Nodar Berulava

On the Coverage of Some Controversial Issues of Abkhazian Archaeology in Modern Russian Historiography

Introduction

On the coverage of some controversial issues of abkhazian archaeology in modern russian historiography. Analyzes controversial Abkhazian archaeology debates in modern Russian historiography. Critiques ethnic origins and historical narratives in ancient Colchis, contrasting Georgian and Abkhazian perspectives.

Abstract

In connection with such a categorical judgment, it would not be superfluous to remind A. Skakov that any early state unification, any emerging ancient nationality is consolidated around a dominant element, absorbing ethnically related and unrelated neighboring tribal groups. Ethnic monolithicity at this stage of development is almost always relative. It rarely happens that a foreign, foreign-language and comparatively small, but consolidated and passionate group becomes dominant in this process, which subsequently itself dissolves into the local ethnic group, but creates state structures for it and even leaves its name after assimilation (for example, the Normans-Rus, Turkic Bulgars, Germans-Franks, etc.). But the Colchians are definitely not such a case. They were clearly the leading ethnic group in the Eastern Black Sea region both in terms of development and consolidation, and in terms of demographic indicators. And if A. Skakov tries to prove that the Kartvelian element was only one of many in the territory of the polyethnic Colchis in ancient times, then how can we explain the almost complete Kartvelization of the territory of present-day Western Georgia, and of Turkish Lazistan, in subsequent periods? When should it have happened? For us, however, it is more important that the author, despite all the reservations, judging by the context, still recognizes the Colchians as, if not the only, then still a very significant ethnic element in this region. At the same time, he does not deny that their possessions also included the center of present-day Abkhazia, the city of Dioscuria (in fact, according to all sources, Pitiunt was also included, but oh well). At the same time, he also admits that in the adjacent regions of Abkhazia and today's Krasnodar region lived, if not actually Colchian, then Kartvelian tribes of the Moskhs. To this we must add the Svans, who certainly always bordered the Zano-Colchians from the east, and therefore, the different versions of the highlands of eastern Abkhazia and the adjacent regions of Svaneti ("Djantukh-Larilar culture" according to A. Skakov) are most logically attributed to them. He simply "transfers" tribal groups of unclear origin (Koraks, Koly) outside the borders of Abkhazia. That is, on the territory of Abkhazia there is practically no room left for the ancestors of the Abkhaz ethnic group, with the exception of the upper reaches of the Bzyb or, more accurately, the Bzyb-Psou interfluve, and perhaps not completely (for example, it is noted that the Kartvelians-Moskhs live “on the border of Abkhazia and the Krasnodar Territory,” but it is unclear on which side of this border). If in the situation described above some Abkhaz-Adyghe tribe had wedged itself between the Colchians, Moskhs and Svans, then it would hardly have been able to avoid assimilation, and in a not very long time in historical terms (it should be remembered that the direct descendant of the Colchian language itself, Megrelian, is the easiest to study in this region, and in the competition of languages, especially unwritten ones, this is a very significant factor). But the author cannot give such examples and is forced to speak only hypothetically about the presence of the Abkhaz-Adyghe element even somewhere on the outskirts of Abkhazia. That is, all the tribes he noted on the territory of Abkhazia are either Kartvelian or of unclear origin, and the latter occupy only a very modest piece of today's western Abkhazia. As for the representatives of many dozens of multilingual tribes who came together at the beginning of the late antique period to trade in Dioscuria, who said that they all came from the territory of Colchis? Then a similar picture would have been not only in Phasis, but also in Gienos, Apsaros, Trebizond, etc., wherever there were Greek traders. Dioscuria, which lies outside the Phasis highway, was always oriented toward trade primarily with the north and after the destruction of Pitiunt, was obviously the closest convenient trading point for the entire Northwestern Caucasus. Moreover, this information already refers to another era, when the turbulent ethno-political processes in the Northwestern Caucasus at the turn of the century AD (the existence of which is also recognized by A. Skakov) undoubtedly increased the ethnic diversity of the region. This is our general impression from A. Skakov's publication. Summarizing the conclusions of the Russian scholar in a few words, we can highlight the following main findings of the author: The Colchian (and even more so the Colchian-Koban) culture, as well as the subsequent material culture of the Eastern Black Sea region, is not entirely homogeneous, on the basis of which it cannot be excluded (as, incidentally, it cannot be asserted) that its individual variants may belong to tribal groups ethnically different from the Colchians, including non-Kartvelian ones. The Colchians, however, owned not only the territory of Megrelia (the Inguri-Rioni interfluve), but also that of present-day Abkhazia, or at least its central regions, including Sukhumi. Later, at the beginning of the Common Era, the Colchians were significantly pushed back to the southeast, but they soon managed to partially restore the situation, firmly establishing themselves in the eastern part of present-day Abkhazia, and also annexing Apsilia and subjugating Abazgia. It is impossible to say anything with certainty about the borders of the latter, however, but even at the end of the ancient period the area of ​​common distribution of the Abkhazian (or considered as such) tribes, even including Apsilia integrated into the Kingdom of the Lazes, hardly went much further southeast than Dioscuria. In any case, it did not reach Inguri. In general, the concept of A. Skakov presented in the above article is closest to the compromise views that prevailed in Soviet times and more or less suited both sides. However, there were also discrepancies then: Abkhaz historians, while not denying in words the cultural, and perhaps even political, closeness of the population of Abkhazia (“Colchians in the broad sense”) with the “Colchians proper” (Mingrelians-Chans), nevertheless tried to present this population as an Abkhaz-speaking substrate, and the territory of Abkhazia, accordingly, as the original cradle of their own ethnic group exclusively. The question of the Abkhaz-Georgian ethnic borders of that era was usually ignored, although it was assumed that they roughly corresponded to the administrative borders of the Abkhaz ASSR (although, at times, it was hinted that the ancestors of the Abkhaz-Adyghe were the first settlers not only of the territory of present-day Abkhazia, but also of all of ancient Colchis, in any case, of the Eastern coast of the Black Sea for sure. Georgian scholars, on the contrary, believed that the ethnic area of ​​the “Colchians proper” included, in any case, a very significant part of present-day Abkhazia, although they also tried not to dwell on this delicate point. We leave it to the readers to judge which of these options is closer to the author’s concept. It is easy to see that the purpose of our comments was not so much to criticize individual provisions of the author (which would be difficult to do in full within the framework of one articles), but rather a statement of the fact that A. Skakov's concept, even if accepted in full, upon objective examination rather reinforces the traditional Georgian view of the problem than the Abkhazian one. The fact is that A. Skakov, to his credit, is a professional for whom professional ethics is obviously not an abstract concept and does not allow him (unlike his predecessor Yu. Voronov) to completely sacrifice objectivity for the sake of the situation.

