Georgia is one of the most interesting areas of the world from an anthropogenetical stand point. The impressive proof of that are the excavations of 1939 – in Eastern Georgia, with the findings of a type of the highest primate (so-called Udabnopitec) – near the David Gareji monastery, and the remnants human remains (1,7 million years old), the oldest in Euro-Asia, discovered by German archaeologists near Dmanisi (see page 143). Apart from these wonderful discoveries, a considerable number of other discoveries and findings have been fixed in various regions of Georgia, which belong to Paleolithic (Old Stone Age), Neolithic (New Stone Age) and Eneolithic (copper-stone Age) epochs; as for the Bronze and the Early Iron Ages, on the territory of the country, they are represented as the unique monuments of the Mtkvari-Arax, Trialeti and Kolkhian archaeological cultures. As it is shown by the analysis of the archaeological material, agriculture and cattle breeding became the foremost aspects and fields of agriculture from the end of the Neolithic epoch and during the Eneolithic epoch.

“If we consider the important thesis of the “historical country being the extent of the category of utilization of the geographical area by the humans” (N.Berdzenishvili), then nothing shall appear against the characterization of Georgia as the “historical land”, because it is beyond doubt that the full range utilization by humans of the geographical area belonging to it, neither is a matter of argument the exceedingly rich past of the Georgian nation and the really unique ability of its ethno political integrity” (72). As N.Berdzenishvili states, “…Georgia is a social organization, originated in the definite period and represents an economical-political-cultural unity, developed on the basis of the common territorial and common origin or ethnicity (53, p.59).

The ancient past of the Georgians and the matter of their origin presented an interesting issue from the very beginning and is adorned with several ethnogenic legends. Sometimes these legends reflect a historic reality, but sometimes, present a case of sheer fantasy. For instance, Herodotus (V c. B.C.), proclaimed as the “Father of History”, considers the West Georgian tribes – Kolkhis, to be the descendants of the army of Egyptian king Sezsostris who, exhausted from wanderings, decided to stay at the river Phazisi. According to the records of the Greek author, “…It is obvious that Kolkhis are Egyptians. I had guessed that before others told me and said so myself. And since I believed that to be that way, I addressed both to find out who remembered better their counterparts; the Kolkhis did remember Egyptians better? The Egyptians insisted that the Kolkhis must be considered as the army of Sesostris – the opinion which I share, too, since the Kolkhis are dark in complexion and curly-haired (although this does not mean anything, since there are many like that), but the stronger proof is that among all nations, only Kolkhis, Egyptians and Ethiopians practise circumcision… There is also another thing about Kolkhis that makes them so much like Egyptians: both peoples process flax the same way; their ways and languages are alike. The Kolkhian flax is called Sardonic by Hellenes, but the type coming from Egypt was called Egyptian” (1, p.156).

The cited note is commented by S.Kaukhchishvili in the following way: “…since for Herodotus the basic source of almost anything is Egypt… that is why he considers Egypt the initial homeland of Kolkhis, where they came from during the campaign of Sezostris (i.e.XIII c. B.C.). The given date coincides with the period of the migration of tribes in the region of the Aegean Sea (1,p.28); therefore, the issue of the Egyptian origin of the Kolkhis and their colonization of Caucasia in the XIII century hardly seems shareable, more so that the old Greek tradition of the Argonauts’ travel to famous Kolkheti presents the period prior to the Trojan war (XII c. B.C.).
To the top

In the pancient world and early Middle Ages, very popular was idea of the ethnogenetical kinship of the Ibers of the East (Caucasia) and West (Pyrenees). The authors of the past Greek, Roman, Syrian and Armenian (Varron, Apolodor, Pliny, Strabo, Apian, Mar-Abbas-Katina, Evsey of Caesarea, Mose Khoren, Abiden, Megasthen, Maxim Confessioner, Nikifor Xanatopulos, Aristin, Priscian, Evstafi, Dyonise Periegeti, Socrates Scholiast, Svidas, Ataliate, Tsetse and others) – all pointed out the relation of Asian and European Ibers, although they differed in approach to the problem of the initial place of their origin. One part believed, that the initial homeland of Ibers was the Pyrenees peninsula, which a part of them had left in ancient times and moved to the Caucasus (Megaton, Evsevi, Xanotopulos, Piriegeti, Evstafi, Socrates Scholiast, Ataliate and others), the others considered that the European Ibers were the descendants of the Caucasians (Varon, Pliny Sr., Pristian, Maxim Confessioner and others).

