Georgian Kings Research Articles

О ВОЕННО-ПОЛИТИЧЕСКОЙ ИСТОРИИ ВАЙНАХСКИХ НАРОДОВ В ДРЕВНЕЕ ВРЕМЯ И СРЕДНЕВЕКОВЬЕ

This paper is dedicated to the reconstruction of ethnic and political history of the Nakhs in the Ancient Times, Middle Ages and Early Modern Times. Several Nakh tribes were known mainly to Georgians and Armenians. Nakhs were the main population of Georgia until the 4th century BC. The formation of the Iberian kingdom (Kartli) was closely connected with the interaction of the Kartvelian peoples with the nakhs of the South Caucasus, which appeared in Georgian sources under the name Durdzuks. The Nakhs were confronted with Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans n the North Caucasus. Therefore, Nakhs were better known in the South Caucasus. The most notable of the Durdzuk cluster was the tribe of the Tsanars. During the VIII-IX centuries Tsanars actively resisted the Arabs. The Tsanar chorebishop was one of the titles of the king of Kakheti and they actively participated in the Kakheti wars with the Abkhaz, Kartli, and Tao-Klardzhet kings. The final Kartvelization of the tsanars dates back to the XI century. Tushins, Pshavs, Khevsurs were kartvelized in the end of the XII century. Only the Batsbians retained the Nakh identity. Ethnonym Dzurzuk from the XIII century ceased to denote the Nakh population of the South Caucasus, which began to be designated by Kistins and Batsbians. Durdzuks from the XIII century these are the nakhs of the North Caucasus. The North Caucasian nakhs were ruled by the Alan kings in the XI-XIII centuries. Mongol invasion in XIII century weakened the power of the Alans over the North Caucasus. The territory of Chechnya united the Nakh state of Simsim in the middle of the XIV century, which at the end of the XIV century attacked by the Chagatays of Timur. Establish Georgian power over the highlanders in the middle of the fourteenth century. And in the 30s. XVII century Georgian kings Giorgi V and Teymuraz tried. Their real power was only over Georgian highlanders (Pshavs, Khevsurs, Tushins) and Batsbians. Kabardinians made a big campaign against the Nakhs in the middle of the XVI century. Temruk Idarov during the campaign of 1563 used the help of Nogays and Russians. Kabardinians entered the Sunzha region and drove the Ingush into the mountains. In the mountains was the possession of the Ingush Lars. The first of the Chechens to contact the Russians were the rulers of Aukh (Okoks of Russian sources). Some part of the Okoks in the XVII century evicted from Aukh on a plane to the area of Terek and Sunzha. The population of the Chechen possession obeyed the princes Turlovs from Gumbet. The people of Nokhch-Mokkh often opposed the Russians in the XVII century. There are some reasons to believe that they depended on the Kumyk rulers of the Andirean beilik. Avars and Kumyks also contributed to the penetration of Islam to the Chechens. Shibutians (Shatoys) and Chantiyans actively contacted Russians. Russian influence until the middle of the XVIII century it was rather nominal and was manifested in the presence of Cossacks and Streltsy on the Terek and Sunzha and in the exchange of embassies with Georgia. Not a single regional state such as the Safavid state or the Crimean Khanate has succeeded in establishing its power in the Central Caucasus. Chechens used vassality from the Russians as a counterweight to the influence of the Crimean Khanate and the Afshar state in the first half of the XVIII century, but this did not interfere with their situational alliances with the Kumyks and Crimean Tatars against the Russians. Chechens actively supported Islamic fanatics. Strengthening Russian power in the North Caucasus in the second half of the XVIII century led to the fact that the Ingush took Russian citizenship. There have been social changes in Chechnya. Societies drove out their princes. In this situation, the Chechens and other peoples of the Caucasus made an attempt to unite Sheikh Mansur. An attempt to unite Chechnya was also undertaken in the XIX century by Beibulat Taimiev. Key words: Vainakhs, Durdzuki, Chechens, Ingushes, Chechen domain, Georgia, Minor Kabarda, free societies

