¹ Gorgaje, S., ‘Carileba Sak'art'velos istoriidan,’ L'Ancienne Géorgie 1 (1909), 2 (1913).Google Scholar

² See, for this monument, Toumanoff, , Studies in Christian Caucasian History (Washington 1963) 23–24, 417–428. It is cited here in ed. T'aqaišvili, E., in Sbornik Materialov… Kavkaza 41 (1910).Google Scholar

³ Stud. Chr. Cauc. Hist. 24–5. It is cited here in ed. Qauxč'išvili, S., K'art'lis C'xovreba I (Tiflis 1955). Leontius was Bishop of Ruisi or, to give him his Georgian title, Mroveli. It is difficult to take seriously the objection to the above dating of Leontius — a dating based on internal evidence — on the mere ground that an inscription of a Bishop Leontius of Ruisi of 1066 has recently been discovered: thus e.g. Lang, D. M., The Georgians (New York/Washington 1966) 158, and in Speculum 12 (1967) 195–6. For the inscription in question and a reply to such an objection see Tarchnišvili, M., ‘La découverte d'une inscription géorgienne de l'an 1066,’ Bedi Karthlisa 26–27 (1957) 86–89. Actually, of course, the eleventh-century Bishop Leontius has long been known to us from manuscript evidence: Tarchnišvili, , op. cit. 87; Geschichte der kirchlichen georgischen Literatur (Studi e Testi 185; Vatican City 1955) 92 n. 2. It is, surely, simplistic to see anything unusual in the commonly recurrent fact of the homonymy of several bishops occupying at different times the same See. It was, precisely, the existence of an eleventh-century Leontius of Ruisi that influenced the old view that the historian Leontius belonged to that century, a view which I myself at first shared: cf. ‘Medieval Georgian Historical Literature (viith–xvth Centuries),’ Traditio 1 (1943) 166. Thus, the discovery of the inscription of 1066 can add nothing new in support of this old view.Google Scholar

⁴ Thus, e.g., Leontius' express statement that King Aderk reigned for 57 years — and this is one of the few such statements in his work — is neglected by Gorgaje, who gives his regnal years as A.D. 1–30: cf. Gugushvili, A., ‘The Chronological-Genealogical Table of the Kings of Georgia,’ Georgica 1.2–3 (1936) 112. For Pharamasnes I/Aderk, see infra No. 10.Google Scholar

⁵ Ingoroqva, P., ‘Jvel-k'art'uli matiane “Mok'c'eva K'art'lisa” da antikuri xanis Iberiis mep'et'a sia,’ Bulletin du Musée de Géorgie 11 B (1941) 259–320.Google Scholar

⁶ Such as the late Professor I. Javaxišvili, see Stud. Chr. Cauc. Hist. 418 and n. 4.Google Scholar

⁷ Leontius (hereinafter L) 43–54.Google Scholar

⁸ Roy. List (hereinafter RL) I 49–50.Google Scholar

⁹ L 45–49. Sumbat Bivritiani of the Iberian tradition is the Bagratid Smbat son of Biwrat, of the Armenian (Ps. Moses of Chorene 2.37–53). See, for him and the above-mentioned projection of older facts, Stud. Chr. Cauc. Hist. 316.Google Scholar

¹⁰ L 50–54. For the projection see infra No. 11.Google Scholar

¹¹ Though a populous settlement already at the end of the third millennium B.C., Mc'xet'a was the younger capital of Iberia, a sucessor of Armazi: cf. Stud. Chr. Cauc. Hist. 89 n. 121.Google Scholar

¹² Armazi or K'art'li-Armazi was the original capital of Iberia and remained, after the rise of Mc'xet'a, the holy city of Iberian paganism and one of the defences of Mec'xet'a: ibid. 88 n. 120, 89 n. 121.Google Scholar

¹³ Javaxišvili, I., Kart'veli eris istoria I (3rd ed. Tiflis) 216; but not in 4th ed. (Tiflis 1951) 235–6; Melikset-Bekov, L., ‘Armazni: Istoriko-arxeologičeskij očerk,’ Masalebi Sak'art'velos da Kavkasiis istoriidan (Tiflis 1938) 28–32; cf. Stud. Chr. Cauc. Hist. 264.Google Scholar

¹⁴ L 45, 46, 47, 50, 100 (in some MSS: Armazael, Amazer, Amza[h]er); RL I 50 (Amazaer).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Cf. Stud. Chr. Cauc. Hist. 373.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Cf. infra, Sauromaces II (No. 23).Google Scholar

¹⁷ For the institution of the Vitaxae: Stud. Chr. Canc. Hist. 154–63; for those of Gogarene (the Iberian March) 185–92.Google Scholar

¹⁸ For the territorial analysis of the Vitaxate of Gogarene: ibid. 467–75, 499; for the necropolis of Armazi: Ap'akije, A. et al., Mcxeta. Itogi arxeologičeskix issledovanij I: Arxeologičeskie pamjatniki Armazis-xevi po raskopkam 1937–1946 gg. (Tiflis 1958).Google Scholar

