Pre-Christian History in the Georgian Shatberdi Codex: a Translation of the Initial Texts of Mok‘C‘Evay K‘Art‘Lisay (“The Conversion of K‘Art‘Li”)

PRE-CHRISTIAN HISTORY IN THE GEORGIAN SHATBERDI CODEX: A TRANSLATION OF THE INITIAL TEXTS OF MOK‘C‘EVAY K‘ART‘LISAY (“THE CONVERSION OF K‘ART‘LI”)

Origins tales, in all of their colorful guises, at once fascinate and be- wilder1. Consider, for example, the Judeo-Christian tradition that the peoples of Afro-Eurasia are ultimately descended from Noah and his progeny, the only humans to have survived the catastrophic flood. Al- though the authenticity of the flood account may be called into question, the story nevertheless demonstrates that some ancient peoples traced their origins to a definite point in the remote past. Indeed, the historical record is replete with ethnic “Big Bangs.” Yet the historical dynamics of ethnogenesis often have been obscured beyond recognition or are entirely absent. Linguistic data might surrender valuable clues, but tangible contemporary evidence is largely insufficient. Even in this light, however, it would be unwise to presume that any given received tradition about ancient origins is a later fabrication. Genuine historical memories can be transmitted orally for centuries, though they have invariably been altered — accidentally and/or intentionally — from their primordial states. Further complicating matters is the fact that the typical story of conception was composed at a much later time when the community was already well established in its particular way. Such a tale not only explained ultimate beginnings but also validated the present or even conjured a desired future. Another scholarly predicament is rooted more firmly in our own times. Modern efforts to unveil the significance and historical underpinnings of origins tales, efforts that often reveal successive layers of embellishment and relatively late dates of manufacture, can “provoke” a maelstrom of patriotic outcries. While professional historians are obliged to seek objectivity, living traditions nevertheless must be handled with respect and sensitiv- ity, no matter how little they might be deemed to reflect historical “truth.” With this in mind, let us turn to the medieval tradition about the provenance of the Georgians, and in particular, of the K‘art‘velians of eastern

1 I should wish to thank J. Fine and D. Kiziria for their penetrating comments upon earlier drafts of this article and R. Hewsen for producing the accompanying map. 80 St.H. RAPP Jr.

Georgia2. The two received narratives describing the ethnogenesis and earliest history of the K‘art‘velians were first consigned to writing in the seventh through ninth centuries. The Life of the Kings discloses the most elaborate story3. Constituting the initial component of the medieval historical corpus K‘art‘lis c‘xovreba (≤ar¯lis wxovreba) — the so- called “Georgian [Royal] Annals” or “Georgian Chronicles,” The Life of the Kings sketches the genealogy of the most prominent peoples of Caucasia, focusing specially upon the K‘art‘velians. When, around the year 800, its anonymous author investigated his kinspeople’s heritage, he ascertained that the pedigree of the K‘art‘velians was not revealed in the tabula populorum of Genesis. Although the Hebrew Bible lacked direct evidence about the K‘art‘velians, at least one early Christian elaboration of the tabula did. That the Armenians and the K‘art‘velians shared a common origin was affirmed in the medieval Armenian adaptation of the Chronicle of Hippolytus of Rome4. The author of The Life of 2 The English terms “Georgia” and “Georgian” do not exist in the Georgian language. Sak‘art‘velo (sa≤ar¯velo), with its meaning “all-Georgia” is anachronistic — at least politically — before 1008 AD. Prior to this time, one of the most cohesive and durable of the “Georgian” lands was K‘art‘li in the east, the Iberia of the Romans and Byzantines. The inhabitants of K‘art‘li called themselves K‘art‘velni (≤ar¯velni, i.e., k‘art‘vel[i] + the Old Georgian plural suffix -ni), which I have rendered “K‘art‘velians.” For the sake of clarity, I apply the attributive “Georgian” to historiographical traditions and to the K‘art‘velian language (which in its present fomulation is called “Georgian” in English) despite the fact that (1) this convention expresses an undue sense of unity and (2) obscures the K‘art‘velo-centric nature of pre-modern Georgian-language historiography. 3 The full title is The Life of the K‘art‘velian Kings: C‘xorebay k‘art‘velt‘a mep‘et‘a (wxorebay ≤ar¯vel¯a mefe¯a). The reconstructed Georgian critical text was edited by S. Qauxch‘ishvili: K‘art‘lis c‘xovreba, vol. 1 (T‘bilisi, 1955), pp. 3-71. This entire volume has been completely reprinted with my new introduction: K‘art‘lis c‘xovreba: The Georgian Royal Annals and Their Medieval Armenian Adaptation, vol. 1 (Delmar, NY, 1998). See also the translation of both the reconstructed Georgian text and the medieval Armenian adaptation of K‘art‘lis c‘xovreba by R.W. Thomson, Rewriting Caucasian History: The Medieval Armenian Adaptation of the Georgian Chronicles (Ox- ford, 1996), pp. 2-84 for The Life of the Kings. For an overview of the historical ethnogenesis of the K‘art‘velians, see the essential study of G. Melik‘ishvili, K istorii drevnei Gruzii (T‘bilisi, 1959). 4 K. Kekelidze, “Ideia bratstva zakavkazskikh narodov po genealogicheskoi skheme gruzinskogo istorika XI veka Leonti Mroveli,” repr. in his Etiudebi dzveli k‘art‘uli literaturis istoriidan, vol. 3 (T‘bilisi, 1955), pp. 96-107; and idem, “Chronique d’Hip- polyte et l’historien géorgien Leonti Mroveli,” Bedi Kartlisa 17-18 (1964), pp. 88-94. A part of Hippolytus’ Chronicle was rendered into Georgian and was incorporated into the Shatberdi codex ( 122r-126r; for the codex, see infra). However, the Georgian variant is limited to a list of Jewish, Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman rulers. Medieval Georgian historians did not integrate Hippolytus’ account into their own works. See also I. Abuladze, “Ipolite romaelis k‘ronikonis dzveli k‘art‘uli versia,” Moambe (of the Institute of MSS) 3 (1961), pp. 223-243. A TRANSLATION OF THE INITIAL TEXTS OF MOK‘C‘EVAY K‘ART‘LISAY 81 the Kings embraced this schema and “K‘art‘velized” it. As a consequence, by the start of the ninth century both the K‘art‘velians and Ar- menians professed foundation by mythical eponyms, K‘art‘los and Hayk respectively, who were understood to have shared a lineage from Noah through Japheth and Togarmah5. Moreover, the story of K‘art‘los actually was embedded within the received Armenian tradition about Hayk; thus, K‘art‘los became Hayk’s younger sibling. Having integrated Caucasian origins into a Judeo-Christian matrix, The Life of the Kings then reports the establishment of indigenous K‘art‘velian kingship in the wake of the mythical invasion of the region by Alexander the Great. Thus, two central moments in the K‘art‘velian past, the formation of the community and the foundation of local royal authority, were each associated with an illustrious Eurasian celebrity: Noah and Alexander respectively. Indeed, the grafting of local traditions upon pre-existing Eurasian ones magnificently demonstrates the intense dialogue in which the K‘art‘velians had engaged with the larger world around them. Georgian evidence for the period down to the fourth century, when the monarchy of K‘art‘li was first Christianized, is at once enigmatic and limited. Precious few medieval Georgian historical works survive inde- pendently of the corpus K‘art‘lis c‘xovreba. While it is entirely possible that there had been no additional histories, it is more likely that now-lost texts were destroyed, neglected, and even intentionally suppressed6. One of the few historiographical works preserved separately from K‘art‘lis c‘xovreba is the literary collection entitled Mok‘c‘evay k‘art‘lisay (mo≤wevay ≤ar¯lisay), literally The Conversion of K‘art‘li. Ex- tant redactions indicate that Mok‘c‘evay k‘art‘lisay was compiled in the early tenth century, if not slightly earlier. It is worth noting, however, that Mok‘c‘evay k‘art‘lisay’s original MS has not come down to us — a circumstance that plagues a great many medieval Georgian texts. The corpus’ only complete version is transmitted in the tenth-century Shatberdi codex, a document that was first publicized in 1888 by N.Ia. Marr. It is now part of the holdings of the Kekelidze Institute of MSS in T‘bilisi (# S-1141,  215v-248v)7. Named for the southwestern monas-

5 S. Rapp, Imagining History at the Crossroads: Persia, Byzantium, and the Archi- tects of the Written Georgian Past, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michi- gan (1997, UMI repr. # 9722070), hereafter: IHC. 6 We must wonder, for example, whether prose histories from/about regions other than K‘art‘li had been composed. 7 A. Shanidze (Chanidzé), “Les monuments de l’ancienne littérature géorgienne: le recueil de Chatberdi du Xe siècle,” Bedi Kartlisa 38 (1980), pp. 131-136. 82 St.H. RAPP Jr. tery in which it was produced, the Shatberdi document conjoins a number of disparate texts, mostly translations of Greek-language ecclesiastical writings by eminent authors like Gregory of Nyssa, Epiphanius of Cyprus, Basil of Caesarea, and Hippolytus of Rome. Mok‘c‘evay k‘art‘lisay is the solitary original Georgian-language tract among these ecumenical works. C. Toumanoff, eminent scholar of pre-modern Caucasia and author of the unmatched Studies in Christian Caucasian History, firmly established that Mok‘c‘evay k‘art‘lisay is a corpus consisting of six distinct works originally written between the seventh and ninth/tenth centuries8. Five of them are untitled in the MS. The third and core component lent its name to the entire collection9. The received texts are arranged in the following sequence: 1. The Primary History of K‘art‘li; 4. Royal List II; 2. Royal List I10; 5. Royal List III; and, 3. The Conversion of K‘art‘li proper; 6. The Life of Nino.

Original dates of composition have not been definitely fixed, though the terminus ad quem for each text may be set at the tenth century, at which time the Shatberdi codex was created. Toumanoff and others have conjectured that The Conversion of K‘art‘li, the third work and core of the corpus, attained written form as early as the seventh century11, within

8 Toumanoff, “Medieval Georgian Historical Literature (VIIth-XVth Centuries),” Traditio 1 (1943), pp. 149-153. See also: M. Tarchnishvili, “Sources arméno-géorgiennes de l’histoire ancienne de l’église de Géorgie,” Le Muséon 60/1-2 (1947), pp. 29-50; I. Javaxishvili, Dzveli k‘art‘uli saistorio mcerloba (V-XVIII ss.), repr. in vol. 8 of his T‘xzulebani [Collected Works] (T‘bilisi, 1977); and Kekelidze with A. Baramidze, Dzveli k‘art‘uli literaturis istoria (V-XVIII ss.) (T‘bilisi, 1969). 9 The title Mok‘c‘evay k‘art‘lisay today is found only at the beginning of the corpus. Toumanoff devised the other titles except for that of the sixth component (its title was applied elsewhere already by the eleventh/twelfth century). 10 P. Ingoroqva, “Dzvel-k‘art‘uli matiane ‘mok‘c‘evay k‘art‘lisay’ da antikuri xanis iberiis mep‘et‘a sia,” in Sak‘art‘velos saxelmcip‘o muzeumis moambe = Bulletin du Musée d’État de Géorgie XIb (1941), pp. 260-261, distinguishes The Primary History of K‘art‘li and Royal List I by labeling them “chapter” one and two respectively. He seems to have understood that, while they both describe pre-Christian history, these two texts were somehow distinct. Melik‘ishvili, K istorii drevnei Gruzii, p. 24, enumerates these six texts but does not sufficiently elaborate their distinctiveness. 11 For this date, which first was seriously proposed by M. Tarchnishvili, see: C. Tou- manoff, Studies in Christian Caucasian History (Washington, DC, 1963), pp. 417-418 et sqq; and idem, “Medieval Georgian Historical Literature,” pp. 149-150. Tarchnishvili and Toumanoff attribute The Conversion of K‘art‘li to a certain Gregory the Deacon, though this attribution is tenuous at best. A TRANSLATION OF THE INITIAL TEXTS OF MOK‘C‘EVAY K‘ART‘LISAY 83 a hundred years or so of the Armenian condemnation of the K‘art‘velian Church in 608/609. This dating is bolstered by several textual archaisms. Of the remaining components, a “firm” date may be proposed only for The Life of Nino, an embellishment of The Conversion of K‘art‘li proper: it was completed in the ninth or tenth century by an anonymous author(s) who was active during the early Bagratid regime. The conversion of K‘art‘li at the behest of the holy woman Nino was seen as an event of monumental importance, and it is hardly surprising that The Life of Nino is uniquely integrated into both Mok‘c‘evay k‘art‘lisay and K‘art‘lis c‘xovreba12. The remaining constituent texts are more secular in nature. The Primary History of K‘art‘li and the subsequent Royal List I, the two sources translated below, potentially predate the seventh century. Notwithstanding, powerful evidence suggests that they are condensed and telescoped rehashings of the initial section of the ca. 800 Life of the Kings, the first component of K‘art‘lis c‘xovreba. The other two Royal Lists presumably were composed in the ninth or early tenth century because, as Toumanoff has shown, their compilers exploited early ninth-century materials now incorporated into K‘art‘lis c‘xovreba. The complete — or, at least, the most complete — rendition of Mok‘c‘evay k‘art‘lisay has come down to us in a single MS, the tenth- century Shatberdi codex. Its lengthy Christian section is also preserved in the Chelishi MS of the fourteenth/fifteenth century (Kekelidze Insti- tute of MSS, # H-600). Until recently, the Shatberdi and Chelishi variants were the only known extant redactions of Mok‘c‘evay k‘art‘lisay; together they formed the basis of I. Abuladze’s excellent critical edition published in 1963/196413. But in May 1975 a fire at St. Catherine’s

12 I am convinced that The Life of Nino was attached to The Life of the Kings (forming the mini-corpus C‘xorebay k‘art‘velt‘a mep‘et‘a) in the eleventh century by the arch- bishop Leonti Mroveli (“of Ruisi”). This Mroveli is traditionally regarded as the author of C‘xorebay k‘art‘velt‘a mep‘et‘a. For Thomson’s translation of The Life of Nino as incorporated into K‘art‘lis c‘xovreba, see “The Conversion of K‘art‘li by Nino,” pp. 84- 145. Thomson, like the experts before him, has subsumed the brief history of the early Christian K‘art‘velian kings (which I distinguish as The Life of the Successors of Mirian) within the vita of Nino. 13 I. Abuladze ed., “Mok‘c‘evay k‘art‘lisay,” in his Dzveli k‘art‘uli agiograp‘iuli literaturis dzeglebi, vol. 1 (T‘bilisi, 1963/1964), pp. 81-163. Cf. the earlier ed. of E. T‘a- qaïshvili in “Opisanie rukopisei biblioteki Obshchestva rasprostraneniia gramotnosti sredi gruzinskago naseleniia,” in Sbornik materialov dlia opisaniia mestnostei i plemen Kav- kaza 41 (1910), pp. 48-96, and 42 (1912), pp. 1-57. Russian trans. by T‘aqaïshvili in his “Istochniki gruzinskikh letopisei: tri khroniki,” part 1 = “Obrashchenie Gruzii (v khris- tianstvo),” in Sbornik materialov dlia opisaniia mestnostei i plemen Kavkaza 28 (1900), pp. 1-116; repr. with a new comm. by M. Ch‘xartishvili as Obrashchenie Gruzii (T‘bilisi, 84 St.H. RAPP Jr. monastery on Mt. Sinai exposed a previously concealed chamber con- taining a cache of medieval MSS, many of which were Georgian14. Al- though a quarter-century has passed, only a handful of scholars are privy to this significant discovery. Some extremely sketchy information has been released. Thus we know that among the valuable Georgian documents are two “new” renditions of Mok‘c‘evay k‘art‘lisay (## Sin-48 and Sin-50), both of which were apparently copied in the tenth/eleventh century. Like the Chelishi MS, however, both reportedly are defective for their opening folios. Therefore, of Mok‘c‘evay k‘art‘lisay’s four existing redactions, the Shatberdi codex alone conveys the corpus’ pre- Christian histories. How are we to explain this peculiarity? I believe that the three MSS lacking the pre-Christian segments of Mok‘c‘evay k‘art‘lisay may have been intentionally defaced by later patriots and/or zealous clerics. K‘art‘lis c‘xovreba’s similar affliction is instructive: in a significant number of its surviving MSS, the medieval tradition that the K‘art‘velian eponym K‘art‘los was the younger brother of his Armenian counterpart Hayk has been stripped away15. We know that these documents were vandalized between the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries and that certain patriots endeavored to expunge any implication that Georgia was ethnically, culturally, and politically inferior to neighboring Armenia. Significantly, the initial pages of Mok‘c‘evay k‘art‘lisay could not have been removed for the same reason. After all, they lacked the story of K‘art‘los and Hayk. Yet Mok‘c‘evay k‘art‘lisay’s recollection of the pre- Christian, i.e., “pagan,” past might have provided a stimulus for their extraction. The thrust of Mok‘c‘evay k‘art‘lisay is decidedly Christian. Although its complete rendition begins with an unadorned summary of pre-Chris-