Apparently, this ethno-genetic theory was also well known in ancient Georgia and their firm belief was of the kinship and relations of the Pyrenean Ibers to the Georgians, thus favouring the concept of the blood relations and closeness. This is supported by the fact, that the terms “Ibers of Spain” and “Celt-Ibers”, used by Greek authors, are presented in old Georgian writings such as “the Kartvels of the West” and “Celt-Kartvels”; very important appears the note of Giorgi Mtatsmindeli (XI c.) about the wish of the Georgian nobility to travel to Spain and visit the local “Georgians of the West”; Jean Chardin (XVII c.) writes in records, as if he was asked by a Georgian king – before his departure: “how is my relative, King of Spain?” and then drank his toast from a goblet covered with gems. Timote Gabashvili (XVIII c.) insists that “Kartveli” and “Shpanieli” are synonyms, which was an additional reflection of social opinion of that period. Anton Pirveli, (Bagrationi), a great Georgian scientist of the XVIII c. used “Spania” instead of Iveria” (109, pp.23-29).

In contrast to the belief of the Egyptian origin of Kolkhis, shared by Herodotus, which should be definitely understood as “a result of his general egyptophilial conception” (109, p.46), the views regarding the genetic closeness of Ibers of Caucasia and Pyrenees is worth considering because a lot of archaeological, historical, linguistic and ethnographic data, the theory concerning the Basque and the Caucasus, are still considered as one of the most pressing questions of modern period. According to the opinion of several scientists, the Caucasians (Kartvelians among them) – together with Basques, and Pelazgues and Etruscans (extinct in ancient period), might be possible remains of the great ethnic family living on the vast territories at the Mediterranean and in Asia Minor, before the people of the Indo-European group made the area the place of their habitat. It should also be noted, that some of the famed researchers (Humboldt, Beaudrimon, Filiponi, Marr and others), consider the Basques (descendants of the non-Romanized European Ibers) living in Spain, to be the people who migrated to the West, and this is equal to the acknowledgement of ethnic relations between Kartvelians and Basques, and regarding the formers as the autochthons of the Caucasia. The linguistic studies of a Polish linguist, I.Braun, present the Basques as the descendants of the fourth major tribe of the Kartveluri origin.
To the top

Thus, the idea originated from the antiquity – of the kinship between the Caucasian and Pyrenean Ibers, may have real historical grounds, and the authors who propagate that opinion, cannot be regarded as the followers of the old tradition of fantasizing. But, on the other hand, proving the theoretical soundness of this idea clarifies not only the problem of the ethnogenetics of the Georgians but provides an impressive effect of revealing the people ethnically akin to them.

Scientific literature also presents opinions concerning possible genetic connections to the ancient languages (extinct now) of Asia Minor: with Sumerian, Haitian, Hittite and Elamurian, and some researchers attempt to prove the ethnic closeness of Georgians – to the ethnic group speaking the above-mentioned languages (Hittite and Subars in the first place). Some scholars propose the idea of possible links of the Ibero-Caucasian groups – and the peoples speaking those languages – with the peoples who created the pre-Hellenic (Pelazgues-Anatolian) culture.

Independently of the point, of which of the two has any prospect of passing the previous level of the solid working hypothesis, one thing is definite: the scrupulous analysis of the comparatively valuable data doubtlessly supports the idea of autochthonism of the said people and of their distribution and settlement on the territory, which is their residence today.