¹⁹ Ingoroqva, moreover, would divide the Vitaxae of Gogarene into two branches: of Armazi and of Artanuǰi (in Cholarzene), and make the Bagratids descend from them: cf. also his Giorgi Merc'ule, k'art'veli mcerali meat'e saukunisa (Tiflis 1954) 72, 76–80, 442–3, 445–7. See for all this Stud. Chr. Cauc. Hist. 264–6, 334–6.Google Scholar

²⁰ Thus, e.g., the Vitaxa Bersumas (see Stud. Chr. Cauc. Hist. 260), whose name is an obvious derivation from the Aramaic name Bar Şauma (cf. Ceret'eli, G., ‘Ěpigrafičeskie naxodki v Mcxeta, dervnej stolicy Gruzii,’ Vestnik drevnej istorii 1948 2.50), is identified with the ‘King of Mc'xet'a’ named Bartam by L 43–4, and Bratman by RL I 49. According to Ingoroqva, this king's name ought to be Berc'um/Barc'om/Barac'man. In this connection, he proceeds to interpret the two mysterious signs on the silver dish of the Vitaxae Bersumas (from Grave 3, No. 69: Stud. Chr. Cauc. Hist. 260) as an early form of the Georgian ecclesiastical majuscules B + P and K'. And these letters mean, accordingly, either ‘Berc'um, Vitaxa of Iberia’ (B[erc'um] P[atiaxši] K'[art'lisa]) or else ‘Berc'um Vitaxa, (son of) K'arjam’ (…[je]K'[arjmisi]) (Jvel k'art’. matiane Nos. 14 and 14a; in Bulletin de l'Institut Marr 10 [1941] 411–7; cf. Ap'akije, , Mcxeta 61–2: it is not certain that these signs are Georgian letters). Now, the latter name, K'arram of RL I 49 (rectius K'arjam: Marr, N. and Brière, M., La Langue géorgienne [Paris 1931] 570) and K'art'am of L 43–4, designates another of the diarchs, whom Ingoroqva makes the father of Berc'um of M'cxet'a. Yet L is definite in stating that K'art'am was a younger brother of Bartam, while RL without specifying their kinship, and reversing the order in which they are named, shows them to have been contemporaries and co-rulers. These two kings were, according to the History of the Diarchy, suceeded by another pair, P'arsman and Kaos: L 44; RL I 50 (= Marr-Brière 571: Kaoz). The latter is identified by Ingoroqva with the Vitaxa Publicius Agrippa (Stud. Chr. Cauc. Hist 260): Jvel. k'art’. matiane No 15a. The reason for this identification seems to be found in the last four letters of the first of the Vitaxa's two names. In addition to the improbability of these far-fetched identifications, there is the fact, which Ingoroqva appears to have overlooked or ignored, that Bartam and Kaos, whom he would make ‘Vitaxae of Armazi’ or Armazic co-kings, were according to both L and RL Kings of Mc'xet'a, while K'art'am and P'arsman, whom he would make diarchs of Mc'xet'a, were according to these sources actually Kings of Armazi. Finally, RL I 50 has for a later pair quite improbably two P'arsmans, one at each capital, at the same time; and Ingoroqva accepts this: Nos. 18 and 18a.Google Scholar

²¹ Echoing this nationalistic parochialism, D. M. Lang (in Speculum 12.195) reproaches the Stud. Chr. Cauc. Hist. (1) with placing ‘virtually all of ancient Iberia’ in the Vitaxate of Gogarene, and (2) with not considering ‘for some reason never properly explained’ the Vitaxae of Gogarene, when Iberian vassals, as distinct from the Vitaxae of Gogarene, when vassals of Armenia — which, in his words, ‘makes as much sense as identifying the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court with the Governor of Rhode Island.’ This, I submit, is rather unwarrantable: (1) it is the Georgian sources themselves that attest to the inclusion of Iberian lands in the Vitaxate; (2) although the Vitaxae of the first and second centuries are known only from archaeological evidence (chiefly in connection with the discoveries at Armazi), and not from either Georgian or Armenian historical writings (Stud. Chr. Cauc. Hist. 260–1), their successors, the Vitaxae from the fourth to the seventh century, are well known from both Georgian and Armenian works (ibid. 262–4); and while to the latter they are the Iberian margraves, they are the Armenian margraves to the former (infra n. 140). To split these marcher-princes — whose territorial aspect is carefully analyzed in the book in question — into two different groups, one Iberian, the other Armenian, would make ‘as much sense’ as to consider, say, the Ducs de Lorraine as entirely distinct from the Herzöge von Lothringen. — For parochialism see also Stud. Chr. Cauc. Hist. 184 n. 163.Google Scholar

²² In the Adiši Gospels: T'aqaišvili (Taqaishvili), ‘Georgian Chronology and the Beginnings of Bagratid Rule in Georgia,’ Georgica 1.1 (1935) 26; Toumanoff, , ‘Chronology of the Kings of Abasgia and Other Problems,’ Le Muséon 69 (1956) 83–84.Google Scholar

²³ At earlier times and then parallel with the Georgian Era, other systems of computing time were used in Iberia and United Georgia: T'aqaišvili, op. cit. 9.Google Scholar

²⁴ Ibid. 9, 11.Google Scholar

²⁵ The earliest known use in original documents of the dating with a k'oronikon occurs in 853: Toumanoff, , Chronology 84 n. 10; T'aqaišvili, , op. cit. 26.Google Scholar

