Who were the Proto-Georgians?

HISTORY, ARCHAEOLOGY, ETHNOLOGY ისტორია, არქეოლოგია, ეთნოლოგია WHO WERE THE PROTO-GEORGIANS? ვინ იყვნენ პროტო-ქართველები? MAIA GHAMBASHIDZE Doctor of History, Iv. Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University Associate Professor, Tel .: 599960904, [email protected] ORCID: 0000-0002-1008-2869 Abstract: Based on the study and analysis of ancient near easrtern sources and current scientific literature in the field, we believe the following conclusion can be drawn about the ethno-genesis of Georgian tribes: the relationship between genetically related Ancient Anatolian and Georgian (in the II millennium BC: Hatti, Kaška, Muška; in the I millennium BC – Daiaeni/Diaohi, Kulha) tribes developed based on and largely due to the metallurgical manufacturing processes (obtaining and manufacturing of ore and processing the metal). The engagement in the metallurgical production processes of the local tribesand their neighboring ethnic groups led to the emergence of a common culture, religious and ideologicalsystems, and the formation of a united consciousness across the entire geographic area of settlements of Georgian tribes. This, created pre-conditions for the formation of Kolkhian end Iberian kingdomslater on. If we postulate, as supported by recent archaeological discoveries, that the Hattian and Kaška people (they might even beone and thesame) are ancestors of Kolkhians (i.e. Proto-Kolkhians), and consider theirneighbors – the Muškiansalso also a Georgian ethnic group, then the study of the history of Georgiasould begin not from the period of Diaohi-Kulha kingdoms in the VIII-VII c. BC, but from its early origins in XV c. B.C. Keywords: Hittites, Hattians, Kaška, Muška, Diauhi, Kulha, Georgia, Georgians, Hittitology, Caucasiology, Ancient Anatolia, metallurgy, iron მაია ღამბაშიძე ისტორიის დოქტორი, ივ. ჯავახიშვილის თბილისის სახელმწიფო უნივერსიტეტის ასოცირებული პროფესორი, ტელ.: 599960904, [email protected] ORCID: 0000-0002-1008-2869 აბსტრაქტი: ბოლო წლებში რამდენიმე ურთიერთ გამომრიცხავი მოსაზრება გამოითქვა პროტოქართველების გენეტიკური წარმომავლობისა და მათი განსახლების შესახებ. სამწუხაროდ, ამ მოსაზრებების სიმრავლის გამო დაინტერესებული მკითხველი ვეღარ ხვდება, რომელს 127 HISTORY, ARCHAEOLOGY, ETHNOLOGY ისტორია, არქეოლოგია, ეთნოლოგია დაუჭიროს მხარი. თუმცა, უნდა აღინიშნოს, რომ ისტორიული კვლევა სცილდება ყოველგვარ, უზუსტობას და გარკვეული დასკვნების გაკეთება მხოლოდ ფაქტების საფუძვლიანი ანალიზის შემდეგ შეიძლება. ჩვენი ნაშრომი მიზნად ისახავს პროტო-ქართველების წარმომავლობის ფაქტებზე დაფუძნებული კვლევის შედეგების ჩვენებას. ძველაღმოსავლური წყაროებისა და უახლესი სამეცნიერო ლიტერატურის შესწავლის შედეგად, ვფიქრობთ, შესაძლებელია ქართველურ ტომთა ეთნოგენეზისის შესახებ შემდეგი დასკვნის გამოტანა: გენეტიკურად მონათესავე ძველანატოლიურ და ქართველურ ტომთა (ძვ. წ. I ათასწლეულში ხათების, ქასქების, მუსქების, ძვ. წ. I ათასწლეულში კი - დაიაენი/დიაოხისა და კულხას და სხვ.) ურთიერთკავშირს საფუძვლად დაედო - და ეს კავშირი დიდად განაპირობა - მეტალურგიის საწარმო პროცესების (მადანმოპოვების, მადანდამუშავებისა და ლითონდამუშავების) ფართომასშტაბით განხორციელებამ, ასევე - ამ პროცესში როგორც აქ მცხოვრებ ტომთა, ასევე მეზობელ ეთნოსთა უშუალო თუ ნაწილობრივმა მონაწილეობამ და ერთიანი რელიგიურ-იდეოლოგიური სისტემის - ერთიანი კულტის წარმოქმნამ ქართველურ ტომთა სახლობის მთელ ტერიტორიაზე. შედეგად - ჩამოყალიბდა ერთიანი ცნობიერება, რამაც, ბუნებრივია, შექმნა კიდეც წინაპირობები მომდევნო პერიოდში კოლხეთისა და იბერიის სამეფოთა ჩამოყალიბებისათვის. და თუ დავუშვებთ (და ამის საშუალებას უახლესი არქეოლოგიური აღმოჩენებიც გვაძლევს), რომ სწორედ ხათები და ქასქები (თუ საერთოდ, ერთიდაიგივე ხალხზე არ გვაქვს საუბარი) უნდა იყვნენ ე.წ. „პროტოკოლხები“, ხოლო მათ უშუალო მეზობლებს – მუსქებს ასევე მივიჩნევთ ქართველურ ეთნოსად, მაშინ საშუალება გვეძლევა ჩვენი ქვეყნის ისტორია ძვ. წ. XV საუკუნემდე დავაძველოთ. საკვანძო სიტყვები: ხეთები, ხათები, ქასქები, მუსქები, დიაუხი, კულხა, საქართველო, ქართველები, ხეთოლოგია, კავკასიოლოგია, ძველი ანატოლია, მეტალურგია, რკინა Introduction: In recent years, several conflicting opinions have been expressed about the genetic origin of ProtoGeorgians and their geographic distribution. Unfortunately, due to the abundance of these opinions in literature, it is hard for a reader to decide which one to support. However, it should be noted that conclusions in historical research can only be based on evidence and a thorough analysis of the facts. Our paper aims to show the results of the fact-based research on the origin of the Proto-Georgians. Methods: Our research relies on a wide variety of sources, both primary & secondary including unpublished material. It is based on following research methods: comparative-historical, description, critical, systematic and empirical analysis. 128 ისტორია, არქეოლოგია, ეთნოლოგია HISTORY, ARCHAEOLOGY, ETHNOLOGY Discussion and Results: The shared line of work pursued by these tribes can be considered the major factor for the formation of a united nation by different Georgian tribes and their developmentas a unique ethnic group. These shared activities included mining, metallurgy, and metal processing. According to the archaeological evidence, metallurgy was practiced in the Caucasus since VI millennium B.C., in the era of the flourishing of the Kura-Arax culture on the territory of East and a big part of West Georgia, where it was widespread as its "Inner Kartlian" variety.1 Between the end of the IVand the middle of the II millennium BC, the territories around the Black Sea formed a united geographical and cultural area and the main purpose of theirinteraction was the metal processing industry. The southern cultural zone of this unity was Caucasian - Middle Eastern unity, which had its own technical and technological principles and methods of producing copper and bronze. According to Georgian archaeological findings, the methods of the Georgian tribe's processing of non-ferrous metals closely resembles methods used by the Caucasian and Middle Eastern palemetallic cultures, and the Georgian tribe had a central role in ancient mining culture and the common process of development of different fields of metallurgy.2 Nowadays the oldest artifacts of copper merchandise are found in Asia Minor (in modern Turkey), where the river Tigris originates in Ergani-Maden. These artifacts date back to the end of VII and beginning of VI millennium B.C.; Metal artifacts found in Southern Caucasus, are dated by the end of VI and beginning of V millennium BC. In Georgia,there are found all stages of digestion of metals – Neolith, Early Bronze, Middle Bronze, Late Bronze – Early Iron, and wide digestion of iron ages. Today it is also well known, that a wide front of digestion of copper and non-ferrous metals has originated from South mining regions of Caucasus Minor and gradually spread to North – “Big Caucasus” mining ores.3 A close examination and analysis of mining artifacts by the Georgian scientists has created a basis to conclude, that in Ancient Georgia all branches of the mining culture were highly developed and in the Middle Bronze age (last quarter of III and the first half of II millennium BC), the earliest complex technologies of mining and melting of sulfide were invented here..4 Examination of mining in mountainous Racha Antimony shows that not only an extractionbut also its melting was taking place. In the Bronze Age, in mountainous Georgia (Racha, Abkhazia), for the first time in the world, the layer-chamber system of mining excavations with open cleaning space was used. This makes these shafts the unique monument of mining technologies and material culture (Of the same level asthe Sakdrisi shaft that is nowadays destroyed). It can be confirmed that Racha was the central region of excavation of Antimony, and Antimony shafts of Racha are the world's distinguished monuments of the history of material culture. It is worth mentioning, that Georgian scientists have created a mathematical model of the technological effectiveness of old technologies for Rachian, Svanetian, and Abkhazian mining excavations, which showed the level of founding, excavating, and processing of metal of Bronze Age (XII-X cc. B.C.) and determined not only unity but also the identity of these regions' techniques and technologies of mining მუსხელიშვილი დ. და სხვ. 2012: 49. Cf. მიქელაძე თ. 1974. 3 Cf. Муджири Т.,2008. 4 ინანიშვილი გ.,მაისურაძე ბ., გობეჯიშვილი გ., 2010. 1 2 129 HISTORY, ARCHAEOLOGY, ETHNOLOGY ისტორია, არქეოლოგია, ეთნოლოგია metallurgy. This unity and unique identity were reasoned by the general character of Kolkhetian Archeological culture, communication of merchants and transport facilities, and also geological and geographical factors. According to this, these three centers are considered to be a unique system of Kolkhetian metallurgical culture and are considered as part of the West Georgian, Georgian, and Caucasian system.5 We should think that such intensity and development of metal mining and processing in the Middle Bronze Age went beyond the internal consumption of the ethnos of a separate Kartvelian tribe and should have been more conditioned by the so-called "By foreign order" - mostly at the request of the ancient Middle Eastern civilizations. It was this "metallurgical motivation" that should have led to the decline of the lowland population in the Middle Bronze Age, that is, the forced extinction of agriculture, the depopulation of settlements, and the excavation of foothills and highlands to extract ore and process metal. Historians have explained this situation by increasing the role of cattle during this period and attempting to expand pasture space. Accordingly, they considered cattle breeding as the main driving force of the Kartvelian tribes to develop (cultivate?) the foothills and highlands, while they considered metallurgy as a supporting, secondary activity in this matter. This generally valid statement seems to be only partially justified for the historical-cultural reality of the South Caucasus. In the second half of the second millennium BC, the names of the Georgian tribes as the first founders of certain fields of metallurgy were already known to the peoples of the world's ancient civilizations. From the III-II millennia BC onwards, kings of powerful states fought to seize their inheritance (areas rich in ore deposits). It is noteworthy that the invaders first conquered from the vast territory of the Georgian tribes the lands rich in mineral ores and mining and metallurgical production: Meskhetian Mountains, Basiani, Ponto (Chaneti) Mountains and Chorokhi Basin, LowerKartli (with Lore-Tashir), mountainous Kakhet-Hereti, mountainous Inner Kartli, Mountainous Racha (Dvaleti), Abkhazia, etc. There must have been a great demand for steel. I think We believe, it was the demand of the international market that led to the intensive development of the technical thought of our ancestral tribes, which became a prerequisite for proper economic prosperity and proper ethnic-social, cultural and internal economic connection. The rise of culture and the economy, the rise in aggregate demand for the metal, during the Middle and Late Bronze Ages, activated and put into circulation all the deposits of copper, poly metals, arsenic, and antimony in the South Caucasus. This led to the establishment of a copper-bronze production system and the establishment of mining and metallurgical centers in Kakheti (Upper Alazani), LowerKartli (Bolnisi-Dmanisi), Racha, Svaneti, InnerKartli highlands, Abkhazia and Adjara-Guria. The direct continuation of the technical-technological advances of bronze production is the early stage of assimilation of iron culture. From the XII c. BC, iron became a strategic material of economic importance for the Ancient World. In Georgia, the period from the middle of the 2nd millennium to the first half of the 1st millennium BC, is the Late Bronze-Early Iron Age (its production potential reaches a significant level in the X-VIII BC, and in the VI century BC it is defined as the period of extensive iron uptake). The process of creating local iron metallurgy, with its further continuous 5 Cf. ინანიშვილი გ., 2015; Abramishvili M., 2010:167-178. 130 HISTORY, ARCHAEOLOGY, ETHNOLOGY ისტორია, არქეოლოგია, ეთნოლოგია industrial development, dates back to the XII c. BC. On the territory of Georgia, the dynamics of the process of assimilation and spread of iron culture confirms the upward trend in the development of technical thought in XII-I c. BC.6 As the archaeological data reveals, from this period on Southern Caucasus became one of the central regions fortheeconomical unity of Mediterranean and Asia Minor in processing and developing Iron metallurgy. The tomb holes and artifacts found there show not only consistent stages of birth and gradual development of the bronze industry but also the consequent results of the introduction of the new metal and its influence on the culture. It will not be an exaggeration to say that the tombs of Kolkheti – Ergeta I-II-III-IV, Ureki, Dghvaba, Nigvziani, and particularly Ergeta I (where all stages of the studied period are represented as a chain) – are exemplary monuments in this regard. The local black metallurgy is distributed in the whole of Asia Minor. The scale and quality of local metallurgical products show a high level of development of metallurgy and technique. The tradition continued during the Middle Ages and culminated in the creation of steel. 