Talk:Colchis/Archive 1

Archive 1

Strange line

"The kingdom of Colchis, which existed from the sixth to the first centuries B.C.E is presented as the first Georgian state. [9] A second Georgian tribal union emerged in the 13th century BC on the Black Sea coast under creating the Kingdom of Colchis in the western Georgia."

I understood nothing! Why 6-1cc BC? As i understand, it existed long before... Why 'second'? What is the first? ...Iberia? I come to this just now. Somebody who understand - please, make it clear and correct. And then delete this section from the discussion:-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.237.111.41 (talk) 04:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Official Georgian Propaganda

We have created this article as an very good academic article, but you as officers of the Assimilationist Georgian Goverment, have alterated and converted as Georgian official propaganda text from that academic article by your quackish bad claims.

You can get round wikipedist editors, now.

But you can't never camouflage historical facts and historical documentary materials evermore. You can't never camouflage archaic classicals, so Procopius , Jordanes , Agathias , Xenophon, Joannes Laurentius Lydus and others on Web.. And you can't deny these facts to the end of time..

For example, Cyril Toumanoff is your invalid references that you are using on three paragraphs.. Who is Cyril Toumanoff? He is a Georgian prince from 20.century and his real name Cyril Toumanishvili ! This is very absurd reference. Why didn't use archaic references for this archaic subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dauernd (talk • contribs) 13:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

While accusing others of fascism and racism, you’ve demonstrated yourself as an overt xenophobe and your unprovoked attack is a testimony to that. There is no sense in discussing the content-related issues with you until you learn to respect others and engage in a normal conversation. Kober^Talk 16:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Kober, there is no protection needed. That user is involved in outright vandalism and spread of hate massage. This article is well sources from various scholarly publications which are clearly visible in the reference section. Protection shall be given against anon changes but not for disputing a well sourced material. Also that user should be blocked from editing after blunt racist attacks. Iberieli (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I requested semi-protection for anonymous vandalism but the admin decided to fully protect the page. That guy, using various accounts and Turkey-based ip addresses, has long been crusading across Wikipedia pages insulting Georgians and accusing them of fascism and racism, characteristically capitalizing these words. Next time he appears, I will file a checkuser case and request an admin involvement. --Kober^Talk 16:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

p.s I also checked his reference: Agathias (AD.536-594): The Histories (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae, Procopius (AD.500-565) : History of the Wars, translated by H.B. Dewing (New York: Macmillan, 1914). Its a false reference, i reviewed the Chronicle of Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae, Procopius nothing of that kind is written there (mind you its an ancient manuscript and according to that vandal, it mentions "Laz-Mingrelian" state, funny because word Mingrelian is a modern one). Anywhere is a fake reference and used to support false information. Iberieli (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure. And the passage refers to the early history of Colchis, i.e. before the differentiation of proto-Kartvelian into Georgian and Laz-Mingrelian (Zan) languages. Lazoi and Lazica are much later terms, and the Classical sources do not know the word Mingrelia as it is a medieval Georgian variation of the earlier ethno/toponym Egrisi. According to that user, Cyril Toumanoff, an outspoken critic of all kind of nationalist bias in the Caucasian history writing, appears to be a "Georgian fascist". That's simply ridiculous. --Kober^Talk 16:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed Kober, he is a simply blunt vandal who has his strong anti-Georgian bias and is trying to undermine credible information with deletions, racist attacks on the Georgian users. Iberieli (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

1-Why can't you reply to questions above that about your reference alteration, and why do you delete that questions? 2-What time is your office hours in foreign ministry of Georgia?(I wonder it realy)Dauernd (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop your puerile accusations and personal/ethnic attacks. Nobody is going to waste their time challenging your trollish comments here. Go and read WP:Civility if you really want to join Wikipedia community.--Kober^Talk 05:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Dauernd, for the upteenth time, we urge you to stop ethnic attacks and discuss content-related problems on talk page. --Kober^Talk 15:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you delete my questions above? Why did you alter orjinal form of this article for yourself ethnical fanaticism? Dauernd (talk) 15:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, please stop personal and ethnic attacks. Your questions have not been deleted and have actually been answered. Nobody seems to understand what you actually say. --Kober^Talk 15:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I say that want scientific thrue information in Wikipedia and not assimilationist etnich fanaticsm.Dauernd (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? And don't accuse others of "ethnic fanaticism" and "fascism". This may bring about sanctions.--Kober^Talk 15:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You are as one each Georgian Nationalist ignore other South Caucasian people's existence in all your contributions. This is only an "ethnic fanaticism" and not Wikipedism. This is reality shown and not accusing.Dauernd (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Look, I asked you several times to tone down and engage in a normal discussion. Next time, your case will be brought to an admin board. --Kober^Talk 16:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the relevant parts of the Wiki - not only this entry - are badly contaminated with Georgian nationalist propaganda. The aim is obviously to misinform the unaware public from outside the region in order to impose on them the Georgian view of the history of the Caucasus -and of the modern political situation. The discussions here prove, however, that this is not an always easily achievable goal -- Viacheslav A. Chirikba.

Removal and Replacement of Citation for Abasci

I recently noticed that Colchis article had a "citation needed" indicated for the statement that the ancient Abasci may have been ancestors of the modern day Abaza. I therefore provided a reference. The next day Kolkhuri-bichi removed it for no good reason I can determine. I am replacing the citation and providing it in full here. Before anyone removes it I would like to know what justification they have for this.

"The first known mention of one of these tribes, namely the (gens) Absilae (or Apsilae), occurs in the Naturalis historia of Gaius Secundus Pliny Major (first century AD). The modern continuation of this ethnonym is the Abkhazians' self-designation Apswa (= 'Aps(y)-wa). In the second century Arrian has the Greek Apsilai, whilst seventh century Georgian attests apshil-eb-i = Armenian apshel-k 'Abkhazians'."

and

"The name of the other ancient Abkhazian tribe, Abasgoi/Abaskoi, first attested in Arrian, is preserved in the form Abaza, which is the modern self-designation of the Abazinians (cf. also Turkish abaza 'Abkhazian (-Abazinian)', Old Armenian avaz and Old Russian obezu 'Abkhazian'). Conceivably the Greek plural Abasgoi has its source in Circassian abaze-khe, plural of abaze, which today signifies in Circassian only 'Abazinian(s)'.

The modern name by which the Abkhazians are known in Russian and other European languages came via Georgian, where apkhaz-i "Abkhazian" appears relatively late, in the Middle Ages; its original form was most probably *abazkh-i (cf. Greek Abasgoi). The transformation of *abazkh-i into apkhaz-i could have occurred in Mingrelian (as was suggested at the start of the 20th century by Marr), where metathesis (transposition of sounds) is a regular phenomenon in consonant complexes."

These citations are from The Abkhazians, Ed. George Hewitt, 1998. Saint Martin's Press, pp 44-45. --Picatrix (talk) 12:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

George Hewitt is not a reliable source. Iberieli (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

George Hewitt is Professor of Caucasian Languages at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, and is the author of grammars of both Abkhaz and Georgian as well as numerous articles on the languages and politics of the Caucasus. The publication he edited was published by St. Martin's Press, a reputable imprimatur. Furthermore, this work is part of a recognized series on the peoples of the Caucasus and the Black Sea, edited by Nicholas Awde.

According to the School of Oriental and African Studies website, where he is listed as a member of the Department of the Languages and Cultures of Near and Middle East, his publications include:

Authored Books

Hewitt, George (2005) Georgian: a learner's grammar (2nd edition). Routledge.

Hewitt, Brian (2005) Abkhazian Folklore (with grammatical introduction, translation, notes, and vocabulary). Lincom.

Hewitt, George (2005) Georgian: A Learner's Grammer (Revised 2nd Edition). Routledge.

Hewitt, George (2005) Abkhazian Folktales (with Grammatical Introduction, Translation, Notes, and Vocabulary). München: Lincom.

Hewitt, George (2004) Introduction to the Study of the Languages of the Caucasus. München: Lincom.

Hewitt, Brian (1996) Georgian: A learners grammar. Routledge.

Hewitt, Brian (1995) Georgian: A Structural Reference Grammar. Benjamins J.

Chapters in Books

Hewitt, George (2008) 'Similarities and Differences: some verbal contrasts between Georgian and Mingrelian.' In: Huber, Brigitte and Volkart, Marianne and Widmer, Paul, (eds.), Chomolangma, Demawend und Kasbek, Festschrift fuer Roland Bielmeier. Germany: Peter Schwieger, pp. 657-676.

Hewitt, Brian (2005) 'Towards a comparative syntax of the Kartvelian languages.' In: Haug, D and E.Welo,, (eds.), Haptachahaptaitis: Festschrift for Fridrik Thordarson. Norway, pp. 119-138.

Hewitt, Brian (2005) 'Caucasian Languages, and Georgian, and Abkhaz, and Georgia: the language-situation.' In: Brown, K, (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics (2nd edition). Elsevier.

Hewitt, Brian and Khiba, Z (2002) 'A selection of the Abkhaz corpus -- 10 stories translated from the Abkhaz Nart epic.' In: Colarusso, J, (ed.), John Colarusso's Nart Sagas from the Caucasus. Princeton University Press (USA), pp. 321-379.

Hewitt, Brian (1999) 'Morphology revisited: some pecularities of the Abkhaz verb.' In: van, H, (ed.), Studies in Caucasian Linguistics: Selected papers of the Eighth Caucasian Colloquium. Research School of Asian African and Amerindian St, pp. 197-208.

Articles

Hewitt, George (2007) 'Abkhaz comparatives.' Archiv Orientalni, 75 (2). pp. 215-237.

Hewitt, George (2005) 'The Syntax of Complementation in Abkhaz.' Iran and the Caucasus, 9 (2). pp. 331-79.

Hewitt, George (2005) 'North West Caucasian.' Lingua, 115 (1-2). pp. 91-145.

Hewitt, Brian (2001) 'Review-article of Svante Cornell 'Small Nations & Greta Powers'.' Royal Society for Asian Affairs, vol. XXXII.2 . pp. 196-199.

Hewitt, Brian (2001) 'Convergence in language-change: morpho-syntactic in Mingrelian (& Laz).' Transactions of the Philological Society, vol. 99.1 . pp. 99-145.

Hewitt, Brian (2001) 'Review-article of Anita Budett (ed.) Caucausian Boundaries 1802-1946 (Archive Editions).' Central Asian Survey, vol. 20.2 . pp. 229-248.

Other Hewitt, Brian (1998) The Languages of the Caucasus: scope for study and survival. SOAS.

