saqarTvelos mecnierebaTa erovnuli akademiis moambe, t. 175, #3, 2007 BULLETIN OF THE GEORGIAN NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, vol. 175, no. 3, 2007 History & Philology The Problem of the Origin and Continuity of Statehood in Georgia Mariam Lordkipanidze* * Academy Member, I. Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University ABSTRACT. Scientific discussion on “At the Outset of Georgian Statehood” was held on June 2 and 12, 2000 in the I.Javakhishvili Institute of History and Ethnology of the Georgian National Academy of Sciences. Different viewpoints of Georgian scholars on the date of the origin of Georgian statehood were discussed. © 2007 Bull. Georg. Natl. Acad. Sci. Key words: Georgian statehood. The problem of state formation is one of the most and Diauhi belonged to the Kartvelian world”, however, important issues in the history of all peoples. To give a he does not think the existence of a state in Daiaen in simple, unified answer to this question is connected with the 12th century B.C. fully convincing, considering the many problems for the countries, Georgia proper, hav- Diauhi to have been “an earlier statehood formation”. ing ancient history: no Georgian written sources of that [3: 16-17]. period existed for the ancient history of Georgia; no di- David Muskhelishvili puts the issue in a different rect reference to this issue exists in the oldest foreign way. He thinks that “the problem of the first Georgian sources (Assyria and Urartu cuneiform inscriptions, state formation should be connected with the activities Greek sources), which give information on the South of Parnavaz,” i.e. in the turn of the 4th-3rd cc B.C., when Caucasus. Study of abundant archaeological material is a single eastern Georgian state - Kingdom of Kartli (Ibe- of great importance in specifying the problem which we ria) – was formed. The scholar considers the existence have in abundance, but the issue cannot be solved only of a western Georgian state = the Kingdom of Colchis - on the basis of archaeological material. in the 1st millennium B.C. real. Sharing the view on the The 12th-8th centuries B.C. Assyrian and Urartian identity of the Daiaeni-Diauhi , he thinks it possible to cuneiform inscriptions mention Daiaeni and Diauhi on his- connect the origin of the Georgian statehood with east- torical Georgian territory. Some scholars consider Daiaeni ern Georgian [4:3-4]. and Diauhi to have been the same formations [1:192-194; Guram Qoranashvili categorically rejects the state- 245]. The Diauhi to were connected with the Armenian hood of both Daiaeni-Diauhi and Ancient Colchis. In Taik and the Georgian Tao (Georgian historical-geographic his opinion,the history of Georgian statehood can start province within present-day Turkey). At the same time, in only from the period of King Parnavaz [5: 98-135]. the opinion of M. Dyakonov and G. Melikishvili, there To clarify the issue, consideration should be taken was population of Hurrian generation there. of the opinion of Otar Lordkipanidze, who sharing the Grigol Giorgadze doubts the sameness of the view of Simon Janashia, according to which the King- Daiaeni and Diauhi considering them to have been dif- dom of Colchis took shape in the 6th century B.C. How- ferent formations existing in different periods [2]. Nei- ever, on the basis of recently obtained rich archaeologi- ther does he share the supposition on the Daiaeni and cal material, Lordkipanidze tends to believe that the King- Diauhi population belonging to the Hurrian ethnos. Ac- dom of Colchis really existed from the 8th century B.C., if cording to him “there can be no doubt that the Daiaeni not earlier [6:31-97]. © 2007 Bull. Georg. Natl. Acad. Sci. The Problem of the Origin and Continuity of Statehood in Georgia 149 In the 1940-1950s, and even later, some foreign opportunity to discuss the material culture of the ethnos (mostly Russian) and Georgian scholars did not acknowl- living there in the period of the Diauhi. edge Simon Janashia’s view on the existence of the King- As for Colchis, in the second half of the 2nd millen- dom of Colchis (Egrisi) in the 6th century B.C. Mary nium B.C. the existence is attested of a highly devel- Inadze, sharing the opinion of S.Janashia, sets the date oped bronze culture, with important density of popula- of the formation of the Kingdom of Colchis in the 6th tion, developed agriculture, farming and cattle-breeding. century B.C. [7: 21-30]. Intensification of agriculture promoted gradual develop- The newspaper “Sakartvelos Respublika” (Decem- ment of the community, reaching considerable progress ber 26-27, 1999) published a joint article of Otar Japaridze, in the second half of the 2nd millennium B.C. with atten- Roin Metreveli and mine, in which we raised