7Certainly, such wide-spread practice of the mining production among different Georgian tribes reflected the indistinctly formed social structure and state-level centralization (that also meant internaleconomicalunion). Such distinctive organization and centralization can not be achieved without an ideological system andits consequent cult. The fast development of metallurgy gave rise to new symbols in Kura-Arax culture – the ceramic vessels were ornamented with various metallic shapes:on the vessels from that period, we see swards; a crescent; Aries-headed pendants, that were considered to have magic powers; Aries-headed hooks of fireplace strings, that have phallus shape. In Southern Caucasian ethnology, the cult of metallurgy is well documented . The most obvious example of this is evident in Abkhazia and Cherkezia as "The Cult of Blacksmith and Forgery". Here we should also mention, that cults and rituals known as "Abkhazian" (that have close genetic ties with Anatolian tradition) completely coincide with cults and rituals in all Georgian regions, as well as in regions of the Caucasus (with consideration of Christian and Islamic influences in following centuries). The cult of life-giving and fertility tree is present in all religions of the world.. According to the scientific assumptions,in Georgia, this cult came to exist from the last third of II millennium B.C. and it is closely related to the similar cult from Asia Minor. The worship of Oak, as a sacred tree is a widely documented and recognized fact. It is also well-known, that it is not only a Georgian phenomenon. The oak is a sacred tree in all Asia Minor cultures. In the Caucasus, a cult of the Oak is widespread mainly in Georgian tribes (e.g. in Pshavi and Khevsureti existed a vary famous "prayer to the soul of the oak" till the first half of XX c.) The Charcoal of the tree had crucial importance in regulating the temperature of fire for the enrichment of or and manufacturing of metal. The breeds of trees that were used for metallurgy were oak, beech, elm, hornbeam, box, English yew, Zelkova, etc. The broken or of the iron was taken to the oven, where the oak charcoal created the highest temperature. As a result, the odor was melted and iron was wasted. Consequently, the tree, that plaid a crucial role in the countries' manufacturing and Cf. კვირკვაია რ., 2009. Cf. ღამბაშიძე ი., მინდიაშვილი გ., გოგოჭური გ., კახიანი კ., ჯაფარიძე ი., 2010; მირცხულავა გ., მირცხულავა ნ., 2008: 199-205; ნარიმანაშვილი გ., 2014; პაპუაშვილი რ., 1998: 43-57; რეხვიაშვილი ნ., 1943; idem. 1953; 1964; 6 7 131 HISTORY, ARCHAEOLOGY, ETHNOLOGY ისტორია, არქეოლოგია, ეთნოლოგია economic means, gained a sacred meaning, as a symbol of life and fertility-giving god. It naturally became a subject of worship. Presumably, this is how the cult of oak"Didi Ckoni"8was created and gained popularity as a central part of the ideology of the metallurgical civilization. In the following epochs the footprints of the "Cult of Metallurgy" were washed by Christianity and/or other monotheist religions. Though, some fragments remain, as, for example, Georgian Easter hymn "Chona".9 ⁎⁎⁎ So, who could be the proto-Georgian tribes which, following the footsteps of metallurgical ores, came out and settled on the territory of Georgia? Logically, these tribes can be associatedwith the people known to us from the Ancient Near Eastern sources and living in the neighborhood of Georgia. Let’s discuss them individually: A. Hattians Hattians10 are one of the ancient ethnic groups about whom we know little. We can not say exactly where and when they lived, what was the lifestyle and morals of these people, what social structure or state structure they had, and, in general, what cultural heritage the Hattians left behind. Since it is considered that this ethnos likely lived in the general area where Georgian tribe settlements were spread, naturally, as soon as theirexistance was discovered, the idea arose among Georgian scholars, that they were Caucasians, and according to one opinion - the ancestors of the Georgian tribes. Supporters of this view have also appeared among non-Georgian scholars.However, it remains difficult to ascertain the relationship of any Hattian and Georgian tribes. We can not say for sure when the Hattians appear in Central Anatolia. Some scholars believe, that the Hattians lived in this area in the VII millennium BC and the culture of the New Stone Age ChatalHüyük (6400-6200 BC), in southern Anatolia, in the southeast of modern Konya, belonged to them.11 But this assumption has not found support in the Hittite community, as it is believed that no ethnos in the history of mankind has existed for 5,000 years, especially in a region like Anatolia, where migration processes have been continuous.12 According to most scholars,13 the Hattians were the direct ancestors of the Indo-European Hittites in Anatolia. They were either so-called "local" people, or they came and settled here in the III millennium BC, in the Early Bronze Age. It is suggested that the archeological discoveries of the early Bronze Age of pre-Hittite Anatolia, such as Kültepe, Alishar, Alaja-Huyük, and Horoztepe, and mainly “chkoni” – Megrelian“oak”. ღამბაშიძე მ., ჭირაქაძე მ., 2013: 96-98; idem. ღამბაშიძე მ./ჭირაქაძე მ., 2015: 568-590; Cf. ღამბაშიძე ნ., 2004: 242-251; მამალაძე თ., 1963: 235-249. 10 Numerous opinions have been expressed in the scientific literature about the "Hattians". Today this ethnos is referred to as the Hattians and not the Proto-Hittites as it was formerly accepted. For more on this, see: Дьяконов, И. М., 1967: 166-178; Neu E., 1990: 93; idem, 19831: 323; 11 Cornelius F. 1973: 34. 12 Soysal O, 2004: 2-3. 13 Soysal O., 2004: 2-3. 8 9 132 HISTORY, ARCHAEOLOGY, ETHNOLOGY ისტორია, არქეოლოგია, ეთნოლოგია - Alaja-Hüyük, with its so-called "13 royal tombs" (dated 2300-2100 BC), famous for their precious metal products - belonged to the Hattians. The Hattians occupied the area of the modern river Kizil-Irmak (ancient Halis, Hittite Marašantia), as well as Cappadocia, possibly the area around Salt Lake.It is also suggested, that they inhabited the Pontus Mountains, the same Lazistan highlands. The Hattians founded the cities of Hattuša, Kaneš, Zalpa, Nerik. The city-state of Purushattum is also considered to be an administrative formation of the Hattians. There is so-called text of "ŠarTamhari", which tells the story of the expedition of the kings of Akkad - Šarrukin (2340-2285 BC) and his grandson - Naramsin (2260-2225 BC) in Purushattum. It is difficult to say how much historic informational value this story has, , especially since the dating of the text is completely unreliableand after so many centuries, the story is told almost like a fairy tale or a legend.14 According to the assumption, at the end of the 3rd millennium, at the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC, from the Caucasus, or the west - Indo-European Hittites came from the Balkans to Central Anatolia via the Dardanelles Strait, which replaced the Hattians in this area. In the beginning, they coexist peacefully, but from the XVIII century BC, the Hittites began conquest of nearby cities. In the years 1750-1700 BC the city of Kuššara is in the hands of the Hittites. They then gradually conquered several Hattian cities: King Pithana conquered Kaneš/Neša, and his son Anitta conquered Hattuša, which 150 years later became the capital of the Hittites. Towards the end of Anittas reign, Hittite control extended to almost all of Cappadocia. It is suggested that this event should have been the reason for the disappearance of the Hattians from Central Anatolia. It must be a wrong view that the Hattians no longer lived in Central Anatolia in the 2 millennia BC. In the city of Kaneš in Cappadocia, in the same Neša(Kültepe), which was an already developed urban settlement at the end of the 3rd millennium BC, and where archeological excavations revealed the cuneiform tablets (dating to the 19-18th centuries BC), Assyrian merchants co-habitated with nonIndo-European Hattians as well as with Indo-European Hittites. The documents show that the Assyrians had trade relations with the local population. Although the ethnonym "Hatti" is not found in the texts, we find the proper names of Hattian origin - Habatali, Hašamili, Kazhanueli, Kizhanuweli, as well as the Hattian word - Gašuhtaili. It is noteworthy that next to the Hattian names we also find the Hittite and Luvian proper names: Šupiašhu, Valkua, and the words: Iškhiuli, Išpatalu.15The fact that the Hattians coexisted with the Indo-European Hittites, the Palaians, and the Luvians is also indicated by the Hattian words borrowed from these languages.16 The question arises: if the Hattians had to leave Anatolia after the Hittite arrival, where should they go? Did they abandoned this side? What if they stayed and submitted to the rule of the Hittites? If the Hattians left Central Anatolia, would that not mean that the trade policy - Kaneš - would also gradually be abandoned by Assyrian merchants? The interest of the Assyrians in Anatolia was precisely the ferrous metals here and, most importantly, iron, which seems to have been the main product of the Hattian trade. From ancient times the Ancient Near East knew only the so-called. "Iron from heaven", or meteorite iron. Iron was considered to be the most valuable material in the Ancient NearEast.We 14 Cf. Singer I., 1981: 119-134; Forlanini, M. 1984: 245-266. Soysal O., 2004: 5. 16 Soysal O., 2004: 11; Cf. Akurgal E., 2001. 15 133 HISTORY, ARCHAEOLOGY, ETHNOLOGY ისტორია, არქეოლოგია, ეთნოლოგია learn from the texts that the Hittites did not extract iron, they apparently bought it from the Hattians and then processed it. Iron was precisely the wealth with which the icons were to be traded in Anatolia, in particular in Kaneš, with the Assyrians and the Indo-European Hittites or the Luvians. Hittite texts mention "iron blacksmith", as well as items - "iron throne", "iron plate", etc. In one of the legal documents, we find the expression - "the word of the king is made of iron". As can be seen from the texts, due to its high cost, iron was used only in the palace.17 Possibly, the Hattians lived in Central Anatolia from the 3rd millennium BC. And after the appearance of the Hittites, they continued to live in the vicinity of the Black Sea - they occupied the city Nerik (presumably modernOsmanchik), Zalpa (probably a settlement near Samsun) and also several seaside towns. Their cultural influence on the Indo-European Hittites is obvious - the Hattian religion covers almost entirely the Hittite world. The Hattian religion seems so interesting to the Hittites that the Hittite pantheon is filled with Hattian deities (Hamani, Hapantalia, Hasamili, Karmušepa, Kaštuvariti, Kataha, Katešhavi, Lelvani, Mama, Mitununi, Šulinkate/Šulinkati, Tahatanuiti, Taharula,Tašimeti, Tenerau, Teniraia, Tetefiri, Tuhuleli,Vašezili, Zilipura, Vurunkate, etc.). The same is true of the rituals performed by the Hittites, most of whhich seem to be influenced by the Hattian religion, if not translated directly from Hattian. The fact is that as soon as we find a Hattian texts (and such is about 550 texts or a fragment of a text), they are accompanied by a Hittite translation. The texts have sacral and ritual content. We also have texts containing metallurgical terms. These are areas that seem to have been considered very important by the Hittites and therefore translated by them.However, they do not seem to understand everything, since understanding the language of a nonIndo-European structure, let alone writing, must have been difficult.. As for the opinion that by the 18th century B.C., the Hattians ceased to exist in Anatolia and gave the Hittites the arena, it could bedebadet. The question arises as to whether the Hittites, in the 13-12th centuries B.C. managed to preserve the abolished Hattian language for 4-5 centuries, and then write and be guided by these texts, which were no longer spoken around them. It would be especially unrealistic to assume that in the pre-imperial period (17-14th BC), when the Hittite state was not structurally established and the Hittite texts were originally written in Akkadian, an abolished language would survive for centuries.The Hittites, a nomadic, socially underdeveloped, low-culture ethnos at the time of their arrival to Anatolia, learned from the Hattians many aspects of social structure, material, and spiritual culture - be they rituals or various branches of handicrafts - including the most important field - metallurgy. During the existence of the Hittite Empire, it seems that the Hattians continue to coexist with the Hittites, having no interest in a permanent economic or cultural (religious-sacral) relationship with them. Further, from the middle of the 2nd millennium BC, in search of iron ores, Hattians gradually shifted to the north - along the Black Sea coast and from there to Adjara and Guria, Kolkheti lowlands - beyond the Bzipi, Kodori, Enguri, Tskhenistskali, and Rioni valleys, through Racha-Svaneti - to the north. It is therefore not surprising to find their linguistic or ethnological parallels with the Ibero-Caucasian ethno linguistic world. The Hattian, like other ancient Anatolian languages - Luwian, Palaic, and Hurrian - is one of the least known and unexplored languages.18 But, unlike Luwian and Palaic, it does not belong to the Indo17 Cf. Kammenhuber A., 1996: 209-220; Muhly J. D., Maddin R., Stech T., and Özgen E., 1985: 67-84; Siegelova J., Tsumoto H., 2001: 275-300. 18 Cf. Girbal Ch., 2007: 51-62; Dunaevskaja I., 1974; Kammenhuber A., 1959: 63-83; idem. 1962: 1-29; 1969: 428546; 584-588; 1996: 209-220; Klinger J., 1994; idem. 2005: 128-134; Vigo, M. 2014: 38; Taracha P., 1988; idem. 134 HISTORY, ARCHAEOLOGY, ETHNOLOGY ისტორია, არქეოლოგია, ეთნოლოგია European language family. Like Hurrian, it is an isolated language. Hattian is considered to be an agglutination language, as are the ancient Oriental non-Indo-European languages - Sumerian, Elamite, and Urartian. Interestingly, we know nothing about the origins of any of these languages, so there are several hypotheses about them. Most of the Hattian texts are found in bilingual texts, where Hattian texts are accompanied by Hittite translations. Unfortunately, we do not have primary sources of the Hattian language, we have information about it only from secondary - Hittite sources. It is in the Hittite texts that we find the concepts - "From the city of Hatti ", "in Hattian", "Hattian", and we do not know anything about the self-name of the ethnos itself.19Most scholars agree that the Hittite translators did not understand not only the rituals and spells of the Hattians (the two main categories in which Hattian texts are found),but also the Hattian language itself. Some scholars have suggested, that the Hittites used dictation when writing Hittite texts, during which, the words that the Hittite writer did not understand simply remained untranslated. There are whole passages of the text that are not translated into Hittite. And whatever translation we have, it also seems to be free translation.20Texts in the Hattian language are found in Central Anatolia - in the Hittite capital Hattuša (Boghazköi) and Šapinuwa (Tan. Ortaköi). In Anatolia, during the existence of the Hittites (XVI-XVII centuries BC), the Hattian language was a living spoken language - i.e. the Hattians coexisted in parallel with the Hittites. This is evidenced by several Hittite cuneiform texts:.Presumably, they are school texts where the same text is written on both sides in the Hittite cuneiform script in the Hattian language, i.e. the copyist practiced cuneiform. There is an interesting text of the old witch woman Aškiliya (CTH 827: KBo 18.151), who was originally Hattian, could not speak the Hittite language well and made many mistakes while speaking.21Finding a place on the genealogical tree of languages - this is the main problem that Hittitologists face when studying the Hattian language. Scholars of different generations have repeatedly attempted to find the Hattian lineage with all branches of the Iberian-Caucasian language family. Theories have been proposed that Hattian belonged to: a. North-west. Caucasian languages (Circassian language family)22; b. North-East Caucasian languages (Dagestani language family)23; c. South Caucasian languages (Georgian language family). However, these assumptions remain only hypotheses to this day, as the Hattian written sources at our disposal are very fragmentary and it is difficult to form a systematic corpus of texts. It is also difficult to reconstruct the structure of the Hattian language.Therefore, it is impossible to prove with certainty its genetic connection with any family of languages.24 1995: 351-358; idem. 2000; Soysal O., 2007; Goedegebuure P.M. 2007; idem. 2008: 137-180; 2010: 949-981; Berman H., 1977: 1-6; Bertram J.K., 2003: 245-253; Schuster H.S., 1974; idem. 2002; 19 Cf. O., Süel A., 2007; 2014; Klinger J. 1996. 