Two Embassies of Bagrat IV to Constantinople: Dating, Causes, and Aftermath

This article is devoted to a new consideration of the issue of the number and dating of the embassies of king Bagrat IV of Georgia (1027–1072) to Constantinople during the reign of the Byzantine emperor Constantine IX Monomachos (1042–1055). Contrary to I. A. Javakhishvili’s point of view, generally accepted in historiography about the existence of the only embassy of Bagrat IV to Byzantium in 1054–1057, the author promotes the hypothesis about the existence of two embassies, in 1047 and 1050–1052/1053 respectively. This hypothesis is proved, in addition to the source analysis of the Georgian text of the Chronicle of Kartli, by referring to Byzantine and Armenian narrative sources, as well as by using information from the recently explored manuscript Q-1376 from the Georgian National Centre of Manuscripts. A comparison of data from sources allows the author to link the reason for the two embassies of the Georgian king to Byzantium with the escalation of the internal Georgian conflict between Bagrat IV and Liparit IV Baghuashi, Duke of Kldekari after the Battle of Sasireti in 1046. Also, the article highlights several new features in it, in particular, the conditions of truces between the two sides, the date of Liparit’s liberation from the Seljuk captivity, as well as the possible participation in the conflict of Leonti Mroveli, a famous Georgian historian of the eleventh century. Also, the article examines the consequences of the two trips of Bagrat IV to Constantinople for the Byzantine foreign policy on its eastern borders and, more particularly, clarifies the dating and circumstances of the military campaign of raiktor Nikephoros against the Shaddadid emir of Dvin Abu’l-Aswar in 1049, as well as the role of Georgian noblemen in this campaign.

Seal of Konstantinos, the Son of the Protoproedros and Exousiokrator of All Alania (ca 1065–1075)

This paper offers a corrected reading of a lead seal excavated at Anakopia which belonged to Konstantinos, the son of the protoproedros and exousiokrator of all Alania. Although the palaeography of the seal dates it to the second half of the eleventh century, the historical context and the title of protoproedros makes the chronology narrow, as 1065–1075. This find can be linked to the Byzantine-Georgian conflict over Anakopia and probably to the negotiations on returning the town to the Georgian king which happened shortly after 1074. The narrow chronology of the seal speaks in favour of the identification of the Alanian exousiokrator as Dorgholel (mentioned in 1068), thus excluding the possibility that Konstantinos of the seal and Konstantinos Alanos (mentioned in 1045–1047) were the same person. The former Konstantinos, a possible heir to Dorgholel, might be a brother of Irene, the wife of protoproedros Isaak Komnenos, so the same high title given to his father in 1065–1075 points to a Byzantine-Alan alliance which made possible the marriage of Irene and Isaak Komnenos in 1072 and the participation of 6,000 Alanian horsemen in suppressing Roussel de Bailleul’s revolt in 1073–1074. The unique title of “exousiokrator of all Alania” attested on the seal and in the list of the metropolitans of Bulgaria possibly reflected the struggle of the Alanian ruler against centrifugal tendencies in his domain during the twelfth century; its later disappearance suggests that this title was a Dorgholel’s situational invention.

Symbolic Politics of Georgia and Azerbaijan in Russia: Two Research Cases

One of the most actively discussed topics in modern political science is symbolic politics. This topic looks especially relevant in relation to the former Soviet republics, which are actively operating within the framework of the symbolic component of politics. Based on an interdisciplinary approach to the study of symbolic politics, the article analyzes two cases related to the symbolic politics of the two republics of the post-Soviet space - Georgia and Azerbaijan, respectively. The first case refers to an attempt by the leadership of the Georgian Orthodox Church to obtain permission from the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian authorities to transfer the ashes of Georgian kings Vakhtang VI and Teymuraz II from Astrakhan to Tbilisi. The second case studies the circumstances of the construction of a monument in Dagestan near Agachaul to Turkish soldiers who died here in 1918 during the Civil war. The two cases presented in the article are interesting primarily because they allow us to see the methods of symbolic politics using concrete examples. In both cases, the actors were not state structures, but religious, social, and scientific organizations. The main method of the actors was to organize a commemorative campaign, around which an information campaign was then built, with the aim of replicating a certain interpretation of historical events. At the same time, cases differ from each other in the degree of openness and scale of actions of actors. In the first case regarding the transfer of the ashes of Georgian tsars, the Georgian side directly addressed both the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church and the leadership of Russia. At the same time, the actions undertaken by the Georgian side were not successful. In the second case, the Azerbaijani side actively used the local commemorative campaign, initiated by local communities in Dagestan, to launch an appropriate wide information campaign. A comparison of cases leads to the conclusion that the success of a symbolic policy does not depend on the scale of the actions taken.