the ques- dant economic and social differentiation. tion of dating the history of Georgian statehood to 2800 In the second half of the 2nd millennium B.C. the years, connecting it with the Kingdom of Colchis of the area of the prevalence of Colchian culture involves a 8th century B.C. considerable part of East Anatolia, located to the south, The research conducted over the last decade has a significant part of Meskheti and Shida Kartli. From the shed new light on the formation of the Kingdom of end of the 2nd millennium the influence of Colchian cul- Colchis. In the first volume of the eight-volume history ture increases in Shida Kartli and the influence of east- of Georgia G.Melikishvili expressed the opinion that in ern Georgian culture grows in Colchis. In the very first the 12th century B.C. there existed a community at the century of the 1st millennium B.C. the use of iron ex- stage of Colchian tribal order, which assumed the shape pands considerably. of a “statehood formation” with all the features charac- At the beginning of the 1st millennium B.C. Colchian teristic of a state. [1: 205-208]. culture reaches a high level of development. And spe- Study of the material obtained as a result of long- cial note should be taken of the fact that the boundary term joint archaeological excavations conducted by Geor- between the local cultures disappears. A single culture gian and foreign scholars in Western Georgia, in my is represented in the entire Colchis [8:119-141]. The opinion, proves the fact of the existence of the King- present discussion would seem to support the assump- dom of Colchis in the 8th century B.C. The latter emerges tion on the existence of a state here. However, only ar- as a Georgian (Western Georgian) state with a single chaeological material, though being an indicator of highly Colchian culture, whose area, in addition to Colchis developed culture, cannot be sufficient to settle this proper, extended to the south, north and east,embracing problem. Special attention here is attached to the Urartian Shida Kartli as well. Towards the end of the 8th century inscriptions, namely, those of King Sardur II (764-735) South Caucasian countries, including Colchis, were of 750-748 and 744-742 , which prove the existence of raided by the nomadic tribes from the north. As a result royal autocratic power, administrative governance and the Kingdom of Colchis lost some part of its southern other factors in Colchis, giving ground to consider that territory and the centre of the state moved from the river the state of Colchis (Colcha) was formed from the 12th Chorokhi valley to that of the river Phasis (Rioni).1 century B.C. to the 8th century B.C. [1:205-208]. The state I consider it doubtful to start the history of Geor- was formed within this chronological period, but when? gian statehood from the Daiaeni-Diauhi on the basis of If as a result of the study of the material culture, we take the view expressed on the ethnic belonging of its popu- into consideration the evidence cited above on Colchis lation (Dyakonov, Melikishvili). G.Giorgadze also rules of the second half of the 2nd millennium B.C. and the out the identicalness of the Daiaeni-Diauhi. At the data on the inscriptions of Urartian King Sardur II of same time, the Diauhi are mentioned only in the Urartian 750-748 and 744-742, we may assume the end of the 2nd cuneiform inscriptions of the 9th century and from the millennium and the beginning of the 1st millennium B.C., end of the 8th century it is no longer mentioned. It is the 10th century B.C. to be the date sought. presumed that its territory was divided by the strength- This, surely, is a tentative assumption, but not quite ened Urartu and Colcha [1: 196, 205]. Thus, the state groundless [9:140]. It seems relevant to point out here suspended its existence. that O.Lordkipanidze considers acceptable to determine Unfortunately, on the territory of the former Diauhi, the existence of the Georgian statehood over the past which at present is within Turkey, no archaeological ex- three thousand years [6:24]. The Kingdom of Colchis cavations have been conducted, depriving us of the had more or less stable territory – mostly Western Geor- gia, single culture, the Colchians spoke a western Geor- gian dialect, the present continuation of which is known 1 I don’t think it is necessary to refer to the “materials” to us in the form of Megrelian and Laz [10], single eth- of scientific symposiums and the works by O.Lordkipanidze, dedicated to the problem, because all this and his opinion are nic self-consciousness, well-preserved memory of the represented in the volume “At the Outset of Georgian State- existence of royal dynasty, known in the ancient sources hood”, which involves his article mentioned above.