Eng. sum., pp. 184- 19 1, argues that
P'amavaz's mising of an idol adjacent to that of Azon symboli7..es the
"social synthesis" of their two houses. This elegant hypothesis is weak-
TilE PRE-CHRISTIAN SECTION 279
P'arnavaz and the Chorasmian Pharasmanes represent one and the same
figure. If this is indeed the case, then we would be compelled to rethink
the identity of P'arnavaz and also the meaning of Mok'. k'art' .'s myste-
rious Aryan K'art'li. Namely. Aryan K'art'li might actually be Pharas-
manes' homeland in Inner Asia- but this seems rather doubtful; cf.
##7-8/PHK' above. Cf. Kavtaradze, "Interrelationship," pp. 356-358,
who makes an interesting case for Anian 's Pharasmanes being the ruler
of the province of "Chorzene" which "apparently included the old
Georgian provinces Tao-Kiarjet'i and Kola-Artaani.''
Finally, an old quarter of the royal city of Mc'xet'a bore the name
Armazi. Already in the second century AD, Ptolemy referred to
*'ApllclKTtKa, clearly a Gk. form of Geo. Arrnazis-c'ixe ("Fortress of
Arrnazi," cf. Strabo's Harrnozike), and also to Ms<nA.ftta (Mc'xet'a,
cf. Msaxt9a of the sixth-century Byzantine historian Agathias).
Archaeological excavations have unearthed public baths and buildings,
some of which incorporated Roman features, as well as rich burial sites.
But no vestiges of the idol worship described in local narrative sources
have been uncovered. See: Mtsklreta; and Lang, "Armazi." Another
major contemporary site, that of Dzalisa (Ptolemy's ZaA.taaa) just to
the north of Mc'xet'a, has also attracted the attention of archaeologists
and historians: 0. Lon'k'ip'anidze. "Recent Discoveries." pp. 158-
165.
3/RLI
ates Saunnag with two idols, Ainina and Danana (possibly a confusion
of one and the same idol), " and [he) set them up on the road of
Mc'xet'a." Moreover, Saurmag, like his father, was "subject to the
king of Asurnstan [i.e., the Seleucids]" and he married the daughter of
the iranian governor of Ba.rdavi. Having two daughters and no son, he
adopted Mirvan, a descendant of Nimrod and member of the "Nebro-
t'iani" iranian royal dynasty. Mirvan married one of Saunnag's daugh-
ters, while the other daughter was supposedly wed to the son of the
ruler of Egrisi.
4/RLJ
5/RLl
265