Papers by giorgi tcheishvili
ქართული წყაროთმცოდნეობა/Georgian Source Studies, XXV, 2023
The paper examines a section of the Ibero-Armenian marchlands. At the end of the 1st century B.C.... more The paper examines a section of the Ibero-Armenian marchlands. At the end of the 1st century B.C. the Moschian country, which comprised the basins of the Chorokhi and the Upper Mtkvari (Kur), was divided into three parts: one part (the provinces of Artaani, Javakheti and Samtskhe in the Upper Mtkvari basin) was held by the Iberians, another (Klarjeti, Shavsheti and Achara in the Lower Chorokhi basin) by the Colchians, and another (Speri and Tao in the Upper and Middle Chorokhi basin and Kola in the Upper Mtkvari valley) by the Armenians. Political map of the South Caucasus changed in the 1st century A.D. when Greater Armenia lost it frontier territories to the kingdoms of Iberia, Lesser Armenia and Pontus Polemoniacus. The bulk of information on the political geography of the area is derived from Pliny’s Natural History. Analysis of Pliny’s accounts demonstrates that: (1) The north-wester border of Greater Armenia lay along the Parihedri Mountains, i.e. the Chorokhi-Euphrates watershed, and the Heniochi/Coraxici, or Kola Mountains, i.e. the westernmost section of the Mtkvari-Araxes watwershed. Hence, the basins of the Chorokhi and the Upper Mtlvari were situated outside the boundaries of the kingdom of Greater Armenia; (2) The Romans gave the land of the Armenochalybes located in the Upper Chorokhi valley (= the province of Speri of the mediaeval writers) to Aristobulus, king of Lesser Armenia; (3) The kingdom of Iberia extended its southwestern borders as far as the Pontic Mountains, approximately from modern Pazar to Gonio, and the sources of the Mtkvari. Thus the lands in the Middle and Lower Chorokhi (Tao, Klarjeti, and Shavsheti) and the Upper Mtkvari (Kola, Artaani, Javakheti and Samtskhe) were in Iberia by the mid-first century. These lands are described as the Moschorum tractus by Pliny. Only the coastal section of the Chorokhi, from Artvin to the mouth (i.e. western part of Klarjeti and Achara), might be under the control of the Lazi. Pliny’s description of the South Caucasus is based on the reports from the Armenian campaigns of Domitius Corbulo and other Roman generals, and, therefore, is a valuable source for the historical geography of the region of his time.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Oriental Studies, 12, 2023
In 1001 Basil II incorporated a major part of the princedom of David Kouropalates into the empire... more In 1001 Basil II incorporated a major part of the princedom of David Kouropalates into the empire. Imperial possessions were expanded in 1023. The former possessions of David Koroupalates were organized into the theme/katepanate of Iberia with the center in Oltisi. Very little is known about the organization of the katepanate. The imperial court introduced Byzantine administrative machinery, laws and the Greek language in the katepanate of Iberia, and encouraged movement of Georgian and Armenian nobility to the center of the Empire. In that way the Imperial power made attempts to destroy local national and social peculiarities, include the region into the sphere of common Imperial interests, and ensure security of the eastern frontiers. How did changes in political geography affect the church geography? The case study is Imier or Upper Tao, i.e. the valleis of Upper and Middle Oltisi, Tortomi, Middle Chorokhi and Parkhali. Narsis, the bishop of Iberia (?) whose name is mentioned in a Greek inscription found at the socle of the St. George hexaconch church of the Oltisi castle might have been a Greek prelate appointed by the Empire to administrate ecclesiastically the katepanate. It is known that the Patriarchate of Antioch claimed its rights over Byzntium’s Georgian and Armenian lands. Therefore, certain scholars identify the bishoprics of Panakser and Kalmalk mentioned in the Notitia Antiochena as Georgian Panaskerti and