²⁶ Grumel, V., La Chronologie (Traité d'études byzantines [Bibliothèque byzantine] 1; Paris 1958) 52–3.Google Scholar

²⁷ T'aqaišvili, , Georg. Chron. 11.Google Scholar

²⁸ Ibid. 16–25.Google Scholar

²⁹ Stud. Chr. Cauc. Hist. 353.Google Scholar

³⁰ Jvel. k'art'. matiane 259ff.Google Scholar

³¹ See infra n. 32. This disposes of T'aqaišvili's argument against this origin of the Georgian Era (as already suggested by Brosset) to the effect that in 248 the Georgians were not yet Christians and so could not adopt a system of chronology based on the date of the Creation and the paschal cycle: Georg. Chron. 13.Google Scholar

³² Grumel, , Chronologie 146–53 and, for the Armenian Era, 140–5.Google Scholar

³³ For convenience' sake, Brosset, M. F., Histoire de la Géorgie, depuis l'antiquité jusqu'au XIX ^e siècle, traduite du géorgien I (St. Petersburg 1849) may be consulted. For The Georgian Annals (K'art'lis C'xovreba), the official corpus historicum, containing, inter alia, Leontius and Juanšer (infra n. 35), see Med. Georg. Hist. Lit. 161–81; Stud. Chr. Cauc. Hist. 20–23.Google Scholar

³⁴ Gugushvili, A., ‘The Chronological-Genealogical Table of the Kings of Georgia,’ Georgia 1.2–3 (1936) 109–53.Google Scholar

³⁵ Juanšeriani, Juanšer, History of King Vaxtang Gorgasal (hereinafter J), for which see Stud. Chr. Cauc. Hist. 24–5.Google Scholar

³⁶ The Georgian name of the dynasty is P'arnavaziani, which the Armenian historical tradition has preserved as P'aὛrawazean (Faustus 5.15) and P'aὛrawazean (Primary History of Armenia 14; cf. infra n. 39). For Faustus (fifth century) and the Prim. Hist Arm. (proably the early fifth century), see Stud. Chr. Cauc. Hist. 16, 18.Google Scholar

³⁷ The Royal List (I49) makes Pharnabazus the son of an earlier King of Iberia named Azo. This is a deformation of the data of Leontius concerning Azon, who according to him (18–25) was the ruler of Iberia for Alexander, defeated by Pharnabazus who thereupon became King. Both RL and the Primary History of Iberia (which serves as an introduction to the Conversion of Iberia: Stud. Chr. Cauc. Hist. 23; Med. Georg. Hist. Lit. 150), speak of Azo as ‘first King of Iberia’ and son of the ‘King of Arian-K'art'li,’ brought to Iberia by Alexander. For the confusion which produced, and was produced by, this story, see Stud. Chr. Cauc. Hist. 89 n. 124.Google Scholar

³⁸ Apud Eusebius (Sebeos), History of Heraclius , ed. Tiflis, (1913) 9; cf. Stud. Chr. Cauc. Hist 80 n. 101, 306 n. 4.Google Scholar

³⁹ For the K'art'losids, the theophanic dynasts of pagan Iberia, claiming descent from the eponymous divine primogenitor of the nation, K'art'los, see ibid. 87–8 and n. 120, 91, 92 n. 131; for the title of mamasaxlisi (Dynast) of pre-royal Iberia: 88, 91 n. 128, 115 n. 185.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Ibid. 81–2 n. 104. It is difficult to think that Alexander, who never conquered Armenia in 331 (Tarn, W. W., ‘Alexander: Conquest of the Far East,’ The Cambridge Ancient History VI [1964] 383), should have then bothered with sending an expedition to Iberia. The expedition in connection with a search for gold mines, on the other hand, fits well with the projects with which Alexander occupied himself on his return from the East and shorty before his death in 323: it may be connected with his interest in the Caspian (Hyrcanian) Sea, and its possible junction with the Euxine, as part of his exploration of the waterways surrounding his empire: cf. Tarn 421.Google Scholar

⁴¹ As when the name Chosroes (Xuasro) was used in the Georgian historical sources to designate any Sassanid monarch: Stud. Chr. Cauc. Hist. 366 n. 35; cf., for the similar Persian and Arabic usage, Justi, F., Iranisches Namenbuch (Marburg 1895) 138. Cf. also occasional Byzantine reference to the Caliph as ‘Chosroes’ (Cedrenus [Bonn] II 433; Psellus, , Chronographia 1.10, 11).Google Scholar

