- Iberia
Iberia — a kingdom in the territory of the historical region of Kartli, mentioned by ancient and Byzantine authors. At the turn of the 3rd-2nd centuries BC, a state was formed on the territory of Iberia. Part of the united agricultural communities were free, others were subject to the royal family and nobility. The labor of slaves (mainly prisoners of war) was used in construction and other heavy work, as well as in the palace economy. The dominant position among the Iberian settlements was occupied by Mtskheta, which later became the capital of Iberia. In it, as well as in Urbnisi, Uplistsikhe, and other cities, crafts and trade flourished. In the first centuries AD, Greek and Aramaic scripts were used in Iberia. At the same time, a significant strengthening of Iberia occurred, especially during the reign of Pharsman II (2nd century AD).
In the 4th century, feudal relations began to develop in Iberia. In 337, Mirian III declared Christianity the state religion. At the end of the 4th century, Iberia was subjugated by Persia and subjected to heavy tribute. In the mid-5th century, the king of Iberia, Vakhtang I Gorgasali, led a revolt against Sasanian rule.
Already in the Hellenistic period, the word Iberia designated a specific political entity (state) located on the territory of the south and east of present-day Georgia. In this territory, for the most part, lived Georgian tribes (Kartlians-Iberians). In the Hellenistic period, many inter-tribal unions were created here, and the beginnings of an early class state formation were already observed. In the Achaemenid era, the union of Georgian tribes that existed in this area was known under the name "Arian-Kartli," meaning the eastern Georgian union, which was directly part of the Persian Kingdom.
At the turn of the 3rd-2nd centuries BC, this union was able to extend its power to Shida Kartli. Thus, a state was created with its center in the vicinity of Mtskheta. The name "Mtskheta" probably comes from the name of one of the tribes of the Meskhi. The Meskhi, who arrived here from Asia Minor, must have brought with them the cult of worship of Hittite deities (Armazi, Zadeni), which gradually became the supreme deities. Two large fortresses were built near Mtskheta in honor of these deities — Armaztsikhe and Zaden tsikhe.
Opinion of I. Javakhishvili about the Moschi:
An interesting opinion was expressed by I. Javakhishvili. "Prof. N. Marr must be right," he wrote, "when he connects the ancient name of the Abkhazians 'abaschi' with 'mas-khi,' only at the beginning stands the usual Abkhazian prefix 'a'... Thus, the Abkhazians and Moschi have the same tribal name, however, only this, of course, cannot prove their tribal unity, until the meaning of the word 'mas'-, 'mos'-, 'mes'-khi is revealed. On the contrary, it is possible that this is a common noun. Still, it must be thought that this name belonged not only to these two tribes — the Abkhazians and Moschi, but the Lezgins (Dagestanis — author) call the Tushins (Georgian ethnographic group — author) and now 'moseks' or 'moskhs'." In the arguments of I. Javakhishvili, the assumption about the common noun meaning of the term "Meskhi" is especially important, which implies the possibility of encountering such a name in a wide area of Georgian settlement — in Abkhazia, southern Georgia, Tusheti, etc. P. Ingorokva shared that part of the views of N. Marr and I. Javakhishvili that concerned the identity of "Moschi" and "Abkhazians"; since the Meskhi lived beyond the Coraxi, who, according to the author, lived in the Kelasuri Gorge (actually lived in the Bzyb Gorge), P. Ingorokva considered the area of their habitat to be Abkhazia proper from Dioscuria to Bzyba. Since the belonging of the Meskhi to the Georgian ethnos was (and is) beyond doubt, P. Ingorokva came to the conclusion about the identity of the Abkhazians and Meskhi...
Period of Iberia's flowering
At the beginning of the 3rd century BC, power in Kartli (Iberia) was seized by Pharnavaz, who came from the local population (a representative of the "Mtskhetis mamassakhlisebi" clan), who became the founder of the Pharnavazid dynasty. During the reign of Pharnavaz and his immediate descendants, Iberia became a state with a significant territory. In addition to Shida Kartli, Kakheti, and Meskheti, it included part of Colchis (Argveti, Achara). It is assumed that originally its composition included the regions of Gogarena and Khordzena in the foothills of Pariadra (according to Strabo, they were separated from Iberia by Armenian kingdoms in the 2nd century BC).