1989). It should be noted that Ch‘xartishvili envisages The Conversion of K‘art‘li to be a condensed version of a written tale of Nino that was composed during the reign of the infamous fifth-/sixth-century K‘art‘velian king Vaxtang Gorgasali. 14 Z. Alek‘sidze, “The New Recensions of the ‘Conversion of Georgia’ and the ‘Lives of the 13 Syrian Fathers’ Recently Discovered on Mt. Sinai,” in Settimane di Studio del Centro Italiano di Studi Sull’alto Medioevo, vol. 43a = Il Caucaso: Cerniera fra Culture dal Mediterraneo alla Persia (Spoleto, 1996), pp. 409-426. K‘art‘velian monks first were established at Mt. Sinai in the sixth century, but a significant colony there may be traced only to the ninth/tenth century. For an overview, see L. Menabde, Centres of Ancient Georgian Culture, D. Skvirski trans. (T‘bilisi, 1968), pp. 44-46. Perhaps the most renowed K‘art‘velian monk to reside on Mt. Sinai was Ioane Zosimê: M. Tarchnishvili, Geschichte der kirchlichen georgischen Literatur (Città del Vaticano, 1955), s.v. “Johannes Zosime,” pp. 109-114. 15 Rapp, IHC, pp. 185-193. A TRANSLATION OF THE INITIAL TEXTS OF MOK‘C‘EVAY K‘ART‘LISAY 85 tian history, it is the triumph of the faith of Christ and especially the glo- rious deeds of the holy woman Nino that are showcased, hence the received title of the corpus. Despite this Christian flavor, here I shall con- centrate on the collection’s two components describing the pre-Christian K‘art‘velian past, i.e., the so-called Primary History of K‘art‘li and Royal List I. These sources, in addition to The Life of the Kings (the initial work of K‘art‘lis c‘xovreba), constitute the only indigenous, early, written traditions enshrining the pre-Christian K‘art‘velian experience. As we shall see, the respective pre-Christian sections of Mok‘c‘evay k‘art‘lisay and K‘art‘lis c‘xovreba undoubtedly are connected, although their precise relationship continues to command fierce debate. For the moment, I shall only remark that both sources are ultimately based upon a now-lost ancient king list, or even lists, and that both drew upon a ka- leidoscopic oral tradition. Three episodes comprise the backbone of Mok‘c‘evay k‘art‘lisay’s pre-Christian section16. First, K‘art‘li’s remote history is inextricably tied to Alexander the Great. The renowned conqueror is alleged to have invaded K‘art‘li, where he discovered the savage Bun-t‘urk‘ tribe inhabiting the basin of the Mtkuari (Kura) River. The identity of these Bunt‘urk‘-s is beset with difficulties, though they might represent proto- K‘art‘velians or even established settlers who were displaced when the K‘art‘velians migrated into what subsequently became K‘art‘li proper. It is altogether possible that later nomadic migrations were confused and telescoped back to the dawn of the K‘art‘velian community. As a result the Bun-t‘urk‘-s may actually be a warped memory, e.g., of the Sarmatians of northern Caucasia. Second, having subjugated K‘art‘li, Alexander is reported to have appointed a governor to rule in his absence. In The Primary History of K‘art‘li, his candidate Azoy is described as the scion of an unnamed local king who held sway in “Ar- ian”-K‘art‘li, apparently Aryan-K‘art‘li or “Persian K‘art‘li.” The subsequent Royal List I asserts that Azoy eventually became the first king of the K‘art‘velians to rule from the city of Mc‘xet‘a17, the ancient royal seat of K‘art‘li situated at the confluence of the Mtkuari and Aragwi riv- ers. Thus, the genesis of indigenous K‘art‘velian kingship is pinned to Alexander, and this is verified by non-Georgian histories which know of K‘art‘velian monarchs reigning in the Hellenistic age. Third, Royal List I relates an unbroken sequence of the earliest K‘art‘velian monarchs down to Mirean / Mirian III (r. 284-361), who, ca. 337, became the first local 16 This appellation attests to the texts’ description of the pre-Christian era, though they were composed much later. 17 Mc‘xet‘a is sometimes rendered in English as Mtskheta or Mtskhetha. 86 St.H. RAPP Jr. king to accept the Christian god. As should be obvious from the title suggested by Toumanoff, Royal List I imparts a skeletal enumeration of the kings and briefly alludes to the idols erected by them, the temporary division of royal authority, and major construction projects undertaken by the Crown. Besides establishing a basic relative chronology, neither pre-Christian component incorporates calendrical dates of any kind18. The pre-Christian components of Mok‘c‘evay k‘art‘lisay have attracted scholarly attention throughout the twentieth century. For example, in 1936 A. Gugushvili’s “The Chronological-Genealogical Table of the Kings of Georgia” was published in the London-based journal Georgica. Gugushvili contends that Mok‘c‘evay k‘art‘lisay’s narrative about Azoy “does certainly contain facts,” a view which cannot seriously be disputed. However, without adequately justifying his position, the author concludes that The Life of the Kings postdates Mok‘c‘evay k‘art‘lisay19. One is left with the impression that Gugushvili was blinded by the relative antiquity of the MSS of Mok‘c‘evay k‘art‘lisay. It is true that pre-Christian section of Mok‘c‘evay k‘art‘lisay is preserved in a MS copied already in the tenth century whereas the oldest Georgian-language MS of K‘art‘lis c‘xovreba was produced only at the end of the fifteenth century. Moreover, the core component of Mok‘c‘evay k‘art‘lisay is quite old: its received form is probably an artifact of the seventh century. But this proves neither that the pre-Christian section of Mok‘c‘evay k‘art‘lisay was created at the same time as The Conversion of K‘art‘li nor that some of the components of K‘art‘lis c‘xovreba are not of similar age. In 1941 the Georgian scholar P. Ingoroqva published “Dzveli- k‘art‘uli matiane ‘mok‘c‘evay k‘art‘lisay’ da antikuri xanis iberiis mep‘et‘a sia” (The Old Georgian Chronicle of Mok‘c‘evay k‘art‘lisay and the List of the Iberian Monarchs of the Ancient Period), a study of K‘art‘li’s ancient history as recollected in Mok‘c‘evay k‘art‘lisay. Ingoroqva determined that The Life of the Kings either was the source of Mok‘c‘evay k‘art‘lisay’s two pre-Christian narratives or that it compre- hended a less corrupted version of a common tradition. So as to establish the fundamental veracity of the Georgian accounts, Ingoroqva, like Gugushvili (pp. 146-147) and others, cataloged the references to the early K‘art‘velian kings in non-Georgian written sources (especially in

18 The Life of the Kings is likewise devoid of dates for ancient K‘art‘velian history. Therefore, any attempt to calculate regnal dates, for example, must be regarded as speculative. 19 A. Gugushvili, “The Chronological-Genealogical Table of the Kings of Georgia,” Georgica 1/2-3 (Oct. 1936), p. 110. A TRANSLATION OF THE INITIAL TEXTS OF MOK‘C‘EVAY K‘ART‘LISAY 87

Classical and Armenian texts, pp. 284ff)20. Ingoroqva’s theory, however, did not win many adherents in Georgia or elsewhere. The prevailing opinion among scholars in Georgia was best articulated by G. Melik‘ishvili in his extraordinary K istorii drevnei Gruzii (On the History of Ancient Georgia [1959], pp. 47-62 et sqq). Melik‘ishvili awards precedence to the pre-Christian components of Mok‘c‘evay k‘art‘lisay over The Life of the Kings, concluding that the former’s evidence is unimpeachable. He attempts, therefore, to rectify discrepancies in favor of Mok‘c‘evay k‘art‘lisay. But in his own Studies in Christian Caucasian History (1963), the single most important study of the whole of pre-modern Caucasia in any language, Toumanoff breathed new life into the opposite judgment, though in a more scholarly fashion than Ingoroqva. According to Toumanoff, the two pre-Christian installments of Mok‘c‘evay k‘art‘lisay are dependent upon the earlier Life of the Kings, this being most evident from the former’s corruption of royal names which seem to have been more authentically preserved in the latter21. Although I concur with Toumanoff’s conscientious assess- ment, this question has not been settled once and for all and cannot be with the MSS currently at our disposal. The following translation of the pre-Christian components of Mok‘c‘e- vay k‘art‘lisay is based upon the Georgian edition of the Shatberdi codex compiled by B. Gigineishvili and E. Giunashvili: Shatberdis krebuli X saukunisa (The Shatberdi Collection of the Tenth Century), vol. 1 of Dzveli k‘art‘uli mcerlobis dzeglebi (T‘bilisi, 1979). Theirs is the parallel text provided here, and their punctuation has usually been observed. Throughout the translation I have indicated the page-breaks of the Gigineishvili/Giunashvili edition as well as those of the earlier edition by Abuladze 22. So that the translation should not be over- whelmed by footnotes, I have consolidated the commentary by section at

20 Could it be that a medieval Georgian writer scoured Classical sources for the names of K‘art‘velian monarchs so as to compile his own king list? Although provocative, there is no direct evidence to support this hypothesis. In fact, early Georgian historians provide no indication that they themselves were familiar with Classical texts (cf. Arme- nian historians, especially Movses Xorenac‘i). For other enumerations of the ancient K‘art‘velian kings in Classical sources, see, e.g.: Melik‘ishvili, K istorii drevnei Gruzii, passim; Gugushvili, “Chronological-Genealogical Table of the Kings of Georgia,” pp. 146-153; and Toumanoff, “Chronology of the Early Kings of Iberia,” Traditio 25 (1969), pp. 8-29. 21 Esp. excursus A, “The Royal List of the Conversion of Iberia and Sumbat’s History of the Bagratids,” pp. 417-422. 22 Abuladze ed., “Mok‘c‘evay k‘art‘lisay,” in his Dzveli k‘art‘uli agiograp‘iuli literaturis dzeglebi, vol. 1, pp. 81-8311. 88 St.H. RAPP Jr.

the end of the text. Section numerals are mine and are not part of the original text; bracketed titles are Toumanoff’s and do not occur in the MS. I have employed the following abbreviations in the commentary: Conv. = The Conversion of K‘art‘li; K‘C‘ = K‘art‘lis c‘xovreba; LK = The Life of the Kings; LNino = The Life of Nino; MK‘ = Mok‘c‘evay k‘art‘lisay; PHK‘ = The Primary History of K‘art‘li; and RL1 = Royal List I. Unless otherwise noted, “trans.” refers to the translation of the earliest texts of K‘art‘lis c‘xovreba and its medieval Armenian adaptation by Thomson in his Rewriting Caucasian History. My system of transliteration is a modified version of that devised by the Library of Congress (USA):

abgdevzè¯i abgdevzêt‘i

klmnyopjrs kl mnyopzhrs

tªuf≤˚q˙cw t wu p‘k‘ghq shch‘c‘

ø∑©xå∆hà dz c ch x q‘ j h ô

* * * * * * *

{A. THE PRIMARY HISTORY OF K‘ART‘LI}

1 pirvel, odes ale≤sandre mefeman In the beginning, after King Alexander had put na¯esavni igi lo¯is ˙vil¯ani ∑a- to flight the clans of the sons of Lot and had ri≤wina da ˙eåadna igini kedarsa mas driven them to the land of midnight, he found ≤ueqanasa, ixilna na¯esavni sas- the savage tribes of the Bun-t‘urk‘-s, who re- tikni bun-¯ur≤ni, msxdomareni sided along the course of the Mtkuari River in mdinaresa zeda mtkuarsa mixuevi¯, four cities and their environs: Sarkine-City, o¯x ≤ala≤ad, da dabnebi ma¯i: Kaspi, Urbnisi, and Odzraq‘e; and their for- sarkine-≤ala≤i, kaspi, urbnisi da tresses: C‘ixê-didi — [the fortress] of Sarkine; oøraåe, da wixeni ma¯ni: wixè didi Up‘lisc‘ixê — [the fortress] of Kaspi, and [the sarkinisay, ufliswixè kaspisa, fortresses] of Urbnisi and Odzraq‘e. urbnisisa da oøraåisay. A TRANSLATION OF THE INITIAL TEXTS OF MOK‘C‘EVAY K‘ART‘LISAY 89

2 daukªrda ale≤sandres da wna, ra- Alexander was astonished and came to the re- me¯u iebosel¯a na¯esavni iqvnes, alization that [the Bun-t‘urk‘-s] were the [de- qovelsa åorwielsa ©amdes da sa- scendants of the] Jebusite clans. They ate every mare ma¯i ara iqo, mkudarsa ˙e˙©am- sort of meat [indiscriminately] and [because des. da ver eølo brøolay ma¯i they] consumed their dead they did not employ mefesa da ∑arvida. graves. And the king did not have the strength to fight them so he departed.

3 ma˙in movides na¯esavni mbr- Then came tribes of warriors-cavalrymen, the øolni, ≤aldevel¯agan gamosxmul- Huns, [who had] issued forth from [among] the ni, honni, da i¯xoves bun-¯ur≤¯a Chaldaeans. [And] they petitioned the ruler of uflisagan ≤ueqanay xarki¯a da the Bun-t‘urk‘-s for land [in return for submit- dasxdes igini zanavs. ting] tribute and they settled in Zanavi.

4 da epqra igi, romel xarki¯a And they occupied [Zanavi] for which they a≤unda, hr≤ªan mas xerki. paid tribute; [therefore that place] is called Xerki.23

5 da ˙emdgomad raodenisame jamisa And after some time Alexander, the king of all movida ale≤sandre, mefè qovlisa land[s], came and destroyed three cities and ≤ueqanisay, da dale∑na samni ese fortresses, and he put the Huns to the sword. ≤ala≤ni da wixeni, da hon¯a daswa maxªli.

6 xolo sarkinesa ≤ala≤sa ebrøola Then he besieged the city of Sarkine for eleven a¯er¯met ¯¯ue da dadga sarki- months. And he encamped on the western side nesa dasavali¯ kerøo da daasxa of Sarkine and planted a vineyard and he drew venaåi da ruy gamoi˚o ≤sni¯, da out a canal from the K‘sani [River], and he sta- dasxna kawni meruveni dastagi¯a tioned men to keep watch over the heads of the ruysay¯a; da hr≤ªan adgilsa mas canals24; therefore this place is called nastagisi. Nastagisi.

7 da merme gamoi˚o sarkine. ¯ª¯ And then Alexander captured Sarkine. The very daqares da meot i≤mnnes. da ¯anahq- [Bun-t‘urk‘-s] abandoned it and fled. And King vanda ale≤sandres mefesa azoy, øè Alexander brought Azoy, son of the king of arian-≤ar¯lisa mefisay, da mas miu- Aryan-K‘art‘li25, and bestowed Mc‘xet‘a as his boøa mwxe¯ay sa∆domad da saz˚vari seat [of administration] and granted him the 23 “Tribute” = xarki (xarki). 24 “Heads of canals” = dastag-ni (dastagni); stagi is a more common form. 25 Aryan (i.e., Persian) is rendered here as “Arian” (arian, not to be confused with the present 3p. pl. form of the verb “to be”). 90 St.H. RAPP Jr. daudva mas here¯i, da egris ∑qali, [land delimited by the] borders of Heret‘i, da somxi¯i da m¯ay wrolisa[y] da Egris-cqali, and Somxit‘i and Mt. C‘roli, and ∑arvida. he departed.

8 xolo ese azoy ∑arvida ar[i]an- Meanwhile this Azoy departed Ar[y]an- ≤ar¯lad, mamisa ¯ªsisa da K‘art‘li, his father[’s domain], and he brought ∑armoiqvana rvay saxli da a¯ni eight houses and ten houses of foster- saxlni mama-møuøe¯ani, da da∆da fathers and he settled in Old Mc‘xet‘a, and he øuel mwxe¯as da ¯ana-hqvandes venerated the idols Gac‘i and Ga as gods. kerpni ˚mr¯ad — gawi da ga.

