Yes, we do: all the sources from way back when comment on the myriad of different languages in the Caucasus. The maps show that that hasn't changed.
No you don't know definitely.
The problem of the Abkhazian Kingdom, particularly the questions of the nature of its ruling family and its ethnic composition, is a main point of controversy between modern Georgian and Abkhaz scholars. This can be largely explained by the scarcity of primary sources on these issues. Most Abkhaz historians claim the kingdom was formed as a result of the consolidation of the early Abkhaz tribes that enabled them to extend their dominance over the neighboring areas. This is objected on the side of the Georgian historians, some of them claiming that the kingdom was completely Georgian.We definitely know that it was NOTcompletely Georgian/Kartlavi
You can't even see the difference between analysis and the data. How can you argue at all? You are giving me some type of analysis of a certain person not what I asked. Give me the source, historical source (name authors, their writings and so on) which shows that Apsu was aboriginal tribe of Abkhazia and Georgian tribes (Kolchis, Chanis, Lazis, Megrelis, Svanis, Mushkis and so on) were not. Meanwhile I will start giving you evidence of the fact that Abkhazia stand for Georgia (either eastern Georgia or sometimes some foreign writers meant hole Georgia when they spoke of Abkhazia). I will post data on these later today.
Show me historical writings (I asked you before not to rely on wiki as historical source) that definitely shows Abkhazia was not completely Georgian and I'll show you definitely by presenting historical sources from eastern and western writers that "Abkhazia" was actually the term used interchangeably with the term "Georgia". Your word "definitely" is false opinion and you can't use it and call it scientific as such. Show me the ethnographic data; Show me, please, I bag you, the Abkhazian eponym's analysis that at list remotely "proves" your point.Lord wiling, I'll return to this when I have time, but in the meantime:
Yes, please return and give me something real. You show again inability to see difference between source and analysis (or narrative). The link you gave me is not a historical source, but a narrative. On top of that it's wrong narrative. It has false terms and eponyms. There's no such city as Schetha (as in "Catholicate of Schetha"). It was Catholicate of Mstkheta
. Georgia has never been divided into upper Georgia and lower Georgia. There's eastern (which includes upper Kartli and lower Kartli
and other regions) and western Georgia. There are other gross mistakes there (such as terribly wrong dates and wrong subordination: west was subordinate to east and not the other way round). When you present some narrative it should treat information much better than this. What is most important though is even in this erroneous source it states clearly that Abchazia was part of eastern Georgia (lower Georgia per this Author).
Georgians (different Qartvelian tribes like Kolchis, Svans, Megrels, Lazis, Chanis) have been aboriginal tribes in area currently called Abkhazia since the beginning. Apsus came there late. And then you bring you "Evolue" notion here which does not fit at all. We are aboriginal and Apsus are late-comers. So who is in this "Evolue" concept colonist and who is local people that adapted to to colonist's culture and language?You Qartvelians. I told you that.
And what way were we, Qartvelians, colonists? Do you know what the word "Qartvelians" stand for and if you do (or think you do) could you tell me please? Also, do you know the difference between Georgian and Qartvelian? I bet you don't which is clear from your statements. And if you don't know it makes no sense from your side to even say such a thing. First let's determine what is Qartvelian and what is Georgian then go from there.
Ossetians is related to Old Slavonic, but if they want to replace it with Ossetian I'm all for that.
I'm saying that they are obviously not ethnic Georgian, so why should they need or want to get used to Old, or for that matter moder, Georgian?Really? So, what language they hear now in the Churches? Old Slavnoic. Are Osetians/Abkhazians that good to understand old Slavnoic when Russians have the problems themselves?
I speak Russian fluently (plus I've read old Slavonic and understand some) and I've heard Osetian which is completely unintelligible language to me. besides, I know Osetian is in the group of Iranian languages while Russian (and old Slavonic) is Slavonic group of languages. Now I hear new thing that Ossetian is related to old Slavonic. Where did you get that from?
No saint will say such a thing about Georgia
After all even if they heard new Russian in the Church it would be still not their mother language. Will you protest this fact as fervently as you protest them praying in old Georgian? I doubt. And you must now that it is never going to happen (even if they are under Russia's "protection") - they will never hear in the Church their native language. In practice that "problem" (to hear the Liturgy in native language) is completely artificial and forced problem.I've known Russians who lived in the days when what you say was said, and was the contemporary reality, of Georgian. Even the great St. Tikhon of Moscow refused to recognize the resurrection of the Catholicate of Georgia.
. What I'll say is going to be another paranoia for you or maybe delusion of grandeur. But I'll say this because some faithful may benefit from this. First I looked up and saw quite different thing about St. Tikhon of Moscow here
Autocephaly must require the full agreement of the people and leadership in the territory in question, but the OCA's autocephaly only represented the agreement of a minority of Orthodox America. St. Tikhon of Moscow said this regarding the Church of Georgia, that its autocephaly must be "the universal and fully agreed upon wish of the people" (p. 49).
From the hole paragraph here it is clear that Saint meant Georgian people should decide about their own autochephaly. Knowing this only sick person can say that we (or majority of Georgians) did not want our autochephaly.
Second, Russian saints have mentioned about apocalyptic mission of Georgia. Greatest Russian saint Seraphim of Sarov said that during second coming Antichrist could not enthrone in the land of Georgia who's lot fell on the Most Holy Theotokos. I will try to find quotation on this. Another Saint of Russia Lavrenti of Chernigov
had predicted many things. Many of his predictions came true already. On one occasion he was asked by a nun to get a blessing to go to georgia. This is
what he answered:
Во время разрухи Батюшка благословил двум сестрам поехать в Иверскую страну. «Там бес не воссядет, гонения не будет, а в «другое время» будет незначительное, так как
Матерь Божия охраняет это место», — сказал Старец
Which translates into: "One time Father (Starets Lavrenti) blessed two nuns to go to the country of Iberia (or Georgia). 'There Antichrist can not put his throne and Christians will not be persecuted, but some other time there will be only minor persecution since the Theotokos guards this country' - said Starets"
Several Saintly man (or to be correct, saints, that have not been yet canonized except by Ukrainian Church) lived in Georgia at the end of 20th century, which btw we respect a lot. Among them was great ascetic father Vitali Sidorenko. He is mentioned on this page.
He loved Georgia. He said such things about Georgia you can't even imagine. And he will be canonized as great Saint (I have no doubt about it - knowing how he lived)
Have you heard about Panagia Portaitisa's leaving the Holy Mount of Athos before second coming and what happens with that? Maybe you can find out from Greek monks on Athos about this. There are more things to say but I don't won't to be called crazy yet
In short, only anti-Saint would refuse resurrection of Georgian Church autochephaly.