Early period of Arab occupation of Eastern Georgia

Apply

Early period of Arab occupation of Eastern Georgia

Journal Title: Pro Georgia. Journal of Kartvelological Studies - Year 2016, Vol 0, Issue 26

Abstract

The present essay is about the earliest period of the conquest of former kingdom of Iberia (Eastern Georgia) by Arabs. The work is divided into three main parts: the preface, the main text and conclusion. The work begins with the preface – with the short review of the history of Eastern Georgia before Arabs, the antagonism between Iran and Byzantium in the 6-7 cc and the situation in the Middle East before the appearance of Islam. It is elucidated that in the Middle East there were continuous wars between Iran and Byzantium for domination in this region and in the Transcaucasia as well. After continuous wars between these emires was dominated by Byzantiums’ victory and before Arabs coming pro-Byzantine policy was established on the territory of Eastern Georgia, as well as Western Georgia, and of course, pro-Byzantine policy was held on these former Georgian kingdoms (know principalities, where Eristavi and Erismtavari were imposed by Byzantia). In the main text the ideas of different scholars (Muskhelishvili, Javakhishvili, Janashia, Silagadze, Lortkipanidze, Sikharulidze) are reviewed. The supposition is expressed about the logicality of both dates. It becames clear that Habib ibn Maslama supposedly came to Kartli in 654-655 although before his coming in 644-645 Arabs already raided Transcaucasia heade by Salman ibn Rabia and shook Byzantium’s infl uence on this territory. Janashia’s information about the presumable events before Arab’s coming is also given. To prove this, Tabari’s information is reffered. Tabari wrote that Suraka, after conquereing Azerbaijan, sent a number of commanders to conquer countries near Armenia, among them was Habib ibn Maslama sent to Tbilisi. But after Suraka’s death, when his place was occupied by Abd Arrahman ibn Rabiah, the commanders sent by Suraka came to him and it appeared that none of them, except Buqairi, had conquered the country they had been sent to. Janashia’s information, relying on Sebeus, about the presumable development of the events before Arab’s coming is also given. The identity of Habib ibn Maslama is also given. Then the essence of the territories conquered by Arabs is discussed, as well as the terms offered by Roman/Byzantians and Persians to the territorial units and population who subjugated to them by their own will. There is and extencive review of the rights of Dhimmis, relying on Gocha Japaridze’s article: ,,Dhimmis.’’ It becomes clear that Arabs as descendants of that epoch, had similar principles with Romans, Byzantians and Persians in connection with the subjugated peoples. It appears that Arabs, like Romans, Byzantians and Persians had worked out principles in connection with the peoples subjugated by their own will or by force. The meaning of the terms ,,dhimma’’ and ,,dhimmi’’ is also discussed. Mahmoud Ayoub opinion is given. The short history of these terms is also given relying on Mahmoud Ayoub and Robert Hoyland. The rights of dhimmis – the Christians who were subjugated to Arabs by their own will – is also discussed. It becomes clear that at the beginning of subjugation, which is called ,,Futuh Period’’ Arabs left inviolate the administrative, judicial, structures as well as the working languages – Greek and Persian, i.e. the situation which they saw on the conquered lands remained inviolate. Arabs did not make any important changes, the reason of which, supposedly, was their inexperience in governing large territories. ,,Omar’s regulations’’ are also discussed and which of the regulations was of an earlier period and which of later period. Albrecht Noth’s analysis is emphasized, because he found out which regulations were the earliest, i.e. regulated during the conquering period. It becomes clear, that at the starting stage Arabs did not impose any regulations to discriminate or humiliate them. Those regulations which seemed to be established by Arabs with the aim of humiliation, appear to be created for differentiation. The aim of Arab Muslims was to differentiate Muslims from non-Muslims. The latter were required to rear specifi c clothes and covering for the head. But appeared that wearing such clothes was characteristic for Christians even before appearance of Arabs. Muslims made it obligatory to preserve their selfhood on those vast territories and among those foreign people, the relations with whom was quite new for them. As it seems, Arabs acted from ,,self-defensive position’’ as they were afraid of being mixed up with foreignrs and loosing their own selfness. The regulations, which are supposed to be worked out at earliest stage, and which were of vital importance for Arab Muslims, are also discussed. There is a wide opinion that the regulations were worked out with the aim of humiliating, but relying on Albrecht Noth it becomes clear that these regulations were worked out to meet the necessities of Arabs and not to humiliate Christians. In the main text Habib ibn Maslama’s biography is also given and what was the situation when he came to Kartli. How he met the representative of Georgians (Theophile or Nikala). The general situation, which concerns the inhabitants of ,,Datsvis Sigeli.’’ The work discusses the variants of Baladhurian and Tabarian versions of the Georgian ,,Datsvis Sigeli,’’ the speech of the Georgian representative which he gave Arabs before concluding the contract, Habib’s answer and the document itself – the book of the inviolability and its terms. After that it is discussed that before granting the Charter of Immunity to Tbilisi people, there had been two battles at ,,Zat al-Lujumi’’ in the vicinity of Tbilisi. The fi rst battle was won by Georgians but Arabs attacked them again, defeated Georgians. Much attention is paid to Eteri Sikharulidze’s opinion that ,,Zat al-Lijum’’ must have been Lochini. But Pavle Topuria did not agree with this opinion. He wrote that the most trusty information about this was written by al-Yaqut, who wrote that the representative of the Georgians came to Habib ibn Maslama and asked for truce in Armenia, not in Lochini. So, his opinion is also discussed. The question why instead of Armaz ,,Kermez’’ is wed in Baladhuri’s text is discussed in detail. Then follows a wide discussion about the earliest version of the text of Ubaidisean Charter of Immunity, considered in detail by Eteri Sikharulidze who says that the most correct form is ,,Ard al-Hirmin, i.e. the country of Irminia, as for other versions they are distorted forms. The scholar considers that it was not unusual for Arabs to indicate Tbilisi not in Kartli or Jurzan but in Irminia country. It was characteristic to Arabian tradition. Then follows the title of Abu Ubaida’s text and the sentence which clearly shows that Kartli is aaloted in Irminia country. We read that Abu Ubaida’s source was a resident of Irminia (Armenia) Ahmad ibn al-Azraq, who told Abu Ubaida about Habib ibn Maslama’s Charter of Immunity. Then Habib’s answer about the gift by Tbilisi people is discussed. It appeared that the cast of the gift was 100 dinar which was regarded as their future Jizia and explained that they wanted regular contribution and not one time ransom, , which was later refl ected in the Charter of Immunity as well. After that Otar Tskitishvili’s research is considered that part of Abu Muhammad ib A’tham Al-Kufi ’s work ,,Kitab al-Futuh’’ that is ,,the Book about Conquests’’, when Habib ibn Maslama concluded the Charter of Immunity with Georgians. The author wrote that the charter was presented to the population of Tbilisi, of Arminia land, and the date of this event exactly coincides with Simon Janashia’s version. It is also mentioned here that we come across paying 80 000 dirhams and not 100 dinars, and that Arabs required not one time ransome but a regular contribution. Afterwards Habib ibn Maslama’s Charter of Immunity in the ,,Book of Property’’ by Humaid ibn Zanjuwaih is discussed. Otar Tskitishvili’s opinion that Tbilisi was supposed to be not in Armenia land but in Armazi region. We also discussed what other regions besides Tbilisi were subjugated by Arabs. The places named by ibn al-Faqih and Baladhuri in the Eastern Georgia are enumerated; some of them are daubful. In connection with this Eteri Sikharulidze’s analysis about some vague names is mentioned. And in the end, in their restored form, all the places conquered by Arabs in Kartli are enumerated. The main thing is, that the document given to Georgians, known by the name of ,,Datsvis Sigeli’’ is compared to the same document given to other cities and regions. It becomes clear that Arabs had one and the same principle for the peoples who subjugated to them by their own will and the terms stipulated to Georgians did not differ much from the terms stipulated to Aleppo, Damscus, Jerusalem and other towns. In the conclusion of the work is summaraized and once more emphasized that the religion, monastreies, churches and state system remained inviolable in exchange of taxes for households and land and after requirements of the Datsvis Sigeli. Georgians were not an exception. It is also mentioned that Arabs used similar principles with the Christians who subjugated to them by their own will in spite of their geographical situation and cultural and national differences offerd them similar conditions in exchange of paying taxes.

Authors and Affiliations

Pavle Chanturishvili

Keywords

Arab Eastern Georgia

EP ID EP310217
DOI -
Views 73
Downloads 0