⁴² Stud. Chr. Cauc. Hist. 289–90.Google Scholar

⁴³ Ibid. 449, 81 n. 104.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Φaϱváβaζoς was the classical equivalent of the Iranoid name, which in Georgian became P'arnavaz, and which was derived from the OP. farnah, Avest. x ^w arenanh (‘light,’ [royal] ‘glory’): Justi, , Namenbuch 92,493. The second King of Iberia of that name (q.v.) is so called by Cassius Dio.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Sauromaces/Saurmag is derived from the Iranoid Sauro-m(ates) + the diminutive suffix -aka : Justi, , op. cit. 292–3, 318, 522. The second King of that name (q.v.) is called Sauromaces by Ammianus Marcellinus. — L 27 calls this King's wife an Iranian and daughter of the ruler (erist'av = ‘duke’) of Bardavi, the capital of Albania. This may be an anachronistic reference to the later (from the first century on) Arsacids of Albania.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ In Georgian Nebrot'iani, which means ‘race of Nimrod’ and was applied to the Iranians. Since the dynasty of Meribanes I was thus given a name which meant little more than ‘Iranian Dynasty,’ we may well call it ‘Second Pharnabazid’: Stud. Chr. Cauc. Hist. 81 n. 103; cf. infra n. 56.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Ibid. 317, cf. 81 n. 103. — This King's name Mirvan was derived from Pehl. Miθrāpān (Justi, , Namenbuch 208 [erroneously: Mitnāpān]), hence, in Latin, Meribanes. Yet in Iberia it became interchangeable with Mirian, derived from Pehl. Mihrān = O. P. ^*Miθrāna (Justi 214–6); thus Meribanes III (q.v.), so called by Ammianus Marcellinus, was called Mirian in Georgian. — It is possible, however, that the Mihrāns were not one of the Seven Great Houses of Iran before the Sassanid epoch: Hening, W., in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 14 (1954) 510.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ For the confusion in Iberian, as in Armenian, historical literature between the Artaxiads and the Arsacids, and the consequent substitution of the name Arsaces (Aršak) for Artaxias (Artašēs), see Stud. Chr. Cauc. Hist. 76 n. 85, 81 n. 103, 111. For the name Artaxias, see ibid. 285 and n. 27.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ For Artaxias I and Artavasdes I, see Manandian, H., Tigrane II et Rome (trans. Thorossian, H., Lisbon 1963) 15–22. Manandian seems to consider the defeat of Antiochus III at Magnesia in 190 rather than the Peace of Apamea of 188 (which officially recognized Artaxias as King) as the beginning of his reign.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ The Iberian mention of Artavasdes I's son Artaxias, who became King of Iberia, may be an important addition to Artaxiad genealogy.Google Scholar

⁵¹ There is no Classical variant of his name, since he is not mentioned in any Graeco-Roman sources. It must, like Pharnabazus, be derived from farnah. Cf. Justi, , Namenbuch, 92, 495.Google Scholar

⁵² In Georgian Aršakuni: supra n. 48.Google Scholar

⁵³ Appian, , Bell. mithr. 103 has the corrupt form Ὂτωχoς. Cf. Justi, , Namenbuch, 40, 485.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Supra n. 48.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ It is difficult to see any connection between this King's two names, but this kind of polyonymy is not uncommon in Iberian history.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Though Pharnabazids in the female line only, this dynasty was called P'arnavaziani: Stud. Chr. Cauc. Hist. 81 n. 103.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Ap'akije, , Mcxeta 69–72, 72–3, PL lx, lxi, lix. — Justi, , Namenbuch 91, gives no etymology of this King's name; but see ^† Markwart, J., ‘La province de Parskahayk’,’ Revue des études arméniennes, N.S. 3 (1966) 299–300.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Obviously the birth of Our Lord — as of the year 1 — could be made a synchronism for this reign only after the Christianizing of Iberia. — The reference to the Iberians as vassals, together with the Armenians, of Iran is erroneous here in view of the pro-Roman policy of Pharasmanes I and his successors, Mithridates I and Pharasmanes III (q. v.). The mention of the two peoples in one breath is something like a consecrated formula in early Georgian historical writings, symbolizing the essential unity of the Caucasian oikumene. Google Scholar

⁵⁹ It is essentially the same name as Bartom; for this reason the latter spelling is retained in the case of this diarch in Stud. Chr. Cauc. Hist. 265.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Cf. Grousset, R., Histoire de l'Arménie des origines à 1071 (Paris 1947) 109. For Sumbat Bivritiani, see supra n. 9.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Dittenberger, W., ed., Orientis graeci inscriptiones selectae I (Leipzig 1903) 586–8 No. 379. For the corrected reading, see Amiranašvili, A., ‘O grečeskoj nadpisi is okrestnostej Mcxeta,’ Izvestija Gosudarstvennoj Akademii Istorii Material'noj Kul'tury 5 (1927) 409–411.Google Scholar

⁶² Ap'akije, , Mcxeta 72–3, PL. lxi, lix. — Michridates, like ιθϱδáτηϱ, renders Mihrdat derived from ^*Miθradāta, for which see Justi, , Namenbuch 209–13.Google Scholar

⁶³ Although the original Iranoid form of this name is Hamazasp (Justi, , Namenbuch 124–125, cf. 486), and the later Hellenized form of it is ‘Aμaζáσπης, the Georgian form of the name, so far met with, is Amazasp. The Rome inscription (infra n. 64) has ’Aμáζaσπoς In the Mc'xet'a inscription it is written IAMA∑πΩ; the Kaabah of Zoroaster inscription of Sapor I has AMAZACΠOY: cf. infra n. 76.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ This inscription has been published many times, e.g., Anthologia Palatina, ed. Cougny 3 (Paris 1890) 132; also Fragmenta choliambica in Loeb Classical Library, The Characters of Theophrastus , ed. Edmonds, J., 278. — The death of Amazaspus occurred at the very beginning of Trajan's campaign, for which see, e.g., Debevoise, N., A Political History of Parthia (Chicago 1938) 218–9; for the death of Amazaspus, 222.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Stud. Chr. Cauc. Hist. 101 should be corrected accordingly.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Supra n. 62.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Ap'akije, , Mcxeta 60–63, PI. iv(1).Google Scholar