ЧЕРКЕСЫ МЕЖДУ ТЮРКАМИ И РУССКИМИ

This article is devoted to the relationship of the Circassians with the Turkic peoples. The Caucasian-speaking ancestors of the Adyge, Circassians and Kabardians were known to contemporaries under several ethnonyms. Papags and Kasogians were mixed Turkic-Caucasian tribes and served in the Khazar Kaganate. Zikhians occupied the Northern-East Black Sea littotal lands and were ruled by Georgian (Abkhazian) kings and Zikhian archbishops of the Matarcha. The Pechenegs were allies of the Zikhians, and the Oguzes were their opponents. It can be argued about a certain period of dominance of the Zikhians on the Taman Peninsula in the 13th century, but in the 12th century the local Zikhians were supposed to recognize the power of the Byzantine Empire. The relations of the Zikhians with the Qipchaqs were friendly. The infiltration of Turkic elements into the ethnogenesis of the North-West Caucasus tribes contributed to the emergence of the Circassian ethnos. In the Golden Horde the Circassians actively maintained contacts with both the Genoese and the Tatars. Circassians living on the plane were integrated into the administrative system of Ulus Jochi (Golden Horde). Circassians also fought against the Tatars of the Golden Horde and the Great Horde. The first Circassian principalities sources are recorded in the XV century. These were Khetuk, Kremuk, Kopa, Tatarkosia, Kabarda. The first three principalities worked closely with the Genoese and became victims of Turkish aggression in the 70-80-ies of XV century In the XVI century the principalities of Zhaney, Temirgoy, Besleeney, Khatukai took shape. Natukhai, Abadzekhs, Shapsugs were circled Abazins and became part of the Circassian ethnosphere only in the 18th century. Zhaney, Temirgoy, Besleney, Khatukai in the XVI century suffered from the invasions of the Crimean Tatars, therefore, in the middle of the XVI century hoped for an alliance with the Russians and sent embassies to Moscow. The war against the Crimean Tatars was fought mainly by the forces of Kabardians and the Ukrainian condottier D.Vyshnevetsky. With the departure of the D.Vyshnevetsky to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ivan IV virtually ceased to support the Western Circassians, which led to their reversal towards the Crimean Khanate. They took part in the Ottoman-Safavid war of 1578-1590 on the side of the Turks. In the XVII century the Besleney and Temirgoy rebelled against the Crimean Tatars, hoping for an alliance with the Russians, but to no avail. Success in the fight against the Crimean Tatars became possible thanks to several victories of the Kabardians over the troops of Gherays in the XVIII century. Temirgoy, Abadzekhs, Bjedugs, Shapsugs, Besleney, Makhosh, Ubykhs rebelled against Crimean Tatars in this century. With the annexation by the Russians of the Crimean Khanate, the Western Circassians underestimated the anti-Russian position. Key words: Zikhians, Kasogians, Papags, Circassians, Khazar Khaganate, Golden Horde, Crimean Khanate, Ottoman Empire, Russians, Crimean Tatars

Political, Social and Religious Aspects of Georgian-Persian Diplomacy

Article was prepared within the scopes of grant funded by Shota Rustaveli National Scientific Fund of Georgia (FR 17-554 Documentary Sources (Deeds, Epigraphic Inscriptions, Colophons) in the First half of 17th c. (1600-1662) about the Kings of Kartli and Kakheti (research and publication of sources). For thorough study of Iran-Georgian relationships in 16th – 17th centuries research of Georgian-Persian historical documents is of particular interest. These historical documents provide valuable data about social, administrative and state institutes in Georgia.Georgian-Persian historical documents describe dynamically the political, social and religious processes that have taken place in Eastern Georgia due to intervention of Safavid Iran in 16th-17th centuries. Studying of the separate segments of diplomatic monuments – interrelations between Georgian and Persian texts provide precise illustration of Georgian reality and specific nature of political, social and religious relations between Iran and Georgia.Research of Georgian-Persian bilingual deeds clearly shows attempts of Iran to intervene into Georgian landholding system and its substitution with Iranian-Moslem one; Invocation of Georgian kings and the legends on their Persian seals clearly demonstrate the political and religious influence to which they were subjected as a result of Safavid censorship. Based on all these, we can imagine specific nature of operation of Georgian secretariat-chancellery, see the movement of the documents from their composition to their entry into legal force and the term of their effectiveness.Studying of the seals on Persian and Georgian texts of diplomatic monuments allowed identification of important chancellery officials participating in issuance of Georgian-Persian documents, as well as in their consideration and approval.Georgian texts of bilingual documents, with their contents and structure, were entirely based on Georgian traditions of paperwork while the Persian texts complied with Iranian requirements. Iranian diplomatic formulas were adapted to Georgian reality.Georgian-Persian historical deeds provide unbiased description of severe reality resulting from religious and political power of Iran in Eastern Georgia; and Georgians had to fight for maintaining their state, national and religious identity.