According to the prevailing views in Georgian historiography on the ethno-genesis of Georgians and a long process of their development into a unified ethno-social body, the process can be divided into three major stages:

1.Existance of the Proto-kartvelian ethnic masses, speaking the basis-language of general-Kartveluri (pre-Kartuli), and occupying the territories of South-West Caucasia and North-East of Asia Minor; 2. Its eventual breaking into three basic ethno linguistic and ethnogentilic branches (Kartis, Megrel-Chanis, or Zanis or Svans, during the period of the III-I millennium B.C.; 3. The political and cultural integration of interrelated Kartvelian tribes, with the hegemony of Kartis (an ethno-territorial group of Kartleli, living on the land of historical and geographical Kartli, and the creation of the unified Kartvelian nation - “Eri Sakartvelo”, “Eri Kartveltai” and Sakartvelo - “All-Sakartvelo” - XI c.
To the top

As the historical and ethnographic researches have established, “The ethnic evolution of the Georgians, as it is generally the case, presents a phenomenon of rather complicated anatomy and mechanically implies not only the formation of the Georgian ethnic archetype and the interfusion and synthesizing (ethnic convergence) of numerous ethnogentilic or ethno territorial groups, but also the naturalization of ethnic elements of non-Kartvelian origin in the social structure of the Georgian ethnos”(72). And it is important that the specificity of the said process is most dotingly revealed in the Georgian (and non-Georgian) endo- or egzoethnonymes.

So, in the old sources of Assyria, Urartu, Greece, Rome, Armenia, as well as in Arabic and Persian sources are preserved the names of many Kartvelian tribes, and also those of the ethnic groups of still unidentified origin: Musky, or Moskhi, or Meskhi, Tubali or Tabali, Taokhi, Saspeiri or Sapeiri or Hespeirit, Kardukhi, Kolkha or Koli, Iberi or Iveri, Macron, Sani or Chani, Lazi, Tibareni, Mosiniki, Khalibi, Khaldi, Heniokhi, Sanigi, Mati, Bidzeri, Bekhiri, Zidriti, Matieni, Koraxi, Skvitini, Ekekheri, Soani or Soni, Svani, Misimiani, Skvimni, Gugari or Gogari, Geri, or Eri, Heri, Vali or Dvali, Tsanari or Sanari, Tuski or Tushi, and others.

In Georgian written sources, at the level we are concerned, are mentioned: Kartveli or Kartleli, Kakhi or Kakheli, Kukhi or Kukheli, Meskhi or Samtskhetari, Javakhi, Klarji or Klarjeli, Shavshi, Taoeli, Kolaeli, Artaneli, Toreli, Somkhitari, Megreli or Megri, Chani or Lazi, Svani, Margveli – later - the main ethnographic body of Imereli, Imeri or Imereli, Gurieli or Guruli, Takvereli – later- Lachkhumeli, Rachveli, Lechkhumeli, Heri, Suji or Sochi, Ertzoeli, Tianeli, Tushi, Pkhoveli or Pkhovi – later - Pshav-Khevsuri, Pshavi, Khevsuri, Dvali, Tzanari (later – Mokheve), Mokheve, Khadeli, Tskhavateli, (later – the main ethnographic body of Mtiuli), Mtiuli, Gudamakreli, Chartaleli or Chartali, Tskhrazmeli (later – Xniskheveli), Xniskheveli, Khandoeli, Kizikeli, Achareli, and others.
To the top

The most privileged ethnonym in this list is certainly”Kartveli”, because history provided it with the honour to become a generalized name (macroethnonym), for its initial consolidating role. Although at first the topoethnonym “Kartveli” (or “Kartleli”) embraced only the inhabitants of historical and ethnographic Kartli (i.e. particularly Kartlelis), in a comparatively narrow sense, but in the course of time, the term underwent a wide-scale diffusion in the more conventional form of Kartveli, and parallel to its own regional meaning, it succeeded in the accumulation of the functions of the term to denote the entire population speaking Kartuli and all Georgians; it should be noted, too, that as a polysemantic term of this type, Kartveli retained its form till modern times and the final division of the functions of Kartveli and its phonetical version of “Kartleli” took place only in the XIX century.