{B. ROYAL LIST I}26

1 da ese iqo pirveli mefè mwxe¯as And this Azoy, the son of the king of the ˙ina azoy, øè arian-≤ar¯vel¯a me- Aryan-K‘art‘velians, was the first king [to sit] fisay, da mokuda. in Mc‘xet‘a, and [then] he died.

2 da ˙emdgomad misa dadga far- And after him P‘arnavaz became [king]. He navaz. aman a˚mar¯a kerpi didi erected a great idol on the ledge of a mountain wxª[r]sa zeda, da dasdva saxeli and he gave it his [own] name Armazi. And he misi armazi. da mo≤mna z˚ude raised a wall from the bank of the [?Mtkuari] ∑qli¯ kerøo, da hr≤ªan armaz. River, and he called [this fortress] Armazi.

3 da ˙emdgomad misa dadga mefed And after him Saurmag became king. He saurmag. aman a˚mar¯a kerpi aynina erected the idol Aynina along a/the road. And gzasa zeda. da i∑qo armazs ˙ènebad. he began to build up Armazi.

4 da misi ˙emdgomad mefobda mir- And after him Mirvan reigned. And he erected van. da a˚mar¯a danina gzasa zeda the idol Danina along a/the road, in front [?of ∑inare da a˚a˙ena armazi. Aynina], and finished building Armazi.

5 da mefobda farna∆ob da a˚mar¯a And P‘arnajob reigned and erected the idol kerpi zaden m¯asa zeda. da a˚a˙ena Zadeni on a mountain. And he built [the Zadeni [wixè]. fortress].

6 da mefobda ars(ok) [da] ≤ala≤sa And Ars[ok] reigned [and he] encircled the city z˚udeni moa≤mnna. with walls.

26 The para. numbers in this section are also supplied in the printed version of Gigineishvili and Giunashvili. A TRANSLATION OF THE INITIAL TEXTS OF MOK‘C‘EVAY K‘ART‘LISAY 91

7 da mefobda arik, romelman ˙i- And Arik reigned, who built an acropolis in dawixe a˚a˙ena armazsa. Armazi.

8 da mefobda bratman, romelsa ze And Bratman reigned, under whom Mc‘xet‘a mwxe¯as ≤ala≤i dae∑qo. became a city.

9 da mefobda mirean. da man a˚a˙ena And Mirean reigned. And he finished the city mwxe¯ay ≤ala≤i. of Mc‘xet‘a.

10 da mefobda arsuk, romelman And Arsuk reigned, who subdued Kaspi and es- kaspi ˙eipqra da ufliswixe ganago. tablished order in Up‘lisc‘ixe.

11 da mefobda rok, romelman And Rok reigned, who completely separated ray¯ur¯i¯ mwxe¯ay gai˙ora. da Mc‘xet‘a [from Armazi]. And royal authority mefobay orad gaiqo, orni mefeni was divided into two [parts]; two kings sat [on dasxdes imier da amier. the throne simultaneously, one along] that and [the other along] this [bank of the Mtkuari River].

12 da mefobda ≤arøam armazs da And in Armazi K‘ardzam reigned, and in mwxe¯as — bratman. da ama¯¯a jam¯a Mc‘xet‘a — Bratman. And at that time Jews huriani movides mwxe¯as da dasx- arrived and settled in Mc‘xet‘a. des.

13 da mefobda imier farsman da And along that [bank] reigned P‘arsman, and amier — kaoz. along this [bank] — Kaoz.

14 da mefobda imier arsok da amier And along that [bank] reigned Arsok, and along — amazaer. this [bank] — Amazaer.

15 da mefobda imier amazasp da And along that [bank] reigned Amazasp, and amier — deruk. along this [bank] — Deruk.

16 da mefobda imier farsman ≤veli And along that [bank] reigned P‘arsman “the da amier — farsman avaz. Valiant,”27 and along this [bank] — P‘arsman Avaz.

17 da mefobda imier rok da amier — And along that [bank] reigned Rok, and along mirdat. da amisa ze moaklda armazi this [bank] — Mirdat. And under them royal

27 K‘veli (≤veli), archaic form k‘ueli (≤ueli). 92 St.H. RAPP Jr. sameufoy da mwxe¯as oden iqo [power] came to an end in Armazi and the mefobay. kingship was concentrated [exclusively] in Mc‘xet‘a.

18 da mefobda ˚adami da(!) d˚e k. And Ghadami reigned for twenty days.

19 da farsman, And P‘arsman,

20 da amazasp, and Amazasp,

21 da rev mar¯ali. and Rev “the Just,”

22 vace. Vach‘e,

23 bokur. Bakur,

24 mirdat. Mirdat,

25 asfagur. Asp‘agur,

26 lev. mamay mireanisi. Lev, the father of Mirean,

27 [mirean] [Mirean himself]. ese owdarvani mefeni ≤ar¯ls ˙ina These twenty-eight kings of K‘art‘li [were] ∑armar¯ni. heathens.

* * * * * * *

COMMENTARY28

A. THE PRIMARY HISTORY OF K‘ART‘LI (PHK‘)

1 / PHK‘ “In the beginning”: pirvel (pirvel), nominative form pirveli, literally, “first,” “at the start.” This Georgian word signals the eruption of 28 Rapp, IHC, furnishes considerably more commentary as well as a comprehensive review of the relevant scholarly literature, among which three studies should be high- lighted: Toumanoff, Studies; Javaxishvili, K‘art‘veli eris istoria, 3rd ed. (1928), repr. as the initial two volumes of his T‘xzulebani (T‘bilisi, 1979 and 1983); and Melik‘ishvili, K istorii drevnei Gruzii. A TRANSLATION OF THE INITIAL TEXTS OF MOK‘C‘EVAY K‘ART‘LISAY 93 the K‘art‘velians onto the historical stage. It is not a coincidence that The Life of the Kings (LK), in its alternate but related tradition, begins with the same word though in the adverbial case pirvelad (pirvelad). Likewise, The Life of Nino (LNino) as found in K‘art‘lis c‘xovreba (K‘C‘) — but not that version in Mok‘c‘evay k‘art‘lisay (MK‘) — commences with pirvelad. All three traditions therefore profess their own genuine dawn of K‘art‘velian history. But whereas PHK‘ and LK anchor K‘art‘li’s past in the ancient world, Nino’s anonymous biographer, himself a priest, originates K‘art‘li’s history with the mis- sionary endeavors of the holy woman Nino in the first-third of the fourth century AD. It should be noted that the extant Georgian version of Gen- esis commences with dasabamad (dasabamad), “in the beginning”: B. Gigineishvili and C‘. Kikvidze eds., Cignni dzuelisa aght‘k‘umisani, pt. 1 = “Shesak‘misay gamoslvat‘ay” (T‘bilisi, 1989), p. 62. Alexander (Georgian form Alek‘sandre). Both PHK‘ and LK (Thom- son trans., pp. 23-27) intimately associate early K‘art‘velian history with the conquests of Alexander of Macedon. But PHK‘ grounds the most remote K‘art‘velian past in the early Hellenistic period, whereas LK, having exploited biblical and Armenian traditions, traces the K‘art‘velian community to a definite but nevertheless mythical founder. This K‘art‘los is said to have been descended from Noah through Japheth and Togarmah. Although K‘art‘los and his progeny are not specified in the Hebrew Bible, the provenance of the Armenians is stated by Hippolytus, and the Armenian adaptation of his Chronicle explicitly assigns the K‘art‘velians a similar pedigree. This early medieval Armenian tradition was adopted by the ca. 800 author of LK so as to concoct an eponym from existing sources. The Armenian legend of Hayk, the Haos of LK, was probably also influential. It is unlikely that Alexander ever traversed K‘art‘li despite the related accounts of PHK‘ and LK: L. Sanikidze, Alek‘sandre makedoneli (T‘bilisi, 1984), pp. 346-363 et passim. Be this as it may, certain Classical authors like Pliny (IV.10.39) and Solinus (IX.19) embellished Alexan- der’s conquests with K‘art‘li (Iberia, Hiberia) (Toumanoff, Studies, p. 82, footnote 104). Cf. the seventh- / eighth-century Armenian historian Movses Xorenac‘i (II.8): “[Alexander appointed] Mihrdat, the satrap of Darius, whom Alexander brought and left as prince over the captives from among the Iberian [i.e., K‘art‘velian] peoples that Nebuchadnezzar had brought” (Moses Khorenats‘i, Patmut‘iwn Hayots‘ [History of the Armenians] [Delmar, NY, 1981, repr. of the 1913 Tiflis ed.]; R.W. Thomson trans., [Moses Khorenats‘i], History of the Armenians [Cam- bridge, MA, 1978], p. 140). 94 St.H. RAPP Jr.

The accounts about Alexander in PHK‘ and LK are definitely related. Whether one is directly dependent upon the other or whether both are predicated upon a now-lost source cannot be satisfactorily resolved with the evidence now available. LK’s Alexander narrative is considerably more detailed, incorporating and distorting basic features that may ultimately be traced to the Greek biography of Alexander by Ps.- Callisthenes. For example: Alexander is said to be the son of Nektanebo and, through him, an Egyptian; he built the city of Alexandria; he con- quered the world in twelve years and died two years later; and on his deathbed he apportioned his realm between four eponyms — Antiochos (Syria, cf. Antioch), Hromos (Rome), Bizantios (Byzantium), and Pla- ton (evidently Egypt; Ptolemy was likely intended). LK’s author was obsessed with eponymous foundations. According to his narrative, K‘art‘los established K‘art‘li just prior to the foundation of Rome by Hromos and Byzantium by Bizantios. The implication is that K‘art‘li was of greater antiquity than either Rome or Byzantium. (This is not unlike the claims advanced in Vaxushti’s eighteenth-century chronological tables). The association of Hromos and Bizantios with Alexander possi- bly was inspired by eastern/Byzantine apocalyptic literature, esp. that by Ps.-Methodius: P.J. Alexander, The Byzantine Apocalyptic Tradition, D. DeF. Abrahamse ed. and intro. (Berkeley, 1985), pp. 41-42 (for By- zas, Byzantia, and Romulus in the translated text of the Syriac Ps.-Me- thodius); and Die Syrische Apokalypse des Pseudo-Methodius, G.J. Rei- nink trans., vol. 541 of Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium = vol. 221 of Scriptores Syri (Louvain, 1993), IX.1-6, pp. 26-29. Alexander is styled as mep‘e (mefe), or “king,” “monarch,” later “reigning queen”—e.g., T‘amar (r. 1184-1213) and her daughter Rusudan (r. 1223-1245). Mep‘e is probably related to the Georgian word up‘ali (ufali), “lord, ruler,” and was employed for all monarchs, both K‘art‘velians and non-K‘art‘velians. The clans of the sons of Lot. This obscure phrase does not appear in LK. For Lot, see Genesis X-XIX. The land of midnight (kedarsa mas k‘ueqanasa [kedarsa mas ≤ueqanasa]). “The land of midnight” is a loose translation of Khurâsân, the great eastern province of Persia; cf. the Pahlavi xvarâsan, “east.” It is conceivable that our author — or at the very least, his source — knew some Persian: A. Gvaxaria, “K‘art‘ul-sparsuli litera- turuli urt‘iert‘obis sat‘aveebt‘an,” in Sparsul-k‘art‘uli c‘dani (T‘bilisi, 1987), pp. 7-8. Cf. LK (trans. p. 16) for the Persians’ growing power in “the East,” although the Georgian here literally reads “on the dawning Sun” (mier mzisa aghmosavlit‘gan [mier mzisa a˚mosavli¯- A TRANSLATION OF THE INITIAL TEXTS OF MOK‘C‘EVAY K‘ART‘LISAY 95 gan]). Furthermore, an entire Persian phrase is attributed to the first Christian king Mirean (Mirian) in LNino as it appears in MK‘ (p. 3361): he, he rayt‘meboy xojat‘ st‘abanub rasul p‘sarzed (he, he, ray¯meboy xo∆a¯ s¯abanub rasul fsarzed). The text continues, “And this [phrase] is translated [in Georgian] as: ‘You speak the truth, O fortunate Queen [i.e., Nino] and apostle of the Son of God’”

(p. 3362-3). For this passage, see: Gvaxaria, pp. 10-12; and V. Gabash- vili, “K‘art‘uli-sparsuli kulturuli urt‘iert‘obani (X s.),” Mac‘ne—enisa 4 (1983), p. 37. The Bun-t‘urk‘-s (bun-¯ur≤ni). This enigmatic tribe is also encountered in LK where their relationship to the eponym K‘art‘los and his progeny, the K‘art‘losiani-s, is not elaborated. The prefix bun- probably renders “original” (Thomson in his trans. of LK, p. 23, footnote 12, is aware of this meaning, yet translates “Bun-t‘urk‘” as “‘real’ Turk”). By “Bun-t‘urk‘-s” the authors might have intended the Cimmerians, Scy- thians, Sarmatians, and/or Huns, i.e., the various nomads of northern Caucasia and of the steppes that would become southern Rus’/Russia. A number of experts have established that K‘art‘velo-Sarmatian, and then K‘art‘velo-Ovsi (Alan), contacts were substantial; indeed, such contacts are reflected linguistically. Through its intimate ties to the Iranic Sarmatians, K‘art‘li’s association with the Persian commonwealth was solidified. Indeed, the first-century Greek historian Strabo (XI.3.3) declares that the greater part of the K‘art‘velians (Iberians) resided in the mountains “living like the Scythians and the Sarmatians, of whom they are both neighbours and kinsmen… And they assemble many tens of thousands, both from their own people and from the Scythians and Sarmatians, whenever anything alarming occurs” (The Geogra- phy of Strabo, H.L. Jones trans., in the Loeb Classical Library, vol. 5 [Cambridge, MA, 1944], pp. 218-219). See also: Melik‘ishvili, K istorii drevnei Gruzii, passim; M. Rostovtzeff, Iranians and Greeks in South Russia (Oxford, 1922); V.B. Vinogradov, Sarmaty severno- vostochnogo Kavkaza (Groznyi, 1963); V.B. Kovalevskaia, Kavkaz i alany: veka i narody (Moskva, 1984); D. Braund, Georgia in Antiquity: A History of Colchis and Transcaucasian Iberia 550 BC — AD 562 (Ox- ford, 1994), passim; E.L. Wheeler, Flavius Arrianus: A Political and Military Biography, unpub. Ph.D. diss., Duke University (1977, UMI repr. # 7810814), esp. “The Sarmatian Connection,” pp. 80-87; and idem, in his polemical review of Braund’s monograph, “The Sarmatians and Transcaucasia in the First Two Centuries A.D.,” Annual of the Soci- ety for the Study of Caucasia 6-7 (1994-1996), pp. 62-71 (the last three works are cited for their accessibility). 96 St.H. RAPP Jr.