Kalmakhi located in Amier/Lower Tao. But this identification has no historical ground since both Panaskerti and Kalmakhi were within the boundaries of the Georgian kingdom. In the 1030-40s, as it is clear from the Parkhali inscription, the province of Imer Tao, or at least its western part, was under the jurisdiction of the Georgian Patriarchate. Of utmost importance are mural fragments in the south apse of the Oshki church (1036), which might be interpreted in a way that the Georgian crown got some territories as a dowery of the Byzantine princess. John Skylitzes’account prove this suggestion. These territories, i.e. western part of Imier Tao might have been lost in the 1040-50s during the active confrontation with the Byzantines and their Georgian allies. However, by 1080 the Parkhali district was within the Georgian borders. As for the eastern part of Imier Tao, that is the Oltiisi and Mamrovani districts, it remained within the Empire till the 1070s. There is no direct evidence that it had been retaken by the Georgian kingdom. The case of Imier Tao shows that Byzantine-Georgian relationships, as well as Byzantine oikomenism, were multifaceted. And Byzantium’s Caucasian frontiers deserve further scholarly attention.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Dedicatio, 2001
The article identifies the Varangians mentioned in the Georgian chronicle "Matiane Kartlisa". The... more The article identifies the Varangians mentioned in the Georgian chronicle "Matiane Kartlisa". The Varangians ("Varangni"), Scandinavian Normans hired by the Byzantine imperial court, appeared on the Georgian political arena in the 1040s. The Varangians arrived in Georgia from Iberian or Chaldian themes together with Liparit Baghvashi. who fought against BAgrat IV. The main part of the Varangiian corps accompanied Liparit by land. Their arrival coincided with the advent in Georgia of Harold Hardrade, the future Konung of Norway, being an adventurer at that time, and his band via the Black Sea. The participation of the Norwegian Vikings played a crucial role in the defeat of Bagrat IV in the Sasireti battle.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
All Georgia
Brief history on formation of the Georgian state territory from Antiquity to present.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
The Caucasus between East and West, II, 2021
At the end of the 9th c. the Sajids carried out several raids in Transcaucasia. According to Movs... more At the end of the 9th c. the Sajids carried out several raids in Transcaucasia. According to Movses Kalankatuaci or his continuator, in 899 the Sajids raided Kartli (Iberia), and seized two “brave Georgian/Iberian generals, prince Georg and his brother Arewes”. Yovhannes Catholicos described the two brothers as Sewordi princes. What was their identity?
Were they Georgian or Sewordik? Analysis of the Armenian historical texts demonstrates that 1) the Sewordik’ clan held the Utik province; 2) in the 9th-10th centuries Utik was centered not at Partav-Barda, but at the fortress of Tavush; 3) the province of Utik // the land of Sewordians comprised the valleys of the Tavush, the Aghstev (Dzoropor), and the Debeda (Dzoroyget). These three areas were parts of the Georgian province of Kvemo Kartli (Arm. Gugark). Because of mixed – Ibero-Armeno-Albanian – population the Kvemo Kartli region was a bone of contention among the Caucasian dynasts. By the end of the 9th c. the Bagratuni kings of Armenia gained the upper hand and spread their suzerainty over the whole region, including Tashiri (the Debeda valley) and Gardabani (the Aghstev and the Tavush valleys). However, the Armenian ruling elite and intellectuals viwed these conquered territories as Georgian/Iberian lands - the fact reflected in the Bagratuni title (prince of princes/king of kings of Armenia and Iberia), the place (Virk, i.e. Iberia, Vratc-dasht, i.e. Iberian/Georgian valley) and the ethnic (vratc, i.e. Iberian/Georgian) names applied to Kvemo Kartli and its local population.