The quoted list of the names is also interesting for the ease it provides in revealing two different categories of ethnonym layers. If, in one case we deal with archaic names, representing the preliminary tribal partition with the corresponding unmotivated names deriving the toponyms, like Meskhi – Meskheti, Javakheli - Javakheti, Kakhi – Kakheti, etc., which can be conditionally referred to as paleo-ethnonyms, but in the other case, we face the ethnonyms, originated much later are clearly of topographic-toponymic origin (with the suffixes –el, -ur, -ul, -ar), and also the ethnonym, applied to the particular territorial (or ethno-territorial) groups – or, they should be called rather topoethnonyms: Rachveli – Racha, Gudamakreli – Gudamakari, Mokheve – Khevi, Gurieli, Guruli – Guria, and so forth.

In the light of the noted difference, we are developing a proper idea about the oldest ethnogentilic groups – as of the major substance unifying the ethnic body of Georgians (Iberi, Gugari, Meskhi, Kolkhi, Taokhi, Sasperi, Kakhi, Kukhi, Javakhi, Tushi, Klarji, Makroni, Sani or Chani, Tibareni, Khalibi, Khaldi, Mosiniki, Eniokhi, Svani, Heri, and so on), and also a proper idea of ethno-derivatives, developed as a result of the ethnogenetical process, i.e. the so-called territorial (or ethno-territorial groups) –(Kartleli / Kartveli, Megrelia, Tamely, Kolaeli, Artaneli, Toreli, Margveli, Imereli, Guruli, Rachveli, Pshaveli, Khevsuri, Mokheve, Mtiuli, Gudamakreli, Achareli, etc.), and in the long run, their interconnection resulted in interethnic partitions of the same taxonomic scale – as ethnographic groups in the social structure of the Georgian nation.
To the top

Besides, it should not be surprising, that the interethnic structure of the Georgian people, materialized from numerous ethnogentilic or ethno-territorial units, is characterized by a rare mozaicity, and today, the ethnographic (or ethno-partial) groups are Kartleli, Kakheli, Kizikeli, Meskhi, Javakhi, Tushi, Khevsuri, Pshaveli, Mokheve, Mtiuli, Gudamakreli, Khandoeli, Xneli, Megreli, Svani, Imereli, Rachveli, Lechkhumeli, Guruli, Achareli, Ingilo, Imerkheveli (or Shavshi), Chani (or Lazi), and Pereidneli” (69,pp.5-8).

As the process of ethnic consolidation of Kartvelian tribes had developed at the initiative of Kartis (Kartlelis, in particular), it is natural, that the local historical-geographic area of the ethnic evolution of Georgians, first called Kartli, and from the XI century – Sakartvelo, had derived from the Kartveli ethnonym. In his well-known phrase, where he formulated a concept of Kartli, Giorgi Merchule, the X century writer, says: “But many lands are considered Kartli, where the service and prayers are done in Kartuli”, and the historical homeland of Georgians is given Kartli, but an inscription on the X century icon in Svaneti presents another form of “joint Sakartvelo”: “To praise the kings of Bagratovan descendance and Dadianis and the nobility and joint Sakartvelo and the joined Svans” (11, pp.86-87). Certainly, had the process of political and cultural integration been carried out under the leadership of Zanis (especially, Megrels) or Svans, the generalized authentic name of the Georgian people would have certainly become Megreli or Svani, and the country which is called at present Sakartvelo, would have been named Samegrelo (or Egrisi) or Svaneti.

“The history of Georgia is the story of the severe deficiency of peace needed for the normal development of any nation, the story of endless wars, unhappiness and heroic endurance and great restoration – in order to preserve their land, their language, and their religion. As I.Chavchavadze said, “Georgia was armed day and night, with enemies attacking from all sides… A handful of people had to do their utmost, with arms in their hands, in order to defend their country from destruction”. So, the Georgians, “used to the life of endless misfortunes”, perfectly understand the rigorous philosophy of living under the conditions of incessant struggle for their physical survival, as well as the true essence of the concept “peace” – mshvidoba – is strongly expressed in the traditional forms of greetings: gamarjoba – wishing victory (gamarjveba (, and mshvidobit (stay in peace), “morning of peace” – dila mshvidobisa, “night of peace” – ghame mshvidobisa, “May Lord give you peace” – “mshvidoba mogtses ghmertma”, and also in the terms, which have the word “chiri” – “misfortune”, as a constituent part, and embrace the crops, as “witnessing bad times”, misfortunes, “needed’ bears the idea “kept for bad times”, troubles, “essential” – signifies “considering the matter of misfortune and evil”, etc.” (72).
To the top

