From Chiefdom to Kingdom: From the History of Abkhaz Statehood in the First Millennium CE, by Oleg Bgazhba

Bgazhba, O. Kh., “From Chiefdom to Kingdom,” Vremena / Aamtaq’a (Historical and Cultural Almanac), no. 1–2, Scientific Research Centre “Abkhaz Encyclopaedia”; Abkhaz Historical Society, Sukhum: Dom pechati, 2024, pp. 31–35.

This subject matter is not new and is naturally closely linked to both the internal situation (socio-economic) and the external context (political—relations with the Roman Empire and subsequently with the Byzantine Empire) during the second to seventh centuries. For more than seven decades, thanks to our compatriot S.N. Janashia, the founder of the Georgian Soviet historical school, it was believed that feudal relations in ancient Colchis began to take shape in the third and fourth centuries and became established in the sixth century.[1] This thesis found support and further development in the works of many historians specialising in Caucasian studies (Z. V. Anchabadze, M. M. Gunba, N. Yu. Lomouri, among others).

At the same time, G. A. Melikishvili later substantiated a more realistic viewpoint, according to which the autochthonous population of ancient Colchis (the Laz and, in particular, the Apsils, Abasgs, and others) stood at a lower level of socio-economic development (in comparison with Iberia, Kartli), and even in the 6th–8th centuries retained distinctive forms of early class relations.[2] Referring to the evidence of Procopius, Agathias, and Menander, he concluded that among the Laz in the 6th century the bulk of the community members still enjoyed personal freedom, while power was concentrated in the hands of a military-clan aristocracy, and the process of forming feudal relations and a feudal nobility proceeded very slowly.[3]

Among the north-western neighbours of the Laz (the Apsils, Abasgs, and others), during the 2nd–7th centuries “leader-kings” held positions akin to archons and were limited in their authority.[4] This perspective was further developed in the works of A. P. Novoseltsev, who believed that feudal relations in Western Transcaucasia only began to manifest themselves in the 8th–9th centuries.[5] Taking these latter two premises into account, Yu. N. Voronov and O. Kh. Bgazhba proposed a corresponding periodisation of Abkhaz history in the teaching manuals of 1991 and 1992, and in the secondary-school textbook of 2006 and 2015. According to this scheme, following the clan system, feudalism emerged in the 8th century, bypassing the slave-owning stage (which in our region existed only at the level of patriarchal slavery).

It seemed that the main issues related to this topic had been resolved in Sukhum in 2015 at the international scholarly conference of archaeologists entitled “Social Stratification of the Population of the Caucasus in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages”,[6] when many societies of Europe and Asia were at a comparable stage of chiefdoms and were ruled by “kings” or “chiefs”. However, in 2022 a historical and political reference work by the philologist Viacheslav Chirikba was published, which presents a scheme of Abkhaz royal dynasties from the 2nd to the 6th centuries. In this work, the Apsilian patricians (one of the highest ranks of a Byzantine official appointed by the emperor, or alternatively the third rank within the clergy, possibly an episcopal office) Marin and his son Eustathius, killed by the Arabs and later canonised, are referred to as kings.[7] This circumstance prompted me to return once again to this problem.

It is therefore necessary to recall a passage from the well-known Periplus of the legate of Emperor Hadrian, Flavius Arrian, who in the early 130s CE undertook an inspection journey along the Black Sea coast of ancient Colchis (including Abkhazia). The passage reads as follows:

“Next to the Zydritae are the Laz; the king of the Laz is Malassus, who received his power from you (Hadrian – O.B.). After the Laz come the Apsils; their king is Julian, who received his kingdom from your father (Trajan – O.B.). Bordering the Apsils are the Abasgs; the king of the Abasgs is Resmagas, who received his kingdom from you. Next to the Abasgs are the Sanigs, in whose land lies Sebastopolis (the territory of the Sukhum fortress – O.B.); the king of the Sanigs, Spadagas, received his kingdom from you.”[8]

The term basileus in this passage of Arrian is usually interpreted straightforwardly by most Abkhaz specialists as “king”. However, one should not forget its other meaning: “leader” or “ruler” of a tribe or a tribal confederation, who was the primus inter pares among the tribal elite (that is, the “military aristocracy”) and who was approved, or more likely appointed, by the Roman emperor, who was himself, in essence, the supreme basileus. Moreover, dynastic succession was generally not practised in such cases, as it began to be only after the 6th century with the Abkhaz dynasty of the Anosids.

Such a picture was drawn by Flavius Arrian in the early 2nd century (131–137). What Procopius, Agathias, and Theophanes knew about our region before the formation of the independent Abkhaz Kingdom of the Leonid dynasty in the 8th century (by 786) will be briefly recalled here and supported by available archaeological data. I was closely associated with this material, as were M. M. Trapsh, G. K. Shamba, and especially Yu. N. Voronov.