⁶⁸ There have been purely Iranoid names Δáδoς and Dāda, related to the modern Persian for ‘grandfather’: Justi, , Namenbuch 76, 75. But this can hardly be expected here. We may, therefore, rather suppose Δáδης to be a Hellenized form of the Semitic dād (‘friend’). ‘Friend of Flavius’ expresses the same thing as the two Greek epithets of Mithridates I, as found in the Inscription of 75: ‘Friend of Caesar’ and ‘Friend of the Romans.’ That a Semitic vocable should have been used, is but natural in a society which, like that of pre-Christian Iberia and pre-Christian Armenia, used Aramaic as one of its written languages. Cf. also infra n. 70.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Ap'akije, , Mcxeta 69–72, Pl. lix, lx. This bilingual, Graeco-Aramaic (‘Armazic’) inscription commemorates Serapetis, daughter of the co-Vitaxa Zeuaches, and wife of Iodmanganes, Master of the Court (έπίτϱoπoς) of King Xepharnuges of Iberia. The inscriptions also mention that Zeuaches and Iodmanganes's father Publicius Agrippa were contemporaries of Pharasmanes I. At the same time the ‘Armazic’ inscription on another stele from the same Grave 4 mentions Šaragas, son of Zeuaches, as a contemporary of Mithridates I: ibid. 72–72, Pl. lxi, lix. Cf. Stud. Chr. Cauc. Hist. 260 (where through a typographical error a line, ‘of King Xepharnuges,’ has unfortunately been omitted under the name of ‘Iodmanganes, Master of the Court’).Google Scholar

⁷⁰ This name appears to be a compound of Old Persian xšaya and ^* farnuka/farnuxa (<farnah), found respectively in ξβς and Φaϱvoῡχoς: Justi, , Namenbuch 173–4, 94–5; Ap'akije, , Mcxeta 72. Else, the second part of it may have reached Iberia via the Semitic pharnug = Kēwān-Saturn: Justi 94. For the possibility of Semitic vocables in the Caucasian names of pre-Christian times, see supra n. 68.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Or, possibly, of a Prince of Greater Sophene, cf. Stud. Chr. Cauc. Hist. 304.Google Scholar

^71a The invasion of the Alani in 136 (Debevoise, , Parthia 242–3) is said by Cassius Dio 69.15 to have been provoked by Pharasmanes. This need not necessarily imply that that king must have been still alive when it actually took place. Moreover, the confusion between a celebrated monarch and his immediate successor or his eventual successor and namesake is something that can easily be expected in foreign sources; cf. supra Mithridates I (No. 11), infra Pharasmanes III (No. 15).Google Scholar

⁷² The classical form of his name is found in Tacitus (supra Mithridates I); the local form may have been Ĝadam, rather than Adam: Stud. Chr. Cauc. Hist. 304. Cf. Justi, , Namenbuch 257, 107, 494.Google Scholar

⁷³ ‘Pharasmanes rex ad eum Romam venit plusque illi quam Hadriano detulit.’ — For modern historiography. see e.g. Gugushvili, , Chron.-Geneal Table 146; and my Stud. Chr. Cauc. Hist. 448 n. 40 (to be corrected accordingly).Google Scholar

⁷⁴ In Georgian, Aršakuniani: cf. e.g. L 63.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ His sobriquet is mart'ali in Georgian: an obvious translation of δίaιoς, one of the epithets most frequently used in the intitulatio of the Arsacid Great Kings, cf. Head, B. V., Historia nummorum (Oxford 1911) 819–22. No classical variants of his name are known. Rev seems to be an abbreviation of the Iranoid Rēwnīz. Cf. Justi, , Namenbuch 260, 342–3. Rev's wife is said to have come from ‘the Empire’ (saberjnet'it'); for this Georgian word as used in the sense of ‘the Roman Empire’ see Toumanoff, , ‘Christian Caucasia between Byzantium and Iran: New Light from Old Sources,’ Traditio 10 (1954) 161 n. 222.Google Scholar

