ს ი ნ ე რ გ ი ა


Untitled Document
  Untitled Document


ახალი წიგნი






Scientific and social journal
“SAMI SAUNJE” (three treasures)  №1(1), 2011
(in georgian)



  • Grani Kavtaria, Commentaries about recent past
  • Ineza Iamanidze, Georgian language is in danger
  • Giorgi Gogolashvili, Three great books – the foundation of the georgian literary language development
  • Nodar Lomouri, The history of abkhaz people and their future
  • Avtandil Nikoleishvili, Folklore of turkish georgians
  • Bondo Arveladze, Tbilisi church of st. Nicholas the miracle worker (surb-nshan)
  • Anzor Totadze, When your treasures are disputed
  • Excerpt from holy synod decree of russian orthodox church of november 19th 1943
  • Teimuraz Panjikidze, Secularization, theocracy and modernity
  • Zaza Vashakmadze, The relationship between church and state in 1918-1927s
  • Sergi Avaliani, Philosophical principles of catholicos-patriarch of all georgia Ilia ii
  • Gvantsa Koplatadze, St. Peter of iberia
  • Grigol Rukhadze, Pseudo scientist’s achievements


    In the summer of 2006 revolutionary authorities destroyed the first “alma mater” of the Georgian nation, Tbilisi I. Javakhishvili State University. They released honored professors and started “European” style education system. Today, it is even more obvious that the reformers’ pursuit was spurious and the goal was to kill the national spirit. It has been eight years since the Georgian slavery to these European style standards. Abusers have been denouncing Russia and praising Turkey, America is even being presented an as angel. There has been a lot of laudation about the heroic pasts of the North Caucasian tribes and their role in Georgian History. The icing on the cake was the indecent conduct toward the Georgian orthodox religion. The authorities treated the Orthodox Church with the same ruthlessness as the University exactly five years ago. False reformers do not acknowledge God, how can they be compassionate with people?



    What is happening to Georgian language today in Georgia is a sign of troubled future for the nation. We need to stand together during these difficult times and save our country one more time. Otherwise, the English language will completely replace the Georgian language as the state language. We need to act while the world history continues and the Georgian chronicles are still being written.



    Georgian literary language has 16 centuries of documented history. The literary language is the highest form of the national language, refined and normalized. The first great book that defined the course of Georgian literary language development was the Holy “Otkhtavi” (Holy Gospel) (5th c.). Subsequently, Shota Rustaveli became a pioneer of a principal character based work. His poem “Vepkhistkaosani” (Knight in the Panther’s Skin) greatly defined the development of the Georgian literary language since the 12th century.

    In 70s of the 19th century, I. Gogebashvili’s book “Dedaena” (Mother Tongue) played the greatest contribution to the formation and strengthening of the new literary language. Thus, on the long path of development of the Georgian literary language Georgian “Otkhtavi,” “Vefkhistkaosani” and “Dedaena” were worthy companions. 



    Nowadays, when our life is full of many unresolved issues, the worst of all seems to be the occupation of our ancient regions, Abkhazia and Shida Kartli. We believe that reaching the solution in our favor is quite unrealistic due to the active and aggressive involvement of the Russian reactionary forces in our ethnic conflict. In addition, in occupied regions the local population is anti-Georgian.

    Of the two conflict regions, the situation is more difficult in Abkhazia because of Russia’s great interest in finally taking possession of the coastal area. Russia will do anything to turn Abkhazia into its province.

    To our knowledge, there is a growing dissatisfaction of local Abkhazian population towards the Russian politics; however, this discontent has been insufficient for reunification of Abkhazia with Georgia.

    The Abkhaz separatism has been taking place for a long time but has strengthened since it gained the support of reactionary forces of our northern neighbors. The mistakes made by Georgian government also contributed to these events in Shida Kartli or so-called South Osetia.

    For quite some time certain forces have been trying to solve the problem of Abkhazia by so- called “Public Diplomacy,” but unfortunately, it has been unsuccessful in persuading the separatists to any compromise. It is imperative for both Abkhaz Georgian historians not to acknowledge any distorted and non-scientific approach to the history of Abkhazia in the spirit of cooperation between Abkhazians and Georgians.