Archaeologically, the life of the Apsils is now the most thoroughly studied: more than two dozen fortified settlements, as well as burial grounds (over 500 burials in total), have been excavated.[9] In the burial grounds of Apsilia,[10] which represented clan settlements uniting five to ten, and sometimes several dozen, large families already undergoing fragmentation into nuclear families, no evidence of property differentiation has been recorded up to the 7th century. This can reasonably be explained by legal regulation characteristic of a clan-based organisation.

At the same time, a certain degree of clan specialisation within the tribe can be observed in Apsilia. The population of most settlements was engaged in agriculture, animal husbandry, pottery production, and blacksmithing, whereas one clan, for example the Shapky, appears to have been exempt from these duties. This clan was the principal consumer of a greater quantity of imported goods such as glass, gold, jewellery, and so forth.[11]

The martial character of Apsilian society is particularly striking: every man was a warrior. Even the burial of a blacksmith contained a full set of weapons. This indicates that the blacksmith and the warrior were the same person and that the second major division of labour had not yet occurred.[12] The military equipment was largely uniform, yet of the highest European standard; even “Damascus swords” and Tsebelda axes resembling throwing franciscas were used. The ancient Abkhaz warrior departed for the “other world” in full battle gear, together with his horse, up to the mid-7th century.

In short, historians and archaeologists currently confirm the existence in Apsilia of the following hierarchy: leader (basileus in the 2nd century; later patricians, but not kings), elders, “the most reasonable men among the Apsilians”, fortress commanders, envoys involved in the arbitration between Byzantines and Misimians, and among the Misimians, noble and respected figures such as Hada and Tuana—names still encountered among Abkhazians today. In socio-political terms, all this corresponds to what is known as “military democracy”.

A similar situation can be observed in Abasgia, where in the 6th century two kings ruled: one over the western part and the other over the eastern part of the country. It is important to note that they were elected and deposed by the people themselves, apparently at popular assemblies. Byzantine sources mention only “kings” (under various designations: “petty kings”, “rulers”, “governors”, “leaders” referring to the same individuals) and say nothing about a nobility.[13] The overthrow of their own kings should not be regarded as a transition of the Abasgs to feudalism; rather, it was most likely a protest by ordinary community members against an emerging class system.[14] Unfortunately, we currently lack archaeological material from Abasg settlements and burial grounds of that period.

More information from Byzantine historians is available regarding the neighbouring Laz, who belonged to the ancient Kartvelian world. This is due to the fact that Byzantium pursued its intricate policies in Colchis through them, creating among the more numerous Laz an illusory sense of dominance over their ancient Abkhaz neighbours, the Abasgs and especially the Apsils. The Laz did not participate in punitive actions against the latter; instead, their common suzerain, Byzantium, replaced them in this role, as a result of which the Apsils “again became subjects of the Laz”.[15] The “nested” system functioned: “the vassal of my vassal is my vassal”.

Thus, there is little basis for speaking of a powerful Laz kingdom at that time, under whose authority, for example, Apsilia supposedly lay. The sources mention: “one of the noble men of the Laz, named Terdetes, who bore among that people the title of magister”[16] (a Byzantine office higher than that of patrician); “one of the Laz, very noble in that tribe and residing in Archaeopolis”; “one of the most prominent men among them”, Aëtes;[17] and Phartaz, “held in exceptional esteem among the Colchians, prudent and moderate, and very popular”,[18] whose persuasive speeches at a secret popular assembly ensured the victory of the pro-Byzantine faction and the election of Tsathe as king, replacing the slain Gubazes, despite the latter having sons.

A review of these cases shows that “royal” power among the Laz passed from brother to brother. These noble men enjoyed the right of the first voice at popular assemblies and were free to choose their political orientation. From among them, the future royal retinue and personal guard were evidently formed.

The more rapid emergence of a nobility among the Laz and their neighbours (the Apsils and Sanigs) is confirmed by the presence of rich burials in Colchis dating to the 2nd–4th centuries. At that time, however, precious objects were not yet instruments of power so much as its attributes, and were therefore buried together with the deceased.[18]

The power of the Laz kings remained fairly democratic, preserving many traits characteristic of tribal leaders. Kings acted as military commanders and courageous warriors. The sources are silent, and archaeologists have not yet discovered palaces or feudal regalia of royal authority. Kings mingled freely with their people at feasts. It was sufficient simply not to catch the eye of an enraged king in order to feel relatively safe.

In foreign policy, Laz kings were dependent on Byzantium, as earlier on Rome. Their envoys complained to Khosrow:

“Even if we were Romans only in name, in reality we were nothing but their faithful slaves… They left our king only the appearance of royal dignity, while they appropriated all real authority. The king, having accepted the lot of a servant, fears the general who commands him.”[19]

Later, the Laz requested Justinian not to appoint “some foreigner or outsider” as their king.