Period of decline
In the 2nd century BC, Iberia lost part of its territories in the struggle with the strengthened Armenian kingdoms. Iberia of the Hellenistic period was an early class pre-feudal state. The bulk of the producers were free farmers and warriors. The conquered agricultural tribes were exploited mainly by representatives of the royal family. The privileged strata of the population were also represented by the military, court aristocracy, and priests. During this period, the principle of inheritance of the royal throne had not yet been finally established. And the eldest of the closest relatives of the deceased king was placed on the throne. As for customs, the inhabitants of the mountainous regions differed greatly from the inhabitants of the lowlands not only in their manner of dressing and character, but also in their way of life. At that time, they still lived under a primitive communal system. In 65 BC, the Roman commander Gnaeus Pompey the Great undertook a campaign against Iberia. Despite energetic resistance, the Iberian king Artag had to submit to the Romans.
Alliance with Rome
But quite quickly, Iberia ceased to be dependent on Rome. In the 1st-2nd centuries AD, Iberia grew stronger again and often acted as an opponent of Rome in Transcaucasia and the Middle East. The strengthening of Iberia was facilitated by establishing control over the passes of the Caucasus Range and using nomads living in the North Caucasus in campaigns. In the second half of the 1st century AD, Iberia maintained friendly relations with Rome, but in the 30s-50s of the 2nd century, during the time of King Pharsman II, during the period of Iberia's greatest power, relations with Rome became complicated. King Pharsman II ignored the invitations of the Roman emperor Hadrian, and only during the reign of his son — Antoninus Pius, he visited Rome together with his wife, son, and a large retinue of close associates. The emperor erected a monument to the king of Iberia in Rome.
Ruling dynasties
Artaxiads (c. 165–30 BC)
Pharnavazids (until 189 AD)
Arsacids (189–284 AD)
Khosroids (after 284 AD)
Iberia and the Jews according to Svetlana and Alexander Seversky
Part 5. European Bible
5.7. The Captivity of the Jews
After Joshua's conquest of vast territories, the next rulers about whom there is any information are David and his son Solomon. The study of this period also confirms the location of Jews in the region of Western Europe — King Solomon's possessions were quite extensive. He also had a fleet on the Tarshish (Tarsian) Sea: "Solomon had many ships in the so-called Tarshish Sea, the purpose of which was to conduct the most diverse trade with the most distant peoples, from whom silver, gold, much ivory, Ethiopians, and monkeys were purchased. The duration of each ship's voyage, from the time of departure to its return home, was up to three years."
"For the king had at sea a Tarshish fleet with Hiram's fleet; once every three years the Tarshish fleet came, bringing gold and silver, ivory, apes, and peacocks."
A striking example of demagogy on this matter is demonstrated by biblical scholars trying to explain the existing case:
"Tarshish (Hebrew: Tarshish), according to almost generally accepted opinion, is a Phoenician colony in Spain (cf. Is. XXIII:10; Jer. X:9; Ez. XXXVIII:13). But the expression 'Tarshish ship at sea' does not mean a ship or fleet that went to Tarshish (as erroneously in 2 Chr. IX:21; XX:36-37. Vulg.: ibat in Tharsis): Solomon's fleet went to Ophir (IX:28; X:11), not to Tarshish; this expression has a general meaning: a sea vessel, a long-distance vessel, just as there are now epithets for steamships 'Greenlandic' or 'East Indian.'
Josephus, on the contrary, saw here the name of a gulf of the Mediterranean Sea at the famous Cilician city of Tarsus, the birthplace of the Apostle Paul: "Solomon," says Josephus, "had many ships in the so-called Tarsian Sea" (Antiquities VIII, 7, 2). But nothing is known about the latter from the biblical text. Among the goods brought by the fleet are monkeys (Hebrew: kofim) and peacocks (Hebrew: tukkiim). Josephus considered the last word to be the name of slaves, Ethiopians."
