Talk:Kingdom of Abkhazia

Klisura
Could someone please help me to locate this river? Alæxis¿question? 16:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Nobody can safely identify the toponym Klisura with any river in Abkhazia. I'd better remove the sentence at all.--KoberTalk 17:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * According to the Georgian philologist Z. Aleksidze, Klisura (deriving from Greek "kleisoura") is a toponym refering to the Abkhazian land wall. Cf. Rapp, Studies (2003), 231 f --SofieTalk —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Аҧсны Аҳәынҭқарра in the lead
Of course, it's not the right translation for the article subject. But the article really lacks the abkhazian name for their own kingdom, I think. I do not have any Abkhazian script on my computer and thus cannon find it and add it. Other than that, I'd prefer someone with a (claimed) knowledge of situation rather to add a right name than just boldly deleting the name in a language he/ she doesn't want to see here for whatever reasons. Otherwise I, of course, would take the needed efforts and find and insert it myself:) FeelSunny (talk) 14:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We should look at what is commonly done in such cases. I think the reason why Kober reverted you is because the Abkhazian Kingdom never self-identified in Abkhaz, Georgian was its literary language. Adding Abkhaz would then be akin to e.g. adding the Italian name to the Roman Empire article, or the German and French names to the Francia article. On the other hand, we do have the Sassanid Empire article where the Persian name is given in Arabic script, which is also anachronistic. sephia karta  |  di mi  15:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The article contains a good explanation on what each country thinks of Abkhazian history, I beleive I do not have to participate in this discussion. The question is that even if Kievan Rus' did speak old slavic, we can well give both Russian, Ukrainian, Western Russian and Belorussian names for it - as all the four entities were influenced by Kievan heritage. And here is another good example of explaining a modern name of an old entity. Same with Abkhazian medieval state, both modern Abkhazia and modern Georgia were greatly influenced, so I can not see the reason why do we exclude one nation and promote the other's position over this.
 * PS. Ok, I beleive Anosid kings of Abkhazia did not actually identified themselfs with Georgia, considering there was no Georgia in 623, when Heraclius made them the ruling dynasty in the region. FeelSunny (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * sephia_karta makes a good point. Regarding your arguments, Sunny, can you actually list just a few examples of cultural or political traits inherited by modern entity from the medieval kingdom of Abkhazia. In Georgia's case, it's all clear. Most medieval monuments in Abkhazia (obviously those which survived defacement and vandalism) bear Georgian inscriptions in Georgian language and script; the monuscripts copied in Abkhazia are also in Georgian; Abkhaz ruling families had Georgian surnames (some of them with Abkhaz roots), etc. In the Heraclius era, there were no kings of Abkhazia, but archons of the Byzantine province of Abasgia. We are talking about the kingdom of Abkhazia which emerged in the 780s and ended in 1008. FYI, the first words recorded in Abkhaz language date to the 18th century and the Abkhaz script is the 20th-century invention. Do you now see what's problem here? --KoberTalk 04:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Kober, you know well first texts in Ukrainian, Russian and Belorussian were not written in Kievan Rus. Same here, you do not need to have a written language (which I presume, only Russia invented for most ethnic minorities in the empire), to be influenced by your history. You also can see it in Sukhumi history - the city was founded about the time Abkhazian kingdom existed. Definitely founding your state capital plays some role in your history, don't you think? Just the same with Kutaisi, founded in 806 - Georgia was greatly influenced by then-time Abkhazian kings. That is why I beleive we need a name used in Georgian and Abkhazian historiography in this article. FeelSunny (talk) 07:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not a Georgian Wikipedia