I cannot imagine by what generally accepted standard you would assert that this individual is not a reputable source. In the absence of any reasonable justification I am restoring the citation. However, if you can provide me with a reasonable basis for claiming that this individual is not a reputable source, I will be happy to consider your point of view. --Picatrix (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

He is well known for his anti-Georgian bias (he is married to Abkhaz wife and officially supports separatist regime in Sukhumi). Thats why i consider him unsuitable as a reference. This claim should be supported by other sources, otherwise its just a Hewitt claim. As you can see, there are multiple sources on the article supporting one claim. Same should be used for that sentence, in order to support its reliability. If you can find alternative source (rather than Georgianophobe scholar who has obvious bias) support for Hewitt claim, then we can count the statement as reliable and well referenced. Thanks. Iberieli (talk) 03:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. You clearly recognize that there are two sides to the discussion. You frame them as pro-Georgian and anti-Georgian. You seem to feel that only pro-Georgian bias should be allowed. But this is an article about ancient Colchis, not modern Georgia. In any case we can at least agree that there is controversy. However, it seems that you wish to treat the subject as settled within this article and to dismiss the other viewpoint(s) as nonsense from "Georgianophobes". As for Hewitt having a Abkhazian wife, I cannot see how that disqualifies him as a reliable reference. By this logic if Hewitt had a Georgian wife and supported the current Georgian government he would be acceptable. This sort of pseudo-justification will get us nowhere. Wikipedia readers don't need to know about the details of partisan academic sniping between Georgian or Abkhazian scholars with nationalist agendas. However, they should be informed that there is a lively debate surrounding exactly who the inhabitants of ancient Colchis might have been. While you push back hard against any suggestion that Colchis be associated with ancestors of Abkhazians, this article constantly reiterates the theme of seamless and total identity between ancient Colchis and modern Georgia. In fact it really does show a fairly transparent Georgian nationalist bias, and I feel sure that any reasonable editor who bothers to look into the subject will see this. Bear in mind that the Oxford Classical Dictionary, which certainly provides a reputable standard, does not go into constant discussion of the relationship between ancient Colchis and modern Georgia. In fact the text does not mention Georgia (or Abkhazians) at all. The article on Colchis admirably confines itself to the actual subject by stating

"The local population seems to have been fragmented: many peoples are known, though classical writers are usually satisfied with all-embracing terms, 'Colchi', 'Heniochi', and later 'Lazi'."

On the other hand the word Georgia or Georgian appears in this article no less than 49 times.

I suggest the following compromise for your consideration:

1. After the list of ancient tribes mentioned, we can simply place the sentence "The question of any possible relationship between these ancient tribes and people inhabiting the corresponding regions today remains highly controversial." We can then footnote it as follows:

Footnote: Because of ongoing conflicts regarding territory and cultural identity in Georgia, and the Caucasus in general, questions regarding the ethnic and linguistic characteristics of populations living in the area known as Colchis in antiquity are highly controversial.

A variety of scholarly arguments (some reputable, some pseudo-academic) have been advanced suggesting that either Georgians or Abkhazians (or a combination of the two in varying proportions) have the best claim to cultural dominance or control of territory based on anthropological studies, archaeological finds (e.g. 'dolmens'), and linguistic research (e.g. word reconstructions, analysis of toponyms, association of ancient textual references with modern population segments).

Bearing this controversy in mind, certain identification of scarcely-attested tribes in ancient times with one or another population segment in the Caucasus today is extremely difficult, if not impossible. However some scholars have argued that evidence of languages spoken by groups in or near ancient Colchis (often place names) can be associated with the languages of modern population segments, suggesting ancestry.

Proposed ancestry for languages spoken by groups today living roughly within the region of ancient Colchis includes the ancient Hattians and/or Kaskians of Asia Minor (Forrer 1919, Bleichsteiner 1923, Melikishvili 1960, Diakonov 1967 and 1968, Inal-Ipa 1976, Ardzinba 1979, Ivanov 1985); the Hurrians and Urartu of the Armenian plateau and surroundings (Diakanov and Starostin 1986); The Absilae or Apsilae (mentioned by Pliny the Elder) as direct ancestors of the Abkhazians (Chirikba 1991, Hewitt 1993 and 1998), and the Misimianoi mentioned by Agathias in the 6th century (Inal-Ipa 1976).

If you feel that the list of possible ancestors is incomplete we can simply add the viewpoints that you feel are missing, including them in the same basic format. I am not suggesting we remove the constant and unnecessary nationalistic references to Georgia. All I'm asking is that you allow an alternative point of view to appear in a footnote, not even in the primary text. Is this compromise acceptable? --Picatrix (talk) 13:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Im sorry but I asked you for the supporting source for Hewitt claim and not for some compromises, nobody disputed Georgian identity of Colchis (there are plenty of sources which support that), but your claim carries a dubious assessment of the ethnic component which is not mentioned in any scholarly publication but only in Hewitts work. Frankly, I dont care who is he married to, however, I am aware of his bias and cant consider him as a neutral source. Please also dont quote Arzimba (its obvious biased reference from separatist rebel leader) . Im well aware of Kaskians, Hattians but please find any source from scholarly publication to support Hewitts claim that Abaza's of today are descendants of ancient Colchians (as there are plenty of references which support Mingrelian connection with Colchians). For example, there are numerous sources supporting the claim that Colchis is considered as an early Georgian state. Similarly, lets have more than one source on Abaza claim to balance the article. Plus, i dont see any "nationalistic" references of Georgia, the references are taken from scholarly publications which you can see in the reference section. I would highly advice for you to review the sources and again support Hewitts claim fir secondary or tertiary source. There is no compromise needed when the text is supported by number of good references. Iberieli (talk) 23:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Iberieli. Hewitt is notoriously one-sided and frequently manipulates historical facts in order to upheld Abkhaz secessionist cause. Please note that most of the contributors to his book are Abkhaz authors who hold various positions in the separatist regime. Hewitt did not even consult his colleagues and former mentors from Georgia, with whom he worked in the 1970s, to let them represent a Georgian vision of the subject in question. This is simply dishonest. Georgians wrote about Abkhazia and studied its land and peoples over a millennium before the Soviet campaign for eradication of illiteracy created the first native Abkhaz scholarship.

Back to the subject of the current discussion, from what I see here a sort of uncertainty is created by an ambiguity of the term “Colchian”. Colchians were a proto-Georgian\Kartvelian tribe, a product of the assimilation of the migrating Anatolian elements such as Kaskai (Kaskians) with local ethnic elements. In its larger sense, “Colchian” may mean all inhabitants of Colchis, including Abasgoi and Apsilae. Another issue is that ancient authors did well not distinguish the tribes and their territories along ethnic lines. Thus, many terms they applied were in fact collective and it is now near to impossible to identify them either 100% proto-Abkhaz or 100% proto-Georgian (see Talbert et al, Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World, p. 1227), partly because of the frequent relocation of tribes within Colchis or from beyond its borders. Here’s passage from Studies in Christian Caucasian History by the most prolific Western scholar of the Caucasus Prof. Toumanoff:

[...] whatever the subsequent, additional migration, Colchis can be justly regarded as not a proto-Georgian, but a Georgian (West Georgian) kingdom. Toumanoff, p. 69.

--Kober^Talk 05:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I appreciate your taking the time to reply. However the real issues here are basic:

1. There are other people living in what is now Georgia who hold different opinions from the ones that you hold. You dismiss these points of view because you claim they are not neutral. For some of you, if I have not misunderstood, it seems that only a point of view that asserts a complete identity between the inhabitants of Colchis two thousand years ago and the inhabitants of Georgia today is a "neutral" view. Consider this: sometimes in academic discussions there are two points of view and they are not neutral. Sometimes they are competing or antagonistic. Wikipedia does not (so far as I know) mandate neutrality on the part of a cited source, only on the part of the authors of articles. If I write an article about Russian imperialism in the 19th century I can cite Georgians who oppose it and Russians who justify it. The duty of an author of encyclopedia articles is to provide the reader with a summary of points of view regarding the subject of a particular article. What I am trying to say is that you don't need to approve of Hewitt or Cirikba for them to be included. All that is necessary is that their works meet Wikipedia's standards. They represent a point of view held by people in the region in question, relevant to discussions of the location in antiquity. This view has been published and can be referenced. Instead of allowing for this view to be represented you continue to indicate that it is unacceptable because it is held by "separatists". These are political criteria, not academic criteria. If I apply these same criteria to Georgian scholarship from a Russian perspective then legitimate and valuable studies could be dismissed because they were created by Georgian "separatists". Even though I know the Russian claim to have legitimately taken Georgia and held it in the early 19th century based on an 'invitation' from the Georgians is absurd, I would still be willing to represent that point of view in an article if it could be cited.

2. Constantly referring to ancient Colchis as Georgian is like referring to ancient Rome as Italian, ancient Carthage as Tunisian, or ancient Palestine as Israeli. It reflects a fundamental confusion of terms (ethnic, national and territorial) and results from a frantic desire to justify a nationalistic claim based on 19th century standards of criteria admitting of recognition of a state.

3. The population of Colchis in antiquity and the population of Georgia today are mixed. This is the scholarly consensus. The possibility that ancient references mention tribes that could be the ancestors of today's Abkhazians and Abaza is real, and this point of view has been published by a reputable source. I did not write the passage about Abasci in this article. I came across a note that said "citation needed". I then placed the citation. Instead of being thanked for working on this article and sharing your interest in ancient Colchis I have had my footnote removed without justification, after replacing I saw it removed again with a dismissive note, I then suggested a compromise and I've been told no compromise is possible. Before moving along in dispute resolution I would like to ask if any of you can suggest another compromise so that such a process will not be necessary. --Picatrix (talk) 13:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Picatrix, I'm getting bit frustrated and also tired. I completely understand your arguments and thanks for the interesting reading I would appreciate if you include references for your claims rather than claiming that there is consensus among scholars on any given topic, consensus between who? what? when? how? reference please). However, I do not require a detailed explanation on neutrality and on simple facts. I just made a simple request, to find additional source (besides Hewitts) on Abazg connection with ancient Colchians (and im not saying there were none, just want to verify the information so this article looks balanced). Thats all i asked. When I add some sentences to this article (look at history of editing of this article) I always use multiple sources (and although i would love to use Georgian scholars who are no less professional in their field, I insert sources from western scholars to avoid any further misunderstandings). Also I did not dispute your statement (there is no resolution needed and no compromises), I just asked you for additional source. But if you cant find one, than we can say that " according to George Hewitt Abazg tribes are descendants of ancient Colchians. Just as i wrote: According to the renown scholar of the Caucasian studies Cyril Toumanoff: "Colchis appears as the first Caucasian State to have achieved the coalescence of the newcomer, Colchis can be justly regarded as not a proto-Georgian, but a Georgian (West Georgian) kingdom." Thats all. Again for dispute resolution, you need a solid dispute which we don't have here (I dont know why you think we have a dispute, its simple discussion). Also i did not say compromise is not possible, i said there is need for one because im not against your statementIberieli (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I only suggested that you appeared unwilling to compromise because I have already provided an additional reference to the Abasci/Apsilae question in my second posting in this exchange, above. However in your reply to that post you continued to offer me your personal opinions about what sources you felt were appropriate for this article. Once more, and more completely:

Chirikba, V., "On the etymology of the ethnonym 'apswa' "Abkhaz", in The Annual of the Society for the Study of Caucasia, 3, 13-18, Chicago, 1991

I have already provided a reference for my claim that there is scholarly consensus among academics regarding the fact that the population of ancient Colchis was mixed. Please see my citation above from the peer-reviewed standard English language reference work on the classical world, The Oxford Classical Dictionary. I excerpted the text for you and provided the source. This also again, and more completely:

"The local population seems to have been fragmented: many peoples are known, though classical writers are usually satisfied with all-embracing terms, 'Colchi', 'Heniochi', and later 'Lazi'."