An advantageous geographical location, early development of production and the closeness to the centers of the world civilization, together with the factor of the old-standing intensive contacts, provided perfect conditions for the development of class society and political organization since early stages of the past. Using A.Tsereteli’s words: “Georgia was a road and a bridge in the age of the great movement when various nations moved from Asia to Europe! It means that our country has seen and witnessed a lot” (111, p.173). K.Gamsakhurdia: “Georgia was in the center of the Bridge of Fate, which is called Caucasia. Thousands of nations, of thousands of origins and languages passed that bridge” (57, p.748); “Our territory was “a bridge of nations”. Our historical mission was to balance the two poles of confrontation and contrast, the blending of the spirit of two great worlds - Europe and of Asia. Our entire culture represents the light-and-shade contrasts of those worlds…Our historical role is that of a connector. We used to unite and connect the cultures of Persia, Asia Minor – to the culture of Old Greece and Byzantine, and provided it with our own, specific Georgian form and image. Firmly standing on our own grounds, we were fed by two breasts and our country became a uniting basin of two cultural streams” (59, p.147,148).

It seems logical, that staying in the centre of the nations bridge, the Georgians possess rich traditions of 30 centuries of statehood, and the borders of Georgia, that “blended the souls of Europe and Asia”, are drawn by a 3000-year-old documented history. Although the political borders of Georgia changed frequently in the past, the same territory and country had always born the same name; that means those eight provinces the Georgian nation has lived during the whole period of its history; Kartli, Kakheti, Samtskhe-Saatabago, (- now the Islamic territory of Georgia – Meskheti with Lazistan), Imereti, Guria, Samegrelo, Svaneti and Abkhazeti. That territory of Georgia, apart from being one cultural and historical unit, presents at the same time one whole and indivisible physico-geographical province, one country, encircled by natural borders…” (74, p.38) (see page 144).

Many centuries of the Georgian history embrace the names of more than 100 kings and several royal dynasties (Parnavazian, Arshakuniani, Khosroiani, Bagratovani) (see pages 149-189). Bagrationis among them – due to the impressive biography of 1000 years of monarchy, represent one of the oldest (IX c. – 1810) and most outstanding royal houses in the whole world. Certainly, “the kings of Georgia, many times praised and extolled, acting according to their will, but also many times appeared they in disgrace – due to the changes in time and ways – to the point the only remnant of the past appeared unchanged, retaining only the name of the King but even in such cases, they did no harm…”(27, p,479). But they had never – even in the worst days of changes, betrayed the cause of the testament they had received from their forefathers – patriotism, and dedication to the supreme idea of national independence. Even more, it is a pity “that the misfortunes of the country did not allow the people and nation to materialize their creative potential, and evade the geopolitical dilemma of “a better choice” in the face of “great” and “minor evil”. Unfortunately, comparatively short spans of happy life and development of the nation, would soon change into the periods of devastating invasions of numerous aggressors, with violence, loot, plunder and hard chronological spells of the foreign dictate, that are described in the country’s chronicles as Araboba, Turkoba, Tatroba, Kizilbashoba, Urumoba, Osmaloba, Lekianoba, Osianoba, and Rusianoba” (72). Now, what would the wheel of Life be for Georgia, if it could be turned back? Giorgi Sharvashidze considers that “were it not for the Wheel’s wrong movement, we would be ahead of Europe in many cases, because when Andrew Apostle propagated the religion of Christ here, even the dukes in Europe were dressed in bull-hides and hunted in the forest barefooted, with spears in hands.”
To the top