The historico-geographical examination of the problem explains the discrepancy in the narratives of Movses Kalankatuaci and Yovhannes Catholicos: Georg and Arewes were Sewordi princes; because their domains were situated in Kvemo Kartli, they were described as Georgian/Iberian princes by certain Armenian writers.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Analebi # 2, 2008
Literary sources of information on the kingdom of the Makrones and Henioches are extremely meager... more Literary sources of information on the kingdom of the Makrones and Henioches are extremely meager. Political history of the kingdom, therefore, is reconstructed based on historico-geog-raphical data. Geographical position of this entity made it a key alley to the Roman Empire. Occupying territory between the rivers Ophiunt and Archabes (i.e. the land of later Chaneti//Lazistan), it secured the communications directed from the SE Black Sea coast to the northern part of the Anatolian frontier. The Makrones and Henioches took the active part in the military operations of Rome in order to invade the Greater Armenia (via the Chorokhi valley) and hold back the Iberians who had enlarged their domains at the expence of the Empire. By the mid-second century AD the kingdom of the Makrones and Henioches, backed by the Romans, seized the Iberian provinces of Speri and Tao on the upper and middle Chorokhi valley. But this triumph did not last long. Economic and physical geography fialed to promote long-term unification, and at the turn of the third century Speri and Tao were lost to the Greater Armenia.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Analebi, 2007
N. VACHNADZE, G.TCHEISHVILI
CHRISTIANITY AND LANGUAGE POLICY
Language is a key to understanding... more N. VACHNADZE, G.TCHEISHVILI
CHRISTIANITY AND LANGUAGE POLICY
Language is a key to understanding the mediaeval aspect of the world – this postulate on the example of the Georgian language has been known in Kartvelology since the 90s of the 20th century (N. Vachnadze).
In the present paper, by applying a comparative-historical method and retrospective analysis the authors tried to throw light on two linguistic layers – the language of preaching and the language of liturgy, i.e. in what language St. Nino, "equal of the apostles", prea¬ched Christianity on the one hand, and on the other – in what tongue church services were celebrated and all prayers said in the Kingdom of Kartli in the 4th-5th centuries.
The history of missionary activities indicates that both in the western and eastern parts of the Christian world, beyond the frontiers of the Roman/Byzantine Empire the process of converting and evangelizing "the barbarians" was going on in the native tongues of these peoples. In the epoch when Christianity was declared the state religion in Kartli (Iberia) – probably, even previous to this fact – it was preached in the Georgian language, i.e. in the language of the autochthon population of the country. This surmise is supported by numerous examples from the history of different countries of the Christian world that are referred to in the present work, this is why the authors think it to be of particular significance; it for the first time in Georgian historiography that such work has been done.
In the kingdom of Kartli, in the churches of the Georgian state to be exact, almost for a century church services were celebrated in the Greek and Aramaic languages, the Georgian language was used in reading religious texts by means of their being translated orally from the aforementioned Greek and Aramaic languages and commented on.
By the end of the 4th century the process of establishing and declaring the Georgian tongue as the language of the Christian community had finished, its finale being the translation of the books of the New and Old Testaments into the Georgian language. As for the language of the divine services, in the course of the 5th century the Georgian language was gradually obtaining its legitimate place as the main language of the liturgy.
Translating the Biblical books into the Georgian language as well as celebrating church services in Georgian is a vivid example of revealing the spiritual and intellectual potential of the Iberians (resp. Georgians). This, to great extent, was facilitated by the opposition between Christian "Greece" and Persia – a country of Mazdaizm.
On the basis of the ecclesiastic-Georgian language both the Georgian Christian culture of the Early (and not only Early) Middle Ages and the national identity of the people were developing. It is how the new Georgian Christian community was assuming shape.