The Oxford Classical Dictionary, Third Edition, Ed. Hornblower and Spawforth, Colchis, 1999, Oxford University Press

We can simply leave the actual article text as it is, with the footnote in the same place. We can provide the Chirikba citation along with the Hewitt citation. However it would be very misleading to state that "according to Hewitt Abazg tribes are descendants of ancient Colchians". No one has stated anything of the kind. The point is that if the interpretation of some scholars is correct, ancient sources confirm the presence of Abkhazians as a distinct people (gens) as early as the first century CE in the territory known in ancient times as Colchis. It is counter-productive to confuse the name of an institutional state, the general designation of a territory and the self-designation of a people as such. As I mentioned above, the text of this article confuses these designators constantly. This problem should be addressed.

I suggest the following footnote for your consideration:

According to some scholars, ancient tribes such as the Absilae (mentioned by Pliny, 1st century CE) and Abasgoi (mentioned by Arrian, 2nd century CE) correspond to the modern Abkhazians (Chirikba, V., "On the etymology of the ethnonym 'apswa' "Abkhaz", in The Annual of the Society for the Study of Caucasia, 3, 13-18, Chicago, 1991; Hewitt, B. G., "The valid and non-valid application of philology to history", in Revue des Etudes Georgiennes et Caucasiennes, 6-7, 1990-1991, 247-263). However this claim is controversial and no scholarly consensus has yet been reached."

Thank you again for your willingness to discuss this subject. --Picatrix (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

So let me get it straight, you are using Abkhaz sources for that claim? Than, what keeps me from bombard this article with Georgian sources? Chirikba, Arzimba and Bagapsh is not a reliable or neutral source. I have no objections to Hewitt but definately not Abkhaz separatist sources can be used in this article. I asked you more than couple times to find NEUTRAL sources, not Georgian, not Abkhaz but sources from western scholars. Sources by Chirikba, Arzimba and other separatist daydreamers, are not reliable or be considered as scholarly. Again, you may use freely any reference but make sure you mention an important detail that it is according to Abkhaz side and not by any "scholarly consensus". Anyway, Ed. Hornblower and Spawforth don't mention Abazg or moder day Abkhaz do they? While Suny, Toumanof, Rosen, Allen, Land all mention about Colchian connection to early or proto-Georgian tribes. With all due respect please use neutral scholars such as you did already, Ed. Hornblower and Spawforth but avoid using any biased Abkhaz referenced which are highly questionable and controversial. Otherwise, we wouldn't get anywhere. I recommend to consult this book by well known Colchis scholar David Braund: Georgia in Antiquity: A History of Colchis and Transcaucasian Iberia, 550 BC-AD 562. As for your footnote, its all up to you. If you think its reasonable please insert it. But again, I dont think we should use Chirikba or Arzimba if we are talking about scholars. Iberieli (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have added the citation. I have also indicated that this interpretation is controversial. Finally, I have added the viewpoint of a Georgian scholar, regarding the same issue. I hope that this serves to balance the citation. --Picatrix (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your research and contribution, we also should work on the history section, which desperately needs additional information. Thanks again, Best. Iberieli (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Category

Since this is listed as a location in greek mythology, I figured it needs to put in the general greek mythology category too. I don't have an account so I can't do it because the article's protected, but I wanted to point it out.--24.255.171.220 (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Overuse of the word "Georgian"

In the first paragraph of this page, the word "Georgian" is used seven times alone. It reads rather ridiculously. Granted, the fact that Colchis was in modern Georgia is of vital note, but the repetition of the word is absurd. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC))

Seven times in the opening paragraph is just the tip of the iceberg. You will see that in the discussion above, concerning whether or not any mention of Abkhazians could be made, that "the word Georgia or Georgian appears in this article no less than 49 times." At the time I did not waste further energy dealing with the nationalistic subtext that exists beneath the entire article. However, I certainly agree that the article should be edited so that the nationalism is a little less puerile and blatant. --Picatrix (talk) 19:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

A misrepresentation of a passage in Argonautica?

"Apollonius of Rhodes states that the Egyptians of Colchis preserved as heirlooms a number of wooden tablets showing seas and highways with considerable accuracy.". Where does this occur? I have two translations at my elbow, but I can find nothing about Colchians as Egyptians nor wooden tablets. Part of the elaborate modern Georgian founding mythology?--Wetman (talk) 07:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The quote is taken from Britannica 1911 which can hardly be considered part of modern Georgian founding myth-making:

Herodotus, who states that they, with the Egyptians and the Ethiopians, were the first to practise circumcision, believed them to have sprung from the relics of the army of Sesostris, and thus regarded them as Egyptians. Apollonius Rhodius (Argon, iv. 279) states that the Egyptians of Colchis preserved as heirlooms a number of wooden ?? (tablets) showing seas and highways with considerable accuracy. Though this theory was not generally adopted by the ancients, it has been defended, but not with complete success, by some modern writers. It is quite possible that there was an ancient trade connexion between the Colchians and the Mediterranean peoples.

(LoveToKnow link)

Another quote from more recent source The History of Cartography by John Brian Harley, David Woodward (1987), p. 158:

Although the allusion is literary and refers to an earlier period, a passage in the epic of Aplonius Rhodius (fl. Ca. 267-260 BC) extends the practice outside Athens, claiming that the Colchians, on the southeast coast of the Black Sea, were originally colonists from Egypt. “They preserve,” he says, “the engravings of their fathers on pillars, on which are marked all the ways and the limits of the sea and land as you journey on all sides round."

(Google Books link)

--Kober^Talk 12:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Georgian myths about Colchis.

The article states that Colchis was an ancient Georgian state and makes a reference, inter alia, to p. 91 of this book which is about Georgian myths and symbols.

Why not to make a reference to sources, if any? Apswaaa (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

For my part I'd welcome source citations and a more balanced treatment of the history of this region. At present, however, the content suggests an editorial bias in favor of identifying the historical Colchis with modern Georgia, which involves a fundamental confusion I have already addressed on this talk page (above). Unfortunately, if you want to see something changed, you'll have to undertake it yourself. --Picatrix (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

According to Suny, Colchis was a western Georgian state, but he doesn’t cite any sources.

Unfortunately, I can’t check David Braund’s Georgia in Antiquity. — Apswaaa (talk) 13:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

More sources are here. "Georgian" here does not necessarily imply that all tribes living in the area in question were ethnically Georgian. Scholars define Colchis as "West Georgian" to make it clear that the dominant group in Colchis were (proto-)Georgian tribe(s). According to the foremost Western scholar of the medieval Caucaus, Cyril Toumanoff of Georgetown University:

Colchis appears as the first Caucasian State to have achieved the coalescence of the newcomer and the autochton; so that, whatever the subsequent, additional migrations, Colchis can be justly regarded as not a proto-Georgian, but a Georgian (West Georgian) kingdom." (Toumanoff, 1963, Studies in Christian Caucasian History‎, p. 69)

--Kober^Talk 13:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

We need ancient sources, not just statements of modern scholars.

Shnirelman on p. 341 writes: “ancient sources let us talk only about a not big political formation in the lower reaches of r. Phasis”, and refers to Braund’s Georgia in Antiquity, p. 91. — Apswaaa (talk) 15:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Huh! "ancient sources"? Are Herodotus and Pliny supposed to make such identifications? This is exactly the prerogative of modern scholars. Ethnogenesis is studied retrospectively. --Kober^Talk 15:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Why not? Herodotus identified Colchians as Egyptians...

The article begins with the words “In ancient geography...”, that’s why references to ancient sources would be quite appropriate. Bald statements about ancient Georgian kingdom are not very convincing. — Apswaaa (talk) 19:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is well sourced based on the scholarly publications by Toumanoff, Braud, Lang and others, therefore, it is much convincing. On the other hand your arguments are not convincing and i dont see any reason to doubt the sources which are mentioned and are sited by the article. Iberieli (talk) 04:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can’t check all the sources used in this article. This one is used 5 times in spite of the fact that the author considers claims about Colchians to be Georgian national mythology. — Apswaaa (talk) 11:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm interested in seeing more sources. There is no reason not to provide mention of ancient as well as modern theories regarding the relationships between past and present populations (when they can be established). Furthermore, briefly mentioning some of the (notable) wild antique claims in the context of a broader discussion would go a long way towards showing how long a history wild claims about the population(s) of the region has. Toumanoff can certainly be used, but his confusion of specifically linguistic and ethnic terminology (e.g. "proto-Georgian" in reference to a people), as well as his (unintended?) vagueness when it comes to the distinctions that should be made between topos and ethnos, do not encourage me to give his comments special treatment over those of any other sanctified and blessed academic. Let's gather the best sources we can and consider rewrites or the addition of new content. --Picatrix (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately for matters at hand, what little we know of ancient Colchis (Abkhazian Kolkhida) does not help us to decide the ethnicity of the Colchians. The name ‘Medea,’ itself looks to be Greek for ‘Guardian(ess)’, but it has a suspicious Iranian look to it. That of her father, ‘Aietes’, appears to be built upon the Ionian Greek root for ‘eagle’, while that of her halfbrother, ‘Apsyrtos’, could equally well be a Greek derivative reflecting Old Babylonian absu ‘the abyss’ or an Old Abkhazian */a-p´sw-art./ the-Abkhaz-pronoun suffix, based on an old root for mortal and a suffix now seen only in pronoun constructions. Clearly we are drawing near neither to Georgian nor Mingrelian, but possibly to some ancient dialect of Abkhaz. If anything can be concluded from such evidence, however, it is that ancient Abkhazia, while Abkhazian, was also to some extent multi-ethnic. Apswaaa (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