It is not clear whether the Bun-t‘urk‘-s originally were understood to be relatives of the K‘art‘velians. Melik‘ishvili (K istorii drevnei Gruzii, pp. 37 and 280) identifies the Bun-t‘urk‘-s as the inhabitants of K‘art‘li prior to the migration of K‘art‘velians from Aryan-K‘art‘li under Azoy — see #8 / PHK‘. If Melik‘ishvili is correct, LK has obscured this late migration so as to account for the more ancient eponym K‘art‘los. Javaxishvili, K‘art‘veli eris istoria, 3rd ed., vol. 1, pp. 1-4, places the migration of the K‘art‘velians to K‘art‘li proper in the sixth-fifth centuries BC. LK also alludes to the Qivch‘aqi-s (qivcaqni), i.e., the Qipchaqs, in connection with the Bun-t‘urk‘-s. This one of several flagrant anachronisms suggesting that LK was edited at a time when the Qipchaqs were active in northern Caucasia, esp. in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, for which see P.B. Golden, “Cumanica I: The Qip- chaqs in Georgia,” Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 4 (1984), pp. 45-87. See also E. T‘aqaïshvili in his trans. of this text, “Istochniki gruzinskikh letopisei,” pp. 1-2, footnote 2. On the “savage” nature of the Bun- t‘urk‘-s, see infra. It should be noted that the ruler of the Bun-t‘urk‘-s is styled by PHK‘ (#3) as up‘ali, “lord, ruler” and not mep‘e “king, monarch.” The Mtkuari River. The Mtkuari (modern Mtkvari, also Kura) River was the trade, transportation, and communications artery extending through K‘art‘li. K‘art‘li was defined by the Mtkuari, and the river figures prominently in medieval Georgian literature. Mc‘xet‘a (the old royal city) and Tp‘ilisi (modern form T‘bilisi, cf. Tiflis) are situated on its banks. The settlements of the Bun-t‘urk‘-s. Without exception these settlements are located within the confines of K‘art‘li (see the appended map). According to PHK‘, the Bun-t‘urk‘-s resided in four cities (k‘alak‘-ni [≤ala≤ni]), each of which was safeguarded by its own fortress (c‘ixe [wixe]). LK’s more elaborate enumeration asserts that Alex- ander found the following fortified cities (c‘ixe-k‘alak‘-ni [wixe- ≤ala≤ni], literally “fortress-cities”): Cunda; Xert‘wisi; Odzrq‘e (note the slightly different spelling); T‘uxarisi; Urbnisi; Kaspi; Up‘lis-c‘ixe (“the Lord’s Fortress”); Mc‘xet‘a; Sarkine; C‘ixe-didi (“the Great/ Grand Fortress”); Zanavi (a Jewish settlement); Rust‘avi; Samshwlde; Mtueri / Xunani; and those (unspecified) in the neighboring region of Kaxet‘i. Classical authors also report the existence of substantial settlements in contemporary K‘art‘li. According to Strabo (XI.3.1): “… the greater part of Iberia is so well built up in respect to cities and farm- steads that their roofs are tiled, and their houses as well as their market- places and other public buildings are constructed with architectural A TRANSLATION OF THE INITIAL TEXTS OF MOK‘C‘EVAY K‘ART‘LISAY 97 skill” (Jones trans., pp. 216-217); hundreds of such tiles have been unearthed by archaeologists. Cf. Ptolemy (V.10.1-2) who enumerates: Loubion-kwmj, Aginna, Ouasaida, Ouarika, Soura, Artanissa, Mestljta, Halissa, and Armaktika (cf. Armazis-c‘ixe); see the repr. of the passage in N. Adontz with N.G. Garsoïan, Armenia in the Period of Justinian: The Political Conditions Based on the Naxarar Sys- tem (Lisbon, 1970), appendix IV, p. 109. Ap‘ak‘idze, Goroda drevnei Gruzii (T‘bilisi, 1968), pp. 281 et sqq, describes K‘art‘velian cities of antiquity as trade-artisan, economic, administrative, and military centers. On the connection of k‘alak‘i-s and their c‘ixe-s, see ibid., pp. 17-19, which summarizes arguments first advanced by S. Janashia. This passage vividly illustrates the K‘art‘velo-centric nature of early Georgian historiography.

2 / PHK‘ Jebusites (Iebosel-ni [ieboselni], root Iebos-). The Iebosel-ni are not attested in LK. These Iebosel-ni are none other than the biblical Jebusites inhabiting Jerusalem prior to David’s conquest. Joshua XVIII.28 equates “Jebus” with early Jerusalem while I Chronicles XI.4- 5 relates that “David and all Israel went to Jerusalem, which is Jebus, where the Jebusites were, the inhabitants of [that] land…” Unlike those in the biblical traditions, PHK‘’s Jebusites are the ancestors of the Bun- t‘urk‘-s. One interpretation of this passage is that the K‘art‘velians, in a roundabout way, have been endowed with a Levantine origin and, therefore, with a direct link to the Hebrew Bible. This would be remarkable in light of the fact that from the ninth/tenth century the K‘art‘velian — and then Georgian — Bagratid dynasty first articulated their own spurious claim to be the direct biological descendants of the King-Prophet David (see esp. the eleventh-century history of Sumbat Davit‘is-dze). PHK‘’s testimony gives the K‘art‘velian people an even more ancient connection with Jerusalem than the Bagratids who themselves had migrated from Armenia and rapidly K‘art‘velized at the end of the eighth century AD. The Bagratids are not mentioned in the pre-Christian components of MK‘. It seems to me that MK‘’s connection of the K‘art‘velians with the Jebusites is a pre-Bagratid tradition and not a later reaction against Bagratid ideology. On the Iebosel-ni as the Jebusites, see also T‘aqaïshvili, “Istochniki,” p. 4, footnote 1. Savageness of the Bun-t‘urk‘-s / Jebusites. LK (trans. p. 23) gives a similar account: “He found all the K‘art‘velians [living] by the most foul religion of all nations. For in marriage and fornication they paid no 98 St.H. RAPP Jr. attention to family relationship, they ate everything that was living, they ate corpses like wild beasts and animals; the description of their way of life is inexpressible… Alexander was astonished, because [other] peoples did not live thus.” Later, LK (trans. p. 37) maintains that “After Alexander went away no more did they eat humans, except those sacri- ficed as victims to the idol.” These tribes are described as barbarians so as to dramatize Alexander’s subsequent efforts to civilize them. The barbarism described in this passage has a number of parallels, e.g., the Syriac Book of the Bee: “… [Alexander] saw in the confines of the East those men who are the children of 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 of the earth, and snakes and scorpions. They never buried the bodies of their dead [but consumed them]…” (excerpted in The Book of the Cave of Treasures: A History of the Patriarchs and the Kings Their Successors from the Creation to the Crucifixion of Christ, E.A.W. Budge trans. [London, 1927], p. 265; see also The Book of the Bee, Budge trans., 2 vols. [London, 1866]). The Book of the Bee attained its received form ca. 1222, although its tradition about Japheth is considerably older. Note the confusion of The Book of the Bee with The Book of the Cave of Treas- ures in Rapp, IHC, pp. 198ff, and note especially that The Book of the Cave of Treasures does not refer to Alexander in its Syriac and Georgian forms.

3-5 / PHK‘ The Huns (Hon-ni [honni]). The Huns are unattested in LK, but in that text Zanavi is said to have been a Jewish settlement; cf. RL1, para. 12. In Iakob C‘urtaveli’s Martyrdom of Shushaniki, Shushaniki’s apostate husband Varsk‘en reportedly campaigned against the Huns in the second-half of the fifth century AD (“Camebay cmidisa shushanikisi dedop‘lisay,” in I. Abuladze ed., Dzveli k‘art‘uli agiograp‘iuli literaturis dzeglebi, vol. 1 [T‘bilisi, 1963/1964], cap. 7, p. 19). In this instance, the report about the Huns is plausible enough. The medieval Ar- menian adaptation of K‘art‘lis c‘xovreba identifies the later Qipchaqs as Huns: see its rendition of the twelfth-century Life of King of Kings Davit‘ (trans. p. 325 and footnote 29). For the “North Caucasian Huns,” see P. Golden, An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples: Ethnogenesis and State-Formation in Medieval and Early Modern Eura- sia and the Middle East, vol. 9 of Turcologica (Wiesbaden, 1992), pp. 89 and 106-108 et sqq. According to Golden, Hunnic tribes raided the Caucasian domains as early as the 360s. A TRANSLATION OF THE INITIAL TEXTS OF MOK‘C‘EVAY K‘ART‘LISAY 99

The Goths (Gut‘-ni [gu¯ni]) figure prominently in LK’s story (trans. pp. 80-81) about the first two Christian dynasts of Caucasia, Trdat (of Armenia) and Mirian (of K‘art‘li).

6-7 / PHK‘ The siege of Sarkine. LK (trans. p. 25) relates this siege in greater de- tail and expressly identifies the inhabitants of Sarkine as Bun-t‘urk‘-s (and not as K‘art‘velians). During the attack, the Sarkinians insulted Al- exander. Later, when it became clear that Alexander’s forces would pre- vail, they made overtures for peace but the Macedonian refused to listen (cf. the inhabitants of Tp‘ilisi hurling slurs at the Byzantine emperor Heraclius in the late 620s, for which see the ca. 800 Ps.-Juansher in K‘C‘, trans. pp. 233-234). During the eleventh-month siege (cf. PHK‘) Alexander did not permit a single inhabitant to escape. Ultimately the natives drilled a subterranean tunnel and escaped by nightfall into the mountains. Nastagisi. LK (trans. p. 24) supplies the form Nastaki and does not refer to a vineyard. R. Bielmeier, “On Iranian Influences in Old Georgian,” in H.I. Aronson ed., Non-Slavic Languages of the USSR: Papers from the Fourth Conference (Columbus, OH, 1994), pp. 38-41, proposes that a misunderstanding of this passage by the prominent scholar Sulxan-Saba Orbeliani (1658-1725) conditioned modern read- ings (see S.-S. Orbeliani, Lek‘sikoni k‘art‘uli, I. Abuladze ed., vol. 2 [T‘bilisi, 1993], “stagi,” p. 110). Bielmeier hypothesizes that the end of this passage should be amended: da dasxna kawni meruveni rudastagi¯a, “and [Alexander] appointed men as canal over- seers from the rudastagi.” According to Bielmeier, the Georgian rudastagi is an administrative-territorial unit based upon the Middle Persian rôtastâk (which itself was smaller than the shahr, or “do- minion, kingdom”). This is an attractive possibility, especially in light of my own contention that pre-Bagratid (i.e., pre-813 AD) K‘art‘li was oriented more towards the Persian commonwealth — not only towards Iran proper but also the Armenians and the Iranic tribes to the north — than Byzantium (IHC, esp. part 1). It is true that the early sections of MK‘ 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‘aqaïshvili, “Istochniki,” pp. 6-7, footnote 2. On canals and irrigation, see M.K. Gegeshidze, “Irrigatsiia v Gruzii (istoriko-etnograficheskii ocherk),” Sovetskaia etnografiia 5 (1965), pp. 20-32, with Eng. sum., p. 32. 100 St.H. RAPP Jr.

For the Persian-based praenomina of the early K‘art‘velian monarchs, see infra, #2 / RL1.

7-8 / PHK‘ Azoy. The identification of Azoy, the Azon of LK, is one of the most complex and contentious riddles of early Georgian historiography. PHK‘ depicts him as the son of an unnamed (native) king of Aryan-K‘art‘li, i.e., Persian K‘art‘li. Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 89-90, footnote 124, equates that region with the Aranê of Ptolemy (V.6.18) and the Harrana of the Hittites. We must also wonder about the possibility that the Geor- gian “Arian[i]” corresponds to the Persian ariyana that designated the Alans of northern Caucasia; for the term, see Golden, Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples, p. 50. Should this association be correct, and it is uncertain that it is, the migration of the K‘art‘velians was remembered to have come not from the south but from the north, and by consequence the K‘art‘velians’ homeland might have been located in the steppes of what is now southern Russia or even Inner Asia! In any event, it is reported that Alexander assigned Azoy as the administrator of K‘art‘li in his absence. PHK‘ itself does not bestow a formal title upon Azoy, though the first line of the succeeding RL1 specifically designates him as the first king to rule from the city of Mc‘xet‘a. LK’s Azon differs substantially and his description is more extensive (trans. pp. 25-33). Its Azon is a member of Alexander’s Macedonian clan; his very name terminates in the Greek suffix -on (cf. Platon; ironi- cally, K‘art‘los’ name ends in the Greek -ov — i.e., ≤ar¯l+ov). Alex- ander “spared the tribes descended from K‘art‘los” though “he slaugh- tered all the mingled tribes living in K‘art‘li; he also slew or took cap- tive all the foreign tribes, including women and innocent children less than 15 years old” (trans. p. 25). Thereafter, Azon, son of Iaredos (unattested in PHK‘; again note the Greek suffix -ov), was appointed to rule over the K‘art‘velians. He was granted the distinctly non- K‘art‘velian honor of patrician (!) and the Georgian post of erist‘avi (eris¯avi), literally denoting “head [t‘avi] of the army / people [eri].” LK does not style Azon as a king. But as a status-enhancing measure, Azon took command of 100,000 soldiers from Roman territory. In addition, Alexander commanded Azon to worship seven celestial bodies (the Sun, the Moon, and five “stars,” i.e., planets) and to serve the “invisible God, the creator of the universe.” In contrast to the customary reports about the building activities of the kings of K‘art‘li, Azon reputedly leveled the walls of Mc‘xet‘a. LK then describes the relationship of Azon and P‘arnavaz (see ## 1-2 / RL1). A TRANSLATION OF THE INITIAL TEXTS OF MOK‘C‘EVAY K‘ART‘LISAY 101

Azon’s sphere of authority is more elaborately stated than that of PHK‘’s Azoy. Azoy held the borders of Heret‘i, the Egris-cqali River (literally, “the water of Egrisi”), Somxit‘i (Armenia), and Mt. C‘roli, while LK’s Azon “occupied all the borders of K‘art‘li, from Heret‘i and the river of Berduj[i] as far as the sea of Sper[i] [i.e., the Black Sea]. And he occupied Egrisi in addition to K‘art‘li, and subjected the Ovsi-s to tribute, as well as the Leks and Khazars [i.e., the various tribes of northern Caucasia]” (trans. p. 26). The Khazars (Xazar-ni [xazarni]), though obviously anachronous for the period described, were present in Caucasia during the lifetime of the author (ca. 800). Azoy and Azon unquestionably represent the same figure, whether he should be historical or not. Both concur that he was installed by Alexan- der, but whereas PHK‘ makes him the scion of a pre-existing dynasty in Aryan-K‘art‘li, LK brands him as an outsider. Neither text explicitly names Azoy / Azon as king. However, the compiler of RL1 — the text immediately following PHK‘ in the corpus MK‘ — relates that Azoy was the first king to sit in Mc‘xet‘a, thus depicting him the first local king in K‘art‘li proper. LK and its corpus K‘C‘ enshrine no such tradition. In my opinion, modern linkages of Azoy / Azon with Jason of Ar- gonautic fame are misguided (see, e.g., Melik‘ishvili, K istorii drevnei Gruzii, pp. 38 and 277). Extant pre-modern Georgian historical works are devoid of any reference to Jason and the Argonauts, and they allude to no susbtantial historical connection between Colchis (i.e., Egrisi, later western Georgia) and K‘art‘li. It should be emphasized that the pre- Christian segments of Mok‘c‘evay k‘art‘lisay are a testament of the monarchy of K‘art‘li and supply no meaningful information for the region and inhabitants of Egrisi / Colchis other than the mere name of the Egris-cqali River. For the early history of the western “Georgian” domains, see, e.g.: O. Lort‘k‘ip‘anidze, Nasledie drevnei Gruzii (T‘bilisi, 1989); and Braund, Georgia in Antiquity (which is much better for western areas than for eastern ones). Households transferred by Azoy. This mysterious passage has probably been corrupted. The literal English rendering is “eight houses and ten houses of foster-fathers.” The provocative study by G. Mamulia, Klasobrivi sazogadoebisa da saxelmcip‘os ch‘amoqalibeba dzvel k‘art‘lshi (T‘bilisi, 1979), Eng. sum., p. 184, conflates the two: “eight- een houses of mamamdzudze [i.e., foster-fathers, or tutors, mamam- øuøe].” Cf.: M. Tsereteli [Ceret‘eli], “The Asianic (Asia Minor) Ele- ments in National Georgian Paganism,” Georgica 1/1 (Oct. 1935), pp. 28-66, who reformulates the phrase to read “eight households and 102 St.H. RAPP Jr. ten families of his fellow tribesmen”; and Ingoroqva, “Dzvel-k‘art‘uli matiane,” pp. 268-270. See Sanikidze, Alek‘sandre makedoneli, p. 347, for the interpretation that Azoy brought eight houses (guari, ojaxi) of nobles and ten houses of his kinsmen (nat‘esav-moquareni, lit. “tribal-/ clan-friends”). On the Iranian institution of foster-parenting, see: T‘. Ch‘xeidze, Aghzrdis instituti sasanur iranshi (T‘bilisi, 1979), with Rus. sum., “Sistema vospitaniia v sasanidskom Irane,” pp. 60-69; Mamulia, Klasobrivi sazogadoebisa, ch. 3 and Eng. sum., pp. 187-188; and A. Sarjveladze, “Ramdenime dakvirveba mamamdzudze, uxuc‘esi, moxu- c‘ebuli terminebis shesaxeb,” in Istoriul-cqarot‘mc‘odneobit‘i dziebani (T‘bilisi, 1989), pp. 18-21. Should the mamamdzudze-s have been the attendants of the earliest K‘art‘velian chiefs, we must wonder if they are equivalent to the mardpet-s (sing. mardpet) of the Armenian tradition, see: “Mardpet / hayr-mardpet / mardpetut‘iwn,” in N.G. Garsoïan trans. and comm., The Epic Histories (Buzandaran Patmut‘iwnk‘) (Cambridge, MA, 1989), pp. 542-543. It is worth noting that the institution of mamamdzudze is of considerable age; it is attested in the fifth-century Martyrdom of Shushaniki (e.g., Abuladze ed., cap. 18, p. 28). Melik‘ishvili (K istorii drevnei Gruzii, pp. 276-280), like Javaxishvili before him, has taken this passage to signify the migration of the K‘art‘velian community from Aryan-K‘art‘li (probably to be situated south of the Mtkuari River) to K‘art‘li proper (i.e., the land centered around Mc‘xet‘a). Melik‘ishvili cites the eleventh- / twelfth-century metaphrastic LNino by the monk Arsen Iqalt‘oeli: “… and Azove [i.e., Azoy] brought from Aryan-K‘art‘li… one thousand houses of common- ers [mdabioy]… and ten mt‘avari [i.e., noble] houses…” (“C‘xorebay da mok‘alak‘obay da ghuacli cmidisa da ghirsisa dedisa ch‘uenisa ninoysi,” in Abuladze ed., Dzveli k‘art‘uli agiograp‘iuli literaturis dzeglebi, vol. 3 [T‘bilisi, 1971], p. 475-8; see p. 478-10 for Iqalt‘oeli’s contention that “And this Azove was the first king of the K‘art‘velians…”). This is clearly not the information preserved in PHK‘, and in any case Iqalt‘oeli’s account is not an independent historical work. The brief narrative of the early K‘art‘velian monarchy attached to his retelling of Nino’s vita is based upon MK‘ by his own admission (ibid., p. 51). Iqalt‘oeli himself seems to have been confounded by the passage. Should we regard LK as an elaboration of MK‘, the initial population movement would seem to have been conveniently forgotten so that K‘art‘los could establish his people in K‘art‘li proper. Old Mc‘xet‘a (dzuêl mc‘xet‘a [øuèl mwxe¯a]). Old Mc‘xet‘a was one of the zones of Greater Mc‘xet‘a (didi mc‘xet‘a [didi mwxe¯a]): A. Ap‘ak‘idze, Mc‘xet‘a k‘art‘lis samep‘os dzveli de- dak‘alak‘i (T‘bilisi, 1959); and idem, Goroda drevnei Gruzii. A TRANSLATION OF THE INITIAL TEXTS OF MOK‘C‘EVAY K‘ART‘LISAY 103