The main conclusions concerning the language of the church services are corroborated by numerous examples from the history of Evangelization of different countries worldwide, this, of course, enriches the historiographic basis of the present paper, which the authors think to be paramount importance, since it is first work of this kind in Georgian historiography.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Matsne of the Georgian Academy of Sciences: History ... Series, 1986
It is argued n the article that the Mt. Parihedry mentioned by the Greek and Roman writers corres... more It is argued n the article that the Mt. Parihedry mentioned by the Greek and Roman writers corresponds to: 1) the watershed between the Chorokhi and the Euphrates-Araxes basins (according to Strabo and Pliny) and 2) the Mtkvari (Kura)-Araxes watershed (according to Claudius Ptolemy). Hence, the land along the Parihedry mentioned by Strabo stands to medieval Basiani and Vanandi
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Matsne of the Georgian Academy of Sciences: History ... Series, 1997
The article deals with the concepts of kingship - how Georgian medieval chronicles view legitimac... more The article deals with the concepts of kingship - how Georgian medieval chronicles view legitimacy of royal power in ancient Kartli (Iberia). It is demonstrated that local concepts of kingship amalgamates with Persian and Hellenistic concepts of power.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Православная энциклопедия, LIII, 2019
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
A N A L E B I SCIENTIFIC CENTRE FOR STUDIES AND PROPAGANDA OF HISTORY, ETHNOLOGY AND RELIGION, 2018
The article presents a Georgian translation of the fourteen-line
inscription of Queen Mariam Arts... more The article presents a Georgian translation of the fourteen-line
inscription of Queen Mariam Artsruni of Georgian made on the
central cathedral of the Marmashen monastery. Here is given a
scientific reading of the inscription; authors deal with the issue about
the consideration of incorporation of Ani-Shirak into Georgian
kingdom and those political, religious and ethnic processes which
were accompanied by these processes.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
ქართველი ერის კონსოლიდაციის ეტაპები.pdf
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Ossetian migration to Georgia in the early modern period resulted in establishing the term Oseti,... more Ossetian migration to Georgia in the early modern period resulted in establishing the term Oseti, which designated compact Ossetian settlements in the kingdoms of Kartli and Imereti. During the 17th-18th cc the term covered
the province of Dvaleti on the sources of the river Ardon, and later (second half of the 18th c.) various mountainous regions on the sources of the rivers Didi Liakhvi, Patara Liakhvi, Terek, Aragvi, and Ksani. In parallel to Oseti Georgian historians and geographers of the 18th century used the terms Dvaleti, Ossetians of Aragvi, Ossetians of Samachablo, etc. Changes had
occurred in the naming of mountains as well. Ossetian mountains or Osetian and Kartlian mountains used to be referred to the mountains which separated Ossetian and Georgian villages.
European and Russian travelers and officials described separate Ossetian settlements/districts in mountainous parts of Georgia as belonging either to the king or the tavads (princes). After Georgia’s conquest at the turn of the 19th century the Russian officials employed the term Ossetia to designate both the present-day North
Ossetia and Ossetian population of Georgia. In a narrow sense Georgian Ossetia applied to the villages in the upper Didi Liakhvi and Patara Liakhvi valleys, and in a broader sense to the Ossetian settlements along the banks of the Aragvi, the Ksani, the Terek and the Prone. In certain cases the term covered Georgian or mixed Georgian-Ossetian villages as well. Since the 1830s the high-rank Russian officials elaborated projects for unification of Ossetian settlements on the both sides of the Caucasian range under a separate single government to bind the Caucasus more firmly to the
Empire. A major step towards the project was the establishment of the Ossetian okrug in Georgia (1840). Couple of years later the Dvaleti province was separated from Georgia, i.e. the Tbilisi and Kutaisi gubernias, and
joined the Military Ossetian okrug of the North Caucasus. In parallel, the terms south Ossetians (1830s) and South Ossetia (mid-19th c.) developed and came in use. At the turn of the 20th century the terms Ossetia, South Ossetia got the political connotation. As a corner stone of the secessionist ideology it led to the formation of the South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast (1922), armed conflict (1991-1992) and the Russian occupation (2008).