20 Cf. Laroche E., 1947: 67-78.; Rizza A. 2007; idem. 2009: 275-286. 21 Soysal O., 2000: 6-122. 22 Cf. Иванов Вяч., 1985; Дунаевская И., 1960; Schrijver, P. 2011 : 241-255. 23 Ardzinba V., 1974: 10-15. 24 Cf. Kassian A., 2010: 309-347. 135 HISTORY, ARCHAEOLOGY, ETHNOLOGY ისტორია, არქეოლოგია, ეთნოლოგია Many Georgian and foreign scholars have focused on the Hattian-Caucasian parallels.25 When it comes to linguistic connections, scholars rely heavily on lexical data. Unfortunately, the material is so scarce, that it is very difficult to talk about linguistic parallels, especially on the similarities between grammatical categories. One thing is clear - the Hattians, who inhabited the Black Sea coast and, in our view, actively exploited the iron ore valleys of the western Georgia and the Kolkheti lowlands in the Late Bronze-Early Iron era, would have direct interactions with the local ethnic groups. In the process of settling in this area, they inevitably mixed and the language of the Hattians, which, in itself, would have an Indo-European influence from Anatolia, mixed with the local language or languages. The same would happen linguistically, ethnographically or religiously.The late Hittite reliefs (northern Syria, Cilicia) depict the so-called "horned" shoes, which are worn only by deities and kings. We must assume that this form of the shoe had a sacramental ritual meaning (for example, the "horned" clay shoes found in Boghazkoy), and must have been called the "Hattian shoes" known from the Hittite texts [KUŠ] E.SIR ḫattileš. It was sewn from the skins of cattle and was an attribute of the king's ritual garment. It is probable, that it, like the "Hurrian garment", must have been of a peculiar type, used in religious festivals in the Hittite kingdom. It seems that the "Horned" shoes were typical only for the Anatolian and Syrian populations, as they are not worn by people of other origins depicted on the reliefs. One might think, that everything related to Hattian had a sacral connotation for the Hittites and that the adjective "Hattian" was appropriate - for example, in rituals they did not even translate Hattian sacred expressions and the names of deities. Therefore, it is not surprising that the type of shoe that originated from the non-Hittite tradition and was associated with the ritual-sacral tradition was even called "Hattian shoes". It should be noted that "horned" shoes are also depicted on the medieval reliefs or seals of the 1st millennium BC but on these reliefs, not "local" but foreigners (those who hold a gift on these plates - a tribute taker) dressed in "horned" shoes, probably of Anatolian or Syrian origin. Discovered in 1938, the Trialeti Cup bears a strong resemblance to (the cups from) ancient Asia Minor. 50 years later, on the territory of Armenia, in particular, in Karashamb, a cup similar to the "Trialeti Cup" was discovered. Both cups depict a ritual process, the participants of which wear "horned" shoes. As it turns out, this type of shoe was widespread throughout the Caucasus (Georgia, Dagestan, Ingushetia, etc.). The type of shoe that dates back to the II millennium BC is known from Anatolia and Syria. In the following period, it spread throughout Ancient Near East, the Caucasus and Europe.In some countries, including Georgia, the so-called "Oriental", "horned" hatswere also found. 26 B. The Kaskians The people of the Kaška, living in northeastern Anatolia, are not only mentioned in Hittite and Assyrian cuneiform sources (royal diaries, treaties, administrative texts, letters, as well as sources of religious content: "Kaškeš", or "Kaška people", LUMES URUKa-aš-ka, LU URUKa-aš-ka, LU URUKaš-ka, LU URUKA4-aš-ka, Egypt. KskS),27 but are directly involved in the course of Ancient Near Eastern history of Cf.Girbal Ch., 1986;გიორგაძე გ., 2002. About the Ancient Anatolian shoe types: ღამბაშიძე მ., 2013: 103-115; idem., 2006-07: 94-95. 27 Schuler E von.,1965; idem. 1976-80: 460-463; Klinger, J. 2002: 437-451; Klinger J., 20052: 347-359; Degen R., 1967: 48-60. 25 26 136 HISTORY, ARCHAEOLOGY, ETHNOLOGY ისტორია, არქეოლოგია, ეთნოლოგია the XVII-VII centuries BC.28 We do not know,how these people referred to themselves, but we know the country was called "Kaška" (by Tiglat-Pileser I (1114-1076 c.BC) - KURrKaš-ka(-a)-ja,by Sargon II (722-705 c.. BC) - (māt) Kaš-ku and(māt) Ka-aš-ku, and by Tiglat-Pileser III (745-727 BC) - URUKaškaa-a.29 Unfortunately, we know nothing about the origin and the genetic affiliation of the Kaškians, nor do we know anything about the Kaška language. Since historiography is not familiar with any texts in the Kaškian language, nor do we find any reference to it in the ancient texts. There are several suggestions about the Kaškian language: a. The Kaškians spoke in Hattian since the names of the Kaškian and Hattian deities coincide; b. The Kaškians, along with the Hattians, were non-Indo-European inhabitants of Anatolia; c. Some scholars identify the Kaškians with the Circassians: in the ancient Georgian sources,the Circassians are referred as "Kashag", in the Arabic sources as "Kesag", and in the old Russian texts as "Kasoga"; d. This view is somewhat approached by the second hypothesis, according to which one part of the scholars believe that the Kaškians are the ancestors of the Circassians and the Kaškian language is a Circassian language (this assumption is based on the "Annals" of Tiglat-Pileser I (1114-1076 BC), wherein one place the name Abeshla is found probably instead of the Kaškians); e. The Kaškians are the ancestors of the ancient Pontians; f. According to Iv. Javakhishvili, the Kaškians are the ancestors of the Kolkhians; g. Gr. Giorgadze agrees with this view. He suggested that the Kaškians may be of Zanuri (Megrelian-Chanuri) origin; h. There is an assumption that by the end of the IX c. BC., the "Mus language" mentioned in the Syrian inscription dating to the beginning of the VIII c. BC, belongs to the Kaškians and thus it is related to the Muškian language (i.e. it is possible to assume the existence of two dialects of one language, like Megrelian-Chanuri). From the texts, it can be seen that the Kaškians inhabited the so-called mountainous system of the "Small Caucasus", in particular - in the Pontus Mountains (the same as Lazistan ridge, which probably corresponds to Hittite Mount Kassiari).30 This mountain range, which is still called Kachkar in Turkish, bordered on the east and south by the river Chorokhi (Hittite “Kumešmaha”)31, and on the north by the Black Sea coastSo, the wholecentral northern Anatolia and, partly, the territory of ancient Paphlagonia, must have been inhabited by the Kaškians. It is unclear, exactly how far their border went, especially to the east. It depends on where the border of the kingdom of Hayaša began32 on the east and the Hittite kingdom on the west. Cf. Goedegebuure P. 2013: 3700; Гиоргадзе Г., 1956; Гиоргадзе Г., 1961; გიორგაძე გ., 2000; Neu, E. 19832 : 391-399. 29 Grayson A.K., 2002. 30 Cf. Yakar, J. 2005: 817-827. 31 In the text of the XII c. BC, we find the following note: "Labarna and Hattušili have not yet released them on the river Kumesmaha" (on the river Chorokhi). 32 Kingdom of Hayasa - a country located northeast of the Kaška country. According to Armenian scholars, Haya is the ancestor of Armenians (cf. Haya - "Haiastan"). If we assume the Kaskians in the territory of Chaneti, the kingdom of Hayaša will be located to its northeast, therefore, it is permissible to assume that the kingdom of (H)aya-sa is 28 137 HISTORY, ARCHAEOLOGY, ETHNOLOGY ისტორია, არქეოლოგია, ეთნოლოგია Some scholars believe that the Kaška people came and settled in northern Anatolia during the 15th century BC. However, there is another assumption that the Kaškians were the local population of this region since it is believed that the Kaškian names are most likely not of Indo-European, but mostly ancient Anatolian origin. The fact that until the 14th century BC, the Hittite texts did not mention the Kaškians at all, does not mean, that they were not living in this area before their arrival. It seems that they definitelybecame the point of their neighbors’ interest from this period on and their mentioning in Hittite written sources reflects that. The Kaškians are mentioned already during the reign of Hantili (ca. 1526-1496 BC) - the Kaškians raided the cult city of Nerik. According to the text, "during the reign of Hantili, the Kaškians reduced the land and water of the Hittites." The toponym “Kaška” is found for the first time in the Hittite text of King Arnuwanda and his wife Ašmunikal (c. 1400 BC), where the king tells, that the Kaškians occupied cities and regions on the Black Sea coast: Nerik, Hursama, Kastama, Sarisa, Halila, Duduška, Himuwa, Tagašta, Kamana, Zalpuwa, Kapiruha, Hurna, Dankusna, Tapašava, Tarukka, Ilalulha, Zihana, Šipidduwa, Wašhaia, Patalia, Taštareša and Takupša. The names of these cities sound so "Kaškian" that it is difficult to agree with the Hittite source, according to which these cities were supposedly Hittite, and the Kaškians tried to conquer them. It is more probable that they were originally Kaškian and, after the Hittites captured them, the Kaškians tried to take them back. When the Hittites made a truce with the Kaskians, on the one side, the peace treaty was signed by the Hittite monarch, and on the other - by the N number of "Kaška man": “Hatipta, Šunupaši, Kanu, Piziziu, Piruwi, Kuriali, Timiti, Tutu, Dada, Kaška... Tutu (and) 9 men from Tešenipa. They all swore...”33It is interesting that one of the treaties also mentions the names of the fathers of the signers : “Kaašiara, son of Tarhundaziti, Patalia, son of Uravalkwi, X, son of Paata, Kalmahaziti, son of X, Tarhundaziti, son of Kuku...". We can’t find out from the text, how important these people were, but possibly, they were the "elders" of the community.34The Kaškians had the commanders of the army, as mentioned in the Ugaritic text: rbktkym.35 In the text of Arnuwanda's prayer we find: LÚ.MEŠtaparijaleš "the Ruler"36It is an interesting fact, that when the Hittites made a treaty with one of the Kaškian communities and agreed on this or that issue, often the another (Kaskian) community violated the oath, and this was the reason for the Hittite outrage. 37 According to the text of Šuppiluliuma I, the ethnonym “Kaška” was the general name for a union of 12 communities that often united against the Hittites.38They acted independently of each other and posed a constant threat to the Hittites on the northern frontier, while uniting to defend themselves from foreign attacks.39 They did not have a single ruler, "they did not have a single kingship", and they did not have the "lord of the community" at all.40From the texts, we know only the names of a couple equated with the kingdom of Aia (Αἶα), a city of the “Colchians”, "Herodotus, The Histories, book 1, chapter 2, section 2. 33 KBo 8.35 § 11. 34 Cf. "Makhvshebi" or "Khevistavi" = the heads of the community in the mountanous Georgia. 35 Schuler E von. 1965, 72. 36 KBo 31.124 IV 1. 37 CTH 375.1. 38 Deeds of Supliluliuma, frag. 14.; Cf. Glatz, C. – Matthews, R. 2005: 47-65. 39 The auxiliary army of the Kaskianswas called: ERINMESNARARI. 40 Cf. "The country without of the Lord" of Svaneti and Khevi. 