(Criticism & a modest constructive proposal) As user Picatrix has repeatedly pointed out, this article is prey to certain category mistakes. I would have liked to learn more about what contemporary historians know about Colchis, rather then to learn what a certain group of people likes to relate Colchis to. The only immediate and undisputed connection of Colchis to Georgia seems to be the territory. The article should state that Colchis was situated in a region on the eastern shores of the Black Sea that belongs to present day Georgia. The ethnicity of the Colchians is unknown, a continuity of their state to medieval or modern states cannot be stated in any institutional sense. Whoever wants to make Colchis a precursor of modern day Georgia ("the first Georgian state"), needs a rather vague notion of precursorship and ought to make this notion explicit. The agenda of Iberieli and Kober in endlessly substituting 'Georgian' for other discriptions is obvious. However, there seems a peaceful way out by observing the categories. Languages have a classification in contemporary linguistics, places have names as well. All we know about Colchis is a few ancient sources plus some archeology. Such an article should also discuss what scholars speculate about, e.g. the ethnicity of ancient Colchis, hitherto unknown. But in this discription the term 'Georgian' wouldn't appear either, because there were no Georgians, Russians, Germans or English at the time, but entirely different ancient peoples. However there might be a further Section 'History of Interpretation of ancient Colchis'. And here all this may appear, interpretations that claim a continuity with Georgia, others that claim a connection with Abkhazians etc. The history of interpretations is a relevant part of what can be said about many ancient places. Colchis may be a bit more concrete than Troya, but still it is far and obscure enough to be a fertile ground for projections, which are interesting in their own way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.220.73.120 (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

p.s. (Criticism & a modest constructive proposal) Obviously most of the first sentence of the article should be moved to a section like the one I proposed ('History of Interpretation of ancient Colchis'). Maybe the users would be able, independent of their stance on how 'Georgian' Colchis was, to agree about restructuring the article accordingly. None of your claims would be lost, they would only no longer appear as what they are not, namely undisputed facts about Colchis. Proposal:

In ancient geography, Colchis or Kolkhis (Georgian and Laz: კოლხეთი, ǩolxeti or "ǩolxa" ; Greek: Κολχίς, Kolkhís) was an ancient kingdom and region on the eastern shores of the Black Sea, in present day Western Georgia.

p.p.s. Sorry for failing to sign: StBorn (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is well sourced, with numerous scholarly references which directly support the statements made in the article. Moreover, these statements of Colchis being proto-Georgian, Georgian state and so on is taken from those scholarly sources. Please provide sources and references for your claims next time. Iberieli (talk) 04:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

“For all their curiosity the Ancient Greeks were peculiarly uninterested in the diversity of languages attested among the many peoples with whom their travels brought them into contact, all of whom were classified as ‘barbarians’. Specifically, they have left us no evidence of the languages spoken by those tribes their writers named as residing along the east coast of the Black Sea, which they loosely termed Colchis, descibed by the Mingrelian scholar Dzhanashia (1988.295) as ‘more a geographical than political term, and even then with uncertain boundaries,’ though for Strabo (1st century B.C.) it extended roughly from Pitsunda (northern Abkhazia) to Trebizond (Turkey).” (http://www.apsny.ru/special/word/abkhazia_broxup_1993.pdf, p. 3) Apswaaa (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

References

კოლხეთი

Is Geo კოლხეთი a neologism? I can’t find it here. — Apswaaa (talk) 12:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Colchis is known as Colchis in all of the sources that I have ever dealt with. It is most likely an indigenous name for the kingdom that was taken by others, this is why they all sound the same: Colchis (English), Colcheti(Georgian), Colchida(Russian) etc. I do not know what meskhi.net is so I cannot tell you why you cannot find Colchis there.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 19:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Didn’t you notice ნიკო ჩუბინაშვილი’s dictionary there? ))) Apswaaa (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Total nonsence. I guess, that's cleared. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Article topic

Colchis is not the name of a "kingdom", it is the name of a people and a region in the Southern Caucasus. The toponym is apparently first recorded in the 9th century BC. There were "Colchians" and Colchian tribal kings, I suppose, but never a "kingdom of Colchis". It was under Persian, then Greek rule, then partly Iberian (Caucasian Iberia) partly Pontic Greek. It is completely misguided to present a "kingdom of Colchis" which supposedly lasted from 1300 BC(!) to 164 BC. --dab (𒁳) 12:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

There can arguably be talk of an "Achaemenid client-kingdom of Colchis" during the 6th to 4th centuries BC. This could be covered in a section here, but certainly doesn't cover the full topic of "Colchis". --dab (𒁳) 12:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yet another Georgia-related article of marvel:D

Flag of Ulster

I looked at the flag of Ulster, and it made me think of both Abkhazian and Georgian flags, and I thought...

Why don't we all start calling Ulster an "Ancient British kingdom" from now on?

Ulster is so anciently British, that nothing is as British as the ancient Ulster. British in all ancient maps of the United Kingdom. Ulster, the cradle of the British language. Populated by proud Britons since nobody knows when. Ulster, the ancient citadel of the British Christendom. Ulster, motherland of the British dynasty. And, generally, home of all things British.

• Just like we do with the ancient Georgian kingdom of Colchis, eh?
  • Colchis is doubtlessly Georgian in all ancient maps of Georgia (remember those huge letters GEORGIA in one corner of those Roman and Byzantine maps, right in front of THE UK on the opposite corner of Europe).
  • Colchis, the cradle of the Georgian language. Just like with Ulster, and the British language. Nothing to add here, actually.
  • Colchis, populated by proud Georgians since prehistoric times, including all the Achba dynasty of Abkhazian Kings of Abasgia (to those reading Byzantine authors) and all other Abasgians. Well, everybody knows all Abkhazians are Georgians, right? Even Abkhazians themselves would recognize it one day. Probably.
  • Colchis, the ancient 'citadel of the Georgian Christendom. Uh, well, since this half of "Georgia" was mainly Muslim during half of the second millennium, - not exactly as ancient and citadelic as Ulster, but still...
  • Colchis, motherland of the Georgian dynasty. This time for real, lol. Been a home for the good old Roman/ Armenian Bagratid "Georgian" dynasty with all those "Ashots" and "Sumbats" and "Gurgens". Wouldn't, say, Fergus, or even Ciothruadh sound like an wonderful British name for the King of the United Kingdom to you?:)
  • Colchis, home of all things Georgian. Even now, people we know as "Georgians" themselves call their country "Sacolchtvelo", "a country of Colchians", and name themselves "Colchtvels", which means "Colchians". Just as true as Britons routinely calling themselves "Ulsterish". Er, sorry, "Gaeilge".

Thankfully, we're not going that far yet with Ulster:) FeelSunny (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

No, that's definitely not my talkpage. WP:SD does not apply to this. So, you should look through the rules more closely. Do you really expect a serious response to your masterpiece of soapboxing?--Kober^Talk 16:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

No, dear, I do not expect an answer at all. Least of all, a "serious" one, especially from one of the authors. I can only admire the article. Knowing, of course, that it's drifted beyond any discussions so very long ago, I'm afraid. FeelSunny (talk) 16:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

First off, I'm not your "dear". If you don't expect an answer at all, then it appears to me your only purpose is soapboxing. Then you can bring your masterpiece to any of myriads of runet forums where your warm feelings towards Georgia will be kindly shared. Also, I'd recommend that you look through some basic textbook stuff before juxtaposing the religious affairs of Colchis with Islamization of "half of Georgia" (sic) "during half of the second millennium" and calling the Bagratids an "old Roman" dynasty. Best, --Kober^Talk 17:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, my not dear, maybe I would receive some answers from the others? From those who did not yet contribute to this masterpiece?

• Maybe they would kindly explain how the Kingdom of Colchis "unified" with the Kingdom of Iberia (information from the lead of this marvellous article) and "contributed significantly" (even more lovely, contributed after unification) to the "medieval Georgian statehood"? I presume that "medieval statehood" and "unification of kingdoms" happened to Georgia before the VI c. BC, when the Kingdom of Colchis was finally conquered - and ceased to be? Or did we all miss something, and this "medieval statehood" of the "unified Georgia" happened under Rome? Or Pontus? So many questions...
• And maybe they would answer what was the capital of the Georgian "Kingdom of Colchis" and the name of the King of the Kingdom of Colchis at the moment of unification? Hopefully he/ she became the King/ Queen of the Georgia United in the VI c. BC - and not the other King, that of the Kingdom of Iberia?
• And maybe they would explain how the Kingdom of Lazica that existed on the territory of this marvellous "Kingdom of Colchis" between the VI c. BC and the VII c. AD (that is, most of the time covered by this wonderful article about the "Colchis kingdom") isn't even mentioned?
• And how so happened that this Kingdom of Lazica happened to appear in the "Georgian kingdom of Colchis", if Laz people didn't even speak Georgian?

Oy vey, so many questions...FeelSunny (talk) 18:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's somewhat refreshing to see that you're beginning to learn how to use talk page. It's just the beginning, though. Back to the article...

The main issue with this article is that it illustrates Colchis as a monolithic state formation as if it had even a semblance of definite borders, government, identity, etc. In fact, Colchis was pretty much a fluid concept in geographical and political no less than in ethnic terms. I'd been trying to tilt the prose toward this point based on the researches by the likes as Melikishvili, Janashia, Braund, etc. before I abandoned this article to the mercy of puerile nationalists and equally puerile wanna-be anti-nationalists. Of course, the Kingdom of Colchis never unified with the Kingdom of Iberia to form Georgia. Their "successors" did, but that's another story. Interestingly, some of the early modern European literati, including, e.g., the 17th-century Frenchman Chardin, still referred to the western parts of Georgia, specifically, the Principality of Mingrelia, as Colchis.

Lazica should be mentioned as well as ethnic and cultural penetration from Iberia/eastern Georgia in the Late Antiquity/Early Middle Ages. Why is Colchis characterized as Georgian? Well, probably because when the earliest Colchian federation formed in the Chorokhi valley, Georgians, Lazi, and their kindred all spoke the same, proto-Kartvelian, language. At least, this early ethno-political unity is way too explicitly characterized as "[proto]-Georgian" in the seminal works by, say, Vladimir Minorsky and Cyril Toumanoff.

P.S. Now, what about your homework? Do you still think that the Bagratids were "old Romans"?--Kober^Talk 18:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, about Bagratids. Bagratids themselves claimed to originate from the Roman Empire, more precisely Judea. Claiming they were descendants of David. This doesn't change the fact that, by the time they started to rule in Colchis, they well became Armenians, of course.

As to all the other questions, Kober, I start to think you probably did not read my last post...

1. The article's lead in this very moment reads, I quote, "The Kingdom of Colchis contributed significantly to the development of medieval Georgian statehood after its unification with the eastern Georgian Kingdom of Iberia." I.e. Wikipedia article you (I believe) very heavily edited right now says Georgia was created by the "unification" of the Kingdom of Colchis and the Kingdom of Iberia. "Kingdoms", not "regions". Which is a very refreshing point of view, if you ask me. Especially, if you take into account this site is being extensively used by history students across the world...
2. Another thing is, the article implies Colchis region was Georgian and existed as Georgian till the unification of Georgia - which is quite funny if you know about 1) Laz kingdom that succeeded the "Georgian" Colchis (from your post looks like you've heard about it), 2) Aqbkhazian Kingdom (not yet mentioned anywhere, I guess), and 3) the time of formation of ethnos of Kartvelians, and the nation of Sakartvelo. And of how the word "Georgia" came into being. It's again quite refreshing to see "Georgian kingdoms" existed in the VIII c. BC and even before. "Georgian", not "proto-Georgian"/ "proto-Kartvelian".
3. When you say, I quote again, "when the earliest Colchian federation formed in the Chorokhi valley, Georgians, Lazi, and their kindred all spoke the same, proto-Kartvelian, language" - don't you yourself see your answer is a perfect reason to ask 1) why don't we call Colchis a "Laz" kingdom instead then, and 2) who exactly were those "Georgians" if their Georgian language hadn't yet form?
4. To put it very simple, Kober: do you really not see the article confuses "Kingdom of Colchis" with the "Region of Colchis" all the time? Did you check the timeline of the history of Georgia to the right? Didn't you mention how the space you edit is named there - "Kingdom of Colchis"? And, finally, don't you understand you guys write about "Georgians" all the time - in the Ist millenium BC?