It is surprising, but Josephus's words confirm that Solomon's fleet itself was located near Tarshish, and in 1 Kings one of the ships of this fleet is mentioned. How could it be understood differently? Especially since Spanish Tarshis was an ancient and well-known city, belonged to the same region, had a long history and mythology, and the sea could have been named after it. Moreover, by attributing the mentioned Tarshish to Turkey, the author of the commentary automatically expands the borders of Solomon's kingdom to Turkey, which is not confirmed by anything.
Another existing reference by Josephus to the same city is also ignored: after the division of the Israelite kingdom into Judah and Israel, the capital of the Israelite kingdom became Tarshish (Tarsus): "Such were the deeds of Asan, king of the two tribes of Israel. Now I will return to the ruler over the rest of the Israelite people, Bassan, who killed the son of Jeroboam, Nadab, and took possession of the kingdom. This Bassan lived in the city of Tarsus and made it his residence."
Tarshish is also mentioned by Isaiah: "And I will set a sign among them, and I will send those who escape from them to the nations: to Tarshish, to Pul and Lud, to those who draw the bow, to Tubal and Javan, to the distant islands that have not heard of Me and have not seen My glory; and they shall proclaim My glory among the nations." Pul possibly refers to the region of southern Italy, Apulia (Puglia), and there is also Pula on Sardinia; Lod refers to a more northern region of Italy, Lodi.
And there, in Spain, Pliny the Elder placed the people of the Pharuseans. Josephus places the descendants of Japheth in Tarsus: "Javan, the son of Japheth, had [also] three sons: Elishah, who gave his name to the people he ruled; these are the present-day Aeolians; then Tarshish, the ancestor of the Tarshishites. Thus Cilicia was called in ancient times, proof of which is the following: the most prominent chief city of theirs bears the name Tarsus, and they changed the letter tau in its name to phi." In Genesis, Tarshish is directly the son of Javan.
And in fact, it turns out that Solomon had ships in Spanish Tarshish, and there was also the residence of the Israelite king.
Similarly, it is strangely omitted that Solomon's ally, King Hiram, reigned not on a nearby territory, but on an island, which is repeatedly indicated in Josephus's correspondence between Hiram and Solomon: "At the same time, I offer you in return to take care of supplying us with bread, which we need, because we live on an island." By the way, according to Josephus, Hiram was the first to establish the feast of the resurrection of Hercules and took tribute from the inhabitants of the legendary homeland of Odysseus, Ithaca. But is there any data about the worship of Hercules in the ancient Near East? No.
Josephus repeatedly mentions the regions of Galilee, Gaulanitis, and Gilead, associated, without any doubt, with Gaul. Cities of Gaul are also mentioned: thus, Solomon gave Hiram the Galilean — which is also Avalon in Gaul. This information can help establish the location of Hiram's island, because it should have been located, on the one hand, not far from the donated cities of Gaul, on the other — from Carthage, also belonging to the Phoenicians.
That is, the Jews, or more correctly the Iberians-Ibri, who came from Africa, at the time of Joshua, having captured vast Western European territories, owned them until the division of the Israelite kingdom. The mutual influence of these peoples, related in the distant past, was inevitable, as a result of which, three thousand years later, it is difficult for us to determine ethnic boundaries.
Several historians of antiquity indicate that Nebuchadnezzar reached Spain and relocated part of the Spanish Iberians to the Caucasus. This was first described by the Greek writer, historian, and geographer Megasthenes (4th-3rd centuries BC) in his work on India. Then by Strabo and Josephus, Eusebius and Mar-Abbas-Katina, Dionysius Periegetes.
This may explain the situation with two peoples with the identical name "Iberians" — Spaniards and Georgians — by the fact of the relocation of Spanish Iberians to the Caucasus, and population relocations were a normal practice of conquerors both before and after Nebuchadnezzar. Although the Caucasian Iberians did not call themselves that, and it is quite possible that in this case we are talking about one of the artificially named twins, we will examine this a little further. Perhaps these historians were only trying to explain the appearance of the Iberians in Western Asia, and therefore could not find a better explanation? But the information about the captivity of the Jews by the Babylonian king is also confirmed by the Bible.