Cross-Cultural Features in Medieval Art. The Case of the Early Fourteenth-Century Wall Paintings at the Monastery of the Holy Cross in Jerusalem

The Holy Cross Monastery in Jerusalem served as an important Georgian religious center from the eleventh century to the eighteenth. Inscriptions surviving in wall paintings adorning the interior of the main church suggest that the murals date to 1643–1644, when Abbot Nicephorus had the monastery renovated. The paintings consist of at least three layers, however, the earliest of which – i.e., the one considered here – appears to have been commissioned between 1305 and 1327 by Georgian King Constantine i. The murals offer a complex blend of progressive and conservative trends associated with Orthodox visual art, Western traditions, and Orthodox-Latin fusions. They thus provide yet another reminder of the role the Holy Land played in shaping Christian culture and therefore deserve to be addressed in broader scholarly discourse on medieval interactions and cultural identities.

“A JOURNEY TO ARMENIA, TURKEY AND CILICIA” BY THE BISHOP VARDAN ODZNETSI AS AN IMPORTANT SOURCE 
 ON THE HISTORY OF THE CAUCASUS OF THE XVIII–XIX CENTURIES

The paper analyses the content of some of the parts of the work of the Armenian author of the 19th century bishop Vardan Odznetsi, kept in Matenadaran – the Institute of Ancient Manuscripts of Armenia. The full text of the work has not yet been published. The text is unique, as it is one of the last sources, written in the style of the Armenian historical literature of the Middle Ages. In his work, Vardan Odznetsi tells in detail about the court of the Georgian king Heraclius II (1720–1798). It also provides information about the Talysh Khan Mustafa and the Avar Nutsal Ummah Khan, known in historiography under the distorted name of Omar Khan. Thus, the chronicle of Odznetsi covers the history of not only Transcaucasia, but also the North Caucasus. In addition, the author describes in sufficient detail the events of the Crimean War (1853–1856).
 The information, provided by Vardan Odznetsi, is quite important in the context of studies devoted to the anti-Ottoman and anti-Iranian wars of the peoples of the Caucasus. In his work, a special attention is drawn to the scrupulous description of the invasion of Tbilisi in the summer of 1795 by the Iranian shah Aga-Muhammad Khan Kajar. With deep regret he tells about the destruction of the city, believing that this is the fault of the Georgian king, who showed political shortsightedness. In the 1790s Avar nutsal Ummah Khan (1761-1801) started to play an important role in the military-political events taking place in the South Caucasus, which is also mentioned in the work under review. He describes the relations of Umma Khan and his son-in-law Ibrahim-khan of Karabakh, their joint military campaigns on adjacent lands. At the same time, the work under study is an important source describing the transition of the kingdom of Kartli-Kakheti, and subsequently the entire Caucasus, under the protection of the Russian Empire. A study of this manuscript will serve as a more detailed source-study of the history of the Caucasus of the 18th – 19th centuries.

Письменные источники из древнеалбано-грузинских коммуникаций (Сагдухт - принцесса Рани и царица Картли)