138 HISTORY, ARCHAEOLOGY, ETHNOLOGY ისტორია, არქეოლოგია, ეთნოლოგია of high-ranking Kaškians: CommandersPittaparra and Pitagatalli. The Assyrian king Tiglat-Pileser III (745-727 BC) names Dadilu, the ruler of the Kaška. It is not known, whether Dadilu was the ruler of one of the cities or the lord of the united Kaškian communities since we do not find the name of anyKaška ruler with the title of king/prince in the ancient sources.41This is evidenced by the text of the “Annals” of Tiglat-Pileser I: The Assyrian king recountshow he captured the 4,000-strong invading Kaškian soldiers, belonging to the Hittite army. The same text mentions right there 20,000-strong Muškiansoldiers, "which had 5 kings."42 During the reign of Šuppiluliuma, the Kaškians crossed the river Marašantiya (Halis of antiquity, modern Kizil-Irmak) and Hattuša was burned. Šuppiliuma was still trying to fortify the northern border during his reign, but later his interest shifted to the south, towards Syria, which led to the invasions of the Kaškians in the country from the north. The text of Muršili II's annals provides many interesting facts about the political organization of the Kaškians, at least, through the position of the Hittites:in the 7th year of his reign, Muršili marched against Pihhunia, the ruler of Tipiya, one of the main Kaškiancities, which periodically "attacked" the Hittite cities of the "upper country" since his father's times. Muršili writes that "Pihhunia did not rule like Kaškians." As mentioned above, the Kaškiansdid not have a monarchy, and Pihhunia, as Muršilinotes, "ruled like a king":“I, my Sun, went and sent him a messenger and wrote to him: give me back my subordinates, which you captured and took to Kaška land.But Pihhunia sent me back (the messenger) and wrote to me: I will give you back nobody. And if you attack me, I will not fight with you on my land, but on your land! " Muršili defeated Pihhunia and took him, as a prisoner, to Hattuša. The existence of the city of Tipiya dates back to the XVI century BC. It becomes known from the text of the "Chronicle of Amuna", and during the Hittite Empire (XIII-XII BC) it acquired special significance. Interestingly, if in the old kingdom we meet the "city of Tipiya", in the period of the empire it is referred to as the "country of Tipiya". It is probable that during the Old Kingdom, the newly formed city of Tipiya was further strengthened, expanded, and referred to as a country.43Itwaslocated in the north of the Hittite kingdom, probably near the Black Sea coast, and was periodically in the hands of the Hittites. Possibly, it even neighbored the country of Azzi-Hayasa from the southwest:.44After corresponding with the Kaškians, Muršili II began to correspond with the ruler of AzziHayasa, Aniya. Muršili II, fought the Kaškians for 9 years of his reign and won twice. In a battle with the Kaškians, Muršili’s brother, Muwattalli, moved the capital south to the country of Kizzuwatna (Turkey's southern coast to the Mediterranean Sea), which further intensified the Kaškians raids on the Hittitekingdom. The same situation continued during the reign of Hattušili III (1267-1237 BC). As Hattušili III describes in his "Apology", the Kaškians crossed the river during his reign. They even reached Marašantiya (modern Kizil-Irmak) and Kaneš/Neša (modern Kayseri). According to the texts, the Kaškians had a large army. Some mention 800, 5 000, some - 7 000, 9 000, infantry, cavalry, and chariot soldiers. Therefore, the population of the country of the Kaškians 41 The Sumerian ideogram LUGAL of the Assyrian texts to denote both a king and a prince. Grayson A. K., 2002: 14, 17; Tadmor, H., 1994. 43 Further about the localisation of Tipiya: Гамбашидзе М., 2005: 68. 44 Judging by the texts, depending on the location, might it be possible to connect Tipija to Tao-Klarjeti? 42 139 HISTORY, ARCHAEOLOGY, ETHNOLOGY ისტორია, არქეოლოგია, ეთნოლოგია must have been quite numerous. It is also interesting about the equipment of the warrior that the Hittites mention the so-called "Kaškian short bow".In general, the Kaškians are equated with a very dangerous, spontaneous, unpredictable, and invincible enemy. The Kaškians did not inflict any damage on the Hittite kingdom or? any of its neighbors. Unfortunately, the information we have about the Kaškian identity and political activities is one-sided.We only have Hittite sources and we do not know what kind of relationship they actually had - everything is just a speculation. Asfor the daily life of these people, it is clear from the texts, that in summer the Kaskians took the cattle to the mountains - to different places, quite remote from their place of residence.45Because of this, they periodically attacked the Hittite border towns to expand their pastures.46 The reason for this was the following circumstance: the Hittite kings gave their subjects the lands to 47 that were located in the border zone of the country and at one time belonged to the Kaškians. It seems that the Hittites captured these cities in a war. 48 Archaeologists have suggested that the Hittite fortifications between the rivers Devrez Chai and Kizil-Irmak, with their watchtowers, protected the central settlements of the Hittites from the Kaškians. The fortifications were located at equal distances from each other, mainly on hills.They had water and agricultural land. The castles were fortified and sometimes even occupied one acre. Such a castle was discovered in modern Eldivan.The Kaškians successfully used guerrilla warfare tactics against the enemy. They used toattack the Hittites unexpectedly.. The Hittites were on constant alert - the guards were watching the approach of the army so that they had time to get to the battlefield or escape. The Kaška communities warned each other of the impending danger. They were united against the common enemy, making it difficult to defeat them. It is noteworthy, that in the battle of Kadesh, the Kaškians were allies of the Hittites: “Now (he) and His Majesty asked them: "Who are you? They replied, "We are the nobles of the mighty king of the land of Hittites and he sent us to spy out where His Majesty was." His Majesty answered them: "Where is he, O mighty king of the land of Hittites? "As far as I know, he must be in the country of Aleppo, north of Tunis." They replied to His Majesty: "Behold, the mighty king of the land of Hittite, with his many lands, which by force came from the various districts, and now they are within the borders of the land of Hittite - the land of Nakharina, the land of Kaskashi, the land of Irzu, the country of Ikerih, the country of Aleppo and the country of the ridge - they were deployed (to fight). They have become infantry and chariots ... their number is innumerable, like sand on the shore. You see, they are standing, war-trained, on the outskirts of Kadesh."49 After Šuppiluliuma I conquered the Kaškian country, the Kaškian soldiers were sent to Egypt presumably as captives50- the Egyptian source mentions the "Kaškian warriors in chariots". The Kaskians in Egypt seem to have played an important role: the Egyptian Pharaoh Amenhotep III (13881351 BC) asks the Asia Minor chief to send him the Kaškians. Interest in the Kaškians continues also Cf. “Mountain-plain living” of Achara people. Cf. Leks in Kakheti. 47 See theHittite "Land Gift Documents". 48 Cf. The resettlement of the Borchalu Shiite tribe by Safavid Iran in Shida Kartli or the fact that Jews from the former Soviet Union were being deported to Israel in the conflict zone. 49 ღამბაშიძე მ., 2012, 12. 50 Cf. "Mamluks". 45 46 140 HISTORY, ARCHAEOLOGY, ETHNOLOGY ისტორია, არქეოლოგია, ეთნოლოგია in the 13th century - Ramses II's bride was accompanied by "many Kaškian captives"51in her dowry. It is not surprising then, that the Kaškians captured in Egypt mingled with the Egyptians.52. It is in Egypt that the only relief of the Kaškian warrior is depicted.53It seems that the Kaškian warriors were distinguished by exceptional bravery, courage, and bravery. They fought not only in the Hittite army but also in the service of various countries. They also took part in the Hittite civil war - helping Hattušili III ascend to the throne. Kaškian warriors are also found in Ugarit. 54 It is not known whether the Kaškians participated in the destruction of the Hittite kingdom. One thing is clear: by year 1200 B.C. they had taken advantage of the decline of the Hittite kingdom (by this time the Hittite kingdom was on the verge of falling) and invaded the Hittite kingdom. By the end of the twelfth century BC, the Kaškians are mentioned in Assyrian sources. Tiglat-Pileser I (ca. 11141076 BC) writes of the Kaškians that they did not stay long in the conquered territory. Based on this, we can surmise, that their homeland was near the Black Sea and they did not occupy a large area - from the sea to eastern Anatolia. They are mentioned in Assyrian texts up until the VIII century BC. The Kaskiansages are last mentioned in the annals of Sargon II, then their mention is no longer found in the texts. The city of Kaška provides very important information about theiragriculture economics. In the text of Muršili II's prayer to the sun-god of the city Arinna the Kaškians are described as "shepherds of pigs and (flax) weaver"(LÚ.MEŠSIPAD ŠAḪ ešer Ù LÚ.MEŠE-PI-IŠ GADḪIA ešer). These two professions seem to have been particularly characteristic of the Kaskians.Both of these professions had a common feature - both activities were the prerogative of women - women doing housework, tending pigs,55 and weaving, while men wereshepherdingcattle herds and guarding the country or pastures. From the hostile attack of the neighbors, which was perceived by the Hittites as "appropriation of someone else's land" - Muršili II notes that Kaškian "Pihhunia conquered the side of Išhtitina to turn it into his pasture." (natza apel uišiyauwaš pedan iyat). Flax (Linum) was a rare and important plant that was used both for knitting and clothing, as well as for obtaining oil for food and lightingand for lubricating the wheels of carts, etc. Flax specimens found at Ikiztepe (on the Black Sea coast, near Samsun) date from the Chalcolithic (Copper-Stone Age) to the Bronze Age. Flax cultivated by the Kaškians was considered the best in that period.56 51 Schuler E. von, 1965: 81. This may also be the basis for Herodotus' famous assumption about the origin of the Colchians, cited as the "father of history" - cf. "But it is clear that the Colchians are Egyptians. I realized this myself before I heard it from others and would say so. And because I thought this, I asked both of them, the Colchians were better remembered by the Egyptians than the Egyptians by the Colchians. The Egyptians say that they think that the Colossians are from the army of Sesostis, and I myself also seemed to be, because the Colchians are dark-skinned and greedy ... ”Herodotus History II Book - Euterpe, 104). 53 C. Kuentz, Qadesch 50, 7, 385, 69, Pl. XXV. 54 Modern Ras-Shamra, Syria. Port city in the II millennium BC. 55 It is noteworthy that the pig was considered a sacred animal among iron-mining peoples because it was associated with oak. Cf. Colchian pig head bracelet. To this day, among the Georgians of Imerkhevi, the word "pig" is perceived as a synonym of strength, goodness, courage (Compare the flag of the Odishars, on which, according to Vakhushti, Takhi is depicted, Topchishvili R., 2017: 25). 56 Cf. Colchis in Greece: “I can say something else about the Colchians, which makes them look like the Egyptians. Only the Colchians and the Egyptians cultivate flax alike; All life and language are similar to each other. The Colchian 52 141 HISTORY, ARCHAEOLOGY, ETHNOLOGY ისტორია, არქეოლოგია, ეთნოლოგია As for the pigs, while men were tending herds on summer pastures, women were taking care of pigs that were running in the woods57and only grazing them in late autumn. This circumstance allows us - contrary to popular belief - to assume that the Kaškians, like the rest of the population of the Black Sea region, lived a nomadic life.58 This is also supported by the fact that the Kaškians pursued viticulture and agriculture, which is documented in ancient texts.They even paid tribute to the Hittites with wine.59 They also brought wheat, the harvest of which was periodically destroyed by the Hittites.60 As for the religious views of the Kaškians, the sources indicate that their pantheon was polytheistic and theyhad a corresponding idea of the world: "In the deities of the Kaškas", they meant the three deities of the weather - Hanupten, Kutupuruzi, and Pazim . One of their chief deities was Zitharia, originally from the Black Sea city of Zitharia, and the Kaškians worshiped him in the form of a sheepskin (KUŠkurša "fleece"). Interestingly, in one of the treaties, the Kaškian deities are mentioned along with the Hattian deities. One list contains the traditional list of Hittite deities, but this list is preceded by the Kaškian war deity Zababa, who stands directly behind the Hatti weather deity and the sun deities. According to scholars, Zababa must have been a Hattian deity. Based on these and other Hattian-Kaškian similarities, it is speculated that the Kaškians may have been descendants of the Hattians, some of whom have been mixed with the Hittites for centuries, while those who settled north on the Black Sea coast formed Kaškian communities. Also interesting are the Kaškian-Hattian-Hurrian cultural parallels: the Hattian moon deity - Kašku and Hurrian - Kušuh, the sun deity - Šimešu and Šimegi. It is suggested that the chief deity of the Hayasa kingdom, DU.GUR, located east of the Kaška estate, is the same as the Hattian deity - Šulinkate. The name of the second deity is Tarumu, which is also very similar to the Hattian weather deity - Taru. 61 This suggests that during the 2nd millennium BC, the Hattian cultural area stretched along the entire southern coast of the Black Sea. In the following period, they also connected with Halibs/Halds, iron ore miners of the Pontus area. Their name probably derives from the Hattian word - hapalki - "iron" (Hurrian. Hapalkinnu, Greek chalups),62which is associated with the extraction and exploitation of iron in this region.These linguistic observations are confirmed by the rich archaeological material found in Colchis. 63 It is difficult to restore the true picture of the history of the Kaškians by the fact that we do not have the Kaškian sources directly at hand and we know the issue of the Hittite-Kaškian relationship only from the Hittite side. The Kaškians did not have awriting system and because of this, we cannot establish the truth about them. What we can assume for sure is that their campaigns against the Hittites Seljuks are called Sardonians by the Hellenes, and those who came from Egypt are called Egyptians ”(Herodotus History II Book - Euterpe: 105). 57 Cf. Svaneti, where it is the same today. 58 Sources say that the Hittites used pigs only in rituals, which is also confirmed by archeological excavations: in the Bronze Age, pig bones were found less in Khatusa than in cattle, and in the Late Iron Age, the use of pigs increased actively, as did plain unbaked pottery. Based on this fact, I. Singer that the Kasks did indeed take part in the fall of Hattusa: Singer I. 2007: 166-181; Cf. Collins, B.J. 2006: 155-188. 59 KBo 5.8 I 39; KUB 19.37 III 46. 60 KUB 14.15 I 11; KBo 2.5 II 34; KUB 14.16 II 10. 61 Cf. Georgian "dari". 62 Strabo XII, 3 years. 