Oh my. FeelSunny (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

First of all, the Bagratid claim of Davidic origin does not make them "old Romans". And, yes, go back to textbooks. They never ruled in Colchis.

1, 2. Reread my previous post regarding my views and the share of my contributions to the current version. Regarding Abasgia, when it, as a kingdom, came into existence, the contemporary sources hardly ever mentioned the term Colchis to describe the region in question. For your knowledge, Abasgia/Abkhazeti was also a fluctuating geographic, political and ethnic term reflecting the changes of political landscape and dynastic expansion.

3. Description of Colchis as a [proto-]Georgian entity is not my brainchild. I quoted at least two leading scholars using the term "proto-Georgian" (verbatim).

4. Reread my previous post and probably you will find the answers to your rhetorical questions. --Kober^Talk 20:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• @"does not make them "old Romans" - whatever, call them Jewish, if you like. BTW, you keep on misquoting me, I called them an "good old Roman/ Armenian dynasty", not "old Romans".
• @"go back to textbooks. They never ruled in Colchis." - you serious? You - really - think so? I mean, Kober, you're Georgian? Do you know where the capital of David the Builder's realm was - before he conquered Tbilisi? Do you know what was the capital of the ancient "Kingdom of Colchis"? And you ask me to "go to textbooks"?
• @"previous post regarding my views" - I did not comment on your views, I fully agree with all your thoughts about nationalists and anti-nationalists and the like. But I commented on the article. And it says exactly what I quoted. None of my questions were rhetoric, unfortunately.
• The problem is, we have an article that claims that "Georgians", and not "proto-Georgians" existed in 1st millennium BC, and had a kingdom that lasted (seemingly) until the 2nd millenium AD, when Georgia was united.
• "an ancient Georgian state kingdom and region", "unification with the eastern Georgian Kingdom of Iberia", "early Georgian tribes" (like Laz?) - this from the lead alone. first early Georgian state, including other Kartvelians such as Laz (this one really hilarious, so now all Laz, Mingrelians and Svan people are "Kartvelians"?), present day Bzyb River, Abkhazia, Georgia (did I miss the "gov.ge" in the address?) - that's from the first chapter. And so on. A reminder, the article is about the Colchis Kingdom, that existed in 6-1 c. BC.

From what I see, 1) you guys need to create two articles about two things, the region and the kingdom; 2) stop pretending Georgians came into being before Rome was built; and 3) stop calling everybody around Kartvelians - they did nothing wrong to be deprived of their own ethnicity. Call them Georgians, at least.

To sum up, comparing the article - as it is now - to a story about the Ancient British kingdom of Ulster - is a compliment.FeelSunny (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

FeelSunny - you are nothing more than a Georgian hater who can't bear keeping his marvelous theories to himself.

Dear Dj777cool, a good old ad hominem is really a cruise control to compromise.FeelSunny (talk)

first of all - Georgians,Mingrelians,Lazs,Svans speak languages descended from Proto-Kartvelian language. Secondly, Georgians are more genetically related to each other than any Russian (who are descendants of not only Slavs but also from Germanic, Turco-Mongolic and Scytho/Sarmatian peoples), no offense. Being the oldest population of the Caucasus, they are certainly way older than Romans, with their oldest state (Diauehi) founded in the 2nd Millenium BC. As for your clever use of Davidic theory to discredit authenticity of Georgian history, this theory is rejected by modern georgian historians and are not unique in fact - armenian Mamikonians, for instance claimed descent from the imperial house of china and Kurdish Zakarids who were known as Mkhargrdzeli (meaning long armed) claimed descent from Artaxerxes II of Persia. Depriving ethnicity?? If you think that Lazs, Mingrelians and others were forcibly Georgianized you are really pushing the limits, because Linguistic and Genetic studies revealed that they are the integral part of a single nation, not the other way around. Keep in mind that Georgians/Kartvelians are equal in any sense and stop propagating your mad theories. --Dj777cool (talk) 12:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Now to your nice message.

Firstly, I must admit, I do not despise racists as much as some people do, just dislike them to a reasonable extent. In other case, I'd probably wouldn't bother to answer your message at all.

Secondly, I do understand, though not share, of course, the logic behind trying to offend others with your theories of ethnogenesis of Russians from Turco-Mongols and Sarmathians. But it is rather quite amusing to see a person from Georgia that 1) finds descending from Sarmathians and Turco-Mongols offending, and, moreover, 2) thinks that he is "better" than Russians in this respect:) Overall, I'd recommend to you: 1) reading some articles about haplogroups before teaching others about their genes:), and 2) reading a brief history of your own country, to understand if Georgians can really be proud of being the all-so-white-Nordic-Aryans.

Secondly, no "Georgians" existed before Romans, sorry. No, no, no. No "Georgian state of Diauehi" never-ever existed, sorry again to disappoint, dear. No "Georgian state" of Colchis ever existed either, sorry. Because both these we at best "proto-Georgian" tribal states. Do you know what "proto-" means, Dj777cool?

If you don't understand this fact, I'm afraid there's nothing else to discuss. It's more important than your views on who Laz and Mingrelians are, it's more important than your ideas about the history of the region, etc. The article just should not be talking about Georgians in the 1st millenia BC.

P.S. Being a racist is always a disgrace to your nation.FeelSunny (talk)

FeelSunny - No,no,no.. I don't find the descent from turco-Mongolic peoples despicable, I just want to illustrate that the Russians are extremely heterogenous. You being a Russian, criticizing and separating genetically interwoven Georgian people is a real shame. I don't care what you think about the early Georgian statehood, because your ideas are just theories, thank god. By offending Georgian statehood, you are naturally offending the Georgian nation along with it, so choose words carefully.. I don't consider Georgians to be superior to any nations, and support racial equality. Criticizing the history of other nations than yours comes easy. While I do not think of Georgians as superior than Russians, I clearly see that they are far more Ancient. Perhaps this is the reason of your strong dislike, if not hate of their history and claims. --Dj777cool (talk) 11:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Dj777cool, don't get into deep conversation with this truly ridiculous and poor Russian. He is not worth it believe me. Just because some Russian is saying unfounded unsourced foolishness it doesn't make this poor guy right. So you don't get this seriously about it. There are tons of these kind of guys who feel pathetically sad when they see that they weren't even on earth when Georgians had their state into the very antiquity. So you gotta understand this kind of pathetic people. He's not worth it. He's just some Ivan from Russia, mad at Georgians and Georgia and keeps it's Georgianophobe deeds where he moves around. Just pity this guy and don't get surprised to see people like this on Wiki. They may be a lot around here. --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 11:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

GeorgianJorjadze, your last message is racist, as well as an attempt to personally insult me as an editor. I ask you to self-revert this edit now, and apologize. Otherwise I will have to take the matter further.

Meanwhile, your revert [1] that you nicely commented as "Dear Russian, read the sources. All of them say it's Georgian not proto-Georgian as you wish so." was made on a false pretence. Sources just do not say so. "The making of the G. nation", which is linked in (1) and (3) calls Colchians a "proto-Georgian" tribe on page 9. The "Modern hatreds: The symbolic politics of ethnic war" (4) explicitly states that "the Georgian state of Colchis" is a myth, part of the modern "Georgian national mythology". This latter source is, quite inexplicably, used in the article as a proof that Colchis was a "Georgian state". And so on. Probably you should check your sources better before reverting. FeelSunny (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You're not the only one my "Dear" who questioned it whether it was Georgian or not so you're not that original in this case. Don't even try to revert the changes back. This is not your Russia where everyone can write whatever you wish for. This is an encyclopedia where every sentence has its' verified source. Your unfounded unsourced edits will be considered as vandalism if you revert any changes back to proto-Georgian or whatever you guys in Russia think. And I have nothing to present my apologies for. You take note, you edit war, you'll be banned for good. --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, it looks like bullying is now added to personal insults and usage of racist slur. I feel that for the good of this community I should take this matter to ANI. The request is here. You are welcome to participate. I'll also copy this message to your talkpage.FeelSunny (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The trouble is, few people have been interested in Georgia or Georgians, so few academics have written about its history, and most of what is written is done in an amateurish way. And, left to their own devices and free from any restraining influences from academics in Europe or the Americas, Georgia produces bookshelves full of "written by Georgians for Georgians" nonsense. We can laugh loudly that Colchis is described as an "ancient Georgian state" and think "what a silly little country Georgia must be to need such fantasies". But, I suppose we should be grateful the situation isn't quite as bad as with "Kurdistan". Meowy 02:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you refrain from posting offending remarks here. If anything, Wikipedia is not a forum. The trouble is that few people here have taken interest in academics seriously writing about Georgia or Georgians. And, left yo their own devices and fee from any restraining influences from any serious Georgian academic or business lobby in Europe or the Americas, they are quite ready to seize upon any comment by a rogue scribe and then propagate it as "written by Georgians for Georgians" nonsense. And, yes, we should be grateful the situation isn't quite as bad as with "Kurdistan" or "Greater Armenia".--Kober^Talk 04:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Kober, I hope you'd agree that: 1) the article is terribly written, starting from the lead about that "ancient Georgian" Kingdom of Colchis "unifying" with the K. of Iberia during the Middle Ages, etc., and 2) some users here think they own the article? FeelSunny (talk) 07:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Antiquity frenzy as courant normal in Kurdistan, Armenia, Georgia, "Assyria", what is wrong with these countries? We get similar vibes from India, and then, as if to caricature the whole thing, in "Afrocentrism". It seems to be a stage everyone has to go through on the way to relaxed statehood? Countries do seem to get better over time, e.g. Turkey (which used to be completely in the nationalist crackpot camp but apparently not so much now as actual academics began to take over). --dab (𒁳) 12:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Dbachmann Stop vandalising the article

Iberia and Colchis, both, were ethnic Georgian kingdoms.

Iberia was eastern Georgian kingdom when Colchis was western Georgian kingdom of Svans and Mingrelians.