Indeed, the forefathers of the Georgians appeared on the historical arena from distant past, 7 centuries earlier than the time of Rome’s foundation and picked up the road to found a state organization. The analysis of two inscriptions of Assyrians and those of Urartu, at the end of the II millennium and the beginning of the I millennium, in the South-West region of historical Georgia, shows that there existed two big states of Kartvelian tribes with early developed classes: Diaokhi (Daieni, later Tao), and Kolkha (later – Kolkheti, see page 145) The Diaokhi, a neighbouring state of Kolkha, meanwhile succeeded in struggling against the raging Assyria, and then – Urartu – to the point that some Urartian sources proclaim Georgia as “a powerful country”. But the country, weakened by long wars with Urartu, its existence in the VIII c. B.C., and a big part of ceased its territory appeared within the state structure of neighbouring Kolkha. As for Kolkha itself – the second Old Georgian great union (XVI-VIII cc. B.C.), it covered the seacoast territory and embraced the South and East regions of the Black Sea. From the northern side, Kolkha continued the unyielding struggle on the territory at the length of the XII-VIII cc. B.C., fighting against the aimed and purposeful aggression of Assyrians, and later – Urartu. The long-standing political power of this country, its amazing richness and cultural glamour are depicted with vividness in Old Greek Myth of argounauts. The Greek sources, based on their own – and also the local Caucasian tradition, present the legendary Kolkheti (Greek – Kolkhida) spread on the vast territory. During the reign of the great Kolkhian king Aiety, the country included the Black Sea coast from Pitiunt (possibly, even a farther part to the North) to Trapesund, while the capital of the kingdom on the river Phazisi (Rioni), was Aia (or Qwtaia, modern Kutaisi). To the East, the influence of the state reached East Sakartvelo and the lands of Armania (see page 146). The fact is, that “At the reign of Aiety, the Greeks considered Kolkhida a strong unit, which had a big fleet, had its written language, and generally, its own civilization, considerably developed. The country was famous because of its gold and metallurgy… Putting the aspect of the possibility of the existence of the unity of such scope at the Late Bronze Age in Georgia… one thing is certain: the population of that whole territory considered itself the heirs of that big union in the antique period. This chain of the heirloom appeared so strong, that it did not break during many centuries, in spite of the differentiation of the Kartvelian world and numerous political unities appearing on the territory of Georgia… The Greek sources prove that the development of the genetic unity and the consciousness of their own cultural sovereignty, had already taken place in the antique period on the territory of Georgia, and particularly, on the whole area of legendary Kolkheti… It is certainly possible that legendary Kolkheti could play a decisive role in the formation of the Georgian self-consciousness” (64, pp.25, 32, 39).

In the VIII century B.C. the great kingdom of Kolkheti was destroyed by the intrusion of the Cymmerian nomads from North Caucasus, their attack resembled a devastating hurricane and left the whole Asia Minor at a loss. In the memory of Georgians even today their name signifies the unvanquished heroes and the word “gmiri’ derives from the name of Cymmerians – Gimir (48, p.33).