This is not a Georgian Wikipedia. Neutral point of view. Please! , it is falsification (Vandalism).--PlatonPskov (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Instead of posting panic alarms, I would ask you to be more specific. What do you actually want? --KoberTalk 20:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view, Please! that's why we use English, not Georgia. Georgianization of the Wikipedia is not Neutral point of view. --PlatonPskov (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Is that all you want to say? Regarding your unclear edit summary comments, the term "Egrisi-Abkhazeti" was not invented by Professor Lordkipanidze. It goes back to Prince Vakhushti. The medieval Armenian sources also used Abkhazia and Eger interchangeably. Also, please note that the medieval history of Abkhazia is principally known from the medieval and early modern Georgian sources, appended by a handful of Armenian, Greek, and Islamic sources. So, for a neutral observer, it is not surprising that the history writing of medieval Abkhazia relies so much on Georgian annals. The Abkhaz written historiography only appeared in the 1920s and is far more skewed towards nationalistic myth-making. --KoberTalk 21:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And please stop panicking on talk page and disrupting the article, including its content, grammar, structure, and references. This is your last warning. Next time you will be reported. --KoberTalk 21:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Through devis is a modern term «Egrisi-Abkhazeti».The twin word («Egrisi-Abkhazeti») is a modern term, Mrs. Miriam Lordkipanidze. Separate words Abkhazia and Egris have no relation to the preamble. --PlatonPskov (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I beg your pardon, but I don't understand what you are trying to prove. I think I have already explained you that the late Professor Lordkipanidze is not the author of the term. Being ignorant of such specific details is not a crime, but I do object to your petulance.--KoberTalk 21:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There are problems in Abkhazia. Sorry. The Georgians written historiography now is far more skewed towards nationalistic myth-making. When Georgian historians do not see the Abkhaz in the first stage of the history of the Abkhazian kingdom, it is funny (sad) for historians. Especially those "historians" who fought in the 1990s and are military men, not historians. Not an authoritative opinion. Zurab Papaskiri he Russian historians who are against his opinion, calls the Nazis (Zurab Papaskiri writes falsification: "Практически все исследователи, в том числе и крупнейшие зарубежные учёные, однозначно признают «Абхазское» царство как грузинское национально-государственное объединение". This is a mockery of historians around the world. --PlatonPskov (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'm not familiar with Papaskiri's works, but what you fail to understand is that your opinion of him (or any other source) is irrelevant unless other, third-party sources indicate that he is biased or unreliable. That's how Wikipedia works. Second, your relentless edit warring and reverts to the version, which is full of grammatical errors, disrupts the prose and references is unacceptable. Also, inclusion of the modern Abkhaz name of the early medieval kingdom is hugely anachronistic as that language was unwritten until the 20th century. Third, blind copy-pasting of Russian-language quotations is also not helpful, especially, given the fact that most of these sources are available in English and can be cited accordingly. And, finally, I'm asking you one last time to be more specific and clarify what you mean by "Georgianization" of Wikipedia. Just throwing random accusations around is not helpful at all. --KoberTalk 13:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 1. Georgianization is the removal of Abkhazians from the history of Abkhazia. As if Abkhaz were not in the Kingdom of Abkhazia. 2. Inclusion of the modern Georgian name of the early medieval kingdom is hugely absurd: did not know such a state in those centuries. «Egrisi-Abkhazeti» is absurd: did not know such a state in those centuries. 3. Did Abkhazians speak Abkhaz language? Yes. Abkhaz lived there? Yes. Now do Abkhazians have an Abkhaz name? Yes. In those centuries, the Georgians did not say exactly "Egrisi-Abkhazeti". 4. All sources of those centuries speak exactly the Kingdom of Abkhazia. 5. is falsification. Attempts to Georgianization all Abkhazian through vandalism. In ru-Wikipedia Bachilava2002 was blocked for vandalism, see (falsification and forgery of quotations). See . --PlatonPskov (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 1. "Georgianization is the removal of Abkhazians from the history of Abkhazia." For the god's sake... Parroting Russian media clichés is not convincing.
 * 2. "Inclusion of the modern Georgian name of the early medieval kingdom is hugely absurd" - this is simply ridiculous; you are probably ignorant of the fact the language of culture and learning in the kingdom of Abkhazia was Georgian. Dozens of Georgian inscriptions from Abkhazia and Georgian manuscripts copied there are the testimony to the fact. You can also check an Abkhazia-related article by Vladimir Minorsky in The Encyclopaedia of Islam (vol. 2, pp. 100-101), as well as the pertinent entries from Alexander Kazhdan's Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, Encyclopædia Iranica, and Cyril Toumanoff's "Chronology of the Kings of Abasgia and Other Problems", Le Museon 69 (1956), to name a few. You should make yourself familiar with these sources of high standard. Reading only Russian Wikipedia entries is not enough when it comes to the medieval history of the Caucasus.