This is a very important point, which indicates that Nebuchadnezzar, and possibly other ancient kings, waged wars in Europe. Which, in turn, indirectly confirms the location of the ancient Jewish state.
However, the known "official" version of history does not take these sources into account, localizing the state and wars of Nebuchadnezzar in the east. The same story is repeated with the Achaemenids. Why did these conquerors ignore Europe? In the time of Nebuchadnezzar, again in accordance with the existing version, there were no strong states, but there were fertile lands. So why fight for deserts when there were flourishing lands nearby? At the same time, in their land campaigns, the troops of at least the Achaemenids reached very far, as far as India, so the Middle Eastern localization cannot be explained by the lack of necessary capabilities for long-distance campaigns in the armies. Of course, both Nebuchadnezzar and the Achaemenids should have tried to conquer Europe.
The reason for the relocation of peoples is quite obvious — to subjugate the conquered territory in ancient times, conquerors quite often took hostages, usually high-ranking persons, and/or their families, to their lands. This is exactly how the relocation of Jews from Jerusalem is described.
Only the inhabitants of Jerusalem were relocated to Babylon — rulers, warriors, and skilled craftsmen; Nebuchadnezzar did not take the poor with him. Babylon itself, by the way, was built by Nebuchadnezzar in the 6th century BC; the existence of a city with that name in the place where it was identified by modern historians has not been confirmed by anything before, accordingly, it could have been in another place, perhaps in Europe.
But the main thing is that part of the inhabitants of Jerusalem was relocated, not the entire Judean or, especially, the Israelite kingdom. A new king was appointed in Jerusalem: "And the king of Babylon made Mattaniah, Jehoiachin's uncle, king in his place, and changed his name to Zedekiah." That is, both Jerusalem, and Judea, and Israel remained; moreover, a negative attitude was formed towards the settlers: "So all Israel were listed by their genealogies, and indeed they were written in the book of the kings of Israel. And Judah was carried away captive to Babylon because of their unfaithfulness. Now the first inhabitants who dwelt in their possessions in their cities were Israelites, priests, Levites, and the Nethinim" and further: "And these gatekeepers, at the gates of the king's house, on the east, kept the watch of the sons of Levi."
It was during this period that there was a small chance of creating a second Israelite kingdom and Jerusalem in the Middle East. However, the Achaemenid king Cyrus the Great in the 6th century BC frees the Jews, after a very short period of time, which indicates the practical impossibility of the settlers merging with the local population. And further — he allows the settlers to return to their lands, let us emphasize — precisely to return, not to settle in a new region. Which the Jews do, returning to Jerusalem, and restoring their temple thanks to Cyrus's decree. The few geographical names given in the books describing this period, such as the book of Ezra, for example, coincide with the preceding more ancient ones, which confirms the return to European territory.
No traces of the stay of the Iberians-Jews in the east remained — the opinions of ancient historians that part of the Iberians was relocated do exist, but according to the Bible, they returned to their ancestral territories. The subsequent designation of Iberia on maps of Western Asia more indicates the assumption that the Iberian-Jews could have remained there. But even if some settlers did not return to their homeland, it is worth recognizing that they preserved little of their former culture, not even preserving the name. However, versions about the kinship of the Georgian and Basque languages may be some confirmation, but clearly insufficient without additional arguments, and requiring more detailed study.
Herodotus in his "History" does not mention Judea or Israel in Asia at all. And this is strange, if we proceed from the assumption of the placement of Jews in the Middle East, because Herodotus lived already after the liberation of the Jews from Babylonian captivity by the Persian king Cyrus, that is, they should have already returned and rebuilt the temple.
The absence of information, as is known, is also information, and such absence may well be considered as an indication that Judea and Israel did not exist in this territory, at least in the described period.
Source: http://saversky.ru/hist/41.html
Sources:
Ethnogenesis of the Abkhazians. D.A. Arshba, 2015