Establishment of K‘art‘velian idolatry. PHK‘ and LK concur that Azoy / Azon inaugurated idolatry in the K‘art‘velian domains. LK (trans. p. 28) relates that: “Now Azon abandoned the religion given by Alexander, and he began to worship idols. He made two idols of silver, Gac‘i and Gaïm.” The ninth- / tenth-century LNino describes the two anthropomorphic statues: “to the right [of Armazi, the chief idol — see infra] was a man of gold whose name was Gac‘i; and to his left a man of silver whose name was Gaïm. These the people of K‘art‘li regarded as gods” (trans. p. 98). This description is probably a later contrivance, but we cannot summarily dismiss the prospect that the author of LNino incorporated an old tradition which had either been written but subsequently lost or which had not hitherto been consigned to parchment. Regardless, LK ac- cuses Alexander’s Macedonian governor of having introduced idolatry. Azon’s foreign extraction is important, for subsequent K‘art‘velian rulers could be seen as merely perpetuating Azon’s error. For his part, the author — writing in the Christian period and perhaps himself a cleric — passes no judgment on the “pagan” K‘art‘velian kings and their idolatry. Stormy debate surrounds the issue of pre-Christian K‘art‘velian religion and these narratives of idolatry. Some scholars have envisaged the requisite narratives as later fabrications intended to impart the Christians with a well-organized and menacing antagonist. It is true that the names of the idols have ancient Anatolian and Near Eastern roots and that ancient Near Eastern deities were generally anthropomorphic in form, but these facts do not necessarily certify the existence of K‘art‘velian idols let alone the ancient provenance of the local tradition. Others have pos- tulated that idolatry was actually practiced in K‘art‘li and that these sto- ries preserve its memory to varying degrees of accuracy. We do not, however, possess any independent evidence confirming the existence of these K‘art‘velian idols. For a review of the modern perspectives, see: M. van Esbroeck, “La religion géorgienne pré-chrétienne,” in Aufstieg und Niedergand der Römischen Welt, vol. 2 (Berlin - New York, 1990), pp. 2694-2725; and Rapp, IHC, ch. 3, section III. See also: G. Chara- chidzé, Le système religieux de la Géorgie païenne: analyse structurale d’une civilisation (Paris, 1968); and Appendix A, infra, for a table of the idols attested in K‘C‘ and MK‘.

B. ROYAL LIST I (RL1)

1 / RL1 Azoy (r. 330-272 BC according to S. Gorgadze, though these dates lack precision). RL1 is the only surviving early Georgian text to style 104 St.H. RAPP Jr.

Azoy as mep‘e. However, Azoy is identified by PHK‘ — the text just preceding RL1 — as the son of an unnamed king of Aryan-K‘art‘li, im- plying that some sort of K‘art‘velian kingship had preceded P‘arnavaz. But this earlier monarchy apparently had 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. If he was not a mythical figure, did Azoy actually assume the throne? A definitive solution to this fundamental question cannot be attained with materials currently at our disposal. Yet we may observe that PHK‘ is silent about the possible royal status of Azoy. He is depicted as the son of a king, and kingship in contemporary western Asia customarily descended along hereditary lines according to primogeniture. PHK‘’s reticence does not necessarily indicate that its author did not regard him as a monarch. It is conceivable that PHK‘ was written by the same author responsible for RL1, and this might explain PHK‘’s silence; in other words, in these circumstances PHK‘ and RL1 are actually a single organic text. But this is not at all certain, and in any case the style and structure of PHK‘ and RL1 greatly diverge. For its part, LK maintains that Azon was neither a king nor even a K‘art‘velian. He could make no legitimate claim to the throne and Alexander did not appoint him as monarch. We may only speculate whether there is a common source lurking be- hind PHK‘/RL1 and LK, and should one have existed what it said about Azoy/Azon. Another possibility is that PHK‘/RL1 and LK are somehow dependent. Should PHK‘/RL1 have been the direct source for LK, the latter would constitute a refutation that (1) Azoy was the first king in Mc‘xet‘a, and that (2) a dynasty preceded even Alexander in Aryan- K‘art‘li. Why LK’s Azon was vilified is uncertain. In any case, there can be no question that the memory of P‘arnavaz — Azon’s K‘art‘velian opponent — has been idealized in LK (see # 2 / RL1). Should LK have served as the source for PHK‘/RL1, the latter might represent a conscious denial of the P‘arnavaz legend. Despite their differences, the two traditions do concur that kingship was established in Mc‘xet‘a in the early Hellenistic period and this is verified in non-Georgian sources.

2 / RL1 P‘arnavaz (r. 299-234 BC). Beginning with P‘arnavaz, I have adopted the regnal dates as supplied by Toumanoff, “Chronology of the Early Kings of Iberia,” Traditio 12 (1969), pp. 1-33, pp. 8-9 for P‘arnavaz. Toumanoff’s calculations are the most reasonable, but for the period of A TRANSLATION OF THE INITIAL TEXTS OF MOK‘C‘EVAY K‘ART‘LISAY 105

Late Antiquity and earlier even his regnal dates remain speculative. Cf. the dates proposed by Ingoroqva, “Dzvel-k‘art‘uli matiane,” pp. 314- 317. See also Appendix B below for a table of early K‘art‘velian kings, their reigns as computed by Toumanoff, and the forms of their names as found in K‘C‘ and MK‘. According to LK (trans. pp. 28-38), P‘arnavaz was the first king of the K‘art‘velians and the founder of the P‘arnavaziani (“of/from P‘arnavaz”) dynasty. The dynastic tag P‘arnavaziani is encountered in LK but never in PHK‘/RL1. The existence of a real King P‘arnavaz, at least as he is described in LK, is suspect. P‘arnavaz is not attested directly in non-Georgian sources. Still, a “P‘arnawazean” — i.e., P‘arnavazid, LK’s P‘arnavaziani — dynasty is specified in early Armenian histories, i.e., The Epic Histories and The Primary History of Armenia (see “P‘arnawazean / P‘arawazean,” in Garsoïan, The Epic Histories, p. 400). This is an acknowledgment that a king named P‘arnavaz had ruled in K‘art‘li, though it does not definitely establish that LK’s P‘arnavaz was the first or even that this P‘arnavaz was a historical figure. Yet it would seem that by the fifth century AD, the time in which The Epic Histories was written, a certain P‘arnavaz was understood to have been the founder of a K‘art‘velian dynasty (see #8 / RL1 for a later Pharnabazos attested in Classical literature). While P‘arnavaz in fact may be completely legendary, it is also possible that the memory of the historical P‘arnavaz gradually accumulated a mythical facade. In the received versions of K‘C‘, a handful of historical figures exude a magnetism like no others and really embody the K‘art‘velian experience. The first of these is K‘art‘los, the mythical eponym, whose own story was embedded into that of his Armenian counterpart Hayk. King P‘arnavaz is the second great K‘art‘velian hero. Other such medieval figures include the first Christian K‘art‘velian mep‘e Mirian (Mihran)/ Mirean (#26-27 / RL1) and the holy woman Nino, the great Christian hero and warrior-king Vaxtang Gorgasali (r. 447-522) as well as the later Bagratid monarchs Davit‘ II aghmashenebeli (r. 1089-1125) and his great grand-daughter T‘amar (r. 1184-1213). As described in LK, the reigns of the other pre-Christian monarchs are dependent upon that of P‘arnavaz. For example, the later status and insti- tutional structure of the monarchy was telescoped back to the time of “our” first king. Moreover, the very descriptions of subsequent pre- Christian K‘art‘velian rulers harken back to that of P‘arnavaz: P‘arnavaz was the model pre-Christian K‘art‘velian king. Significantly, P‘arnavaz and his realm are closely associated with Persia throughout LK and, in fact, as we shall see, P‘arnavaz is said to have patterned his administra- 106 St.H. RAPP Jr. tion upon that of Persia. The pre-Christian and early Christian kings described in K‘C‘ are typically clothed in Persian royal imagery, though it must be said that contemporary K‘art‘velians likely would have regarded that garb as inherently K‘art‘velian. In contrast, Persian-style descriptions and connections are completely absent in MK‘. I believe this is an indication that PHK‘ and RL1 were composed after LK, the intimate Per- sian connection of early K‘art‘li being deliberately stripped away. Con- versely, should the author of LK have written in the eleventh century (as many experts in modern Georgia believe), he might have added details of an “epic” nature to the skeletal information provided in MK‘, ma- nipulating its account whenever expedient. Be that as it may, even PHK‘/RL1 unintentionally provide some clues about the link to Persia. The names of the kings enumerated in both PHK‘/RL1 and LK usually coincide and are of Iranic derivation (with the possible exception of Azoy): M. Andronikashvili, Narkvevebi iranul- k‘art‘uli enobrivi urt‘iert‘obidan, vol. 1 (T‘bilisi, 1966), with extensive Eng. sum., “Studies in Iranian-Georgian Linguistic Contacts I,” pp. 547- 571; and the overview of Bielmeier, “On Iranian Influences in Old Georgian,” pp. 34-38. Perhaps the most illustrative example is “P‘arnavaz” whose root p‘ar- (far-) is based upon the Persian word farnah (Avestan xwarenah), the divinely-endowed glory or radiance believed by the Persians to mark a legitimate ruler. I should emphasize that Iranic influence stemmed not only from Persia itself but also from the tribes of northern Caucasia. Thus, P‘arnavaz’s successor Saurmag bears a name based on a root from the O[v]si-Sarmatian-Alanic, i.e., “Northern Iranic,” languages: Andronikashvili, Narkvevebi, pp. 130- 131 and 492-493; for the Northern Iranic elements incorporated into Old Georgian, see ibid., “Skvit‘ur-sarmatuli da alanur-osuri elementebi k‘art‘ulshi,” pp. 40-130, and “Skvit‘ur-alanur-osuri carmomavlobis sakut‘ari saxelebi,” pp. 130-141. LK also states that P‘arnavaz married a woman from northern Caucasia; she was one of the Durdzuk-s who apparently lived just north of the Darial Pass (trans. p. 35). LK’s P‘arnavaz clearly possessed farnah: while living in exile, the future monarch discovered a hidden cave in which was stored an enor- mous treasure; he had a dream in which he anointed himself with the es- sence of the Sun; and he fulfilled his destiny by vanquishing the tyranni- cal Azon. LK also maintains that P‘arnavaz had a distinguished genealogy. On his father’s side he was descended directly from Mc‘xet‘os, son of the mythical K‘art‘velian eponym K‘art‘los, and his father’s family had held the position of mamasaxlisi (mamasaxlisi, “father of the house,” the leaders of Mc‘xet‘a prior to the establishment of royal au- A TRANSLATION OF THE INITIAL TEXTS OF MOK‘C‘EVAY K‘ART‘LISAY 107 thority; cf. the Armenian tanuter [tanÇtèr]). P‘arnavaz’s mother was a Persian from the region of Isfahân. RL1 does not disclose any information about the ancestry of P‘arnavaz and like PHK‘ it is completely igno- rant about K‘art‘los. LK’s P‘arnavaz is alleged to have: established an alliance with K‘uji, later the lord of Egrisi (the Colchis of Classical writers — K‘uji is unattested elsewhere); embraced 1000 Roman defectors from Azon’s camp (these soldiers were later named aznauri-s [aznaurni], which, in the medieval period designated the high nobility — LK’s etymology is patently false); submitted to the Seleucids, the Hellenistic successors of Alexander in Syria and Mesopotamia (LK affords their ruler the ge- neric name of Antiochos, for which see Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 80-81 and Melik‘ishvili, K istorii drevnei Gruzii, pp. 298-301); become king at the age of twenty-seven; reigned for sixty-five years; maintained sea- sonal royal residences; and to have invented the Georgian script (which was actually devised by Christians in the late fourth century AD) and promoted the use of the Georgian language. One of his alleged institu- tional achievements was the formation of a network of regional gover- nors, or erist‘avi-s (eris¯avni), which are functionally equivalent to the Armenian naxarar-s (sing. naxarar). The erist‘avi-s formed the backbone of the medieval K‘art‘velian administration, and it is likely that the ca. 800 author of LK telescoped the division of K‘art‘li into erist‘av-ates back to his first king P‘arnavaz. Significantly, LK (trans. p. 35) boldly declares that “In this fashion did P‘arnavaz order everything, imitating the kingdom of the Persians” (esre¯ gana∑esa ese qoveli farnavaz mimsgavsebulad samefosa spars- ¯asa). As I remarked at the outset, origins tales are intrinsically problematic. Yet an inordinate number of scholars, some of them quite able ones, have embraced the Georgian story literally and have assumed that: (1) P‘arnavaz must be a historical figure; and (2) the details of LK are, for the most part, accurate. In my view, the idealizing agenda of LK’s author suggests that this episode is not so much historically accurate as it is a meticulously constructed image. Perhaps RL1 represents all that was known about some historical P‘arnavaz, and LK, seeking to glorify the remote K‘art‘velian past and to extol the virtues of royal authority, embellished the short received notice. But why Azon would be demonized and not simply demoted or forgotten remains a mystery. Moreover, LK (trans. p. 37) expounds that “This P‘arnavaz was the first king in K‘art‘li from among the descendants of K‘art‘los…” (my emphasis). Might this reflect the fact that the author was acquainted with the tradition of a 108 St.H. RAPP Jr. dynasty in Aryan-K‘art‘li, but nevertheless chose to suppress it in order to amplify his own meticulously reformulated image of the prototypical king P‘arnavaz? RL1 divulges only that P‘arnavaz was king and that he supervised two building projects: the raising of the idol Armazi — reputedly named after him — on a mountain ledge and the construction of a similarly- named fortress. About this idol, LK (trans. p. 36) discloses that “… P‘arnavaz made a great idol named after himself. This is Armazi, because P‘arnavaz was called Armaz[i] in Persian. He erected this idol Armazi at the entrance to K‘art‘li, and from then on it was called Armazi because of the idol. And he celebrated a 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 Armazi as “a man of bronze standing; attached 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” (trans. p. 98). The eighth-century Armenian historian Movses Xorenac‘i (II.86) claims that an idol named Aramazd was worshipped by the K‘art‘velians; this Aramazd is clearly the same as the Georgian Armazi (see also #1 / RL1). Because we lack contemporary records, it is not absolutely certain that the early K‘art‘velians ever worshipped an idol/deity named Ar- mazi. However, the word “Armazi” itself suggests a linkage to either the Persian and/or Anatolian worlds. At first glance, Armazi might seem to be connected to the Zoroastrian supreme god Ahura Mazdâ (NB: Armazi is said to be the supreme K‘art‘velian deity). In his Zoroas- trianism in Armenia (Cambridge, MA, 1987), J.R. Russell has shown the depth to which Zoroastrianism penetrated Armenia. Although Rus- sell has not thoroughly explored the possibility, medieval Georgian texts hint that the same holds true for K‘art‘li. And we should not forget that Iranian and Zoroastrian features were embraced by the tribes of northern Caucasia, the Kuban, and the Bosphorus: G. Charachidzé, “Survivances mazdéennes chez les montagnards géorgiens,” Travaux de l’Institut catholique de Paris 10 (1964), pp. 171-186. But the name Armazi may (also?) be connected to the Anatolian world. Melik‘ishvili (K istorii drevnei Gruzii, pp. 111-112 et sqq) suggests that Armazi is to be equated with the Hittite Arma, the god of the Moon. Moreover, he posits that the K‘art‘velian idol Zadeni (see RL1 #5) is actually a reflection of the Anatolian Santash/Sandon. Armazi’s identification as the local variant of the Hittite Moon-god is attractive in the light of Javaxishvili’s compelling theory that the early K‘art‘velians vener- A TRANSLATION OF THE INITIAL TEXTS OF MOK‘C‘EVAY K‘ART‘LISAY 109 ated the Moon as their chief deity. According to Javaxishvili, the attributes of this Moon-god subsequently were fused with the Christian St. George (in English see his “St. George and the Moon-God,” M. Tseretheli trans., The Quest 3/3 [April 1912], pp. 528-545). So the Georgian Armazi might actually be a syncretic deity representing a com- bination of local K‘art‘velian, Persian, and Anatolian elements. On the Hittite connection, see also G. Giorgadze, At‘asi ghvt‘aebis k‘veqana (xet‘ebi da xet‘uri c‘ivilizac‘ia) (T‘bilisi, 1988) and esp. his “Xet‘ur- armazuli ‘triadebi,’” Mnat‘obi 7 (1985), pp. 147-157. I wish to thank G. Cheishvili for wisely cautioning me against the certain equation of Armazi and Ahura Mazdâ. Mamulia, Klasobrivi sazogadoebisa, with Eng. sum., pp. 184-191, has argued that P‘arnavaz’s raising of an idol adjacent to that of Azon sym- bolized the “social synthesis” of their two houses. This elegant hypothesis is weakened, however, by the author’s collapsing of LNino and LK into single organic narrative and by his assumption that the former pre- serves ancient data (which may or may not be the case). Nevertheless, Mamulia is to be commended for an original analysis of the sources, and especially, for the recognition that MK‘ and K‘C‘ represent sometimes contradictory historical strands. According to LK, P‘arnavaz himself was worshipped after his death. We are told that “P‘arnavaz died, and they buried him in front of the idol Armazi” (trans. p. 38), while the later king Mirean/Mirian (see #27 / RL1 below), prior to his conversion to Christianity ca. 337, is said to have grown up “in the worship of the seven idols and of fire. He loved the K‘art‘velians, forgot the Persian tongue, and learned the Georgian language. He augmented the embellishment of the idols and altars, and treated the priests well; more than all the kings of K‘art‘li he carried out the worship of the idols, and he embellished the tomb of P‘arnavaz” (trans. p. 77, emphasis mine). This K‘art‘velian practice is in accord with the phenomenon of royal deification that was prevalent throughout western Asia, especially in Hellenistic times, and here we should search for a connection with the Seleucids. For the royal cult in neighboring Armenia, see G.Kh. Sarkissian, “On the Problem of the Cults of the Hel- lenistic World: The Cult of the Royal Dynasty in Ancient Armenia,” in Studien zur Geschichte und Philosophie des Altertums, J. Harmatta ed. (Amsterdam, 1968), pp. 283-292. We should also take note of a curious account in the narrative of Al- exander’s conquests written by the Roman historian Arrian. Arrian maintains that “There came to Alexander… Pharasmanes the King of the Chorasinians [sic — Chorasmians] with fifteen hundred horsemen. 110 St.H. RAPP Jr.

