Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University Faculty of Humanities Institute of Georgian History Proceedings

Cult of Demeter in Iberia-Colchis

Marika Mshvildadze — Wed, 25 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0400

Demeter – Goddess of the harvest, agriculture, fertility was one of the most worshipped Goddesses in the world of antiquity. From the moment of the appearance of the Greeks in other countries Demeter was identified with the local Goddesses. The given work involves the studies and analyses of the artifacts connected with Demeter’s cult discovered on the territory of Georgia. The results of the study prove that the cult of Demeter was introduced on the territory of Colchis from the period of early antiquity (four terracotta statues were discovered at the Greek necropolis of Kobuleti-Pichvnari and terracotta
figurines of pigs, Demeter’s sacred animal were found were found in burials #158,159 of Tsikhisdziri tombs. This is a direct result of the Great Greek colonization since no artefacts proving the existence of cult of Demeter among the local Colchian population have been encountered yet.

The sculpted terracotta head of the Goddess (dated by III-II cc. C.C.) is found at Vani archaeological site, in Hellenistic layers. By the end of the Hellenistic period the cult of Demeter becomes familiar for the population of Eastern Georgia as well (seated terracotta figure is discovered in the hoard of Uplistsikhe, a fragment of a spirelike woman with the covered head is found on the central terrace of Sarkine former city site.

From the late Antiquity Demeter’s cult is widely spread on the territories of both East and West Georgia, which is a result of the existing political situation. It is noteworthy that the images of the goddess are mostly encountered on the glyptic monuments. On the territory of Western Georgia intaglios with symbols connected with Demeter and her cult are mostly found at Bitchvinta necropolis while in East Georgia they are present at the necropolises of Urbnisi, Zhinvali, Kushanaant gora II (Magraneti), Samtavro. They are also encountered in the glyptic materials obtained by F. Baiern on the Samtavro territory.

On The Question Of Attribution Of North Pontic Coins With Letter Combination Σαυ On The Reverse

Mikhael Choref — Wed, 25 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0400

Our attention was drawn to antique coins from the Northern Black Sea region with the letter combination ΣΑΥ on the reverse. On the obverse of these artifacts, a bust of Helios is imprinted in profile or full face, and on the reverse is the head of a bull to the right, a pomegranate flower or winged lightning. The debate on their attribution is still ongoing. These coins are attributed to the minting of Saumakos or Saulakos.

Indeed, the second point of view looks quite convincing. After all, most of these artifacts were found on the territory of Colchis. However, we believe that there are no grounds for attributing them to the issues of local dynasties. Indeed, in Colchis at that time only golden imitations of staters were minted.

We believe that the coins with the letter combination ΣΑΥ on the reverse were minted at the Bosporan mints during the Saumakos uprising. They could enter Colchis both during his time and after his defeat. The fact is that the inhabitants of the outskirts of the ancient world preferred their usual coins, even if they fell out of circulation in the territories of the issuing states.

As for the possibility of their release on behalf of Saulakos, who allegedly ruled in Colchis in the second half of the 2nd century or in the third quarter of the 1st century BCE, there is no information about him in written sources. Let us take into account that Saulakos, known from the “Naturalis Historia” by G. Plinus Secundus, was a contemporary and opponent of a certain pharaoh Sesostris. And the rulers of Colchis were no longer named in his honor, at least until the 2nd century BCE. We insist that his name was not honored even later. The fact is that we know about the Caucasian dynasts who resisted Pompey during his campaign against the Bosporus. And we do not know anything about the sovereign named Saulakos.

In the process of substantiating this thesis, we studied the so-called Saulakos coin, found in recent years near Feodosia, on the territory of the village of Kuru Bash. We believe that there is no reason to unite it into one group with the Saumakos releases. We judge by the fact that not the head of Helios is imprinted on its obverse, but a bust of Athena in a Corinthian helmet, and the image of a bird is placed on the reverse.

In addition, we have good reason to doubt the authenticity of this coin of Saulakos. After all, the inscription on its reverse, judging by the style, could not have been designed in the era of antiquity. Judging by the fact that the lines of its letters do not end with dots.