^75a A fourth-fifth century Iberian dynast Bakur is called Bacurius/Baχ(χ)ovϱoς in the contemporary Roman and Greek sources: cf. infra at nn. 132–145. This was a purely Georgian way of Hellenizing the Iranoid name, which in the case of Iranians and Armenians was Hellenized as Pacorus/Πáχoϱoς: Justi, , Namenbuch 238–40.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ For the Sassanian inscriptions on the Kaabah of Zoroaster, i.e., the trilingual (Pahlavi, Middle Persian, and Greek) inscription of Sapor I and the Middle Persian inscription of the Priest Kartīr, see Sprengling, M., Third Century Iran: Sapor and Kartir (Chicago: The Oriental Institute, University of Chicago 1953). The historical context briefly alluded to above is brilliantly dealt with ibid. 2–6, 77–111 (one may, however, question the propriety of referring to the Zoroastrian ritual sacrifices as ‘high masses’); cf. also Trever, K., Očerki po istorii i kul'ture Kavkazskoj Albanii (Moscow/Leningrad 1959) 131–136. It is from Kartīr's inscription (Sprengling, transl. p. 52, line 12) that it is made clear that the Iranian inroads into Iberia and other lands, and the implanting of Zoroastrianism in them, occurred after the defeat of Valerian. For the weakening of the aging Sapor I's imperial policies, see ibid. 109. The pro-Iranian King of Iberia is called in Sapor's inscription xmzasp vyršn MLK' in Pahlavi (9, line 25), amčspy vl=rvčan MLK' in Middle Persian (12, lines 30–31), and in Greek AMAZACΠOY TOY BACIΛEΩC THC IBHPIAC (76, line 60 and Plate 12, line 60). — The survival of collaterals of the III Pharnabazid Dynasty after the accession of the Arsacids to the Iberian throne seems confirmed by the story of St. Nino's miraculous cure of an ‘Amazaspian prince’ (sep'ecul Amzaspan): L 115.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ The second king of this name (No. 24) is called Aspacuras by Ammianus Marcellinus. Cf. Justi, , Namenbuch 46.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ For this Epos, see Abelyan, M., Istorija drevneramjanskoj literatury I (Erevan 1948) 156–62.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Cf. also the version of Ps. Moses, 2.71, 73, 74, 78, 82, which is different from the version version of both Agathangelus and L. The latter is obviously based on Agathangelus, even occasionally using the same expressions, but briefer. It is curious that the name it gives to Chosroes II, ‘Kosaro,’ is closer to what the Greek Agathangelus calls that King (Kovσáϱωv), rather than to the form found in the Armenian Agathangelus (Xosrov). — For the versions of Agathangelus, and the Gregorian Cycle in general, see Stud. Chr. Cauc. Hist. 16; for Ps. Moses of Chorene, ibid. 18, 330–334.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Ananian, P., ‘La date e le circostanze della consecrazione di S. Gregorio Illuminatore,’ Le Muséon 74 (1961) 43–73.) —The reference of L 59 of the Iberian participation in the war on Iran may well be part of the borrowing from Agath. I. 19–23, which makes mention of Iberian and Albanian aid to King Chosroes, rather than an independent memory preserved by the Iberian historical tradition. The Great King whom the Agath. calls, anachronistically, ‘Artašīr,’ Leontius denominates ‘K'asre’ ‘who is known as Ardabir [rectius Ardašir]’ (59); cf. supra, n. 41.Google Scholar

⁸¹ In Georgian, Xosro(i)ani or Xosro(v)ani: Stud. Chr. Cauc. Hist. 83 n. 105. The implied meaning was ‘Sassanid’; cf. supra, n. 41.Google Scholar

⁸² Ed T'aqaišvili (supra n. 2).Google Scholar

⁸³ Ninth-century addition to the Conversion of Iberia: Stud. Chr. Cauc. Hist. 23.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Named by the dynastic name of Chosroes (K'asre) but also Artašīr: cf. supra, Pharnabazus I (No. 1) and nn. 41, 80.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ stud. Chr. Cauc. Hist. 83 and n. 105; 187–90, 253, 473, 478–81.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ See supra n. 47.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Including the detail of the combat of Tiridates and a Gothic king.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ See Stud. Chr. Cauc. Hist. 149–50.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Ibid. 374–7.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ This is the kind of chronological notices that must lie at the basis of the traditional chronology of the Iberian kings. The difficulty in Stud. Chr. Cauc. Hist. 377 n. 99 is thus at last solved.Google Scholar

⁹¹ After Queen Abešura's death, ‘the kingship and queenship of the Pharnabazid kings came to an end in Iberia’ (dadesrula k'art'ls šina mep'oba da dedop'loba p'arnavaziant'a mep'et'a): L 66. A little later, mention is made of King Meribanes, his second Queen, and their children: L 116, 119. The second wife of Meribanes was ‘from the Empire, from Pontus, daughter of Oliǧotos/Uhlatos/Uliotor, Nana by name’ (saberjnet'it', pontoit', asuli oliǧotosisi/uhlatosisi/uliotorisi, saxelit’ nana): L 66. That the Queen's father was a neighbouring dynast or a high Roman official (for saber jnet'i in the sense of ‘the Empire’ see supra n. 75), seems safe to assume. ‘Pontus’ may refer here to the Kingdom of Bosporus, a remnant of the Ponto-Bosporan Monarchy and a vassal-state of Rome, still existing in the first half of the fourth century. One is tempted, moreover, to see in the name of Nana's father — which, as found in the MSS in the above three variants, is an obvious corruption — a rendering of ‘Olympius’ or ‘Olympus’ (cf. ulpia/ulumpia, a Georgian rendering of the name Olympias: Toumanoff, , ‘The Fifteenth-Century Bagratids and the Institution of Collegial Sovereignty in Georgia,’ Traditio 7 [1949–1951] 175); and to connect it with the Bosporan (dynast of official?) Olympus, whose son Aurelius Velerius Sogus Olympianus was, first, in the Roman service and, then, Bosporan viceroy of Theodosia. The latter is known from a Greek inscription of A.D. 306 dedicated to ‘the Most High God’ on the occasion of the building of the Jewish ‘prayer house’ (πϱoσεvχή, i.e., synagogue) at Panticapaeum : Latyschev, B., Inscriptiones antiquae orae septentrionalis Ponti Euxini graecae et latinae, further ed. by idem and Shkorpil, V., in Iszvestija Arxeologičeskoj Komissii 10.26–9; cf. Gajdukevič, V., Bosporskoe Carstvo (Moscow/Leningrad 1949) 457–8. Under the influence of the Jewish settlers (from the first half of the first century; ibid. 347, 377) and, subsequently, of Christianity (from the first half of the fourth century: ibid. 465), there developed in the Kingdom of Bosporus, in the second-third century, a syncretistic monotheism, professed by religious societies (θίaσoι) worshipping ‘the Most High God’ (θεòς ῡιστoς), as invoked by Aurelius Valerius Sogus Olympianus (ibid. 363–4, 433–5, 465–6). If true, the above conjectural identification of Queen Nana's father with Olympus might throw new light on the religious influences at work in connection with the Conversion of Iberia.Google Scholar