Review

The paper, "On the Coverage of Some Controversial Issues of Abkhazian Archaeology in Modern Russian Historiography," presents a critical review of A. Skakov's work concerning the contentious debates surrounding the ethnic composition and territorial claims in ancient Colchis, particularly within the region of present-day Abkhazia. The author of this review posits that despite Skakov's attempts at presenting a balanced or even compromising perspective, his findings, upon objective examination, ultimately reinforce the traditional Georgian view of the dominant presence of Kartvelian ethnic elements in the Eastern Black Sea region during antiquity, extending well into what is now Abkhazian territory. The review aims to re-evaluate how current Russian scholarship, as exemplified by Skakov, navigates these sensitive historical questions. The abstract meticulously dissects Skakov's arguments, demonstrating how they, perhaps unintentionally, bolster the Georgian narrative. It highlights Skakov's acknowledgement of the Colchians as a prominent ethnic group, superior in development and demographic strength, whose domain included central Abkhazia (Dioscuria and Pitiunt). The reviewer further points out Skakov's admission of Kartvelian tribes, such as the Moskhs and Svans, inhabiting adjacent and bordering areas, consequently leaving minimal ancient space for the direct ancestors of the Abkhaz ethnic group. The review challenges Skakov's hypothetical suggestions for an Abkhaz-Adyghe presence, often marginalizing them to peripheral, assimilation-prone zones or categorizing them as groups of "unclear origin." The abstract also refutes the notion that the multicultural trading hub of Dioscuria serves as evidence for an early Abkhaz-Adyghe ethno-genesis, attributing such diversity to later periods and broader trade networks rather than an early indigenous multi-ethnicity. In conclusion, the review commends A. Skakov for his professionalism and apparent commitment to objectivity, noting his distinction from predecessors who may have compromised impartiality. However, it firmly asserts that Skakov's "compromise views," which echo Soviet-era perspectives, inadvertently strengthen the Georgian historical viewpoint over the Abkhazian one. The paper's significance lies in its rigorous engagement with a highly sensitive ethno-historical debate, illustrating how even seemingly neutral or compromising scholarly work can, through critical analysis, be shown to support one side of a long-standing historical contention. This review thus constitutes a valuable contribution to the ongoing discourse on Abkhazian archaeology and its interpretation within modern Russian historiography, urging readers to critically assess the subtle implications of historical scholarship on contemporary political narratives.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.