National-cultural and religious disappearance of the Christian countries of the Caucasus (Albania, Iberia, Armenia) from the V century was threatened by Persia. "Kartlis Tskhovreba" (History of Georgia) tells in detail about these acute and dramatic historical events. Historical writings from a later period show one feature of this region. The references to Rani (Aran) as Persia ("Mirian... called from Persia his relative, a descendant of kings, named Peroz") and the inhabitants of this country as Persians ("in Ran, wherever the Persians fought") should not be taken literally. In Georgian historical works, the terms "Persia" and" Persian " in addition to Persia and Persians also meant countries and peoples of the Near and Middle East-Arabs, Turks, and others: "Sultan Arfasaran came out, king of P e R s I I" (Leonti Mroveli, Life of kings); "P e R s I d s K I e s u l t a n s, far and near" ("Chronicle of the times of lash Giorgi", life of king Giorgi); "the Georgians entered the castle, and there was a strong battle, and p e R s s B a g d a d a were defeated" (Chronicle of the century). This situation is due to the fact that the entire territory to the East of the Caucasus for centuries belonged to and was ruled by the Persian Empire of the Achaemenid, Arshakid and Sasanian eras (much later the Arab Caliphate and then the Turkish Sultanate appeared on the historical scene). In Georgian historical texts, in particular in the chronicle "Life of the kings" by Leonti Mroveli, a logical geographical description is given about this – "Persians from the East of the sun". According to Georgian historical data, these peoples also include Albanians who lived to the East of the Georgians. One of the most notable historical events is an extensive episode of romantic love in the life of an Albanian Princess, the daughter of the ruler of Rani (Aran) Barzaboda and a thorough historical account of the dramatic state activities of the Queen of Kartli (Iberia), mother of the great Georgian king Vakhtang Gorgasal-S a g d u x t.

1060’LI YILLARIN SONU İLE 1070’Lİ YILLARIN BAŞLARINDA GÜRCİSTAN KRALI IV. BAGRAT’IN SİYASETİ

In the late 60s of the XI century, after the invasions of Sultan Alp Arslan, King Bagrat IV initiated active operations. During the summer and autumn of 1069 he arrested the Emir of Ganja, regained control over Tbilisi and reclaimed the castles occupied by the Seljuqs. Furthermore, he expelled them from all over the country. According to sources, during the reign of Bagrat IV, Seljuqs were not noticeable on the territory of Georgia in large numbers. During the period between 60s and 70s the policy led by Bagrat IV was independent from the Byzantine Empire. Georgian King could clearly see the weaknesses of the Byzantines and wanted to avoid the deterioration of relations with the Seljuqs because of them. The Georgian chronicler, describing the battles of Georgian troops together with the Byzantines against the Seljuqs in the 40s, mentions nothing about the Battle of Manzikert (1071). Followed from this we can assume that the Georgians, especially the Royal Court, did not participate in this battle. Apparently, Bagrat IV evaluated the weakness of the Byzantine Empire and did not join the war against the Seljuqs. We presume that with such a diplomatic action, Bagrat managed to save the country from another invastion of Alp Arslan. After the Battle of Manzikert Seljuqs conquered all of Armenia, Shriven and most of Anatolia, although Georgia was able to maintain its independence.

THE CONTRIBUTION OF SOUTHERN UKRAINIAN HISTORIANS TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ENCYCLOPEDIC CASE (THE SECOND HALF OF THE ХІХ AND EARLY ХХ CENTURIES)

THE CONTRIBUTION OF SOUTHERN UKRAINIAN HISTORIANS TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ENCYCLOPEDIC CASE (THE SECOND HALF OF THE ХІХ AND EARLY ХХ CENTURIES)

KIPCHAKS IN THE MIDDLE EAST FROM AN-NASIR MUHAMMAD TO BARQUK

This article is devoted to the history of the Kypchak sultans and emirs in the Middle East in 1310-1382. Having come to power, an-Nasir Muhammad took up the reorganization of the power vertical in 1310-1316. Amirs involved in the troubles of 1293-1310. Were either physically eliminated or fled to neighboring states. Amirs of the era of Kalawun were replaced by the henchmen of al-Nasir Muhammad. Periodically, the sultan repressed the over-amplified emirs. The Sultan expanded enriched his country by trading with Europeans and by conducting financial affairs by the Copts. Some privileges went to the Bedouin Arabs and Turkmans. In foreign policy, an-Nasir Muhammad moved from defense to expansion. The invasion of Syria in 1312 year was unsuccessful and soon the Hulaguids went to peace with the Mamluks. This is made unnecessary alliance with the Golden Horde. Relations with the Juchids from an-Nasir Muhammad were cool. At the same time, the Mamluks did not consider it shameful to support and let not the direct opponents of the Hulaguids - the governor Timurtash and the Georgian king Giorgi V Brilliant. The favorite targets for the Mamluks raids were Cilicia Armenia and Nubia. Under An-Nasir Muhammad, a number of campaigns against Cilicia were carried out. After his death, they temporarily stopped because of the internal struggle in the Mamluksom Sultanate. The attacks of Cypriots and Venetians on the Middle Eastern coastline in the 60-ies of XIV century. Revealed the weakness of the power of the Turkic sultans and amirs in Egypt and Syria. After al-Nasir Muhammad, they could defeat the frankly weak Cilicia Armenia. Certain amirs managed to seize power only for a short time. The most prominent amirs of this time were Kavsun, Yalbuga, Shaykhun, Sargitmish. Arab Bedouin tribes periodically rebelled in Syria and Egypt ggainst the power of the Mamluks,. It should be noted that in the struggle between themselves the Turkic emirs did not disdain to use the help of the Burji amirs, just as Barquk did not disdain to use the help of the Turkic emirs. However, it is worth noting that since 1382, in the history of the Mamluk Sultanate, a new period in history began, when the Circassian dynasty began to rule Egypt and Syria