We assume that the so-called Saulakos coin, on the territory of the Kuru Bash settlement, is not a genuine artifact. Most likely, this is a skillfully aged remake, made to deceive unlucky collectors.

Imitations of the Roman Coins in “Transcaucasian” States

Tedo Dundua, Natia Phiphia — Wed, 25 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0400

Some Issues About The Royal Images On The Sassanian Silverworks

Nino Silagadze — Wed, 25 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0400

Silverworks, especially splendid tableware of gilded silver, is one of the most typical features of old Iranian culture (maybe together with world famous Iranian jugs and carpets). Bowls, cups, plates etc. with different images, particularly the masterpieces of Sassanian art, are kept in many celebrated museums worldwide. They can be divided into several types, according to decoration: tableware with purely ornamental design, animal figures – real and fantastic ones, or objects with complicated figurative compositions like hunting and battle scenes, scenes of court life, feast, enthronement etc.

We are focused on the special type of Sassanian silver: these cups and bowls have as a major element in their design human busts, both male and female, enclosed in the round frame. These are the portraits of Iranian noblemen, high officials of the Sassanian Empire or King himself. Portrait medallions of tableware are closely linked to the images on the Sassanian gemstones and coins. According to the most important scholarly studies in this field, the portrait medallions appear on Sassanian silver from the midst of the 3rd c. up to the midst of the 4th c. Actually, only 7 vessels with portrait enclosed in the round frame are known from different museum collections.

The earliest one of these 7 vessels was found in Georgia and labeled as Sargveshi cup after the place of discovery. It is also the earliest silver vessel with the image of the Sassanian king. Therefore, it serves as a fixed chorological starting point to arrange the other patterns. Four medallions on the Sargveshi cup show the portraits of King Warahran-Bahram II (276-293), his queen and royal prince. The persons are identified by the coin of Bahram II. The royal family is presented in the same way, bearing the same symbols of power – royal crown, the horse-headed headdress of the queen, the laurel wreath etc. The closest parallel of Sargveshi cup is the bowl from Metropolitan Museum with female busts, dated by the 3rd-4th cc.

The second type of Sassanian tableware with portrait medallions, again according to the most important scholarly researches, consists of 5 objects – vessels with only one portrait on the inner surface put in the center. The oldest one, cup of pitiaxes Papak (second half of the 3rd c.), was also discovered in Georgia, Mtskheta, ancient capital of Kartli/Iberia. The other 4 vessels, one from Tehran Bastan Museum with female portrait, the three others kept in different museums of the USA with male images, are from one archaeological site in Iran. All of them present anonymous Iranian nobles and belong to the period of 3rd-4th cc.

To the small group of these silverworks we want to add one more piece, which is less studied by the scholars. It is a bowl from Miho Museum, Japan, of uncertain provenience. According to P. Harper, “the portrait of ruler as a bust, enclosed in medallion, occurs only in Sargveshi cup, of the late third century. At present, there is no evidence to suggest, that the medallion portrait continued after this period, to be a form in which royal figures were represented on Sassanian silver plates”. This idea needs to be checked, because the figure on Miho Museum cup wears royal crown. This crown looks more like the crown of Peroz I (459–484) or Kavad I (488–497, 499–531). One more parallel is the silver vessel with king’s hunting scene (Metropolitan Museum), identified again as Peroz I or Kavad I.

The exterior surface of Miho Museum cup is decorated by fluted lines, which are rare in Sassanian silverworks design. But fluting line-decoration is very common on pre-Christian toreutics, found in Georgia. According to Georgia’s K. Machabeli, prominent field-specialist, the objects with fluting lines form the particular group of silver vessels, all of them having images in round frame in the center of inner surface. The vessels of such type never appear somewhere outside of Georgia. The objects are so similar from the point of view of technical or stylistic peculiarities, that they may be considered as the production of one local artistic center, even of one workshop, probably in ancient Iberia.

We suggest the cup from Miho Museum could be produced in Iberia after 523, when the country came under the direct control of Sassanian Empire and was ruled by Iranian viceroy. This situation continued till the end of the 6th c., when Kartli/Iberia/ became independent again. So, if the Sassanian king on the Miho Museum cup is Kavad I, the date of the object corresponds to 523-531.