63 ხახუტაიშვილი, დ., 1980) and etc. 142 HISTORY, ARCHAEOLOGY, ETHNOLOGY ისტორია, არქეოლოგია, ეთნოლოგია were not looting attacks by nomadic, underdeveloped people, as the Hittites put it, but rather retaliation for the seizure and takeover of their cities and pastures by the Hittites.And if we assume that the Kaškians (and, consequently, the Hattians) are the ancestors of the ethnos living in the area after them: the Zani (Chans and Megrelians), then it will not sound surprising that this ethnos is described as unmatched warriors, producers of the highest quality flax,good viticulturist, ore minerprocessor, etc. The way of life of the Kaška communities closely resembles the way of life of the Kolkhians (cf. "lordly country", living in communities, helping each other without enemosity).Proper names (cf. Dadilu, Paata, Kalmahaziti,64 etc.), as well as activities such as - flax processing, winemaking, their service to the Egyptian army, and, most importantly – the cult of the pig and the fleece, clearly suggest direct connection of the Kaskians to the Zanuri (Megrelian-Chan) world. Moreover, in the ancient sources, the references to the Kaškiansterminates and around the same time, since the VII c. BC, references to the Kolkhians appear in the sources. C. Muškians Ethnonym Muška are mentioned in Assyrian, Urartian, and hieroglyphic-Luwian written sources.65Muška are also found in the Bible and Greco-Roman texts. Interestingly, this ethnonym is not found in this form in Hittite texts. The Hittites referred to areas that presumably belonged to the Muškiansas ?? (e.g. Alzi and Purulumzi). This is also logical since it is inconceivable that the Hittites had no relationship with their immediate neighbors. In the special literature of the twentieth century, it was believed that there were two different Muškiansin the XII century BC that inhabited the river Aršaniaš and the river Euphrates. They were so-called "Eastern Muškians" and IX-VIII c. BC. living in Cappadocia and Cilicia, the so-called "Western Muškians", who are identified with the Phrygians.66But this view is not confirmed by either historicalgeographical sources, nor does archaeological material support such a conclusion. The material culture of the Muskians is in no way similar to that of the Phrygians who invaded Central Anatolia from the Balkans, so their association is not proven. Scholars associate the name Muška with the "Meskhetians" of Georgian sources, the "Moskhes" of the Greco-Roman texts, and the "Mosokh-Meshek" of the Bible. As far back as the 19th century, historians - H. Helzer, e. Schroeder, f. Lenorman, etc.The Muškians of Assyrian sources are considered to be the ancestors of the Georgian Moskhes, the Meskhetians. This theory was also shared by Georgian historians: D. Bakradze, Al. Khakhanashvili, M. Janashvili, and in the later period - Iv. Javakhishvili, S. Janashia, G. Melikishvili, and others. There have been numerous attempts to attribute Muškians to ethnicities of different origins, but all these assumptions so far remain only hypotheses. Among the main theories about theMuskians, are ones linking them to the following: E.g. A dance named "kalmakhuri" was danced in Guria until recently, წულაძე, აპ., 1971: 98. Cf. Wittke, A.-M., 2004; Grayson A.K., 2002. 66 This view arose after Mita, the king of the country of the "Mušks" mentioned in the texts, was mistakenly identified with King Midas of Phrygia. 64 65 143 HISTORY, ARCHAEOLOGY, ETHNOLOGY ისტორია, არქეოლოგია, ეთნოლოგია a. Old Balkan (Phrygian); b. Georgian (Caucasian); c. Ancestors of Moshes mentioned in Greek-Latin texts. Presumably, the name Muška must have been a compound name, and under this name, like the Kaskians, several communities were united. Information about them is first found in the royal inscriptions of the Assyrian king Tiglat-Pileser I (1115-1077 BC). In the twelfth century BC, the Assyrian kingdom became the most powerful state in the ancient Near East at that time, due to the weakening of the Hittites, Egypt, and Babylon. It was during this period that Tiglat-Pileser I was active, seeking glory and power through conquests. According to the text, the Muskians are one of the five major political associations in the five communities, headed by the five main ones.67 Almost half a century before the reign of Tiglat-Pileser I, ca. in 1165, BC, the Muškians returned their territories to Alzi and Purulumzi, who were vassals of the Assyrians and were paying tribute to them. Dissatisfied with the Muškians’ action, the Assyrians invaded the area to subdue them. The fighting broke out in the Muškian area, on the land of Katmuhi, where the Muškians brought out 20,000 warriors under the command of five princes. The Muškians could not repel the Assyrians. 6,000 Muškians survived this battle and surrendered to Tiglat-Pileser: "In the year that I ascended the throne, 20,000 Muškians with their 5 kings, who for 50 years held (it) Alzi and Purulumzi, who paid tribute to Assyria, my lord - (Muškians), whom no king could defeat because of their strength, from the mountains they came down and seized the country of the chicken. Thanks to Assyria, my master, I trained my cavalry and infantry, and so as not to wait for the rescue squad, I overcame the dangerous mountain of Kaššiar. I fought them with 20,000 warriors and 5 kings in the country of Chicken. I defeated them ... I scattered their corpses like a raging wave in a mighty collision. I covered the whole valley with their corpses up to the top of the mountain, cut off their heads, and sorted them like zebras. I completely took possession of their property and wealth. Their 6,000 warriors, who escaped my weapons, fell to their feet. I received them and counted them among the people of my country. " The Muškians living in the mountains, like their neighboring Kaškians, were warrior, brave people. The Assyrians' constant attempts to subdue these two peoples often failed, and such a great empire even lost against a brave minority.The country of the Muškians consisted of 5 communities, which, according to the text of Tiglat-Pileser I, could produce 20,000 warriors. The total population was estimated at 70,000-80,000 people. What was their life like? From the texts, we do not know specifically what kind of farming the Muškians followed - agriculture or cattle-breeding, – residential or nomadic life. According to Assyrian sources, we can assume that the Assyrians made expeditionary invasions against them to seize the minerals. What minerals might these have been? The wood material mentioned in the Assyrian texts is GIŠMušku and bronze (most likely also iron). From the IX century, BC concrete data appear: the The text mentions the "5 kings of the Muškians", which does not mean that they were the rulers of the kingdom. Presumably, they were princes of different communities, who from time to time fought with each other and united against a common enemy (cf. Georgian princes). When naming another ethnos in Assyrian sources, e.g. In the case of the Tabals, we meet the hierarchy - "the great king, the vassal king ...". In the case of musks, there is no hierarchy. 67 144 HISTORY, ARCHAEOLOGY, ETHNOLOGY ისტორია, არქეოლოგია, ეთნოლოგია tribute imposed by the Tukulti-Ninurta II (ca. 1240-1205 BC) consisted of bronze vessels, cattle and small cattle, and wine. Also of interest is the later Assyrian text, which mentions various "muscular underwear" (probably made of linen). In one of the hieroglyphic-Luwian inscriptions found in Carchemish (near Syria), which is dated by about the end of the IX century B.C. and beginning of the VIII century B.C., the language of the Muškians is mentioned. The text lists the languages spoken in Karkhemish: native Luwian, Assyrian (which was an international language at the time and he must have known it), as well as Egyptian, Urartian, Phoenician, Mussoorian, and Muscovite. It is suggested that the Musk language may have been the same Kask language, a relative of the Muškian, or, at least, dialects of one language (cf. Megrelian-Chanuri). Moreover, we do not know what the Kaskians called themselves. If they called themselves Muses, it turns out that they must have been the Zanuri tribe of the ancient written sources - Mosins, Mosins ... As for the religious beliefs of the Muškians, they coincide with the religion of the people living in Syria in I millennium B.C. The main deities are the deities of weather and the moon. It is also probable that they celebrated the spring - the feast of the cult of fertility. One of the Assyrian texts mentions the "eku-place" of the Muškian settlement. This was the square in the center of the city where the festivities took place. An interesting point of view is expressed by Gr. Giorgadze when he compares the so-called "Triads"68 of the Hittite and Hurrian deities. In particular, the description of the statues of Ishtar and her two accompanying deities - Ninata and Kulita - is similar to that of the HurutTeshub - Sher - Hur and the North Syrian weather deities - Hazi and Namni. Finally, he compares all of them to thrMtskheta triad of Armazi, Gatsi, and Gaimi. The descriptions of the statues are so similar that we must assume - it was one cultural-religious space, which included Anatolia, Syria, and the South Caucasus, in particular - Kartli. The area where the Muškians were supposed to have settled must have been the Tao-Klarjeti area, in the text of Tiglat-Pileser I the Muškians are mentioned next to the Kaškians. Due to the Urartian conquest wars in the IX century B.C., the Muškians moved north and settled in the territory of presentday Meskheti.69 It is an interesting fact that in 2003 in Kartli, in the village of Tsalkadistrict, the socalled Avranlo, in the tomb of a megalithic building, a dagger-shaped weapon was found,70 which was common in Assyria of II-I millennia B.C. The relief of Assyrian King Aššurnaşirpal II (883-859 BC) depicts a similar weapon used to fight "evil spirits". Thus, when Aššurnatşirpal says: "... I received tribute from the country of the Kaškians and the Muškians, bronze cauldrons, oxen, sheep (and) wine", it is not excluded that the area of the Muškians settlement was far to the north, the territory of Trialeti. 68 Giorgadze G. G.1999: 547-556. There are many proper or geographical names related to this toponym in Georgian - Muskhi, Muskhelishvili, Muska, etc. 70 Narimanashvili G., Amiranashvili J., Kvachadze M., Sanshashvili N, 2008: 381-409. 69 145 HISTORY, ARCHAEOLOGY, ETHNOLOGY ისტორია, არქეოლოგია, ეთნოლოგია D. Daiaeni/Diauhi We note at the outset that we are dealing with two different terms, Daiane and Diaukhi.71 The first is found in XII century B.C.(and?)in the Assyrian texts of the VIII century B.C., and in the second - in the Urartian texts of the VIII century BC. There is an opinion that both terms refer to the same people - the Tao people, the same Taoists. Daia is related to the Georgian Tao and the Armenian Taik / Taokh, the location of which is considered to be northeast of Arzrum, the Oltu Plateau. It is also probable that it is related to the Taoche mentioned in the works of Xenophon. This name is still preserved in the form of Tao. Matching the terms is easy to accept, since the root of the word is the same, in Assyrian the suffix "-eni" is plural ("Tao people, Taoelni"), and the Urartian suffix "-khi" is a toponym. The inscription on the prism made by the Assyrian king Tiglat-Pileser I (115-1077 B.C.) tells us, that in the third year of his reign (1112 B.C.) the Assyrian king marched against the Nairi lands (meaning the areas north of the lakes of Van and Urmia).72 He describes in detail the route of the expedition, the difficulties, and obstacles which his warriors had to overcome before defeating the combined army of the twenty-three countries of Nairi. It seems, that the opponent was led by King Sien of the country of Dayan - among the rulers of the country of Nairi only he is mentioned by his proper name. The king of Assyria defeated the enemy and brought their captive kings to his royal city of Assyria. Sien swore allegiance to Tiglat-Pileser, and only then was he pardoned. Later, as one of the cuneiform inscriptions informs us, the Assyrians defeated the kings of the Nair countries who came out to help the enemy. They lived in the vicinity of the "Upper Sea". It seems that the Assyrians meant the Black Sea under the "Upper Sea" and the ancient inhabitants of the historical Tao-Klarjeti, Artaan, and Erusheti in the surrounding areas. It is probable that in the twelfth century BC, Daiani had to rise above other countries in terms of its political-economic and social development. It is clear from the texts that the Assyrians received up to 100 tons of silver annually as a tribute from the northern countries. The amount of the tribute is likely to be exaggerated, though this does not change the main point: the interest that drove the Assyrians for six centuries to the north, to the mountainous and hard-to-subdue, ore-filled countries. From the end of the XII century BC, Assyrian sources no longer mention Diane, which must have been related to the weakening of Assyria. During this period the Assyrian kings had to defend themselves from the Aramaeans and were no longer able to organize military expeditions to the north. From the IX century BC, the re-strengthened Assyria again began to pursue conquests against the Nair countries, which is reflected in Assyrian written sources. During this period, Urartu aggravated Diane's condition. Diane’s rulers sought to establish goodneighborly relations with Assyria and to deal with Urartu’sexpansion (conquest) policies with them. King Salmanasar III of Assyria (859-824 BCE) tells us: “In the 15th year of my reign I marched against the land of Nair, at the headwaters of the river Tigris ... on a rocky place ... I erected my image ... and on it, I engraved (inscription) about my heroic deeds ... But I destroyed the city of Urartu at the headwaters of the Euphrates River, destroyed it, burned it, went to the headwaters of the Euphrates, 71 72 Cf. Меликишвили Г., 1950: 26-42; ქავთარაძე გ., 2005: 13-18; idem.: 2006. Cf. Waefler M., 1986: 87-94; Salvini M. 2002; idem. 2015: 389-394. 