The Aristocratic Societies in the Caucasus in the XVIII–XIX centuries and Serfdom (on the Materials of the Collection of Laws of the Georgian King Vakhtang VI)

The Aristocratic Societies in the Caucasus in the XVIII–XIX centuries and Serfdom (on the Materials of the Collection of Laws of the Georgian King Vakhtang VI)

On perspectives of Russian-Georgian dialogue on the issue of reburial of kings Vakhtang VI and Teimuraz II

After removal of M. Saakashvili from the Georgian political scene, a progress in relations between Russia and Georgia can be observed. In this context, the wide attention has been drawn to the issue of reburial of the Georgian kings Vakhtang VI and Teimuraz II. The article discusses the negotiation process, lasted from 2002 to 2014, between the Georgian Church and the Russian Church concerning the transfer of the remains of the Georgian kings, as well as the motives, goals and arguments of the parties. An analysis of the negotiations has led to the conclusion that the issue of reburial has two key aspects – political and moral-ethical. The requirement of the Georgian Church to carry the remains of Vakhtang VI and Teimuraz II from Russia to Georgia is part of its overall policy aimed to strengthen its prestige and authority Kin Georgian society. For the Russian side, this action promises nothing more than image losses. As for ethical aspects, the references of the Georgian side to the kings’ will to be buried in their homeland are not supported by authentic documents. At the moment, it remains an open question requiring further research.

Selçuklu-Gürcü mücadelelerinde bir dönüm noktası: Didgori Savaşı (1121) ve sonuçları

The relationships between Seljuk-Georgian, which started in beginning of the 11th century, witnessed lots of clashes. A short time after coming to the area, Seljuks made the Georgians accept their superiority. However, with the accesion of David IV to the throne, the situation changed to contrary. Firstly, Georgian King solved the inner problems and later changed his direction to foreign policy. David IV started to make campaigns against Seljuks and gained a lots of military victories. Georgian rise, which began by David’s accession to throne, reached its peak with Battle of Didgori in 1121. Winning Battle of Didgori and having self-confidence, the Georgian army determined the direction to Tbilisi which was under the control of Muslims nearly 400 thousand years. David IV took the control of Tbilisi in 1122 and made here the capital. Georgian Kingdom that became a regional power after Battle of Didgori united its scattered lands

A Christian Coalition: The Georgian King David IV in the Struggle against the Seljuk Turks (the Late 11th and Early 12th Centuries)

A Christian Coalition: The Georgian King David IV in the Struggle against the Seljuk Turks (the Late 11th and Early 12th Centuries)

Η επανάσταση του Nικ. Φωκά και του Νικ. Ξιφία (1021-1022): η τελευταία εσωτερική κρίση στη βασιλεία του Βασιλείου Β΄ (976-1025)

The Phokas-Xiphias Revolution was the third and the last revolution of the age-long reign of Basil II the Bulgar-slayer, led by two renowned generals, Nikephoros Xiphias and Nikephoros Phokas. It broke out in Cappadocia in 1022 with the purpose to overthrow the Byzantine Emperor. Medieval narratives that relater these events written in Greek, Arabic, Georgian, or Armenian, all agree that this insurrection was extremely serious. It involved a large number of rebels within the empire and the insurrectionists were widely believed to be in contact with forces outside the empire, including the Georgian king George I (1014-1027). The revolution broke out when the military conflict between Byzantium and Georgia was still ongoing. Some Georgians including the noble Pheris were actively involved in it. In this article all existing sources on this issue are analyzed. An emphasis is given on the causes of the revolution and its consequences on the Empire’s foreign policy.