Stop vandalising the article and stop removing the sourced information. GEORGIANJORJADZE 09:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Once again, like for Caucasian Iberia, GJ, no need to call vandalism what was a cleanup. The Georgian character of Colchis is established, no need to overburden the article, and especially the lead, with poor quality sources. I have rewritten the lead to make it shorter and more to the point in accordance to the manual of style. Please discuss here if you have any objections to the article and its sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susuman77 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Iberia and Colchis were ethnic Georgian kingdoms where Georgian and other Kartvelian languages were spoken. They spoke Georgian language, wrote in Georgian alphabet and were Georgians. This is an established fact. GEORGIANJORJADZE 20:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

1. Conflict in the Caucasus: Georgia, Abkhazia and the Russian Shadow, Svetlana Aleksandrovna Chervonnaia p10
2. Quaestiones morales vt plurimúm nouae, ac peregrinae seu Tractatus de apostolicis missionibus, Angelo Maria Verricelli p329
3. Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia, Volume 1, E.J. Brill p128
4. The Caucasus - An Introduction: Frederik Coene p93
5. Penny cyclopaedia of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, Volumes I-II p474 The Georgians
6. R. Khanam: Encyclopaedic Ethnography of Middle-East and Central Asia: A-I, Volume I p214
7. Augustine Casiday: The Orthodox Christian World p59
8. Ronald Grigol Suny, The Making of the Georgian Nation, p 9
9. Georgia in Antiquity: A History of Colchis and Transcaucasian Iberia, 550 BC-AD 562, David Braund Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. Pp. 359
10. Modern Hatreds: The Symbolic Politics of Ethnic War, Stuart J. Kaufman, p. 91

On what reason do you remove this sources? All of them state Colchis was a Georgian state. GEORGIANJORJADZE 20:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

See my answer on Talk:Caucasian Iberia.Susuman77 (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

See my answer on Talk:Caucasian Iberia. GEORGIANJORJADZE 21:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Golden Lion from #2 Kurgan of Tsnori

Golden Lion from #2 Kurgan of Tsnori has nothing to do with Colchis. It belongs to western Georgian Kurgan culture (Kurgans of Tsnori group). This culture existed long before than Colchis and as I mentioned above it was western Georgian phenomenon. Kurgans itself are not found in territory of Cholchis. So could you please remove it? I'd really appreciate! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.73.171.20 (talk) 12:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Removed. --Kober^Talk 14:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Lazica and Mingrelian

The author at the German wikipedia refuses to accept that Mingrelians were part of the population of ancient Lazica. What do you think about this? https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Lasika — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cybersem (talk • contribs) 18:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Biblical Ancestor

Does anybody have any idea or clue who is the biblical ancestor of the Colchians. Because some researchers and people claim them to be descendants Meshech, Tubal or Tiras. Some have even suggested Magog but this is all not specific.S. John Warrynn (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing

Wikis are not reliable sources because they are user-generated. This includes Wikipedia - rather than relying on wikilinks to stand as sources, reliable sources should be added directly. These sources should demonstrate not only the existence but also the significance of the entries. Until that happens, the cleanup tags should remain in place. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Fine, I will add other more direct sources when I find the time. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Updated section, also added more direct sources further negating the need of said tag, also no - in this case, the TW wiki is not to be treated the same as it is the game's official faction description from the devs, not random users. So please stop removing that source as well. It's a primary one in this case. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 08:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing done, description added. Tag removed due to lack for reasons as influence on pop culture is obv and clearly apparent, not minor either. Several movies and inclusions into several stories and books were made. If anything there can be further mentions. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 08:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Per the RfC, primary sources are insufficient for this content - you need secondary sources that indicate the significance of the entries to the subject. So the tag should stay. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Colchis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050415075230/http://www.amarcord.be/georgia/kolchis.html to http://www.amarcord.be/georgia/kolchis.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Colchis is a Greek exonym

Natively Colchis was known as Egrisi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.149.238 (talk) 04:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Cyril Toumanoff bias, the medieval antiquity and the lack of sources

It seems both in the article and on the talk page the authority of Cyril Toumanoff is quoted as being beyond any doubt. However being a person of Georgian ancestry as the article about it clearly states ("His father came of the princely family of Tumanishvili"), he well could have had intentional and/or unintentional bias. The way his works are quoted show author bias, or WP editor's quote cherrypicking, or both.

The talk page also contains a false statement "This article is well sourced based on the scholarly publications by Toumanoff, Braud, Lang and others". However searching for "Braud" in the article returns nothing. Search for "Lang" hits only the word "language" many times. Hence again Toumanoff/Toumanishvili seems to be the only source of the 13th century BC "Georgianness". Moreover Toumanoff is dubbed "specialized in the history of medieval Georgia and the Byzantine Empire" which is no less than 1500 years away from the 13th century BC.

Any sources other than Toumanoff? Preferably not ones quoting Toumanoff themselves, colleagues of Toumanoff, or his students (WP:FRINGE). If Toumanoff was a scientist, he must have worked with earlier sources and must have quoted them. Otherwise the article must state his opinion as an OR: "Cyril Toumanoff considered Colchis an early Georgian".

It ought to be easy to quote his sources as he has studied in an US school and attended an US university, i.e. his works are assumed to be in English. Aren't they? --188.126.8.121 (talk) 23:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Tourmanoff had Armenian, not Georgian ancestry and Turmanishvili ( originaly Toumaniani ) was a noble Armenian dynasty that moved from Cilicia to Georgia. If there was bias, it was certainly not in favour of Georgia, more in favour of Armenia. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Put to flight

"The Colchians were governed by their own kings in the earliest ages, that Sesostris king of Egypt was overcome in Scythia,[29] and put to fight, by the king of Colchis, which if true, that the Colchians not only had kings in those times, but were a very powerful people.[30][31]" 'fight' should be 'flight' I reckon Ubilaz (talk) 02:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• MÖ 4. yüzyıla ait Kolkhis yapımı altın süs eşyası.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Native dynasty or federation with Iberia

When writing about the period of Persian domination and the subsequent period before the and Suny writes that Colchis was in some kind of federation with Iberia, with the local skeptoukhi (sceptre-bearers) being subordinate to the Iberian king. On the other hand Braund does not say anything about the union with Iberia and basically says that Colchis was fragmented into skeptoukhies but that there was a dynasty of local rulers, at least if Strabo is to be believed.

We mention both in the article, but I was wondering which way the current scholarly consensus leans. Alaexis_¿question? 10:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Mentioning Abkhazia

We should follow reliable sources when deciding whether to mention Abkhazia or not. In fact several of them discuss Colchis when writing about the history of Abkhazia. For example Smith et al write about the historiography of Colchis in the context of the conflict (Nation-building in the Post-Soviet Borderlands: The Politics of National Identities, pp. 53,54):

“ In attempting to understand the role of mythological struggle in the Georgian-Abkhazian case, the following five aspects of the distant past are especially pertinent: the question of who was the first to develop iron production, the origins of local statehood, the dispute over the ethnic composition of the ancient and medieval population of the Colchis Lowland ”

“ Mikeladze also argued that the powerful Kingdom of Colchis (the mythical home of the Golden Fleece) began its existence in western Georgia as early as the middle of the second millennium BC. ... In particular, Mikeladze attempted to argue

that ancient Dioscurias (the modern Abkhazian capital Sukhum, known to Georgians as Sukhumi) was initially a Colchian (i.e. Georgian) city. He therefore insisted that Georgian statehood grew directly out of the Kingdom of Colchis... Most Abkhazian historians, on the other hand,39 cast doubt on the very existence of the Colchis Kingdom, as would most other scholars.

”

Hewitt likewise talks about Colchis in his review of the history of Abkhazia (The Abkhazians. A handbook, pp. 13,14)

“ The ancient world referred in general to the Black Sea’s (or Pontic Euxine’s) eastern coast, of which Abkhazia is a part, as Colchis. It is extremely difficult to try to identify with any confidence the ethnicity of the carriers of most of the tribal names used by classical authors writing before the time of Christ in reference to the denizens of contemporary Abkhazia and their neighbours, though the possibilities for speculation are virtually limitless. ”

We are not endorsing anything by including it, in fact the reader can easily see that most of the UN members consider Abkhazia a part of Georgia in the footnote. Alaexis_¿question? 17:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

EternalJin As you can see reliable sources mention Abkhazia separately when discussing Colchis. Alaexis_¿question? 21:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

you call "Abkhazian sources" reliable? :) or book by Hewitt, openly pro-Abkhaz separatist biased scholar with clear political agenda also reliable? Why sudden attack on this article Alaexis? This is crealy an original research and has no place on this article. Iberieli (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Your personal opinion is not enough to discredit a scholar. Braund says about Hewitt that "he and his colleagues ... constitute the heart of Georgian studies in Britain" (Georgia in Antiquity, p. ix). At any rate I provided another source that talks about. it. Alaexis_¿question? 18:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

References error - Braund

“ Colchís, Kolkhís[8][9][10][11] or Qulḫa[12][13][14] which existed from the c. 13th to the 1st centuries BC, is regarded as an early ethnically Georgian polity; the name of the Colchians was used as the collective term for early Kartvelian tribes which populated the eastern coast of the Black Sea in Greco-Roman ethnography.[15] ”

We need to fix inline references here. The last one [15] is to Georgia in Antiquity by David Braund, p. 359, however it's actually the number of pages in that book and the last one contains the index. In the book itself he does not call Colchis a polity, does not date its foundation to 13th century and does not discuss ethnicity of Colchians at all (except for the discussion of Greek-Barbarian dichotomy).

Some of these claims, like Colhians being Kartvelians, are noncontroversial. Maybe they are found in one of the references 8-14? Alaexis_¿question? 20:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources on Colchis being Kartvelian or Georgian and your long history of anti-Georgian POV activities is well known among Wiki users who edit Georgia related articles. Braunds entire book and reference to Colchis is always included in the context of: "ancient Georgian, ancient Georgia, history of Georgia, Georgia in Antiquity, Colchis as Ancient Georgia, Georgian tradition and myth, Georgian paganism" etc. Those references are on every page of his book. I will include additional references in due time. Iberieli (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

There is no need to make it personal when I found an inaccuracy in a reference. Great if you can fix it. Alaexis_¿question? 17:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

---

Could you re-check the references you have added? I checked three and they don't support the passage I quoted above. These are the ones I checked:

1. David Marshall Lang. The Georgians p 163 "First state to come into being in Western Georgia was the kingdom of Colchis (6th century B. C.)"
2. The Cambridge Ancient History Volume 9, p 255. Nothing about the Bronze Age Colchis
3. CULTURE AND CUSTOMS OF THE CAUCASUS p 10. No mention of Colchis

By the way one high-quality source would be quite sufficient. Alaexis_¿question? 18:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Time of establishment

Re this edit, I don't see how these sources support the claim that Colchis was established in 17th (or 13th for that matter). Could you point to the passage where Herodotus or Pliny say it? To be honest, considering that they lived many centuries after that, even if they do say it it should be attributed. Alaexis_¿question? 11:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

This IP has already been told of this, yet he ignores it and continues his disruptive WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. I've already reported him for edit warring. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

"Later Jason and Peleus, father of the hero Achilles, attacked and defeated Acastus, reclaiming the throne of Iolcus for himself once more. Jason's son, Thessalus, then became king." "Achilles was a hero of the Trojan War, the greatest of all the Greek warriors, and is the central character of Homer's Iliad. He was the son of the Nereid Thetis and Peleus, king of Phthia."