War at the Eastern Border of Late Ancient Lazica According to De Bellis of Procopius of Caesarea. Several Questions

Marcin Wieczorek — Wed, 25 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0400

მიწის ყიდვა-გაყიდვის პოლიტეკონომია ფეოდალურ საქართველოში

Akaki Chikobava — Wed, 25 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0400

Political economic aspects of land alienation in the feudal era when the means of production, mainly the land, are owned by the lord, are surprising in some cases. According to one of 10th century Georgian document a peasant sold the land. Although minor means of production, the ones used to cultivate the land belonged to peasant in this era and during later times too, but larger tools - a plough and irrigation canals did not. The construction of irrigation canals and its exploitation is a prerogative of the central government and then that of only the feudal lords. While a large plough (gutani) at a certain time became a peasant's possession, but its maintenance turned into a tax. In such conditions, we have information about the selling of the land by a peasant. The peasant, of course, depends entirely on the lord and he himself is his property. The evidence of this can be found in the same document – a plenty of facts when a peasant is donated and actually is even sold. So how can the object of sale can sell main capital good, whom the political and economic structure of this period and the whole domestic economy are based on?

The land alienation by the peasants is conditional and the permission of the owner is needed. The evidences we discuss suggest that in the case of the sale the peasant paid half of the land price. In case of unauthorized sale, half of the price was paid by a seller, and another half by a purchaser. According to my observations, even when a serf sold the land and the patron new it, half of the price still was going to the patron. This must have been the case in case of serfdom as well as in case of the relationships between the lords and the lesser lords. The sale of the land by the peasant does not imply his full right on a land, but only a partial and his mention in the act of sale may mean partial remuneration of the works performed on this land. Even if the buyer would pay the full price, half would go to the cultivator, which would prevent the land cultivator from land's total ownership. However, in my opinion, even though the cultivated part of the land was a partial property of a cultivator, this property was still conditional and he still had to pay off. The cultivated land was just the same fiscal entity as the land plots given in precarity in Europe were. The registration of the land alienation by a peasant took place simply because the owner of the land sold a certain part of the land. A peasant and his family were fiscal subjects and registration is determined only by economic factors.

The object of the alienation by a peasant is mainly a vineyard, plain or small agricultural land. The peasants, as I observed, could not sell the land. "Land", in my view, should be equivalent to serf’s cultivated land - a fiscal entity, from which the wealth was derived. This, in turn, led to the complete exploitation of the producer, i.e. to serfdom, and therefore his personal relationship to the master. Thus the "land" alienation by the peasant was possible only with the permission of the master. The sale was supervised by the master according to the registry also. The right of the immediate producer was conditional and
phantom; the land was still the main source of his exploitation. Therefore, the land alienation should be considered within the feudal productive activity relationships. Land alienation would not release a peasant from any liabilities. On the contrary, the obligations were transferred to the new owner. Consequently, he was not free from feudal taxes. Communal labour disseappeared with the emergence of feudalism. Property disappears on private and community land. However, during feudalism, we see peasants partially owning the land, both in case the land belonged to the lord or in case serf cultivated it. However, this is a mirage created by the existing political system. Indeed, excessive labor is exercised in favor of the lord, which is directly related to the loss of personal freedom by the producer/peasant, which is the basis of feudal relations.

Samshvilde Operation of 1110

Mamuka Tsurtsumia — Wed, 25 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0400

By 1110 the disposition of the opposing sides on the Georgian-Seljuk front was as follows: Tbilisi, Rustavi, Samshvilde and Lower Kartli were in them hands of the Muslims, while Trialeti and Kldekari were held by Giorgi Chqondideli’s niece Tevdore. Lower Kartli was occupied by the Turkmen nomads who were coming to the Mtkvari and Iori valleys every autumn, and wintering on the pastures. They were looting and plundering the country, taking the population captive.

In order to dismantle the nomadic footholds and to besiege Tbilisi strategically, the Georgians had to return the Samshvilde and Lower Kartli fortresses. Samshvilde was one of the most important centers of Lower Kartli, whith a special geographical location crossed by the trade routes, connecting Georgia with Byzantium, Armenia and Iran.