146 HISTORY, ARCHAEOLOGY, ETHNOLOGY ისტორია, არქეოლოგია, ეთნოლოგია and sacrificed to my deities: (Deity) I threw the weapon of Assyria into it (the Euphrates). Asia, the king of Diane, knelt down, and I received tribute, gifts, and horses from him. I made my image (and) stood in the center of his city. "As this inscriptionshows, after defeating the Urartian army at the head of the Euphrates, the Assyrian king meets the Asian the king of Diane who, without a fight, presents a new gift to the Assyrians and swears allegiance to them. It is possible that King of Diane's attitude towards the former enemy was motivated by a far-sighted view: he was in alliance with the Assyrians against Urartu, who was the greatest and real threat to him during this period. Information about Diauhi is given in the inscription of King Urartu's menu (end of IX century BC and beginning of VIII century BC) also from an inscription from Yazilita (near Erzurum): “The deity Haldi is strong, the weapon of Haldi is powerful. The deity with the power of Haldi went to MenuaIšpuini (for battle). (Him) was preceded by the deity Haldi.” The menu says: “I conquered the country of Diauhi, the city of Shashilu, the royal city of battle. I burned the country, the fortress (I destroyed) ... Menua says: “In Utupuri, the king of Diauhi came before me, put me on my feet, fell down, I (him) had mercy on him, I forgave him on the condition of (paying) tribute. He gave me gold (and silver), a tribute ... I removed two kings from there: the country of Kaltulhi (king) and the city of Haldiriulis (king). I conquered the fortified fortresses (which were in that country) from there. " The Diaenes/Diaokhis, like the Muškians and Kaskians, probably pursued farming and metallurgy. It is noteworthy that the menu mentions Diaukhi as a strong country. During the reign of Menu's successor, Argishti I, Urartu sought not only to conquerDiaukhi but also to annex its territories directly to Urartu. The inscription on one of the steles tells the story of Argishti, according to which the king of Urartu took Diaukhi and annexed three provinces to his kingdom, captured the kings of Kaška, Ardarahik, Baltulhi, and Kabuluhi, and annexed their lands to Urartu. During one of the expeditions to Diauhi, the Urartians captured 28,619 men, seizing countless cattle and small cattle. The defeated king of Diaukhi swore allegiance to Urartu and presented the winner with 41 cups of gold, 37 cups of silver, 10,000 cups of copper, 1,000 horses, and jewels.One of the steles has the following inscription: "Conqueror of Nairi from Tumen to Dayan, conqueror of Habih to the Great Sea."In 1985 in the province of Kars, in Hanak, near Lake Shadow (Childir), north of Ardahan (Artaan), to the east, an Urartian inscription was found on a rock (kept in the Istanbul Archaeological Museum).73 It tells the story of the expedition of King Argishti I of Urartu, who invaded the country of Taru and continued on his way. He came to the country of Husha, the country of Bian, the country of Aškalaš. Argishti speaks on behalf of the great deity Haldi: “After Diauhi he came to me in the land of the city of Ahurvan. I defeated the army, I destroyed the city. Ka [...] Uni land. I got: 72080 cattle, 7000 + (N number) people. I killed one and let the other go alive. I destroyed 6 fortresses, I burned 50 cities. " The cities of Diauhi are known from the texts: Shashilu - the main city, Utukha, Zuain - the main city of Khaldirilukhi; Settlements: Ardarakikhi, Askalas, Baltukhi, Kabilikhi, Kada, Saski.74The most important detail in the Hanaki inscription is that the existence of the Urartians near the Lake of Shadows is confirmed. It seems that this inscription was sent by the king of Urartu to the conquered territory (we should not forget the fact that in the world of that time such inscriptions, stelae, bas73 74 Dinçöl A., Dinçöl B. 19921;Dinçol, A.M. and Dinçol, B. 19922. АрутюнянН. В., 2001: 503; Меликишвили Г., 1960; მელიქიშვილი გ., 1990: 269-295. 147 HISTORY, ARCHAEOLOGY, ETHNOLOGY ისტორია, არქეოლოგია, ეთნოლოგია reliefs, etc. were one of the most effective means of presenting themselves. Kings glorified themselves, which was necessary their legitimacy. Therefore, in describing their deeds, they exaggerated achievements, booty, etc., but this circumstance does not change the picture as a whole). Some scholars equate the with Hanak. Bianca and Husa are then located further north, as are Aškalašika and Ahuria. In this case, the border of Diauhi goes to the border of today's Georgia. According to Hanaki's inscription, Diane may be located on the northern border of Georgia. Most scholars place Diane in the vicinity of Erzurum. Where is the Kingdom of Dayani/Diaukhi located? The most important source for locating it is the Tiglat-Pileser clay prize and the news of the Salmanasar hike. In the 15th year of his reign, Salmanasar sailed to the cities of Urartu, to the head of the Euphrates, received tribute from Daiane, and erected Stella Daiane in the royal city.75Today, Diaukhi is thought to be located in the Chorokhi Basin, near the Euphrates, in the Arzrum region. Urartian sources mention three major cities - Zua, Utu, and Shashilu. Zua is connected with Zivin Kale, Utu with Oltu, and Shashilu with modern Georgian Sasire/Tortom. Also interesting is the fortress of UmudumTepe, 18 km north of Erzurum, which is a megalithic structure (huge stones built without dry material) and which, according to scholars, must have been the fortress of the ruler of Diaukh, which was controlled by the Urartians.76 It is an interesting fact that in the whole territory of Tao-Klarjeti and also in southern Georgia, especially in Samtskhe-Javakheti and Trialeti we find abundant similar megalithic, dry-built castles. For example, we can name the Abuli Fortress, built on a dry pile on the small Abuli Mountain near Lake Paravani, with a wall thickness of 4 meters and a height of 8 meters. The pottery found here dates back to the Late Bronze-Early Iron era. Presumably, such megalithic fortresses, which are architecturally similar to the buildings in Eastern Anatolia and Syria, as in the example of Avranlo,might have been built by the inhabitants of Musk, or Diane/Diaukh. A systematic study of the examples of Georgia as a whole and, particularlyof all of TaoKlarjetiwould be of great importance for drawing final conclusions. Georgian historiography holds the view that Diauhi was finally destroyed by the kingdom of Kulha in ca. 760 year BC. This view is supported by the fact that in the inscriptions of the Urartian kings from this periodDiauchi and Kulhaare no longer mentioned. This fact seems to be confirmed by the inscriptions of Sarduri II, in which the king does not mention the expedition to Diauhi and only tells the story of the expedition to Kulha and his defeat. The mere fact that Sarduri II did not invade Diauhi and, as such,Diauhi is not mentioned in his inscription, seems unconvincing (and suggests(?) hat this kingdom was destroyed by Kulha). Ancient Near Eastern sources do not provide information on how the history of the kingdoms of Diauhi and Kulha evolved, but we think they were probably separate political entities in the VI century BC. After the VIII century BC, they no longer appear on the international political arena. We think that these ethnic groups migrated to the north, in the south of Georgia, where they and we should consider them as the ancestors of Georgians. In this regard, the historical views established in the existing Georgian special literature are thoroughly reviewed.77 E. Kulha 75 Russell H. F., 19841: 186; idem. 19842: 171-201. Cf. Çilingiroğlu A. 1980: 195-198. 77 Cf. ასტახიშვილი ე., 1998: 12. 76 148 HISTORY, ARCHAEOLOGY, ETHNOLOGY ისტორია, არქეოლოგია, ეთნოლოგია We have very little information about ethnonym "Kulha". It is believed to have been located west of Diauhi during the reign of Sarduri II, King of Urartu (764-735 BC). In the text of Tiglat-Pileser I (11141076 BC) the toponym is mentioned as "Kilhi" and following G. Melikishvili, it is equated with "Kulha". It is possible that Kulha must have been the kingdom of Kolchismentioned in later Greek sources.As it turns out, Sarduri78 rallied several times against the country of Kulha. According to the text, he was a neighbor of Hushani/Hushahli, and Hushahli himself is mentioned in one of the Urartian inscriptions - together with Diauhi and Zabaha. Kulha is mentioned twice in Sarduri's text: "...(so) says Sarduri: I ran against the country of Kulha, its... cities... Ildamusha, the king of the country of Kulha I... the fortified royal city, I conquered by battle, burned, the population, I destroyed the army of Kulha. I made an iron ring. I erected an inscription in Ildamusha, I burned castles, cities, I destroyed the country, I called men (and) women." In Greek texts of the same period, the same name is found in the form of "Colchis". Georgian scientific literature acknowledges that the Kulha kingdom was destroyed by the Cimmerian tribes that invaded from the north. This is evidenced by the fact mentioned in the Assyrian text that a people called "Gimri" rebelled against Urartu. This is all the textual information we can find. Thus, the notion that the Cimmerians destroyed the kingdom of Kulha is neither textually nor archaeologically substantiated. 79 Conclusion From the above reasoning, we can draw the following conclusions: According to Ancient Near Eastern sources the ethno-genesis of Georgian tribes can be described in the following way: Ancient Anatolian and Kartvelian (in II millennium BC - Hatti, Kaška, Muška; in I millennium BC – Daieni/Diaokhi, Kulha, etc) tribes were genetically related and had close relations in terms of metallurgical manufacturing processes (obtaining, manufacturing of ore and processing the metal). Also, this process of involvement and interaction of local tribes and neighboring ethnic groups led to the formation of a the shared culture and religious system and the emergence of the united conscious. This, consequently created pre-conditions for the establishment of Kolkhian and Iberian kingdoms in the future. And if we presume that Hattian and Kaška people (they might be one and the same) are ancestors of Kolkhians (i.e. Proto-Kolkhians), and their neighbours – the Muškians could be associated with Kartvelian ethnic groups, then the ethnogenesis history of the Georgian state could be started not with Diaokhi-Kolkhian kingdoms in VIII-VII c. BC, but with Hattians and Kaškians by XV c. B.C. At the end of the article, I would like to express my gratitude, first of all, to my teachers - +Prof. Grigol Giorgadze and Nana Nozadze, who gave me the impetus and made me fall in love with the Ancient Near East and Assyriology. Also, to my parents - Givi Gambashidze and Manana Chirakadze, 78 79 Salvini M. 2009-11: 39-42. კვირკველია გ. 1985: 111-122. 149 HISTORY, ARCHAEOLOGY, ETHNOLOGY ისტორია, არქეოლოგია, ეთნოლოგია who got me acuainted withCaucasology. Together with them, for years, we discussed and debated the issues and reasons of ethnogenesis of the Georgian tribes. ბიბლიოგრაფია Abbreviations: CTH = Catalogue des Textes Hittites, Paris. KBo = Kelischrifttexte aus Boghazköy, Berlin. KUB = Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköy, Berlin. RlA = Reallexikon für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie, Berlin. StBoT = Studien zu den Boghazköy Texten, Wiesbaden. ასტახიშვილი, ე. (1998). ქართველთა უძველესი გაერთიანებების (დაიაენი-დიაუხი, კულხა) დიპლომატიური პრაქტიკა. ქართული დიპლომატიის ისტორიის ნარკვევები. თბილისი, 7-12. გიორგაძე, გ. (2000). ხეთური და ასურული ლურსმული ტექსტების ქასქების (ქასქების) და აბეშლაელების ეთნიკური წარმომავლობისათვის. ახალციხე. გიორგაძე, გ. (2002). უძველესი ახლო აღმოსავლური ეთნოსები და ქართველთა წარმომავლობა. თბილისი. 150 HISTORY, ARCHAEOLOGY, ETHNOLOGY თოფჩიშვილი, რ. (2017). ისტორია, არქეოლოგია, ეთნოლოგია ისტორიულ-ეთნოგრაფიული სამხრეთი საქართველო და ქართველები თურქეთში. თბილისი. ინანიშვილი, გ, (2015). ქართული მეტალურგიის სათავეებთან. თბილისი. ინანიშვილი, გ. მაისურაძე, ბ. გობეჯიშვილი, გ. (2010). საქართველოს უძველესი სამთამადნო და მეტალურგიული წარმოება (ძვ. წ. III-I ათასწლეულები). თბილისი. კვირკვაია, რ. (2009). ბორჯომის ხეობა რკინის ფართო ათვისების ხანაში (ძვ. წ. VIII-VII სს.). დისეტრაცია ივ.ჯავახიშვილის სახელობის თბილისის სახელმწიფო უნივერსიტეტის არქეოლოგიის დოქტორის (PH.D.) აკადემიური ხარისხის მოსაპოვებლად. თბილისი. კვირკველია, გ. (1985). კიმერიელების მიერ მეოტიდა-კოლხეთის გზის გამოყენების შესაძლებლობის საკითხისათვის. საქართველოს არქეოლოგიის საკითხები. თბილისი, 111-122. მამალაძე, თ. (1963). ქართული ხალხური სიმღერა „ჭონა“. მსეტ. ტ. XII-XIII, 235-249. მელიქიშვილი, გ. (1990). ურარტული წყაროები. ძველი აღმოსავლეთის ხალხთა ისტორიის ქრესტომათია. თბილისი, 269-295. მირცხულავა, გ. მირცხულავა, ნ. (2008). კავკასია ადრელითონების ხანის ევროპის არქეოლოგიურ კულტურათა სისტემაში. დავით ბააზოვის საქართველოს ებრაელთა ისტორიის მუზეუმის შრომები, V. თბ. 199-205. მიქელაძე, თ. (1974).ძიებანი კოლხეთისა და სამხრეთ-აღმოსავლეთი შავი ზღვისპირეთის უძველესი მოსახლეობის ისტორიიდან. თბილისი. მუსხელიშვილი, დ. ჯაფარიძე, ო. მელიქიშვილი, გ. აფაქიძე, ა. ლორთქიფანიძე, მ. მეტრეველი, რ. სამსონაძე, მ. ასათიანი, ნ. ჯამბურია, გ. ოთხმეზური, გ. ნათმელაძე, მ. ბენდიანიშვილი, ალ. დაუშვილი, ალ. (2012). საქართველოს ისტორია უძველესი დროიდან ახ. წ. IV საუკუნემდე. ტომი I., თბილისი. ნარიმანაშვილი, გ. (მთ. რედაქტორი). (2014). კავკასიისა და ანატოლიის ადრელითონების ხანის არქეოლოგიის პრობლემები. საერთაშორისო კონფერენციის (19-23 ნოემბერი 2014) მასალები. თბილისი. პაპუაშვილი, რ. (1998). გვიანბრინჯაო-ადრერკინის ხანის კოლხურ სამარხ-ორმოთა ფარდობითი ქრონოლოგიისათვის. ძიებანი. საქართველოს აკადემიის არქეოლოგიური კვლევის ცენტრის ჟურნალი N 1. 43-57. რეხვიაშვილი, ნ. (1943).ჭედური ფოლადი. სმამ 4. N 8. თბილისი. რეხვიაშვილი, ნ. (1953).მჭედლობა რაჭაში. თბილისი. რეხვიაშვილი, ნ. (1964).ქართული ხალხური მეტალურგია. თბილისი. ქავთარაძე, გ. (2005). დაიაენი/დიაუხის ქვეყანა და სახელმწიფოებრივი ტრადიცია, მოსე ჯანაშვილის დაბადებიდან 150 წლისთავისადმი მიძღვნილი სამეცნიერო სესიების მოკლე შინაარსი). თბილისი. 13-18. ქავთარაძე, გ. (2006). საქართველოს სახელმწიფოებრივი განვითარების საკითხები. კავკასიოლოგიური სერია 2. თბილისი. ღამბაშიძე, ი. მინდიაშვილი, გ. გოგოჭური, გ. კახიან, კ. ჯაფარიძე, ი. (2010). უძველესი მეტალურგია და სამთამადნო წარმოება საქართველოში ძვ. წ. VI-III ათასწლეულებში. თბილისი. ღამბაშიძე, მ. (2006-07). კიდევ ერთხელ ჭვინტიანი ფეხსაცმლის ანატოლიურ-კავკასიური მსგავსების შესახებ. Bulletin of the AGIBAS - American-Georgian Institute of Biblical and Archaeological Studies. N4-5: 94-95. 151 HISTORY, ARCHAEOLOGY, ETHNOLOGY ისტორია, არქეოლოგია, ეთნოლოგია ღამბაშიძე, მ. (2012). კადეშის ომი. ასირიოლოგთა, ბიბლეისტთა და კავკასიოლოგთა საზოგადოების წიგნები. თბილისი. 12 ღამბაშიძე, მ. (2013). ფეხსაცმლის სახეობანი ხეთური ტექსტების მიხედვით. აღმოსავლეთმცოდნეობა N 2. თბილისი. 103-115. ღამბაშიძე, მ. ჭირაქაძე, მ. (2013). მეტალურგიის კულტის ერთი ნაკვალევისათვის ქართულეთნოკულტურულ სივრცეში. კავკასიოლოგთა მე-3 საერთაშორისო კონგრესის მასალები. თბილისი: თბილისის უნივერსიტეტის გამომცემლობა. 96-98. ღამბაშიძე, მ. ჭირაქაძე, მ. (2015). ოძრხე (ისტორიულ-გეოგრაფიული სახელის კოგნიტური ინტერპრეტაციის ცდა). 568-590. ღამბაშიძე, ნ. (2004). ჭონას ტრადიცია და მისი გენეზისის ზოგიერთი საკითხი. ტრადიციული მრავალხმიანობის მეორე საერთაშორისო სიმპოზიუმი 23-27 სექტემბერი. თბილისი. 