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
The article traces development of the Georgian Church organization on the edge of the Caucasus an... more The article traces development of the Georgian Church organization on the edge of the Caucasus and Anatolia, namely, in the regions of Basiani (Basen) and Bagrevand-Valashkert
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Works of the American scholar R. W. Hewsen on historical geography of Armenia are not well known ... more Works of the American scholar R. W. Hewsen on historical geography of Armenia are not well known remain for Georgian historians. The aim of the present article is to introduce Georgian researchers with Hewsen’s concept on Georgian-Armenian marchlands from antiquity till today. His conclusions on the history of Meskheti and Kvemo Kartli are not always acceptable. Disregard of explicit evidence of primarily sources and contradictory statements make his conclusions unconvincing. However, “Armenia: Historical Atlas” is the important contribution to the historico-geographical studies of the Caucasus.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
The article traces development of the Georgian bishopric of Kari (Kars) in north Armenia
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
Papers by giorgi tcheishvili
Were they Georgian or Sewordik? Analysis of the Armenian historical texts demonstrates that 1) the Sewordik’ clan held the Utik province; 2) in the 9th-10th centuries Utik was centered not at Partav-Barda, but at the fortress of Tavush; 3) the province of Utik // the land of Sewordians comprised the valleys of the Tavush, the Aghstev (Dzoropor), and the Debeda (Dzoroyget). These three areas were parts of the Georgian province of Kvemo Kartli (Arm. Gugark). Because of mixed – Ibero-Armeno-Albanian – population the Kvemo Kartli region was a bone of contention among the Caucasian dynasts. By the end of the 9th c. the Bagratuni kings of Armenia gained the upper hand and spread their suzerainty over the whole region, including Tashiri (the Debeda valley) and Gardabani (the Aghstev and the Tavush valleys). However, the Armenian ruling elite and intellectuals viwed these conquered territories as Georgian/Iberian lands - the fact reflected in the Bagratuni title (prince of princes/king of kings of Armenia and Iberia), the place (Virk, i.e. Iberia, Vratc-dasht, i.e. Iberian/Georgian valley) and the ethnic (vratc, i.e. Iberian/Georgian) names applied to Kvemo Kartli and its local population.
The historico-geographical examination of the problem explains the discrepancy in the narratives of Movses Kalankatuaci and Yovhannes Catholicos: Georg and Arewes were Sewordi princes; because their domains were situated in Kvemo Kartli, they were described as Georgian/Iberian princes by certain Armenian writers.
CHRISTIANITY AND LANGUAGE POLICY
Language is a key to understanding the mediaeval aspect of the world – this postulate on the example of the Georgian language has been known in Kartvelology since the 90s of the 20th century (N. Vachnadze).
In the present paper, by applying a comparative-historical method and retrospective analysis the authors tried to throw light on two linguistic layers – the language of preaching and the language of liturgy, i.e. in what language St. Nino, "equal of the apostles", prea¬ched Christianity on the one hand, and on the other – in what tongue church services were celebrated and all prayers said in the Kingdom of Kartli in the 4th-5th centuries.
The history of missionary activities indicates that both in the western and eastern parts of the Christian world, beyond the frontiers of the Roman/Byzantine Empire the process of converting and evangelizing "the barbarians" was going on in the native tongues of these peoples. In the epoch when Christianity was declared the state religion in Kartli (Iberia) – probably, even previous to this fact – it was preached in the Georgian language, i.e. in the language of the autochthon population of the country. This surmise is supported by numerous examples from the history of different countries of the Christian world that are referred to in the present work, this is why the authors think it to be of particular significance; it for the first time in Georgian historiography that such work has been done.
In the kingdom of Kartli, in the churches of the Georgian state to be exact, almost for a century church services were celebrated in the Greek and Aramaic languages, the Georgian language was used in reading religious texts by means of their being translated orally from the aforementioned Greek and Aramaic languages and commented on.
By the end of the 4th century the process of establishing and declaring the Georgian tongue as the language of the Christian community had finished, its finale being the translation of the books of the New and Old Testaments into the Georgian language. As for the language of the divine services, in the course of the 5th century the Georgian language was gradually obtaining its legitimate place as the main language of the liturgy.
Translating the Biblical books into the Georgian language as well as celebrating church services in Georgian is a vivid example of revealing the spiritual and intellectual potential of the Iberians (resp. Georgians). This, to great extent, was facilitated by the opposition between Christian "Greece" and Persia – a country of Mazdaizm.
On the basis of the ecclesiastic-Georgian language both the Georgian Christian culture of the Early (and not only Early) Middle Ages and the national identity of the people were developing. It is how the new Georgian Christian community was assuming shape.
