Giorgi Soselia's Critique of Pavle Ingorokva's 'Giorgi Merchule' and the Misrepresentation of Abkhazian History
One of the most contentious claims made by literary historian Pavle Ingoroqva (1893–1990) in his 1954 book Giorgi Merchule, judging by the immediate reaction it provoked and the debates it continues to fuel over half a century later, is the assertion that the Abkhazians of medieval and ancient western Transcaucasia were not the ancestors of the contemporary Abkhazians but were instead a Georgian tribe speaking a Kartvelian language.
Ingorokva argues (p. 116):
'The territory of Abkhazia at the time of the foundation of the ‘Kingdom of the Abkhazians’ [Ingoroqva’s scare quotes], that is, in the 8th century, was inhabited by Georgian tribes, and not only then, but throughout ancient history, Antiquity, and the Middle Ages. The Abkhazians and other tribes dwelling in Abkhazia (Apsilians, Misimians, Sanigians) were likewise purely Georgian tribes, of Georgian origin and speaking a Georgian [Kartvelian] dialect.'
While Ingorokva’s hypothesis was lauded by certain Georgian scholars, it was strongly criticised by others, notably the distinguished linguist and Abkhazologist Ketevan Lomtatidze (1911–2007), as well as by historians such as Nikoloz Berdzenishvili (1895–1965), Georgi Soselia (1897–1961), Khukhut Bgazhba (1914–2000), and Zurab Achba (Anchabadze) (1920–1984), among others.
At the time, authoritative historians like Ivane Javakhishvili (1876–1940) and Simon Janashia (1900–1947) were no longer alive, which may have contributed to the lack of strong rebuttals from the academic community. Consequently, Ingorokva’s theory gained traction among scholars and writers who were not specialists in Abkhazology or related fields.
There are also studies on this topic by contemporary Western scholars. Some of the leading works can be found on our website.
+ The Ibero-Caucasian hypothesis and the historiography of Abkhazia, by Kevin Tuite
+ In Defence of the Homeland: Intellectuals and the Georgian-Abkhazian Conflict, by Bruno Coppieters
+ The Georgian-Abkhazian Conflict | The value of the past, by Victor A. Shnirelman
Eventually, this calumny was revived during the surge of Georgian nationalism from 1988 and remains widely believed among many Kartvelians. This belief, still prevalent today, is propagated not only by ordinary Georgians but also by nationalist academics, politicians, and journalists. So much so that many Georgians, in an attempt to support their claims, have fabricated even more false and unfounded assertions. For instance, they continue to insist at every opportunity that Abkhazians have never historically lived by the sea and absurdly claim that the Abkhaz language lacks a word for 'sea.'
Below is an excerpt from a critical article by Prof. Georgy Soselia, which challenges Ingorokva’s claims and offers a counterargument grounded in historical evidence.
Giorgi Kutia Soselia (1897, Zugdidi region – 1961, Tbilisi) was a Georgian legal scholar, Doctor of Law (1935), and professor (1936). In 1961, he was awarded the title of Honoured Scientist of the Georgian Academy of Sciences.
His major works include The Origins of Religions (1st and 2nd editions, Tbilisi, 1930–1932), On the Origins of the State (Tbilisi, 1934), Councils: The State Form of the Proletarian Dictatorship (Tbilisi, 1934), The Social and State Structure of Georgia According to Vepkhistkaosani (Sukhum, 1956), and ‘Mona’ According to Ancient Georgian Sources (Voprosy Istorii, Moscow, 1955).
Contrary to Historical Truth
By Giorgi Kutia Soselia
Alongside numerous valuable works dedicated to the study of Georgian history, there occasionally appear publications that, contrary to historical truth and a materialist understanding of societal development, interpret historical phenomena from a bourgeois-nationalist perspective. Among such works, in our view, is the voluminous (approximately 1,000 pages) book Giorgi Merchule by Pavle Ingorokva, published in 1955 by Sabchota Mts’erali.*
*Pavle Ingorokva. Giorgi Merchule: An Essay on the History of Literature, Culture, and Statehood in Ancient Georgia. In Georgian. Print run: 10,000 copies. Editor: Prof. V. Dondua.
In the first part of the book, the author attempts to provide, in connection with G. Merchule’s work The Life of Gregory of Khandzta, a history of early feudal Georgia. The second part of the book is devoted to G. Merchule’s literary legacy in hymnographic poetry and Georgian poetry in general from the 5th to 11th centuries. When discussing P. Ingorokva’s book, we primarily refer to its first part, which constitutes more than half of the volume. As for the second part, in our opinion, it is competently written and holds certain scholarly value.
Ingorokva is one of Georgia’s notable writers, known for his insightful studies on Rustavelology and other pressing issues in the history of Georgian literature. He has gained particular recognition as a scholar of historical sources. This makes it all the more regrettable that the first part of Giorgi Merchule reflects such flawed and unscientific perspectives. One gets the impression that the author is not only distant from a materialist understanding of societal development but also appears unfamiliar with fundamental, well-established historical processes of the feudal era, or, worse still, deliberately disregards them.