 * 3."«Egrisi-Abkhazeti» is absurd" - says who? User:PlatonPskov? You will have to provide reliable sources for your claims. Have you ever tried to do a simple search for that term in Google Books? I'm not saying that this portmanteau was used in the Middle Ages, but it is a legitimate scholarly, historiographic term, such as the "Kingdom of Abkhazia" by the way. You might be amazed, but you can hardly find the construction Kingdom of Abkhazia in any medieval source.
 * 4. "Did Abkhazians speak Abkhaz language? Yes." - So what? There were many other unwritten languages spoken in the area. What are you trying to prove with that?
 * 5. "Abkhaz lived there? Yes.." Yes, they did. So what? The Abkhaz were a mountainous tribe whose small ruling class was first under Byzantine and then Georgian cultural influence. Even in the 19th century, centuries after the Georgian heyday was gone, the Abkhaz nobility spoke and wrote in Georgian. Check the well-known encyclopedia in your native language.
 * 6. "In ru-Wikipedia Bachilava2002 was blocked for vandalism" - I don't much care about Russian Wikipedia. It is far from being an example. It has always been a hostile environment for Georgian users. Since you are here, you should adhere to the rules established in English Wikipedia.
 * In summary, I'm waiting for your arguments supported by sources, not just propaganda slogans, personal opinions, and irresponsible accusations.--KoberTalk 20:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Can I ask who gave you the right to edit my comment above? This is a gross violation of the Wikipedia rules. Never do this in the future. And please don't put words into my mouth. I did not say that the Abkhaz were as small a people in the Middle Ages as they would be as a result of the 19th-century ethnic cleansing under the Russian Empire. I just said that they had a small ruling class, limited only to a few noble families known from the contemporaneous Georgian chronicles. And that was pretty much natural for the mountainous societies of that time. As for Russian Wikipedia, I said I did not care about it. How can I dislike something in which I have a zero interest? --KoberTalk 21:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 1."For the god's sake... Parroting Russian media clichés is not convincing." - Leave your personal clichés and your media. Select expression.
 * 2-3. Egrisi-Abkhazeti is not me. "Egrisi Abkhazeti" says the Georgian historian in 1988. "Egrisi + Abkhazeti". Not separate words of Egrisi and Abkhazeti, but one word “Egrisi + Abkhazeti”. This is a new term. Those centuries don't know him.
 * 4.Because the country was named after the Abkhazians.
 * 5. "The Abkhaz were a hill tribe, whose small..." Where data about a small number in ancient times? ? Kober data? In the 19th century, hundreds of thousands of Abkhazians were expelled from Abkhazia to Turkey. Do not judge by how much of it remains by end of the 19th century - the beginning 20th century (well-known encyclopedia). When the Georgians (more precisely, the Megrelians) began to inhabit Abkhazia. Migrelians did not have written language, but spoke in the Abkhazian kingdom not only in Georgian languageю. Аnd Mingrelian language.
 * 6. " It has always been a hostile environment for Georgian users." What? You confirm the hostility to the fact that Abkhazians are being removed as residents of the Abkhazian kingdom (your editing has done this). You must adhere to the rules established in the English Wikipedia. A small mountain tribe. Hostility. What do you allow yourself? "propaganda slogans, personal opinions" Where are they? I cited the sources. I cited the facts of falsification of sources. In Anglo-wiki and ru-wiki by one participant. Will you deny the facts under the guise of dislike for Russian Wikipedia?--PlatonPskov (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , sorry. Wanted to copy. By chance.--PlatonPskov (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Map, flag, coat of arms
Hi, what are the sources for the map, flag and coat of arms? Alaexis¿question? 15:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

In the Wikicommons description it's written that the flag is based on Gabriel de Vallseca's 15th map, in which case it's anachronistic. Alaexis¿question? 15:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The map looks more or less accurate, so I'm hesitant to remove it, however we still need a source for it.Alaexis¿question? 19:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The author of the map Angelino_Dulcert is from 14th century, and definitely map is about earlier period, when the Georgian Kingdom not yet unified.-- Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ   ★  18:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think there is a confusion here. You yourself wrote that the source of the flag is Vallseca's map in which case it can't be earlier than 15th century. I also see this flag on his map here.
 * There is no such flag on Dulcert's map, and even if it were this map dates from 1339 which is more than 300 years after the the period in question. Unless there are sources that confirm that this flag was used in 8-10th centuries, it must be removed.