It was very difficult to take such a stronghold as Samshvilde by an ordinary siege. The chronicler describes the course of events in just a few words: “Giorgi Chqondidel-mtsignobartukhutsesi, Tevdore, Abuleti, and Ioane Orbeli gathered and together captured Samshvilde by a ruse.” Despite the lack of information, it is still possible to reconstruct events. The crucial factor in the operation was the secret mobilization of the army and the hidden approach to the fortress, which the Georgians successfully overcame and managed to capture Samshvilde with a surprise attack. During the operation, the detachments under the command of Tevdore (Kldekari Eristavi), Abuleti, Ivane Orbeli (owner of Orbeti fortress) and Giorgi Chqondideli unite. The identities of Giorgi Chqondideli, Tevdore and Ivane Orbeli are certain. The issue of Abuleti remained open, which N. Shoshiashvili considered a Kakhetian noble feudal lord. Based on the story of David’s historian, we can conclude that Abuleti was a feudal lord from Kartli. Other detachments participating in the Samshvildi operation are concentrated in the vicinity of the road from Kartli to Algeti, and, obviously, Abuleti would not be an exception.

It is clear that the Georgian troops are gathering in parts, thus avoiding the general gathering and the turmoil caused by it, which would not escape the Turkish intelligence. The detachments of Chqondideli and Abuleti go unnoticed to the Kldekari, then, together with Tevdore, pass through Manglisi to the Algeti gorge and reach Partskhisi, where they are joined by Ivane Orbeli. The combined army manages to suddenly reach Samshvilde and take the city.

The seizure of Samshvilde was an important event: “This gave great joy to all, for the territories of the kingdom were expanding daily.” This conquest resulted in the annexation of Lower Kartli, the eradication of the nomadic encampments and the isolation of the Tbilisi Emirate from the south, and later made possible the Georgian expansion towards the Tashir-Dzoraget.

From the History of Gamkrelidze Family

Niko Javakhishvili — Wed, 25 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0400

Among the native Georgian feudal houses, the Gamkrelidzes used to hold an honorable place as one of the noble (in georgian – aznauri) houses of the Kingdom of Georgia.

The Gamkrelidze family, which is now widespread throughout Georgia, originated from Racha region. As of February 1, 1995, there were 1643 Gamkrelidzes living in Georgia, of which 757 lived in Tbilisi and the rest 886 – in the regions of Georgia: Svaneti, Imereti, Kartli, Kakheti and Samegrelo.

The present work is the first attempt to study the past of this family and the history of its prominent representatives.

It is divided into ten parts: 1) The origin and the initial settlement area of the Gamkrelidzes – Racha; 2) Imereti branches of the Gamkrelidzes; 3) Kvemo Kartli branch of the Gamkrelidzes – the Shanshiashvilis; 4) Shida Kartli branch of the Gamkrelidzes; 5) Kakheti branches of the Gamkrelidzes; 6) Samegrelo branches of the Gamkrelidzes; 7) Composition of noble Gamkrelidze
families in middle of the 19th century; 8) The representatives of the Gamkrelidzes and Shanshiashvilis, as reflected in 19th century Georgian literature; 9) Prominent representatives of the Gamkrelidze house after the end of 19th century); 10) Present day number of the Gamkrelidzes and their settlement area.

ქართლ-კახეთის სამეფოსა და რუსეთის იმპერიის ურთიერთობა 1774-1782 წლებში

Apolon Tabuashvili — Wed, 25 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0400

In 1769 king Erekle II of Kartli-Kakheti agreed to participate in war against the Ottoman Empire in favor of the Russian Empire. This was marked with active military actions. Alliance with Russia brought negative results for Ereke II. Therefore, he decided to terminate relations with the Russian Imperial court in 1775. After Russia gained the upper hand in the war against Ottomans, even the Imperial government lost interest in obtaining support from the Georgian kingdoms. Consequently, on the behalf of the order issued on October 7, 1775 the Georgian emissaries were deprived the right to enter in the Russian territory. Since Ereke II finished his negotiations successfully with the Ottomans Empire and started active foreign policy in Caucasus he openly faced the Russian diplomacy.