A newspaper article does not permit a detailed examination of all the positions expressed in the book under review. Therefore, we shall focus only on some of the most significant ones.
According to P. Ingorokva, by the 8th century, there already existed a "unified and cohesive" Georgian state with a "singular Georgian culture" within the framework of a shared economic life (and naturally, a single language, Georgian). This would imply that all essential elements of a nation, territorial unity, linguistic unity, cultural cohesion, and economic integration, were already present in the 8th century!
This, as we can see, is a substantial revision of history. But does the author provide any justification for such a revision? In his book, we find no evidence, only his unfounded assertion.
***
In his book, P. Ingorokva dismisses the long-standing notion that some southern provinces of Eastern Georgia were historically linked with Armenia (Chapters V and VI). The author also revises the well-established view in Georgian historiography, particularly in the works of Academician Ivane Javakhishvili, regarding the past of southern Colchis, the land of the Chans and Laz.
Furthermore, the author makes what he considers a major "discovery" regarding the origins of the Abkhazians. It is not difficult to anticipate the credibility of such "discoveries" or how P. Ingorokva will "justify" his highly "original" views, given his already familiar approach to historical argumentation.
We encounter the most astonishing claims about the Abkhazians. According to Ingorokva, they simply do not exist as a distinct people. Those referred to as Abkhazians are allegedly "Georgians by origin and language," belonging to the Georgian tribe of Moschi or Meskhis (pp. 116, 129, 137, etc.).
To support this highly unconventional view, the author employs his usual method of "precise analysis" of historical facts and phenomena. He points out that Leonti Mroveli "provides a complete picture of the ethnic-tribal composition of the Caucasus in his time," yet does not specifically mention the Abkhazians. From this, Ingorokva concludes that Mroveli did not consider them a separate ethnic entity distinct from the Georgians, but rather a Georgian tribe. Ingorokva assures his readers that this account by Leonti Mroveli should be regarded as "a historical testimony of decisive significance" (p. 131).
The mere fact that Ingorokva relies on such an "argument" already calls into question the overall validity of his reasoning. How can a chronicler’s statement, which is based on the Old Testament myth of the nations’ descent from Noah’s sons and includes fantastical accounts of Caucasian peoples, be considered "historical testimony of decisive significance" on ethnic kinship?
But even if Mroveli does not separately mention the Abkhazians as distinct from the Georgians, does that necessarily mean he considered them Georgians? After all, as Ingorokva himself notes, Mroveli also mentions the Egrisians separately from the Kartvelians. Following Ingorokva’s logic, should we then conclude that Mroveli did not consider the Egrisians to be Georgians? It is clear that Mroveli’s mention of a given people separately or alongside others proves nothing about their ethnic identity.
Ingorokva attempts to substantiate his claim that the Abkhazians were a Georgian tribe by asserting that Georgian tribes inhabited the territory of present-day Abkhazia in antiquity and the Middle Ages. To prove this, he embarks on an extensive linguistic excursus, seeking to demonstrate a connection between the geographical names of Abkhazia and "the Georgian linguistic sphere," while conveniently ignoring their links to the Abkhaz language.
Without delving into the linguistic complexities of the author's arguments, let us concede that such connections do exist, implying that Georgian tribes did indeed reside in Abkhazia in the past. But what does this prove in Ingorokva’s favour? Why could Georgian tribes not have coexisted with the Abkhazians, an ethnically distinct people? It is well known that in antiquity, numerous ethnically diverse groups inhabited this region. Strabo, for instance, in his Geography (XI, 2, 16), mentions that the city of Dioscurias (modern Sukhum) was a meeting place for 70 different ethnic groups speaking various languages.
+ Greeks and "Georgians" in ancient Colchis, by Philip L. Kohl and Gocha R. Tsetskhladze
+ Nation-building in the Post-Soviet Borderlands: The Georgian-Abkhazian confrontation, by Graham Smith
+ Responses to Some Fanciful Ideas of a “Historian” from Paris, Badri Gogia, by Denis Gopia
+ Georgian Myths vs. Historical Facts: The Reality of Abkhazian History
+ Rewriting History? A Critique of Modern Georgian Historiography on Abkhazia, by Stanislav Lakoba
The presence of Georgians alongside Abkhazians in Abkhazia and the existence of Georgian toponyms in the region cannot serve as evidence that Abkhazians were a Georgian tribe.
Ingorokva emphasizes the claim that "core" (or "proper") Abkhazia in antiquity was inhabited by the Georgian tribe of Moschi (Meskhis). He notes that from the 5th century BCE to the 1st century CE, ancient sources mention only the Moschi, and later, they are replaced by references to the Abasgi (Abkhazians). He concludes that the "Abasgi" (Abkhazians) were originally the "Moschi." Ingorokva asserts: "The fact that the name of the Abkhazian tribe was 'Moschi' (Mosokhi), also 'Meskhi,' already makes it clear that the Abkhazians belong to the group of Georgian tribes" (pp. 129, 137, 140).
