Abkhazia and the Abkhazians at the Time of the Emergence of Christianity, by Archimandrite Dorofey (Dbar)

The History of Christianity in Abkhazia during the First Millennium, 

Chapter 1 | pp. 22-44

Translated by AbkhazWorld

Abkhazia is situated between the Main Caucasus Range and the south-eastern littoral of the Black Sea. It borders the Russian Federation along the River Psou in the north-west and Georgia along the River Ingur in the south-east. This is a small mountainous country whose indigenous inhabitants are the Abkhazians.

Before turning to the history of Abkhazia and the Abkhazians at the time of the emergence of Christianity, it is necessary to speak about the origin of the Abkhazians themselves.

The problem of the ethnogenesis of the Abkhazian people, as with that of any other people, is among the most complex issues within historical science. It has been addressed in the works of many scholars, and has received dedicated treatment in the writings of major Abkhazologists such as Z. V. Anchabadze, Sh. D. Inal-ipa and others (see [Anchabadze 1976; Inal-ipa 1976]).

We do not possess historical sources relating to the very earliest history of the Abkhazians. The earliest and most explicit information about the ancestors of the Abkhazians is found in the works of classical authors. Therefore the primary basis for studying Abkhaz ethnogenesis is the Abkhaz language, one of the most archaic languages in the world. Alongside this, scholars employ ethnography, folklore studies, archaeology and a number of other auxiliary disciplines.

The contemporary mosaic of peoples in the Caucasus may be divided into four linguistic families. The most ancient inhabitants of the Caucasus are considered to be the peoples who speak languages of the North Caucasian family, consisting of two groups. The first is the Abkhaz-Adyghe group, which includes the Adyghes/Circassians, Kabardians, Cherkess, Abkhazians and Abazinians. The second is the Nakh-Dagestani group, comprising the Chechens, Ingush, Avars, Lezgins, Dargins, Laks, Tabasarans, Rutuls, Aguls and Tsakhurs. The Kartvelian family consists of the Georgians, made up of three sub-ethnic groups: Karts, Mingrelian-Chans and Svans. The Indo-European family in the Caucasus is represented by the Ossetians (Iranian branch) and Armenians. The Turkic-speaking peoples of the Caucasus include Azerbaijanis, Kumyks, Karachays, Balkars and Nogais, who belong to the Altaic linguistic family. Thus, the truly indigenous peoples of the Caucasus are considered to be those belonging to the North Caucasian and Kartvelian language families (see [Klimov & Alekseev 1980; Fedotov 1996, p. 64]).

The principal problem regarding the latter two families concerns whether they are related. According to some researchers, all the peoples belonging to the North Caucasian and Kartvelian families form a single Caucasian or Palaeo-Caucasian ethnically related family, which is divided into three main branches: the western (Abkhaz-Adyghe), the eastern (Nakh-Dagestani) and the southern (Kartvelian) (see [Shakryl 1971, pp. 3–18; Anchabadze 1976, p. 17; Klimov & Alekseev 1980]). A similar classification had already been proposed in the nineteenth century by P. K. Uslar, a renowned specialist in Caucasian languages [Uslar 1881, p. 53].

According to those scholars who unite the Abkhaz-Adyghe and Nakh-Dagestani branches into a single North Caucasian family, there is no linguistic relationship between the latter and the Kartvelian family. This theory was first proposed by N. S. Trubetskoy and later supported by numerous researchers (see [Shakryl 1971, pp. 12–13; Klimov & Alekseev 1980]).

After the decipherment of the Hittite cuneiform texts and their study by linguists, a new hypothesis emerged regarding a relationship between the Abkhaz-Adyghe languages and the Proto-Hittite or Hattic language. This hypothesis found numerous supporters among both domestic and foreign scholars (see [Melikishvili 1954, p. 71; Zamarovsky 1968, p. 148; Inal-ipa 1976, pp. 134–145]).

‘If we compare,’ wrote the well-known Hungarian scholar J. Mészáros, ‘the now extinct Ubykh language with the ancient Anatolian Hattic, we obtain noteworthy evidence of their closest genetic connection. In particular, the grammatical structure of these languages is so close that one can scarcely doubt the closest affinity of the two’ (quoted in: [Anchabadze 1976, p. 19]).