The Prospect of Reinterment of Georgian Kings Vakhtang VI and Teimuraz II in Theirhistorical Homeland as a Factor of Improvement of Russian-Georgian Relations

The article discusses the obstacles to the reinternment of Georgian kings, buried in Astrakhan, in the context of Russian-Georgian relations coolness.

<i>The Orders of Knighthood and the Formation of the British Honours System, 1660–1760</i> (review)

Reviewed by: The Orders of Knighthood and the Formation of the British Honours System, 1660–1760 Hannah Smith Antti Matikkala. The Orders of Knighthood and the Formation of the British Honours System, 1660–1760. Woodbridge, UK: Boydell, 2008. Pp. xvi + 470. $170; £90. Mr. Matikkala argues that the orders of knighthood continued to play a significant role in the high politics of 1660–1760 and had an important social status function for the aristocracy, who still craved such markers of favor and influence. While the Crown’s prerogatives became more circumscribed, the monarch’s power as the “fount of honour” stayed constant (although the Georgian kings came under greater ministerial pressure when it came to doling out honors). And because the Crown was so closely associated with the orders of knighthood, the Jacobite claimants to the British throne used the distribution of honors as an important way of very publicly emphasizing their monarchical pretensions, leading to two rival honors systems and much partisan pride and political irritation. Mr. Matikkala draws upon both primary and secondary sources, some arcane, and situates them in a current historiographical framework concerning the function of eighteenth-century monarchy and aristocracy. The book is sensitive to the wider political culture of the orders, and the literary and artistic forms through which this culture was articulated, including drama, verse, architecture (St. George’s Hall, Windsor, the Cupola Room, Kensington Palace, and a number of country houses), heraldic funerals and funerary monuments, and portraiture. Generous black-and-white and color illustrations enhance this attractively produced book. He explores how the orders of knighthood were deployed for diplomatic purposes. Similarly valuable: his discussion of [End Page 120] the religious aspects of knightly orders—such as contemporary concerns over the Catholic elements retained in the unreformed Garter statutes—underscores the continuing religious dimension to the British heraldic orders. Mr. Matikkala usefully examines the proposed foundation of orders for royalists after the Restoration (such as the Order of the Royal Oak and the more obscure Esquires of the Martyred King), analyzes the structure of the proposed order and reveals its “almost feudal” character, and highlights early eighteenth-century debates about women in the Order of the Garter as “Ladies of the Garter.” Despite these strengths, the study retains its roots as a doctoral thesis. The footnotes, given as much attention as the central narrative, are exhaustive, discursive, and lavish: they frequently take up between a third and half of each page. Though valuable, they obscure the book’s thrust. For example, in the first chapter Mr. Matikkala suggests that the period saw a “Chivalric Enlightenment,” a term used as an “umbrella-concept” to describe contemporary attitudes to chivalry and the heraldic orders. “Just as every period since the Crusades era had produced its own version of ‘new knighthood,’ so too did the age of Enlightenment.” This period, of course, consisted of many Enlightenments; the book examines the impact of Enlightened thinking on the orders of knighthood, particularly interesting since some of those who administered and wrote about them were also Fellows of the Royal Society or Freemasons. Mr. Matikkala, however, does not make a sustained case for why these new approaches to the orders should be considered as Enlightened per se. A useful scholarly reference for those working on politics and political culture, The Orders of Knighthood never fulfills its potential. Hannah Smith St. Hilda’s College, Oxford Copyright © 2012 Roy S. Wolper, W. B. Gerard, E. Derek Taylor, and David F. Venturo

The Vestiment Of The Body Politic (From The King's Vestiment To The National Dress)

This article reconstructs Georgian political theology of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries by analysing the vestimentary code as reflected in the portraits of Georgian kings. Political theology had not been the subject of explicit juridical, political or historiographical discourse since the fourteenth century, and therefore has to be elicited from other sources. The author demonstrates how Georgians kings, starting from Teimuraz I, had been confronted with issues of the proper representation of their kingship, and dealing with the awkward fact of being Christian kings and vassals of Muslim emperors at the same time. This article focuses on their strategies of legitimizing their kingship by means of various representational methods. The final two chapters demonstrate how the national body politic was born after the disappearance of the monarchical body and the way it inherited the previous problems of representability, both in terms of the body politic per se, as well as that of the national body; and how the solution to the above problems was provided by the ‘tergdaleulebi’ generation, the architects of the modern Georgian nation educated abroad.