⁹² The date is determined by the context of Ammianus. Shortly before (21.6.4) the third marriage of Constantius II is mentioned, which took place in the Winter of 360 (Stein, E., Histoire du Bas-Empire I [tr. Palanque, J. R., Paris 1959] 157); and, immediately after (21.6.9), the accession of Helpidius to the post of Praetorian Prefect of the East, which took place on 4 February 360 (Grumel, , Chronologie 367).Google Scholar

⁹³ RL L 50 concludes, after Aspacures I, with ‘Lev, father of Mirian,’ which is quite spurious. With the facility of the r-l mutation in Georgian, one may wonder whether this imaginary kingship of Lev were not a memory of the co-kingship of Meribanes III's son Rev II.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ RL II 60 makes Rev die in the reign of Aspacures II/Bakur (No. 26), and also makes the former the father of the latter. Cf. infra, Sauromaces II.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ For this date: Stein, , Histoire du Bas-Empire I 187.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Cf. Stud. Chr. Cauc. Hist. 460–2. It was this historical Diarchy that was projected by the Iberian historical tradition back to the first century; cf. supra: Mithridates I, Amazaspus I, Pharasmanes II (Nos. 11, 12, 13).Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Called Ultra by Ammianus, which name, as Fr. Peeters has shown, stands for Peranius, an Iranoid name (Pīrān used in Caucasia; the historian mistook it for the Greek πέav : Peeters, P., ‘Les débuts du christianisme en Géorgie d'après les sources hagiographiques,’ Analecta Bollandiana 50 (1932) 39 n. 3; cf. Justi, , Namenbuch 246, 252.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ L 123 reports a miraculous cure, in 337, of Rev's then sole child. His other son (or sons) must have been born later.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Here, as in the case of this king's grandfather, RL gives, for a change, a more correct form of the royal name than L.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ No such need existed in connection with Sauromaces II's second reign, in 370–378, because it occurred simultaneously with that of Mithridates III.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ For the error of RL, see supra n. 94.Google Scholar

¹⁰² Stud. Chr. Cauc. Hist. 151–2 and n. 6.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ In Georgian urcmuno, which in the fifth-sixth centuries implied also a pro-Iranian political orientation: ibid. 461.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Ibid. 262, 473–5.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ RL makes Tiridates a brother of Aspacures II/Bakur and predecessor of Aspacures III/Varaz-Bakur. Tιϱáτης = Iranoid Tīrdāt, Arm. Trdat (Justi, , Namenbuch 326–7); it is odd that the Georgian (very rare) name should begin with an aspirate t'. Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ L calls him ‘old man’; if born after 337 (supra n. 98), he was no more than 58.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ RL calls him ‘sister's son’ of Tiridates and makes him succeed a spurious King Bakur son of Tiridates (60).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ For this source, written in 443–451, see Stud. Chr. Cauc. Hist. 17.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ No Classical equivalent of the name Arch'il is known, though it is derived ultimately from Artaxšaθrā/Artaxerxes: Justi, , Namenbuch 35.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ For the House of Gardman, see Stud. Chr. Cauc. Hist. 475–481. For the epigraphic evidence for Queen Sagduxt, ibid. 480 n. 186.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ For the fifth-century Lazarus, see ibid. 17.Google Scholar

¹¹² The opening part of J, dealing with Vaxtang I and his three predecessors, appears to belong to an anonymous chronicler from Uǰarma being merely incorporated in J: ibid. 258.Google Scholar

¹¹³ Ibid. 362–70.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Ibid. Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ Γovϱγέvης is derived from the King's sobriquet of Gorgasal (‘Wolf's head’): Stud. Chr. Cauc. Hist. 368–9 and n. 48. The name Vaxtang has no Classical equivalent. This King was its first bearer, for it was for him that a combination of three Pehl. words Vārān-Xusraw-thang (for which see Justi, , Namenbuch 343–4, 514, 139, 346) was contracted as one name: J 143, 158.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ Stud. Chr. Cauc. Hist. 373–8.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ This name has no known Classical equivalent. Cf. Justi, , Namenbuch 80.Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ Stud. Chr. Cauc. Hist. 378–82.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ For this war: Stein, , Hist. du Bas-Empire II (Paris/Brussels/Amsterdam 1949) 267–73, 287–93; Bury, J. B., History of the Later Roman Empire II (London 1923) 79–89; cf. Stud. Chr. Cauc. Hist. 371.Google Scholar

