A FEW COMMENTS ON IMPORTANTS FACTS IN GEORGIAN HISTORY

Abstract

1. Among the probable dates of Vakhtang Gorgasali's death, the year 491 can be found (V. Goiladze) in scholarly literature. The date originates from the Syrian hagiographical monument known as the "Martyrdom of Firan Gušnasp". In this monument, the starting point for all hypotheses concerning the dates -is the accession to the throne of the shahs of Persia. Only one of them does not specify the starting point. It only mentions "in the fortieth year," to which the publisher has added in brackets "the making of the truce". This, as I have already pointed out, is a mistake. Such a clarification has misled V. Goiladze, who thought that the case referred to the end of the war between Byzantium and Persia and the conclusion of the ensuing truce. He connected this fact with the death of Vakhtang Gorgasali. M. Sanadze does not share this conclusion. However, she believes that the aforementioned year 491 should be discussed within the context of the rebellion against Persia in Kartli and Armenia in 485-490. I, on the other hand, argue that the "fortieth year" refers to the end of Kavad's rule and the accession of Khosrow Anushirvan to the throne. It seems that this latter argument puts an end to the artificially invented date of 491.
2. In this paper, I revisit the issue discussed in my earlier research. This research refers to the diplomatic relations established from the mid-13th century between the Mamluks of Egypt and Western Georgia, during the division of Georgia into two parts as a result of the Mongol invasions. The case of 1268 is specifically considered.

According to the Arab author Abd Az-Zahir, the ambassador of Baybars returned from Georgia with two letters from the Georgian kings to the Sultan. One belonged to the king of Abkhazia, and the other - to David, the king of Tbilisi. Different scholars have commented on this information, believing that the letters were indeed sent from two kings. However, I did not share this assumption. Since my theory was not accepted, I consider it necessary to revisit the mentioned issue once again and to repeat my own interpretation expressed earlier in somewhat greater detail.

1. The date of death of the King of Kings Tamar has been repeatedly discussed in scholarly literature. Various arguments have been put forward to support the more common 1207 or 1210. The paper focuses on the important observations presented in Revaz Kiknadze's works (published in 1975,1980), which make the year 1207 more convincing. Unfortunately, while reviewing the extensive body of works by different scholars, the arguments supporting the year 1207 as advanced in Revaz Kiknadze's research were mostly overlooked. And this oversight undoubtedly deprived the discussion on the mentioned issue of solid arguments.
2. The date of establishment of the Tbilisi Emirate still attracts the attention of scholars. The issue was studied in various papers. However, the dominant opinion connects this fact with Marwan ibn Muhammad, the last Umayyad Caliph (744-750) and the emir of Jurzan (732-742), which comes from M. Lortkipanidze. At the same time, the list of Armenian emirs introduced by M. Lortkipanidze begins from 754 and the first two emirs, in her opinion, were also the emirs of Tbilisi.

In the paper published in 1999, I examined various opinions concerning the issue and paid special attention to the interpretation suggested by M. Lortkipanidze, which was more specific. However, I did not share her hypothesis. According to my version, the Tbilisi emirate was established not in the 30-ies or 40-ies of the 8th century but rather in the 70-ies, despite the minting of an Arab coin in Tbilisi in 704/5. It is from the 70-ies that we have an uninterrupted list of the Tbilisi emirs. The fact coincides with the abolishment of the local Georgian institution of “erismtavari” (although only temporarily - for four years at that time). The situation changed in 775, according to the treaty concluded between the Arab caliphate and Byzantium. Both sides released captives, and the Arabs restored institution of “erismtavari” until 786.

The date was accepted by the majority of scholars until recent times. However, since 2014, I. Paghava has studied the issue based on numismatic and epigraphic evidence, diverging from the written sources as unreliable. Paghava has come to the conclusion that the Tbilisi emirate existed since 704/5, when the Arab coin was minted. The domination of Arabs was interrupted from time to time, but the mint never stopped its activities. The scholar examines several coins, minted in Tbilisi, noting that only one of them bears the name of the emir – Marwan ibn Muhammad, the emir of Jurzan (in office from 732 to 743), the last Umayyad caliph (744-750). All other existing coins lack names.

Despite of existence of the Tbilisi mint, Arabs never had an easy time in Georgia and their rule there was not stable. This was due to the coalition of Georgians with Hazars, who were the main target for Arabs. For most of their rule in Georgia, the Umayyad tried to either delay or prevent the dissolution of the state. Meanwhile, the collection of taxes was mostly delegated to Georgians.

The situation changed during the Abbasid dynasty (from 750 onwards). The beginning of their rule was marked by insurrections against them in the South Caucasus, which lasted till 771 and were eventually quelled by Abbasids. Unlike the Umayyad time, a trend of decentralization of the caliphate is evident throughout Abbasid domination.