The main conclusions concerning the language of the church services are corroborated by numerous examples from the history of Evangelization of different countries worldwide, this, of course, enriches the historiographic basis of the present paper, which the authors think to be paramount importance, since it is first work of this kind in Georgian historiography.
inscription of Queen Mariam Artsruni of Georgian made on the
central cathedral of the Marmashen monastery. Here is given a
scientific reading of the inscription; authors deal with the issue about
the consideration of incorporation of Ani-Shirak into Georgian
kingdom and those political, religious and ethnic processes which
were accompanied by these processes.
the province of Dvaleti on the sources of the river Ardon, and later (second half of the 18th c.) various mountainous regions on the sources of the rivers Didi Liakhvi, Patara Liakhvi, Terek, Aragvi, and Ksani. In parallel to Oseti Georgian historians and geographers of the 18th century used the terms Dvaleti, Ossetians of Aragvi, Ossetians of Samachablo, etc. Changes had
occurred in the naming of mountains as well. Ossetian mountains or Osetian and Kartlian mountains used to be referred to the mountains which separated Ossetian and Georgian villages.
European and Russian travelers and officials described separate Ossetian settlements/districts in mountainous parts of Georgia as belonging either to the king or the tavads (princes). After Georgia’s conquest at the turn of the 19th century the Russian officials employed the term Ossetia to designate both the present-day North
Ossetia and Ossetian population of Georgia. In a narrow sense Georgian Ossetia applied to the villages in the upper Didi Liakhvi and Patara Liakhvi valleys, and in a broader sense to the Ossetian settlements along the banks of the Aragvi, the Ksani, the Terek and the Prone. In certain cases the term covered Georgian or mixed Georgian-Ossetian villages as well. Since the 1830s the high-rank Russian officials elaborated projects for unification of Ossetian settlements on the both sides of the Caucasian range under a separate single government to bind the Caucasus more firmly to the
Empire. A major step towards the project was the establishment of the Ossetian okrug in Georgia (1840). Couple of years later the Dvaleti province was separated from Georgia, i.e. the Tbilisi and Kutaisi gubernias, and
joined the Military Ossetian okrug of the North Caucasus. In parallel, the terms south Ossetians (1830s) and South Ossetia (mid-19th c.) developed and came in use. At the turn of the 20th century the terms Ossetia, South Ossetia got the political connotation. As a corner stone of the secessionist ideology it led to the formation of the South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast (1922), armed conflict (1991-1992) and the Russian occupation (2008).
Were they Georgian or Sewordik? Analysis of the Armenian historical texts demonstrates that 1) the Sewordik’ clan held the Utik province; 2) in the 9th-10th centuries Utik was centered not at Partav-Barda, but at the fortress of Tavush; 3) the province of Utik // the land of Sewordians comprised the valleys of the Tavush, the Aghstev (Dzoropor), and the Debeda (Dzoroyget). These three areas were parts of the Georgian province of Kvemo Kartli (Arm. Gugark). Because of mixed – Ibero-Armeno-Albanian – population the Kvemo Kartli region was a bone of contention among the Caucasian dynasts. By the end of the 9th c. the Bagratuni kings of Armenia gained the upper hand and spread their suzerainty over the whole region, including Tashiri (the Debeda valley) and Gardabani (the Aghstev and the Tavush valleys). However, the Armenian ruling elite and intellectuals viwed these conquered territories as Georgian/Iberian lands - the fact reflected in the Bagratuni title (prince of princes/king of kings of Armenia and Iberia), the place (Virk, i.e. Iberia, Vratc-dasht, i.e. Iberian/Georgian valley) and the ethnic (vratc, i.e. Iberian/Georgian) names applied to Kvemo Kartli and its local population.
The historico-geographical examination of the problem explains the discrepancy in the narratives of Movses Kalankatuaci and Yovhannes Catholicos: Georg and Arewes were Sewordi princes; because their domains were situated in Kvemo Kartli, they were described as Georgian/Iberian princes by certain Armenian writers.
CHRISTIANITY AND LANGUAGE POLICY
Language is a key to understanding the mediaeval aspect of the world – this postulate on the example of the Georgian language has been known in Kartvelology since the 90s of the 20th century (N. Vachnadze).
In the present paper, by applying a comparative-historical method and retrospective analysis the authors tried to throw light on two linguistic layers – the language of preaching and the language of liturgy, i.e. in what language St. Nino, "equal of the apostles", prea¬ched Christianity on the one hand, and on the other – in what tongue church services were celebrated and all prayers said in the Kingdom of Kartli in the 4th-5th centuries.