Even if one accepts that "core" Abkhazia was once inhabited by the Moschi, does this necessarily mean that the Abkhazians are the Moschi? Such a conclusion disregards the historical reality of migrations. Many different peoples have lived in various places over time. The notion that two groups must be identical simply because they once occupied the same territory is unfounded.
Moreover, the claim that "core" Abkhazia in antiquity was populated by the Moschi is entirely inaccurate. Here, Ingorokva once again resorts to his usual tactic, misrepresenting, to put it mildly, the sources he cites. Of the three ancient writers he references, two (Hellanicos of Lesbos and Palaephatus of Abydos) provide no information about the Moschi’s place of residence, while the third, Strabo, offers evidence that contradicts Ingorokva’s claims.
Strabo states that "the land of the Moschi" lies beyond the rivers Phasis and Cyrus (Rioni and Kura), where the sanctuary of Leucothea is located (Geography, XI, 2, 17). He further notes: "The region of the Moschi, in which the aforementioned sanctuary is situated, is divided into three parts, one controlled by the Colchians, another by the Iberians, and the third by the Armenians" (Geography, XI, 2, 18). This clearly situates the Moschi between Colchis, Iberia, and Armenia, far from Abkhazia. Thus, Strabo’s account directly contradicts P. Ingorokva’s claims rather than supporting them.
Moreover, other ancient writers further refute Ingorokva’s assertion about the Moschi’s homeland (though he fails to acknowledge them). For instance, Gaius Plinius Secundus (Pliny the Elder, 23–79 CE) in his Natural History states that the Phasis River (Rioni) "originates in the lands of the Moschi" (VI, 13) and that their territory lies near the headwaters of the Cyrus (Kura) (VI, 29). Similarly, Cornelius Tacitus (55–117 CE) in his Annals recounts how the Moschi "raided the outskirts of Armenia" (XIII, 37), something they could hardly have done if they had been based in Abkhazia.
To further support his claim that the Abkhazians were actually the Moschi (or Meskhis), P. Ingorokva assigns particular significance to the etymology of the term "Abkhaz." He argues that "Abasgi" (Abkhazians) evolved phonetically from the tribal name "Moschi." Once again, he embarks on elaborate linguistic speculation to demonstrate this supposed transformation (pp. 137–140).
Even if we momentarily set aside the fact that Ingorokva employs methods reminiscent of N[ikolay]. Marr, who, as is well known, used phonetic "laws" to conduct linguistic alchemy, and assume that phonetic shifts could plausibly lead from "Moschi" to "Abkhazi," a crucial question remains: when could this have occurred? Ingorokva himself stresses that the term "Abasgi" (Abkhazians) entered historical usage much later than "Moschi" (p. 137), implying a gradual process.
However, he overlooks a critical detail: the tribal names "Moschi" and "Abasgi" ("Abkhazians") appear in historical sources simultaneously. For instance, Tacitus mentions the "Moschi" in his Annals, written around 117 CE. In the latter half of the 2nd century CE, "Moschi" (Moschoi) are referenced by Aelius Herodian in On General Prosody (VIII, 225, 23). At the same time, ancient sources also mention the tribal name "Abasgi," "Abasgians," and "the Abasgian people." Flavius Arrian, who traveled along the eastern Black Sea coast in 134 CE, personally encountered the "Abasgi" and described them as an established people inhabiting what is now Abkhazia (Periplus of the Euxine Sea). Aelius Herodian also refers to "the Abasgian people" (VI, 141, 8) and "Moschi" (VIII, 225, 23) in the same work.
So, when and how could the "Moschi" have transformed into the "Abasgi"—"Abkhazians"? Only by disregarding these facts and applying Marr-like phonetic manipulations could Ingorokva attempt to derive "Abkhazi" from "Moschi."
Notably, Ingorokva provides no substantiation for his claim that the Abkhazians were "Georgians by language." What evidence could he possibly present? What linguistic commonalities exist between Abkhaz and Georgian, apart from those naturally arising from centuries of coexistence within a shared political framework and struggles for independence?
Ingorokva’s theory that the Abkhazians descended from the Georgian Moschi tribe is clearly unscientific. But who needs this so-called "theory," and for what purpose? Does anyone truly believe that differences in ethnic origins could prevent peoples from coexisting harmoniously, building their lives together, and working towards a common future? The bonds forged between the Abkhazian and Georgian peoples over centuries of shared history are far stronger than their ethnic differences, rendering Ingorokva’s speculations entirely irrelevant.
In conclusion, a critical assessment of Giorgi Merchule must acknowledge that its publication by Sabchota Mts’erali was a serious editorial mistake.
(Published in Soviet Abkhazia, 18 December 1955, No. 247, pp. 2–4.)