¹²⁰ Ibid. 364–8, cf. 368–70.Google Scholar

¹²¹ This retrocession is nowhere specifically mentioned: Procopius, Bell. pers. 1.22. Yet the clause (1.22.16) allowing the Iberian refugees in the Empire to return to their homeland, signifies that Iberia was now in the Iranian sphere; cf. Stein, , Hist. du Bas-Empire II 294.Google Scholar

¹²² Stud. Chr. Cauc. Hist. 371.Google Scholar

¹²³ Ibid. Google Scholar

¹²⁴ The source is the Martyrdom of St. Eustace of Mc'xet'a; cf. ibid. Google Scholar

¹²⁵ Procopius, , Bell. pers. 2.28.20–21.Google Scholar

¹²⁶ Cf. Med. Georg. Hist. Lit. 179–80; Stud. Chr. Cauc. Hist. 20–23.Google Scholar

¹²⁷ Stein, , Hist. du Bas-Empire II 294; Vasiliev, A., Justin the First (Cambridge 1950) 271; Javaxišvili, , K'art'v. eris istoria I 246–7; Allen, W. E. D., A History of the Georgian People (London 1932) 376–7; Gugushvili, , Chron.-Geneal. Table 115 — all connect the abolition with the peace of 532, although there is absolutely nothing in what Procopius has to say about that peace to justify this assumption. Dr. Lang (in Speculum 12.195) invokes ‘the best Soviet Georgian authorities’ for the abolition of the Iberian Monarchy between 523 and 531 and thinks that the evidence of the Martyrdom of St. Eustace militates against ‘the vague tradition’ of J. Actually, of course, there is no conflict between the two Georgian sources, as is clear from my remarks in the text above and from what has already been said in Stud. Chr. Cauc. Hist. and the narrative of J is at this point anything but vague; in these circumstances Dr. Lang's ‘argument from authority’ appears to be somewhat less than compelling.Google Scholar

¹²⁸ Stud. Chr. Cauc. Hist. 369 n. 47.Google Scholar

¹²⁹ Ibid. 372–3.Google Scholar

¹³⁰ Ibid. 371, 373.Google Scholar

¹³¹ Or 579/581, to be exact: ibid. 380–82.Google Scholar

¹³² Hist eccl. 10.11.Google Scholar

¹³³ Apud Gelasius of Cyzicus, Hist. eccl. ed. Loeschke, G. and Heinemann, M. (Leipzig 1918) 154. He is also mentioned by Socrates, , Hist. eccl. 1.20; 5.25, and Zosimus 4.57–58.Google Scholar

¹³⁴ Koriun 13.1–2; cf. Ps. Moses 3.54.Google Scholar

¹³⁵ Peeters, , Les débuts du christianisme 33–8. He also shows, 34, 35–6, that this Bacurius was a different person from Bacurius Hiberus quidam of Ammianus Marcellinus 31.12.16, and from another Bacurius, a correspondent of Libanius.Google Scholar

¹³⁶ Koriun 15.1–2; cf. Ps. Moses 3.60.Google Scholar

¹³⁷ For the Bishops of Iberia before they became Katholikoi, under Vakhtang I, see Tarchnišvili, , ‘Die Entstehung und Entwicklung der kirchlichen Autokephalie Georgiens’ (reprinted from Kyrios 5; 1940–1941) Le Muséon 73 (1960) 111–2.Google Scholar

¹³⁸ Cf. Toumanoff, , Christian Caucasia 177; and for the ‘dynasticization’ of the Church in Caucasia, see ibid. 129 n. 68; Stud. Chr. Cauc. Hist 138–9.Google Scholar

¹³⁹ For this break, see Christ. Caucasia 174–84.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁰ Stud. Chr. Cauc. Hist. 474–475; the Vitaxae themselves were variously styled: ‘V. of Gogarene,’ ‘V. of Iberia,’ and ‘Prince of Iberia,’ in the Armenian sources, and ‘V. of Armenia,’ ‘V. of Iberia,’ and simply ‘Vitaxa’ in the Georgian: ibid. 184, as well as ἄϱχωv τῶv 'Iβήϱωv by a Byzantine source: ibid. 263. For the ecclesiastical implications of this ambiguity, see Chr. Caucasia 179 n. 309.Google Scholar

¹⁴¹ Ibid. 183. — This cannot fail to show the unreality of the attempt to dissociate the Vitaxae, when vassals of Iberia, from their Armenian context; cf. supra n. 21.Google Scholar

¹⁴² Les débuts du christianisme 38.Google Scholar

¹⁴³ Stud. Chr. Cauc. Hist. 262.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁴ 4.57: ἕλχωv μὲv ἐξ 'Aϱμεvίaς τò γέvoς.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁵ Les débuts du christianisme 54–58; cf. Stud. Chr. Cauc. Hist. 261.Google Scholar