    In the 50s of the past century there was a drastic increase in contradictions between the Georgian and Abkhazian scientists regarding the ethnic history of the Abkhaz population. Soon after that Abkhaz historians (I. Voronov, E. Azhinzhal, Sh. Inal-Ipa, etc.) started claiming that since the mid-bronze age (3rd millennium BC) the ancestors of the Abkhazians – Heniochi, inhabited the entire territory of western Georgia. Only in the VI-V centuries BC Georgian (Colchis) tribes settled here and drove the ancestors of the Abkhazians to the northwestern part of Colchis (West Georgia). Basing on this Abkhaz historians consider that ancient Colchis culture was the Abkhaz-Heniochi. The Georgian scientists opposed this far-fetched theory with a similarly undocumented concept by Pavle Ingorokva. According to him Heniochi lived together with Georgian tribes (Meskhetians, Absils, and Abazgis) on the Abkhaz territory. The ancestors of modern Abkhazians descended to the territory in XVI-XVII centuries from the northern Caucasus Mountains.

    After thoroughly examining Greek and Roman sources we came to the following undeniable conclusion: Any attempt to link Heniochi tribes to the Abkhaz population’s ethno‑genesis and thus localizing them to any area of Colchis has absolutely no basis. This also includes any identification of Heniochi with Georgian tribes. The Heniochi issue should be eliminated forever when discussing ethnic questions of any Abkhaz or western region of Georgia in general. One should not concur with the proposition of P. Ingorokva about Moschi (Meskhetians) living on the territory as well as the whole concept of the Abkhaz tribes. Sources indicate that since the first centuries A.D., two tribes – the Apsilaes and the Abasgis have lived in Abkhazia. The opinion of some Georgian researchers regarding the Georgian origin of these tribes, based on the concept of P. Ingorokva, has no scientific basis. A detailed and comprehensive analysis of the primary sources gives us as well as other most qualified researchers reason to consider Apsilaes and Abasgis as Abkhaz – Adig tribes and the ancestors of the modern Abkhazians.

    Such a conclusion would seem to be suitable for Abkhazian scholars, but we immediately received harsh criticism. The reason for it is that according to our research, since ancient time the Apsilaes and the Abasgis have resided on the territory inhabited by Kartvelian (Georgian) (Megrelian-Svan) tribes who always played a leading role there. This is clearly confirmed by the prevalence of the Georgian cultural artifacts in this region. In ethno-cultural sense Apsilaes and Abasgis, despite their Abkhaz-Adig genetic origin have always been an integral part of Kartvelian (Georgian) ethnic unity.

    The tribes living along the eastern Black Sea coast from the mouth of river Chorokhi to river Sheke, united and created the so-called Laz Kingdom from which in the VIII the Byzantine Empire separated the northern part and names it "Saarkonto of  Abasgi," according to Georgian sources - "Abkhaz Saeristavo” (an administrative unit in feudal Georgia)." At the end of VIII then Archont of Abasgi Leon, taking the advantage of the weakened empire, rebelled against it, subdued all of Western Georgia, and declared himself the “King of Abkhaz." This was the king of Abkhazia Leon I. The creation of this kingdom and its name are the main arguments of the current Abkhaz separatist leaders who insist that even in the VIII century Abkhazians had their own state, which was taken away by Georgians (Bagrationis) and added to the united Georgian kingdom. Further, the Abkhazians use this as justification to restore “historical justice”.

    Analysis of all Byzantine, Georgian and Armenian written, archeological, epigraphic art sources and studies of political processes occurring in that era in Georgia, carried out by outstanding scientists of different generations, make absolutely certain that despite its name, the kingdom by all parameters represents Georgian State System. In addition, it has been unequivocally established that neither in the early feudal period, nor in later times, the formation of Abkhazian nation has taken place. On the contrary, Abkhaz tribes were intensely integrating with the Georgian nation. Only complex historical events of late medieval centuries, particularly the settlement of Abkhaz-Jikh tribes in XVI-XVII centuries on the territory of Abkhazia prevented the merger of the Abkhazians and the Georgians. Nevertheless, even after that, Abkhazia remained one of Georgia's ethnic, cultural and administrative units.