 * Btw the coat of arms and map also have no sources so if you can add them it would be great. Alaexis¿question? 20:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll correct your words "There is no such flag on Dulcert's map", flags on both maps are the same, only difference is let's say "wind-flow" (you can't say that this is not US flag, because it's just a reverse.) Now regarding dating, maps can be made in 14th or 15th centuries describing 5-7-8-9-10 centuries or whatever time. As I can read from the description of both sources, dates only provide year when maps were made. What is more important two sources from different centuries provide the same flag on the same area. One can clearly see enough evidence and proof to include this flag in the article.-- Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ   ★  17:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * What are the sources for attributing this flag to the Kingdom of Abkhazia of 8-10th centuries? Alaexis¿question? 08:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sources are shown on the maps, there are exactly those kingdoms that existed before unification of Georgia (sorry if we cannot provide direct hyperlink to the 10th century).-- Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ   ★  18:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I've raised this at the reliable sources noticeboard. Alaexis¿question? 15:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As per feedback on the RS noticeboard, there should be a reliable source for the flag which is not self-published. Alaexis¿question? 09:41, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Both the flag and the coat of arms are derived from Italian maps which were published hundreds of years after the separate Abkhazian kingdom disappeared. I haven't been able to find any sources on the symbols used by it, so for now I'm going to remove both. The site abaza.org says "The image of the flag of the Abkhazian kingdom was found on the medieval maps of the Genoese" but they don't provide any details or sources supporting this assertion. Alaexis¿question? 13:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Georgian medieval state
No one denies that it was part of Georgian cultural sphere and quite likely a significant part of the population was ethnically Georgian, especially - to the extent that we can speak of ethnicity in 9th and 10th centuries. However saying that it was a Georgian medieval state requires sources that explicitly define it as such (and not mention it in passing). Alaexis¿question? 15:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Abkhazian nature of the Kingdom does not make any sense
I understand that judging ethnic composition of a medieval kingdom can be quite hard. However should not there by at least some kind of evidence that the Kingdom was "Abkhazian" (as in people speaking Northwestern Caucasian language and not Georgian-speaking people simply referred to by their region of origin)? Should not there by at least one inscription on a church, grave, monument in Abkhazian language, perhaps made in Georgian or Greek script? Or at least a single document attesting to the existence of Abkhazs in medieval Kingdom? The way I see it there is only topological evidence and even that exists on quite shaky grounds.When one objectively looks at facts, there is no trace that the Medieval Abkhazia was ever "Abkhazian" (Apsua) in any way, shape or form.Quite literally every single material evidence (churches, inscriptions, documents) point to it being fully, 100% Georgian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marovaso (talk • contribs) 09:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * (I'm assuming this is a response to my post above)
 * The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. All over the medieval and ancient world a more prestigious language like Latin, Greek or Georgian was used for writing even when it differed from the spoken language. So we need sources if we want to include statements about the demographics in the article. Alaexis¿question? 21:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * By that logic literally anyone can claim that their ancestors lived pretty much anywhere on earth and it's just the more "prestigious" language was used for writing while spoken language was theirs, especially considering how most cultures have not been literary civilizations for much of their existence. What's stopping, say Chechens, saying that Abkhazian kingdom was really Chechen and Georgian and Greek were only "prestigious" languages? Or Avars, Kabardians, other North Caucasians, Turks, Arabs or even Mongolians? When you have this level of preponderance of evidence in favor of Georgian people inhabiting that particular region (churches, inscriptions, literary works, etc.), the burden of proof should be on the other side and not bizarrely reversed. It's really smacking more and more of a Russell's teapot, when, for some reason, it's Georgians that must disprove that Abkhazian Kingdom was not in fact Abkhazian and not Abkhazians presenting at least some circumstantial evidence that it was Abkhazian. And that, as I have mentioned, does not make any sense considering the overwhelming amount of medieval Georgian artifacts in Abkhazia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marovaso (talk • contribs) 06:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * We are not proving anything here but rather recording the scientific consensus, or if there is no consensus, the most prominent points of view. What changes do you propose? Speaking of the culture, it would be great to have a section dedicated to it. Alaexis¿question? 13:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if there is no consensus among historians, I believe article should not completely ignore and brush aside the overwhelming evidence of Georgian presence in Abkhazian Kingdom which goes beyond the simple "official liturgical language". Now the article makes it look like it's 50/50, as if though there is no evidence at all. A mention or perhaps a stronger emphasis on this evidence (even despite the supposed absence of historical consensus) would be more reflective of objective reality. Dozens of inscriptions, texts, monuments, churches, bridges should amount to something, in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.3.97.253 (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * During the Kingdom of Abkhazia (780 - 978), the Greek was the written / literature language. Greek was replaced with Georgian only after 10th century as a result of dynastic inheritance, when Kingdom of Abkhazia is united with Georgian-speaking regions.