The Hattians were the most ancient aboriginal population of Asia Minor. In the second millennium BC they were assimilated by the incoming Hittites, who referred to themselves as Nesitae [Zamarovsky 1968, pp. 148–149; Ardzinba 1971, p. 3; Melikishvili 1954, p. 71]. The Hittites, unlike the Hattians, spoke an Indo-European language. As a result of their assimilation of the Hattians, the Hittites inherited a large number of Hattian cultural elements. In particular, even after the disappearance of the Hattic or Proto-Hittite language from daily use, it continued to be used by the Hittites in religious rites dedicated to Hittite deities (see [Zamarovsky 1968, p. 147; Inal-ipa 1976, p. 134]).

The Hattians, together with the Kashka/Kaska and the Abeshla, formed a group of related peoples who lived in the third–second millennia BC in north-eastern Asia Minor. The latter two groups, the Kashka and the Abeshla, mentioned in Hittite, Assyrian and Urartian sources, are regarded by scholars as the immediate ancestors of the Abkhazians and the Adyghes/Circassians (see [Melikishvili 1954, pp. 75–77; Inal-ipa 1976, pp. 130–131; Anchabadze 1976, pp. 18–19]).

‘As is evident,’ writes Z. G. Anchabadze, ‘the Kashka-Abeshla constituted that part of the Abkhaz-Adyghe ethnic community (tribal union) which in the third–second millennia BC inhabited the north-eastern sector of Asia Minor and was linked by common origin with the Hattians (Proto-Hittites)’ [Anchabadze 1976, p. 19].

The proximity of the Proto-Hittite element to the Abkhaz-Adyghe ethnolinguistic group is also confirmed by certain religious parallels, to which we shall return in Chapter II.

According to Sh. D. Inal-ipa, ‘one of the most revealing lexical-mythological correspondences between the Hattian (Kashka?) and Abkhaz-Adyghe languages is the complete coincidence in form and meaning of the name of the deity (of the oath) Uashkho (Уашхо)’ [Inal-ipa 1976, p. 143]. Professor Inal-ipa, carefully analysing this ancient mytho-religious image, which, in all Abkhaz-Adyghe languages and in the Digor dialect of Ossetian, appears primarily as the most solemn oath formula, and only in some languages secondarily as “god” (Ubykh), “god of the oath” (Kabardian), “heaven’s vault” (Adyghe), “thunder and lightning” (Ubykh), or simply an ancient sacred supernatural power, concludes that the concept of this deity was once borrowed either by the Caucasian highlanders from the Hattians or vice versa, or that both inherited it from a common ancestor [Inal-ipa 1976, pp. 153, 160].

‘The hypothesis of a relationship between the mountain peoples of the Western Caucasus—Abkhazian, Ubykh and Adyghe—and the Hattians,’ continues Inal-ipa, ‘although still a hypothesis, is entirely plausible and continues to gain new supporters not only among linguists but also among scholars of other disciplines. The accumulated evidence indicates an ancient Abkhaz-Adyghe-Proto-Hittite cultural and perhaps linguistic affinity. The bearers of these languages appear once to have been spread across the south-eastern and eastern Black Sea region until nearly the end of the second millennium BC. If migrations from south to north occurred at all, they must have taken place before the third millennium BC. Within this broad and relatively homogeneous ethno-cultural continuum stretching from the Pontic Mountains to the Kuban region, local differences arose early, associated both with internal development and with the infiltration of foreign groups, eventually leading to the formation of distinct ethnic communities in various parts of the region, some of which preserved essential traits of their ancient genetic and cultural connections’ [Inal-ipa 1976, p. 145].

Archaeologists note that the dolmen culture present in Abkhazia, together with its burial tradition, including the so-called “aerial burial”, which we shall discuss more fully in Chapter II, testifies clearly to the organic cultural continuity of the ancient Abkhazian population. It therefore indicates an unbroken ethnic connection between the creators of monuments of different periods up to the era when the Abkhaz tribes are unquestionably localised in written sources [Anchabadze 1976, pp. 23, 39].

‘An analysis of the burial rite of the dolmen culture,’ wrote the distinguished archaeologist L. N. Solovyov, ‘and its comparison with the religious beliefs and customs of the Abkhazian people, which survived until recently, leads us to conclude that there are no essential differences between them. Over some four millennia the same funerary traditions can be traced with extraordinary persistence… Consequently, one may conclude that the ethnic composition of the population inhabiting this territory since the end of the third millennium BC, when this cult appeared here, has not undergone fundamental changes. Only the ethnic names appear to have changed: Zikhs, Heniochi, Sanigs, Abasgians, and so on, depending on which terms were in wide usage at a given time’ [Solovyov 1960, p. 94].