    Starting from 30s of the XVIII century West Georgia came under the rule of Turkey for a lengthy period. This fact facilitated the spread of Islam there, especially in Abkhazia where it was made easier by the invasion of mountainous tribes. At the beginning of the XIX century Abkhazia, as well as other political entities of Georgia, joined the Russian Empire but it did not happen smoothly. Numerous uprisings and riots took place, which were followed by rather severe repressions. One of these repressive measures was the mass exile of the Muslim population to Turkey, so called "Mujahirism." We decided to evaluate this issue because the separatist historians stated that before Mujahirism only Abkhazians lived in Abkhazia. After the violent exile of many Abkhaz families the vacant lands were taken over by Georgians (Mengrelians) and ”colonization" of Abkhazia took place. Such absurd allegations by S. Lakoba and his followers, completely ignore the known facts that from ancient times Kartvelian Colchis-Laz, Svan tribes lived on the Abkhaz territory. They occupied far larger territory than the Abkhaz ancestors did.

    It is also impossible not to mention S. Lacoba’s insults towards such prominent figures as Iacob Gogebashvili, Giorgi Tsereteli, Sergi Meskhi, and Iona Meunargia. They could see how  the Russians, Ukrainians, Jews, Armenians, etc., were settling on liberated lands. They tried to do everything in their power to relocate Georgians there. We would like to appeal to Abkhaz people not to succumb to the absurd and illogical allegations and understand that from ancient times, right up until recently, their ancestors always lived together with Georgians and always  kept their  identity.

    We would like to discuss one other issue that has become a pressing topic since the end of July of this year. During the meeting between the head of our Church, Catholicos-Patriarch of All Georgia Ilia II and the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Kirill in Kiev, the latest unambiguously recognized Abkhaz Church as being under the jurisdiction of Georgian Church. Unfortunately, this problem is still very painful to us because the Abkhaz extremists continue to distort the history of the spread of Christianity in Georgia in order to achieve Abkhaz Church autonomy.

    The real picture is that the Abkhaz Church just like other religious centers of western Georgia, originally was under the jurisdiction of he Patriarch of Constantinople; however, in the 9th century, like the rest of the West Georgian churches it was separated from Byzantine, gained independence, and then got under the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical organization of the United Georgia. It still remains part of it. Consequently, from ecclesiastic point of view Abkhazia has always been connected to Georgia.

     When speaking about the Abkhazian Church, a very important factor is that even when the Georgian Church was under the rule of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, architectural monuments were being built with similar characteristics of other parts of Georgia: Specific type of three-nave basilicas and dome type temples such as Jvari. The situation was the same in Abkhazia, where no architectural monument was developed solely with it own characteristics. Undoubtedly, the monuments of Abkhazia have some local characteristics that allow us to talk about the "Abkhaz School" of architecture, but these characteristics are not significant enough like differences found between the Kakheti region monuments from the Kartli region monuments, or Tao-Klarjeti monasteries from Egrisi. In fact, the only differences are that Abkhaz monuments show more similar characteristics to Byzantine architecture, than buildings in Shida Kartli regions. Thus, in reality the "Abkhaz school” means the organic part and or branching of the Georgian architecture.

     And one more important factor: when the Church of so called  Abkhazian Kingdom separated from the jurisdiction of Constantinople, the language of worship (as well as administration) changed from Greek to Georgian. Why have the Abkhazians not established worship in their own language, why have they not created their own written language? The answer is simple: Georgian language was already existed in the western part of Georgia. It was the language that was created in East Georgia and became the foundation of the Georgian literary language. It already had a clearly defined written form. This is the language that was able to compete with the Greek language and became the official language of western Georgia, thus becoming the language of Georgian religion and culture.

     This is a real, objectively researched history of Abkhazia. We would like appeal to Abkhaz people once again to correctly interpret their history and based on it determine their future.



    Despite the fact that the Turkish population includes a significant number of ethnic Georgians (it is impossible to determine the exact number today), they have played quite a little role in the history of  Georgian culture. Even though we come across some famous Turkish people with a Georgian ethnic origin, they have done little to nothing for their historical motherland. The first patriot who set a new stage from this point of view, in the consciousness of Turkish Georgians was Akhmed Melashvili (Ozkan). He made it the mission of his professional life to revive the national self-consciousness in Turkish Georgian people who have been cut off from their roots for more than 3 centuries.