242251. წულაძე, აპ. (1971). ეთნოგრაფიული გურია. თბილისი. ხახუტაიშვილი, დ. (1980). მასალები რკინის წარმოების ადრეული საფეხურის ისტორიისათვის ჩრდილო კოლხეთში. სამხრეთ–დასავლეთ საქართველოს ძეგლები. თბილისი. ჰეროდოტე. ევტერპე, ისტორია. II წიგნი. 104. Арутюнян, Н. В. (2001). Корпус уратсқих қлинообразных надписеӣ. Ереван. 503. Гамбашидзе, М. (2005). Страна и город «Типия» по хеттским клинописным источникам, Международная конференция «Археология, Этнология, Фольклористика Кавказа», Баку. 68. Гиоргадзе, Г. (1956). Изистории племен, проживавших к северу и северовостоку от Хеттского государства (Каски), Автореферат Диссертации. Тбилиси. Гиоргадзе, Г. (1961). К вопросу о локализации и языковой структуре каскских этнических и географических названий, Преднеазиатский сборник, I. Москва. Дунаевская, И. (1960). О структурном сходстве хаттского языка с языками северо-западного Кавказа.Сборник в честь академика Н. А. Орбели. М.-Л. Дьяконов, И. (1967). Хаттский (протохеттский) язык. Языки Древней Передней Азии.166-178. Иванов, Вяч. (1985). Об отношении хаттского языка к северозападнокавказским // Древняя Анатолия. Москва. Меликишвили, Г. (1950). Diauechi. Вестник Древней Истории 4. Москва. 26–42. Меликишвили, Г. (1960). Урартские клинообразные надписи, Москва. Меликишвили, Г. (1962). Кулха. Древный мир. Москва. Муджири, Т. (2008). Горнорудное производство в древней Грузии, Studies of the Society of Assyriologists, Biblicists and Caucasiologists(SSABC) 8,Тбилиси. Abramishvil,i M. (2010). In search of the origins of metallurgy – An overview of South Caucasian evidence, VonMajkop bis Trialeti Gewinnung und Verbreitung von Metallen und Obsidian in Kaukasien im 4.–2. Jt. v. Chr., Beitrage des Internationalen Symposiums in Berlin vom 1.–3. Juni 2006, Bonn, 167-178. Akurgal, E. (2001). The Hattian and Hittite Civilizations, Publications of the Republic of Turkey 2616, Arts Series 329, Ankara. Ardzinba, V.( 1974). Some Notes on the Typological Affinity Between Hattian and North-West Caucasian (Abkhazo-Adygian) Languages, International Tagung der Keilschriftforscher der sozialistischen Länder, Budapest 23.-25. April 1974. Zusammenfassung der Vorträge in: Assyriologia. Budapest, 10-15. 152 HISTORY, ARCHAEOLOGY, ETHNOLOGY ისტორია, არქეოლოგია, ეთნოლოგია Βerman, Η.(1977). A Contribution to the Study of the Hattic-Hittite Bilinguals. Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 72.1-6. Bertram, J.K. (2003). Tradition und Wandel im späten 2./frühen 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. im Südkaukasusgebiet, B. Fischer a.o. eds. Identifying Changes: The Transition from Bronze to Iron Ages in Anatolia and its Neighbouring Regions. Istanbul, 245-253. Çilingiroğlu, A. (1980). An Urartian Fortress in Diauehi:Umudum Tepe (Kalor Tepe), Anadolu Arastirmalari, Istanbul, 195-198. Collins, B.J. (2006). Pigs at the gate: Hittite pig sacrifice in its eastern-Mediterranean context.Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 6: 155-188. Cornelius, F. (1973). Geschichte der Hethiter. Darmstadt. Degen, R. (1967). Zur Schreibung des Kaška-Namens in ägyptischen, ugaritischen und altaramäischen Quellen, Rev. of: Schuler E. von in: WdO 4, 48-60. Dinçöl, A. Dinçöl B. (19921). die Inschrift aus Hanak (Kars). Festschrift Sedat Alp. Dinçol, A.M. and Dinçol, B. (19922). Die neue urartäiische Inschrift aus Hanak, Otten, H. a.o., eds. Hittite and Other Anatolian and Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Sedat Alp. Ankara:109-117. Dunaevskaja, I. (1974). Bemerkungen zu einer neuen Darstellung altkleinasiatischer Sprachen. T 2. Zum Hattischen. In: Orientalische Literaturzeitung. Leipzig 68.1974, 1/2. Forlanini, M. (1984). Die "Götter von Zalpa". Hethitische Götter und Städte am Schwarzen Meer, ZA 74: 245-266. Giorgadze, G. G. (1999). Hethitisch-Hurritische und armasische (georgische) „Triaden“, Archív Orientální 67, 547-556. Girbal, Ch. (1986). Beiträge zur Grammatik des Hattischen, Frankfurt am Main – Bern – New York. Girbal, Ch. (2007). Zu einigen Ortsnamen mit hattischer Etymologie,Altorientalische Forschungen 34, 51-62. Glatz, C. Matthews, R. (2005). Anthropology of a Frontier Zone: Hittite-Kaska Relations in Late Bronze Age North-Central Anatolia, BASOR 339, 47-65. Goedegebuure, P. (2007). The syntactic alignment of Hattian, 53 Rencontre AssyriologiqueInternationale, July 25, 2007. Goedegebuure, P. (2013). Kashka. In Robert Bagnall et al. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Blackwell Publishing, 3700. Goedegebuure, P.M. (2008). Central Anatolian Languages and Language Communities in the Colony Period: A Luwian-HattianSymbiosis and the Independent Hittites, in Dercksen J. (ed.), Anatolia and the Jazira During the Old Assyrian Period, (PIHANS 111),Leiden: 137-180. Goedegebuure, P.M. (2010). The Alignment of Hattian. An Active Language with Ergative Base, in Kogan, L. et al. (eds.), Language in theAncient Near East. Proceedings of the 53e Rencontre AssyriologiqueInternationale Vol. I.2, (Babel und Bibel 4), Winona Lake: 949-981. Grayson, A.K. (2002). Assyrian Rulers of the First Millenium BC I (1114-859), RIMA 2, Toronto. Kammenhuber, A. (1959). Protohattisch-Hetitisches, in Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 14: 63-83. Kammenhuber, A. (1962). Hattische Studien 1, in Revue Hittite et Asianique 20/70: 1-29. Kammenhuber A. (1969). Das Hattische, in Altkleinasiatische Sprachen (HdO 2, Abs. 1-2, Lfg. 2): 428546; 584-588. 153 HISTORY, ARCHAEOLOGY, ETHNOLOGY ისტორია, არქეოლოგია, ეთნოლოგია Kammenhuber, A. (1996). Eisen an Hand des Hethitischen Schriftmaterials, in: Mikasa T. (ed.), Essays on Ancient Anatolia and Syria in the Second and Third Millennium B.C., (BMECCJ 9) Wiesbaden, 209-220. Kassian, A. (2010). Hattian as a Sino-Caucasian Language, in Ugarit Forschungen 41: 309-347. Kavtaradze, G.L. (1996). Probleme der historischen Geographie Anatoliens und Transkaukasiens im ersten Jahrtausend v. Chr,Orbis Terrarum 2: 191-216. Kavtaradze, G.L. (2002). An Attempt to Interpret Some Anatolian and Caucasian Ethnonyms of the Classical Sources,Sprache und Kultur 3 (Festschrift Gregor Giorgadze), 68-83. Kinnier, J. Wilson J. V. (1962). The Kurba'il Statue of Shalmaneser III. Iraq 14, 90-105. Klinger, J. (1994). Hattisch und Sprachverwandtschaft, in Hethitica 12: 23-40. Klinger, J. (1996). Untersuchungen zur Rekonstruktion des hattischen Kultschicht, (Studien zu den Boghazköy Texten = StBoT 37), Wiesbaden. Klinger, J. (2002). Die hethitisch- kaškäische Geschichte bis zum Beginn der Grossreichszeit, S. de Martino – F. Pecchioli-Daddi, eds. Anatolia Antica. Studi in memoria di Fiorella Imparati (Eothen11), Firenze, 437-451. Klinger, J. (20051). Hattisch, in Streck, M.P. (ed.), Sprachen des Alten Orients, Darmstadt: 128-134. Klinger, J. (20052). Das Korpus der Kaškäer-Texte,Altorientalische Forschungen 32: 347-359. Köroǧlu K. (2005). The Northern Border of the Urartian Kingdom, In: AltanÇilingiroǧlu/G. Darbyshire (Hrsg.), Anatolian Iron Ages 5, Proceedings of the 5th Anatolian Iron Ages Colloquium Van, 6.– 10. August 2001. British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara Monograph 3, Ankara 101. Laneri, N. Palumbi, R. (2003). A note for the Preliminary Report of the Ardahan-Horasan Archaeological Survey in North-Eastern Turkey, AION. Laroche, E. (1947). Études "protohittites", in Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie orientale 41: 67-78. Muhly, J. D. Maddin, R. Stech, T. and Özgen, E. (1985). Iron in Anatolia and the Nature of the Hittite Iron Industry, Anatolian Studies 35:67–84. Narimanashvili. G. Amiranashvili, J. Kvachadze, M. Sanshashvili, N. (2008). Archaeological sites at Avranlo, in: Rescue Archaeoogy in Georgia: The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan and South Caucasian Pipelines, 381-409. Neu, E. (1990). Der Alte Orient: Mythen der Hethiter, in: Mythos. ErzahlendeWeltdeutung im Spannungsfeld von Ritual, Geschichte und Rationalitat. Bochumer Altertumswissenschaftliches Colloquium 2, Trier, 90-117. Neu, E. (19831). Glossar zu den althethitischen Ritualtexten. Wiesbaden, (StBoT 26). Neu, E. (19832). Überlieferung und Datierung der Kaškäer-Verträge, R.M. Boehmer – H. Hauptmann, eds. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde Kleinasiens (FsBittel). Mainz, 391-399. Rizza, A. (2007). I pronomi enclitici nei testi etei di traduzione dal hattico (Studia Mediterranea 20), Pavia. Rizza, A. (2009). Left and Right Periphery in Hittite. The case of the translations from Hattian, in Rieken, & Widmer, P. (eds.),PragmatischeKategorien. Form, Funktion und Diachronie. Akten der Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 24. bis 26. September 2007 in Marburg, Wiesbaden: 275-286. Russell, H. F.,(19841), Shalmaneser's campaign to Urarṭu in 856 B.C. and the historical geography of Eastern Anatolia according to the Assyrian sources, Anatolian Studies 34, 186. Russel, H. F. (19842), Eastern Anatolia According to the Assyrian Sources, Anatolian Studies, Vol. 34, 1984, 171-201. 154 HISTORY, ARCHAEOLOGY, ETHNOLOGY ისტორია, არქეოლოგია, ეთნოლოგია Salvini, M. (2009-11). Sarduri, RlA 12, 39-42. Salvini, M. (2002). The historical geography of the Sevan Region in the Urartian period. In: Raffaele Biscione et al. (Hrsg.), The North-Eastern Frontier Urartians and non-Urartians in the Sevan Lake Basin. I. The Southern shores. Documenta Asiana 7, Rom, 45. Salvini, M. (2015). Urartu, RlA 14, 389-394. Schrijver, P. (2011). La langue hattique et sa pertinence possible pour les contacts linguistiques préhistoriques en Europe occidentale, inRuiz Darasse, C. &Luján, E.R. (eds.), Contacts linguistiques dans l’Occident méditerranéen antique, Madrid: 241-255. Schuler, E. von, (1965). Die Kaskäer, Berlin. Schuler, E. von, (1976-80). Kaškäer, RlA V, 460-463. Schuster,H.S. (1974). Die hattisch-hethitischen Bilinguen I. Einleitung, Texte und Kommentar. Teil 1, (DMOA 17), Leiden 1974. Schuster, H.S., (2002). Die hattisch-hethitischen Bilinguen. II. Textbearbeitungen. Teil 2 und 3, (DMOA 17/2), Leiden – Boston – Köln. Siegelova, J. Tsumoto, H. (2001). Metals and Metallurgy in Hittite Anatolia, Insigns into Hittite History and Archaeology, Peeters, 275-300. Singer, I. (1981). Hittites and Hattians in Anatolia at the Beginning of the Second Millennium B.C., in: Journal of Indo-European Studies9, 119-134. Singer ,I. (2007). Who were the Kaška?, Phasis Vol. 10, Tbilisi State University. Soysal ,O.,(2000). Analysis of a Hittite Oracular Document, ZA 90, 6-122. Soysal, O. (2004). Hattischer Wortschatz in hethitischer Textüberlieferung, (HdO I/74), Leiden – Boston. Soysal, O. (2007). Zum Namen der Göttin Katahzipuri mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des Kasussystemsdes Hattischen,Papers presented to the 53 Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, July25. Soysal, O. Suel A., (2007). The Hattian-Hittite Foundation Rituals from Ortakoy (I). Soysal ,O. Süel A., (2014).The Hattian-Hittite Foundation Rituals from Ortaköy (II–III). Tadmor, H. (1994). The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III King of Assyria, Jerusalem 1994. Taracha, P. (1988). Zu den syntaktischen Verknüpfungen im Hattischen, Altorientalische Forschungen, Bd. 15. Taracha, P. (1995). Zum Stand der hattischen Studien - Mögliches und Unmögliches in der Erforschung des Hattischen. In: Mauro Giorgieri, Clelia Mora: Atti del II CongressoInternazionale di Hittitologia a curo di OnofrioCarruba. Studia mediterranea. Bd 9. Gianni IuculanoEditore, Pavia, 351-358. Taracha, P. (2000). More on the Hattic sentence building: does the category of tense exist in Hattic?, in Y.L. Arbeitman, "The Asia Minor connexion: Studies on the pre-Greek languages in Memory of Charles Carter ", Leuven – Paris 2000. Vigo, M. (2014). Hattice. Aktuel Arkeoloji Dergizi, 38. Waefler, M. (1986). Die Auseindersetzungen zwischen Urartu und Assyrien. Haas, V. ed. Das Reich Urartu. Xenia 17,87-94. Wittke, A.-M. (2004). Mušker und Phryger. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte Anatoliens vom 12. bis zum 7. Jh. v. Chr., TAVO Bhft., B 99, Wiesbaden. Yakar, J. (2005). The Archaeology of the Kaska, VI CongressoInternazionale di Ittitologia, Roma, 5-9 Settembre, Parte II, SMEA 50, 817-827. 155 HISTORY, ARCHAEOLOGY, ETHNOLOGY ისტორია, არქეოლოგია, ეთნოლოგია REFERENCES Abbreviations: CTH = Catalogue des Textes Hittites. Paris. KBo = Kelischrifttexte aus Boghazköy. Berlin. KUB = Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköy. Berlin. RlA = Reallexikon für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie. Berlin. StBoT = Studien zu den Boghazköy Texten. Wiesbaden. ast'akhishvili, e. (1998). kartvelta udzvelesi gaertianebebis (daiaeni-diaukhi, k'ulkha) dip'lomat'iuri p'rakt'ik'a. kartuli dip'lomat'iis ist'oriis nark'vevebi. tbilisi, 7-12. giorgadze, g. (2000). kheturi da asuruli lursmuli t'ekst'ebis kaskebis (kaskebis) da abeshlaelebis etnik'uri ts'armomavlobisatvis. akhaltsikhe. giorgadze, g. (2002). udzvelesi akhlo aghmosavluri etnosebi da kartvelta ts'armomavloba. tbilisi. topchishvili, r. (2017). ist'oriul-etnograpiuli samkhreti sakartvelo da kartvelebi turketshi. tbilisi. inanishvili, g, (2015). kartuli met'alurgiis sataveebtan. tbilisi. inanishvili, g. maisuradze, b. gobejishvili, g. (2010). sakartvelos udzvelesi samtamadno da met'alurgiuli ts'armoeba (dzv. ts'. III-I atasts'leulebi). tbilisi. k'virk'vaia, r. (2009). borjomis kheoba rk'inis parto atvisebis khanashi (dzv. ts'. VIII-VII ss.). diset'ratsia iv.javakhishvilis sakhelobis tbilisis sakhelmts'ipo universit'et'is arkeologiis dokt'oris (PH.D.) ak'ademiuri khariskhis mosap'oveblad. tbilisi. k'virk'velia, g. (1985). k'imerielebis mier meot'ida-k'olkhetis gzis gamoqenebis shesadzleblobis sak'itkhisatvis. sakartvelos arkeologiis sak'itkhebi. tbilisi, 111-122. mamaladze, t. (1963). kartuli khalkhuri simghera „ch'ona“. mset'. t'. XII-XIII, 235-249. melikishvili, g. (1990). urart'uli ts'qaroebi. dzveli aghmosavletis khalkhta ist'oriis krest'omatia. tbilisi, 269-295. mirtskhulava, g. mirtskhulava, n. (2008). k'avk'asia adrelitonebis khanis evrop'is arkeologiur k'ult'urata sist'emashi. davit baazovis sakartvelos ebraelta ist'oriis muzeumis shromebi, V. tb. 199-205. mikeladze, t. (1974).dziebani k'olkhetisa da samkhret-aghmosavleti shavi zghvisp'iretis udzvelesi mosakhleobis ist'oriidan. tbilisi. muskhelishvili, d. japaridze, o. melikishvili, g. apakidze, a. lortkipanidze, m. met'reveli, r. samsonadze, m. asatiani, n. jamburia, g. otkhmezuri, g. natmeladze, m. bendianishvili, al. daushvili, al. (2012). sakartvelos ist'oria udzvelesi droidan akh. ts'. IV sauk'unemde. t'omi I., tbilisi. narimanashvili, g. (mt. redakt'ori). (2014). k'avk'asiisa da anat'oliis adrelitonebis khanis arkeologiis p'roblemebi. saertashoriso k'onperentsiis (19-23 noemberi 2014) masalebi. tbilisi. p'ap'uashvili, r. (1998). gvianbrinjao-adrerk'inis khanis k'olkhur samarkh-ormota pardobiti kronologiisatvis. dziebani. sakartvelos ak'ademiis arkeologiuri k'vlevis tsent'ris zhurnali N 1. 