Pharasmanes said that he lived on the borders of the Colchians and of the Amazon women; and should Alexander desire to invade Colchis and the territory of the Amazons and subdue all the races in this direc- tion which dwelt near the Euxine [i.e., Black] Sea, he promised to act as a guide and to provide all necessities for the expeditionary force” (Arrian, Anabasis Alexandri, E.I. Robson trans., in Loeb Classical Li- brary, vol. 1 [Cambridge, MA, 1946], IV.xv.4, pp. 386-387). This is an odd passage indeed. First, Chorasmia was situated in Inner Asia (V.v.2), and it is strange that Pharasmanes would remark that the Colchians — i.e., the inhabitants of Egrisi (Colchis) of the western “Georgian” domains — were his neighbors. Second, and perhaps more significant, is the similiarity in the names Pharasmanes and P‘arnavaz. Now the Greek form of P‘arnavaz is not Pharasmanes but Pharnabazos, but both names are based upon the same root (i.e., the Persian farnah). To be sure, Arrian says nothing about this Pharasmanes becoming the king of Colchis’ neighbor K‘art‘li (Greek Iberia), but it is conceivable — although I think improbable — that P‘arnavaz and Pharasmanes the Chorasmian 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 MK‘’s mysterious “Aryan-K‘art‘li” (i.e., it might actually represent Pharasmanes’ homeland in Inner Asia; cf. ##7-8 / PHK‘ above). Finally, an old section of the royal city of Mc‘xet‘a bore the name Armazi. Already in the second century AD, Ptolemy referred to ˆAr- maktíka, clearly a Greek form of the Georgian Armazis-c‘ixe (“For- tress of Armazi”), and also to Méstljta (Mc‘xet‘a, cf. the Mesxiqá 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, as noted, no vestiges of the idol worship described in local narrative sources have been uncovered. See: Ap‘ak‘idze et al. eds., Mtskheta: itogi arkheologicheskikh issledovanii, vol. 1 (T‘bilisi, 1958), with extensive Eng. sum., “Archaeological Excavations at Armazis-Khevi near Mzkhetha in 1937-1946,” pp. 275-282; and D.M. Lang, “Armazi,” in Encyclopedia Iranica, vol. 2 (London - New York, 1987), pp. 416-417. Another major contemporary site, that of Dzalisi (Ptolemy’s Halissa) just to the north of Mc‘xet‘a, has also attracted the attention of archaeologists and historians: O. Lort‘k‘ip‘anidze, “Recent Discoveries in the Field of Classical Archaeology in Georgia,” Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 1/2 (1994), pp. 162-165 (see also pp. 158-162 for Mc‘xet‘a). A TRANSLATION OF THE INITIAL TEXTS OF MOK‘C‘EVAY K‘ART‘LISAY 111

3 / RL1 Saurmag (r. 234-159 BC). See Toumanoff, “Chronology,” p. 9; for his Northern Iranic name, see # 2 / RL1. RL1 relates only that Saurmag became king and highlights his building agenda. The considerably longer narrative of LK (trans. pp. 38-40) identifies Saurmag as the son of P‘arnavaz and boldly establishes a pattern of dynastic succession based upon primogeniture. The dynasty founded by P‘arnavaz is termed P‘arnavaziani, but note that this dynastic tag (and others like it) are entirely missing in MK‘. Having quashed a revolt of a band of recalcitrant erist‘avi-s, LK’s Saurmag “pardoned [some], but he humbled the descendants of K‘art‘los and made the aznauri-s pre-eminent [SR — or, he made them ‘nobles’]” (trans. p. 39). Saurmag thus created a new class of men directly dependent upon the Crown. LK associates Saurmag with two idols, Ainina and Danana (perhaps 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 Asurastan [i.e., the Seleucids]” and he married the daughter of the Persian governor of Bardavi. Having two daughters and no son, he adopted Mirvan, a descendant of Nimrod (a member of the “Nebrot‘iani” Persian royal dynasty). Mirvan married one of Saurmag’s daughters, while the other daughter was supposedly wed to the son of the ruler of Egrisi.

4 / RL1 Mirvan (r. 159-109 BC). See Toumanoff, “Chronology,” p. 10; according to Toumanoff, Mirvan’s reign initiated the Nebrot‘iani (Nim- rodid) or Second P‘arnavaziani dynasty (see #3 / RL1). As is typical throughout RL1, the relationship of the local kings to one another is not divulged. Although RL1 attributes the raising of the idol Danina to Mirvan, we have seen that LK (trans. pp. 40-41, form Danana) attributes it to Saurmag. LK’s Mirvan suppressed an insurrection of some northern Caucasian tribes who seemed to have posed a constant threat to the sedentary population living along the Mtkuari River. In addition, like his predecessors, he continued to serve as the vassal of the Seleucids. LK recalls the seizure of Mesopotamia by the Arsacids / Parthians in 141 BC: “In his time the reign of Antiochos [i.e., the ge- neric name given to the Seleucid king] came to an end in Babylon.” Mirvan is also reported to have married his daughter to the son of Arshak, the Armenian king. 112 St.H. RAPP Jr.

5 / RL1 P‘arnajob (r. 109-90 BC). See Toumanoff, “Chronology,” p. 10. LK (trans. pp. 42-43) renders his name P‘arnajom. Both RL1 and LK credit him with raising the idol Zadeni and a fortress by the same name. P‘arnajom is supposed to have become a “fire-worshipper” and consequently to have installed Zoroastrian priests in the royal city of Mc‘xet‘a at a place called Mogut‘a, literally, “of the magi.” Alarmed that their traditional religion had been uprooted, a group of K‘art‘velian erist‘avi-s plotted to overthrow their apostate ruler. They petitioned the king of Ar- menia to appoint his son as their monarch. Both father and son were named Arshak. The erist‘avi-s justified their choice by emphasizing that the younger Arshak was married to a princess in the line of P‘arnavaz (see #4 / RL1). In the end, P‘arnajom was defeated and killed by a com- bined Armeno-K‘art‘velian army, and thereafter the Armenian Arsacid prince Arshak was elevated as king of the K‘art‘velians. However, P‘arnajom’s son Mirvan (see Mirean, #27 / RL1) later returned to K‘art‘li and reclaimed the throne. This topos saturates both the Persian epic and the pre-Bagratid (i.e., pre-813 AD) section of K‘C‘. Similar Persian imagery is not woven into the narrative of MK‘.

6 / RL1 Ars[ok] (r. 90-78 BC). See Toumanoff, “Chronology,” p. 11 (Arta- xias / Arsaces / Arshak), and Ingoroqva, “Dzvel-k‘art‘uli matiane,” p. 260 (Arsok); according to Toumanoff, Arsok’s reign inaugurated the Arsha- kuni (Artaxiad) dynasty. LK (trans. p. 43) identifies him as the son-in- law of Mirvan I; Toumanoff suggests that he was probably the son of the Armenian king Artavasdes I (r. ca. 161-post 123). LK’s account of Arshak is remarkably brief, stating only that his reign was without trou- ble and that he “increased all the fortifications of K‘art‘li. He strength- ened further the walls of the city of Cunda in Javaxet‘i.” Following Arshak, Ingoroqva (p. 260) inserts “VII. And Mirdat reigned…” into the text. See also infra, para. 11. The Armenian Xo- renac‘i (II.11) refers at this time to Mithridates the bdeashx (bdea˙x), Georgian pitiaxshi (pitiax˙i, variant patiaxshi, Latin vitaxa, i.e., toparch); for this position, see # 11 / RL1.

7 / RL1 Arik (r. 78-63 BC). See Toumanoff, “Chronology,” p. 11. LK (trans. p. 44) renders his name Artag, Classical texts give Artoces, while Ingo- A TRANSLATION OF THE INITIAL TEXTS OF MOK‘C‘EVAY K‘ART‘LISAY 113 roqva, “Dzvel-k‘art‘uli matiane,” p. 261, prefers “Ar[to]k.” No acropolis (shidac‘ixe [˙idawixe]) is attested in LK. LK’s account is uncharacteristically short and asserts only that Artag reigned for two years, that his realm was devastated by a Persian invasion and that his son Bartom succeeded him. It is noteworthy that no existing pre-modern Georgian source recollects the contemporary invasion of the Roman general Pompey and the subsequent capitulation of the K‘art‘velians. In terms of Classical sources, “Pompey’s campaigns and their after- math had generated sound information about the peoples of Trans- caucasia [sic]” (Braund, Georgia in Antiquity, p. 152). Starting with the reign of Artag / Arik, Greek and Roman historians record the names of many of the K‘art‘velian monarchs. For example, Artag / Arik was known to Appian and Cassius Dio. There can be no question that Classi- cal materials supply important near-contemporary evidence for the whole of Caucasia, although their testimony is unbalanced and frequently inexact. Their perspective, quite obviously, is that of outsiders. As should be expected, Graeco-Roman knowledge of the Caucasian lands along the Black Sea is far better than that of the interior, including K‘art‘li (Iberia). In any case, Classical evidence need not eclipse that produced locally. Clearly, Georgian histories (like those preserved in K‘C‘) and Armenian ones (like that composed by Xorenac‘i) are blan- keted in legendary veneers for their accounts of the remote past. A number of scholars, Javaxishvili and Toumanoff among them, have demonstrated that indigenous Caucasian sources preserve many accurate memories and cannot be dismissed so easily. This should be contrasted, e.g., with Braund, Georgia in Antiquity (p. 2, footnote 2), and Wheeler, Flavius Arrianus (pp. 71, footnote 55, 76, and cf. p. 99, footnote 131). Neither Braund nor Wheeler seriously engages the problems surround- ing K‘C‘ in the main text of their works. Credit must be given where credit is due: Braund and Wheeler are to be commended for having added to the scarce treasury of Western-language literature about the Graeco-Roman image, understanding of, and connection to Caucasia. Although substantial portions of the ancient accounts of K‘C‘ and MK‘ are certainly medieval fabrications (as both Braund and Wheeler would undoubtedly agree), authentic recollections of the remote past nevertheless constitute the nucleus of the received Georgian and Armenian historical traditions. For example, Caucasia’s Persian context is reflected in the local sources, though, in some cases, later developments have certainly been telescoped back into antiquity. Moreover, K‘C‘ and MK‘ represent the voices of the K‘art‘velians themselves. To reject them summarily evinces an unmerited prejudice in favor of Classical evidence 114 St.H. RAPP Jr. which itself, as Braund so eloquently demonstrates (ch. 1, “Imagining Georgia in Antiquity,” pp. 8-39), is not so straightforward as it might seem.

