This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Colchis article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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.
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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.
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."
-- Kober Talk 12:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
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)
-- Kober Talk 13:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)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)
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 [1] 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)
“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)
Is Geo კოლხეთი a neologism? I can’t find it here. — Apswaaa ( talk) 12:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Total nonsence. I guess, that's cleared. TheMightyGeneral ( talk) 22:16, 22 July 2010 (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)
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)
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)
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)
On what reason do you remove this sources? All of them state Colchis was a Georgian state. GEORGIANJORJADZE 20:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
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)
Natively Colchis was known as Egrisi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.149.238 ( talk) 04:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
"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)
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)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 20:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
“ | 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)
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:
By the way one high-quality source would be quite sufficient. Alaexis ¿question? 18:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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
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)
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.
"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.
Best -- Van Gogia ( talk) 21:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
“ | 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. | ” |
“ | "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). | ” |
“ | 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. | ” |
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)
“ | 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 | ” |
“ | 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". | ” |
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)