On the ruins of powerful Kolkha, was created a new kingdom of West-Kartvelians – Kolkheti (Egrisi) in the VI century B.C., which was also an advanced state from the political, economical and cultural point of view. Local silver coins which were in circulation, were called “Kolkhian tetri (white)” (see pages 214-219). As for Eastern Georgia, two centuries later, in the IV century B.C., a new kingdom of Iberia (Kartli) was founded, and its king Parnavaz became the founder of the royal dynasty of East Georgia - Parnavazian dynasty. In the period of his reign and his immediate heirs, in the III century B.C., Kartli (Iberia) presented a strong political unit. It embraced not only the territory of East Georgia, but included also the areas beyond – the Southwestern part of historical Georgia (Tao-Klarjeti, Speri and others). In this region the territory of Iberia had an access to the Black Sea coast. The Iberian kingdom also incorporated a part of western Georgia, where was established an additional military and administrative unit of Iberia called Argveti Saeristavo (principate). The political influence of Egrisi spread on the kingdom of Egrisi (92, pp.53-55), which gave a strong impetus to the integration of eastern and western Georgia’s population and to the process of their unification and merging into one nation (see page 147). From that period, the task of the unification of lands inhabited by the Kartvelian population and binding them into the sole state body was taken in hands by the kingdom of Kartli (Iberia) that started to solve the task of ethno-cultural integration of the Kartvelian tribes, although the successful solution of this problem was delayed because of the expansion of Iran at the period of Achemenides and Sassanides, Rome, Byzantine, and Arabs, and the formation of the unified Georgian kingdom became possible only at the beginning of the XI century, when the throne was taken by Bagrat III (975-1014), a representative of the Bagrationi royal dynasty. After the victory of Georgia over Turk-Seljuks, under the military leadership of King David IV Aghmashenebeli (the Builder) (1089-1125), Georgia underwent a process of unprecedented revival, and within the period of the end of XII century and the beginning of the XIII century it developed into the most powerful state in the whole Asia Minor (with the capital in Tbilisi), which incorporated almost the entire Caucasia and adjouining regions and was spread “from Nikopsia to Daruband between the Black and Caspian seas (see page 148). The Western World’s attitude towards Georgia was special, since it was approached and considered as the outpost of the Christian world in struggle against Islamic forces. At that period, the titulatory of the Georgian kings took a different form: “King of Abkhazes (i.e. of West Georgia, G.G.), Kartvelis (i.e. of Kartli and Meskheti), Rans (i.e. of Heres) and Kakhes, Armenians (i.e. of Lore-Tashir), Shah in-shah (title of kings of Anisi) and Sharvanshah (title of the Sharvan rulers)”, which clearly reflected the process of the unification of Georgia and of the expansion of royal territories. The cited titulatory is also a significant proof of the following: “During its political and cultural revival, Georgia developed a pretension to the unification of the entire Caucasia, which – we have to acknowledge that – presented a fact of exceeding importance and promised the creation of the most powerful regional structure and the prospects of the development of a vast meta-ethnos. N.Berdzenishvili is right to note that X-XII centuries were not merely a period of creation of the united Georgia, “but they represented the moment when the great world of Caucasia was conceived. It still lacked a historical and geographical name, but everything showed that its name would still be “Georgia”… An active participation in that country was shown not only by Southern and eastern parts of Georgia (Armenia, Sharvan), but Northern Caucasia (Dagestan- Chechens, Ossetians and Chechens) also. A new “world” was being created with its organizing center in Georgia (54, p.643). Equally true is the opinion that at the period of David the Builder’s reign and especially at the period of the rule of David the Builder and Queen Tamar (1184-1213), Georgia tried “to take up from the Byzantine the great mission of the Christian Empire (56, p.813), but the “Golden Age” of the Georgian state proved to be short, because – starting from the XIII-XIV centuries, horrible succession of invasions of Khvarazmians, Tartar Mongols and hordes of Tamerlane, eventually weakened the country. And it seems almost unbelievable that only Tamerlane invaded Georgia – once flourishing and joyful country, eight times.
To the top

Following the decline and fall of the Byzantine Empire in the XV century, under the conditions of thorough changes of the geopolitical situation and the whole system of the world relationships, Georgia appeared encircled by an aggressive Muslim environment encirclement, and – broken by the invasions of the external enemies, the united feudal monarchy of the Georgian kingdom was split into separate small states and principates (small kingdoms of Kartli, Kakheti and Imereti, and the principate of Guria, Odishi, Samtskhe-Saatabago, Abkhazeti and Svaneti), that led to incessant bloody wars with Osman-Turks empire in the XVI-XVIII centuries, and with Iran of Sepias and numerous brigands and kidnappers from Dagestan. In that epoch of ill-fate and blood rains, the Georgians faced an acute dilemma of Islamization or physical extinction, and the problem of the maximal consolidation of the remains of an almost exhausted national energy, in order to retain their ethnic individuality. Using the words of Fr.Bodenstadt, “…Indeed, amazing was the ability and endurance the Georgians revealed in their counteraction to enemies. And we must underline a particular moment: in spite of the troubles and violence the nation underwent because of their enemies’ planned policy of enforcing Islamization, people remained true to their old religion” (19, p.122).
To the top