8 / RL1 Bratman (r. 63-30 BC). See Toumanoff, “Chronology,” p. 11. LK (trans. pp. 44-46) renders his name Bartom, Ingoroqva, “Dzvel-k‘art‘uli matiane,” p. 261, gives “B[a]rac‘man,” while Classical sources refer at this time to a king named Pharnabazus (i.e., P‘arnavaz). LK’s narrative concentrates upon the triumphant return of Mirvan, the exiled son of P‘arnajom. Having been educated in Persia, Mirvan returned to K‘art‘li at the head of a Persian army and declared himself the legitimate P‘arnavaziani candidate. So as to garner support, he publicly affirmed his devotion to the K‘art‘velian deities. The clash of the opponents’ troops dominates the account, in which we find the first mention in LK / K‘C‘ of duels by champions, or bumberazi-s (bumberazni). The original Georgian form is probably akin to mumbarezi (mumbarezi) that is attested in the oldest Georgian-language variant of K‘C‘, the Anaseuli MS of the late fifteenth century; the Armenian adaptation of K‘C‘ employs several synonyms but cf. esp. mumberiz (mÇmberiz). Also cf. the Arabic mubâriz, which may in fact have been the basis of the Georgian term. This Persian-inspired conception, a conflation of the notion of Sasanid hero-kingship and Persian heroism generally, is completely absent from MK‘. During the bumberazi-style conflict between Bartom and Mirvan, the sitting king Bartom was killed. According to LK, because Bartom did not have a natural son he had adopted K‘art‘am, the grandson of K‘uji (the alleged ruler of Egrisi in the time of the first king P‘arnavaz). But K‘art‘am had also been slain in battle. Nevertheless, K‘art‘am’s pregnant wife — the daughter of Bartom — fled to Armenia where she gave birth to a son named Aderki. LK says nothing about Bartom building up Mc‘xet‘a. He is simply understood to have reigned from that city. Incidentally, no Georgian source documents Bratman/Bartom’s defeat at the hands of the Roman general P. Canidius Crassus in 36 BC. In MK‘’s version of LNino (in the Shatberdi Codex, p. 340), Bratman is said to have relaxed under an acacia tree, which later was the site of prayers offered to God by the illuminatrix Nino. This episode is also incorporated into LNino as it appears in C‘xorebay k‘art‘velt‘a mep‘et‘a (attached to LK; trans. p. 101). A TRANSLATION OF THE INITIAL TEXTS OF MOK‘C‘EVAY K‘ART‘LISAY 115

9 / RL1 Mirean (r. 30-20 BC). See Toumanoff, “Chronology,” p. 11; Mirean’s reign marks the reinstatement of the Nimrodid dynasty. The narrative of LK (trans. p. 47), in which Mirean’s name is rendered as Mirvan, is extremely brief. Mirvan is alleged to have been the son of the murdered P‘arnajom, RL1’s P‘arnajob.

10 / RL1 Arsuk (r. 20 BC-1 AD). See Toumanoff, “Chronology,” p. 11. This name is almost certainly a corrupted form of Arshak, which is properly rendered in LK (trans. pp. 47-49). This corruption, and others like it, led Toumanoff to postulate that RL1 is a later, telescoped version of LK, and that it distorts the names accurately preserved in LK. Arshak’s lineage is accented in LK: he was a descendant of Nimrod and P‘arnavaz through his father as well as an Arshakuniani (Arsacid) through his mother. The narrative of Arshak’s reign is reminescent of that of Bartom, for Arshak was faced with the return of the exiled prince Aderki (son of K‘art‘am, adopted son of Bratman). The fantastic collision of the opposing armies is described with Persian-inspired imagery, i.e., the bumberazi-like duel between Aderki and Arshak, from which Aderki emerged triumphant thus demonstrating his fitness to rule. It is uncertain why Arsuk would have needed to subdue Kaspi (might this signify a revolt against the king?); LK does not recall this episode.

11 / RL1 Rok (r. 1-58 AD). See Toumanoff, “Chronology,” pp. 11-12; according to Toumanoff, Rok’s reign inaugurated the Third P‘arnavaziani dynasty, though LK simply characterizes it as a continuation of the P‘arnavaziani line. The name of this king varies greatly; Ingoroqva, “Dzvel-k‘art‘uli matiane,” p. 261, prefers the form “[Ade]rok.” LK (trans. pp. 49-52) calls him Aderki, while an Aramaic (in the local Ar- mazic idiom) inscription from Mc‘xet‘a knows of a contemporary named Pharasmanes (P‘arsman). Toumanoff equated Rok / Aderki with this P‘arsman, although this identification is dubious. For his part, Xorenac‘i (II.46) refers to the K‘art‘velian king P‘arsman. RL1 gives a longer than usual account so as to stress Rok’s supposed division of royal authority. Henceforth, for several generations two kings held court simultaneously along opposite sides of the Mtkuari River: one in Mc‘xet‘a proper and the other in the neighboring settlement of 116 St.H. RAPP Jr.

Armazi. LK states that Aderki divided the kingdom between his two sons, Bartom and K‘art‘am: “The city of Mc‘xet‘a and the land on the Mtkuari, Inner K‘art‘li, and the land by Muxnar[i] and all K‘art‘li north of the Mtkuari, from Heret‘i as far as the entrance to K‘art‘li and Egrisi, all this he gave to his son Bartom; whereas the land by Armazi, K‘art‘li south of the Mtkuari, from Xunan[i] as far as the head of the Mtkuari, and all Klarjet‘i, he gave to his son K‘art‘am.” Despite their differences, both RL1 and LK assert that K‘art‘velian kingship was divided by Rok / Aderki. Moreover, both claim that the ensuing dyarchal pairs were isochronal. That is to say, each pair ruled for the same length of time and then were replaced by another such pairing! Toumanoff (Studies, pp. 264-265) hypothesized that the story of the dyarchy is artificial: “there is no mention of any dyarchy in the contemporary foreign references to Iberia [i.e., K‘art‘li], but, on the contrary, only references to sole monarchs…” He concluded that the removal of the capital from Mc‘xet‘a to nearby Armazi may have caused the originator of the story (LK in his opinion) to cleave royal authority, and “others must then have been added for good measure.” Toumanoff’s analysis is plausible, but nevertheless remains hypothetical in the absence of additional evidence. For his part, the pre-eminent Georgian scholar Javaxishvili theorized that the memory of the dyarchy was actually a reflection of a brief division of kingship that occurred in 370-378. Another possible explanation is that the tale harkens back to the competition between the king and the powerful pitiaxshi-s, for whom see: “Bdeashx,” in Garsoïan ed., The Epic Histories, technical terms, pp. 516-517; and R.H. Hewsen, “Intro- duction to Armenian Historical Geography: The Vitaxates of Arsacid Armenia,” Revue des Études Arméniennes, n.s. 21 [1988-1989], pp. 271- 319, and 22 [1990-1991], pp. 147-183). One might wonder whether the pitiaxshi Varsk‘en, the murderer of his Christian Armenian wife Shushaniki, imagined himself to be a king. Although The Martyrdom of Shushaniki does not specifically style him as “king” (mep‘e), his house is said to be “royal” (oddly described as dedop‘losa, but later variants give sameup‘osa and samep‘osa; see cap. 5 = Abuladze ed., p. 165). Furthermore, there is absolutely no mention of the K‘art‘velian monarchy or the contemporary king, Vaxtang Gorgasali. Finally, the division of K‘art‘velian kingship might be entirely fictitious, in which case it is conceivable that a later author endeavored to equate the experience of the K‘art‘velians with the Jews (cf. their divided kingdom prior to David; see also the reference to the Jebusites supra, # 2 / PHK‘ and the later tradition that Christ’s tunic was deposited in Mc‘xet‘a thus parallel- ing the Ark of the Covenant). A TRANSLATION OF THE INITIAL TEXTS OF MOK‘C‘EVAY K‘ART‘LISAY 117

LK’s extant narrative about Aderki is relatively long. We read that Aderki “occupied the whole land of K‘art‘li and Egrisi,” that is, both the eastern and western domains. Aderki is said to have become king at age thirty and to have ruled for fifty-seven years, a synchronism missing in RL1. The bulk of this account concerns the alleged links between Aderki and Christianity, connections that are completely unattested in RL1: “In the first year of his reign was born our Lord Jesus Christ in Bethlehem of Judea.” We are then informed that some Jews from Mc‘xet‘a visited to Jerusalem where they witnessed the Crucifixion. They secured the tunic of Christ and conveyed it to the K‘art‘velian royal city (cf. Conv. in the Chelishi codex [and inserted into the ed. of the Shatberdi codex, which does not contain this passage], pp. 322-323; and LNino in K‘C‘, trans. pp. 107-108). During Aderki’s reign the apostles Andrew and Simon the Canaanite allegedly traveled through Ap‘xazet‘i and Egrisi. By preaching in Ap‘xazet‘i and Egrisi, the apostles were thought to have been active in “Georgia,” an enterprise which did not exist, at least politically, until the eleventh century. Moreover, their supposed preaching in “Georgia” entitled the medieval Georgian Church to profess its autocephaly, i.e., independence in its internal affairs. In reality, the An- drew-Simon legend took shape in Byzantium proper and only then, not earlier than the ninth century, was appropriated by Georgian monks in residence abroad. The adoption of this story is a manifestation of the Bagratids’ conscious turn towards Byzantine civilization. It should be noted that the account about Aderki was rewritten several times in the pre-modern period. The major additions were translated by Thomson, pp. 354-359. See esp. the massive revisions in the hybrid P‘alavandishviliseuli redaction of K‘C‘ (which I abbreviate P/p and whose two portions were manufactured in 1719-1744 and 1761 respectively; Kekelidze Institute of MSS # H-988,  15v-19v). Following Rok, Ingoroqva, “Dzvel-k‘art‘uli matiane,” p. 261, inserts: “XIII. And P‘arsman reigned… XIV. And Mirdat reigned…”

12 / RL1 K‘ardzam (in Armazi) and Bratman (in Mc‘xet‘a). Toumanoff cites Classical evidence for the reign of the single king Mihrdat / Mithridates (58-106). See Toumanoff, “Chronology,” pp. 12-15. LK (trans. p. 52) gives the forms K‘art‘am and Bartom, while Ingoroqva, “Dzvel-k‘art‘uli matiane,” p. 261, reads “K‘ar[t‘]am” and “B[a]rac‘man.” LK claims that the two kings died simultaneously, their sons assuming their places. It also concurs that a Jewish migration occurred at this time: “During their reign Vespasian, the emperor of the Romans, captured Jerusalem. 118 St.H. RAPP Jr.

From there refugee Jews came to Mc‘xet‘a and settled with the old Jews [i.e., the ones already settled]. Among them were the sons of Barabbas, whom the Jews had released at the Crucifixion of the Lord in the place of our Lord Jesus.” This Jewish migration to Caucasia was spurred by the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD, an event that falls within the period of the reigns of K‘ardzam and Bratman (and Tou- manoff’s Mihrdat): T‘. Mgaloblishvili and Iu. Gagoshidze, “The Jewish Diaspora and Early Christianity in Georgia,” in Ancient Christianity and the Caucasus, Ed. by T. MGALOBLISHVILI (Caucasus World), Richmond, 1998, pp. 39-58. I wish to thank Dr. Mgaloblishvili for making a type- script of this volume available to me. The Armenian Xorenac‘i (II.53) is familiar with a K‘art‘velian king named K‘ardzam.

13 / RL1 P‘arsman (in Armazi) and Kaoz (in Mc‘xet‘a). LK (trans. p. 53) gives the form Kaos. This name terminates in the Greek nominative suffix -ov (the Georgian -oz, -oz, is linguistically equivalent; cf. the forms kat‘alikos and kat‘alikoz). It reports that Iaravandi / Eruand “the Great” became king of the Armenians, and that he seized some K‘art‘velian territory. P‘arsman and Kaos died simultaneously, and like the other dyarchal pairs their sons assumed power. “Kaoz” (“Kaos”) should not be confused with “Haos,” the form of Hayk (the Armenian eponym) as it appears in LK. The letters k ( , k) and h ( , h) are not easily transposed in Georgian, so there is no reason to think that this Kaoz was actually named Haos, perhaps in commemo- ration of the ancient Armenian hero.

14 / RL1 Arsok (in Armazi) and Amazaer (in Mc‘xet‘a). Ingoroqva, “Dzvel- k‘art‘uli matiane,” p. 261, gives the forms “[P‘]ar[n]uk” and “A[r]amazaer.” LK (trans. pp. 53-60) provides a lengthy account of the dyarchs’ conflict with the Armenians. A truce was ratified just prior to the conclusion of their reigns. Sumbat (Armenian Smbat) Bivritiani is mentioned in LK’s account. Although Sumbat was not explicitly linked to the Bagratid family (the received Georgian forms of the family’s name include Bagratuniani and Bagratoniani), Toumanoff (Studies, p. 344, footnote 16) remarks that “‘Biwrat’ is of course, one of the eponyms of the early Bagratids… Evidently ‘Biwratean,’ like ‘Aspetuni,’ was a synonym of ‘Bagratuni’…” As it now stands, this constitutes the first reference to the Bagratids in the Georgian historical tradition. But it A TRANSLATION OF THE INITIAL TEXTS OF MOK‘C‘EVAY K‘ART‘LISAY 119 should be emphasized that this Sumbat was not a member of the perma- nent branch of the Bagratids that was established in K‘art‘li during the last quarter of the eighth century. PHK‘ / RL1 does not expressly equate the Bivritiani-s and Bagratids, though a contemporary might have made the identification.

15 / RL1 Amazasp (in Armazi) and Deruk (in Mc‘xet‘a). Ingoroqva, “Dzvel- k‘art‘uli matiane,” p. 261, gives “[A]deruk.” According to Toumanoff (“Chronology,” pp. 15-16), this Amazasp ruled in his own right from 106-116. LK (trans. p. 60) supplies a one-line account (relating that their sons succeeded them) and prefers the form Derok.

16 / RL1 P‘arsman k‘ueli (in Armazi) and P‘arsman Avaz (in Mc‘xet‘a). Toumanoff (“Chronology,” p. 16) contends that P‘arsman k‘ueli, “the Valiant, the Good” ruled alone (116-132). LK (trans. pp. 60-64) names Mirdat as the counterpart of P‘arsman k‘ueli. According to that text, the customary friendship of the two dyarchs soured at the instigation of the Persian wife of Mirdat (the P‘arsman Avaz of RL1). As was customary, bumberazi-s from the opposing camps entered into ferocious duels. P‘arsman and his spaspeti (general) P‘arnavaz occasionally engaged in bumberazi combat, and in one instance P‘arsman is said to have defeated a Persian giant named Jumber. Later, P‘arsman survived multiple attempts on his life, but was finally poisoned in a plot engineered by the Persians. In the meantime, the Armenians joined forces with the “Greeks” and together they routed the Persian and K‘art‘velian armies under the command of Mirdat. After the struggle between P‘arsman and Mirdat, the division of royal authority was repaired (cf. #17 / RL1).

17 / RL1 Rok (in Armazi) and Mirdat (in Mc‘xet‘a). This dyarchal pair is not attested in LK. It would seem, however, that this Mirdat is to be equated with the one ruling in tandem with P‘arsman k‘ueli in LK. According to RL1, the dyarchy came to an end with the joint reign of Rok and Mirdat (cf. #16 / RL1).

18 / RL1 Ghadami (r. 132-135, according to Toumanoff, “Chronology,” p. 16). LK (trans. p. 65) gives Adami. LK identifies Ghadami as the son of P‘arsman k‘ueli. Whereas RL1, in a rare synchronism, discloses that 120 St.H. RAPP Jr.

Ghadami ruled for twenty days, LK supplies his tenure as three years. Ingoroqva, “Dzvel-k‘art‘uli matiane,” pp. 261 and 267-268, attempts to reconcile this situation by rewording RL1’s account: “And Ghadami reigned for [three years] and twenty days.” This is one possible solution, though I think an unlikely one. Since RL1 provides no other synchro- nisms, I am tempted to believe that the length of Ghadami’s tenure was somehow unusual. It should be noted that the alphabetic equivalents for the numbers 20 (k) and 3 (g) are not easily confused in the (oldest) asomt‘avruli script ( and respectively), although it is conceivable that one could be either miscopied or misread as the other in the later mxedruli script (k and g respectively). The MS of PHK‘ / RL1 and the vast majority of the existing MSS of K‘C‘ were written precisely in mxedruli. RL1’s account includes a seemingly redundant da (da), “and.” Bielmeier, “Old Iranian Influences in Old Georgian” (p. 37), interprets the second da as having originally been part of the king’s name. Because “Radameistos” was then current in the Black Sea region, he asserts that Ghadami’s name should be amended to read Ghadamizda. I do not find this argument compelling. Should Toumanoff's theory that RL1 itself corrupts the names provided by LK be correct, and I think he is, Bielmeier’s re-reading is even more unlikely because LK gives the form Adami (so not only the name’s ending but also its initial letter would have to be restored). Like many specialists in Georgia, Bielmeier gives precedence to MK‘ and its RL1 over LK without adequate justification.