In summer 1782 the Russian attitude towards the Georgians kingdoms was radically changed. The representatives of the Russian government informed the Georgians kings (Erekle II and Solomon I of Imereti) that Catherine II was ready to accept these kingdoms under protection immediately. They were required to send the official note to Empress for this purpose.

As it has been established, the rapid change of the Russian policy was a result of the following. In the early summer of 1782, the Russian imperial court decided to finally settle the issue of Crimea, Taman, and Kuban. The Russian government believed that the annexation of these territories would lead to war with the Ottomans. Therefore, active preparations for the impending war began. For the successful implementation of the developed plan, the relevant order of the emperor was issued and its implementation swiftly began. One of the most important components of the plan was a stealth attack throuth the Caucasus. The Georgian kings were to help the Russian army through “sabotage” against the Ottomans. Without their participation in the war, it would have been almost impossible to successfully carry out the planned operation in the South Caucasus. Accordingly, according to the plan of Catherine II, a significant part of the mission was assigned to the Georgian kingdoms.

The above circumstances prompted the Russian government to radically change its attitude towards Erekle II and Solomon I. For this very purpose, the Russian imperial court decided to raise the issue of patronage and began negotiations with the Georgian side.

The Constituent Assembly Of Georgia According To Noe Jordania’s Concept

Dimitri Shvelidze — Wed, 25 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0400

From the very beginning, the Georgian political elite believed that the national council (hereinafter – the parliament) was not a legitimate legislative body, since it had not been elected by the population of the country. Because of this, the first national assembly decided to convene the constituent assembly, which should have been made up from the elections results. The structure, functions and purpose of the constituent assembly were determined in accordance with the concept formulated by the head of government of Georgia, Noe Jordania. The latter rejected the idea of a parliamentary republic. He thought that parliament would become an instrument for the domination of the bourgeoisie. A democratic republic is “fundamentally different” from a parliamentary republic. According to Jordania’s concept, the powers of the constituent assembly and the executive branch should have been limited. The constitution drawn up by the assembly must have been ratified by the people through a referendum and other norms. The constituent assembly through the sectoral commissions would have participate in the work of the executive branch and essentially control it.

Unknown Pages Of The Life Of Christephore Tsitskishvili – Catholicos-patriarch Of All Georgia (According To The Documents From The Gori Archive)

Giorgi Sosiashvili — Wed, 25 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0400

After the establishment of the Bolshevik government in 1921 the Georgian society was in a rather difficult situation. Repressions hit the country, while the Georgian church found itself in an unbearable situation. The government attacked not only the Orthodox Church, but different religious minorities as well. On April 15, 1922 the Georgian Revolutionary Committee passed a decree №22, with 14th and 15th paragraphs saying: “Neither ecclesiastical nor religious community has the right to have the property. They do not have the right to be a legal entity; all the ecclesiastical and religious property in the Georgian Republic is announced to be public”. As we see from the document, the Bolsheviks did not give the Georgian church any rights, and religious societies were deprived of gaining the legal status.

The robbing of churches turned into a hysterical campaign. The Bolsheviks created the so-called “Union of the Atheists” and declared a ruthless fight against the Orthodox religion and ecclesiastical figures. The district government and the revolutionary committees under its guidance discredited church workers and appropriated the church property. The Bolshevik government repressions hit not only the ecclesiastical people of low hierarchy, but also the authorities of the Georgian Orthodox Church. Catholicos-patriarch of all Georgia, Ambrosi (Khelaia) became a victim of the Bolshevik government terror as a result of which the tortured patriarch died on March 29, 1927. The patriarchal throne was occupied by Christephore III, whose enthronement was held in Svetitskhoveli on October 14, 1927. The candidacy of Christephore was acceptable to the government. Vladimer Dekanozov noted about this fact in his letter to the Central Committee of the Communist Party.

According to his information, there was a controversy between the supporters of patriarch Ambrosi and Christephore at the church council, where the patriarch should have been elected. It was to the advantage of Christephore. The supporters of Ambrosi left the council as a sign of protest. As Dekanozov noted, the new Patriarch Christephore sympathized the Bolsheviks and confronted the members of the Menshevik government.