Because the legend of Homer has been confirmed by archeological excavations and indeed Troy has been discovered, we therefore know that Colchis already existed in the 13th century. But we do not know exactly when Colchis was created.

"In Herodotus' Histories there appears a story told by Egyptian priests about a Pharaoh Sesostris, who once led an army northward overland to Asia Minor, then fought his way westward until he crossed into Europe, where he defeated the Scythians and Thracians (possibly in modern Romania and Bulgaria). Sesostris then returned home, leaving colonists behind at the river Phasis in Colchis. Herodotus cautioned the reader that much of this story came second hand via Egyptian priests, but also noted that the Colchians were commonly believed to be Egyptian colonists.

According to Diodorus Siculus (who calls him Sesoosis) and Strabo, he conquered the whole world, even Scythia and Ethiopia, divided Egypt into administrative districts or nomes, was a great law-giver, and introduced a caste system into Egypt and the worship of Serapis. Herodotus also relates that when Sesostris defeated an army without much resistance he erected a pillar in their capital with a vulva on it to symbolize the fact that the army fought like women. Pliny the Elder also makes mention of Sesostris, who, he claims, was defeated by Saulaces, a gold-rich king of Colchis."

But we also know from several Greek historians that Sesostris invaded Europe (and Colchis). We can argue which Sesostris was there because there were a total of 4 Sesostris in Egypt. From here Sesostris I ruled from 1971 BC to 1926 BC and was a powerful ruler. Sesostris III also ruled from 1878 to 1839 BC and also powerful ruler.

It is therefore logical to at least write that Colchis still existed in the 17th century. But if this is not an argument, then it should be written that Colchis was created in the 20th-17th century.

This is not a legend, this is information written by greatest historians and not a fairy tale created by someone. The preceding comment was added by 5.152.72.140 and moved to this section by Alaexis

If this reasoning is not found in reliable sources then this is WP:OR. Can you provide a reference? Also, nothing in what you wrote suggests that Colchis was a state or any other kind of polity at that time - rather than a geographical region, in which case it doesn't make sense to talk about the date it was established. Alaexis_¿question? 01:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Talk Alaexis

Delete "Need citation" because we know from the stories of Jason and the Argonauts and the Trojan War that Colchis existed in the 13th century.

The Trojan War was in the 12th century, the journey of Jason and the Argonauts was before the Trojan War. In short this is why Colchis already existed in the 13th century it was a powerful and rich state (according to the Argonauts).

Also...

"Pliny the Elder also makes mention of Sesostris, who, he claims, was defeated by Saulaces, a gold-rich king of Colchis."

If Colchis was not a state, then how did the king of colchis defeat the Egyptian Pharaoh?

We know that Sesostris really existed around the 19th century, and we also know from several sources that Sesostris invaded Europe-Colchis. We also have information about the Egyptians of Colchis from Apollonius of Rhodes. What else is needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.152.72.140 (talk) 13:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Sourced content.

Hello @Alaexis: Nice to talk to you.
Which part of the content is unsourced please? I am very surprised by your revert. I wonder if you have even read my contribution to be honest. You have deleted sourced content and on top of that you accuse me of adding unsourced content, I expect an explanation.

• "13th century BC" is sourced (and I can even find many other sources that say this - We will add them when my changes are restored if you want).
• "Conquest of Diauehi" is also sourced.
• Regarding this part which is sourced with Rayfield :
  

"Despite the similarities in names, the exact relationship between Qulḫa and Colchis is unknown, nor is it known what language(s) was spoken in Qulḫa."
->Please, read Rayfield carefully and tell me where you find what is written above. Because you have restored a fake information that distorts the source. Enjoy your reading.

• In fact, the sourced information I restored was present in the article and was sourced up to 27 October. So two days ago someone deleted sourced information, I'm just restoring it by adding more sources and keeping the justified improvements (like for example the Urartu invasion) while improving them.
  

Best --Van Gogia (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, indeed it has sources. It wasn't me who made these changes in the last few days, so perhaps Skeptical1800 can respond here? Alaexis_¿question? 06:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of the quote above, I think you are right, probably it's not the best way to summarise Rayfield

“ Colchis is mentioned as a kingdom long before Iberia: Urartu had to deal with an often powerful ‘Qulha’ on its northern boundaries. How Kartvelian a kingdom, or tribal federation it was, we do not know. ”

Alaexis_¿question? 06:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I've edited it to remove inference which is not found in Rayfield. Otherwise, let's give Skeptical1800 a couple days to comment on his edits. Alaexis_¿question? 17:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

No worries. In fact he gave an explanation: "There is no proof of Colchis being established in the 13th century BC. That is a modern-era reference to when the Golden Fleece story may have been set. Nevertheless, the Golden Fleece story was not written down till the 3rd century BC."

But in the 8th century BC Colchis was already a well-developed kingdom. Historians agree on the date of 13th century BC (or even earlier). This is a very common practice on many historical points (especially in Georgia where various destructive invasions have erased some parts of history). For example, the oldest copy of the famous 12th century poem "The Knight in the Panther's Skin" dates only from 1646. But archaeological discoveries and the subject matter of the poem make it possible to make a fairly safe assumption, and no scholar disputes the date nowadays. It is the same thing here.

To conclude, we can also put the date of the first mention in the infobox and the date of the foundation of the kingdom. But the second information is the most relevant for the infobox. Moreover, Skeptical1800's explanation is pure OR (he is a new user of wikipedia I think, (very similar to ‎ Melvinthemartian btw)). So I will restore my version (if you allow me) and let Skeptical1800 participate in the discussion when he comes back.

Thank you for your collaboration and your honesty.--Van Gogia (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Georgi1, could you provide a quote from Morritt's book which gives some context for the 13th century establishment date? I don't have access to his book but judging by his other books, he's not a specialist in Georgian history. Probably he quotes someone else, in which case we should use the original publication. Alaexis_¿question? 19:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

No, he mentions this several times in the book (at least twice) but he doesn't quote anyone about it. He is certainly not a specialist in Georgian History but he seems to be a good specialist in the Hellenistic world. On page 143 he says:

“ "The tribes in Colchis consolidated during the 13th century BCE. This was at this period mentioned in Greek mythology as Colchis as the destination of the Argonauts and the home of Medea in her domain of sorcery. She was known to Urartians as Qulha (Kolkha or Kilkhi). ”

Actually, I could have quoted more interesting sources like : Barbara A. West (2010) Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Asia and Oceania. Facts on File Library of World History. Infobase Publishing. (9781438119137):

“ 15th-13th centuries: probable time of the founding of the Colchic community on the Black Sea, according to Greek accounts describing the events of that time. ”

I will try to compile the sources further when I have time. But I think we have two good sources here.--Van Gogia (talk) 21:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not an expert but it looks weird to me. What are the Greek accounts she's referencing? It can't be contemporary Mycenaean Greek accounts. This means that it's Greek writing that post-date these events by at least 8 centuries. The historians don't take everything that Herodotus and the like wrote at face value. Btw she's also not an expert on the history of Caucasus. Alaexis_¿question? 10:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what she's referring to because I don't have access to the whole book. She is not an expert on the history of Caucasus but as you say, we are most likely no more experts than the people I quoted above. The fact is that many historians use this date as the most likely one. Personally, (without being an expert), it is the date that seems to me the most probable also for the reasons I mentioned above (from a completely logical point of view).

It is certain that the date mentioned in the infobox is not the date of creation but the date of first mention by Urartu (Btw Assyrian sources mention Colchis long before).

What is also certain is that the information was sourced and it was removed without justification.

In short, I have waited long enough for an explanation from Skeptical1800. So I'm restoring my changes as agreed.

--Van Gogia (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Establishment in 13th century BC

Let's discuss the differences one by one. I believe that it's wrong to put 13th century BC in the year_start field of the infobox (which is a "former country" infobox). I'm certainly not an expert myself but the works on the Georgian history by the most distinguished historians do not say anything about the establishment of the state in Colchis at that time:

David Marshall Lang says that the legends and archeological findings imply the existence of petty monarchies in Western Georgian, without giving any dates. (A modern history of Georgia, p. 23).

Ronald Grigor Suny mentions Colchis on page 6 of his The Making of the Georgian Nation saying that the tribal confederation of Colchis shared a border with Urartu in the mid-8th century BC.

This is a quote from the Edge of Empires by Donald Rayfield, p. 13:

“ Colchis is mentioned as a kingdom long before Iberia: Urartu had to deal with an often powerful ‘Qulha’ on its northern boundaries. ... By the sixth century bc, to judge by the myth of Jason and the Argonauts, and by archaeological data, Greek trading colonies dotted the Colchis coast ”

So while there are sources which say that Colchis appeared or existed in some way in 13th century BC they are much less prominent (one of the current source is to an encyclopedia written by a non-expert). Therefore, per WP:UNDUE we should not have the 13th century start date in the infobox. I see two possible alternatives compatible with WP:NPOV: either add the date of the first mention of 'Qulha' (8th century) or remove it from the infobox altogether and describe differing viewpoints in the article body. Alaexis_¿question? 08:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

You will always find discrepancies in the treatment of Colchian problem in modern scholarship. Don't try to find a consensus in the literature. There is none. The authors you have just listed do not specialize in ancient history; they just quote what they find in the works of their colleagues.

To summarize: Colchis was more a geographic rather than a political concept and its definition was always rather fluid. We can speak of a civilization, society, proto-state, but not of a unified Colchian kingdom in any of the mentioned periods in history. Furthermore, we have no solid archaeological evidence of social differentiation and emergence of elites prior to the 6th-5th centuries. It was only in this period that we can speak of some sort of state organization and, from what we know archaeologically, it was geographically not continuous but a network of centers such as Vani, Sairkhe and Itkhvisi. These were mostly hinterland areas populated by the Kartvelian groups. As for the Qulha of the Urartians, its name might have been a cognate with the Colchis of the Greeks but definitely not coextensive geographically. And, so far, it is not certain if the Urartian description of Qulha can be applied to Colchis proper or if the archaeological evidence in Colchis proper can be extrapolated to Qulha.--Kober^Talk 12:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

So are you suggesting to leave the start date blank? Maybe let's include the mentions of Kolhida and Qulha by the Greeks and Urartians respectively as events? Alaexis_¿question? 16:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello again Alaexis. I see you are not as convinced as I am about the date 😃. As you suggest, I will answer you one by one.

According to you, the most distinguished historians on this subject are: Donald Rayfield, Ronald Grigor Suny and David Marshall Lang. (which is a questionable point but let's not quarrel about it)

• Donald Rayfield cites some arguments in favour of the real existence of king Aetes (page 14) and king Aetes according to the traditional dating was king in the 12th or 13th century (because the narrative takes place before the Trojan war).

But what he writes on page 15 is most convincing. The Assyrian king Tukulti-Ninurta I (1245-1209 BC) mentions "40 kings by the Upper [Black] Sea". Rayfield (like others) identifies the Colchis.