4357. rekhviashvili, n. (1943).ch'eduri poladi. smam 4. N 8. tbilisi. rekhviashvili, n. (1953).mch'edloba rach'ashi. tbilisi. rekhviashvili, n. (1964).kartuli khalkhuri met'alurgia. tbilisi. 156 HISTORY, ARCHAEOLOGY, ETHNOLOGY ისტორია, არქეოლოგია, ეთნოლოგია kavtaradze, g. (2005). daiaeni/diaukhis kveqana da sakhelmts'ipoebrivi t'raditsia, mose janashvilis dabadebidan 150 ts'listavisadmi midzghvnili sametsniero sesiebis mok'le shinaarsi). tbilisi. 13-18. kavtaradze, g. (2006). sakartvelos sakhelmts'ipoebrivi ganvitarebis sak'itkhebi. k'avk'asiologiuri seria 2. tbilisi. ghambashidze, i. mindiashvili, g. gogoch'uri, g. k'akhian, k'. japaridze, i. (2010). udzvelesi met'alurgia da samtamadno ts'armoeba sakartveloshi dzv. ts'. VI-III atasts'leulebshi. tbilisi. ghambashidze, m. (2006-07). k'idev ertkhel ch'vint'iani pekhsatsmlis anat'oliur-k'avk'asiuri msgavsebis shesakheb. Bulletin of the AGIBAS - American-Georgian Institute of Biblical and Archaeological Studies. N4-5: 94-95. ghambashidze, m. (2012). k'adeshis omi. asiriologta, bibleist'ta da k'avk'asiologta sazogadoebis ts'ignebi. tbilisi. 12 ghambashidze, m. (2013). pekhsatsmlis sakheobani kheturi t'ekst'ebis mikhedvit. aghmosavletmtsodneoba N 2. tbilisi. 103-115. ghambashidze, m. ch'irakadze, m. (2013). met'alurgiis k'ult'is erti nak'valevisatvis kartuletnok'ult'urul sivrtseshi. k'avk'asiologta me-3 saertashoriso k'ongresis masalebi. tbilisi: tbilisis universit'et'is gamomtsemloba. 96-98. ghambashidze, m. ch'irakadze, m. (2015). odzrkhe (ist'oriul-geograpiuli sakhelis k'ognit'uri int'erp'ret'atsiis tsda). 568-590. ghambashidze, n. (2004). ch'onas t'raditsia da misi genezisis zogierti sak'itkhi. t'raditsiuli mravalkhmianobis meore saertashoriso simp'oziumi 23-27 sekt'emberi. tbilisi. 242-251. ts'uladze, ap'. (1971). etnograpiuli guria. tbilisi. khakhut'aishvili, d. (1980). masalebi rk'inis ts'armoebis adreuli sapekhuris ist'oriisatvis chrdilo k'olkhetshi. samkhret–dasavlet sakartvelos dzeglebi. tbilisi. herodot'e. evt'erp'e, ist'oria. II ts'igni. 104. Arutjunjan, N. V. (2001). Korpus uratsқih қlinoobraznyh nadpiseӣ. Erevan. 503. Gambashidze, M. (2005). Strana i gorod «Tipija» po hettskim klinopisnym istochnikam, Mezhdunarodnaja konferencija «Arheologija, Jetnologija, Fol'kloristika Kavkaza», Baku. 68. Giorgadze, G. (1956). Izistorii plemen, prozhivavshih k severu i severovostoku ot Hettskogo gosudarstva (Kaski), Avtoreferat Dissertacii. Tbilisi. Giorgadze, G. (1961). K voprosu o lokalizacii i jazykovoj strukture kaskskih jetnicheskih i geograficheskih nazvanij, Predneaziatskij sbornik, I. Moskva. Dunaevskaja, I. (1960). O strukturnom shodstve hattskogo jazyka s jazykami severo-zapadnogo Kavkaza.Sbornik v chest' akademika N. A. Orbeli. M.-L. D'jakonov, I. (1967). Hattskij (protohettskij) jazyk. Jazyki Drevnej Perednej Azii.166-178. Ivanov, Vjach. (1985). Ob otnoshenii hattskogo jazyka k severozapadnokavkazskim // Drevnjaja Anatolija. Moskva. Melikishvili, G. (1950). Diauechi. Vestnik Drevnej Istorii 4. Moskva. 26–42. Melikishvili, G. (1960). Urartskie klinoobraznye nadpisi, Moskva. Melikishvili, G. (1962). Kulha. Drevnyj mir. Moskva. Mudzhiri, T. (2008). Gornorudnoe proizvodstvo v drevnej Gruzii, Studies of the Society of Assyriologists, Biblicists and Caucasiologists(SSABC) 8,Tbilisi. Abramishvil,i M. (2010). In search of the origins of metallurgy – An overview of South Caucasian evidence, VonMajkop bis Trialeti Gewinnung und Verbreitung von Metallen und Obsidian in 157 HISTORY, ARCHAEOLOGY, ETHNOLOGY ისტორია, არქეოლოგია, ეთნოლოგია Kaukasien im 4.–2. Jt. v. Chr., Beitrage des Internationalen Symposiums in Berlin vom 1.–3. Juni 2006, Bonn, 167-178. Akurgal, E. (2001). The Hattian and Hittite Civilizations, Publications of the Republic of Turkey 2616, Arts Series 329, Ankara. Ardzinba, V.( 1974). Some Notes on the Typological Affinity Between Hattian and North-West Caucasian (Abkhazo-Adygian) Languages, International Tagung der Keilschriftforscher der sozialistischen Länder, Budapest 23.-25. April 1974. Zusammenfassung der Vorträge in: Assyriologia. Budapest, 10-15. Βerman, Η.(1977). A Contribution to the Study of the Hattic-Hittite Bilinguals. Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 72.1-6. Bertram, J.K. (2003). Tradition und Wandel im späten 2./frühen 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. im Südkaukasusgebiet, B. Fischer a.o. eds. Identifying Changes: The Transition from Bronze to Iron Ages in Anatolia and its Neighbouring Regions. Istanbul, 245-253. Çilingiroğlu, A. (1980). An Urartian Fortress in Diauehi:Umudum Tepe (Kalor Tepe), Anadolu Arastirmalari, Istanbul, 195-198. Collins, B.J. (2006). Pigs at the gate: Hittite pig sacrifice in its eastern-Mediterranean context.Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 6: 155-188. Cornelius, F. (1973). Geschichte der Hethiter. Darmstadt. Degen, R. (1967). Zur Schreibung des Kaška-Namens in ägyptischen, ugaritischen und altaramäischen Quellen, Rev. of: Schuler E. von in: WdO 4, 48-60. Dinçöl, A. Dinçöl B. (19921). die Inschrift aus Hanak (Kars). Festschrift Sedat Alp. Dinçol, A.M. and Dinçol, B. (19922). Die neue urartäiische Inschrift aus Hanak, Otten, H. a.o., eds. Hittite and Other Anatolian and Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Sedat Alp. Ankara:109-117. Dunaevskaja, I. (1974). Bemerkungen zu einer neuen Darstellung altkleinasiatischer Sprachen. T 2. Zum Hattischen. In: Orientalische Literaturzeitung. Leipzig 68.1974, 1/2. Forlanini, M. (1984). Die "Götter von Zalpa". Hethitische Götter und Städte am Schwarzen Meer, ZA 74: 245-266. Giorgadze, G. G. (1999). Hethitisch-Hurritische und armasische (georgische) „Triaden“, Archív Orientální 67, 547-556. Girbal, Ch. (1986). Beiträge zur Grammatik des Hattischen, Frankfurt am Main – Bern – New York. Girbal, Ch. (2007). Zu einigen Ortsnamen mit hattischer Etymologie,Altorientalische Forschungen 34, 51-62. Glatz, C. Matthews, R. (2005). Anthropology of a Frontier Zone: Hittite-Kaska Relations in Late Bronze Age North-Central Anatolia, BASOR 339, 47-65. Goedegebuure, P. (2007). The syntactic alignment of Hattian, 53 Rencontre AssyriologiqueInternationale, July 25, 2007. Goedegebuure, P. (2013). Kashka. In Robert Bagnall et al. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Blackwell Publishing, 3700. Goedegebuure, P.M. (2008). Central Anatolian Languages and Language Communities in the Colony Period: A Luwian-HattianSymbiosis and the Independent Hittites, in Dercksen J. (ed.), Anatolia and the Jazira During the Old Assyrian Period, (PIHANS 111),Leiden: 137-180. Goedegebuure, P.M. (2010). The Alignment of Hattian. An Active Language with Ergative Base, in Kogan, L. et al. (eds.), Language in theAncient Near East. Proceedings of the 53e Rencontre AssyriologiqueInternationale Vol. I.2, (Babel und Bibel 4), Winona Lake: 949-981. 158 HISTORY, ARCHAEOLOGY, ETHNOLOGY ისტორია, არქეოლოგია, ეთნოლოგია Grayson, A.K. (2002). Assyrian Rulers of the First Millenium BC I (1114-859), RIMA 2, Toronto. Kammenhuber, A. (1959). Protohattisch-Hetitisches, in Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 14: 63-83. Kammenhuber, A. (1962). Hattische Studien 1, in Revue Hittite et Asianique 20/70: 1-29. Kammenhuber A. (1969). Das Hattische, in Altkleinasiatische Sprachen (HdO 2, Abs. 1-2, Lfg. 2): 428546; 584-588. Kammenhuber, A. (1996). Eisen an Hand des Hethitischen Schriftmaterials, in: Mikasa T. (ed.), Essays on Ancient Anatolia and Syria in the Second and Third Millennium B.C., (BMECCJ 9) Wiesbaden, 209-220. Kassian, A. (2010). Hattian as a Sino-Caucasian Language, in Ugarit Forschungen 41: 309-347. Kavtaradze, G.L. (1996). Probleme der historischen Geographie Anatoliens und Transkaukasiens im ersten Jahrtausend v. Chr,Orbis Terrarum 2: 191-216. Kavtaradze, G.L. (2002). An Attempt to Interpret Some Anatolian and Caucasian Ethnonyms of the Classical Sources,Sprache und Kultur 3 (Festschrift Gregor Giorgadze), 68-83. Kinnier, J. Wilson J. V. (1962). The Kurba'il Statue of Shalmaneser III. Iraq 14, 90-105. Klinger, J. (1994). Hattisch und Sprachverwandtschaft, in Hethitica 12: 23-40. Klinger, J. (1996). Untersuchungen zur Rekonstruktion des hattischen Kultschicht, (Studien zu den Boghazköy Texten = StBoT 37), Wiesbaden. Klinger, J. (2002). Die hethitisch- kaškäische Geschichte bis zum Beginn der Grossreichszeit, S. de Martino – F. Pecchioli-Daddi, eds. Anatolia Antica. Studi in memoria di Fiorella Imparati (Eothen11), Firenze, 437-451. Klinger, J. (20051). Hattisch, in Streck, M.P. (ed.), Sprachen des Alten Orients, Darmstadt: 128-134. Klinger, J. (20052). Das Korpus der Kaškäer-Texte,Altorientalische Forschungen 32: 347-359. Köroǧlu K. (2005). The Northern Border of the Urartian Kingdom, In: AltanÇilingiroǧlu/G. Darbyshire (Hrsg.), Anatolian Iron Ages 5, Proceedings of the 5th Anatolian Iron Ages Colloquium Van, 6.– 10. August 2001. British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara Monograph 3, Ankara 101. Laneri, N. Palumbi, R. (2003). A note for the Preliminary Report of the Ardahan-Horasan Archaeological Survey in North-Eastern Turkey, AION. Laroche, E. (1947). Études "protohittites", in Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie orientale 41: 67-78. Muhly, J. D. Maddin, R. Stech, T. and Özgen, E. (1985). Iron in Anatolia and the Nature of the Hittite Iron Industry, Anatolian Studies 35:67–84. Narimanashvili. G. Amiranashvili, J. Kvachadze, M. Sanshashvili, N. (2008). Archaeological sites at Avranlo, in: Rescue Archaeoogy in Georgia: The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan and South Caucasian Pipelines, 381-409. Neu, E. (1990). Der Alte Orient: Mythen der Hethiter, in: Mythos. ErzahlendeWeltdeutung im Spannungsfeld von Ritual, Geschichte und Rationalitat. Bochumer Altertumswissenschaftliches Colloquium 2, Trier, 90-117. Neu, E. (19831). Glossar zu den althethitischen Ritualtexten. Wiesbaden, (StBoT 26). Neu, E. (19832). Überlieferung und Datierung der Kaškäer-Verträge, R.M. Boehmer – H. Hauptmann, eds. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde Kleinasiens (FsBittel). Mainz, 391-399. Rizza, A. (2007). I pronomi enclitici nei testi etei di traduzione dal hattico (Studia Mediterranea 20), Pavia. Rizza, A. (2009). Left and Right Periphery in Hittite. The case of the translations from Hattian, in Rieken, & Widmer, P. (eds.),PragmatischeKategorien. Form, Funktion und Diachronie. Akten der 159 HISTORY, ARCHAEOLOGY, ETHNOLOGY ისტორია, არქეოლოგია, ეთნოლოგია Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 24. bis 26. September 2007 in Marburg, Wiesbaden: 275-286. Russell, H. F.,(19841), Shalmaneser's campaign to Urarṭu in 856 B.C. and the historical geography of Eastern Anatolia according to the Assyrian sources, Anatolian Studies 34, 186. Russel, H. F. (19842), Eastern Anatolia According to the Assyrian Sources, Anatolian Studies, Vol. 34, 1984, 171-201. Salvini, M. (2009-11). Sarduri, RlA 12, 39-42. Salvini, M. (2002). The historical geography of the Sevan Region in the Urartian period. In: Raffaele Biscione et al. (Hrsg.), The North-Eastern Frontier Urartians and non-Urartians in the Sevan Lake Basin. I. The Southern shores. Documenta Asiana 7, Rom, 45. Salvini, M. (2015). Urartu, RlA 14, 389-394. Schrijver, P. (2011). La langue hattique et sa pertinence possible pour les contacts linguistiques préhistoriques en Europe occidentale, inRuiz Darasse, C. &Luján, E.R. (eds.), Contacts linguistiques dans l’Occident méditerranéen antique, Madrid: 241-255. Schuler, E. von, (1965). Die Kaskäer, Berlin. Schuler, E. von, (1976-80). Kaškäer, RlA V, 460-463. Schuster,H.S. (1974). Die hattisch-hethitischen Bilinguen I. Einleitung, Texte und Kommentar. Teil 1, (DMOA 17), Leiden 1974. Schuster, H.S., (2002). Die hattisch-hethitischen Bilinguen. II. Textbearbeitungen. Teil 2 und 3, (DMOA 17/2), Leiden – Boston – Köln. Siegelova, J. Tsumoto, H. (2001). Metals and Metallurgy in Hittite Anatolia, Insigns into Hittite History and Archaeology, Peeters, 275-300. Singer, I. (1981). Hittites and Hattians in Anatolia at the Beginning of the Second Millennium B.C., in: Journal of Indo-European Studies9, 119-134. Singer ,I. (2007). Who were the Kaška?, Phasis Vol. 10, Tbilisi State University. Soysal ,O.,(2000). Analysis of a Hittite Oracular Document, ZA 90, 6-122. Soysal, O. (2004). Hattischer Wortschatz in hethitischer Textüberlieferung, (HdO I/74), Leiden – Boston. Soysal, O. (2007). Zum Namen der Göttin Katahzipuri mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des Kasussystemsdes Hattischen,Papers presented to the 53 Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, July25. Soysal, O. Suel A., (2007). The Hattian-Hittite Foundation Rituals from Ortakoy (I). Soysal ,O. Süel A., (2014).The Hattian-Hittite Foundation Rituals from Ortaköy (II–III). Tadmor, H. (1994). The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III King of Assyria, Jerusalem 1994. Taracha, P. (1988). Zu den syntaktischen Verknüpfungen im Hattischen, Altorientalische Forschungen, Bd. 15. Taracha, P. (1995). Zum Stand der hattischen Studien - Mögliches und Unmögliches in der Erforschung des Hattischen. In: Mauro Giorgieri, Clelia Mora: Atti del II CongressoInternazionale di Hittitologia a curo di OnofrioCarruba. Studia mediterranea. Bd 9. Gianni IuculanoEditore, Pavia, 351-358. Taracha, P. (2000). More on the Hattic sentence building: does the category of tense exist in Hattic?, in Y.L. Arbeitman, "The Asia Minor connexion: Studies on the pre-Greek languages in Memory of Charles Carter ", Leuven – Paris 2000. Vigo, M. (2014). Hattice. Aktuel Arkeoloji Dergizi, 38. 160 HISTORY, ARCHAEOLOGY, ETHNOLOGY ისტორია, არქეოლოგია, ეთნოლოგია Waefler, M. (1986). Die Auseindersetzungen zwischen Urartu und Assyrien. Haas, V. ed. Das Reich Urartu. Xenia 17,87-94. Wittke, A.-M. (2004). Mušker und Phryger. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte Anatoliens vom 12. bis zum 7. Jh. v. Chr., TAVO Bhft., B 99, Wiesbaden. Yakar, J. (2005). The Archaeology of the Kaska, VI CongressoInternazionale di Ittitologia, Roma, 5-9 Settembre, Parte II, SMEA 50, 817-827. 161