From all of the foregoing, we may say that the Abkhazians and the Adygs, who were ethnically related to the ancient Kashka-Abeshla tribes (the latter, in turn, related to the Hattians and speaking Hattic or a related language), constitute the autochthonous population of the western Caucasus, of which ancient Abkhazia formed a part.

The autochthonous theory of the origins of the native population of Abkhazia is not accepted by all scholars, and therefore we shall briefly mention other major hypotheses concerning Abkhaz ethnogenesis, all of which posit migration.

One of the most widespread in the past was the Egyptian hypothesis, according to which ‘the Abkhazians are part of the family of the Colchians, and the Colchians came from the south, ultimately from Egypt and Abyssinia…’ [Gulia 1986, pp. 117–118]. This hypothesis, first put forward by Eichwald (see [Kavkaz 1874, no. 39]), was based on Herodotus, who considered the Colchians to be of Egyptian origin: ‘The Colchians are clearly Egyptians (οἱ Κόλχοι Αἰγύπτιοι),’ says Herodotus, ‘and I say this from my own reasoning before hearing it from another…’ [Scythica et Caucasica, vol. 1, fasc. 1, pp. 8–9]. This theory was later supported by P. K. Uslar, D. I. Gulia and others (see [Uslar 1881, pp. 400–414; Gulia 1986, pp. 87–130]). Subsequently, scholarship rejected it.

Another migration hypothesis derives the ancestors of the Abkhazians from Asia Minor and adjacent regions of south-western Transcaucasia. This theory concerns the movement of Abkhaz-Adyghe ethnic groups northwards along the Black Sea coast. Variants existed: for example, I. Javakhishvili believed that the Abkhaz-Adyghe tribes first migrated from Asia Minor into western Transcaucasia, then into the North Caucasus, and finally returned to western Transcaucasia in the early Christian centuries, settling in present-day Abkhazia. This hypothesis, with certain variations, was supported by N. Marr, A. Glee, S. N. Janashia and others (see [Inal-ipa 1976, pp. 36–50]). Some authors extended this migration thesis to include not only Abkhaz-Adyghe but also Kartvelian tribes moving northwards (see [Inal-ipa 1976, p. 38]).

The migration hypothesis intersects with the autochthonous one, since even some proponents of the latter acknowledged the possibility that, during various periods of the long ethnogenetic process (from the late third to mid-first millennia BC), ‘certain tribal groups may have moved both from south to north and back’ [Anchabadze 1976, p. 21]. Anchabadze also believed that Kashka-Abeshla tribes migrated from north-eastern Asia Minor toward the Black Sea coast, where they ethnically consolidated with the autochthonous population, which may have been related to them (see [Anchabadze 1964, pp. 119–130; Inal-ipa 1976, p. 131]).

‘If the “Apsils” and the “Abeshla”,’ says Inal-ipa, ‘are indeed one and the same ethnonym, this may mean either that the Abeshla advanced after the twelfth–eleventh centuries BC from north-eastern Asia Minor along the Caucasian Black Sea coast (and were encountered by the Greco-Roman authors in the territory of present-day Abkhazia under the name Apsilae), or that the entire south-eastern Black Sea littoral was inhabited by the Abeshla-Kashka-Apsilae and other related tribes, linked by a supra-ethnic unity, of which part has survived within the modern Abkhaz and Adyg peoples’ [Inal-ipa 1976, p. 131].

A further migration theory derives the ancestors of the Abkhazians from the North Caucasus. Some supporters locate this migration in antiquity (M. Kisling, A. Svanidze), while others date it to the late medieval period (A. Dyachkov-Tarasov, P. Ingorokva).

The thesis that the ancient Abkhaz tribes appeared in present-day Abkhazia only in the early Christian centuries is ‘completely refuted by new archaeological discoveries’ [Anchabadze 1976, p. 39]. As for Ingorokva’s later dating, it was rigorously criticised.

‘One may think,’ writes G. Z. Anchabadze, ‘that had Ingorokva’s book appeared in another, more peaceful time, it would have become only an object of academic debate, and today few would remember it, just as few remember his “biography” of Shota Rustaveli or his fantastical readings of Hittite inscriptions using Georgian. But in that unfortunate period the publication became for the Abkhazians the last straw, and their indignation took excessive forms. Ingorokva’s theory became a matter of political agitation… Most Caucasianists, historians, ethnographers, linguists, recognised that this new theory was fundamentally erroneous and could adversely affect Georgian-Abkhaz relations. Yet the theory was enthusiastically taken up by another circle of intellectuals, including distinguished scholars outside Abkhaz studies, and many writers. For them Ingorokva became a true national figure’ [Anchabadze 1999, p. 26].