To further investigate this question, the respected historian/archaeologist Otar Lordkipanidze considers the same possibility (Lordkipanidze, O. (1971). La civilisation de l’ancienne Colchide aux Ve-IVe siècles (a la lumière des plus récentes découvertes archéologiques). Revue Archéologique, 2, 259–288.) and also mentions the hypothesis of Giorgi Melikishvili, who compares "Qilhi" mentioned by Tiglath-Pileser I (1114-1076 BC) who describes himself as the "conqueror of the lands of Nairi, from Tummi to Daiani, conqueror of Kilhi to the Great Sea". The German caucasologist Heinz Fähnrich agrees with Melikishvili on this "Qilhi"/"Kilhi" hypothesis (Heinz Fähnrich (2019), Geschichte Georgiens, Handbook of Oriental Studies, Section eight, Central Asia.).

To return to our subject, Rayfield does not dispute the possible existence of Colchis in the 13th century and does not consider this hypothesis implausible. He even gives arguments in this sense.

• Ronald Grigor Suny says that the destruction of the Diauehi “left the tribal formation of Colchis bordering directly on Urartu” -> it’s not about creation.

I must admit that I have some issues about Suny. In addition, his narrative is not always chronological so it is confusing. I just countered the sentence you quote above but you could have cited more relevant things (for your point) from the following pages.

“ The Cimmerians destroyed [720 BC so 8th century BC] the southern Colchian state, known as Kulkha in Urartian inscriptions. […] The second half of the seventh century B.C. marked the rise of significant political formations that can be identified with proto-Georgian tribes. [It’s about Iberia I believe] […] At approximately the same time, a new “kingdom” of Colchis was formed in western Georgia, extending from the mouth of the Chorokhi ”

Perhaps he means that there was a “state” of Colchis in 8th BC but not a “kingdom” of Colchis? It is quite confusing for me.

• For David Marshall Lang just read the Wikipedia article:

“ According to David Marshall Lang: "one of the most important elements in the modern Georgian nation, the Colchians were probably established in the Caucasus by the Middle Bronze Age". ”

I have access to "The Georgians" translated into Russian and there is this information (on page 63 of the translated Russian version).

You could disagree with me on this by saying that by “established” he does not surely mean consolidation into a kingdom or state, but he also mentions “Kilhi” and the Assyrian sources in the next paragraph as a possible reference to Colchis.

All above plus the sources from less "distinguished historians" already mentioned in the article should be enough to support this date. Moreover, the consolidation of the Colchian tribes around this date is the most common idea for the formation of this kingdom.

Best--Van Gogia (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Let's try to keep the discussion focused. There is a "former country" infobox. The start date is the date when the state was established. To put the 13 century BC in the infobox we need a source that explicitly says that a country appeared or existed at that time. None of the sources mentioned so far does it. In fact there is a disagreement among the scholars as to whether there was a single state or a bunch of independent polities even much later (see Rayfield, p. 123 and Kober's comment above).

Then there is the "events" section in the infobox and the article text itself. We can certainly write about mentions of 'Kilhi' and 'Qulha' there. Alaexis_¿question? 07:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I am not against mentioning what you say in the infobox events but I am against not mentioning a start date. I don't think I can convince you. There are sources that explicitly say that the country appeared or existed at that time. These sources are already in the article and David Marshall Lang is very explicit too. Rayfield does not give another period and suggests that the country existed at that date for the reasons I have given above. I disagree on several points with what Kober says too. I don't have time to make a long answer now but you have my position and you have my arguments. --Van Gogia (talk) 11:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, if you're referring to the phrase "the Colchians were probably established in the Caucasus by the Middle Bronze Age" it certainly can't be used to support the claim that the Colchian state/country/kingdom existed in the 13th century. Let's request outside feedback via RfC then (Q1: Should the infobox have start date? Q2: If yes, should it be 13th century BC?) Alaexis_¿question? 18:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Negroids

"There seems to have been a Negroid component (which predates the Arab slave trade) along the Black Sea region"

Reference is needed... I did follow link in the text... But there's only "but modern history has no knowledge of such an expedition by any Egyptian pharao, though black communities are known to have existed in the area" there:(

And i dont see the sources for this statement. Pretty unclear one, i say:) "are known to have existed"... Some genetic evidence in modern people? Archaeological? --83.237.111.41 04:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Just in case, here's a bit of further information and a possible source. I can see that this theme has already been addressed in the article. I'm just placing this here in case anyone feels that some details can be pulled and used in the history section. If anyone finds this distracting or prefers I not do it, just let me know and I'll stop. Here's the text:

Patrick T. English, "Cushites, Colchians and Khazars", in Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 18, No. 1 (Jan., 1959), pp. 49-53

The article discusses the question of the possible presence of blacks in ancient Colchis. It is available online for a fee.

The original reference in Herodotus is as follows:

Herodotus, The Histories (English Edition, translated and ed. A.D. Godley)

II, 104

For it is plain to see that the Colchians are Egyptians; and what I say, I myself noted before I heard it from others. When it occurred to me, I inquired of both peoples; and the Colchians remembered the Egyptians better than the Egyptians remembered the Colchians; the Egyptians said that they considered the Colchians part of Sesostris' army. I myself guessed it, partly because they are dark-skinned and woolly-haired; though that indeed counts for nothing, since other peoples are, too; but my better proof was that the Colchians and Egyptians and Ethiopians are the only nations that have from the first practised circumcision. The Phoenicians and the Syrians of Palestine acknowledge that they learned the custom from the Egyptians, and the Syrians of the valleys of the Thermodon and the Parthenius, as well as their neighbors the Macrones, say that they learned it lately from the Colchians. These are the only nations that circumcise, and it is seen that they do just as the Egyptians. But as to the Egyptians and Ethiopians themselves, I cannot say which nation learned it from the other; for it is evidently a very ancient custom. That the others learned it through traffic with Egypt, I consider clearly proved by this: that Phoenicians who traffic with Hellas cease to imitate the Egyptians in this matter and do not circumcise their children.

II, 105

Listen to something else about the Colchians, in which they are like the Egyptians: they and the Egyptians alone work linen and have the same way of working it, a way peculiar to themselves; and they are alike in all their way of life, and in their speech. Linen has two names: the Colchian kind is called by the Greeks Sardonian; that which comes from Egypt is called Egyptian.

The editor mentions, in a footnote to 104: "It has been inferred from this passage that Herodotus was twice in Colchis and twice in Egypt, which is unlikely, if not impossible. He may well have seen Egyptians in Asia Minor, before his travels in the Black Sea, which almost certainly preceded his visit to Egypt."

I wonder if anyone has bothered to see what the oldest words for linen are in the Kartvelian, Northern and North-Eastern Caucasian languages? --Picatrix (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out to you guys that you need to read the --Mwenemucii (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)The Histories of Herodotus of Halicarnassus.The book is quite ancient and gives what I consider the correct account of the dispute.I would also like to bring to your attention that Kemet(ancient Egypt as it was later to be called by the Greeks) was a inhibited by a black race(Negro) who had earlier came from East Africa(The Cradle of mankind).These people advanced from Ethiopian Highlands and followed Nile colonising it valleys along the way.Earlier,they had several chiefdoms scattered along the Nile.Then there were two kingdoms;lower and upper.This was way before they borrowed writing form even an earlier Kingdom of Ethiopia where they had come from.Later one of the Chiefs named Mani united all the chiefdoms and hence founded Kemet or ancient Egypt as one big Kingdom,that is when writing was starting to develop and it is up to where present day academia has been able to interpret the writings.However,by oral narrations of Kemet priests to Herodotus,the ancient Egyptian Empire was around 11,000 years old by the time Herodotus was writing the book!This means this Nile Valley has been settled for roughly 8,000 years before ancient Egypt surfaced with all its splendour.These black people were held in the highest regard by the antiquity for their wisdom,bravery and their perfection of inquiry into nature(Science).Herodotus goes ahead and gives an account of how the third pharaoh of the united kingdom of Egypt went expedition after another to EUROPE and ASIA and subdueing them to his will.Thus,the area around black sea was settled by Exhausted Kemet Negro Solders around 3000B.C.By the time Herodotus is writing this history,Greeks are busy copying everything Egyptian from gods such as Apollo(Horus),Jupiter(Ammon)etc, culture,mannerism and science.As a Greek,he acknowledges so. Please read the above text for wholesome history of known ancient world.You can also read:Diodorus Siculus The Library of History' 'Bold text''''Bold text'''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwenemucii (talk • contribs) 20:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

There is absolutely no evidence that the inhabitants of Kemet were "blacks". They themselves were a swarthy race of people with evidently non-negroid features whom considered the Kushites, their black enemies, as inferior. Only the late 25th dynasty was ruled by people of Kush. Furthermore there is no genetic evidence of kushite ancestry ever having a significant impact on Egypt. But the same is true for Nubia however, which was a meeting point of the "red" people of Kemet and the "blacks" of Kush. Genetic tests have proven time and time again that Modern Egyptians, especially the Copts, have the strongest correlation to Ancient Egyptians. And modern nubians/sudanese even have a "coptic-like" admixture, but how so, if Copts never settled largely in Nubia? But Ancient Egyptians did.

Also, Egyptians were not and are not "mixed with europeans". They have no genetic relation to the romans or greeks. And hardly any to the arabs. They are mostly related to North African Berbers and Levantine peoples.

In fact, it is sudanese people that have the most recent arabic paternal Y-DNA. And it is sudanese; nubians, that have a throughly mixed origin. Having ancestry from the kushites, the egyptians and more recently from the arabians, all in equal distribution. The most ancient Kushites themselves were also probably not identical to modern Ethiopians like you say, as Horn Africans are mixed with western eurasian ancestry, primarly arabian, and it goes up to 35% of their average genetic make-up, and Egyptians described most Kushites as "flat-nosed" and "prognathic" which would only be more similar to Nilotic peoples of South Sudan, or perhaps a proto-horn african phenotype lacking foreign caucasoid admixture back in those days, up until they mixed obviously.

And I might aswell add that the Egyptian genepool actually had even less negroid admixture in ancient times. So likely it was the Arab Slave trade that caused such a marginal increase in recent times. 186.185.231.106 (talk) 15:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Sheesh Mwenemucii, just because it is written in a book doesn't make it thus. The people of today's Georgia are known for having dark curly hair. And Greek text is easily mistranslated just as Arab, which I am told by Copts and Kurds to have more than ten meanings for each single word and phrase. If Greek is really that hard to read, how would you know the translation you have is correct? Without physical evidence, you stuck with speculation, which is all I see here. Speculation is not facts. You should also take into account that other Afro-Centrists site the words of Herodotus differently than you do citing lips and nose, rather than just hair skin. Clearly you didn't site nose and lips, which would suggest since you hold a convection of honesty (possibly), that the other suggested claim about what Herodotus is fake. But if that is so and if it is by other Afro-Centrists, then you must take some heart of skepticism upon what you have read in those very same works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.67.212 (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Herodotus

GVCabano, what you wrote sounds plausible, but we need a source for that, otherwise we cannot include it per WP:OR. Alaexis_¿question? 08:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)