     The lack of Georgian literary work in Turkey together with other important factors is the result of the fact that regardless of the number of Georgian population, the majority of it is not able to read or write in Georgian. Because of this, even if there had been a Georgian writer in Turkey, he would have had no audience. Another big factor is that Turkish Georgians were completely isolated from the Georgian speaking world for centuries.

     The creative abilities of Georgians living in Turkey were mostly revealed in folklore. The majority of it was created by public narrators and orally passed down from generation to generation. Most of it was popularized from common Georgian poetic folklore. Unlike poetic genre, prose has taken a very small part in Turkish Georgian creative work. The only works created this way are folk tales, legends and stories that have barely reached us.



    In the organs of press of the Armenian eparchy of Georgia (“Norashen”, N1, 2008) an unsigned article was published claiming the church on the crossroads of Vertskli and Sultnishani streets is of Armenian design.

     B. Arveladze’s article explains that the Armenian author’s statements are incorrect. According to historical sources, Church of St. Nicholas that was called Surb-Nshan (Holy Cross) by Armenians was a Georgian orthodox temple (The date of construction has not been established). However, at the beginning of the 18th century, Armenians appropriated it and altered it. Tbilisi Church of St. Nicholas is under the rightful jurisdiction of Georgian Patriarchate and transferring it to Armenians is out of the question.



    It is hard to find an analogy in the history of the whole world to describe what worthless Armenian scientists have been doing. They show disrespect to their neighboring countries, falsify their historical past, attempt to appropriate territories and cultural heritage of others. Even since the 19th century, they have used every opportunity to annihilate Georgia and Georgians.

    When speaking about the unfounded claims of Armenians, we mean not the Armenian people but the petty Armenian scientists who have become extremely active since Georgia’s independence. “It is time to unmask the group of Armenians who will make the existence of all Georgians, big and small, a living hell” (I. Chavchavadze).

    Lately, the Armenian scientists have become even more active and have declared the oldest province of Georgia – Samtskhe-Javakheti as Armenian land. Unfortunately, some Armenian scientists are fixated on restoring “Great Armenia” and for almost 200 years have been trying to spread disinformation to achieve their traitorous goal. They make absurd claims towards the territories of Georgia. For Georgia this is equivalent to a declaration of war. Armenian scientists concur the situation is grave; still, they claim: Karabakh was a matter of prestige, Samtskhe-Javakheti is a matter of life and death.

    In reality, Armenian as well as Georgian, ancient Assyrian cuneiform writings and other foreign sources attest that Armenians have not lived in Javakheti until Turkish-Russian War in 1828-1829 when General Paskevich settled the refugees from Anatolia there. Georgians welcomed the Armenians refugees (who had nothing) to their own homes and helped them through a harsh winter. Later, government provided the Armenians with some assistance, built them houses and thus Armenians settled in Javakheti. However, this does not mean that Javakheti is their historical motherland and it should become part of Armenia.

    Samtskhe-Javakheti has numerous toponyms that are distorted by Armenian authors in order to hide the Georgian origin. For example, Javakheti is called Javakhq, Akhaltsikhe is called akhaltskha etc.

    Armenians have claimed territories of other countries as well. Their worthless scientists rummage in historical chronicles and look for Armenia’s nonexistent territories in other countries. They will go any length to do this including, bribing, pretentiously seizing somebody else’s property, appropriating other culture’s architectural monuments and ridiculously distorting historical facts. This point is well outlined in a letter sent to Russian Emperor Nicholas I in 1820s by a Great Russian writer and statesman Alexander Griboedov. In it he states: “Your honor, please do not allow Armenian people to settle on the lands of Central Russia under any circumstances. This is the nation who in a few decades will appropriate the land and announce it as its ancient land to the whole world”.

    It would be great if “Great Creators” of “Great Armenia” came to their senses, listened to real historians and denounced unfounded claims to territories of their neighbors and any attempts of appropriating cultural values. We need to build our future relations on the example of mutual respect that existed between our ancestors.



    After the February 1917 revolution the Russian Orthodox Church broke off canonical relations with the Georgian Orthodox Church. The reason for this discord was the announcement of autocephaly by the Georgian Church without the approval of the Holy Synod of Russia. At that time, the Georgian Church fell under the Russian Church hierarchy. In 1943, when local churches were under the leadership of Patriarch of all Russia and Moscow Sergey and Catholics-Patriarch of all Georgia Kalistrate (Tshintsadze) canonical relationship was restored due to good will of both sides.