Anchabadze devoted a special study to critiquing Ingorokva’s views as expressed in his 1954 book Georgi Merchule — a Georgian Writer of the Tenth Century. These views concern:

1. the ethnic identity of the “Abazgians” of antiquity and the “Abkhazians” of the medieval period;
   
   
2. the chronology and circumstances of the formation of the “Abkhazian Kingdom”;
   
   
3. the character of the Kingdom’s national policy [Anchabadze 1956, p. 261].
   

The first question concerns us here. To prove his thesis that the Abazgi-Abkhazians of antiquity and the medieval period were not ancestors of the modern Abkhazians but Kartvelian tribes, Ingorokva advanced three arguments:

1. he derived the ethnonym Abasgoi-Abazgi from Meskhi;
   
   
2. he claimed that certain sources indicate that the Moschi-Meskhi lived in ancient Abkhazia;
   
   
3. he interpreted ethno- and toponymic data to assert that Kartvelian tribes were the aboriginal inhabitants of nearly the entire Black Sea littoral (see [Anchabadze 1956, p. 262]).
   
   

All of these arguments are refuted by Anchabadze, who concludes that Ingorokva displays:

1. ‘clear dilettantism’;
   
   
2. ‘appropriation of scholarly positions developed by others’;
   
   
3. ‘falsification of sources in order to “prove” his erroneous theses’;
   
   
4. ‘ignorance of materials contradicting his “concept”’ [Anchabadze 1956, p. 278].
   
   

A special article by Kh. S. Bgazhba, the finest expert in the Abkhaz language, refutes Ingorokva’s linguistic interpretations. As Bgazhba notes: ‘An objective scholarly analysis of the linguistic material provides no basis whatsoever for Ingorokva’s conclusions about the language and history of the Abkhazians’ [Bgazhba 1956, p. 284].

In connection with Ingorokva’s book, Sh. D. Inal-ipa wrote Steps Toward Historical Reality (Sukhum, 1992). Based on sources from the late medieval period to the early twentieth century, he convincingly refuted Ingorokva’s theory of a late change in the ethnic composition of Abkhazia (see [Inal-ipa 1992]).

Thus, Ingorokva’s positions concerning Abkhaz history, long adopted by many non-specialist Georgian historians, were ultimately rejected not only by Abkhaz but also by Georgian historiography (see [Anchabadze 1999, pp. 26–28]).

+ Questions of Abkhazian history in the book by P. Ingorokva ‘Georgi Merchule - Georgian writer of the 10th century’, by Zurab V. Anchabadze

+ Giorgi Soselia's Critique of Pavle Ingorokva's 'Giorgi Merchule' and the Misrepresentation of Abkhazian History 

+ On some issues of ethnic identity and placement of the Abkhazians (Regarding the work of P. Ingorokva 'Giorgi Merchule'), by Ketevan Lomtatidze

+ The Ibero-Caucasian hypothesis and the historiography of Abkhazia, by Kevin Tuite

+ Rewriting History? A Critique of Modern Georgian Historiography on Abkhazia

Having briefly surveyed the problem of Abkhaz ethnogenesis, we now turn to the ancient written sources concerning Abkhazia and the Abkhazians at the time of the emergence and spread of Christianity. We present only the most relevant passages, while referring to the specialised literature for detailed analysis (see [Anchabadze 1964, pp. 131–208; Inal-ipa 1976, pp. 176–262; Gunba 1989, pp. 139–157; Voronov 1998, pp. 7–47]).

We begin with two classical authors, Pliny the Elder (Pliny Secundus), a Roman historian of the first century AD, and Flavius Arrian, a Greek historian and statesman of the late first–mid-second centuries AD, who first mention the ancient Abkhaz tribes: the Abazgians (Abazgi), Apsils (Apsilae) and Sanigs (Sanigae), the direct ancestors of the modern Abkhazians.

Pliny, in his Natural History, names two Abkhaz tribes: the Apsilae and the Sanigae. ‘The tribe of the Apsilae (gens Absilae),’ he writes, ‘and the fortress of Sebastopolis are located one hundred thousand paces from Phasis; the tribe of the Sanigae (gens Sannigae), the city of Cigny and the city of Penius; and finally the tribes of the Heniochi, differing in many names (multis nominibus Heniochorum gentes)’ [Scythica et Caucasica, vol. 2, p. 179].