The history of missionary activities indicates that both in the western and eastern parts of the Christian world, beyond the frontiers of the Roman/Byzantine Empire the process of converting and evangelizing "the barbarians" was going on in the native tongues of these peoples. In the epoch when Christianity was declared the state religion in Kartli (Iberia) – probably, even previous to this fact – it was preached in the Georgian language, i.e. in the language of the autochthon population of the country. This surmise is supported by numerous examples from the history of different countries of the Christian world that are referred to in the present work, this is why the authors think it to be of particular significance; it for the first time in Georgian historiography that such work has been done.
In the kingdom of Kartli, in the churches of the Georgian state to be exact, almost for a century church services were celebrated in the Greek and Aramaic languages, the Georgian language was used in reading religious texts by means of their being translated orally from the aforementioned Greek and Aramaic languages and commented on.
By the end of the 4th century the process of establishing and declaring the Georgian tongue as the language of the Christian community had finished, its finale being the translation of the books of the New and Old Testaments into the Georgian language. As for the language of the divine services, in the course of the 5th century the Georgian language was gradually obtaining its legitimate place as the main language of the liturgy.
Translating the Biblical books into the Georgian language as well as celebrating church services in Georgian is a vivid example of revealing the spiritual and intellectual potential of the Iberians (resp. Georgians). This, to great extent, was facilitated by the opposition between Christian "Greece" and Persia – a country of Mazdaizm.
On the basis of the ecclesiastic-Georgian language both the Georgian Christian culture of the Early (and not only Early) Middle Ages and the national identity of the people were developing. It is how the new Georgian Christian community was assuming shape.
The main conclusions concerning the language of the church services are corroborated by numerous examples from the history of Evangelization of different countries worldwide, this, of course, enriches the historiographic basis of the present paper, which the authors think to be paramount importance, since it is first work of this kind in Georgian historiography.
inscription of Queen Mariam Artsruni of Georgian made on the
central cathedral of the Marmashen monastery. Here is given a
scientific reading of the inscription; authors deal with the issue about
the consideration of incorporation of Ani-Shirak into Georgian
kingdom and those political, religious and ethnic processes which
were accompanied by these processes.
the province of Dvaleti on the sources of the river Ardon, and later (second half of the 18th c.) various mountainous regions on the sources of the rivers Didi Liakhvi, Patara Liakhvi, Terek, Aragvi, and Ksani. In parallel to Oseti Georgian historians and geographers of the 18th century used the terms Dvaleti, Ossetians of Aragvi, Ossetians of Samachablo, etc. Changes had
occurred in the naming of mountains as well. Ossetian mountains or Osetian and Kartlian mountains used to be referred to the mountains which separated Ossetian and Georgian villages.
European and Russian travelers and officials described separate Ossetian settlements/districts in mountainous parts of Georgia as belonging either to the king or the tavads (princes). After Georgia’s conquest at the turn of the 19th century the Russian officials employed the term Ossetia to designate both the present-day North
Ossetia and Ossetian population of Georgia. In a narrow sense Georgian Ossetia applied to the villages in the upper Didi Liakhvi and Patara Liakhvi valleys, and in a broader sense to the Ossetian settlements along the banks of the Aragvi, the Ksani, the Terek and the Prone. In certain cases the term covered Georgian or mixed Georgian-Ossetian villages as well. Since the 1830s the high-rank Russian officials elaborated projects for unification of Ossetian settlements on the both sides of the Caucasian range under a separate single government to bind the Caucasus more firmly to the
Empire. A major step towards the project was the establishment of the Ossetian okrug in Georgia (1840). Couple of years later the Dvaleti province was separated from Georgia, i.e. the Tbilisi and Kutaisi gubernias, and
joined the Military Ossetian okrug of the North Caucasus. In parallel, the terms south Ossetians (1830s) and South Ossetia (mid-19th c.) developed and came in use. At the turn of the 20th century the terms Ossetia, South Ossetia got the political connotation. As a corner stone of the secessionist ideology it led to the formation of the South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast (1922), armed conflict (1991-1992) and the Russian occupation (2008).