    The excerpt includes the decision of Holy Synod, the appeals of the Heads of Russian and Georgian Churches, the speech by Russian envoy Archbishop Anton during the negotiation process and short biographical notes of Georgian Church hierarchies.



    The article interprets the terms of secularization and theocracy. It describes the secular processes in the past and present, its relationship and necessity of communication with theocracy. Particular attention is paid to secularization in the former Soviet Union, later in independent Georgia and its modern assessment in our Country.



    The article describes the relationship between Georgian Church and the state in 1918-1927s. These years are known by historical restlessness: Overthrowing of the Tsar government, Georgia loosing state independence, being forced into the Soviet Union and the Georgian Church restoring its lost autocephaly. This required the formation of a certain strategy by Georgian Church regarding the state.

    The article consists of three parts:

    1. The theory of the relationship between the Church and the state.
    2. The relationship between the Church and the state in 1918-1921st.
    3. The relationship between the Church and the state at the beginning of the Soviet power in 1921-1927s.

    The article presents historical and legal analysis of harmonious relationship between the state and the church and the legal acts published by the authorities during these years regarding the Church.

    The article is relevant for present mutual dependence of Church and state. To know the past and to be able to analyze it is beneficial for both sides in order to establish proper legal form of relationship and as a result have trouble‑free coexistence of church and state.



    The article presents key philosophical points of the ideology of Catholicos-Patriarch of All Georgia, the Archbishop of Mtskheta-Tbilisi and Metropolitan bishop of Abkhazia and Pitsunda, His Holiness and Beatitude Ilia II, their relevance to modern society in general and in particular to social, political and religious life in present Georgia.
    The article presents the thoughts of his Holiness on Ontology, Gnoseology, Philosophical Anthropology, ethics and issues related to such social philosophy as inevitability and chance, knowledge and belief, relationship between science and religion, harmful effects of know-it-all, pros and cons of globalization, moral, etc. Getting to know the Catholicos-Patriarch’s thoughts would help to improve and perfect a person’s spiritual world.



    The letter is dedicated to the 5th century prominent Georgian prince Peter of Iberia religious beliefs. This issue was removed from “Jhamni” (Times) for uncertain reasons at the beginning of 18th century. The letter directs the reader’s attention to the fact that none of the Dyophysite sources mentioned Peter of Iberia as heretical, only the monophysite authors claim his monophysitism. Peter’s orthodoxy is supported by the history of Georgian Church, which recognized him as a saint for centuries (XIII-XVIII). The letter examines every monophysite source and is compared to the Georgian edition of  “Life of Peter,” the author of which is his disciple Zakaria Kartveli. It depicts the life of the son of the king of Iberia in Egypt as an orthodox.

    The letter also presents all the known scientific views towards this issue and a conclusion is drawn that Peter of Iberia was justly recognized as a saint by Georgian Church.



    In the publication of Ilia State University (Christian and Archeological Quest, #2, Tbilisi, 2009) T. Kochlamazashvili, a professor of the same establishment published a work by Gregory of Nyssa “On the Arrangement of the Man"(translation by Giorgi Mtathmindeli) with an introductory letter. Two separate researchers had already evaluated the work. In the introduction, T. Kochlamazashvili reviews Gregory of Nyssa previous, 1970 and 2009 publications. He tries to justify his publication by the undocumented and unfounded criticism of these works. Moreover, he does this by casting blame on G. Rukhadze that the last used the first critical publication without identifying it. Considering the fact that after having analyzed both texts, the first and second publications are completely stand-alone versions.

    The fact is that Nino Shalamberidze evaluated the above-mentioned work as early as 1970 (it was the topic of her thesis). Later, in 2009, without taking reviewing N. Shalamberidze’s work Grigol Rukhadze evaluated the work and published in Georgian Church calendar. The reason for G. Rukhadze’s failure to consider N. Shalamberidze’s thesis was the mere fact that there was not mention of it in any scientific or bibliographical sources. Therefore, G. Rukhadze had no knowledge of it. It is especially worth mentioning that N. Shalamberidze’s work is not mentioned in Tamaz (Ekvtime ) Kochlamazishvili’s extensive list of bibliography of Gregory of Nyssa ‘s works.