19 / RL1 P‘arsman (r. 135-185). See Toumanoff, “Chronology,” pp. 16-17. According to LK (trans. p. 65), P‘arsman III came to the throne at the age of one. Before he reached maturity, his mother Ghadana acted as re- gent. This constitutes the first indication in local historiography of a woman ruling over any part of “Georgia.” P‘arsman was eventually succeeded by his own son Amazasp II. It is curious that the written Geor- gian tradition has not remembered P‘arsman’s visit to the city of Rome, an event prominently documented by the Roman historian Cassius Dio (LXIX.15). For P‘arsman’s relationship with Rome, and the intermedi- ary role played by Arrian the governor of Cappadocia, see Wheeler, Flavius Arrianus (NB: as noted, Wheeler’s study unfairly neglects Georgian historiography). In the famous second-century “Armazi Bilingual” inscription found near Mc‘xet‘a, a local king is named: Hsepharnug (in the local variant of Aramaic, called Armazic) / Xêpharnugos (in Greek). In extant Georgian A TRANSLATION OF THE INITIAL TEXTS OF MOK‘C‘EVAY K‘ART‘LISAY 121 sources Hsepharnug is unattested, at least by this form of his name. However, Hsepharnug is based upon the same root as P‘arsman, i.e., p‘ar-, the Persian farnah. It is possible that Hsepharnug and P‘arsman represent a single name/figure. In this case, Hsepharnug would be P‘arsman II because Hsepharnug is identified in the inscription as the father of P‘arsman III (but this P‘arsman’s name is correctly rendered in both the Aramaic and Greek text of the inscription). Should Ghadami have ruled for a very short interval, as is asserted by RL1 (#18), Hsepharnug would have governed in his own right after Ghadami’s death, ca. 132, down to the accession of P‘arsman III in 135. Scholarly literature about the Armazi Bilingual is voluminous, but see especially the recent re-interpretation by K. Ceret‘eli, Shenishvnebi armazis bilingvis arameul tek‘stze (T‘bilisi, 1992), with Rus. trans., Zamechaniia k arameiskomu tekstu aramazskoi bilingvy.

20 / RL1 Amazasp (r. 185-189). See Toumanoff, “Chronology,” p. 17. A raid by the Ovsi-s / Alans of northern Caucasia commences LK’s narrative (trans. pp. 65-68). As is customary in that text, bumberazi combat was waged, and Amazasp himself reportedly killed fifteen Ovsi champions. Later, Amazasp defeated a certain bumberazi named Xuanxua. Follow- ing the subjugation of Ovset‘i (cf. Oset‘i), five western erist‘avi-s re- belled after having allied with the Armenians and the Byzantines. Amazasp mustered his army and secured Persian support. Subsequently he was killed and the king of Armenia installed his own son Rev as ruler of the K‘art‘velians.

21 / RL1 Rev mart‘ali (r. 189-216). See Toumanoff, “Chronology,” p. 17. Toumanoff identifies this Rev as the son of the Armenian Vologases II (r. 180-191) and of the sister of the P‘arnavaziani Amazasp II. Rev’s government inaugurated the Arshakuniani (Arsacid) dynasty. LK (trans. pp. 68-69) maintains that Rev married a “Greek” noblewoman named Sep‘elia (Sephelia); it is possible that Sep‘elia came from either the Pontus or from the Bosphorus. According to LK, she brought an idol of Aphrodite to K‘art‘li. Notwithstanding, we possess no indication that a local cult of Aphrodite ever existed. It is possible that this reference to Aphrodite is not to the Greek goddess directly, but rather to the cult of the Mother Goddess or Great Goddess that was prevalent among the Iranic peoples inhabiting northern Caucasia and the Bosphorus (cf. Rostovtzeff, Iranians and Greeks, pp. 33, 103-107, et sqq). 122 St.H. RAPP Jr.

Rev was endowed with the sobriquet mart‘ali, or “the Just,” because he was understood to have been accustomed with the doctrines of Christ. But mart‘ali is also “an obvious translation of díkaiov, one of the epi- thets most frequently used in the intitulatio of the Arsacid [Parthian] Great Kings…” (Toumanoff, “Chronology,” p. 17, footnote 75).

22 / RL1 Vach‘e (r. 216-234). See Toumanoff, “Chronology,” p. 17. LK (trans. p. 69) merely relates that Vach‘e was the son of Rev.

23 / RL1 Bakur (r. 234-249). See Toumanoff, “Chronology,” p. 18. LK (trans. p. 69) merely relates that Bakur was the son of Vach‘e.

24 / RL1 Mirdat (r. 249-265). See Toumanoff, “Chronology,” pp. 18-19, who also discusses LK’s uncharacteristically brief notices about Vach‘e, Bakur, and Mirdat. LK (trans. p. 69) merely relates that Mirdat II was the son of Bakur. Toumanoff hypothesized that the anti-king Amazasp III (r. 260-265) was established during the reign of Mirdat. This Amazasp is unattested in Georgian literary sources.

25 / RL1 Asp‘agur (r. 265-284). See Toumanoff, “Chronology,” pp. 19-21. According to LK (trans. pp. 69-75), Asp‘agur was the last P‘arnavaziani king. However, the daughter of Asp‘agur, Abeshura, was allegedly married to Mirian (Mirean, Persian form Mihran), subsequently the first K‘art‘velian king to espouse the faith of Christ. LK (trans. p. 70) also documents the rise of the Sasanids in Persia, though its account is clearly confused: “In [Asp‘agur’s] time K‘asre Anusharvan Sasaniani became king in Persia. He put an end to the Azhghalaniani [i.e., Parthian/Arsacid] kings, and was known as Ardashir, as is written in the Life of the Persians.” Ardashir, the real founder of Sasanid Persia, ruled from ca. 224-240; the famous reformer Khusrau I, also known as Anushirvân or “of immortal soul,” reigned from 531 to 579.

26 / RL1 Lev. Lev is not attested outside RL1. Its claim that Lev was the father of Mirean is at odds with the tradition of LK (trans. p. 75), which clearly identifies Mirian (its form) as the son of the shâhanshâh. LK’s allegation that Mirian was in line to become the Great King of Persia is almost cer- A TRANSLATION OF THE INITIAL TEXTS OF MOK‘C‘EVAY K‘ART‘LISAY 123 tainly a fabrication that was intended to imbue him with maximum pres- tige. It is noteworthy that RL1’s identification of Lev as the father of Mirean is its only direct statement that K‘art‘velian kingship was passed from father to son.

27 / RL1 Mirean (r. 284-361). See Toumanoff, “Chronology,” pp. 21-24. Mirean’s reign witnessed the dawn of the Xosro[v]iani (Chosroid) dynasty which continued uninterrupted down to the abolition of K‘art‘velian kingship by the Persians in the sixth century (Toumanoff has con- vincingly proposed ca. 580). LK (trans. pp. 76-84) gives two forms of his name: the Persian Mihran and the Georgian Mirian. All forms are closely related to Mirvan. Since two kings preceded him with that name, Toumanoff assigned the ordinal “third” to Mirian. Writing in Latin, the Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus (XXI.6.8) renders the king’s name as Meribanes. The Armenian Xorenac‘i (II.85-86) gives Mihran and speaks about his conversion to Christianity. However, Xorenac‘i manipulated the Georgian tradition so as to make Nino (Nune) and Mirean / Mirian the subordinates of Gregory the Illuminator and Trdat respectively. In his Ecclesiastical History, Rufinus celebrates the first Christian K‘art‘velian monarch but fails to give his name. RL1 tells us nothing about Mirean’s reign. In fact, he is not even specially named in the list: he is said only to have been the son of Lev. RL1 does not hint that Mirean was the first king of the K‘art‘velians to accept Christianity. Of course, the subsequent text in MK‘, Conv. proper, fo- cuses on Mirean’s conversion as does LNino. LK itself concludes with the Christianization of Mirian, relating that the king was converted in part through the holy woman Nino. According to LK, Mirian became king of the K‘art‘velians at the age of seven, a fortunate number indeed. In his youth, Mirian worshipped the seven K‘art‘velian idols, the tomb of P‘arnavaz, and fire, i.e., he was a devotee of the K‘art‘velian idols, his royal ancestors (in Seleucid/Hellenistic fashion), and Zoroastrianism, for which see #2 / RL1 above. At the age of fifteen Mirian lost his K‘art‘velian wife: “With her came the end in K‘art‘li of the rule of kings and queens descended from P‘arnavaz.” Thus, Mirian’s reign was understood to be revolutionary on two counts: it witnessed both the final demise of the P‘arnavaziani-s as well as the triumph of Christianity (at least among the governing strata). Mirian remarried, taking a “Greek” wife from the Pontus named Nana (on her possible connection with the nearby Bosphoran Kingdom, see Toumanoff, “Chronology,” p. 23, footnote 91). According to Conv. and LNino, Nana preceded her husband in 124 St.H. RAPP Jr. conversion; cf. the Christianization of the ruling elites of the Franks and the Rus’. Following military engagements with the tribes of northern Cau- casia, LK’s Mirian was informed that his father, the Great King of Persia, had died. Mirian’s younger brother, Bartam, was recognized as the next shâhanshâh. But because Bartam had not conformed to the rule of primogeniture, Mirian marched to “Baghdad” (a flagrant anachro- nism) in order to assume his rightful place. War was averted by means of an agreement stipulating that Bartam would remain on the throne while Mirian would take possession of much of Mesopotamia and Adarbadagani (cf. Azerbaijan). Later, Mirian pooled his forces with those of the Persians so as to lay waste to Armenia and Anatolia. This joint Persian-K‘art‘velian offensive supposedly provoked Constantine “the Great” to accept Christianity (!), and thereafter with the aid of the Christian god the emperor was able to repel the invasion. Mirian then established peaceful relations with the Byzantines and the Armenians and he arranged the wedding between his son Rev and Trdat’s daughter Salome. LK terminates: “At that time came our holy and blessed mother and baptizer Nino. She lived in Mc‘xet‘a for three years, and preached the tidings of Christ’s religion. She effected cures without medicines, and openly began to preach the true religion of Christ our God” (trans. p. 84). The full account of Mirian’s conversion is provided in LNino that was appended to LK in the eleventh century (probably by the arch- bishop Leonti Mroveli, the traditional author of the initial section of K‘C‘). The number of kings provided in the last sentence does not accord with the preceding list, at least in its extant condition. Cf. Ingoroqva, “Dzvel-k‘art‘uli matiane,” pp. 260-261, who adds three kings to the enumeration and consequently alters the numeral in this passage to match his total (i.e., twenty-nine). The last word of the account, carmart‘ani (∑armar¯ani), renders “heathens” (or “pagans”). Carmart‘i (the singular form) may very well be the Georgian term for “Sarmatian,” as has been conjectured by Kovalevskaia (Kavkaz i Alany, pp. 75-76) and others. When did the term carmart‘i acquire the meaning “heathen”? In the pre-Christian era, such a meaning would have made little sense, as the K‘art‘velians, the northern Caucasians, and indeed the whole of the Caucasus region seem to have practiced localized forms of Iranic religion. However, it is possible that pre-Christian K‘art‘velians regarded the religions of the Scythians and Sarmatians as somehow corrupt, at least from the perspective of A TRANSLATION OF THE INITIAL TEXTS OF MOK‘C‘EVAY K‘ART‘LISAY 125 their own faiths. Still, I should think that the connotation of “heathen” is a Christian formulation not unlike the derogatory use of “Scythian” in Byzantium. In fact, the term is already encountered in the Georgian translation of the Gospel of Matthew (see S.-S. Orbeliani, Lek‘sikoni k‘art‘uli, vol. 2, p. 366). The Armenian adaptation of K‘C‘ utilizes the Greek-derived het‘anos (he¯anos) for the Georgian carmart‘i. Despite the negative connotation that carmart‘i, “Sarmatian,” obtained after the triumph of Christianity, the designation for one of the Sar- matians’ predecessors was held as a badge of honor. The term gmiri (gmiri), or “hero,” sometimes rendering “giant” in the Georgian rendition of the Hebrew Bible, is likely based upon the Georgian word for “Cimmerian” (Golden, Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples, p. 46).

APPENDIX A

Pre-Christian K‘art‘velian Idols Attested in MK‘ and K‘C‘

IDOL

Mok‘c‘evay K‘art‘lis Monarch Regnal dates k‘art‘lisay c‘xovreba (after Toumanoff) Gac‘i Gac‘i Azoy = Azon pre-299 BC Ga Gaïm Azoy = Azon pre-299 Armazi Armazi P‘arnavaz 299-234 Aynina Ainina Saurmag 234-159 Danina Danana Mirvan, Saurmag 159-109, 234-159 Zadeni Zadeni P‘arnajob = P‘arnajom 109-90 NB: According to the received Georgian traditions, K‘art‘velian idolatry was completely established by the close of the first two (indigenous) P‘arnavaziani dynasties (see Appen- dix B). Following the second P‘arnavaziani dynasty (which ended with the reign of P‘arnajob / P‘arnajom in 90 BC), the Armenian-derived Arshakuni (Artaxiad) dynasty ruled in K‘art‘li down to 1 AD.

APPENDIX B

LITERATURE: Toumanoff, “Chronology,” pp. 1-33 (from which the dates in this study are extracted); idem, Studies; idem, Manuel de généalogie et de chronologie pour l’histoire de la Caucasie chrétienne (Rome, 1976; revised in 1990 as Les dynasties de la Caucasie chrétienne); Melik‘ishvili, K istorii drevnei Gruzii, esp. “Tsarskii spisok khroniki ‘Moktsevai Kartlisai’ i voprosy khronologii istorii kartliiskogo tsarstva,” pp. 47-62; and Gugushvili, “Chrono- logical-Genealogical Table,” pp. 109-153. NB: The division and names of pre-Bagratid royal dynasties as well as regnal dates are after Toumanoff. 126 St.H. RAPP Jr.

The Pre-Bagratid Kings of K‘art‘li

Toumanoff’s K‘art‘lis c‘xovreba Mok‘c‘evay k‘art‘lisay Date —- —- n.n. father of Azoy [Alexander] [Azon, patrician and erist‘avi] Azoy

P‘ARNAVAZIANI-S (PHARNABAZIDS)

299-234 BC P‘arnavaz (I) P‘arnavaz 234-159 Saurmag (I) Saurmag

P‘ARNAVAZIANI-S/NEBROT‘IANI-S (NIMRODIDS, also SECOND PHARNABAZID DYNASTY)

159-109 Mirvan (I) Mirvan 109-90 P‘arnajom P‘arnajob

ARSHAKUNI-S (ARTAXIADS)

90-78 Arshak (I) Ars[ok] 78-63 Artag Arik 63-30 Bartom =?P‘arnavaz (II) Bratman 30-20 Mirvan (II) Mirean 20 BC-1 AD Arshak (II) Arsuk

P‘ARNAVAZIANI-S (THIRD PHARNABAZID DYNASTY)

1-58 AD Aderki =?P‘arsman (I) Rok

[58-106, Mirdat (I)]29 —- —- START OF THE DYARCHY (i.e., DIVIDED KINGSHIP)30

—- a. Bartom a. Bratman —- b. K‘art‘am b. K‘ardzam

—- a. P‘arsman a. P‘arsman —- b. Kaos b. Kaoz

—- a. Azork a. Arsok —- b. Armazeli b. Amazaer

29 Deduced from Classical materials by Toumanoff, “Chronology,” pp. 12-15. 30 Toumanoff finds the memory of this divided kingship in K‘art‘li (reported by LK and RLI) to be incorrect. He proposes Mihrdat (r. 58-106), Amazasp (r. 106-116), and P‘arsman k‘ueli (r. 116-132). A TRANSLATION OF THE INITIAL TEXTS OF MOK‘C‘EVAY K‘ART‘LISAY 127

106-116 a. Amazasp (I) a. Amazasp —- b. Derok b. Deruk

116-132 a. P‘arsman (II) k‘ueli a. P‘arsman k‘ueli —- b. Mirdat b. P‘arsman Avaz

—- —- a. Rok —- —- b. Mirdat

END OF THE DYARCHY

132-135 Adami Ghadami 135-185 P‘arsman (III) P‘arsman 185-189 Amazasp (II) Amazasp

ARSHAKUNIANI-S (ARSACIDS)

189-216 Rev (I) mart‘ali Rev mart‘ali 216-234 Vach‘e Vach‘e 234-249 Bakur (I) Bakur 249-265 Mirdat (II) Mirdat 265-284 Asp‘agur (I) Asp‘agur —- —- Lev

XOSRO[V]IANI-S (CHOSROIDS)

284-361 Mirian / Mihran (III) Mirean

Georgia State University, Atlanta Stephen H. RAPP JR. Department of History Atlanta, GA 30302-4117 U.S.A. 128 St.H. RAPP Jr.

Map of Central Caucasia