Dramatic as it sounds, “The tragedy of our history was our aloneness, and if in the history there really exists a blind Moira, it materialized in our fate. That indefatigable Moira imposed on us particular cultural and historical tasks in the Near East, for the fulfillment of which we sacrificed our best energies and blood. The fate made of us a vulnerable sacrifice in the teeth and fangs of the fanatic East. The Georgian nation, the pioneer of the Christian civilization of the West, was crucified for the cross of Christ but the Christian West in fact, never helped the country… Our kings and feudals always appealed to Europe for help, and the response would follow in some delicate epistles…” (57, p.514). The fact is that the king of Kartli and Kakheti, famed Erekle II asked European monarchs for help sufficient for the creation of two regiments, well-armed – according to European standards, and – worried because of the critical situation the country was in, informed them with concern: “…We are under total attack of all strong and powerful and wild enemies; we lack proper arms for warfare, but fighting hand-to-hand helps not”, but at that time Europe was itself surrounded by Muslim enemies and was too busy to provide any help to Georgia.

In this aspect, it is not surprising that the rulers of the country, left unassisted as a target for Persia’s and Turkey’s determined ethnocide - and neglected by the “Christian West”, turned their gaze of hope to Christian North - or Greek Orthodox Russia, a growing state. In the long run, this type of imposed choice caused disastrous result and separate Georgian small kingdoms and principates, that entrusted Russia and encouraged by the 1783 Protectorate Tract, became politically absorbed by the Russian Empire. Thus, “the orientation on Russia to Georgians brought the loss of freedom and the establishment of another colonial system – this time under the rule of fellow-Christians”(72).

A colourful drawing by Prince Ioane Batonishvili, “Georgia” reflects the said development of events and the conditions of the country at the end of the XVIII century (see page 190). Its visual components (various animals and a human figure rising from the clouds), present an allegorical content. The explanatory notes (Lion – Persia, Bear – Turkey, Wolf – Lackies, Fox – Caucasians, Snake – intermediaries) make the sense clear and very easy to interpret, even for inexperienced eyes. Many found it surprising to find in the center of the drawing a symbolic image of the country: a flock of sheep surrounded by a Lion, a Bear, a Wolf and a Fox, is gazing to the North. On the right side of the picture we see snakes representing the envoys of Georgia betraying the national interests. The upper part of the picture provides a symbolic picture of Russia The Thunderer (representing in composition the Russian Emperor, with his guardian angel and a peace dove), and above it – the sacred image for the Freemasons – a triangle with an eye of Lucifer, adorned with sunrays.

Apparently, this bold artistic and allegorical composition was aimed to disclose a sly policy of Russia, camouflaged under the Freemasons’ slogan of “Brotherhood, Uni-faith, Love, Equality and Mutual help”, and hiding behind the mask of those good deeds, embodies the evil known under the name of the “minor evil” and the “harm in disguise” (72).

Of course, we cannot consider the picture to be an attempt to disgrace Georgian nation, and Ioane Batonishvili is the last person to be accused of blasphemy. The artist just wanted to draw attention towards his too loyal compatriots, living in the hope of “others’ help”, who proclaimed the thesis of the “minor evil”, and were incapable of proper evaluation of the essence the “harm in disguise” bore, and the shame and disgrace awaiting those who were doomed to resemble the sheep flock left without a shepherd in that new status quo of theirs.

True, during the period of the “Russian pressure”, the Georgians did not fall prey to the wild form of the previous persecution for their religion, but on the other hand, first time in their history, they had to live in the conditions of the total loss of the elements of state sovereignty and monarchique traditions. Certainly, this way of life was unbearable and disgraceful for Georgians, causing anti-Rusian rebellions (1804, 1810, 1812, etc.). In 1918, Georgia managed to revive its former statehood, eliminated by the Russians, although (see page 246), in 1922 the Soviet Russia occupied the state already juridically recognized by them, and annexed the country, with the subsequent transformation of Georgia into the statute of a Soviet republic in 1922. And yet, after an interval of 79 years, Georgia succeeded the second time – and at this point, finally, to restore its statehood (April 9, 1991) (see page 247), and became the 179th member of the United Nations.