The first mention of the Abazgians appears in Arrian’s Periplus of the Euxine Sea (Periplus Ponti Euxini), a letter-report addressed to the Emperor Hadrian (117–138), written after Arrian’s inspection voyage along the eastern Black Sea shore between 134 and 137.

Unlike many classical authors, Arrian personally visited the Caucasus, including Abkhazia, sailing as far as Sebastopolis, modern Sukhum. The Periplus is also important for containing the earliest references to the political formations on the territory of modern Abkhazia.

Arrian reports:

‘We passed by the following peoples: adjacent to the Trapezuntians, as Xenophon also says, are the Colchians… Next to them dwell the Macrones and the Heniochi; their king is Anchialus. Bordering the Macrones and Heniochi are the Zydritae; they are subject to Pharasmanes. Beyond the Zydritae are the Lazi; their king is Malas, who has received his power from you. After the Lazi come the Apsilae (Ἀψίλααι); their king is Julian (βασιλεὺς δέ αὐτῶν Ἰουλιανός), who received his kingship from your father. Bordering the Apsilae are the Abasgoi (Ἀβασκοί); their king is Rismag (Ἀβασκῶν βασιλεὺς Ῥησμάγος), who has likewise received his power from you. Next to the Abasgoi are the Sanigae (Σανίγαι), in whose land lies Sebastopolis; their king is Spadag (Σανιγῶν βασιλεὺς Σπαδάγας), who received his kingship from you’ [Scythica et Caucasica, vol. 1, fasc. 1, p. 222].

From these passages we see that in the first centuries AD the ancient Abkhaz tribal groupings, the Apsils, Abazgians and Sanigs, occupied the eastern Black Sea littoral in the bounds of modern Abkhazia. They had their own rulers, approved by Roman emperors.

The appearance of these ethnonyms in first–second-century sources does not mean that the tribes had only recently emerged. Earlier sources use different designations. As Inal-ipa notes, this shift ‘reflects not so much changes in the ethnic composition as increasingly precise information in Greco-Roman geographical knowledge’ [Inal-ipa 1976, p. 204; see also Solovyov 1960, p. 94].

Using the testimony of Pliny, Arrian and other ancient and medieval authors, scholars locate these tribes as follows:

• Apsilae inhabited ‘a considerable part of Colchis from the northern environs of Phasis (the region of Archaeopolis) to Sebastopolis (Sukhum)’ [Voronov 1998, p. 19; see also Inal-ipa 1976, p. 216; Anchabadze 1964, p. 178; Gunba 1989, pp. 140–141].
• The location of the Abazgians is more disputed. According to Arrian, they bordered the Apsils to the south of Sebastopolis. According to the anonymous Periplus of the fifth century, their north-western boundary extended to the River Abasca, beyond which lived the Sanigs [Scythica et Caucasica, vol. 1, fasc. 1, pp. 276–278]. The River Abasca is usually identified with today’s Psou or Khashupse (see [Voronov 1998, p. 24]).
• Many Georgian historians argued for a northward movement of Apsils and Abazgians under pressure from the Lazi. Others, including Gunba and Inal-ipa, consider this unlikely on the grounds of lack of sources and demographic implausibility [Gunba 1989, p. 146].
• As for Sanigs, Arrian places them north of the Abazgians, from Sebastopolis to the River Achaunta (possibly the modern Shakhe). The anonymous Periplus places them between the Rivers Abasca and Achaunta, i.e., modern Adler and Sochi, implying that Sebastopolis could not lie in Sanig territory. Various attempts at reconciliation exist. The most plausible, according to Voronov, is that the name Sanig preserved the memory of an older, broader grouping, part of the Heniochi, whose territory later contracted [Voronov 1998, pp. 29–30].

Regarding their ethnic identity:

• The overwhelming majority of scholars consider the Apsilae and Abazgians to be Abkhaz tribes, direct ancestors of the modern people [Anchabadze 1964, p. 179].
• The ethnicity of the Sanigs is more complex. They have been identified variously as Svans, Mingrelian-Chans, or as an Abkhaz tribe (Sadz).

Anchabadze rejects both Svan and Mingrelian identities on linguistic and historical grounds, favouring the view that the Sanigs were connected with the later Sadz (Jiketians) [Anchabadze 1964, p. 173]. Inal-ipa likewise concludes that ‘the ethnic identity and historical continuity between the Sanigs and the Sadz is beyond doubt’ [Inal-ipa 1995, pp. 17–18].