Despite Christephore’s loyal attitude towards the existing government, soon the Bolsheviks turned against him. It was proved by the violence committed against the patriarch’s family. The leader of the Georgian Church was deprived of the house in Surami. In January, 1930, the patriarch asked the Georgian Central Executive Committee to return him the house and his land plot. He received a positive answer, though the local government, particularly the Surami Executive Committee did not return him his property. The documents in the Gori Archive give a clear picture about the government`s attitude towards the patriarch. Christephore repeatedly asked the government to return him his property. At the request of catholicos-patriarch to return his
house and land plot, he received a positive answer, though the local representatives of the Bolshevik government acted unofficially, according to the instructions of the Central Government, and neglected the patriarch’s pleas. The patriarch of the Georgian Church passed away on January 10, 1932.

The German Landing In Kakheti: The Georgians In The World War II

Tengiz Simashvili — Wed, 25 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0400

Our research deals with participation of the Georgians in the Second World War. In this article we focus on the Georgians in the special military unit of the German Army.

June 22, 2021 is noteworthy, just as it marks 80 years since the German invasion in the Soviet Union. It is still a matter of debate who were the Georgians fighters on the German side – patriots or traitors? What were the reasons for their struggle in the ranks of the German army? How many Georgians were united in the German army units and many other issues. Also,
the cooperation of some Georgians with the special units of the German army has not been studied in details. In our study, we pay attention to one of the special forces of the German army – the so-called naval intelligence body. We are discussing about the activities of the Nachrichtenbeobachter (NBO).

The object of our research is specifically the story of the Georgian paratroopers who were trained in the Nachrichtenbeobachter and landed in Georgia on September 17, 1942 in Kakheti.

The oral tradition of the population of the city of Telavi claims that in Telavi so-called emigrant “Someone Chirakadze” was shot during the Second World War on “Gigo Hill”, the place where in the 1920s people were executed by Soviets.

Describing the scenario of Chirakadze’s shooting, it was noted that he shouted before the execution – “I am not a traitor, history will find out who is a traitor”. This evidence became the starting point for finding the information about this person. It turned out from the archival materials that on May 13, 1943 Giorgi Samson Chirakadze was shot in Telavi. He fled from the USSR in 1930. In early 1942, based on the patriotic views, he decided to join the German army and “take part in the liberation of Georgia from the Communist Regime”. He studied at the Abwehr School in Stettin (Szczecin). In 1942 he became a major in the Wehrmacht naval intelligence.

The analysis of the materials that we found revealed that on September 17, 1942 Giorgi Chirakadze and four former prisoners of war were airlifted to Georgia, near Telavi, on the territory of Gombori Pass. The locals sheltered them, but Giorgi Chirakadze was betrayed to Soviets by his crew the former prisoners of war. He was arrested by Telavi district security.

The materials found during the research to some extent supplement the existing knowledge about the identities of the Georgian soldiers who fought in the ranks of the German Army and they reveal the activities of the German Army special forces in the Caucasus and Georgia.

Participation Of Georgian Military Forces In International Iraq Peace Building Operation (2003-2008)

Shalva Kikalishvili — Wed, 25 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0400

From the moment when Georgia declared independence, clear and straightforward political course has been drawn to connect the country to western reality. In 1992 Georgia joined North Atlantic Cooperation Council. Within 5 years, in 1997, NACC was transformed into the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council. From the very same moment, the relationship with one of the most important and vital partners, Unites States of America, unfolded successfully. Further, in 2001, this relationship adopted to a new reality, and the cooperation in defense and security fields deepened between two countries. This is the year when Georgia joined a global war on terror after the horrific terrorist attack on American nation on the 11th of September. Following the mutual agreement, Georgian military forces entered peacekeeping missions and were stationed in different hot spots worldwide.

The purpose of the paper, on the one hand, is to describe a significant role of Georgian military forces in peace building after 2003 Iraq war, between years 2003-2008. On the other hand, our aim is to depict rather difficult and safety endangering post war situation in Iraq, when Georgian Forces were sent as valuable members of “Multi-national forces – Iraq.”