Even in choosing wives or ceremonial clothing, Laz kings were not independent. Their wives had to be daughters of Byzantine officials, and regarding dress, Agathias reports that “Laz kings are not permitted to wear a purple cloak; only a white one is allowed.”[20] For this reason, Procopius emphasised as a rarity that the commander of the Apsilian fortress, Tzibile, had an Apsilian wife rather than a Byzantine one. It is also noteworthy that a Laz king asked Justinian to pay him ten years’ salary for his post as a silentiary.

The turbulent and dramatic events of the 8th century introduced significant changes into the historical processes of Colchis. Already in the 7th–early 8th centuries, Abasgia represented a unified political entity headed by kings of the Anosid dynasty (as recorded in the Divan of Abkhaz Kings), although they remained dependent on Byzantium. In Apsilia, rulers at that time bore the title of patrician, which in the Byzantine hierarchy stood below that of magister but above that of silentiary.

One of the Abasg kings, Constantine, owned a lead hanging seal bearing the Greek inscription “Constantine the Abasgian”, discovered in Pitsunda. Such seals were typically possessed only by high Byzantine officials and clerics integrated into the imperial administrative apparatus.

It was precisely Abasgia, which at that time hardly stood out among other ethno-political formations of Colchis, that absorbed them and unified them within a single administrative framework. Following the death of Leon I, by 786 it created the first early feudal state in the region: the independent Abkhaz Kingdom under the Leonid dynasty, headed by King Leon II. This was facilitated both by internal economic foundations—transhumant pastoralism (the presence of atsanguars)—and by external factors: the Arab invasions, which completely destroyed Lazica and partially devastated Apsilia, and above all the victory over the Arabs at the walls of Anacopia. This victory significantly enhanced the prestige of Abasgia and became the trigger for the annexation and, crucially, the unification of the entire region of Western Transcaucasia, that is, Colchis.

The fundamental basis of this state was the completion, by that time, of the formation of a unified Abkhaz feudal people, a process that had begun earlier with the official adoption of Christianity in the 6th century.

By the end of the 10th century, power in the Abkhaz Kingdom gradually passed from the Leonid dynasty to the Bagratid dynasty. This process was completed in the 1080s. The Bagratid rule lasted until the end of the 13th century, when the kingdom disintegrated. But that is another story.

__________________________

References

1. Janashia, S. N. Works. Vol. I. Tbilisi, 1949, pp. 67–75.
   
2. Melikishvili, G. A. The Political Unification of Feudal Georgia and Certain Issues in the Development of Feudal Relations in Georgia. Tbilisi, 1973, pp. 35–52.
   
3. Ibid., pp. 141–145.
   
4. Ibid., p. 143.
   
5. Novoseltsev, A. P. The Genesis of Feudalism in the Countries of Transcaucasia. Moscow, 1980, p. 247.
   
6. Proceedings of the International Scholarly Conference “Social Stratification of the Population of the Caucasus in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages”. Moscow, 2015; KSIA, Issue 244, 2016.
   
7. Chirikba, V. A. The Independence of the Republic of Abkhazia in the Light of International Law. Sukhum, 2022, p. 216.
   
8. Latyshev, V. V. Accounts of Ancient Authors on Scythia and the Caucasus. VDI, I, 1949, p. 270.
   
9. Voronov, Yu. N. The Mystery of the Tsebelda Valley. Moscow, 1975.
   
10. Voronov, Yu. N. The Graves of the Apsils. Pushchino, 2003.
    
11. Voronov, Yu. N. Colchis at the Threshold of the Middle Ages. Vol. I. Sukhum, 2006, p. 216.
    
12. Bgazhba, O. Kh. Following the Trail of the Blacksmith Ainar. Sukhum, 1982; Selected Works. Sukhum, 2023, p. 131.
    
13. Procopius of Caesarea. The Gothic War. Moscow, 1950.
    
14. Melikishvili, G. A. The Political Unification of Feudal Georgia…, p. 143.
    
15. Procopius of Caesarea. The Gothic War. Moscow, 1950.
    
16. Ibid., p. 40.
    
17. Ibid., p. 421; Agathias. On the Reign of Justinian. Moscow, 1953, p. 77.
    
18. Ibid., p. 81; Voronov, Yu. N. Colchis at the Threshold of the Middle Ages, p. 217.
    
19. Procopius of Caesarea. History of the Wars of the Romans, p. 115.
    
20. Agathias. On the Reign of Justinian, p. 86.

The text is based on O. Kh. Bgazhba’s study published in Vremena / Aamtaq’a: Historical and Cultural Almanac, no. 1–2 (Sukhum, 2024, pp. 31–35), and has been translated into English by AbkhazWorld.