Thus, at the time of the emergence and initial spread of Christianity, the apostles who came to Abkhazia with the Good News encountered the tribes of the Apsils, Abazgians and Sanigs, the direct ancestors of the Abkhazians. The Apsils lived from the southern banks of the River Ingur to Sebastopolis (Sukhum). The Abazgians inhabited the territory from Sebastopolis to the Rivers Khashupse or Psou. Further north were the Sanigs up to the Rivers Sochipsta or Shakhe, beyond which lay the land of the Zikhs (Adygs/Circassians).

We now briefly consider the political, economic and cultural situation within these principalities.

According to the Periplus, the Apsils, Abazgians and Sanigs had rulers (basileis) whose authority was confirmed by Rome:

‘After the Lazi come the Apsilae; their king Julian received his kingdom from your father [Trajan]. Bordering the Apsilae are the Abasgoi; their king Rismag received his authority from you [Hadrian]. Next to the Abasgoi are the Sanigae; their king Spadag received his kingdom from you’ [Scythica et Caucasica, vol. 1, fasc. 1, p. 222].

As Melikishvili notes, the fact that Julian had a Roman name suggests perhaps an earlier Roman orientation among the Apsils, though the exact political arrangements remain uncertain (quoted in [Anchabadze 1964, p. 191]).

Anchabadze emphasises that these rulers were undoubtedly local, as shown by their names, and that receiving authority from Rome likely meant formal recognition rather than dependence involving tribute [Anchabadze 1964, pp. 191–192].

The Apsils, Abazgians and Sanigs thus represent early ethno-political formations of the late first–early second centuries AD, emerging out of the earlier tribal union known as the Heniochi.

Strabo, writing in the early first century AD, lists the Heniochi among the peoples of the eastern Black Sea. He also reports that in the 60s BC the Heniochi had ‘four kings’ [Scythica et Caucasica, vol. 1, fasc. 1, p. 134]. According to Inal-ipa, these correspond to the four main ancient Abkhaz groups: the Sanigs (with the Achaeans), the Abazgians, the Apsils and the Misimians [Inal-ipa 1976, pp. 187–188].

After Pompey’s eastern campaign (64 BC), the Heniochi fell under Roman influence (see Dio Cassius [Scythica et Caucasica, vol. 2, fasc. 1, p. 615]). Josephus Flavius also mentions Roman control over the Heniochi and Colchians [Josephus 1900, p. 219].

By the Roman period, several fortified cities existed in eastern and north-eastern Black Sea region, including in Abkhazia. These fortresses functioned not only as military garrisons but also as political, economic and cultural centres for the local population. In Abkhazia these included Dioscurias-Sebastopolis (Sukhum), Pitiunt (Pitiunt/Pitiunt), Guenos, and others (see [Fedotov 1996, pp. 77–78; Voronov 1980, pp. 27–95; Apakidze 1978, pp. 23–33; Shamba 1988, pp. 20–133]).

All of these cities except Pitiunt were founded by Ionian Greeks during the period of the Great Greek Colonisation (eighth–sixth centuries BC). As Lordkipanidze notes, this colonisation was one of the most extensive population movements of the ancient world [Lordkipanidze 1979, p. 105].

Through these colonies, an immense economic and cultural interaction occurred between the Greeks and the ancestors of the Abkhazians, and vice versa.

Lordkipanidze writes: ‘Greek colonies formed a kind of hem sewn onto the vast fabric of barbarian peoples.’ Greek colonisation thus marked the beginning of a long process of interaction between the Hellenic world and the many peoples of the coastal regions of the Mediterranean and Black Seas [Lordkipanidze 1979, pp. 105–106].

Thus, at the time of the arrival of the Apostles of Christ in Abkhazia, the sub-ethnic groups of the Abkhaz ethnos—the Apsils, Abazgians and Sanigs, had already separated from the Heniochi tribal union and formed distinct principalities under rulers confirmed by Rome. On the territory of these principalities stood the fortified cities, successors of ancient Greek poleis, serving as political, economic and cultural centres for the Apsils, Abazgians and Sanigs, as well as garrisons for Roman legionaries protecting imperial interests.

It is precisely in these cities, inhabited by a mixed Greek-indigenous, Hellenised population, and, as Strabo writes, drawing together some ‘seventy nations’, that the Apostles Saint Andrew the First-Called and Saint Simon the Canaanite would preach the Gospel of the Risen Saviour.