On March 19, 2003, American military forces successfully continued the operation “Iraqi Freedom” and entered Iraq. Within 21 days, almost the whole country was under control of the USA. Despite military strategic or tactical success, it appeared to be a classical example of “how you can win the war but lose the peace”, as Paddy Ashdown of Telegraph mentioned. US Military Central Command and White House found themselves dealing with dozens of problems, which required vast amount of resources and time to be solved. Therefore, our paper outlines major problematic areas in Iraq – marauders, uprisings, terrorist attacks both on United Nations representatives and military personnel, involvement of Iran in internal Iraqi politics and disrupting peacebuilding operations of international forces. In addition, we will discuss the contribution of several influential military-political leaders to the ongoing processes.

Furthermore, contribution of the Unites States to the development of the Georgian Military Forces will be also shown in this paper. Following 11/09/2001 al-Qaeda terrorist attacks, Georgia decided to join a Global War on Terror in 2002. The United States initiated the “Georgian Train and Equip Program,” which later became a basement for the “Georgian Sustainment and Stability Operations Program.” Both initiatives trained Georgian Forces to deal with internal and international threats. Based on the Ministry of Defense of Georgia, 17 deployments of various nature were sent to Iraq totaling 8 495 proud servicemen participating in peacekeeping operations. Thus, Georgia became one of the important non-NATO contributors to the “Operation Iraqi Freedom.” At that time, the ongoing operation was disrupted by August 2008 Russian military occupation of Georgia as remaining forces were immediately sent back to defend the country.

Anthimus of Iberia. Memory and (re)presentation within the contemporary Romanian society

Mircea-Cristian Ghenghea, Iulian Moga — Wed, 25 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0400

გიორგი ოთხმეზური: 1954-2021

Wed, 25 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0400

Epitaph Of Elene, Daughter Of Kvirike King Of Rans And Kakhs

Aleksandre Boshishvili, Leri Tavadze, Eka Kvirkvelia, Akaki Chikobava — Wed, 25 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0400

On August, 2017 during restoration and rehabilitation work (performed by the National Agency for Cultural Heritage Preservation of Georgia) in St. John the Baptist Three-Church Basilica of Kalauri located in Gurjaani Municipality Region of Kakheti the royal tomb was discovered. St. John the Baptist Basilica of Kalauri contains the royal tomb and unknown inscription
engraved on the same tomb. Both, tomb and inscription, were completely unknown to the public. The part of the inscription is damaged but the context is clear. According to the inscription the royal tomb belongs to Elene, the daughter of Kvririke king of Rans and Kakhs (“Rans”, inhabitants of “Rani”, the population of Kingdom of Hereti; “Kakhs”, inhabitants of “Kakheti”, the
population of Kingdom of Kakheti. Hereti and Kakheti were part of a single kingdom during the rule of Kvirike III the Great from 1014 to 1039. Thus, the title “king of Rans and Kakhs” means the rule over Kakheti-Hereti Kingdom). Based on the context of the inscription, it is an epitaph of Elene. She is named the Queen, as she was a daughter and a royal heir of Kvirike III the Great. According to the inscription, Queen Elene had a husband, Prince Demetre. Presumably, they were heirs of Kvirike III the Great before Elene passed away.

ისტორიული მეცნიერების განვითარებსა საქართველოში სახელმწიფოებრიობის აღდგენის შემდეგ

Niko Javakhishvili — Wed, 25 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0400

Tedo Dundua - 60

Institute of Georgian History Giorgobiani — Wed, 25 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0400

რეცენზია წიგნზე "ემილ ლევიეს მოგზაურობა კავკასიაში"

Elene Gogiashvili — Wed, 25 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0400

Rulers on Money: Case of Georgia

Tedo Dundua — Wed, 25 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0400

International Scientific Conference “The Battle of Didgori – 900”

Tedo Dundua, Natia Phiphia, Leri Tavadze — Wed, 25 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0400

Georgian and European Armies in Action

Tedo Dundua — Wed, 25 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0400

Some Details On The Biography Of David Agmashenebeli

Leri Tavadze — Wed, 25 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0400

Commensality In The Age Of David Agmashenebeli And Queen Tamar

Natia Phiphia — Wed, 25 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0400