 * And this mediaeval kingdom whose rulers carried the title 'Sovereign of the Abkhazians and Georgians'. The fact that the written language and the writings in the church you mentioned are in Georgian doesn't make the Abkhazians Georgian.
 * just as the previous use of Greek writing did not make the Abkhazians Greek. The oldest precisely dated inscription in the Georgian language in Abkhazia is the inscription of 1066 in the Lykhny temple, not earlier. Before the literature language was Greek.
 * Georgian script emerged in the 5th century. Before this, Greek and Aramaic inscriptions, such as those on the tombs of Georgian nobility, were common. By your logic, all the owners of these graves must have spoken either Aramaic or Greek, not Georgian. Undeliveredmail (talk) 16:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion from 2019. What do you want to change in or add to the article? Alaexis¿question? 19:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * why are you pro-gayorgian you all? Why do you allow gayorgian propaganda? Undeliveredmail (talk) 01:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from personal attacks. I'm asking this in good faith: what do you want to change in the article? Alaexis¿question? 06:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 8 May 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved per consensus. (non-admin closure) – Ammarpad (talk) 10:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Kingdom of Abkhazia → Kingdom of the Abkhazians – An actual name per the medieval sources. Emperor of Emperors (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Sources for this assertion would help. We use the current common English name for article titles. I'm not seeing a lot of use for the proposed name on google. Open to sourcing on the matter. CMD (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello CMD! Thanks for the discussion. All the major sources describing the kingdom and their rulers are from the Divan of the Abkhazian Kings, The Georgian Chronicles etc. All these medieval sources refer to the kingdom as აფხაზთა სამეფო that means "Kingdom of the Abkhazians". Emperor of Emperors (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand there may be medieval Georgian names, but the English sources I've seen seem to use the current formulation. CMD (talk) 17:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. Thanks for voting. Emperor of Emperors (talk) 22:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose The current title seems to be the common name as Google Search shows 3 million results vs "Kingdom of the Abkhazians" which only has 40K results. Just make "Kingdom of Abkhazia" a redirect then. Jerm (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recent changes
, re this edit, the wording of the Abkhazia note

is the result of the consensus of many editors who are active in this area. In fact it mentions that Georgia considers Abkhazia to be occupied by Russia and that most countries do not recognise Abkhazia's independence. Obviously the consensus may change but the burden is on you to establish it (per Consensus). Alaexis¿question? 13:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)


 * International law recognizes Abkhazia as autonomous republic, that is occupied by Russia. Not under any logic it is considered as an independent republic. So its wrong to assume that its a conflict between "Republic" of Abkhazia and Republic of Georgia, while no such thing as Republic of Abkhazia exists juridically. You can say its disputed between Georgia and Abkhazia on wikipedia pages of Nauru, Nicaragua and so on since they recognize independence of Abkhazia. but no other world does it.
 * Naming major countries and organizations that has called Russia occupant of Abkhazia and of so called "South Ossetia" or as legally known Tskhinvali Region or Samachablo

USA https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/us-russia-relations-reset-fact-sheet Ukraine https://newdaynews.ru/kiev/197014.html Japan https://www.mofa.go.jp/files/000057300.pdf Nato https://web.archive.org/web/20150402131545/http://www.nato-pa.int/default.asp?SHORTCUT=2245


 * and many other countries and organizations, it'll just take more to name all of them, which i can do if you ask it.

--Lemabeta (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The note that I have added does mention it. Saying that the region is disputed is as NPOV as it gets, you can easily do a google books search and see that dozens of books published in the US and Europe describe it as such . This talk page is not a good place to discuss it as it's only tangentially relevant to the medieval state and the visibility of discussion here is much lower. Please raise this at the talk page of Abkhazia article to determine if the consensus is to change the wording of the note. Alternatively you can initiate a WP:RFC to get third-party feedback. Alaexis¿question? 20:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)